The Sleeper Has Awakened

Evan Sayet delivers one of the most powerful speeches I've ever heard - a clear explanation of the nature of Modern Liberalism. Everything that I've observed, but never quite fully understood about the nature of Modern Liberalism for the past 25 years, is perfectly captured in "discriminating" detail and with devastating logic and reason. I stand in awe of this man Evan.

Evan is directly influenced by a book written by Allan Bloom entitled The Closing of the American Mind. I've not read the book. Now I simply have to.

Note Evan's use of the term "Modern Liberalism" which he describes as an ideology which now dominates all of Western Europe and is the most significant political force in the Democratic Party today.

I highly recommend a peek.

Mark O'Brien

I spoke on the phone with Mark O'Brien. He's as amiable and witty as I had imagined.

I told him I appreciated the time he took to respond to my missives on the PNJ forums. I have no choice but to criticize. I also told him that yes, I get heated and sometimes insulting and that if I had offended him that I was sorry. I asked his permission to continue. He gave it.

Sometimes I would be critical, I told him. Naturally, he replied.

That's good enough for me.

Lipo

Muslim Liberals

The following video clip is a sequence of televised interviews by Muslim liberals (my characterization) provided by MEMRI. Subtitled in English, they beautifully describe in great detail a whole host of criticisms of Islam.

Though I criticize Islam, I cannot help but express a small ray of hope for its future - and for ours.

Lipo

In retrospect...

In retrospect and with the passage of time some of the things I have written tend to appear trite and poorly worded. Note my gratuitous use of some vulgar language. Yes, it felt great writing it but is unnecessary and only detracts from my arguments. I apologize.

I resolve to write as well as I am able. To be brief and to-the-point, but with as much description as is necessary to convey meaning. I also resolve to maintain decorum.

Lipo

Real Journalism

Here are two sterling examples of serious journalism. The first is the New York Post's Ralph Peters:

"The "nonbinding resolution" telling the world that we intend to surrender to terrorism and abandon Iraq may be the most disgraceful congressional action since the Democratic Party united to defend slavery.

The vote was a huge morale booster for al Qaeda, for Iraq's Sunni insurgents, and for the worst of the Shia militias.

The message Congress just sent to them all was, "Hold on, we'll stop the surge, we're going to leave - and you can slaughter the innocent with our blessing."

We've reached a low point in the history of our government when a substantial number of legislators would welcome an American defeat in Iraq for domestic political advantage."

The second really knocked my socks off. You just don't read journalism this good very often. Kudos to Victoria Toensing of the Washington Post. This is good shit:

"There's a reason why responsible prosecutors don't bring perjury cases on mere "he said, he said" evidence. Without an underlying crime or tangible evidence of obstruction (think Martha Stewart trying to destroy phone logs), the trial becomes a mishmash of faulty memories in which witnesses can seem as guilty as the defendant. Any prosecutor knows that memories differ, even vividly, and each party can be convinced that his or her version is the truthful one.

If we accept Fitzgerald's low threshold for bringing a criminal case, then why stop at Libby? This investigation has enough questionable motives and shadowy half-truths and flawed recollections to fill a court docket for months. So here are my own personal bills of indictment:

* * *

THIS GRAND JURY CHARGES PATRICK J. FITZERALD with ignoring the fact that there was no basis for a criminal investigation from the day he was appointed, with handling some witnesses with kid gloves and banging on others with a mallet, with engaging in past contretemps with certain individuals that might have influenced his pursuit of their liberty, and with misleading the public in a news conference because . . . well, just because."

I find it difficult to believe that the Pensacola News Journal management doesn't recognize that its stable of opinion staff sucks ass. You won't read journalism of this type from the Pensacola News Journal - and it doesn't have to be that way. The posers need to be given the heave-ho.

Ignoble Idiocy at the PNJ

Piss poor.

This is the best description of the quality of editorial journalism at the Pensacola News Journal.

Carl Wernike and Reginald Dogan are barely literate and sometimes incoherent. The slap-dash prose they churn out daily is so poor that any reasonably demanding English teacher would find it unacceptable. Mark O'Brien is clearly the most talented writer on the staff.

Witty and thoughtful, Mark too is guilty at times, not simply of profound ignorance but "merely" of sloppy journalism - he tends to beg the question - asking us to accept as truth that which a reasonable person would find under contention, at the very least. Mark, in short, is too lazy to explain himself, suffice as it is to simply adopt unexamined popular conventional wisdom. It's certainly very fashionable.

To his credit, Reginald doesn't cop a ridiculous pretense of objectivity. Reginald is the personification of agenda driven journalism.

Troy Moon is a worthless pacifist. He doesn't think war solves anything. I read his blog looking for a sign of intelligence. Nothing there except opinions about music. Who cares? Troy does, apparently. On the rare occasion when Troy does allude to George Bush or the war in Iraq, it is only indirectly - the implication being that readers don't really want to know what he thinks - the horrible truth he would lay out would simply be too awful to bear. He's doing us a favor, you see?

Daily editorials at the PNJ slam the point home to anyone who bothers to read them - that its editors are ignorant of: history, politics, philosophy, science, government and economics. Other than that, these are erudite, sophisticated journalists.

I found it very revealing one day recently to speak on the phone with Carl and Reginald. Carl's first response to disagreement was a disparaging "You don't just watch Fox News, do you?" Another memorable response was when Carl told me that it was the PNJ Editoral Board's "position" that drilling for oil be prohibited along the Florida coastline. He was clearly in no mood to defend it, suffice as it was to simply tell me it was their "position".

Reginald was very defensive - comically so. His responses were constrained and curt. I felt like a lawyer cross-examining a hostile witness. It being apparent that Reginald was uncomfortable explaining himself, the interogatory was rather short. Several months ago, a seperate discussion forum on the PNJ website was created under his name so that Reginald could respond to reader questions. He never even bothered. These gentlemen are clearly not used to being questioned or criticized.

In its totality, this behavior leaves the unmistakable impression that these journalists are more concerned with popularity than with factual, objective journalism. They behave like politicians. Not really concerned with truth, they closely follow the prevailing winds of conventional wisdom among the left- from the idiocy of Global Warming to the notion that the war in Iraq is "a problem created by George Bush."

*Revised to remove the f-bombs.

Preliminary impressions

The Iraq Study Group released their report. My own cursory review indicates this is not a serious document.

The ISG presupposes that Iran and Syria have an interest in a stable Iraq - a contention which I believe is demonstrably false. The ISG believes that the United States should engage Iran and Syria in diplomacy - how exactly is not clear - in order to elicit cooperation.

There being no other obvious leverage at its disposal, it is not clear how the United States should convince Iran and Syria to cooperate.

I've floated the crazy idea that perhaps the ISG's careful choice of words does not rule out the use of force. If the ISG means what it says, the credible threat of military force can be the only means of successfully compelling Iranian and Syrian cooperation. In order for diplomacy to be successful the threat of military force must be credible. Credibility in this instance means that Iranian and Syrian non-cooperation must have a credible consequence.

MSM reaction, meanwhile has been typically hysterical. I have so little respect for MSM coverage at times and this is certainly one of those times. Analysis and reportage appears triumphalist and seems to follow a conventional wisdom that George W. Bush is a failed president with a failed policy and a war that is lost.

It sickens me to observe the craven idiocy of MSM that presumes to judge with detached indifference as an objective arbiter of American military success or failure. Focused solely on the political damage that validated criticism can bring, it doesn't bother to concern itself with prescription. It is unconcerned with Victory and indeed mocks the very suggestion.

An objective assessment of the invasion of Iraq would note the failure of the elected Iraqi government to exercise control, widespread sectarian violence and the continued failure to establish a self-governing Iraqi state. It would also note a remarkable string of successes:

1. Saddam Hussein deposed and on trial. Sentenced to death.
2. Saddam’s two sons Uday and Qusay killed.
3. Kurds in the north; Shia in the south free from Sunni/Baathist oppression
4. Iraqis vote for a new constitution and representative government.
5. All WMD programs (whether developed or not) terminated with certainty.
6. Advanced Libyan nuclear weapons program surrendered and terminated.
7. Existence of a black market in nuclear weapons and missile technology headed by A.Q. Khan of Pakistan exposed and terminated.
8. World-wide economic sanctions against Iraq lifted
9. UN Oil-for-Food Program exposed and terminated
10. The crucible of combat has honed US Armed Forces into a deadly, effective fighting force, quickly adapting – not according to hypothetical circumstances in peace – but to reality in war.
11. The motivating ideology of the enemy - radical Islam - is more widely known and better understood.
12. Combat hardened, well equipped US Armed Forces bestride Iran and Syria providing a potent and visible military threat to those countries.

My Politics

Classical liberal, american exceptionalist, and constitutional textualist. Antitheist with an appreciation for Judeo Christian ethics and customs. Unapologetic defender of Western Civilization.

What does this mean?

It means that I love the political and economic freedom that Western Civilization provides; its emphasis on reason, scientific inquiry, the seperation of church and state, tolerance, equal rights, and the liberating possibilities of free trade.

I do not believe in God. I am against religion. I can freely exercise this heretical position (to some) in free knowledge that my voice cannot be silenced and I'll not be arrested or killed. Even so, I deeply appreciate the judeo-christian legacy, its contribution to law and custom. Who doesn't love Christmas? I love Christmas.

These ideas may be self-evident to some. Some may not understand their significance.

I don't take these rights and freedoms for granted. I savor them with great relish and thank my lucky stars I'm a citizen of the United States of America.

Delusion, God and Vox Populi

I've been posting political commentary on the Pensacola News Journal website forums. Reaction to my ideas continues to be very poor. Popular I am most certainly not, but I tend to get responses - generally all of them bad.

I am very disappointed at the low level of intelligent response and discourse. Nearly every discussion of any serious contention ultimately devolves into insults. As an insight into the level of discourse, I note that several forum participants appear to believe that I am Jewish and/or Israeli. I let them believe it, even encourage it.

Many forum participants believe that 9/11 was a government conspiracy. I'm absolutely fucking stunned. The willingness to self-delusion is pervasive.

Other Observations:

The existence of the liberal evangelicals - strong christian faith but with reformed attitudes on gays. Anti-globalization but pro-UN, America-first, Anti-war, virulently anti-Israeli; at times devolving into anti-semetism;

Some evangelicals are pro-Israel but these seem to be in the distinct minority. These tend to be patriotic, pro-war and anti-UN. Strangely, these are my political allies. We seem to argue on the same side of most issues.

Devout evangelicals (who appear to be the vast majority of participants) tend to segregate and only appear to involve themselves in the interpretation of scripture.

Where do I fit, politically?

The term "neoconservative" has been bandied about in the media quite frequently to characterize those for whom military power is seen not as a destabilizing force, but rather a power to be wielded for good. Much as "liberal" has been used as a derogatory term by conservatives, "neocon" has been used (by self-described liberals) to charicature conservatives of this bent in a negative light.

I suppose that I fit into this category.

My father introduced me to reading, history, philosophy and economics. He read voraciously, encouraging me to do the same and throughout my youth, often engaged me in debates on important issues of the day.

The origins of my world view are derived from those of my father. My dad was Judson C. Davis, Jr. He was born on May 15, 1921 in Charleston, West Virginia.

Knowledge of my father's early years are sketchy, but here are some of the essentials. When he was very young, his father Jud Sr. divorced his mother Besma. Unable to make ends meet and take care of a child, my grandmother was forced to work and place Jud Jr. in the care of someone else (grandparents?). I'm not sure.

Even so, my father related to me how poor he and everyone else was in the late 1920's - especially in West Virginia. I know nothing of the intervening years.

He enlisted in the US Navy on March 7, 1941 as an aviation cadet. He was wounded on November 30, 1942 in the Battle of Tassafaronga aboard the cruiser USS Minneapolis. During this battle, a line of steaming US cruisers and destroyers were surprised at night by a volley of Japanese long lance torpedoes. One struck the USS Minneapolis, blowing off her bow.

After being treated for his wounds, he trained as a TBM Avenger pilot (torpedo bomber). Beginning in February of 1945 as part of VT-84 on board the USS Bunker Hill, Jud flew many missions over Tokyo. In April of 1945 during the massive invasion of Okinawa, a task force of Japanese surface ships - lead by the battleship Yamato - was sent south towards Okinawa to oppose US forces.

My father's was one of approximately 300 planes dispatched to find and sink this task force on April 7, 1945. The Japanese task force was spotted and US planes attacked.

During the battle, the Yamato was struck several times by bombs and torpedoes. While I'd like to think that my father's was the one that finished her off, it's impossible to know. Nevertheless, for his actions during the battle my father was later awarded the Navy Cross.

It was in May of 1945 that hundreds of Japanese kamikaze pilots were sent on suicidal missions to destroy American aircraft carriers. My father was aboard the Bunker Hill when it was struck by two kamikaze on May 11, 1945. Somehow, he survived - but many of his squadron mates were killed.

In his war diary, my father, then 24 years old wrote: "Having been but a few days since it happened, I find it very hard to believe that so many of my friends could be wiped off the slate in one blow. We had been living and working so close that only a pilot who has spent a year in training and months at sea (constantly together) with a particular squadron could comprehend it all."

After leaving the Navy to go to school, my father re-enlisted in 1947 and fought in the Korean War flying Vought F-4U Corsairs.

Why do I tell you this? Only to relate to you my concept of who my father was and what he represented to me. He felt very uncomfortable with the term "hero" as self-applied, but in my mind, he was every bit the hero. He shaped my world-view.

Lipo

Torture

I've appreciated Andrew Sullivan's writing over the years and have admired his staunch refusal to back down on some key issues. He supports the War in Iraq, though he is greatly troubled by the instances of torture by US interrogators against terrorism suspects.

Andrew hammers away at the torture issue day in and day out and I can understand why. Torture as a concept is alien to the United States. I vividly remember my own instinctive reaction to the photos of prisoner treatment at Abu Ghraib. I was mortified. It was revolting and ugly.

I believe it necessary to make distinctions between torture of the searing pain-and-agony type that Saddam Hussein used and psychological abuse of the type meant to break down a prisoner's will to resist interrogation. This second type of prisoner treatment, while abusive, is not torture.

Andrew might take a dim view of this opinion.

Nevertheless, as important as it is to obtain intelligence from captured terrorist suspects, I believe that wide latitude should be given to CIA interrogators. For example, interrogators might direct much more forceful techniques to prisoners resistant to lower forms of stress, or for whom the intelligence gained as a result might be very valuable.

I suppose some might claim that my views on this subject are inconsistent with traditional American morality. They're probably right.

Hypothetically, say that Mr. Zarqawi is captured and there is a good possiblity that he might be in the posession of information that would lead directly to Osama bin Laden. Would I countenance shoving and bitch-slapping? Yes, I would.

For all the hand wringing over the issue of Abu Ghraib, the necessity to clearly define torture has not happened. This issue, by its very nature is taboo. As politically sensitive as it is, it requires a poltical response - one that makes clear that which the majority of Americans are willing to accept as part and parcel of the War on Terror.

Congress should take up this issue and clearly define torture.

Lipo

My first post

Well...it's about time. My first blog post. I've been following blogs for several years now. My exposure to the blog medium (or blogosphere) was with AndrewSullivan.com. His is a terrific blog and I can only hope to emulate Andrew's talent for thinking and writing.

The past year I have discovered a veritable cornucopia of new and interesting political blogs - many of which I now read daily. The wealth of information to be gained is astounding - and I relish and appreciate it all very much. Politics, as you might have guessed, is my passion.

In subsequent posts, I hope to course my own political transformation - how I arrived at the ideas and ideals that I hold dear.

Lipo