It’s about a half-hour read… but it is so worth it. Robert Kagan at World Affairs Journal

First, he defines the term:

when employed fairly neutrally to describe a foreign policy worldview, as Packer does, neoconservatism usually has a recognizable meaning. It connotes a potent moralism and idealism in world affairs, a belief in America’s exceptional role as a promoter of the principles of liberty and democracy, a belief in the preservation of American primacy and in the exercise of power, including military power, as a tool for defending and advancing moralistic and idealistic causes, as well as a suspicion of international institutions and a tendency toward unilateralism.

Next, he cites it’s rich history in American History:

“Is America a weakling to shrink from the world work of the great world-powers?” Theodore Roosevelt asked when he accepted the vice-presidential nomination in 1900. And he roared the answer: “The young giant of the West stands on a continent and clasps the crest of an ocean in either hand. Our nation, glorious in youth and strength, looks in the future with eager eyes and rejoices as a strong man to run a race.” This young, muscular America was “the just man armed,” and when World War I came, Roosevelt and others of his generation regarded it as America’s second great moral crusade. The Civil War had been the first. “As our fathers fought with slavery and crushed it, in order that it not seize and crush them,” Roosevelt declared, “so we are called on to fight new forces.” Henry Cabot Lodge called World War I “the last great struggle of democracy and freedom against autocracy and militarism.” Woodrow Wilson, in his message to Congress in 1917, used language that would make George W. Bush’s speechwriters blush: “The right is more precious than peace,” he proclaimed, “and we shall fight for the things which we have always carried nearest our hearts,” for “democracy” and against “selfish and autocratic power.” The day had finally come when America was “privileged to spend her blood and her might for the principles that gave her birth and happiness.”

He then shows how it’s doctrines have won some of the hardest battles of our time:

Indeed, there was scarcely a moment in the Cold War when true realists were not appalled by the direction the United States was taking. What could a realist make of Kennedy’s promise to “pay any price, bear any burden,” or Jimmy Carter’s human rights policies, or Ronald Reagan’s self-righteous moralizing about the “evil empire”? The Cold War, contrary to today’s reconstructed mythology, was not waged coolly and methodically by calibrating realists or sweetly and idealistically by institution-builders, but aggressively and stubbornly by passionate, fearful, and intensely ideological men absolutely convinced that American power and principles alone were the world’s salvation—a self-righteous conviction that drove both realist and left-leaning critics to distraction. Only the conservatives suspended their criticism in what was for them first, last, and only a war against Communism.

The whole piece is like this…  stop what you are doing and READ IT NOW!

As I was researching a previous post, I came across a number of interesting blog posts and interviews I found quite interesting. In particular, I wanted to bring your attention to a great interview with my favorite liberal feminist, Naomi Wolf, author of the infamous “a room of ones own” (and the subject of possibly the best television prank in the last year). She is promoting her new book “The End of America” –a book that lays out the ‘Ten Steps to Closing Down an Open Society’ and “exposes” the ways in which America is mirroring the closed societies of history.

Allow me to begin this discussion by first complimenting Ms. Wolf. First, she just looked great during that interview. I was all about that red thing she was wearing (but I digress!). In all seriousness, I think this book is a valuable addition to the discussion and brings an important (albeit selective) historical context to modern politics. At the risk of cliche, I would remind you that those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it. By reminding us of the evils of history Ms Wolf is, shockingly enough, being helpful… and I wish to encourage this kind of behavior.

This being said, I think it is fair to say that Ms Wolf’s conclusions are lacking… in any number of ways. It isn’t that she is always wrong, but that her foundational history is in many cases only loosely connected with modern practice. She begins with an assumption of guilt (primarily with the Bush administration… many times implying he is a ‘wannabe’ despot), finds similar parallels to dictators with completely different motivations and purposes, and then imputes those motives to Bush because factual circumstances were the same. Although a stretch, in some cases I found myself thinking that if two people washed their laundry, that would be enough for her to draw a comparison. I am, of course, exaggerating; but I do so to point out that to end one’s analysis at factual similarities without further analysis can lead to very irrational conclusions.

Read the rest of this entry »

Did you all see this? The same congressmen who have stood in the way of oil exploration and production in this country railed again on the executives in the oil industry. For apparently the first time, oil execs are fighting back

Profits have been huge “in absolute terms,” conceded J. Stephen Simon… but they “must be viewed in the context of the massive scale of our industry.” And high earnings “in the current up cycle” are needed for investments in the long term, including when profits will be down

“The fundamental laws of supply and demand are at work,” said John Hofmeister, chairman of Shell Oil Co., acknowledging it is something the oil industry has been saying for some time and that the explanation may sound “repetitive and uninteresting.”

Bravo! Who would have thought that supply and demand could affect price!? Apparrently, this didn’t sit well with the congressmen who then started leveling personal attacks on the executives themselves… having the audacity to grill them about their personal compensation

Simon was asked what his total compensation was at Exxon, a company that made $40.6 billion last year. Simon replied it was $12.5 million…. Peter Robertson, vice chairman of Chevron Corp. Hofmeister said his was “about $2.2 million” but was not among the top five salaries at his company’s international parent. Robert Malone, chairman of BP America Inc., put his “in excess of $2 million.”

The question therefore arises: how does the payment out of profits have anything to do with how big the profits were? Perhaps congress would have liked to hear a higher figure than 12 mil because that would have meant lower profits for Exxon.??? Sounds reasonable.

You have “just a litany of complaints that you’re all just hapless victims of a system,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., told the executives. “Yet you rack up record profits … quarter after quarter after quarter.”

O Diane, if you only had a clue about how supply and demand works…. if you only had a clue about what makes america work… if you only had a clue how much better off most americans are when American businesses profit instead of go bankrupt… if you only had a clue.

I wanted to bring your attention to an article by Joseph Leiberman in the Wall Street Journal. It is illuminating because it gives an historical context by which to view the modern democrat party and explains why this change has occurred.

This was the Democratic Party of Harry Truman, who pledged that “it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.“

And this was the Democratic Party of John F. Kennedy, who promised in his inaugural address that the United States would “pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of freedom.“

This belief in the American cause and its people has slowly been replaced, on the left, with a hatred for these very principles. The Left did not see the Soviets were not evil… they were victims of American provocation…

Rather than seeing the Cold War as an ideological contest between the free nations of the West and the repressive regimes of the communist world, this rival political philosophy saw America as the aggressor – a morally bankrupt, imperialist power whose militarism and “inordinate fear of communism” represented the real threat to world peace.

It argued that the Soviets and their allies were our enemies not because they were inspired by a totalitarian ideology fundamentally hostile to our way of life, or because they nursed ambitions of global conquest. Rather, the Soviets were our enemy because we had provoked them, because we threatened them, and because we failed to sit down and accord them the respect they deserved. In other words, the Cold War was mostly America’s fault.

But before I reprint the article in its entirety, head over to WSJ.com and read it for yourself.

I must admit; it feels a bit odd to find myself finding such common ground with former Democratic presidents. Does this make me some kind of Neo-Democrat… or does this say more about the lengths the Democratic party has moved left?… I would tend to think it’s the latter.

I couldn’t help but laugh at the recent kerfuffle regarding the supposed comparison of Barak Hussein Obama to a Nazi-appeaser. (I also laugh at the anger arising anytime someone uses Barack’s middle name… but I digress). In an interview, Bush said:

“Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along… We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.’

“We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”

Never mind the fact that Barack was not mentioned at all–he still used the opportunity (as any good politician would) to get in front of the media and defend himself.

“George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the President’s extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel.”

But you have advocated for this very thing, Barack! (or does the Iranian regime fall outside your definition of a “terrorist”… which, if true, is about as revealing as anything Bush has said). The funny thing is that Bush is routinely called, well, a NAZI, by many on the left… and not even a finger is lifted in response. When accused of being something quite tame in comparison (i.e. an appeaser), Barack looses it with outrage. How is it that those on the right can be called anything with impunity, but those on the left must be shielded from even the softest criticism??? Is it not funny how the standards of political correctness change from party-to-party?

If anything can be garnished from this small forray, it is that Bush has a much greater grasp of history than Barack does. Those who do not see the similarities between Iran, or other terrorist-sponsoring regimes will undoubtedly make the same mistakes.

The Liberty Sphere has the low-down…

The solution that many liberals are selling to a gullible public is to place a windfall profits tax on the oil companies. My friends, oil is already taxed at a rate that boggles the mind. For every 8 cents the oil companies make in profits, the federal government alone collects 18 cents in taxes, and that doesn’t count state and local taxes.

It’s not every day that Democrats either (a) admit that I’m right or (b) are this honest as a general matter, but I couldn’t help but consider the ramifications of this statement by FORMER DNC CHAIRMAN, Terry McAuliff.

Clearly it has been a biased media, no question about it,” McAuliffe said on Fox News. When asked how much of the mainstream media is “in the tank” for Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), who leads Clinton in the race for the Democratic nomination, McAuliffe estimated that about 90 percent of the media favor Obama.

Thanks for coming out and saying what Conservatives have known for a long time.  THE MEDIA HAS A LIBERAL BIAS!  The “mainstream media” HAS AN AGENDA!   The mainstream media is no source of journalistic objectivity.  Can any liberal justifiably complain about a FOX NEWS channel when the former DNC chair CANDIDLY ADMITS that the media is OVERWHELMINGLY favoring the most liberal Democrat in the Senate????

Don’t go telling me how balanced the media is.  Gag me with a fork…

I don’t know if it’s just me; but I think Bush has matured a great deal in his last term as President.  I’ve just finished reading his interview with the Politico… and I must say it is a refreshing and humanizing look at the the President.  I highly suggest reading it.

POLITICO: “Now, Mr. President, President Carter recently told Charlie Rose the next President could change America’s image in 10 minutes. Here’s what he said: “I think the next President could change the image of this country around the world in 10 minutes by making an inaugural speech that would start off and say, ‘As long as I’m President we will never torture another prisoner, as long as I’m President we will never attack or invade another country unless our own security is directly threatened.’”

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, well, what he ought to be saying is, is that America doesn’t torture. If the implication there is that we do now, then he’s wrong. And you bet we’re going to protect ourselves by the use of military force. What he really is implying is — or some imply — you can be popular; if you want to be popular in the Middle East just go blame Israel for every problem. That will make you popular. Or if you want to be popular in Europe, say you’re going to join the International Criminal Court.

Popularity is fleeting, Michael. Principles are forever.

I am pleased to roll out the (beta) version of my new wordpress theme. Built from scratch… custom design/css and a few extra functions make this a rather bold first attempt at theme design.

bear with me as I make tweaks here and there over the next few days.

A while back, I picked up a MXL 992 microphone on a whim after stumbling across a blowout sale at musicians friend. Been trying it out for odd things here and there… and thought I’d contribute to the greater web community by giving them some sample audio.

At any rate, I’m proudly up on Amazon.com as well.

I think I should just start a podcast… I have the gear… maybe Pris and I should do a debate format. What do you think?

Ok… I went back to the drawing board and have finally decided to create my own wordpress theme. Any suggestions before I get down and dirty?

I would be remiss if I did not post at least a few snippits of the amazing article over at CityJournal.  It is a wealth of history and analysis of the many ways in which the west is capitulating to radical islamists–particularly in various media outlets. Here are a few particularly relevant portions… a teaser if you will:

Or consider the riots that gripped immigrant suburbs in France in the autumn of 2005. These uprisings were largely assertions of Muslim authority over Muslim neighborhoods, and thus clearly jihadist in character. Yet weeks passed before many American press outlets mentioned them—and when they did, they de-emphasized the rioters’ Muslim identity (few cited the cries of “Allahu akbar,” for instance). Instead, they described the violence as an outburst of frustration over economic injustice

Last year, when “Undercover Mosque,” an unusually frank exposé on Britain’s Channel 4, showed “moderate” Muslim preachers calling for the beating of wives and daughters and the murder of gays and apostates, police leaped into action—reporting the station to the government communications authority, Ofcom, for stirring up racial hatred. (Ofcom, to its credit, rejected the complaint.) The police reaction, as James Forsyth noted in the Spectator, “revealed a mindset that views the exposure of a problem as more of a problem than the problem itself.”

So it goes in this upside-down, not-so-brave new media world: those who, if given the power, would subjugate infidels, oppress women, and execute apostates and homosexuals are “moderate” (a moderate, these days, apparently being anybody who doesn’t have explosives strapped to his body), while those who dare to call a spade a spade are “Islamophobes.”