Tuesday, March 3, 2009

Good Intentions

For some reason that perhaps psychologists who specialize in the phenomenon of "enabling" could explain, 75 countries have pledged $5.5 billion to rebuild Gaza. The Obama administration, still flush with the excitement of having pledged to spend a couple of trillion dollars we don't have, is chipping in $900 million of the total. This would be a benevolent gesture if it weren't so foolish. There's no way to insure that the money will reach the Palestinian people and every reason to think that the bulk of it will go to finance Hamas' ongoing war against Israel.

Never mind, though. The current administration seems to care less what they spend money upon than that the money gets spent. Pouring almost a billion dollars into Gaza will allow us to feel like we're actually helping the suffering people of that wretched place and also make us feel good about ourselves. We'll be able to bask in the good feeling, at least for a time, that accompanies the conviction that we're "striving for peace." Throwing money at the Gazans is a way of purchasing moral self-righteousness. So what if no one knows whether the money will go for schools and hospitals or for rockets and suicide bombs - at least our intentions are good.

For more on how our benevolence is essentially contributing to the murder of Israeli civilians see here.


Perpetual War

Since Israel ceased military operations in Gaza Hamas has demonstrated the extent of their desire for peace by launching a total of 81 missiles at Israeli civilians. Why anyone still thinks there can be peace in the Gaza region is hard to understand. Short of Divine intervention the only way peace will be achieved there is if the Jews either abandon Israel to the Arabs or if the Israelis wipe out Hamas.

Of course, even then it's doubtful there'd be peace. If the Palestinians take over the land currently called Israel they'll only set about fighting amongst themselves, and if Israel rids itself of Hamas some other group, just as virulent as Hamas, will quickly take its place.

As long as there are Arabs and Jews living in proximity to one another there will be war. The best that the Israelis can hope for is to keep their enemies so weak that they can't mount a serious threat. When the day arrives that the Arabs have nuclear weapons, and it eventually will, on that day they will use them and Israel will cease to exist.

That anyone in Washington thinks otherwise is a symptom of an inability to learn the lessons of history and an inexplicable refusal to take the Arabs at their word.


Exploiting the Fairness Doctrine

Despite a crushing vote against the Fairness Doctrine in the Senate last week, a lot of Democrats are nevertheless pining for the return of some form of the policy so they can either shut up Rush Limbaugh and his epigones or at least neutralize them.

We probably haven't heard the last of this issue but Clarice Feldman at The American Thinker shows how utterly unworkable and ludicrous such attempts at censorship are.

She writes:

Much has been made of the possibility of a revival in one form or another of the Fairness Doctrine, an obvious ploy to diminish the considerable impact of conservative radio hosts, notably Rush Limbaugh, whom the President has pointedly named as a key source of information for his opponents.

I agree that the revival of this concept would be a disaster for free speech and debate, that whatever merit it might have had in another media era is certainly lost today where, among other things we have hundreds of cable channels and almost infinite broadcast opportunities. Only fools would rush into the thicket of reviewing and weighing free speech opportunities for liberals in a media which, in any event, is overwhelmingly dominated by them.

Ever vigilant for new ways to rake in dough, however, I see in this deluded notion a rare opportunity to enhance my coffers while having fun.

Here are the openings for me to make money in my new career as a liberal, openings which show what an utter joke the entire concept of airwave "fairness" is.

Read the rest at the link to learn about both her "plan" and why the Fairness Doctrine and its spinoffs (like "localism") make no sense.