Blenheim Steps

The New York Times Saturday Morning Courage

Anyone who has ever worked in finance or politics is aware of the temptation to release bad news on Friday afternoon. This ensures that the bad news appears first in the Saturday newspapers, the least read paper of the week.  Accordingly, both the bad news itself and the cowardly late Friday release get lost in the weekend and, by the time Monday rolls around, your bad news gets trumped by something fresher and hopefully more distracting.  The media complains (for an example of that, see here), but that just makes it all the more fun.

If the world needed any more proof that the MSM is no different than those it pretends to neutrally report on, it should consider the way in which Saturday editorials have become the MSM version of news dumping.  In this context, "bad news" is an editorial position that the editors find embarrassing but necessary under the circumstances.   With its Saturday editorial about the Danish cartoon controversy, the NYT set a new standard of excellence relative to "editorial dumping." 

As the entire world is aware, the NYT had very little to say in support of free speech back when it might have made a difference in the Danish cartoon controversy. To the contrary, the NYT condemned the publication of the cartoons by Denmark's Jyllands Post and advocated that journalists treat Islam with exquisite sensitivity. Although many other journalists in the US and around the world followed that example, many did not.  Predictably, some of the journalists that defended free expression have been silenced. .

Until yesterday, and as one might expect under the circumstances, the NYT has been pretty quiet about all that.  Now that it has finally said something, the world has a whole new benchmark for the word "craven."  The chicanery begins in the first sentence,

"With every new riot over the Danish cartoons, it becomes clearer that the protests are no longer about the caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, but about the demagoguery of Islamic extremists."

As the NYT is well aware, the protests have never been about the cartoons nor, for that matter, can the cartoons fairly be called "caricatures" of Muhhamad. To anyone not in an intellectual coma, the protests have always been about the right of a paper to print something that others find offensive. Now that this has become embarrassingly clear, the NYT realized that something had to be done to get itself on the right side of journalism history.

Rather than use the editorial to address its previous position with respect to speech that is offensive to the followers of the "Prophet Muhammad" (which differs, readers will recall, from its position relative to speech that is offensive to anyone else), an effort that would probably require a special supplement, the NYT engages in some fairly impressive revisionism. First it minimizes its previous role in the controversy:

"It is not the West that is most threatened in this crisis. The voices of moderation in the Muslim world are the ones that are being intimidated and silenced."

You see, it's the voices in the Muslim world that are being intimidated and silenced, not the NYT.  It gets better:

"Those few journalists and leaders who have spoken out against the rioting have been vilified and assailed, and even jailed."

If the journalists had simply "spoken out against the rioting", they wouldn't be in jail. The NYT puts it this way in order to avoid having to say, "those few journalists who have published the cartoons...." This also has the effect of suggesting that, unlike back when it had the opportunity to speak out against violence and intimidation, the cartoons have now become newsworthy.  All in all, not a bad piece of work. The NYT has distanced itself from itself, asserted its support for free expression and a free press, and laid the foundation for publishing the cartoons if the rioting should continue. 

Soldiers talk about the kind of instinctive courage that some men have under fire. Napoleon referred to this phenomenon as "two o'clock in the morning courage" and noted that it is the rarest kind.  Applying that principle here, it's interesting to note that the NYT instinctive reaction to the Danish cartoon controversy was to boldly run away.  Given that notorious display of cowardice, it's not surprising that the NYT chose to share its "Saturday morning courage" with as few of its readers as possible.

Sammenhold In SoCal

Why am I always the last to know?  I had blogged about Christopher Hitchens' call to arms and had wanted to do something to show my support.  Thus, I was thrilled to hear about the "Stand Up For Denmark Blogburst" sponsored by Freedom's Zone.  God bless Michelle Malkin for spreading the word and, more generally, for using her blog power to protect and defend all the things that need protecting and defending. As I'm sure she realizes, the cyberattacks on her website and the Malkin-blocking efforts of authoritarian regimes demonstrate both the power of free expression and the reason why the free world must stand up and defend it.      

On that note, I just sent off a supportive email to the Danish embassy.  Thought I'd share:

Embassy of Denmark
3200 Whitehaven St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20008

To Whom it May Concern:

Please accept this message as a show of my support for the government and people of Denmark.  Denmark's resolve in standing up for the freedom of expression has been a credit to your nation and an inspiration to people around the world.

The way in which Denmark has been singled out and attacked is a reminder that fascism is alive and well and prepared to use whatever means are necessary to prevent free people from being free.  Many larger and more powerful nations have shamefully given in to the threats and intimidation, leaving it to Denmark stand up for a freedom that many fail to appreciate and seem all too willing to cast away.  Thank you for your courage, and please know that you do not stand alone.      

The modern American doctrine of free expression began with an opinion of our Supreme Court nearly 100 years ago. This doctrine recognizes that "political" speech, even if it is hateful, offensive and subversive, is the speech that is the most deserving of protection in a free society.  In order to ensure that political speech is protected, virtually none may be prohibited under American law. Thus, America has generally resisted the understandable urge to enact "hate speech" legislation.  Although I understand and respect the moral and historical foundation for all of Europe's hate speech statutes, I cannot but wonder whether these laws have outlived their usefulness and now do more harm than good.

I offer these comments, not as a "pushy" American or legal "busy body" (although I am probably both of those things), but as a freedom-loving citizen of the free world.  In that world, because of Denmark's courageous leadership, we are indeed all Danes now.

Obviously, I get a little maudlin when it comes to the basic freedoms that are the foundation of our democracy.  Let's just say I've just gotten used to having them around. Now that they are under threat from a new barbarian horde, I'm feeling especially protective.  That fact that I couldn't pass up the opportunity to give a mini-lecture and offering a word of constructive criticism about European hate speech legislation says a lot about me, I know. If I could help myself I probably wouldn't be here.

Berlusconi and the New World Order

Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi has been on quite a roll lately.  In an interview this week with Al Jazeera that will apparently be broadcast in full tomorrow, the Italian PM once again demonstrated his willingness to accomodate Islamic opinion (and Italy's Center-Left voters) in any way he can.

As quoted in this story, the Italian PM announced that the United States should close its prison at Guantanamo Bay as soon as possible.  Although Berlusconi's remarks merely echo sentiments expressed last week by Kofi Annan and the EU Parliment, there is something particularly loathsome about Berlusconi, our supposed ally, sticking it to us on Al Jazeera.  If required to choose between our "gulag" at Guantanamo and any Middle Eastern prison, is there any doubt whatsoever which one Berlusconi (not to mention his Al Jazeera interviewer) would pick?

According to news reports, the Berlusconi interview was not without its humorous moments.  Recognizing that certain aspects of Western culture, such as political satire, aren't compatible with Islam, the Italian PM assured Al Jazeera's audience that West would stop the monkey business:   

"Satire must not be disrespectful. In this case, the Danish cartoons have deeply affected the feelings of the faithful and for this reason we cannot but condemn them.....In the West satire is free, even when it concerns religion and the pope, but it is impossible to apply the same standards to other populations and other religions."

I'm going to give the PM the benefit of the doubt about this remark and assume that he is not suggesting that the meaning of the word "satire" be changed to better suit Islamic sensibilities. Western values, however, would seem to be negotiable.  Indeed, rather than wasting time with some namby-pamby middle ground that discourages speech offensive to any religious sensitivity, the quoted passage suggests that Berlusconi has accepted the one-sided rules that govern the new world order. 

Meanwhile, and as discussed by Paul Belien at Brussels Journal, Italian prosecutors are considering whether Roberto Calderoli, the Italian official forced to resign last week over his flamboyant support for the Danish cartoons, can be charged with "contempt of religion."  If found guilty, Calderoli will be imprisoned until he public recants heliocentric theory - oh wait, my mistake - that was Galileo. Still, it's nice to know that the Italians didn't get caught up in that whole "enlightenment" fad and start throwing away perfectly good blasphemy statutes.   

Even with Kudlow On Board, I Still Feel Strangely Unsatisfied

The AP reports that the White House and DPW had a "secret agreement" over the port deal.  Based on what was disclosed in the story, this doesn't appear to be any more than the kind of agreement you would ordinarily expect between any business entity and its regulator. 

What I do find disturbing, since the US is supposed to be serious about port security, is that the concessions are described by the Department of Homeland Security as "unprecedented." If that's true, then a foreign insurance company doing business in a US state is probably subject to more regulatory control than the various foreign companies and government entities that are currently operating US ports.  Hate to say it, but that sounds like the feds to me.

OTOH, and provided that the contract sufficiently ensures the company's cooperation with the US government, I'm not sure the record retention and US citizen requirements are all that important.  That would only be a problem when, for example, you're delivering a pizza to the DPW port office and a DPW crane falls on your car.  In your subsequent lawsuit against DPW for negligent crane operation, your lawyer is going to want the company's business records.  If those records are in Dubai, discovery is going to be a challenge.  Inconvenient for plaintiffs attorneys, but not worth losing sleep over.   

I've no doubt that the port deal can be managed in a way that would keep America safe.  What I question is whether, under the circumstances, its prudent to complicate what all have agreed is an existing vulnerability. Although I've tried to keep an open mind and give Bush the benefit of the doubt, I can't ignore the fact that security experts seem to have concerns about the deal and the good business/free-trade crowd (ordinarily, my tribe), are for it. Much as I respect his opinion, Larry Kudlow's approval just isn't all that comforting here.       

I am not at all persuaded by those who assert that the deal should be approved because the UAE and other Arab nations will be miffed if it isn't. As Americans know all too well, allies can sometimes be down right uncooperative.  To the extent we need to buy our friends in the Islamic world, doing so at the price of our own security seems like really bad bargain.

Given the serious issues involved, I deeply resent the suggestion that opponents of the deal are suffering from "Islamophobia."  (and I'm glad to see I'm not the only California conservative that feels this way.)  It's Islamophobia when a person refuses to go to a particular dentist because the dentist is an Arab. It is foolhardy in the extreme (and politically short-sighted) to insist that there is no difference between an Arab company and a British one in light of the existing political reality.  As I said in a previous post, during the Cold War the US would probably not have contracted with a Russian-American janitorial company to have it clean the bathrooms at NORAD.  That wouldn't have been "Russophobia," that would have been prudent risk management under the circumstances.   

If it is indeed the case, as some have suggested, that this deal has some kind of security benefit for America that cannot be disclosed and which far outweighs any risk, the obligation is on the Administration to demonstrate that benefit, if only by showing that there is key bipartisan support for the deal. Until I see that, I can't feel good about this deal.         

UPDATE: Not that I would have expected anything less, but Michelle Malkin is standing fast on the matter. As she notes, the White House may be cooling its jets a little.

Rick Moran is another reasonable voice that refuses to be intimidated. Even better, he's on the offense.

Link: BREITBART.COM - Arab Co., White House Had Secret Agreement.

American Law Professor: Islamic Scissors Beat First Amendment Paper

I should probably wait for one of my blawging betters to take down Seton Hall law professor Bernard Freamon for this remarkable Op-ed, Danish Trojan Horse: Law and the Muhammad Cartoons, but I just can't let this one go by without comment.    

As a  "Muslim African American law professor", Freamon feels it is his "duty" to explain the Danish cartoon controversy, correct any misunderstandings we Americans might have about the modern usefulness of the right to free expression guaranteed by the First Amendment, and offer a little free legal advice to any Muslims pondering what to do about their offended feelings.  Keep in mind, this fellow teaches law at a respected American law school.

Freamon starts right off by asking the reader to assume an unproven fact as true: that the cartoons "satirize the Prophet Muhammad".  On that the Prophet might beg to differ. What's being satirized, obviously, are radical Muslims who purport to engage in murder and mayhem in Muhammad's name.  Get it professor? Muhammad is a metaphor in the cartoons, which are actually a part of a serious political discussion about free speech and intimidation.

Freamon then moves on to explain that we Americans need to reassess this whole free expression thing:

The incident and the furor it has created, including the violence and needless loss of life, raise profound questions about the continued viability of a liberal and universalist approach to free expression in our rapidly changing and increasingly pluralist world. Constitutional lawyers who want to blindly defend the action of the newspaper forget that the idea of freedom of expression evolves and deepens as history progresses; the issues surrounding free expression today are considerably different from the issues that confronted Justice Holmes when he penned his famous dissent in Abrams v. United States in 1919.

Let's break down this down.  The "incident" (the exercise of free speech), "raise[s] profound questions about the continued viability" (we need to reconsider) "the liberal and universalist approach to free expression" (free expression) in our "rapidly changing and increasingly pluralistic world" (that means the world as changed by the arrival of Islamic fundamentalism). He continues, "constitutional lawyers who want to blindly defend the action of the newspaper forget that the idea of freedom of expression evolves and deepens as history progresses" (I can only guess he's trying to say that constitutional lawyers obsessed with defending the speech that has had long-standing protection under our constitution need to get with the European hate speech program); "the issues surrounding free expression today are considerably different from the issues that confronted Justice Holmes when he penned his famous dissent in Abrams...." (forget about the principles that are the basis of American jurisprudence relative to free expression, it's just not compatible with Islam).

It gets even more amazing:

"By the same token, Muslims should also be deeply concerned because, by their reaction to the events, Islam-bashers (and even some so-called Muslim governments) now see that much of the Islamic world suffers from a huge complex about its role in history; they are craftily using this sensitivity to provoke Muslims to commit senseless acts of violence..."

So you see, its the "Islam bashers" who are "craftily" using Islam's inferiority complex to provoke senseless acts of violence. Freamon continues that theme by suggesting that the cartoons are a "Trojan Horse" being used by hate mongers for the purpose of harming Muslims.  Accordingly, Muslims should use the criminal law process to expose and punish the publishers. I like the "Trojan Horse" analogy but I guess my Homer is a little rusty; I thought it was the Greeks who jumped out of the gift horse and attacked the Trojans, not the Trojans who jumped out and attacked themselves. If that's supposed to be a legal theory of recovery, good luck.   

Freamon then shamefully compares the publishing of the cartoons with the Rwandans who broadcast the names and addresses of Tutsis in order to effectuate the Rwandan genocide, pointing out that "freedom of expression" was rejected as a defense in that case by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.  He neglects to mention that, under such circumstances, free expression wouldn't be a successful defense anywhere. Finally, because Denmark is becoming "a hotbed of skinheads and anti-Muslim violence" (he offers no examples) Freamon urges Danish prosecutors to reconsider their "blatantly political decision" not to prosecute the cartoon publishers under Danish hate speech laws, lest any future provocations lead to a situation like Rwanda.

Although Freamon is suggesting that Muslims in Denmark are at risk of being slaughtered by angry Danish mobs, those of us living in the real world know a threat when we hear one.  As usual when a "moderate" Muslim speaks, American law professor notwithstanding, the message to the West is invariably "shape up or else."  Both for his casual dismissal of the First Amendment jurisprudence that has protected America from the hate speech follies that are currently tormenting Europe and for the outrageous insinuation that Islam's violent rampage over the cartoons is the product of a Western conspiracy, Freamon is a scoundrel.  Nevertheless, and as Justice Holmes himself might have suggested, his views need to be broadcast and judged by the intellectual marketplace.  I hope freedom-loving bloggers everywhere will join me in exposing this clown.   

Link: JURIST - Forum: A Danish Trojan Horse: Law and the Muhammad Cartoons.

Release David Irving!

I've been a little disappointed by the relative silence on the Right about the news that British holocaust denier David Irving has been sentenced by an Austrian court to three years in prison.  As offensive as Irving's ideas are, criminalizing speech is as antithetical to American values as threatening a journalist for printing an offensive cartoon, a government restricting citizens' access to certain subjects or writers, and jailing librarians for distributing dangerous books.

This kind of thought policing is common to both the Islamic world and Europe, and Europe's hate speech laws are one reason why it lacks credibility on the issue of free expression.  As Power Line's John Hinderaker put it:

it's pretty hard to take the high ground with regard to freedom of speech--over, say, the Danish cartoons--when you're sending people to jail for "grossly playing down" or "trying to excuse" Nazi crimes. Some say, of course, that for Europe the Holocaust is unique and deserves this special legal status. But then, the Muslims think Mohammed is unique, too. Once you start making exceptions of this sort, it's hard to know when to stop."

As usual, I think Hinderaker nails it.  Given the uproar over the Danish cartoons, Europe should be re-thinking its hate speech laws, not stepping up enforcement or thinking up new ones.

Although I sometimes wonder whether Islamo-fascism and Europe aren't a match made in heaven, it is still possible that Europe could come to its senses.  In that regard, and not that they've ever been particularly appreciative of unsolicited advice from us, I think a little more support from the Bush administration would be helpful. Specifically, a clear and unequivocal statement of support for Denmark is shamefully overdue. 

With his usual brilliance, Christopher Hitchens takes the Bush administration to task and proposes a peaceful demonstration at the Danish embassy in DC as a show of solidarity.  If I didn't live in Southern California, I'd certainly be there.   

Is Rove on Vacation Again?

Like just about everyone else in America except Jimmy Carter, I was pretty alarmed when I heard that the Treasury Department had approved a deal to let UAE controlled Dubai Ports World (DPW) become the operating company of six US ports.  Without knowing any of the particulars, it struck me as a remarkably bad idea.  Michelle Malkin, as well as many security experts, seem to agree. Up till now, I have assumed that the administration was aware that the deal was out of the question and simply needed political cover in order to say no to the UAE, one of the warmest of our lukewarm Middle Eastern allies.  Although I still think that's a possibility, Bush's stated intention to veto any Congressional efforts to scrap the deal does make me wonder.  I'm also pretty freaked-out by this comment by Bush:

"I want those who are questioning it [the deal] to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company."

The different standard for Middle Eastern companies has to do with the fact that we aren't currently fighting a war against Anglo-fundamentalist guerrillas intent on expanding the British Empire and particularly keen about striking America at home. Given that we are fighting just such a war with Islamo-fundamentalists, exceptional caution is required.  I deeply resent the suggestion of the Bush administration, some bloggers, and "moderate" Arabs that such caution is racist.  To the contrary, it is an unfortunate consequence of a war that America didn't start and has to deal with. Accordingly, it isn't for objectors to explain why a "different standard" is warranted, its for supporters to demonstrate why America's security would not be compromised by the deal.

There is no dispute about the popularity of radical Islam and America-hating in the UAE and Middle East in general. According to a June 2004 Zogby International study, 73 percent of people polled in the UAE had an unfavorable view of the U.S, while only 14 percent had a favorable view. These sentiments explain why the UAE has had to show its support for the US and its objectives in a mostly behind the scenes manner. Given this reality, how can the UAE be expected to have the ability, much less the will, to ensure that Jihadist sympathizers are not a part of, or are not otherwise able to gain access to, the DPW organization? 

For the same reason that, during the Cold War, a janitorial company owned and operated by Russian-Americans probably wouldn't have gotten the contract to clean the bathrooms at NORAD, DPW probably shouldn't be permitted to operate six US ports. This may not be fair, but that's the practical and political reality.  In breaking the bad news to prince/sheik/sultan whoever he is, the Bush administration can just shrug its shoulders and explain that, given the strong public opposition to the deal, it really had no choice.  No doubt the US has heard that same excuse from the UAE many times.

Maybe Bush is hoping the deal gets bogged down in litigation. Fighting six politically charged lawsuits in six separate US states would probably be enough to scare off anyone.  That way, the deal gets scrapped, Bush saves face with the UAE, and Republicans will be able to distance themselves by asserting that they tried to stop the deal. Other than Karl Rove and Dick Cheney being locked in a closet somewhere, this is the only explanation for the Bush position that makes any sense.

An Italian Spectacle

It's been quite a weekend for the Religion of Peace.  Among other things, a US embassy was attacked in Indonesia, 16 people were murdered in a christian pogrom in Nigeria and Pakistani clerics and Indian government officials officials continue to offer financial incentives to for the beheading of the Danish cartoonists.  Michelle Malkin has the full round up here.  The most important development of the weekend, however, occurred in Italy where Roberto Calderoli, a cabinet minister who had expressed strong support for the Danish cartoonists was forced to resign because his support is believed to be the cause of violent protests in Libya.       

Eleven people were killed and others injured during a demonstration that ended in the burning of the Italian consulate in the Libyan port city of Benghazi.  The eleven deaths were protesters who were killed by Libyan security forces.  In spite of the fact that Muslim mobs have been demonstrating all over the world without the assistance of Calderoli, and the absence of any other western embassy in town (or the country) made Italian embassy the only choice for a cartoon demonstration, Calderoli's responsibility seems to have been assumed by all. 

Accepting arguendo that Calderoli's antics were one of the items on the protesters' list of grievances, the fact remains that he had about as much of a role in embassy burning and police shootings as Ronald McDonald did in the sacking of a McDonalds in Pakistan last week.  Based on that obvious fact, Calderoli's forced resignation seems puzzling, until you read the following threat statement issued by Muammar al-Qadhafi's influential son Saif al Islam:

"[Calderoli is] responsible for what had occurred and for the innocent victims and the regrettable incidents. The Italian government has to take the action required by such situation against this racist minister who is full of hatred. If the Italian government fails to do so, Italian relations with Libya will go through a serious and crucial stage during which these ties will be reassessed and reviewed,"

In other words, Libya is a very important Italian trading partner. Fear of economic reprisals, and concern that Italian citizens could become targets helps to explain Italy's actions, but the ghastly spectacle of Italy's dhimmitude is troubling.  And just when I thought it couldn't get worse - prosecutors in Rome are considering whether to bring charges against Calderoli for "offending Islam."   

So, just to recap: clerics and actual government officials in Islamic countries continue to incite murder and violence and raise funds for the beheading of artists, and Muslims everywhere (even America) endorse this violence.  In some places, the violence gets out of hand and people are killed.  The Italian model suggests that western governments should accept all blame for the consequences of the mayhem and adapt themselves as required in order to avoid further reprisals.  Hard to believe they once ruled an empire.

On a side note, and even though all of the cartoon protests have an engineered quality, there's something about this Libyan protest that seems fishy.  First, and although Qadhafi has been historically wary of Islamic fundamentalism, Libya was among the first Arab nations to recall an ambassador to Denmark. Now, in a country where people do pretty much what they're told, there is an eruption of civil disobedience.  Is the strongman losing his grip or, now that the sanctions have been lifted, is he trying to get back in the game?  Or could it be a little of both? I hope someones keeping an eye on him.   

UPDATE:  An interesting post at The Corner suggests that I might have been on to something about Qadhafi orchestrating the demonstration against Italy and possibly losing his grip.  According to Michael Ledeen's un-named emailer, the demonstration was planned by Qadhafi but got out of hand and may still be going on.   

Mansoor Ijaz: Voice of a New Movement or Destined for the Witness Protection Program?

Since I've been pretty skeptical about the existence of Muslim moderates, I was delighted to see this Op-ed by Mansoor Ijaz in the LA Times this morning.  His point is well taken about the whole "moderate" label, and he makes a compelling argument that the problem with Islam isn't that there are so few "moderates," it's that there are so few real fundamentalists. I've heard it said before, but never so well.  He makes a lot of good points, so read the whole thing.   

The most tragic aspect of what is going on in the Islamic world today is that, despite all of those who pretend to speak on behalf of the Muslim masses, the lives of these poor people never seem to improve.  To the contrary, everyone in a position of influence in that world is much more interested in exploiting its problems than correcting them.  And, although the Western Left and the MSM have been quick to adopt Muslims as the new proletariat, they have, in furtherance of their own Western ideological agenda, misidentified the oppressor. 

An American Muslim of Pakistani descent, Ijaz doesn't fall for such nonsense nor, God bless him, does he pull any punches.  He points out, first, that Osama bin Laden is nothing more than a hypocritical ideologue and yet, "[h]e has succeeded in presenting himself as the defender of Islam's poor, and the Western media has taken his jihadist message all the way to the bank."  And how.  Then Ijaz turns his attention to the real problem:

"Take the money spent by any Middle Eastern royal family at a London hotel or Geneva resort during one month and you could build enough schools and medical clinics to take care of 1,000 Palestinian children for a year. Yet rather than educate and feed Palestinian and Muslim children so they may learn to settle differences through dialogue and debate, instead of by throwing rocks and wearing bombs, the Muslim "haves" put on a few telethons to raise paltry sums for the "have nots" to alleviate the guilt over their palatial gilded cages."

And, just when I thought he wasn't going to finish the thought, he issues this blistering indictment of what he calls "Islam's mobsters",

"having failed in their mission to lead their masses, they seek any excuse to demonize those of us in the West and to try to bring us down. They know they are losing the ideological struggle for hearts and minds, for life in all its different dimensions, and so they prepare themselves, and us, for Armageddon by starting fires everywhere in a display of Islamic unity intended to galvanize the masses they cannot feed, clothe, educate or house."

Shazzam! Engels couldn't have said it better. And, in that tradition, these ideas are shockingly subversive.  So, don't hold your breath waiting to hear this kind of thing on Al Jazeera or, even less likely, from the poseurs in the West that call themselves the Left. 

Finally, I have to say I appreciate Ijaz' thoughtful remarks about "haters of Islam." Even so, I have to say that if a few more people like Ijaz spoke up, people like me would be less alarmed by all the "Behead those who insult Islam" placards. And there in lies the problem, no? Muslim intellectuals who question the status quo invariably become targets.  Thus, and although I appreciate and admire Mr. Ijaz' intellectual courage, the sad fact of the matter is that he probably needs to watch his back.

Link: Islamic truths - Los Angeles Times.

Richard Dreyfuss, Actor, Calls for Impeachment

The only thing funnier than the political rantings of an actor is the way the MSM pretends to take it seriously.  In a speech today at the National Press Club on the subject of "Hollywood's view of the contemporary news media" (who hasn't been dying to know), actor Richard Dreyfuss, who self-identified as a "libo-conservo-middle-of-the-road-o", advocated for the impeachment of President Bush.  Apparently unaware that impeachment requires a legal basis, Dreyfuss urged that it be used as a kind of no confidence vote or, as he put it, as a "statement that we refuse to endorse bad behavior." From Cybercast News Service:

"If we refuse to debate the appropriateness of the process of impeachment, we endorse that behavior, and we approve the enlargement of executive power," regardless of whoever may occupy the White House in the future, he said.

"And don't kid yourselves: No one ever gives up power, ever," Dreyfuss added.

"Now, it is not your job as the press to impeach George Bush," the actor stated. However, people in the media should "maintain the integrity of that debate" by not dismissing the topic out of hand as partisan or unpatriotic.

Priceless.  In all seriousness, though, you have to wonder why the National Press Club gives a forum to this kind of thing. According to the AMC TV website, Dreyfuss attended San Fernando Valley State College before being "thrown out" because of an argument with a professor about Marlo Brando's role in Julius Caesar (thrown out for an argument about a movie? how much do you want to bet he dropped out?) Surprisingly, for such a serious young man, Dreyfuss never resumed his studies.

Fortunately, the acting thing worked out.  Thus, and although Dreyfuss has played doctors, lawyers, senators and marine biologists, the only subject he's qualified to speak about is acting.  Since the MSM certainly knows this, the only reason for giving someone like Dreyfuss a forum is because it recognizes him as a fellow traveler and, consistent with the contempt the MSM has for its ever dwindling audience, it believes this simpleton can shape public opinion about serious matters.

The only up-side about actors pretending to be intellectuals is that they are so unintentionally entertaining.  Dreyfuss apparently believes anyone who disagrees with him is a slack-jawed yokel and Fox News enthusiast who, no doubt confused by his deep thoughts, view him as a "mister smarty pants" or, my favorite, "mister-too-complex-for-your-own-good".

Mister "too-complex-for-your-own-good"?  Right. I'm sure Richard Dreyfuss gets a lot of that.

Link: Impeaching Bush Is 'Cause Worth Fighting for,' Actor Says -- 02/17/2006.