Two Babes and a Brain

Well Duh....

Like we didn't already know this about the Chinese Olympic gymnastic team.

Lisa

The Guy from Iran...

whose name I can't pronounce or spell requested a trip to Ground Zero, and for "security reasons," we said no. Really? We really determined that someone couldn't travel freely? Seems to me, that that isn't what we're supposed to be all about.

I would have let him go.

And I would let him talk too. Just like the president of Columbia University is...and here is why...

In order to have such a University-wide forum, we have insisted that a number of conditions be met, first and foremost that President Ahmadinejad agree to divide his time evenly between delivering remarks and responding to audience questions. I also wanted to be sure the Iranians understood that I would myself introduce the event with a series of sharp challenges to the President on issues including:

• the Iranian President’s denial of the Holocaust;
• his public call for the destruction of the state of Israel;
• his reported support for international terrorism that targets innocent civilians and American troops;
• Iran’s pursuit of nuclear ambitions in opposition to international sanction;
• his government’s widely documented suppression of civil society and particularly of women’s rights; and
• his government’s imprisoning of journalists and scholars, including one of Columbia own alumni, Dr. Kian Tajbakhsh.

"I would like to add a few comments on the principles that underlie this event. Columbia, as a community dedicated to learning and scholarship, is committed to confronting ideas­ to understand the world as it is and as it might be. To fulfill this mission we must respect and defend the rights of our schools, our deans and our faculty to create programming for academic purposes. Necessarily, on occasion this will bring us into contact with beliefs many, most, or even all of us will find offensive and even odious. We trust our community, including our students, to be fully capable of dealing with these occasions, through the powers of dialogue and reason.

I would also like to invoke a major theme in the development of freedom of speech as a central value in our society. It should never be thought that merely to listen to ideas we deplore in any way implies our endorsement of those ideas, or the weakness of our resolve to resist those ideas, or our naiveté about the very real dangers inherent in such ideas. It is a critical premise of freedom of speech that we do not honor the dishonorable when we open the public forum to their voices. To hold otherwise would make vigorous debate impossible.

That such a forum could not take place on a university campus in Iran today sharpens the point of what we do here. To commit oneself to a life­ and a civil society ­prepared to examine critically all ideas arises from a deep faith in the myriad benefits of a long-term process of meeting bad beliefs with better beliefs and hateful words with wiser words. That faith in freedom has always been and remains today our nation’s most potent weapon against repressive regimes everywhere in the world. This is America at its best."

Of course, he probably said it better than I would have ...:)

Go ahead and yell at me for being too liberal. I spend a lot of time being the most conservative person in my program at Brown, so I am looking for a little bit of the "your too liberal" love...please...someone...Bueller?

:) Chris

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Political Correctness

It was the young wizard’s biggest challenge yet: understanding why those who should be defending their civilization were pretending that nothing was happening or even becoming apologists for the other side. Barry Rubin tells the tale that began with a headline in the Daily Prophet newspaper: “Minister Fudge Urges Engagement; Accuses Harry Potter of Voldemortphobia”

News item: The Iranian newspaper Kayhan, has criticized officials there for allowing the sale of the new Harry Potter book, claiming the series is a Zionist project in order to disrupt the minds of young people.

“The main thing is to try and convince as many people as possible that You-Know-Who came back, Harry….[Minister of Magic Cornelius Fudge] is absolutely refusing to believe it’s happened.”
“But why?” said Harry desperately. “Why’s he being so stupid?”…
“Because accepting that Voldemort’s back would mean trouble….”
“It’s hard to convince people he’s back, especially as they really don’t want to believe it in the first place.”
—Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, pp. 93-94.

What’s going on here?” Harry said angrily. “I personally saw Voldemort gathering his followers but when I read the Daily Prophet it would seem there is no real threat. And now they want to negotiate with Voldemort?”
“That’s not all,” Hermione explained. “The newspaper is trying to make you sound deluded for exposing the truth.”

“Yes,” Ron added, ”and there are a lot of people now who favor giving aid to Voldemort in order—they claim—to moderate him.”
Certainly, the MSMM (Mainstream Magical Media), had long been blind to the return of Voldemort and his Death Eater movement. The Order of the Phoenix, the group formed to fight Voldemort, had a lot of blogs but the followers of You-Know-Who seemed to control all too many of the biggest institutions. Even on the Internet, Draco Malfoy had even developed one of the most popular blogs of all, “The Daily Draco” and some of the blander naïf’s from one of Hogwarts’ houses had created the “Hufflepuff Post.”

Harry just didn’t understand. How could anyone not see the terrible things going on around the world: the suicide bombing attacks; the organized incitement of hatred, the attempt by an extremist movement to take over and enslave millions of people? Why were they constantly attacking the victims and ridiculing those trying to expose these dangers, distorting their words and slandering their characters?

Gee, I was wondering the same thing.
-LizaJane

You can read the whole thing here: Pajamas Media, article by Barry Rubin

The Author’s note says: As popular as the Harry Potter series has been, it is still just a set of novels about a fantasy situation. Thank goodness nothing like this could happen in the real world.

Something to talk about...

Last night in the debate, Senator Biden said something that stuck with me. He's said it before and it always leaves me thinking that not only is it a good line, it is a good philosophy for America. It seems to me that it works for voters on both sides of the aisle depending on the issue and yet it isn't highly political...so let's talk about this:

"Where America can, America must..."

Now, the quote was part of an answer on Darfur and I agree, we need to act. Am I psyched about sending troops to Darfur? No. But no one should ever be psyched about sending troops anywhere. Anytime you send troops somewhere--some die--and that is an awful thing but it is necessary in many situations. We, as a nation, are either committed to stopping genocide in whatever form it takes or we aren't. If it were Jews being killed in the numbers we are talking about, there would be outrage. In fact, there was outrage and we went to war, in part, to stop it. We should stop it now.

But as far as "where America can, America must" goes, it works in the context of the War on Terror as well. Where there is planning and training of terrorists to bring evil to other parts of the world and to injure innocent people, we have to stop it. Now, stopping it isn't just about invading with massive amounts of troops. In fact, pretty much everyone agrees that, in  most circumstances, it doesn't mean that at all. It means using all the tools at our disposal. Diplomacy, deal making, foreign aid, special operations SAPS, financial interruption, intel--the list goes on and on...

So, do you agree that "where America can, America must?"

Chris

 

It's Friday...

which means I get to post what I want. Well, OK. I always get to post what I want but I feel a certain whimsy on Fridays...

Enjoy! or not...

Chris

Introduction: The Lighthouse

One night at sea, a ship’s captain saw what looked like the lights of another ship heading toward him on a collision course.

He had his signalman blink to the other ship: “Change your course 10 degrees south.” The reply came back, “Change YOUR course 10 degrees north.”

The ship’s captain answered, “I’m a full captain – change your course south.”

The which the reply was, “Well, I’m a seaman first class – change your course north.”

This infuriated the captain, so he signaled back, “Dammit, I say change your course south. I’m on a battleship.”

To which the reply came, “And I say change your course north. I’m in a lighthouse.”

For better and sometimes worse, Washington is the nation’s lighthouse when it comes to setting our foreign policy course.

What I want to do today is illuminate the main challenges I believe we face, and then to suggest some course corrections we need to make to meet those challenges.

The Challenges We Face

In my judgment, America faces two overriding national security challenges in this new century.

We must win the struggle between freedom and radical fundamentalism. And we must keep the world’s most dangerous weapons away from its most dangerous people.

To prevail, I believe we need a new approach... and a new compact with our major allies around the world.

Today, after a necessary war in Afghanistan and an optional war in Iraq, Americans are rightly confident in the example of our military power.

But I’ve been concerned that some of our leaders have forgotten the power of our example.

For all of our great might, we are not only less comfortable in the world, but more alone — more isolated — than at any time in our history.

As a result, we are – in my view – less secure than we could or should be.

I believe we must recapture the totality of our strength and restore our nation to the respect it once enjoyed.

We need a foreign policy based both on the force of our arms and on the power of our ideas and our ideals.

That will require three things:

Building effective alliances and international organizations.

Forging a prevention strategy to diffuse threats to security long before they are on the verge of exploding while retaining the right to act preemptively in the face of imminent danger.

And reforming failed or anti-democratic states that are sources of instability, radicalism, and terror.

Such an approach will require not only a fundamental shift in American foreign policy, but a reconsideration by our allies of their reflexes.

Building Strong Alliances/International Organizations

Let me start with the first part of this new approach: building strong alliances and international organizations.

Some of my friends in the current administration have little interest in alliances, international organizations and treaties.

There’s a logic to their disengagement.

They start from the premise that America’s military might is the single most important determinant in the international system. Because that might is so much greater than anyone else’s they see allies and agreements as more of a burden than a benefit. It’s Gulliver tied down by the Lilliputians.

I have tremendous respect for that military might. It is essential to our security and freedom. But I start from a different premise.

Most of the threats we face — from radical Islamic fundamentalism to the spread of weapons of mass destruction — to rogue states that flout the rules — have no respect for borders.

For all of the power you in this room represent, not one of those threats can be met solely with unilateral military force.

Even when we can succeed by ourselves, there are compelling reasons not to act alone — from basing rights to burden-sharing to the benefits of legitimacy.

Iraq demonstrates the price we pay for a unilateralist foreign policy.

There was never any doubt we could defeat Saddam without a single foreign soldier.

But because we chose to wage the war virtually alone, we have been responsible for the aftermath… virtually alone.

But here’s an important caveat that our friends in Europe, Asia and beyond must take to heart if we are to succeed.

The credibility and effectiveness of alliances, treaties, and international organizations depend on a willingness not only to live by the rules, but to enforce them.

That could have been the basis for a common approach with our closest allies to Iraq. It was not – and both the U.S. and Europe have paid a price.

Now, when it comes to Iran’s nuclear program, the U.S. and Europe finally seem to be converging on just such an approach: a coordinated strategy of more U.S. carrots… and real European sticks.

No one can guarantee it will work to convince Iran to forego nuclear weapons. But if it doesn’t, at least Iran will be isolated… not, as was the case in Iraq, the United States.

Forging a Prevention Strategy

That brings me to the second part of the approach. Forging a prevention strategy that allows us to defuse threats to our security long before the only choice left is to act with force unilaterally or do nothing at all.

This Administration’s effort to turn military preemption from the option it has always been... into a one-size-fit-all doctrine is, in my judgment, dangerous and destabilizing.

It says to rogue states that there best insurance policy against regime change is to acquire weapons of mass destruction as quickly as possible.

Which is one reason North Korea’s nuclear arsenal has apparently increased by 400 percent these past four years.

It gives a green light to India and Pakistan, Russia and Chechnya, China and Taiwan to use force first and ask questions later.

And it requires a standard of proof for intelligence that may be impossible to meet unless we cut corners, as we did in Iraq.

For that reason, American foreign policy needs a comprehensive prevention strategy that would put much more emphasis on programs to secure and destroy loose weapons and materials in Russia and beyond.

It would fully fund homeland security budgets to detect and respond to terrorist attacks.

It would include new international laws to seize suspect cargoes on the high seas and in international airspace.

It would involve new international alliances of law enforcement experts and intelligence and financial officials alliances to uproot terrorists and end their funding.

A Prevention strategy would provide tougher non- proliferation strategies including no-notice, on-site inspections and a reformed Non-proliferation Treaty.

It would demand a reinvigorated public diplomacy effort to explain our policies and expose lies about America around the world.

And it would require a sustained commitment to development and democratization to prove to people around the world that WE offer hope and our enemies offer nothing but hatred. I’ll come to that in a moment.

But if America commits to a policy of prevention, not preemption, we need our allies to rethink their approach to the use of force.

First, it must be clear that America’s military will remain second to none and that force will be used — without asking anyone’s permission — when circumstances warrant.

But beyond that, we need a common understanding with our allies in Europe and Asia that every citizen of the free world faces a nexus of new threats — terrorism, rogue states, and weapons that demand a new response.

Containment and deterrence got us through the Cold War, and they still make sense most of the time...

But they do not suffice when the enemy is a stateless actor with no territory or people to defend... who is amassing stealthy weapons instead of visible armies.

That’s why a broad prevention strategy is so important. But its is also why our allies – and for that matter the other major powers on the U.N. Security Council -- must be willing to get much tougher with rogue states who harbor terrorists, seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction, or pose a proliferation risk.

In the 1990's, the U.S. and Europe agreed, with great difficulty, that a state cedes its sovereignty when it systematically abuses the rights of its own people.

And so we joined forces to reverse ethnic cleansing in Bosnia. And we acted even more quickly to turn the tide in Kosovo.

Now we should apply that same logic to states without democratic checks that seek to amass WMD or harbor terrorists.

In short, the U.S. should seek a new international consensus that there is a duty to protect innocents and a responsibility to prevent terrible acts of destruction.

We should develop and use every tool short of force to convince a Milosevic, a Saddam, or a Taliban to meet minimum standards of responsibility...

...But if these steps fail to persuade, we must be fully prepared to coerce… together whenever we can, alone if we must.

Bolstering Failed States and Expanding Democracy

Let me conclude with a few thoughts about the third piece of this new approach: bolstering failed states and expanding democracy.

Failing states are cracks in the foundation of our international system.

There have always been poor countries whose people suffer under corrupt, incompetent, and ruthlessly barbaric dictators.

What is new is the effect on our lives and the threat to our own security as a consequence of such regimes.

Today, the potential spread of weapons of mass destruction, make the threat literally existential. We must challenge ourselves and our allies to refocus our attention, reallocate our resources, and reform our institutions to address this challenge.

Together, we have to take seriously the task of economic development, commit to debt relief, buffer countries against economic shocks, give them tools to combat corruption, dramatically expand our investment in global education, reorient the Bretton Woods institutions and the U.N. to stabilize weak states, and lead the world in a massive effort to combat the scourge of disease, especially AIDS.

We also have to take seriously what some people in Washington see as a four letter word — nation building.

This Administration came to office disdaining the concept, only to be confronted with the two biggest nation building challenges since World War II. But it has not succeeded, yet, in either Afghanistan or in Iraq.

We must be willing and prepared to empower experts to plan post-conflict reconstruction ahead of time, not on the fly.

We must be willing and prepared to build a standing roster of international police to handle security after we topple a tyrant.

We must be willing and prepared to create a system to rapidly stand-up indigenous security forces.

And when it comes to a war of choice, we must think twice about initiating the conflict if we are not prepared for the post-conflict.

Finally, there is so much the U.S. and the world’s major democracies can do together to support democratic transformation, especially in the Greater Middle East.

I applauded President Bush’s second inaugural address about expanding freedom. It touched a chord among many Americans because it spoke to our ideals and to our national experience.

And clearly, a world full of liberal democracies would not only be better for the people living in those countries. It would be better for us because liberal democracies tend not to attack each other, abuse the rights of their own people or breed terrorists.

This is a goal that ought to unite the U.S. and the other major democracies. And yet, here’s how a leading German newspaper reacted to President Bush’s speech: “Bush Threatens More Freedom.”

Clearly, dislike for the messenger undermined appreciation for the message. I’m convinced we can and we must find common ground on one of the most critical challenges of our time.

America must support the forces of progress in non- democratic countries — not with reckless campaigns to impose democracy by force from the outside — but by working with modernizers from the inside to build the institutions of democracy, over the long haul.

Political parties. An independent media and judiciary. Transparent economies and accountable governments. Modern education. NGOs and civil society. A private sector.

Our democratic friends must fully engage in this effort, and not give in to the cynical – and wrong – view that some societies are incapable of transforming themselves. It’s hard, frustrating work. But it can and must be done.

Above all, we must understand that those who would spread radical Islamic fundamentalism and weapons of mass destruction are beyond the reach of reason.

We must defeat them.

But hundreds of millions of hearts and minds around the world are open to American ideas and ideals.

We must reach them if we are to make the world truly safe for democracy.

This is a generational challenge. It’s a challenge the men and women in this room will play a key part in meeting.

I wish you Godspeed in everything you will do for this country. We admire you. And we’re counting on you.

Thanks very much for listening. 

Communist Yahoo...

Gee... Yahoo wasn't satisfied with just helping the communist country of China by banning content appearing on their site within the great wall...they have now assisted the communist government in tracking down an internet writer who..well, lets just say he didn't agree with the Chinese government's policies...and is now in jail...and apparently, this wasn't the only case..there were more.

Isn't it ironic that a company that was born in the United States, a country where freedom reigns, would actually assist the government of a country where there are no freedoms... where citizens are told what they can watch on television....what they can listen to on the radio...and what they can research on the Internet.

Wait... ironic is the wrong word.... disgusting, yeah, disgusting is the word.

Lisa

No fear...

In my own little demonstration of disgust at the outrage over this Middle Eastern Cartoon thing--not the Washington Post cartoon thing--I've decided to post the cartoons. No one should ever give into this. Also see Michelle here.

Here they are: (thanks to Rick)

Come and get me!

Chris

Google Gone Communist

Representative Chris Smith (R-NJ) is calling for hearings on internet companies who do business in China.  Specifically Google why has agreed to censor their site application, capitulating to the Chinese government.

Mr Smith on Wednesday accused Google of “collaborating .. with persecutors” who imprison and torture Chinese citizens “in the service of truth”.

“It is astounding that Google, whose corporate philosophy is ‘don’t be evil’ would enable evil by cooperating with China’s censorship policies just to make a buck,” he said.

This isn't rocket science folks.... there is one reason and one reason only why Google is doing business in China....

.......the almighty dollar...but then what do you expect from a company that leans to the left.

Lisa

Michelle Malkin is collecting altered Google logos... too funny.

Geeze DevilDawg...You Weren't Kidding...

Temps at -10C in Britain and so much snow in France that people were stranded and had to sleep in their cars.

So much for GLOBAL WARMING.

Stay warm Bill.

Lisa

You Don't Want to be A Protester in China

It can be hazardous to your health...deadly, even.  Twenty residents of Dongzhou were shot and killed by security forces for protesting the building of a power plant.  A freaking power plant.  I mean, they weren't even protesting a war or an invasion or something political.  It was a damn power plant.

The Cindy Sheehans and memebers of Code Pink and Peta and any other far lefties should count their blessings they live in this great country...you know, the country they hate so much.  Maybe their next protest should be scheduled in Beijing.

Lisa