podpolia

The international media is and world governments are currently pretending to be shocked that both Israel and anti-Israel protesters did what they said they would do, and that the inevitable clash happened. Amazing how little is being made of the “peaceful protesters” who attacked the Israeli troops, and how Israel had offered a peaceful solution whereby the ships would deliver their cargo to the Israeli port of Ashdod “and from there [the Israeli government] guaranteed that all humanitarian cargo would be transferred to the people of Gaza.” (Of course, this media circus was never intended to be about the actual aid – especially considering the actual situation in Gaza.) Both sides of the story are likely to come out eventually, but it likely won’t effect the narrative now being created. Probably unsurprisingly, the Israeli media seems to be the only ones who are actively contemplating what this might mean for the future.

More concerning overall is the situation that Israel has found itself in even before the current problems. The Obama administration in Washington is beginning to engage in dialogue with Hamas (which, the last time I checked, was still officially classed as a Foreign Terrorist Organization), and is oscillating rapidly on whether or not to support Israel’s status in regards to their nuclear power status. It’s no wonder that Israel currently feels the need for a more iron-clad assurance of its ability to defend against Iran. I wonder how soon Obama will realize that allowing Israel to be pushed into a corner in dealing with Syria and Iran could be a very bad thing.

Tomorrow (20 May 2010) is up on some calendars as “Draw Mohammed Day,” a movement largely popularized on Facebook. The most coherent explanation of what it is and why it’s being done that I have seen is this video:

(hat tip: The Jawa Report)

The concept is definitely getting some attention – the Pakistani government has blocked Facebook for the rest of the month for allowing the page to stay online. In the mean time, some Muslims are continuing the same things that sparked the backlash to the backlash:

I started to worry when Obama signed an executive order some months ago allowing INTERPOL to operate in the United States. Things like this are one of the main reasons why. While it still seems to be true that INTERPOL wouldn’t be allowed to arrest anyone on American soil, it’s still worrisome that the organization can convince banks to close your accounts and refuse to allow you to open a new one. While the director of INTERPOL in the US says that the executive order “give[s] them the same authorities and immunities that any international organization that’s based here in the U.S. has, nothing more, nothing less” (does anyone else find it odd that he’s the director and he refers to the organization in the third person plural?), it doesn’t quite ring true. Other international organizations aren’t very likely to shut down your bank accounts and threaten to arrest you, now are they?

I ran across an interesting article today about what’s wrong with the CIA. Definitely worth a look – this is what happens when over-beaureaucratization is allowed to interfere with American security.

There are some pretty hair raising descriptions of what is currently going on for Rep. Massa from New York. From what I’ve read so far, it looks like he’s being slimed out of Washington using absolutely disgusting political tactics. I just wrote him an email, and thought I would share it:

Rep. Massa,

Despite not being one of your constituents, I felt that I should still write to offer you encouragement. The situation you currently find yourself in in Washington, while the result of your actions, is not YOUR fault. It is the fault of what you correctly term the toxic atmosphere of Washington, D.C. When the words and actions of an individual are taken in ways entirely beyond the way in which they were clearly meant, merely for partisan political purposes, the political culture is out of control. We need to find a way to correct that. Your willingness to take responsibility for your own actions shows that you ARE one of the people we need to have in Washington — someone who feels their responsibility to their constituents and to the nation.

While we may not necessarily agree politically, I would like to ask you to continue standing up for your principles in the nation’s capitol, and rescind your resignation. Your decision to stay and stand up against the corrosive politics there would be a brave act, and I believe would be appreciated accordingly.

UPDATE 4/13/10 18.35: Sounds like Massa’s problems WERE his fault. Should have known that a politician appearing principled was just a deception.

Good riddance.

I ran across a good link on Power Line today: Our Mission is Finally Accomplished… Anyone Care? It’s a really good article, and worth the reading.

I have now seen several blogs mention the “Roadmap for America’s Future“, and I decided I should take a look at it. I was quite thoroughly impressed. It looks like what they have created is a comprehensive alternate plan for government — and generally following most of the common-sense proposals that have been languishing for years. It’s simple, easy to understand, and who WOULDN’T want a “highly simplified income tax system that fits on a postcard”? (The US tax code, as of 2006, comes to 16,845 pages. Ouch.)
I strongly suggest that you take a look at the website above, or if you’re like me and want to skip all the flashy advertisement, take a look at the PDF of the entire report. I know it’s 99 pages long, but just take a look through the summary on pages iii through vii to get an idea of what it’s like, and read the full report for the parts you’re interested in. Even if you’re not so interested in the policy aspects of it, the historical analysis of how we got to where we are today is very good, and worth a look.
I have worried for some time now that while politicians could still bitterly denounce the policies they oppose, they were unable to create a simple, workable replacement for the current scheme. I’m glad to see that I was wrong.

There’s an interesting piece here by a passenger on Flight 253 on what he saw versus what the government has been saying. It’s pretty clear that there’s more to the story than the government wishes to admit, and for once we have somebody who knows what went on that is willing to challenge the official version of the story. Definitely food for thought.

Some of you may have noticed (ok, so probably nobody noticed, but you’ve noticed now that I have said something about it) that I have deleted Little Green Footballs from my blogroll. I’ve been considering doing it for some time, and finally decided that it had to be done. I posted my reasoning in the comments on his post on “Why I Parted Ways With The Right.” The post has capably been disassembled by Rusty and his furry minions, but I felt that I wanted to make my own objections clear. I will repost it here, as I believe that it is something that should be said, and Charles seems to have been deleting the posts of those who similarly indicated their displeasure with (and their intention to disassociate themselves from) him, referring to the idea that it “is a form of mental illness” for people to think he will leave their posts up. Admittedly, he refers to them as “hate-filled,” but as they have been deleted, I am unable to judge whether they were indeed hate-filled, or simply opposition-fille (or jelly-filled, perhaps?). I suppose time will tell if my post is hate-filled enough to get it deleted, but here it is in its entirety:

Well, it has been an interesting few years during which I regularly read LGF. One of the things that I liked initially about this site, Charles, was that you were a moderate who was willing to focus on issues rather than parroting a party line. Unfortunately, we have come to a parting of the ways.
I have become more and more concerned recently, Charles, with your willingness to paint everyone on ‘the right’ with a disturbingly broad brush. Does the Republican party deserve criticism? Yes. Is it productive to accuse virtually anyone that you disagree with of secretly being racist / homophobic / religious fanatics / bigots / insert-derogatory-term-here? No, it is not.
Perhaps the most important thing that I learned while doing my undergraduate degree in political science was that in really good debate, you have to be able to focus on the ideas rather than on your thoughts about the people who you perceive as holding those ideas. It’s possible to have a productive political debate with people you find morally reprehensible, just as it’s possible to strenuously disagree with people you really like.
Political discourse is cheapened — often to the point of worthlessness — when it simply becomes an ad hominem slug-fest. By all means, disagree with others, make moral evaluations of their actions and words, and share your opinions. However, when you start attacking the characters of those you disagree with instead of engaging on the topic at hand, expect productive political debate to expire quickly.
If you want to declare this post to be a “goodbye, cruel world” post and delete it so that others will not be able to see it, go right ahead. You may delete my user account as well — I would save you the trouble, but after a cursory examination of the account settings page, I could not find a way to delete my own account.
I wish you the best, Charles, and I hope that one day I will be able to return to regularly reading and enjoying your commentary. For now, however, I will be deleting my bookmarks.

UPDATE 12/3/09 15:29: My suspicions were correct. My post apparently was ‘hate filled’, as it has also been deleted. Charles’ comment — apparently on deleting the post — was “And another one. Amazing.”

Another what? Another “hate-filled” comment? Apparently. It would be interesting to know exactly which of the comment guidelines I broke — “Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks”? Containing personal information or claiming “First!”? Advocation of violence? It certainly brings some light to bear on his statement that “Disagreement and debate are welcome”. If a post like mine is considered “insult[ing] or abus[ive]” and thus not acceptable disagreement, one wonders just what kind of disagreement is allowed.

By the looks of it, only cheerleading posts are allowed. Surprise, surprise.