IRATENINJA.COM

An Irate-Nation.com Project

Pelosi Invests in Iran

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has disclosed that she holds stock valued at up to $15,000 in Alcatel-Lucent (formerly Alcatel SA), a company with extensive investments in Iran and Sudan — nations that sponsor terrorism.

The disclosure of Pelosi’s holdings comes at the same time that legislation is making its way through the California legislature barring state pension fund managers from investing in companies, like Alcatel-Lucent, that do business with “terror-friendly” nations.

Read more here: newsmax.com

Filed under: american politics, anti-american, anti-americanism, Democrats, Double Standards, foreign policy, Iran, Liberal, liberal agenda, liberalism, News, Terrorist, Uncategorized

This Is Probably Why I Get German Girls, But the Relationship Doesn’t Last

Some common sense from Der Speigel that is a quick, interesting read.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Filed under: anti-americanism, foreign policy

Does Technology Necessitate Changes In the Nature of Politics?

Note: Despite my criticisms of Speaker Gingrich, I endorse him 100% for President – I feel he is the only person even remotely qualified for the job among potential candidates. There will be more criticism soon; the “reading list” he put forward recently for Americans is pretty awful.

The British arrest terrorists plotting to bring down ten airliners in one day over the Atlantic. One of the arrested couples planned to use their eight month old baby to hide the bomb material as baby milk. We have no comprehension of the ferocity and savagery we are facing when a mother will kill her own eight month old baby in order to kill us.

- Newt Gingrich, “Address to AIPAC

If two or three cities are destroyed because of terrorism both the US and Israel’s democracy will be eroded and both will become greater dictatorial societies…. The terrorist threats are larger and more formidable than the political system in Israel or the US can cope with…. We lack the language and goals to address the new environment along with the speed and intensity to counter the contemporary threats. If we have no strategy we will need to be intellectually honest to consider the next step once two cities have been destroyed.

- Newt Gingrich, “Remarks to the Herzliya Conference

Every constitution is a comment on what man’s nature is; each one attempts to state what is Good and prescribe how it may be achieved. Following Locke in the Second Treatise, we “join in society with others… for the mutual preservation of [our] lives, liberties and estates.” But that is our “society,” our ordering oriented towards the Good, which is for us life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness: not every ordering values liberty or the individual determination of happiness as much. Tribal politics, for example, seems to take at its basis a communal notion of the good; liberty for some is subordinate to ritual which makes the community more sensitive to each other and posits simpler things as the basis of unity.

Now I seem to be dismissive of what Speaker Gingrich is alluding to in his thought, as I seem to be saying there are more permanent tendencies and manifestations of man’s nature which define politics. He seems to be saying that situations define the politics one uses: the implication of his wanting to develop “urban technologies,” described in his words below -

The US, Israel and the West have not developed technologies to command urban spaces similar to the sophisticated technologies applied to air and sea-power. Urban technologies have not developed extensively since the 1940’s, unlike that of air and sea. Similarly intelligence capabilities must be advanced and sufficiently integrated to contribute to bettering our urban capabilities.

- the implication is that people as resources are the key to these “technologies” – these are less about having killing machines as much as making each of us information gatherers and perhaps even killing machines ourselves. The implication about the enemy is that they are defined by the technologies they use, i.e. “suicide bombers” can be said to make people literal parts of the bomb.

The threat we face is very grave right now, and I would be lying to you if I told you there were easy solutions. But I would also be lying to you if I told you that orienting ourselves towards our security only would fix everything: I firmly believe that when we conservatives wanted to win the Cold War at all costs, we neglected what the Left was doing to our schools, and we are still in a similar reactionary mode, where the knowledge needed to maintain and preserve the peace is unknown to us.

People can become tools, and politics can be severely lowered in dignity when that happens, and create a cycle where people are continually lowered in dignity (i.e. notice how slavery in the South made slaves and slaveowners less – Fredrick Douglass and Lincoln both have arguments regarding this phenomenon). But that implies technology cannot change the nature of politics, because it is the falling away from the political that is characteristic of man making himself or others a tool only: in other words, the ideas used to define a political realm specify exactly when a body politic is going to pieces.

What I do not like about Speaker Gingrich’s formulation regarding these problems is the implication that something perhaps structural has to change (i.e. we need more experts and centralization or privatization to fix the problems). I actually think the remedy to many of our ills is Constitutional – since the President is a lightning rod for criticism, and the Executive is far weaker than the Legislative branch (which, through demagoguery like the War Powers Act and idiocy like making a fuss over lawyers fired) and the Judicial branch (which seems beyond reproach nowadays), why not just assert that an intelligent foreign policy can be only conducted when separation of powers and checks and balances are taken more seriously? After all, if that happens, one will get a stronger Executive that can plan and take care of these problems, and while we as citizens can help out with our security, we need not obsess over it. Freedom from fear is a pretty important freedom, especially when fear alone threatens to destroy self-rule. And the biggest fear I have right now is an attempted structural change when a simple return to the Founding principles would work.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Powered by ScribeFire.

Filed under: american politics, foreign policy, National Security, newt gingrich, War On Terror

Someone who cares for freedom and his nation rather deeply…

…I often wonder how exactly love of country and love of liberty coincide. Strauss hints that this is one of the major themes of Machiavelli in Thoughts on Machiavelli, and rather than get into a large rant about how seriously/not seriously we should take this theme, I’d rather just point us to an article about someone where that merger seems to be very apparent nowadays. Perhaps the relation between the two is that of self-government, and perhaps the way chess does relate to life is that one is free to see possibilities, plan, and enjoy oneself the whole time.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Powered by ScribeFire.

Filed under: foreign policy

Bleak and Thoughtful About Iraq? How About Positive, But Not Artificially Pumped

This book sounds good, but I don’t really want to read it.

What I want to hear is not merely that we’re doing the “noble” thing in Iraq. I want to hear that this is going to work, and truth be told, I think it is – the second we had that election and everyone had those purple thumbs and were thrilled to be voting despite the fact they could have been massacred – that was when the terrorists could get bloody and spectacular and still, they were going to lose.

But while that’s what I think, the truth is that the “noble” and the “beautiful” – well, those things aren’t always tied to the “effective.” Right now I think we’re getting a big kick out of “300″ because we just want to fall in love with the idea of having guts for the sake of our liberty, no matter how awfully things might end up. And I’m glad we’re falling in love with what is “noble,” but I’m especially glad about it as things seem to be going better over there.

One thing I’m noticing is that while we don’t need to get all gung-ho for things to work, we don’t need exact details either to see that things are better. There really is a “common sense” that we have – when we see something as valuable, and worth fighting for, we can pick up on the little things that demonstrate the good we’re doing, and help us eliminate the bad. Things are better in Iraq because of the new strategy, which really should have been the old one: go into the neighborhood, and do things for individuals, and let them know that all of us are human, not monsters who exist to destroy everything or fighters who exist only to kill those monsters or bureaucrats who live in a realm of policy debates and conferences.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Filed under: foreign policy, Iraq, Support The Troops, War On Terror

“Finish The Job” By Miles Gray

By Miles Gray – I have been against the action in Iraq from day one. However, now that we have created a mess in that country, it is our responsibility to solve the problems we created.

If we don’t, then the haven for terrorists ( that didn’t exist before) will come into being.

While it is not likely that the religious factions will ever unify, one or the other will become dominant. Whether that faction be friendly to us is yet to be seen.

Tiny Earp should understand that the God of Islam is the same God we worship!

The Jews often seem anxious to prove that Christ was only a good man nothing else. At least Islam recognizes Christ as a prophet of God and that Mohammed is the lastest prophet of God and the one to now be followed.

As for John Q. Adams,any man who has fought for this country understands exactly what his words mean. Maybe its time to shake up Washington and congress.

Retyped as printed from the Odessa American News paper dated Sunday, March 18, 2007

To: editor, Odessa American, P.O. Box 2952, Odessa, Texas 79760-2952. Letters may be faxed to 432-333-7742. E-mailed: oaletters@link.freedom.com

All submissions to the paper must include the author’s name, address, and phone number.

Thanks Di

Filed under: Christian, conservative, foreign policy, Iraq, Jesus, Military, Muslim, Terrorist, War On Terror

Regarding the Presidency: The Question of Qualification (part 2)

Part 1 ended up emphasizing foreign policy experience of a particular sort, and downplaying rhetorical skills and to some degree even the skills one gets in management/executive positions.

Now that last post had the advantage of being grounded in historical observations and the question of America’s place in the world. This post is far more speculative, and I realize the last one was pretty speculative too.

So let’s just cut to the key question: What should the President be knowledgeable about, aside from the actual experiences he might have had running things before?

Our temptation is probably to say, “Well, he needs to know Economics, otherwise how is he going to deal with our economic growth and know when trade deals are good and bad. He probably should also be conversant with how law works. He does need to know history, and he probably should be aware of what our military is capable of, and what it isn’t, and what its needs are…”

The trouble with bringing up knowledge of law and economics is that such knowledge can go two ways: nowadays, the way the fields are taught, it is knowledge of very particular things being given so that way one can do things with that knowledge. In other words, it’s about utility, and utility is always contingent on very specific things that could change. So that kind of reasoning collapses very quickly into “he needs to know everything about every issue in every field relevant to his job in order to make a decision.” (Note what we mean when we say “he should have experts advise.” We’re saying it would be best if he knew absolutely everything, but since that’s not possible, we’re going to try to get him such knowledge whenever possible).

More theoretical knowledge about law and economics in the broadest sense (i.e. “How does a law reflect a community’s values,” or even the Marxist question “Does economics determine all human history”) is gone now. No one studies it – the only candidate in the race even aware of such things is Newt Gingrich, who was a professor of political science.

The funny thing is that our greatest President, a self-taught man who read Cicero and Shakespeare in his spare time, did have that more theoretical knowledge. The understanding of this nation and rule of law in the Gettysburg Address is not terribly technical, but it isn’t just rhetoric disconnected from higher sorts of knowledge.

The thing is, President Bush has his MBA from Harvard. And I don’t think he’s been a bad President, but I do think his training hasn’t allowed him to come to grips with how nasty a climate there is against him. I don’t think he’s been able to transcend DC’s pettiness and really appeal to the American people, because his training probably makes him think his role is connected with the bureaucracy. And it is, and it isn’t. The bureaucracy in Washington will outlast him: most of the people in charge of the FCC and stuff will be there long after the two terms are done being served.

His training has been relevant to the job in accidental ways: he understands he shouldn’t micromanage. He understands there are issues where he represents the nation as a whole (foreign policy) and those are his chief concern. He understands that he sets a vision and tone for an organization (I am very grateful to him for the Mexico City policy still).

But that last word I used – “organization” – is the problem. A President has to understand America in a sense, and what he thinks American life is about. For FDR, it was standing with the UK against fascism of all sorts. American life was not about populist tyrannies that wholly embraced the future. For Truman, same thing. For Jefferson, it was about people truly governing themselves (that’s why the Louisiana Purchase was such a problem – it was less about self-governance, and more about expansion. The literal expansion of America means that controls that are more imperial and less democratic have to be put in place). For Lincoln, it was about the fact that true freedom doesn’t involve hurting another, but helping others. For Nixon, it was about making peace while the world grew up: our order was excellent, and the trick was to not let the world collapse into a “war to end all wars” scenario like the Two World Wars, and allow us to enjoy our freedom while not allowing tyranny to empower itself outside our borders.

I think you see now what I’m getting at in terms of an education: it isn’t enough to have values. Everyone has values. The trick is to be able to articulate the pros and cons of your values, and understand that there are always trade-offs. The trouble with Senators is that they’re absolutely right about everything in their minds, and education is about crafting pretty speeches. Compromise is purely formal with them. The trouble with Governors and Mayors are that they rule too absolutely, and may never see the problems that taking a stance on anything involves. Education with them is about knowing everything, because if they can micromanage something and get success out of it, they’re considered successful.

Foreign policy expertise is an education of another sort, though: it is an education in the raw exercise of power being used against you. People will lie to your face consistently in the international arena if they can get away with it: there is nothing analogous to this in domestic politics – it’s too tame: rigged elections make a few bitter, but are looked as a joke of sorts at the local level.

So when looking to see what a candidate has learned, I’m looking to see if they have a knowledge of their own values, and aren’t just saying things to appease one group and then another. While politicians do have things they stand strongly for – they are true believers, some of them – “knowledge of value” is a very different issue. Whoever we elect to this job has to have a vision for America, has to be able to see the bigger issues, for he represents America in a world where there is no literal higher authority. He must be cognizant of the greater good, then, from within.

powered by performancing firefox

Filed under: elections, foreign policy, newt gingrich, Presidency

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.