Bipartisan senators: Do not delay the Keystone pipeline into 2014
Last week, the Obama administration announced that, most unfortunately, it very much looks like
the long-delayed Keystone pipeline decision is going to have to be
delayed still further, probably into early 2014.
The State Department is
being ultra-fastidious with this review process, you understand, and
new revelations via an inspector general probe about a potential
conflict of interest in the department’s selection of a contractor
analyzing the project mean that this administration intends to follow
through on its pristine record of avoiding anything untoward in their
methodology.
In response to the news, a group of four senators have a message for the administration: Cut the crap already.
Sens. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.), John
Thune (R-S.D.) and Max Baucus (D-Mont.), all pipeline backers, together
issued statements Thursday criticizing the potential for more delays in
the five-year federal review.
“This tactic of delay and deferral must stop. It is depriving America
of jobs, hurting the American economy and hurting the American people,”
Hoeven said in one of the statements, which underscore efforts by
pipeline backers to keep political pressure on the White House.
The senators noted that an earlier phase
of the IG’s inquiry into a third-party contractor’s environmental
review gave the project a basically clean bill of health in early 2012. …
“We cannot sit by while excuse after excuse delays jobs in Montana
and across the country,” Baucus said. “We’ve had years of studies and
the President’s own State Department has repeatedly concluded the
environment won’t be harmed. It’s past time to put Americans to work
building the Keystone pipeline.”
The Keystone pipeline, by the way, won’t just be transporting oil
from Canada; it will accommodate oil from Montana and North Dakota, too,
and is representative of the major expansion of pipeline infrastructure
the United States is going to need over the coming years to adequately
service the rising oil and gas boom.
Funnily enough, ahem, the oil and gas boom has largely been the Obama
administration’s economic saving grace in the face of stagnation and
shrinkage in other industries. While I’m sure the White House will
gladly talk up the recently expected rise in GDP for the second quarter,
I feel that, in the same vein that I mentioned when wondering earlier
this week why President Obama has yet to visit North Dakota,
he won’t get too vocal about the driving factor behind it. He’s all too
happy to take credit for the industry’s increased and thriving
activities (neglecting to mention that the increases have largely
occurred on state and private lands while his administration continues
to block access to requested areas), but only in the context that he add
some very misleading addenda about how his renewable- and
efficiency-visions have been so very successful. Ahem, also via The Hill:
Two of President Obama’s top economic advisers are
crediting increasing petroleum production with the rosier estimate for
second quarter economic performance announced this week.
“This is yet another reminder that the President’s focus on
increasing America’s energy independence is not just a critical national
security strategy, it is also part of an economic plan to create jobs,
expand growth and cut the trade deficit,” Council of Economic Advisers
Chairman Jason Furman and National Economic Council Director Gene
Sperling wrote in a blog post on Thursday.
The United States petroleum trade deficit hit a record low in June as
booming domestic oil production displaced imports and exports of
refined petroleum products increased.
That played a significant role in revising U.S. gross domestic
product growth in the second quarter to 2.5, up from 1.7 percent, said
Furman and Sperling.
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/08/30/bipartisan-senators-do-not-delay-the-keystone-pipeline-into-2014/
An Accidental War
Perfunctory and ineffectual war-making in Syria is worse than nothing.
By Mark Steyn
I see the Obama “reset” is going so
swimmingly that the president is now threatening to go to war against a
dictator who gassed his own people. Don’t worry, this isn’t anything
like the dictator who gassed his own people that the discredited
warmonger Bush spent 2002 and early 2003 staggering ever more punchily
around the country inveighing against. The 2003 dictator who gassed his
own people was the leader of the Baath Party of Iraq. The 2013 dictator
who gassed his own people is the leader of the Baath Party of Syria.
Whole other ball of wax. The administration’s ingenious plan is to lose
this war in far less time than we usually take. In the unimprovable
formulation of an unnamed official speaking to the Los Angeles Times, the White House is carefully calibrating a military action “just muscular enough not to get mocked.”
That would make a great caption for a Vanity Fair
photo shoot of Obama gamboling in the surf at Martha’s Vineyard, but as
a military strategy it’s not exactly Alexander the Great or the Duke of
Wellington. And it’s trickier than it sounds: I’m sure Miley’s
choreographer assured her she was “just muscular enough not to get
mocked,” and one wouldn’t want to see the United States reduced to
twerking arrhythmically to no avail in front of an unimpressed Bashar
Assad’s Robin Thicke. Okay, okay, that metaphor’s as thinly stretched as
Miley’s talent, so what does unmockable musculature boil down to? From
the New York Times: “A wide range of officials characterize the
action under consideration as ‘limited,’ perhaps lasting no more than a
day or two.”
Yeah, I know, that’s what Edward III said about the Hundred Years’ War. But Obama seems to mean it:
An
American official said that the initial target lists included fewer
than 50 sites, including air bases where Syria’s Russian-made attack
helicopters are. The list includes command and control centers as well
as a variety of conventional military targets. Perhaps two to three
missiles would be aimed at each site.
Got that? So,
if you’re a Syrian air-base commander, you might want to think about
moving those Russian helicopters, or at least yourself — perhaps to that
black-eyed cutie’s apartment, above the restaurant where the kibbeh
with the pomegranate sauce is to die for, just for the night, until the
Great Satan has twerked his ordnance at you twice or thrice and gone
away to threaten the Yemenis or Somalis or whoever’s next.
In the
world’s most legalistic culture, it was perhaps inevitable that battle
plans would eventually be treated under courtroom discovery rules and
have to be disclosed to the other side in your pre-war statement. But in
this case it doesn’t seem to be impressing anyone. Like his patrons in
Tehran and Moscow, Assad’s reaction to American threats is to double up
with laughter and say, “Bring it, twerkypants.” Headline from Friday’s Guardian
in London: “Syria: ‘Napalm’ Bomb Dropped on School Playground, BBC
Claims” — which, if true, suggests that even a blood-soaked mass
murderer is not without a sense of humor. Napalm, eh? There’s a word I
haven’t heard since, oh, 40 years ago or thereabouts, somewhere in the
general vicinity of southeast Asia.
The BBC footage is grisly; the
British media have been far more invested in the Syrian civil war than
their U.S. colleagues. But what’s the net effect of all the harrowing
human-interest stories? This week, David Cameron recalled Parliament
from its summer recess to permit the people’s representatives to express
their support for the impending attack. Instead, for the first time
since the British defeat at Yorktown in 1782, the House of Commons voted
to deny Her Majesty’s Government the use of force. Under the Obama
“reset,” even the Coalition of the Willing is unwilling. “It’s clear to
me that the British Parliament and the British people do not wish to see
military action,” said the prime minister. So the Brits are out, and,
if he goes at all, Obama will be waging war without even Austin Powers’s
Union Jack fig leaf.
“This House will not fight for king and
country”? Not exactly. What the British people are sick of, quite
reasonably enough, is ineffectual warmongering, whether in the cause of
Blairite liberal interventionism or of Bush’s big-power assertiveness.
The problem with the American way of war is that, technologically, it
can’t lose, but, in every other sense, it can’t win. No one in his right
mind wants to get into a tank battle or a naval bombardment with the
guys responsible for over 40 percent of the planet’s military
expenditures. Which is why these days there aren’t a lot of tank
battles. The consummate interventionist Robert Kagan wrote in his recent
book that the American military “remains unmatched.” It’s unmatched in
the sense that the only guy in town with a tennis racket isn’t going to
be playing a lot of tennis matches. But the object of war, in Liddell
Hart’s famous distillation, is not to destroy the enemy’s tanks (or
Russian helicopters) but his will. And on that front America loses,
always. The “unmatched” superpower cannot impose its will on Kabul
kleptocrats, Pashtun goatherds, Egyptian generals, or Benghazi militia.
There is no reason to believe Syria would be an exception to this rule.
America’s inability to win ought to be a burning national question, but
it’s not even being asked.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/357287/accidental-war-mark-steyn
Obama has only himself to blame for Britain’s Syria snub
The Obama administration is today still reeling from Thursday’s
enormous setback to the Syria intervention effort, as the UK voted to
reject military intervention in the war-torn nation.
It is difficult to overestimate just how devastating this is to the President’s foreign policy.
Britain has stood side by side with America in almost every post-war
conflict. The one major exception was the Vietnam War, arguably
America’s biggest ever defeat. Put simply, America wins when it goes in
with Britain, it loses when it does not. And Britain almost always
stands shoulder to shoulder with its strongest ally.
So what happened? The Obama administration must be scratching their
heads in wonder at how such a seemingly easy vote could go disastrously
wrong. A relatively popular UK Prime Minister leading a Conservative
Party that voted both for Afghanistan and Iraq, who seems to be on good
terms with President Obama, facing off against a weak, divided left-wing
opposition. To use an Americanism, it should have been a slam-dunk.
Additionally, unlike Iraq, where the evidence was highly contentious,
it seems fairly reasonable to conclude Bashar Assad has attacked his
people with chemical weapons. So why did the House of Commons say “nay”
not “aye”?
To see this no vote as just about Syria does not fully explain the
mentality in the UK. Instead, we must look at the state of the
Anglo-American alliance. For most interventions do not directly serve
British interests, but American. Britain therefore goes into battle
because America is Britain’s strongest ally, and a strong America means a
strong Great Britain.
For instance, although Britain recognized that Al-Qaeda posed a
serious threat to the UK, we intervened in Afghanistan because, as Tony
Blair succinctly stated at the time, an attack on America was seen as an
attack on Britain, such was the strength of the Special Relationship.
With Iraq throughout the nineties and in 2003, America decided
Hussein needed dealing with, Britain stepped up. When Clinton expressed
broader foreign policy objectives and decided Milosevic needed taking
care of in Serbia, Britain was there. There were other reasons too, but
Britain’s attitude was “where our ally goes, we go.”
But not now. Why?
The answer lies in that Special Relationship. First re-established by
President Reagan and Margaret Thatcher in the 1980’s after neglect
during the Carter years, it has gone from strength to strength through
multiple Prime Ministers and Presidents for decades. Then President
Obama took the White House.
Obama's occasional photo ops with Cameron mask a horrifying truth
underneath, that President Obama has obliterated the Anglo-American
alliance since he took office, and is arguably one of the most
anti-British Presidents of all time.
When President Obama took office, one of his first moves was to
remove a bust of Churchill that Bush had been given by Tony Blair in the
wake of 9/11. It was a symbol that Britain stood by America, and
Obama’s disposal of it spoke volumes. The Anglo-American alliance was a
relic of the Bush era, and would be swept away.
Other swipes, such as Obama’s false reference to BP as “British
Petroleum,” his declaration that America had “no stronger ally” than
France, the senior State Dept. official who said about Britain, “You’re
just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn’t
expect special treatment” and the fact that not a single senior member
of the Obama administration attended the funeral of Margaret Thatcher,
all give indications about how Britain is seen in Obama’s America.
Yet the most galling snub to Britain comes in the form of the
Falkland Islands dispute. Although British territory for centuries, and
in the face of a population that consistently votes over 98% in favor of
remaining British, Argentina have attempted to claim the Islands as
their own.
After losing a war against Britain in the 1980’s, Argentina adopted a
new tactic, calling for ‘negotiations’ to the sovereignty of the
Islands, hoping to at least get a chunk of the land. The Obama
administration, speaking through then Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton, sided against their best ally, and with Kirchner’s Argentina,
demanding Britain sit down with Argentina and negotiate sovereignty of
the British territory under the pretense of neutrality.
All this contributes to a strong signal from the Obama administration
that Britain is really not that important to America anymore.
If that is the case, then why should Britain stick its neck out, and
put British lives on the line in a conflict that does not directly serve
British interests? The argument that Britain has a duty to support its
ally is simply not compelling enough in the Obama era.
Long ago President Obama decided that America didn’t need Britain
anymore. As a consequence, Britain has now discovered that it doesn’t
need America either. Mr. Obama is now paying for his poor judgment, and
America is significantly weakened as a consequence.
How Reliable Is the Administration’s Evidence on Syria?
“This is a pretty strong assessment,” said John McLaughlin,
who served as deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency from
2000 to 2004. “The intelligence community does not say ‘high confidence’
about something unless they have really chewed it over.” Intelligence
agencies state their findings in terms of high, medium, or low
confidence.
Mr. McLaughlin said the term “high confidence” is not “used lightly”
particularly since the 2003 Iraq intelligence failure. But he noted that
the assessment includes a caveat that “high confidence” falls short of
confirmation.
He said that confirmation, or indisputable evidence, of sensitive
intelligence matters is rare, and in this case it could be physical
samples or a confession by a regime official. “There is always some
element, in this case small,” of uncertainty, he said.
Thomas Fingar, who led an intelligence analysis
overhaul after the Office of the Director of National Intelligence was
formed in 2005, said the assessment appears to be carefully worded not
to overstate or understate what the evidence supports.
“They don’t appear to be claiming a smoking gun. It’s a judgment
based on evidence and logic,” he said. “The choice of words is
consistent with: they’ve got a lot of stuff; they consider much of it to
be credible; it’s consistent; it makes sense, it fits the logic of the
situation; and they considered alternate explanations.”
Still, he said the case appears strong, and while it makes an
analytic judgment, it’s based on “more than circumstantial” evidence.
Mr. Fingar also cautioned that policy makers should not decide how to response based solely on intelligence.
“The intelligence community doesn’t drive this process,” he said. “It
informs decision makers. It’s the policy guys who decide whether the
evidence is strong enough.”
In this case, he said, the assessment on its own doesn’t force the
administration to take any particular action—or any action at all.
So how strong is the administration evidence on the Syria
regime’s alleged chemical-weapons use? The Wall Street Journal made its
own assessment based on the strength of the type of evidence described.
EVIDENCE: Syrian senior official’s
communications discussing regime use of chemical weapons on Aug. 21 and
expressing concern about U.N. inspectors finding evidence.
STRENGTH/WEAKNESS: Provides direct, first-hand indication of regime involvement. But the intercept was not made available.
EVIDENCE: Before the attack, chemical-weapons
personnel were found operating in an area where chemical weapons are
mixed, employing gas masks.
STRENGTH/WEAKNESS: Specific, pointing to regime involvement and based on human intelligence, communications, images. But circumstantial.
EVIDENCE: Satellite images, and other unspecified
types of intelligence, indicate rocket attacks from a regime-controlled
area into neighborhoods that later reported chemical attacks.
STRENGTH/WEAKNESS: Reliable visual evidence, but circumstantial. Also, the unclassified report doesn’t explain the other intelligence streams.
EVIDENCE: Intelligence shows Syrian chemical-weapons personnel were directed to cease operations on the afternoon of Aug. 21.
STRENGTH/WEAKNESS: Indicates regime direction. But nature of intelligence is not explained and can’t be independently assessed.
EVIDENCE: 100 videos show physical signs consistent with nerve-agent exposure. Opposition doesn’t have capability to fake so many videos.
STRENGTH/WEAKNESS: Visual evidence. But symptoms don’t uniquely identify nerve-agent exposure.
EVIDENCE: Local social-media reports of a chemical
attack starting at 2:30 a.m. Aug. 21, with multiple accounts describing
chemical-filled rockets.
STRENGTH/WEAKNESS: Firsthand local accounts fit the
timing of the chain of events. But the evidence relies on
self-reporting, not physical confirmation.
EVIDENCE: Three hospitals in the Damascus area received about 3,600 patients with symptoms consistent with nerve-agent exposure.
STRENGTH/WEAKNESS: Firsthand accounts from medical professionals. But the evidence relies on self-reporting rather than physical proof.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/08/30/how-reliable-is-the-administrations-evidence/?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories
Sunni-Shia conflict being stoked by Syria's civil
A
year ago or so, the Syrian civil war was about overthrowing President
Assad and bringing some sort of democracy to the country.
But
as many predicted at the time, the war has morphed into a sectarian
nightmare that could fuel similar eruptions all across the Middle East.
David Brooks:
The Syrian civil conflict is both a proxy war and a combustion point
for spreading waves of violence. This didn't start out as a religious
war. But both Sunni and Shiite power players are seizing on religious symbols
and sowing sectarian passions that are rippling across the region. The
Saudi and Iranian powers hover in the background fueling each side.
As the death toll in Syria rises to Rwanda-like proportions, images of
mass killings draw holy warriors from countries near and far. The
radical groups are the most effective fighters and control the tempo of
events. The Syrian opposition groups are themselves split violently
along sectarian lines so that the country seems to face a choice between
anarchy and atrocity.
Meanwhile, the strife appears to be spreading. Sunni-Shiite violence in
Iraq is spiking upward. Reports in The Times and elsewhere have said
that many Iraqis fear their country is sliding back to the worst of the
chaos experienced in the last decade. Even Turkey, Pakistan, Bahrain
and Kuwait could be infected. "It could become a regional religious war
similar to that witnessed in Iraq 2006-2008, but far wider and without
the moderating influence of American forces," wrote Gary Grappo, a
retired senior Foreign Service officer with long experience in the region.
"It has become clear over the last year that the upheavals in the
Islamic and Arab world have become a clash within a civilization rather
than a clash between civilizations," Anthony Cordesman of the Center
for Strategic and International Studies wrote recently. "The Sunni
versus Alawite civil war in Syria is increasingly interacting with the
Sunni versus Shiite tensions in the Gulf that are edging Iraq back
toward civil war. They also interact with the Sunni-Shiite, Maronite
and other confessional struggles in Lebanon."
Some experts even say that we are seeing the emergence of a single big
conflict that could be part of a generation-long devolution, which
could end up toppling regimes and redrawing the national borders that
were established after World War I. The forces ripping people into polarized groups seem stronger than the forces bringing them together.
We
all know that power abhors a vacuum. The retreat of America from the
Middle East has meant giving free reign to extremists on both sides as
Iran and the Saudis fuel the fires of sectarian strife, struggling for
power and influence in the region by helping to turn the conflict into a
religious crusade.
There
is great danger in this. The Gulf states have large, restive Shia
minorities and the more images of atrocities that come out of Syria, the
more agitated those minorities become. In the end, playing the
religious card may be a monumental miscalculation as long oppressed
minorities take their vengance on governments.
It
may already be too late to turn the tide against this kind of sectarian
war. About all we can be certain of is that the conflict won't end
anytime soon.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/09/sunni-shia_conflict_being_stoked_by_syrias_civil_war.html#ixzz2dfbKkRu
5 Reasons Congress Should Not Authorize Obama's Syrian Shoot Out
As
a courtesy -- and selfless service -- to the world, President Obama has
officially appointed himself the globe's top cop. "I'm comfortable
going forward without the approval of a United Nations Security Council
that, so far, has been completely paralyzed and unwilling to hold Assad
accountable," the new international sheriff said Saturday morning.
Having
already struck fear into the heart of those unsavory out-of-towners who
may or may not have gassed their own people, Sheriff O reiterated that
he's rounded up a dedicated posse of deputies, positioned his warhorses
on the outskirts of town and is ready "whenever we choose" to shoot 'em
up. "I have decided that the United States should take military action
against Syrian regime targets," he twanged in the Rose Garden.
But
in a surprise (and possibly cowardly, self-serving) rustle that
relieves the administration of blatant hypocrisy, the sheriff has also
reluctantly agreed to what the Constitution already requires him to do:
get Congressional approval. Both Sheriff O and Deputy Joey "Fife" Biden
previously condemned any military action without express Congressional
approval unless attack on the US was imminent or had occurred.
Now given the opportunity, Congress should not follow lead-from-behind Sheriff O and instead resoundingly reject a shoot out on the streets of Global-berry. Here are 5 reasons why:
1. Sheriff O and Congress do not have the support of American People for war in Syria. Reuters/Ipsos
found that this week just 20% of Americans thought the US should take
action against Syria. That's up from 9% last week, but still a long way
from support numbers that would make this an American action and not an
Obama quick draw. Rasmussen
found that even after Deputy-of-State Kerry's melodrama on Friday, 40%
oppose getting involved any further in Syria, with only 37% supporting
increased involvement. Congressional debate is not likely to alter this.
2. Even if Obama gets Congressional approval, the potential for a regional war, as Charles Krauthammer noted, or global war is real. Imagine if North Korea launched 200+ missiles at key military centers
in and around Los Angeles and San Francisco, but sent a message to
Obama that this was just a "shot across the bow" or "limited strike."
Americans and US allies would be indignant and demand the Hermit Kingdom
be blown to kingdom come.
Striking
Syria without committing to the conflict until victory is won risks
drawing the regions' powers and allies into escalated conflict. Iran and Syria have promised this would happen. Russia & China feel duped on Sheriff O's Libyan crusade and may decide to step in this time turning O's limited strike into a global show down. Additionally, an attack on Syria justifies to Iran and Hezb'allah terror strikes on American interests, and possibly US soil.
3. American Intelligence under Obama has an embarrassing history of distortions, lies, inanity
and mistakes in this region of the world. Sheriff O's intelligence
posse assured him that he was backing the winning team with Morsi in
Egypt. Aunt Susan, his current trusted National Security Advisor,
guaranteed when she was at the UN that Benghazi was a protest in
reaction to a movie. And even now, with holsters ready and hats tipped,
O's intel machine has convinced him that giving the "good" Al Qaida in
Syria air force cover and assisting the jihading Al Nusra cannibals and
Christian killers is in America's national interest. Congressional
approval does not change bad intel.
America
doesn't have a respectable track record of accuracy in the region and
we do know that intelligence reports have been unreliable in the past
(Iraq and WMDs.) Until we actually know who's responsible for the
chemical weapon attack, what will happen if Assad falls, and how US
security might be affected if we go to war, going in guns a blazin' --
with or without Congressional authorization -- is a completely
unnecessary risk militarily, financially and civilizationally.
4.
Obama's red line will turn into a red noose for America if not rejected
by Congress. If Congress caves to this leftist regime's efforts to
solidify the US President as the world's top cop by giving him a "cover"
vote for an unjustified war, precedent will be set that forces America
to take action each and every time a UN rule is violated. Other nations
will see that they get a pass and don't have to spend the money or take
the risk of war because the US posse will get 'em.
"Out
of the ashes of world war, we built an international order and enforced
the rules that gave it meaning," gloated Obama in his Rose Garden
remarks. Strengthening and further expanding a world order (while
simultaneously weakening America's sovereignty) is his larger objective.
Sheriff Obama is dedicated to internationalism and as
Narcissist-In-Chief sees himself as its unelected leader: "If we won't
enforce accountability in the face of this heinous act, what does it say
about our resolve to stand up to others who flout fundamental
international rules?" Deputy Kerry reiterated the same on Friday: "It
matters if the world speaks out in condemnation and then nothing
happens."
5. Finally, America can't afford it. It's not just the $100,000,000+
that would be a certain cost incurred for the little prick that Obama
wants to administer. The cost of unintended consequences could make the
price tag of Obama's shootout soar far beyond Iraq's $1Trillion bill
(and still increasing.)
Ultimately, it's not Obama's choice as to whether or not the military round up will be a "limited strike" or that boots
won't end up on the ground. What if Syria retaliates and shells our
warships? What if Iran launches an all-out war with Israel? What if
Russia and China decide that Damascus is not a big enough town for them
and Sheriff O? America is broke, has $17 Trillion of debt and millions
of its own citizens that are in need. On top of that, the economy as a
whole is still weak and may be entering another recession. Regardless, Obama wants to run the country further into debt to prick Syria .
Congress
should loudly and emphatically reject Obama's Middle East marauding and
remind Global-berry's cast of clowns that the United States is not the
world's posse for peace, and its President is certainly not the planet's
sheriff.
Wapo editorial: Maybe we should just let teachers rape students
Earlier this week we talked about the shocking case out in Wyoming Montana
where a 49 year old school teacher, Stacey Rambold, received a thirty
day jail sentence for raping a 14 year old student who later killed
herself. Just yesterday I was commenting to a friend on how I was
surprised that the story hasn’t been receiving even more national
attention than it has. Apparently I spoke too soon, because at least one
editorial columnist at the Washington Post – Betsy Karasik – certainly
had something to say on the subject. But against all belief, Betsy seems
to think that the sentence Rambold received was a bit too harsh.
Sex between students and teachers should not be a crime
…our society needs to have an uncensored dialogue about the reality of sex in schools.
As protesters decry the leniency of Rambold’s sentence — he will
spend 30 days in prison after pleading guilty to raping 14-year-old
Cherice Morales, who committed suicide at age 16 — I find myself
troubled for the opposite reason. I don’t believe that all sexual
conduct between underage students and teachers should necessarily be
classified as rape, and I believe that absent extenuating circumstances,
consensual sexual activity between teachers and students should not be
criminalized. While I am not defending Judge G. Todd Baugh’s comments
about Morales being “as much in control of the situation” — for which he
has appropriately apologized — tarring and feathering him for
attempting to articulate the context that informed his sentence will not
advance this much-needed dialogue.
There’s a lot more to read, assuming you didn’t just have your
breakfast, but for most people I assume that would be plenty. Where to
even begin? Ms. Karasik relates her experiences being a 14 year old
girl, saying that she and her classmates thought about sex just as much
as the boys. She also goes on to claim that girls were having sex with
teachers in high school and college and nobody really got hurt. She
generously allows that teachers who are caught “having sex with” (i.e.
raping) their students “should be removed from their jobs” but only
until they complete “rehabilitation.”
I remain puzzled as to how this managed to make its way onto the
pages of the Washington Post, but it has. What should be obvious is that
there are two separate but related concepts being placed on trial in
Karasik’s column. First, statutory rape laws – flawed as they often are –
exist for a reason. It is an accepted part of legal doctrine that
children can not give meaningful consent to sex, particularly when it
comes to a “relationship” with an adult predator. We can have a debate
over what that age of consent should be – and in fact it varies from
state to state – but there should be no question that a 49 year old
acting out his desires on a 14 year old is miles over wherever that line
may be.
But the second issue which the author ignores is one which actually
exists outside questions of age. People who are placed in positions of
authority and control over others must, for what should be obvious
reasons, be restrained from using those positions of influence and
control to engage in sexual relations. Doctors are not supposed to bed
their patients, religious leaders should most certainly not be entering
into carnal relationships with the flock and teachers shouldn’t be doing
it with students, even if both are over the age of consent. How this
escapes Ms. Karasik is a mystery.
Wesley Smith, at the Corner, sees this in even more blunt terms.
How is society “damaged” by protecting children from
predatory teachers? Karasik doesn’t actually say, other than to imply
that Morales might not have committed suicide had the criminal case not
been pending. Despicable. Oh, and maybe students would be more likely to
discuss sexual issues with school counselors.
I repeat, this was published in the Washington Post. How low can we go? I am afraid we are going to find out.
This wasn’t some “Romeo and Juliette” situation where we need to
dance around the difficult questions of young people engaging in sex too
early with their Main Squeeze after one of them barely passes the age
of adulthood. This teacher is a middle aged pedophile, plain and simple.
Does that sound judgmental and harsh? Good. Because that’s the name we
give to older men (or women in some cases) who have sex with children. And that 14 year old was a child, no matter how “old” she may have acted.
Update: (Jazz) I’ve managed to confuse Montana and Wyoming
again. Sorry… another fine product of the New York educational system.
*sigh*
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/08/31/wapo-editorial-maybe-we-should-just-let-teachers-rape-students/
The Myth of the Teenage Temptress: Or Why A Young Girl Can Not Consent to Sex With An Adult Man
I started having sex with adult men when I was 13 years old.
Neglected at home and ostracized at school, I found comfort in the
sexual attentions of older men. Unlike boys my own age, who cruelly
taunted me, older men were nice to me. Unlike my emotionally distant
father, older men paid attention to me. They were grooming me, but to that chubby, attention-starved teenage girl, their attentions felt a lot like love.
And so I created Prodigy chat rooms with names like "13yo girl home
alone" and spent hours chatting and having phone sex with the men who
would find me there. I "dated" men in their 20s and 30s that I met at
the movie theater, online or hanging around local college town with my
other underage girlfriends. I pursued these relationships with with
Lolita-like abandon. The terrifying thing is how few adult men ever said
no.
I was not coerced. I consented to all these sexual encounters in the
basest sense of the world. But I was making choices that I wasn't
emotionally equipped to make. Legally, that's why statutory rape laws
exist. Because like an intoxicated person, an underage person is not
truly capable of informed consent.
And yet, on Monday, Stacey Rambold, a Senior High teacher convicted
of raping 14-year-old Cherice Morales, who later committed suicide, was
sentenced to spend just 30 days in jail.
The judge justified his decision in part by saying he listened to
recorded statements given by Morales before her death and believes
that while she was a troubled youth, she was "as much in control of the
situation" as Rambold.
The judge also said Morales was "older than her chronological age."
Yep, you read that right. A 14-year-old " troubled youth" who eventually
committed suicide (as a direct result of the sexual assault and its
aftermath, according to her mother) had "control over the situation"
with a 49-year-old rapist. But don't worry, this wasn't "the kind of
rape most people think about," according to Judge G. Todd Baugh. "It was
not a violent, forcible, beat-the-victim rape, like you see in the
movies." He generously added that "It was nonetheless a rape...and this
should not have occurred."
After the sentencing, the victim's mother
shouted "You people suck!" repeatedly before storming out of the court,
and later told news cameras, "My faith in the justice system is gone."
While researching this article, I read many comments
supporting the judge's decision, all predicated on the idea that the
14-year-old victim had consented to sex with her 49-year-old teacher.
"There is little to
no information given about what the nature of the relationship was, how
it started, how long it lasted, how the girl felt about the relationship
or perceived it, how much consent ... she gave in regards to it all,
but all signs point to the fact that this was an ongoing relationship
where they engaged in sex on at least 3 occasions, which strongly brings
to question just how much actual victimization took place here," wrote
one commenter.
The fact is, a 14-year-old girl may be capable of agreeing to sex with a 49-year-old man, but she doesn't have the emotional and mental maturity to consent.
I was 25 before I realized that every man I'd slept with as a teenager
was a pedophile. It seemed to me that since I'd courted the attention,
that I was fully culpable. What teenager believes she is not mentally or
emotionally capable of full consent? I thought I was an adult, although
when I look at the picture of myself from the time period above, I see a
child.
I thought I was the exception for these
men, the girl so precocious and advanced that it superseded social
norms. I thought that I was "older than my chronological age."
It never occurred to me as a young sexually
active teen that the adult men I had relationships with may have been
manipulating me, that they had designs and motives I couldn't see from
my limited child's perspective.
Once, I met a 28-year-old man online and
went to his house for a "date." He began to undress me almost
immediately -- I went along with it because I wanted him to like me, and
our sexual encounter culminated with him holding my head down and
ejaculating into my throat while I sputtered and struggled to pull away.
Later, I couldn't understand why he never called me again, why he
didn't want to be my boyfriend.
Because I was a child, I was missing large
pieces of the perspective required to understand adult situations.
Children can be sexual. Children can pursue. Girl children in particular
may have already learned how to manipulate and bargain with their
sexuality at a very young age. They are still children. Like all
children, they test boundaries, boundaries that adults must set and
maintain.
If Cherice Morales was indeed a "troubled
youth," like I was, if she came from a dysfunctional home or had a
trauma background or had been previously abused, then not only may she
have been lacking in protection at home, she may have been especially
incapable of protecting herself. And that's why statutory rape laws
exist -- to protect children who need protecting, not just from those
who will prey upon them, but from themselves.
The defense argued that Rambold had suffered enough
by losing his career, his marriage and his home and suffering a
"scarlet letter of the Internet" as a result of publicity about the
case.
For my part, I spent the next decade of my
life wrestling with demons borne partly of sexual trauma. I became
addicted to drugs, risky sex, and alcohol. I still struggle to learn
that there are better ways to get attention than with my body, that my
sexuality isn't the only thing that makes me worthy of love and
attention.
Still, I made it out of my teen years alive; Cherice Morales wasn't so lucky.
What I needed, and what she needed, were
strong male role models in my life who knew how the fuck to say "No
thanks" to a little girl's come-ons. Because it doesn't matter if a
young girl is saying yes, it's an adult man's job to say no.
http://www.xojane.com/issues/stacey-rambold-cherice-morales
The Rise of the American Fascista State
Have you ever heard of the 70-year cycle in history? Here's an excerpt from an essay by Eric A. that introduces the concept:
Many of you may be familiar with the Foundation series
by Issac Asimov. In it, mathematician "Hari Seldon spent his life
developing a branch of mathematics known as psychohistory. Using the
laws of mass action, it can predict the future, but only on a large
scale; it is error-prone on a small scale."
In practice, we can
see that this would be theoretically correct: we study history precisely
because human nature is relatively the same and the same events recur
with the same predictable responses. If history really were chaos--a
muddle of events appearing randomly and being resolved in unpredictable
ways--there would be no point in studying it.
So
what of 70 years? It seems that American politics goes through a
roughly 70 year long cycles where it swings from one side of the
political pendulum to the other. For example, if we start in 1789,
which marks the real beginning of the United States as a single nation
with the inauguration of George Washington as the nation's first
president under the Constitution, the passage of 70 years suddenly puts
us on the cusp of the U.S. Civil War in 1859 as the nation was getting
set to try to tear itself apart.
From then, Random Jottings' David Weidel notes a general 70-year cycle in American politics:
The theory
says that America became a Republican country starting about the year
2000. (From 1860 Republicans were dominant, and then the Dems starting
about 1930.) Each cycle is about two political generations. The 70 years
before 1860 don't have today's parties, but they fit otherwise, with
the Revolutionary generation and then a follow-on generation stuck in
old habits of thought. And then a problem that needed a new political
alignment to solve.
But what if it's not just American politics? What if it's really a cycle that's driven by opposing ideologies in conflict?
For example, in 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court made it legal to institutionalize racial segregation in the United States. Almost 70 years later, the U.S. Congress was undoing the damage in the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964.
This is 2013. What sort of conflict was the U.S. engaged in 70 years ago?
Well, that would put us in 1943. And in 1943, the United States fought and succeeded in forcing fascist Italy to surrender and switch sides in World War 2.
The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics explains what fascism in Italy was all about, emphasis ours:
As an economic system, fascism is socialism
with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman
symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a
protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the
happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its
alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism,
with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie.
Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and
racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical
liberalism and Marxism.
Where socialism sought totalitarian
control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation
of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.
Now that you've read what fascism entails, consider the following excerpt from an article yesterday at The Huffington Post, noting how nearly 40% of U.S. CEOs have come to have a very large portion of their income paid for by U.S. taxpayers:
WASHINGTON
-- More than one-third of the nation's highest-paid CEOs from the past
two decades led companies that were subsidized by American taxpayers,
according to a report released Wednesday by the Institute for Policy
Studies, a liberal think tank.
"Financial bailouts offer just one
example of how a significant number of America's CEO pay leaders owe
much of their good fortune to America's taxpayers," reads the report.
"Government contracts offer another."
IPS has been publishing
annual reports on executive compensation since 1993, tracking the 25
highest-paid CEOs each year and analyzing trends in payouts. Of the 500
total company listings, 103 were banks that received government bailouts
under the Troubled Asset Relief Program, while another 62 were among
the nation's most prolific government contractors.
Meanwhile, that all would be occurring as American entrepreneurs would appear to be harder and harder to find:
The US entrepreneurial spirit may be faltering. Check out these data points from The Wall Street Journal:
a) In 1982, new companies made up roughly half of all US businesses,
according to census data. By 2011, they accounted for just over a third;
b) from 1982 through 2011, the share of the labor force working at new
companies fell to 11% from more than 20%; c) Total venture capital
invested in the US fell nearly 10% last year and is still below its
prerecession peak, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers.
The
United States would appear to be well on its way to adopting fascist
Italy's political-economic system, favoring the politically-connected
while starving entrepreneurs out of the economy. Although today in
America, we call it "crony capitalism". And the people who practice it
"progressives".
Do you think we should start calling it what it really is?
http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/politicalcalculations/2013/09/01/the-rise-of-the-american-fascista-state-n1688694/page/full
12 Unspoken Rules For Being A Liberal
There may be no official rule book for being a liberal, but that
doesn't mean there aren't rules. There are actually quite a few rules
liberals go by and the more politically active liberals become, the more
rigidly they tend to stick to their own code of behavior. These rules,
most of which are unspoken, are passed along culturally on the Left and
viciously enforced. Ironically, many liberals could not explain these
rules to you and don't even consciously know they're following them. So,
by reading this article, not only will you gain a better understanding
of liberals, you'll know them better than they know themselves in some
ways.
1) You justify your beliefs about yourself by your status as a liberal, not your deeds.
The most sexist liberal can think of himself as a feminist while the
greediest liberal can think of himself as generous. This is because
liberals define themselves as being compassionate, open minded, kind,
pro-science and intelligent not based on their actions or achievements,
but based on their ideology. This is one of the most psychologically
appealing aspects of liberalism because it allows you to be an awful
person while still thinking of yourself as better than everyone else.
2) You exempt yourself from your attacks on America: Ever
notice that liberals don't include themselves in their attacks on
America? When they say, "This is a racist country," or ",This is a mean
country," they certainly aren't referring to themselves or people who
hold their views. Even though liberals supported the KKK, slaughtering
the Indians, and putting the Japanese in internment camps, when they
criticize those things, it's meant as an attack on everyone else EXCEPT
LIBERALS. The only thing a liberal believes he can truly do wrong is to
be insufficiently liberal.
3) What liberals like should be mandatory and what they don't like should be banned:
There's an almost instinctual form of fascism that runs through most
liberals. It's not enough for liberals to love gay marriage; everyone
must be forced to love gay marriage. It's not enough for liberals to be
afraid of guns; guns have to be banned. It's not enough for liberals to
want to use energy-saving light bulbs; incandescent light bulbs must be
banned. It's not enough for liberals to make sure most speakers on
campuses are left-wing; conservative speakers must be shouted down or
blocked from speaking.
4) The past is always inferior to the present: Liberals tend
to view traditions, policies, and morals of past generations as
arbitrary designs put in place by less enlightened people. Because of
this, liberals don't pay much attention to why traditions developed or
wonder about possible ramifications of their social engineering. It’s
like an architect ripping out the foundation of a house without
questioning the consequences and if the living room falls in on itself
as a result, he concludes that means he needs to make even more changes.
5) Liberalism is a jealous god and no other God may come before it:
A liberal "Christian" or "Jew" is almost an oxymoron because liberalism
trumps faith for liberals. Taking your religious beliefs seriously
means drawing hard lines about right and wrong and that's simply not
allowed. Liberals demand that even God bow down on the altar of
liberalism.
6) Liberals believe in indiscriminateness for thought: This one was so good that I stole it from my buddy, Evan Sayet:
" Indiscriminateness of thought does not lead to indiscriminateness of
policy. It leads the modern liberal to invariably side with evil over
good, wrong over right and the behaviors that lead to failure over those
that lead to success. Why? Very simply if nothing is to be recognized
as better or worse than anything else then success is de facto unjust.
There is no explanation for success if nothing is better than anything
else and the greater the success the greater the injustice. Conversely
and for the same reason, failure is de facto proof of victimization and
the greater the failure, the greater the proof of the victim is, or the
greater the victimization."
7) Intentions are much more important than results: Liberals
decide what programs to support based on whether they make them feel
good or bad about themselves, not because they work or don't work. A DDT
ban that has killed millions is judged a success by liberals because it
makes them feel as if they care about the environment. A government
program that wastes billions and doesn't work is a stunning triumph to
the Left if it has a compassionate sounding name. It would be easier to
convince a liberal to support a program by calling it the “Saving Women
And Puppies Bill" than showing that it would save 100,000 lives.
8) The only real sins are helping conservatism or harming liberalism:
Conservatives often marvel at the fact that liberals will happily elect
every sort of pervert, deviant, and criminal you can imagine without a
second thought. That's because right and wrong don't come into the
picture for liberals. They have one standard: Does this politician help
or hurt liberalism? If a politician helps liberalism, he has a free pass
to do almost anything and many of them do just that.
9) All solutions must be government-oriented: Liberals may not
be as down on government as conservatives are, but on some level, even
they recognize that it doesn't work very well. So, why are liberals so
hell bent on centralizing as much power as possible in government?
Simple, because they believe that they are better and smarter than
everyone else by virtue of being liberals and centralized power gives
them the opportunity to control more people's lives. There's nothing
scarier to liberals than free people living their lives as they please
without wanting or needing the government to nanny them.
10) You must be absolutely close minded: One of the key
reasons liberals spend so much time vilifying people they don't like and
questioning their motivations is to protect themselves from having to
consider their arguments. This helps create a completely closed system
for liberals. Conservative arguments are considered wrong by default
since they're conservative and not worth hearing. On the other hand,
liberals aren't going to make conservative arguments. So, a liberal goes
to a liberal school, watches liberal news, listens to liberal
politicians, has liberal friends, and then convinces himself that
conservatives are all hateful, evil, racist Nazis so that any stray
conservatism he hears should be ignored. It makes liberal minds into
perfectly closed loops that are impervious to anything other than
liberal doctrine.
11) Feelings are more important than logic: Liberals base
their positions on emotions, not facts and logic and then they work
backwards to shore up their position. This is why it's a waste of time
to try to convince a liberal of anything based on logic. You don't
"logic" someone out of a position that he didn't use "logic" to come up
with in the first place.
12) Tribal affiliation is more important than individual action:
There's one set of rules for members of the tribe and one set of rules
for everyone else. Lying, breaking the rules, or fomenting hatred
against a liberal in good standing may be out of bounds, but there are
no rules when dealing with outsiders, who are viewed either as potential
recruits, dupes to be tricked, or foes to be defeated. This is the same
backwards mentality you see in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, except
it's based on ideology, not religion.
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2013/08/31/12-unspoken-rules-for-being-a-liberal-n1687730/page/full
Liberal Guilt, Public Education, My Clear Conscience
A new cornerstone piece on public education by Allison Benedikton on Slate.com titled, "If You Send Your Kid to Private School, You Are a Bad Person,"
was shocking but consistent and clearly revealed that liberals value
the word “education,” as long as the word “public,” precedes it.
According to the author, public schools continue to fail because parents
are sending their children to private schools, instead of public
schools. Parents who spend their hard earned money to send their
children to private schools are in fact destroying the fabric of
America’s public education: which is immoral. For liberals, abortion is
not a moral issue but rather an issue of liberty and choice. Education
whether public, private or charter, should have the same application of
liberty and personal choice. Unfortunately, allowing freedom and choice
in education would require an admission of failure and for liberals to
turn their back on a core government institution.
This is because liberals value community more than the first and
primary institution, which is “The Family.” Liberals believe that public
education equals strong community and that all people have an
obligation to community before family. Since community is more important
than family, we are therefore obligated to send our children to public
schools that are failing. Liberals would also suggest that we invest our
time and other resources to improve the failing schools, as if other
options did not exist. Truthfully, I feel no such obligation to public
education nor can I intellectually rationalize sentencing my child to
state education for the sake of the greater good. Public schools need
good students and good parents and I understand that, but not at the
cost of my child’s future.
So in applying this blind allegiance, if I live near a failing public
school –which many people do – I have an obligation to send my children
to that school. I also by implication of this argument have an
obligation to fight for what my child needs as in new computers, AP
classes, and specialized education. Liberals believe that property taxes
are not enough, even for parents who pay for public education and do
not use it and also pay for private education. Liberals want more than
our money they want our flesh and blood and for us to sacrifice our
children on the public school alter no matter the cost. Instead, I would
rather send my child to a school where I believe they will be educated,
instead of learning how to be busy worker bees producing widgets. It is
my belief that classes in formal logic, centered in a classical
education, will provide my child with an ancient forgotten skill: the
ability to think and reason properly.
In my opinion, public education is as bad as public restrooms or
public swimming pools. People become accustomed to free stuff and then
develop a sense of entitlement believing they deserve community pools
and free lunches. Feeling that we have certain natural rights and
actually having them are two completely different things. I feel I have a
natural right to dunk a basketball and play in the NBA, but no matter
how hard I practice, playing in the NBA is not possible because I am a
170-pound short white guy. The government does not give rights to people
and our constitution only protects our natural rights from the threat
of government. Liberals and progressives in the Democratic Party have an
agenda that is connected to a misguided worldview and it starts in
public education.
Liberals value equality and so do conservatives, but the definition
of that word is used very differently between conservatives and
liberals. I believe human beings have natural rights by the very nature
of being human, whereas liberals believe their rights come from
government. Conservatives believe in equality of opportunity, as all men
and women being equal before God. Liberals on the other hand believe in
equality of outcomes, where everyone becomes so equal that no one
really has anything at all.
Applying the equality of outcomes to education is not only foolish
but also dangerous. I will send my child to a school where their talent
will be cultivated and they will learn how to think. In short, any
school that is in line with my values is where I want my child to
attend.
Leave the public schools to liberals and to people who do not care
and wish to die on the hill of public education reform. The longer we
suffer the fools of government the longer they can pretend their grand
ideas are working. I do believe in community and in the importance of
education. What we are missing is not the want or desire for community
and better education, but an actual foundation for community to exist.
http://townhall.com/columnists/jamesallen/2013/09/01/liberal-guilt-public-education-my-clear-conscious-n1688684/page/full
The Perversions of the Byronic Left
As
I marvel at the thought of Nobel Prize winner Barack Obama threatening a
bizarre bombing of Damascus, I recall some famous lines I've read about
Syria.
These verses come from a play by George Gordon Byron, called Sardanapalus.
The play
recounts the ancient myth of a gender-confused, utopian libertine who
rules over ancient Assyria. The king, Sardanapalus, first claims he has
no intention to be brutal and war-like (as Nimrod, his supposed
ancestor, was).
But
surrounded on all sides by armed enemies, undermined by palace
intrigues, and infected with a pansexual dissipation that makes the
whole city incapable of self-governance, Nineveh has no Jonah to come
save its inhabitants. The people devolve into chaos as the war finally
consumes the city itself.
Sardanapalus
dramatically dies inside the burning palace as his nation ceases to
exist. In the version made famous by Eugène Delacroix, now hanging
gloriously in the Louvre, Sardanapalus reclines indifferently on his
bed, watching as soldiers slash the necks of naked women and their horses trample his heirlooms.
At
least in Byron's dramatic version, the king evacuates Nineveh. But the
image of progressivism transformed into sadomasochism is just as rich
in British literature as it is in French art. Too bad no American has
rendered the story in our cultural sensibility.
The
characters speak countless breakout lines that make me think of Obama
confronted with striking fast-food workers, war in Syria, his collapsing
health care plan, Snowden,
Hasan, Manning (both Bradley and Chelsea), gay weddings, swirling
government debts, Sandra Fluke's contraception mandate, and a black
community he's done absolutely nothing to help.
Sardanapalus
calls in the cupbearer, demanding to drink from "the golden goblet
thick with gems, which bears the name of Nimrod's chalice" (15). He
decides to hold a banquet. Rather than an Assyrian orgy, Obama suggests
a "closed-door" session in Washington to talk about bisexuality with
the fancy money-bundlers of the Human Rights Campaign.
Sardanapalus's
career has been built on disavowing the past violence of his city's
earlier rulers, including "my ancestor Semiramis, a sort of
semi-glorious human master" (16). Yet when warned by his brother-in-law
that the people of Nineveh are ready to rebel because Sardanapalus has
failed to protect them from invaders, Sardanapalus's superficial love
for his people turns quickly to contempt:
The ungrateful and ungracious slaves! They murmur
Because I have not shed their blood, nor led them
To dry into the desert's dust by myriads
Or whiten with their bones the banks of the Ganges
Nor decimated them with savage laws
Nor sweated them to build up pyramids [...]
For my trophies I have founded cities. (18)
The
advisors warn the king that the sacrifices he denigrates are "more
worthy of a people and their prince / than songs, and lutes, and feasts,
and concubines / and lavish'd treasures, and contemned virtues" (18).
Picture Miley Cyrus channeling Lady Gaga minus the elegance, and Perez
Hilton moving to New York City with the rosy-faced son he acquired with a
creepy surrogacy contract. A pornographic regime can't concentrate on
governing.
The
king is deaf to advice that he must ready his people for sacrifice and
reign with tough love. Otherwise, hordes from without are going to
descend upon Assyria and obliterate all that his ancestors built. In
Sardanapalus's defense, at least he didn't suggest amnesty for eleven
million Babylonians to move into Nineveh when the Afro-Akkadian
unemployment rate was 14%.
Sardanapalus
is convinced that his own ideology is best. As he describes it: "a
disposition / to love and be merciful, to pardon / the follies of my
species and (that's human) / to be indulgent to my own" (19). This is
the ancient version of all the pro-gay pacifists proclaiming "No H8" as
they sue Christian photographers and cake-bakers, then engage in a
massive cover-up about the homosexual rape problem in the military
that's been exacerbated by the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell. When
people say "it's all about love," run for the hills.
While
seemingly idealistic, this ideology quickly turns to sadism and
tyranny. "Let them be arrested" (20), says Sardanapalus upon hearing
vague hints that someone in his retinue is unhappy with the economic
turmoil, violence, and sexual chaos of his reign. Call in the seventeen
agencies of the Intelligence Community and rev up the drones. We've
got some "haters" to blow up.
At
hints that his feminine clothing and unmanly presentation might imply
he is weak, Sardanapalus quickly spews vain claims that he is tough
enough to take anybody on: "if it must be so, and these rash slaves /
will not be ruled with less, I'll use the sword / till they'll wish it
turn'd into a distaff" (21). Let's launch Tomahawks. Cameron and the
U.N. be damned!
The
king says, "I hate all pain, given or received" (22). Still, he calls
his own people "this vile herd, grown insolent with feeding" (21). His
advisor says, "their hearts are something" in protest. Here is the
king's response:
So my dogs are;
And better, as more faithful [...]
I have, by Baal, done all I could to soothe them,
I made no wars, I added no imposts,
I interfered not with their civic lives,
I let them pass their days as best might suit them
Passing my own as suited me. (22)
[...]
If then they hate me, 'tis because I hate not
If they rebel, it is because I oppress not. (24)
No
Hellenophile as well-read as Lord Byron would fail to insert a Greek
character to act as a countervailing voice of reason. And no, I don't
mean Arianna Huffington.
This
comes in the form of Myrrha, Sardanapalus's Greek mistress, who pleads
with the king to cancel the banquets and lavish orgies, to speak of
virtue and behave seriously. Myrrha tells her royal lover: "Alas! My
lord, with common men / There needs too oft the show
of war to keep / the substance of sweet peace; and for a king / tis
sometimes better to be fear'd than loved." When he says that he has
never wanted to be feared, Myrrha tells him that by his fault, now, he
is neither (28). She delivers perhaps the wisest lines of the play:
I speak of civic popular love, self love,
Which means that men are kept in awe and law,
Yet not oppress'd - at least they must not think so;
Or if they think so, deem it necessary,
To word off worse oppression, their own passions. (29)
Myrrha's
notion -- people's unrestrained passions oppress them worse than would a
king who calls them to virtue and sacrifice -- is as valid as it was in
the days of America's founding. In 1776 John Adams wrote, "All sober
inquirers after truth, ancient and modern, pagan and Christian, have
declared that the happiness of man, as well as his dignity, consists in
virtue" (qtd. in Kirk 99).
All I can think is, "duh." The framers of the Constitution foresaw this. No
people can remain free if they are not virtuous. Sorry to S.E. Cupp
and all the sophisticated atheists, but this means honoring a higher
power and observing taboos, setting limits. It is no coincidence that
the first president to support gay marriage while in office is the same
president who has overseen the disasters in Libya and Egypt, and now
threatens a potentially catastrophic war in Sardanapalus's old stomping
grounds.
We
cannot remain free if we abandon virtue and betray the moral frameworks
of our origins. It is one thing to coexist with fornication, sodomy,
pornography, and dissipation as vices to be dealt with -- it is another
thing to finance them with government money and foist the sexual anomie
that goes along with them onto our schools, our military, and even our
churches. The myriad "tapping out" conservatives jettisoning moral
issues in order to curry the favor of young, hip voters will soon find
themselves repeating Sardanapalus's words: "If they hate me, 'tis
because I hate not." People aren't grateful when you kill them by
giving them what they think they want.
Many
have wondered of the present American left, "Who are these people?"
They are Byronic. Comfortable with cognitive dissonance, they have
learned to preach love to masses whom they hold in contempt, in the name
of repudiating ancestors whose greatness they despise, all for the
thrill of notoriety. The multitudinous "isms" and subcategories of
leftist philosophy boil down to this simple speech given by Sardanapalus
in his last moments, as he jumps into his own arson, in the middle of a
capital he drove to complete ruination with his feckless policies:
Time shall quench full many
A people's records, and a hero's acts;
Sweep empire after empire, like this first
Of empires, into nothing; but even then
Shall spare this deed of mine, and hold it up
A problem few dare imitate, and none
Despise. (117)
The Byronic Left thinks that it can beat history and go down in a blaze of glory -- no pun intended, really.
No comments:
Post a Comment