Mr. Bragg's Homework Blog |
Saturday, December 07, 2002
Comment. Lott is going down this time. There will be 51-52 Republican Senators, so it will take at most three Senators to hold the caucus hostage. The urge to grandstand here is irresistable. This is a hill that no one wants to die on. Chris Bond, Arlen Specter, George Voinovich, and Richard Shelby are up for reelection in 2004, and I don't think any of them wants to lose their elections because Trent Lott gets misty eyed over lynchings and colored water fountains. Karl Rove isn't going to be crazy about this being an issue either.
On Thursday, December 5, 2002, Republican Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott said:
“When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either.”In 1948, Strom Thurmond ran for president as the segregationist candidate. That is not to say that support for segregation was among Thurmond’s positions. Strom Thurmond’s candidacy had no other issues besides support for segregation and opposition to federal anti-lynching laws. That is, Thurmond favored governments at all levels using force to violate the rights of black people, and opposed the Federal government protecting the rights of black people to not be killed by mobs while local authorities tacitly approved. These are the positions that Trent Lott, apparently, is proud of. Trent Lott says that if the rest of the country had voted for Strom Thurmond, “we wouldn’t have had all these problems.” The only possible interpretation is that Trent Lott regrets the defeat of the positions of Thurmond’s campaign. Trent Lott regards the end of segregation and the end of lynching as “problems” which we, as a nation, shouldn’t have had. Trent Lott, as Republican Senate Majority Leader, has never been a particular friend of individual rights. He has acted as a stereotypical politician, bending with every wind and shifting with every tide. Now, however, he has pledged allegiance to a doctrine which is anathema to individual rights, to the United States Constitution and to the vast majority of Americans. This cannot be explained by political expediency. Therefore it must be his genuine conviction. The question for the Republican Party is whether such a man represents the Republican Party, whether such a man is fit to lead the Senate Republican caucus. If such a man is fit to serve as a leader of the Republican Party, then the Republican Party is the party of racism. If the Republican Party aspires to be the party of individual rights, then such a man has no place in the party leadership.
Link. Trent Lott endorses Strom Thurmond's 1948 segregationist Dixiecrat platform:
I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had of followed our lead we wouldn't of had all these problems over all these years, either.We wouldn't have had all these problems over the years. What problems is Trent Lott talking about? Problems like black people voting? Problems like black and white people going to the same schools? Problems like black and white people dating? Problems like the end of lynching?
Friday, December 06, 2002
Heresy. Re: the Central Park Jogger case, in which a gang of teenagers who had gone out to rob and beat people, "wilding", confessed to and were convicted of the 1989 rape and near-fatal beating of a woman, in which, recent evidence has pretty much proven that the rape was done single-handedly by a different rapist altogether who confessed to the crime in jail. Between the rape of the Central Park Jogger and this rapists' arrest, he raped three more women, murdering one. My heretical thought is, how many people were saved from being raped, mugged, murdered, assaulted by imprisoning the gang of youths? Criminals commit crimes These youths are criminals Criminals should be locked up Am I wrong in saying that the real injustice was not done to the gang of muggers who were convicted for the wrong crime, but to the final three victims of the rapist? I also wonder how many of the people in jail who claim they are innocent, when in fact they are well-known thugs and murders, are in fact innocent of the specific charge against them, but still belong in jail.
Link. Sharon's Peace Plan. The plan is conditional on an absolute end to terror, on the dismantling of the Palestinian militias, and on the removal of Arafat. So, basically, it won't happen. Unless Sharon sends the IDF in to remove Arafat, dismantle the militias, and end terrorism. But anyway, the plan is for a provisional Palestinian state in Areas A and B next year, with final borders to be determined by 2005. The Palestinian state would be demilitarized, with Isreali control over borders and airspace. Sharon says that the IDF presence in Palestinian cities is temporary.
The Palestinians immediately rejected the proposal, in the person of Saeb Erekat. Thursday, December 05, 2002
Link. Jerusalem Post analysis of Sharon's recent declaration. Says that Sharon, while accepting an eventual Palestinian state and that the IDF will withdraw from Areas A and B, is trashing the "road map" backed by the Quartet of the US, EU, Russia and the UN. More specifically, by Powell (not W), the EU, Russia and the UN.
By the way, how's this for a measure to bring peace closer: If the EU and "international community" are so motivated to give money for the Palestinian Authority, how about putting some of that money into a fund to buy up properties in the settlements, for the eventual use of the Palestinians? Basic economics says that if you give people an incentive to do something, they're more likely to do it. Right now, I think there are a lot of people who moved into the West Bank settlements for the economic benefits, who would like to leave but who can't afford to lose the entire value of the property they bought. If a fund was offering, say, 70% of what they paid for it, they might leave voluntarily, reducing the number of "settlers" and opening up units for any "natural growth" that is taking place in the settlements.
Link. American Academia Jew-Hating Watch. Concordia University in Canada has revoked all funding for Hillel, and banned Hillel meetings from campus, allegedly because Hillel passed out statements recruiting for the IDF, which operates in the illegally-occupied territories, you know, where they have been in 1967 for no reason at all disrupting the traditional Palestinian activities of, er, sitting around in the desert. Also of note, Concordia will be sponsoring a conference on anti-Semitism. Hillel had offered to co-sponsor the conference. I'm not sure, though, if the conference is supposed to take a position for or against anti-Semitism.
Credits: Thelink.concordia.ca, through PatioPundit, through Instapundit. Wednesday, December 04, 2002
Cardinal Law took time off Sunday from shuffling pedophile priests from parish to parish and went to a Muslim prayer service. Partial fisking tonight. Tuesday, December 03, 2002
Link. Saudi Interior Minister Prince Nayef Ibn Abd Aziz, in an interview with a Kuwaiti newspaper, said that he thinks that Isreal committed the September 11 attacks, that al-Quaeda couldn't have done it, not by themselves anyway, and if they did they might be Zionist agents. Some choice quotes, courtesy of Memri.org: Prince Naif said, 'we put big question marks and ask who committed the events of September 11 and who benefited from them. Who benefited from events of 11/9? I think they [the Zionists] are behind these events.'.....Prince Naif Ibn Abdul Aziz said that he greatly suspected that these terrorist organizations have relation with foreign intelligence that worked against Arab and Muslims topped by Israeli intelligence. He noted that it is impossible that 19 youths, including 17 Saudis, carried out the operation of September 11, or that bin Laden or [the] Al-Qa'ida organization did that alone.Hmm, al-Qa'ida might have been financed and covertly supported by a Middle Eastern government? Maybe the one that hasn't suffered any notable unrest or terrorist attacks lately? Maybe the one with family connections to most of the al-Quaeda heirarchy, and ideological sympathy for the rest? Speaking of the non-Saudi Islamic jihadists, Prince Nayif is in a snit about them: He lashed out at the Muslim Brotherhood organization which he said gave birth to a multinational spectrum of Islamic politicians who turned their backs to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and forgot its favors to them. He cited that many of the organization's members were living in the Kingdom and receiving refuge and humanitarian assistance [from] its people and officials…..'All our problems come from the Muslim Brotherhood. We have given too much support to this group...'The Saudis giving money to frothing jihadist nutjobs is a problem? Who'da thought? By the way, just in case anyone thought that the Saudi Imams quoted in the west were isolated voices that didn't reflect the way Saudi Arabia really is: He said there are more than 50,000 imams at the Kingdom's mosques who follow the official line of thinking. 'If they deviate from this line and persist doing so, they will have to find other jobs.'Meanwhile, Prince Nayef warns us: Prince Naif added that painting Saudi citizens with the brush of terrorism and talk about interference in education and even the Islamic law increased hatred of the people toward the U.S. although the U.S. people are innocent and good in general.Gee, I guess we should make sure not to increase Saudi people's hatred of the U.S. If the Saudis get mad, the Zionists might fly some more planes into US buildings. Read it yourself
In the old days of red-baiting, the term "Moscow gold" was used to refer to money given by the Soviet Union to those who served their purposes, out of Communist allegiance, socialist affiliation or simple cupidity. How long until the concept is revived, and we can ask for an accounting of George Sr. and the Carlyle Group's ties to Saudi gold? |
