May 26, 2006

THE PRESIDENT'S POLITICALLY CORRECT APOLOGY

        After years of demands from the MSM's P.C. police, President George W. Bush said on Thursday that "..his bellicose "bring 'em on" taunt to Iraqi insurgents was a big mistake..."

        In the wake of the President's mea culpa Patrick Henry acknowledged his famous words "Give me liberty or give me death", were "far too intemperate. There are better ways to work out differences than with demands and threats."
        General Anthony Mc'Auliffe was relieved of his command of the 101st Airborne at Bastogne for his crude rejection of a German request that he surrender. ""Nuts", is hardly the language we should be using in negotiations with our adversaries", said Sec'y of State Edward Stettinius.
        Faced with demands from the BBC that he admit mistakes, Prime Minister Churchill apologized for his truculent tone when he responded to those urging negotiation with Hitler: "...If this long island story of ours is to end at last, let it end only when each one of us lies choking in his own blood upon the ground.." He acknowledged that his words may have made it impossible for Herr Hitler to return to the negotiating track, so ably followed by Prime Minister Chamberlain.
        William Shakespeare apologized to critics for indulging in bloodthirsty nationalism in his play, Henry V.:
"Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our English dead.
In peace there's nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility:
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage..."
        Especially troubling to all fair minded critics of this speech is the injunction to "imitate the action of the tiger", for aren't we human beings morally superior to animals who never hesitate to kill their prey? Aren't we capable of empathy?
        Vince Lombardi apologized for saying, "If winning isn't everything, why do they keep score?" Therapy has helped him to get in touch with the empathic, caring side of himself. "I wish," he said, "I had it to do all over again. I'd show my players that it's not about winning, it's about getting to love ourselves."

May 24, 2006

AMERICA MUST LEARN TO PLAY THE "GREAT GAME" IN THE MIDDLE EAST

Anyone who has ever read Rudyard Kipling’s wonderful novel Kim remained entranced from cover to cover learning the “Great Game.” It is a phrase describing the rivalry and strategic conflict between the British Empire and the Tsarist Empire in the nineteenth century for control of Central Asia. It was “Great” because the empires involved were great, and the prizes were great. It was a “Game”—the Russians called it the “Tournament of Shadows”—because the contest was fought mostly between intelligence agents and their secret political manipulations. It was a game the British—perfidious Albion—learned to play with great skill, a game of diplomatic ruthlessness, secrecy, and the tool of “complete deniability”: ‘The government knows nothing of this matter.’

If we want to win the war against international fundamentalist Muslim terror, we must learn to play the “Great Game” better than we do now. We must give up being the white hatted cowboy who waits for his enemy to draw first, forget the Boy Scout oath, the Marquis of Queensbury rules, and the sentimentalism of twentieth century diplomacy with its ghosts of friends and allies that no longer exist.

Efraim Halevy has been a Mossad officer since 1961, its deputy director for many years, and its head man from 1998 to 2002. So he knows a thing or two about the Middle East. He was born in London in 1934 and grew up there during World War II, so even though he has lived in Israel since 1948 he still has a pleasant slightly British accent.

We heard him speak at a meeting of the National Association of Scholars a few Sundays back while he was on tour in this country flogging his new memoir “Man in the Shadows.” He spoke quietly, calmly and wisely about his understanding of the Middle East and of the profession of Intelligence—but not deeply of these matters. He reminded me of George Smiley as portrayed by Alec Guinness in the TV dramatizations of Le Carre’s novels. He has an owlish look and radiates a certain quiet charm and extra-dry wit.

So I should not have been surprised, when I opened his memoir, that there were no guns—the Berettas the Mossad used—no tricky little bombs set off by cell phones, no gripping action of any sort. “Man in the Shadows” is indeed an apt title. He remains in the shadows through most of it. He is a man who does not like to call attention to himself. He gives away no secrets to the reader, as though we, his readers, were the enemy and he was being interrogated. Although there are many interesting events and people in the book, there is not enough detail to make the events vivid and gripping.

He is most generous when he talks about his own part in creating Israel’s peace treaty with Jordan and his relationships with King Hussein and his son Prince Hassan. He is also generous but quiet in his scornful attitude toward Shimon Peres. The latter was a political prima donna to the nth degree. Nothing could stop him from putting his foot in his mouth and his finger in everybody else’s pie.

One of Halevy’s most astonishing ideas appears in the last chapter. He makes the point that not all terror organizations are alike. The Al Qaeda brand of terror is in a category by itself. Al Qaeda and its satellites all over the world are not only devoid of territorial ambition, their creed is also detached from territorial interest. They do not wish to conquer this or that country. In fact, according to Halevy, Israel is far down on their list of political aspirations. The destruction of the United States and its way of life, as well as the annihilation of the moderate “infidel” Arab regimes, take precedence over the complete restoration of Palestine to the Palestinians.

Whereas Hamas, Halevy points out, remains a terror organization with a very limited set of aims—the re-acquisition of Palestine and the destruction of the State of Israel. Just as Israel has had business with Hamas in the past—their leaders have had dialogs with Israelis, Israeli journalists have interviewed them—Halevy believes that a time may come when they may have to accept a working relationship with the outside world and Israel.

About Hizbollah Halevy is not as hopeful, but points out that its aims are not as diabolical and universal as those of Al Qaeda. It is Shiite and oriented only toward regional territorial interests, even though unlike Hamas, it has attacked its enemies outside of Palestine.

Now here is Halevy’s astonishing idea. An example of thinking outside the box from a man who has been fighting Israel’s enemies since 1961 as an intelligence officer and as head of Mossad for several years:

“….the Hizbollah will have to renounce much more than Hamas if it wishes its dreams of respectablitiy to come true….There can be no doubt that if conditions were created to enable two such groups to join the United States, the European Union, and Israel to engage Al Qaeda within the Muslim world, they could play a singular role in confronting the threat from within. These views might seem, at present , entirely in the realm of fantasy, but the events of the last few years have stretched the limits of imagination as never before.

“I do not think these are ideal options and the two examples just mentioned are by no means any near-perfect potential partners. Yet there is never an ideal situation and no partners are ever perfect matches….

“Hamas and possibly the Hizbollah are only two examples of the type of partner that the free world may be constrained to seek if it wishes to win the war against terror, international Muslim fundamentalist terror. In order to reach the desired goal, the free world will have to seek similar alliances in other regions. There will be hard bargains to drive, but in the final analysis, was it not a hard bargain to enlist the Taliban and bin Laden in a supreme effort to oust the Soviets from Afghanistan and to hand them a resounding defeat that contributed to the demise of the Soviet Empire? Is the game of nations not one where each side chooses between tough alternatives, only to find itself exchanging sides when the ally of yesterday is the sworn enemy of today? We will be obliged to sup with the devil, but we must beware at all times that he does not poison our chalice.”

It was only fifteen years ago that Saddam Hussein was confronting “…the Shiite revolutionary hurricane emanating from Iran. Hussein was then the savior of the moderate Arab world and the vital interests of the United States in the region….Fifteen years ago, Washington was celebrating its victory over the Soviet Union and the ultimate demise of the Soviet Empire with the Taliban and bin Ladenas miniheroes of a fifty-year-old Cold War won at last. And now—quo vadis?”

May 20, 2006

IS ORIGINAL SIN SEXUAL? HORSEFEATHERS SAYS COULD BE

Horsefeathers has been rightfully challenged by its readers on the editorial liberty it took when it referred to the tree of “Sexual Knowledge” in a recent posting. The reference was not relevant to the central point of the posting but because it caught the eyes of several friendly readers Horsefeathers feels compelled to explain its view on this interesting matter.

First we believe that part of the tradition of Biblical scholarship entails the notion that the Bible is characterized by ambiguous and contrary statements. And this accounts for the wealth of various conflicting interpretations—interpretations which have been carried down through the centuries.

Secondly, the whole episode which led to Adam and Eve being kicked out of the Garden of Eden seems to refer to sexual issues throughout. Before they taste the fruit of the tree Adam and Eve appear to be innocent and the main sign of their innocence is their freedom from shame in their nakedness. In fact it is their shame—their hiding—that gives their transgression away to God. Their shame also requires them to hide their genitals from God and each other with aprons. If this doesn’t suggest sexually conflicted feelings I don’t know what does.

Thirdly, how does God punish Eve for her transgression? By inflicting on her a punishment that is related to sexual congress: “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children….”

Lastly, the noun knowledge and the verb to know have more than one meaning in the Bible. In Genesis 4:1 one finds “And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain….”

But Horsefeathers believes also that there is much room for disagreement in the world of the Bible.

May 19, 2006

LET'S END THE 'PHONY WAR'

"The prospect of being hanged in a fortnight", said Dr. Johnson, "concentrates the mind wonderfully." Apparently the good Doctor erred. But then again, who could have anticipated the Post-Modern Western mind, with its ability to deny reality and rewrite the past? Here's the latest from Iran:

"...Iranian expatriates living in Canada yesterday confirmed reports that the Iranian parliament, called the Islamic Majlis, passed a law this week setting a dress code for all Iranians, requiring them to wear almost identical "standard Islamic garments."

The law, which must still be approved by Iran's "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenehi before being put into effect, also establishes special insignia to be worn by non-Muslims.

Iran's roughly 25,000 Jews would have to sew a yellow strip of cloth on the front of their clothes, while Christians would wear red badges and Zoroastrians would be forced to wear blue cloth..."

So while Hitler's project continues, under the banner of the Religion of Peace, what is the West doing? Pretending to be at peace with Iran while its diplomats meet over drinks and dinner at the Four Seasons. Instead of concentrating its collective mind, to deal with the threat, it is trying to find the right food for the crocodiles. We're acting as if this is a 'phony war'---like the period from October 1939-April 1940, when, after the initial German invasion of Poland, the nations settled into a lull in the fighting, what the British press called a "sitzkrieg". Our very own Hitler wannabe, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, may be nuts, but he correctly understands these endless diplomatic ditherings as cowardly indications of weakness, and responds accordingly.: "...Your incentives are definitely not more valuable than nuclear technology...How dare you tell our people to give up its gold in return for chocolate...?".

The clock is ticking and no Churchill can be discerned. It's the 1930's, but this time a religious fanatic is about to acquire nuclear weapons. Reasoning with such a man is as useful as discussing quantum chromodynamics with my Bichon. Unlike my dog, for whom the prospect of a treat will cause her to behave gratefully, even listen attentively to whatever I wish to discuss, Mr. Ahmadinejad, possesses no such social deference when it comes to infidels. He's the leader of a global Jihad whose goal is to annihilate the Western infidel nations in the name of Muhammad. It is time to treat him, and Iran like dangerously rabid dogs.

Horsefeathers does remember the past, and not just the era of appeasement, the 'low dishonest decade' of the 30's. We also remember Harry Truman and the dropping of the A-bomb. (See earlier post here) We have had 61 years of peaceful relations with Japan since they surrendered. We would therefore tell the Iranians that planes are in the air headed towards Tehran, ready to drop atomic bombs, unless the Iranians immediately agree to halt their nuclear program and to turn their ongoing weapons program over to the United States. We would add that we will not limit ourselves to targeting their weapons programs. We will attack their oilfield facilities in order to utterly destroy their economy and their potential to make war. Whatever that does to the world price of oil, we're prepared to live with it and make the necessary sacrifices in order to remove this gathering danger.

If not now, when?

May 14, 2006

NEW YORK TIMES EDITORS YEARN FOR PARADISE

During the A.M. Rosenthal epoch of the New York Times, the editorials were written by serious, educated people—mostly white, middle class men—who had transcended their adolescence, concurred in a set of Western values that had stood the test of time, knew what was important and who they were.

The Times has indeed changed. Its editorials seem to be written by ignorant, feckless people, barely out of their jeans and sandals and still in the sway of a social-political fantasy of paradise.
Ever since Adam and Eve got kicked out of Eden for eating the forbidden fruit from the tree of sexual knowledge and for that reason cursed by God to earn “thy bread by the sweat of thy brow,” some of mankind has engaged in a juvenile struggle to re-find Paradise, where one would never have to work, where it would be possible to sit all day in the neighborhood Starbucks fooling around online while sipping their lattes and answering their hotmail. All play—no work.

So it was that one of the little boobies they let write editorials for the Times now that Abe Rosenthal is gone, decided to celebrate the world of the Nukak tribe last Saturday: “Perhaps you read yesterday’s article about members of the Nukak tribe…who walked out of the Colombian jungle and renounced their ancestral ways….According to witnesses, they say they are happy about it….None of which explain the bittersweet feel this story leaves in the reader’s [the editorial writer’s] mind….We have no clearer idea what it would mean to live a subsistence life in the Colombian jungle than the Nukak have of living even on the fringes of the modern world. [Only, little booby, if you have no intelligent imagination or sense enough to get some anthropological information, so readily available on the internet. See, presumably the difference between you, and them is that you are supposed to be educated.]….it’s hard to escape the feeling that their SELF-SUSTAINING EXISTENCE…WAS HOLDING SOMETHING OPEN FOR US, SOMETHING THAT HAS NOW BEEN LOST.”

Ah, the romance of the “bittersweet” life of the “self-sustaining existence!” Paradise regained, eh? Breadfruit dropping from the trees; fresh, silvery, fish jumping out of the sea into the waiting pan; the beautiful, brown skinned Gauguin women in their colorful sarongs—what a life awaits. Oh, yes, the “self-sustaining existence!”
Horsefeathers will tell you what it’s like, editorial writer, if you don’t have the smarts to get the information yourself.

Let’s assume that you are a boy editorial writer and you wake up one morning in the Colombian rain forest as part of the Nukak tribe. You’ve gotten your wish. It’s true that you don’t have to worry about that $600,000 mortgage anymore. Your new home is whatever you can see before your eyes—roots, vines, trees, lizards—all mortgage free. You won’t have to worry about whether social security will last until you turn 65, because you won’t turn 65. The elders of the tribe rarely get to be older than their forties—extinguished by malaria, fatal accidents while racing through the jungle after tonight’s dinner, and sometimes eaten by a family of crocodiles while fishing.

You don’t have to worry about losing your job anymore. Everyone over the age of twelve in the tribe is employed. In fact in the Nukak tribe life is employment and employment is life. That is all you think about from sunrise until you lay your head on your leafy pillow. There are thirty or forty people in the tribe; more than half are women and children, so you and the ten or fifteen other guys have thirty-five mouths to feed two or three times a day, every day, day in, day out, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year. Except in Nukak land there are no weeks or years, only one same day after another. Sunrise, sunset. There’s no Sports Monday, or Science Tuesday, or Dining Out Wednesday. And certainly no Sunday when you take a day off; or vacations. There is no leisure and thus no such thing as play, or veggeing out, or hanging out.

There is only hunting, mostly small monkeys, and also some chachalacas and toucans. In addition you will enjoy rodents, armadillos, frogs and the weevils of wasps and caterpillars prepared according to the time-honored recipes of the region.

But you can’t just hunt. You have to have weapons with which to hunt. And you can’t just order your blow-gun from the L.L. Bean catalog, you’ve got to make it, and the darts that go into it and the curare that you put on the tips of the darts that paralyze the prey. All of that takes a lot of work and practice before you start bringing home the monkey.

So when you come home from a hard day’s hunting you want a nice hot shower or bath, right? But no one’s ever heard of soap or heating water. Why would you want to heat water, your tribal neighbors ask in amazement. So you go off to find a couple of roots to make a bed between and dream of the old days when you owned a $600,000 mortgage.

But what if our booby editorial writer is a girl editor yearning for a conflict-free paradise. A world free of sexual harassment, ass-hole men coming on to you, glass ceilings, biological clocks ticking. Relief.

So there you are girl editorial writer, a lady Nukak in the Colombian rain forest—your bittersweet self-sustaining existence awaits you.
Now you are really a member of the sisterhood—fifteen or twenty Nukak ladies who take care of a passel of children of all ages even as you are pregnant with your own. Because that is what you do in life from now on. Get pregnant, have babies, nurse babies, take care of children—day in, day out. But just so that you do not feel unfulfilled you also have a career—gathering.

What do you gather? Palm and many other fruits, honey from bees, vegetal fibers to make your hubby’s loin cloth, and stuff like that. It’s largely back-breaking work and even though there’s no glass ceiling here there is no way that you will ever get to be a hunter. The guy Nukaks would laugh you out of the tribe. How could you run after monkeys while you nurse your infant or are pregnant? Maybe you’re sent to the head man of the tribe and he sends you to the head-shrinker who yells at you and tells you to go back to the women’s part of the camp.

Also the men are not very good at small talk with women. They just want to…well, you know what. Just like the guys back at the NY Times. Which by this time is where you wish you were at and hadn’t written that moronic editorial.

And here are two or three monographs about life with the Nukaks in case you boobies are still interested:

CABRERA, Gabriel; Carlos FRANKY y Dany MAHECHA 1999: Los Nukak: nómadas de la Amazonia colombiana; Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Sf. Bogotá D.C.- ISBN 958-8051-35-5

CÁRDENAS, Dairon y Gustavo POLITIS 2000: Territorios, movilidad, etnobotánica y manejo del bosque en los Nukak orientales. Instituto Amazónico de Investigaciones Científicas SINCHI, Bogotá D.C.- ISBN 958-695-035-2

May 12, 2006

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD FOR PRESIDENT--OF THE AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION!

        Horsefeathers finds Liberal aversion to religion---with the politically correct exception of Islam--amusing. This is because we regard contemporary Liberalism as itself a primitive faith, having much in common with Islam. True believers in each are impervious to rational argumentation and become enraged and belligerent when their beliefs are challenged. Their shared craving for power over the lives of their fellow human beings is palpable, as is their fascination with and yearning to submit to tyrants (see Jimmy Carter) or to the will of Allah. Since the true believers in the Church of Liberalism are weak and immature, they enjoy vicarious participation in the power and control wielded by tyrants, hence their affection for Stalin, Mao, Che, Fidel, et.al. Like children they overestimate their strength in order to compensate for their real impotence and lack of intellectual comprehension. Liberals and Islamists share a conviction of their special virtue and benevolence. They're so convinced of their righteousness that it becomes a moral duty to convert or destroy those who disagree. Not for them the modesty or self effacement of the Christian or the Jew or the Buddhist who knows how far short he falls of the ideal life. No need to spell out rational positions when you know you're just smarter, kinder, just a flat out exemplary human being. After all, you're in touch with your feelings, and you know, in the words of the late lefty Reverend, William Sloane Coffin, "The heart is a little to the left."
        In a liberal therapeutic culture, "feelings" supersede rational thought as a measure of authenticity. In Oprahworld, the land of arrested development, feelings are the great equalizer. In the American world of grownups, feelings are valued less-skills, knowledge, individual motivation play a larger role in success and help differentiate people from one another. In the real world we're not all equal. In the realm of feelings, we all have an equal claim on the world's empathy.
        Were it not so serious, Mr. Ahmadinejad's letter would be a laugh out loud funny appropriation of the Western therapeutic mode of thought. At one point it reads like a letter from the President of the American Psychiatric Association, rather than the President of Iran. "For some years now", he writes, "the people of your country and neighbors of world trouble spots do not have peace of mind. After 9.11, instead of healing and tending to the emotional wounds of the survivors and the American people -- who had been immensely traumatized by the attacks -- some Western media only intensified the climate of fear and insecurity -- some constantly talked about the possibility of new terror attacks and kept the people in fear. Is that service to the American people? Is it possible to calculate the damages incurred from fear and panic?" Send in the PTSD therapists! Idiotic as he may seem, how different is this Islamo-nutter from Barbara Streisand and the Hollyweird band of Bush haters? He writes as if he'd just finished a book about getting in touch with your feelings, perhaps written by one of those legendary Islamic "scholars", and decided to reach out and appeal to the American therapist-in-chief. Just like our entertainer celebrities and New York Times Op-Ed columnists, the most idiotic views can be aired, but if they're in service of "feeling" the pain of one or another group, then they must deserve our respect and gratitude.
        Both contemporary Liberals and Islamists believe in what they insist, despite all the evidence, is an achievable vision. Both involve submission of the individual---to sharia law or to the Collective, expressed through such institutions as the EU and the UN. Then human nature will be transcended and peace will reign. Each requires scapegoats--Israel and those Zionist neo-Cons are the most convenient explanations for the failure of utopia ever to arrive.
        No wonder Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's letter reads like it came out of the DNC, filtered through the New York Times editorial board. He, like them, possesses a grandiose sense of his own benevolence, although he sounds a little more willing to forgive and forget, if only the infidel President would submit to Allah. The tone of condescending smugness, however, is identical. Of course, should the President stubbornly resist the benevolent call of Islam, then Jihadi barbarism will be justified. This fits well with the therapeutic stance of liberals, for whom the worst Jihadi savagery is a regrettable, albeit understandable result of early mistreatment, racism and imperialist exploitation. Liberal utopianism, with its vision of a transformed human nature finds a natural ally in Islamo-Fascism. They both require suspension of the critical faculties and submission to clerics---the new Liberal clerisy consisting of the media punditocracy and the liberal arts faculties of our universities. Just like Islamo-fascists, liberal academics demand conformity of thought while proclaiming their virtuous tolerance. So too with elections; the left is all for elections, except when they lose, in which case the election was 'stolen'.
        Where can we find the origins of such primitive belief systems? The clue lies in the childlike modes of thinking they manifest, which resemble the everyday thought processes of the very young. Horsefeathers would therefore call Liberalism and Jihadi Islam religions of arrested development. Adults who adhere to them are grown up versions of those whining kids in the schoolyard who wanted a "do over" when they forgot to swing at a called third strike. They were the kids who blamed their teammate for missing the last shot when they neglected to screen the defender. It was always someone else's fault. They were the ones always demanding a better grade than the one they earned. They were slavish little test takers who, while they might have been verbally adept, were always eager to find out and produce what the teacher wanted. Mathematics and science threatened their narcissistic self-regard and were therefore avoided. Seducing the calculus teacher with your verbal skills was not going to happen, hence our typical wordsmith intellectual knows next to nothing about Science, the greatest cultural achievement of modernity. In short, they never grew up and permanently envy and resent those who did.
        We can understand why contemporary liberals are sorely lacking in patriotism and what we would call, in another age, 'honor'. Why do they manifest so little Americanism---the patriotic conviction, rooted in historical knowledge, of the greatness of this country? Why are they so lacking in gratitude towards the country that has tolerated their whining and rewarded their blubbery movie making and book writing and TV blathering, their efforts to blame everyone but themselves for our problems? It's because they remain those self absorbed children who never got over the hurdle of realizing they were not so special. America is just not as great as they are. It's very painful to anyone to realize the world can get along just fine without them, but for children that's an especially painful blow. In some it leads to growth, in others to permanent resentment. All Islamic countries are stuck at about a 12th century level of intellectual and moral development. They envy and resent America for having left them far behind, while creating a better life for the average individual, and a model for the world. Just as Islam resents us for our achievements in all spheres of human endeavour, so too with contemporary liberals. America does not reward the childhood whiners, the sore losers, the teachers' pets, with its highest honors. It may shower ample material rewards on a Michael Moore, but in its heart of hearts, America knows Michael Moore is the boy who hid behind mommy's skirts, the first to head for the exit door when the fight began. He's the one who, the next time a United 93 is hijacked, will try to ingratiate himself with the terrorists and empathize with their grievances. "No, no, no-let's not roll" will be his plea.
        If sharia law ultimately prevails in America it will be thanks to the shared fantasies of Jihadi Islam and contemporary Liberalism.

May 07, 2006

SOUTH OF THE BORDER, DOWN MEXICO WAY

From the other side of the fence.....This is from Tom
O'Malley, who was a Director with SW BELL in Mexico
City:

"I spent five years working in Mexico. I worked under a tourist
Visa for three months and could legally renew it for three more
months. Working after that, would be working illegally. I was
technically illegal for three weeks, while waiting on the FM3
approval

During that six months, our Mexican and US attorneys were
working to secure a permanent work visa called a FM3. It was
in addition to my US passport, and I had to show it each time I
entered and left the country. My wife, Barbara's, was the same
except hers did not permit her to work.

To apply for the FM3 I needed to submit the following notarized
originals (not copies) of my:

1. Birth certificate for Barbara and me.

2. Marriage certificate.

3. High school transcripts and proof of graduation.

4. College transcripts for every college I attended and
proof of graduation.

5. Two letters of recommendation from supervisors I had
worked for at least one year.

6. A letter from The St. Louis Chief of Police indicating
that I had no arrest record in the US and no outstanding
warrants and was "a citizen in good standing."

7. Finally, I had to write a letter about myself that clearly
stated why there was no Mexican Citizen with my skills
and why my skills were important to Mexico. We called
it our "I am the greatest person on Earth" letter. It was
fun to write.

All of the above were in English that had to be translated
into Spanish and be certified as legal translations and our
signatures notarized. It produced a folder about 1.5 inches
thick with English on the left side and Spanish on the right.

Once they were completed Barbara and I spent about five
hours accompanied by a Mexican attorney. Touring Mexican
Government office locations and being photographed and
fingerprinted at least three times. At each location (we
remember at least four locations) we were instructed on
Mexican tax, labor, housing, and criminal law and that we
were required to obey their laws or face the consequences.
We could not protest any of the Government's actions or
we would be committing a felony. We paid out $4,000 in
fees and bribes to complete the process. When this was
done, we could legally bring in our household goods that
were held by US customs in Laredo Texas. This meant
that we had to rent furniture in Mexico while awaiting our
goods. There were extensive fees involved here, which the
company paid.

We could not buy a home; we were required to rent at
very high rates and under contract and compliance with
Mexican law.

We were required to get a Mexican drivers license. This
was an amazing process. The company arranged for the
licensing agency to come to our headquarters location
with their photography and fingerprint equipment and the
laminating machine. We showed our US license, were
photographed and fingerprinted again and issued the
license instantly after paying out a $6.00 fee. We did not
take a written or driving test and never received instructions
on the rules of the road. Our only instruction was never
give a policeman your license if stopped and asked. We
were instructed to hold it against the inside window away
from his grasp. If he got his hands on it you would have to
pay ransom to get it back.

We then had to pay and file Mexican income tax annually
using the number of our FM3 as our ID number. The company's
Mexican accountants did this for us and we just signed what
they prepared. It was about twenty legal size pages annually.
The FM 3 was good for three years and renewable for two
more after paying more fees.

Leaving the country meant turning in the FM# and certifying
that we were leaving no debts behind and no outstanding
legal affairs (warrants, tickets or liens) before our household
goods were released to customs.

It was a real adventure! If any of the US Senators or
Congressman had to go through it once, they would have a
different attitude toward Mexico.

The Mexican Government uses its vast military and police
forces to keep its citizens intimidated and compliant. They
never protest at their White house or government offices but
do protest daily in front of the United States Embassy. The
US embassy looks like a strongly reinforced fortress and
during most protests the Mexican Military surround the block
with their men standing shoulder to shoulder in full riot gear
to protect the Embassy. These protests are never shown on US
or Mexican TV. There is a large public park across the street
where they do their protesting. Anything can cause a protest
such as proposed law changes in California or Texas."

"RAIN OF RUIN"

        As Horsefeathers was ruefully contemplating, in the wake of the Moussauoi verdict, our lawyerly and psychotherapeutic way of dealing with Jihadis, a friend reminded us of Harry Truman's approach to fanatical enemies. Note the intention to instill fear in our enemies and the absence of concern for their childhood deprivations or their victims-of-racism status.

        Shortly after receiving news of the successful testing of an atom bomb, Truman addressed the Japanese: "Let there be no mistake," he declared publicly, "we shall completely destroy Japan's power to make war. If they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air the like of which has never been seen on this earth.""
        After delivering what he promised at Hiroshima, Truman declared: "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base.That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians. But that attack is only a warning of things to come. If Japan does not surrender, bombs will have to be dropped on her war industries and, unfortunately, thousands of civilian lives will be lost.Having found the bomb we have used it. We have used it against those who attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbor, against those who have starved and beaten and executed American prisoners of war, against those who have abandoned all pretense of obeying international laws of warfare. We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans.We shall continue to use it until we completely destroy Japan's power to make war. Only a Japanese surrender will stop us."
       Truman could speak of righteous vengeance towards our enemies because he spoke for a confident nation, proud and determined to win at whatever the cost. There are no Trumans or Churchills today because we are in the midst of a cultural civil war between the feminized Ivy League elite wordsmith class and the descendants of Truman. So far the wimps are winning.

Posted at 03:09 PM by Stephen
Link • Culture • Comments (1) • Email This Post

May 06, 2006

THE NEW YORK TIMES ANTI-AMERICAN AGENDA: BOOK REVIEW DEPARTMENT

        Sufferers from BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) will enjoy their Sunday NYTimes. Nadine Gordimer uses a review of Philip Roth's latest novel to assure us that President Bush is not quite Hitler, and America is not quite the third Reich. Readers, expecting a fairminded appraisal of Roth's newest novel, instead will read a paean to a literary God. It's almost embarrasing to read Ms. Gordimer, performing on Roth the literary equivalent of Monica's services for Bill. Suddenly we understand why. In the middle of the review, Ms. Gordimer turns away from the immediate subject to remind us that Mr. Roth has recently written a timeless masterpiece, or in her own words a "superbly matchless work":
"...His superbly matchless work, "The Plot Against America," has the power of political fantasy moving out of literature into the urgent possibilities of present-day reality. With that novel he conveyed the Then in the Now. Hero-worship of Charles Lindbergh makes it feasible that he becomes president of the United States, despite his admiring embrace of Hitler; Bush never embraced Nazis, but the enthusiasm he elicits, through instilling fear in Americans who voted him into power and whose sons have come back in body bags along with the gruesome images of Iraqi dead, is no fantasy. And Lindbergh's anti-Semitism foreshadows the fundamentalisms that beset us in 2006..." We don't recall Ms. Gordimer ever uttering a peep about Iraqi dead when Saddam was using poison gas on his subjects. Nor do we recall Ms. Gordimer rushing to the defense of fellow artists threatened with beheading--or actually beheaded-- by practitioners of the Religion of Peace. The 'fundamentalism' she is concerned with is Christian fundamentalism. Of course, it never occurs to Ms.Gordimer that she is herself a devout true believer. Her manichean faith is the utopian socialist faith whose saints are beyond reproach. Her devils are the evil Bush supporters who refuse to submit to the utopian fantasies of the left.
        It is a remarkable feat of narcissism to pursue the novelist's profession. While many may have the fantasy of writing the Great Novel that will change the world, few possess the self-flattering conviction that the world should and will stop in its tracks, fork out hard earned money and read a piece of fantastical writing. Writers, more than any group, except possibly movie stars, or advertising executives, spend almost as much time in self praise and flattery of their friends, as in actual writing. No surprise then, that they can make the most absurd assertions that would be dismissed if made by a 6 year old, and still be taken seriously. Thanks for the review, Ms. Gordimer. Horsefeathers will take a pass on this one.

Posted at 08:52 PM by Stephen
Link • Culture • Comments (1) • Email This Post

AMERICAN DHIMMITUDE AT THE WORLD CUP

United States team bus to show no flag
FRANKFURT, Germany (AP) - The official team bus to be used by the United States during the World Cup will not bear a flag for security reasons...The 32 official buses were presented Thursday in Frankfurt and the other 31 buses have large national flags of their teams painted on rear sides.

Posted at 07:00 AM by Stephen
Link • Culture • Comments (0) • Email This Post

May 02, 2006

WAR AS SOCIAL WORK

Horsefeathers has been critical of the way our officer corps has waged World War IV. It has been too gentle, as though our Generals had gone to social work school instead of learning the arts of war. Where are the warriors- the Pattons, the Doolittles, the McAuliffes? Now Shelby Steele explains our minimalist form of warfare and its risks. This is warfare as social work:

"...The collapse of white supremacy -- and the resulting white guilt -- introduced a new mechanism of power into the world: stigmatization with the evil of the Western past. And this stigmatization is power because it affects the terms of legitimacy for Western nations and for their actions in the world. In Iraq, America is fighting as much for the legitimacy of its war effort as for victory in war. In fact, legitimacy may be the more important goal. If a military victory makes us look like an imperialist nation bent on occupying and raping the resources of a poor brown nation, then victory would mean less because it would have no legitimacy. Europe would scorn. Conversely, if America suffered a military loss in Iraq but in so doing dispelled the imperialist stigma, the loss would be seen as a necessary sacrifice made to restore our nation's legitimacy. Europe's halls of internationalism would suddenly open to us.

Because dissociation from the racist and imperialist stigma is so tied to legitimacy in this age of white guilt, America's act of going to war can have legitimacy only if it seems to be an act of social work -- something that uplifts and transforms the poor brown nation (thus dissociating us from the white exploitations of old). So our war effort in Iraq is shrouded in a new language of social work in which democracy is cast as an instrument of social transformation bringing new institutions, new relations between men and women, new ideas of individual autonomy, new and more open forms of education, new ways of overcoming poverty -- war as the Great Society.."
See the rest here.

Posted at 07:34 AM by Stephen
Link • • Comments (0) • Email This Post

<< Back to Horsefeathers