Content by Santiago
Posted at 2:30am on Dec. 18, 2006 Chomsky, Seriously
By Santiago
I have long been vaguely aware that Noam Chomsky has been prominent for his leftist political views, and is known as a distinguished scholar of linguistics. I do not have much formal contact or interest in linguistics, and am generally opposed to leftist political views. But I have been recently engaged in a couple of fierce arguments with leftists on the web, and this has prompted me to look into Chomsky's positions.
Comments (2) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 1:29am on Dec. 17, 2006 Russian History and Recent Developments
By Santiago
The Soviet Union was founded as a criminal enterprise. The Bolsheviks financed their operations by robbing banks, among other things. Stalin caught Lenin's attention as a bank robber and thug, and went on to become a member of the ruling circle, from which he liquidated his way to supreme power.
Now the Russians are again actively criminal, assaulting and murdering opponents and critics, and involved in criminal activities, drugs, and expropriations. I am sure they were no less criminal in Soviet times, but the leaden communist bureaucracy seems to have had a dampening effect on overt, visible effects.
Some months ago, there was a marvelous little site called www.newtimes.ru that had English translations of Russian newspapers, including articles from the early Twentieth Century that contained informative articles about the bank robberies and hold-ups perpetrated by the Bolsheviks. Now this site cannot be accessed; I don't know if this is temporary or permanent. It occurs to me that, with the Russ restricting press freedoms, perhaps the site has been removed.
Does anyone have any information on this site?
Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 12:39am on Dec. 9, 2006 Redefining War and Redefining the Enemy
By Santiago
In WWII, the Allies adopted a policy of "unconditional surrender" against the Axis Powers. This was the result of the ambiguous conclusion of WWI, when an Armistice halted hostilities, rather than a Peace Treaty. This left open the argument that Germany had not been defeated, but that it had been "betrayed", and this was a powerful factor in the rise of Hitler.
But the Allies also adopted a seemingly contradictory policy of avoiding attacks on the Axis political leadership, namely the Japanese royal family. Tens of thousands of people died in fire bombing attacks on Tokyo and other cities, but the Imperial Palace grounds were purposely avoided. It seems that destroying the Japanese royal establishment could have emphatically made the point of unconditional surrender much more rapidly and much more cheaply than bombing dozens of cities, including Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But that was not the thinking, probably because the Emperor represented the State, and the State was to be preseved, after surrendering, of course.
Comments (16) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 3:10pm on Nov. 1, 2006 Spin Kerry
By Santiago
Jonah Goldberg (and at least several other commenters) quote John Kerry's latest pronouncement as follows:
"You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."
But Kos has what appears to be the same quote as follows:
"I can't overstress the importance of a great education. Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq."
Comments (4) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 2:09pm on Oct. 28, 2006 November Surprise
By Santiago
Everyone is familiar with the biennial October Surprise in American politics: DUI, Rathergate, Foley, etc. Equally common, but largely unrecognized by the very people most responsible for the October Surprises, are the November Surprises.
The context for the various October Surprises takes one of two forms. True incident surprises (DUI) are ferreted out, verified, preserved, and closely held for the magic moment when they will have the most impact on an election campaign; it appears likely that a single DUI conviction from decades before cost George Bush a significant number of votes in the year 2000 election during a very tight Presidential campaign.
Comments (1) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 1:56am on Jul. 13, 2006 Vote Ned Lamont
By Santiago
Joe Lieberman is a fine fellow, who happens to have supported the Iraq War throughout: Iraq Liberation Act 1998, letter to President Bush in December 2001 (with other Senators and Representatives) urging overthrow of Saddam, Iraq War Resolution 2002, various war budgets, etc. In this, Lieberman closely follows Hubert Humphrey and Scoop Jackson in working for a vigorous defense of American values and priorities. And in this he is joined, off and on, by other Dimocrat stalwarts: Kerry, Kennedy, Biden, all the usual suspects.
Other than that, Senator Lieberman has not much to recommend him, following the dreary Dimocrat party line on all things social and fiscal. But he does have a very strong following among like-minded Liberals.
Read on ...
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (4) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 3:45am on Jul. 9, 2006 At War
By Santiago
The recent Dales post, She Still Doesn't Get It-- And The Left Says Nothing, includes a long sub-thread right up front on whether the left is at war with us, or if we are, or should be, at war with the left.
I take it as a given that the left is the biggest existential threat to the peace, stability, and well-being of the world, and has been since 1918. Leftist ideology is a far greater threat than Islamist terror ideology, which, if necessary, could be eliminated in short order. The left is among us, and is us, as Pogo might have said.
Read on ...
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 2:09pm on Jul. 2, 2006 The Bill of Rights
By Santiago
Constitution of the United States, Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So, Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell can rob a bank and they are immune from prosecution, because "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", and part of their religious beliefs include their right to rob banks, which would otherwise be in violation of the law. Do you accept this argument?
So, Pinch Sulzberger and Bill Keller can print stolen classified documents, and they are immune from prosecution, because "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom ... of the press", and part of their journalistic beliefs include their right to print stolen classified documents, which would otherwise be in violation of the law. Do you accept this argument?
Is the freedom of religion argument above valid? Is the freedom of the press argument above valid? What is the difference between the two arguments?
The Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, gives rights to the people of the United States equally. "Freedom of religion" is not given to religious organizations or leaders any more than any other person. "Freedom of the press" is not given to editors or newspapers any more than any other person.
Other sections of the Constitution give people the right to vote, and give the elected representatives of the people the authority to enact laws, which may then be signed by the President. The elective process and the legislative process are not negated by some preacher man or some editor claiming that he is not bound by laws developed by the electorate's Legislature, and the Executive.
Elite illiberals will be the death of us, if they get their way.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (7) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 3:32pm on Jun. 21, 2006 Epiphany
By Santiago
There is a sharp consensus that leftists are wrong, but vague and shadowy perceptions of why they should persist in their wrongness over the decades. Is leftism really an emotional disorder, and is that sufficient explanation for current political realities? And, if so, what is to be done about it?
Simon Heffner has an article, Wrong, defeated, humiliated: why the Left still hates Lady Thatcher, in today's Telegraph. The article brings startling clarity to the uncertain motivations of the left, and suggests necessary remedies.
Read on .....
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 11:26am on Apr. 15, 2006 The Generals and John Boyd
By Santiago
A number of retired Generals have recently criticized SecDef Rumsfeld and demanded his departure. Big Lizards has a very interesting take on these ex-military types, including their Clintonoid backgrounds, plodding lack of originality in military matters, inefficiency, and outright dishonesty when comparing their statements before the Iraq War began and more recent statements on the situation in the Middle East.
http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2006/04/grumbles_from_t.html
See also General Zinni and the Pre-War Intelligence:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5415
There is a story developing in these and related articles, but the big story, involving one of the world's premier military thinkers, is largely unknown and unremarked.
John Boyd was a fighter pilot and instructor, a developer of tactics, an aircraft designer, a military strategist, and a military and organizational philosopher who has been compared favorably with Sun Tzu, Musashi, and von Clausewitz. Some Generals and politicians admired Boyd's contributions greatly, and others hated Boyd with a passion.
Read on .....