Black and White Reigns

 Email This Post

Andrew Klavan, an award-winning author of mystery novels, wrote a brilliant op-ed piece in The Wall Street Journal (7/25/08) in which he stated exactly what I believe. 

He pointed out that liberal Hollywood films about the war on terror (In the Valley of Elah, Rendition, and Redacted) have all failed, largely because they propose to make the actions and philosophies of terrorists and coalition forces moral “equivalents,” because they disrespect the military, and “seem unable to distinguish the difference between America and Islamo-fascism.”  These films depict “good” guys as indistinguishable from “bad” guys, ultimately “denigrating the very heroes who defend us.”

Klavan points out that the big blockbuster The Dark Knight, is a conservative movie about the war, like 300 before it, and these films value morality, faith, self-sacrifice and the nobility of fighting for the right.  Liberal, ultimately anti-American, films are realistic and direct, while conservative, pro-values films are usually fantasies using comic-inspired heroes (Lord of the Rings, The Chronicles of Narnia, Spiderman 3).

What makes the real world difficult is that “good” guys must defend values in a world that does not universally embrace them, and that puts “good” guys in the awful position of sometimes having to be intolerant, unkind, and brutal in order to ultimately defend the “good” values we love.

As a psychotherapist, I talk to people on the air every day who try to keep out of the way of conflict, confrontation, and judgment, so they will be liked and seen as “good” guys.  I remind them that “good” guys risk, and sometimes cross the line, to stand between evil and the innocent who need protection from the few.

Instead, as Klavan points out, “When heroes arise who take those difficulties on themselves, it is tempting for the rest of us to turn our backs on them, to vilify them in order to protect our own appearance of righteousness.  We prosecute and execute the violent soldier or the cruel interrogator in order to parade ourselves as paragons of the peaceful values they preserve.”

That means that sometimes good men have to kill (”murder” is to kill an innocent) to preserve life; that sometimes they must violate values in order to maintain those values.  That’s just a fact of real life in which good and evil have always co-existed.

Fear Tactics and Free Speech

 Email This Post

Two year ago, a Danish journalist/cartoonist gave his political opinion with a newspaper cartoon that depicted a caricature of Muhammed, and there were death threats and rioting by those who described themselves as “offended.”  The cartoonist was arrested on charges of discrimination against Muslims.

A Paris court also handed down a $23,325 fine against Brigitte Bardot, the former screen sex symbol and current animal rights campaigner.  She was also ordered to pay $1,555 in damages to MRAP, a prominent French “anti-racist” group which filed a lawsuit over a letter she published in her animal rights foundation newsletter and which she also had sent to then-Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy.  Evidently, she had criticized the Muslim feast of Aid-el-Kebir, which is celebrated by the slaughtering of sheep, and had expressed her concern that Muslim laws were beginning to dominate French culture and jurisprudence. French anti-racism laws prevent the incitement of hatred and discrimination on racial and/or religious grounds.  Bardot had previously been convicted four times for “inciting racial hatred.”  Her attorney said, “She is tired of this type of proceeding.  She has the impression that people want to silence her.” No kidding.

English courts are now becoming a popular destination for libel suits against American authors.  The cases have largely been brought against American writers and scholars for criticizing Islam or “naming names” of those who appear to support and fund terrorism.  To avoid costly litigation, some American publishers are withdrawing the publication of those books.  Unlike in American law, in Britain, the burden of proof in libel cases is on the author, since British law considers the disputed information as false until proven true. 

Here in the United States, Senators Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Joseph Lieberman (Ind/D-CT) have introduced the Free Speech Protection Act of 2008, which bars U.S. courts from enforcing libel judgments issued in foreign courts against U.S. residents, if the speech would not be libelous under American law.  The bill also permits American authors and publishers to countersue if the material is protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution.  This legislation wouldn’t protect those who recklessly or maliciously print false information, but it would ensure that Americans are held to and protected by American standards.

According to Specter and Lieberman as quoted in The Wall Street Journal (7/14/08):
 “The 1964 Supreme Court decision in NY Times vs. Sullivan established that journalists must be free to report on newsworthy events unless they recklessly or maliciously publish falsehoods.  At that time, opponents of civil rights were filing libel suits to silence news organizations that exposed state officials’ refusal to enforce federal civil rights laws.  Now we are engaged in another great struggle - this time against Islamic terror - and again, the enemies of freedom seek to silence free speech.  Our legislation will help ensure that they do not succeed.”

The anti-free speech forces have accomplished a lot in Europe and in our own universities (with their tyranny of the “politically correct”).  This is the time to draw that line in the sand.

Where’s NOW When You Really Need Them?

 Email This Post

According to the Associated Press (February 1, 2008), remote-controlled explosives strapped to two mentally retarded women detonated in a coordinated attack on Baghdad pet bazaars on Friday, killing at least 73 people.  The women had Down Syndrome.  Considering the explosives were detonated by remote control, they probably were completely unaware that they were to be used as human bombs.  The attacks were most likely the work of Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Associated Press records show that since the start of the war, at least 151 people have been killed in about 17 attacks by female suicide bombers.  Involving women in fighting violates cultural taboos in Iraq, but Al-Qaeda in Iraq is recruiting females to perform suicide attacks because militants are increasingly desperate for volunteers.  Women in Iraq wear the long black overgarments called abayas, and can avoid searches at checkpoints, because men are not allowed to search them, and there aren’t enough female guards.  This is an obvious “PC” mistake - this is war, and such proprieties need to be put by the wayside, because people are being murdered.

I wish NOW (the National Organization for Women) would spend less time on rants assuring women that murdering the babies in their bodies is some kind of noble “right,” and spend their time in the Middle East, protecting women from being used as cannon fodder.

A Lesson From The Massacre At Virginia Tech

 Email This Post

     I am “the proud mother of a deployed American paratrooper,” and because of that fact I have, perhaps, a unique perspective on the massacre at Virginia Tech.  
     As a mother I, of course, thought about how horrendous this whole nightmare is to the families of the victims as well as all the emotional damage to the survivors.  From listening to the reports on this heinous occurrence, I heard repeatedly that the shooter had to reload several times and went from classroom to classroom.  As a military mom, I immediately wished that our young people had the same obligation and experience that all young folks in Israel have: two years of military training and service.  Those reloading and trolling periods were windows of opportunity that only young folks trained militarily would have been able to use to subdue or terminate the perp and save many lives. Continue reading A Lesson From The Massacre At Virginia Tech…

What Kind Of Creeps Would Burn In Effigy A U.S. Soldier?

 Email This Post

I got an e-mail recently which just about made me throw up. I don’t throw up easily. I like to keep what’s inside of me there, unless it’s supposed to leave, but this pretty much almost put me over the edge, because my baby’s over there.This is from Kathleen. She says:I hope you inform your listeners about the anti-war protestors in Portland who burned in effigy a United States soldier. I can’t even find the words that would be printable to describe how I feel. Well, I have the words, but let me finish her letter: