US Politicians Smell Frenchy

March 9, 2003 | PretzeLogic

[PretzeLogic]

There is no group more duplicitous than French politicians save US politicians.  There is no group more obviously so than US Democrats.  The loyal opposition, as they like to be called, have recently eliminated any threat that they may calmly reason with those whom they oppose.  Their recent demands for unilateral negotiations with North Korea and arrogant assertions of fraud by the current Administration are proof enough.  A closer look at their pretzel logic is good for a laugh though.

Constitution: Nobody Reads It No How:

Representative Jackson-Lee of Texas , in a floor speech on March 6, 2003 says, “Why not take up the offer of leaders of government, heads of religious organizations doing an intense negotiations to extract Mr. Saddam Hussein out of there? Do we not recognize that we can be strong in diplomacy?”  From the context of the speech, she seems to be suggesting that the Congress usurp the President’s authority and send certain religious leaders (read “Jesse Jackson”) and leaders of government (read “anyone but those authorized by the constitution”) to threaten intense diplomacy.  Ooh, scary.

It is easy to see how Rep. Jackson-Lee and Rev. Jackson might get on the Iraqi all news satellite network and lead the Iraqi people to boy-cot Sadam’s public execution and torture channel.  How could Baghdad Today resist a quote from Jackson or Clinton calling for Sadam to immediately apologize to all of his rape victims.

Surely, nothing could be more absurd.

Bi-Cameral, Unilateral, Multiculturalism:

Senator Ted Kennedy, in a bold second face, co-sponsored the ‘Cultural Bridges Act of 2002’ that supports public funding of private religious education of high school students.  In his website, kennedy.senate.gov, Senator Kennedy wrote, “The United States is better off working with the international community, rather than unilaterally, in dealing with the threat Hussein poses”.  On the same page he declares, “If we address the problem directly, by teaching American values to young people from the Islamic world, we have a chance, in the long run, of changing negative attitudes”. 

It seems odd that the Senator would want to teach “American values” to young people of the “Islamic World”.  That would not be multilateral or multicultural.  It seems more likely that he would teach “World values”.  If that is what he meant, then he would have to decide which world the values would come from: the third world, western world, Islamic world?  Once the world was identified, a community would have to be selected: the African community, African-American community, European community, Afro-European community, Christian community, Buddhist community?  How does a multi-cultural country like the United States determine who’s values should be taught?  Let’s say Senator Kennedy means Irish-American values.  Does he mean the values of an elite, snobbish, drunk or the values of a young programmer competing for his first promotion and raise?

By the way, how will public secular schools in the United States teach values any way?  Is that not against American values?  The federal courts think it is.  Senator Kennedy is involved in a filibuster of a judicial appointment as we speak because he is afraid the candidate might not believe as he does.

The Cultural Bridges Act uses $7mil of US treasure to fund the expense of American high school students to attend private Islamic schools and for “Islamic World” students to attend public secular American schools.  He was clear that the unilateral effort is intended to Americanize young people from the “Islamic World”.  He did not address the constitutionality of directly funding private Islamic religious training of US citizens, however.  He clearly states that the only chance is to get them “young enough”.  He does seem to believe that un-restrained consumerism can take hold in the “Islamic World” even if democracy can not.  What is most troubling though is that he does not even address the impact of Islamic religious training on the “young enough” American citizens he would exchange with the “Islamic World”.  Does he intend that American young people should return fully indoctrinated in the militant Islamic theism of the “Islamic World”?

High on Intellectualism:

Senator John Kerry, in a speech at Georgetown University in January of this year, says, “We need a new approach to national security - a bold, progressive internationalism that stands in stark contrast to the too often belligerent and myopic unilateralism of the Bush Administration”.  He goes on to say that Americans should be proud of our lonely efforts to bring democracy to the world, “The world today has a strong democratic core shaped by American ingenuity, sacrifice, and spirit”.  But he finishes the thought with, “what is today's unilateralism but the right's old isolationist impulse in modern guise?”  How Americans could bring democracy to the world by being isolationists is a secrete he holds more tightly than any magician.  He continues, “At its core is a familiar and beguiling illusion: that America can escape an entangling world...that we can wield our enormous power without incurring obligations to others”.  He has almost coined a new oxymoron, “isolationist-entanglements”.  Continuing, “we can pursue our national interests in arrogant ways that make a mockery of our nation's ideals”.  In other words, Americans should be proud, in a shameful way, of our successful unilateral democratization of an un-democratic world by unrighteously projecting power with moral authority all over the world while being isolationists.

Surely, nothing could be more absurd.

[hobson]

I guess Kennedy now supports school vouchers for Islam. Hmmmm... interesting.

[PretzeLogic]

Could be, unless the Militant Islamic Cleric Union oposes it.