Q: It seems as though Russia criticized NATO because we weren’t allowed into the Yugoslavia resolution process as full-fledged partners. But what if we had been allowed in?
Putin: Well, that’s just the point. If we had been allowed in, that decision never would have been made. We never would have agreed to that type of interference in the internal affairs of another country. That sort of behavior simply cannot be justified, even for so-called humanitarian reasons. I believe that the operation itself was a major mistake in international law.
Q: And the invasion of Hungary by Warsaw Pact troops in 1956, and of Czechoslovakia in 1968? Were they mistakes?
Putin: You forget that we used force in Germany in 1953, too. In my view, these were major mistakes. And the Russophobia that we see in Eastern Europe today is the fruit of those mistakes.
As usual, [T]Reason Magazine can not let Ron Paul get any positive publicity without responding with a hit piece. Poor little Beltway/cosmo libertarians are getting outshined. How can that be? They are supposed to be the serious ones.
The article can be summed up simply: Ron Paul is not a serious thinker because … well because the author, David Harsanyi, says so. But the intellectual incoherence of this line takes the cake.
Paul isn’t a traditional conservative. His obsession with long-decided monetary policy and isolationism are not his only half-baked crusades.
So Ron Paul isn’t a traditional conservative because he is “obsessed” with long decided policies? Um … actually Ron Paul is a traditional conservative precisely because he concerns himself with historical questions that have been “decided” wrongly.
But of course it is Ron Paul who isn’t a serious thinker. David Harsanyi, you’re an idiot.
Before I go into another work-imposed exile from posting for a couple of weeks, I wanted to comment on Ron Paul’s win in the CPAC straw poll.
The powers that be tend to dismiss in significance what they don’t like and vise-versa on what they do like. No doubt if Ron Paul ever won the White House, Bill Kristol will probably say the Presidency doesn’t mean much either. That’s how they operate. The problem is, if CPAC is insignifacnt, why were all those Fox News reporters there? Why were their events given such attention and coverage? They want to crawl out after they crawled in. Sorry, too late.
Ron Paul won a lot of straw polls, online and in real time during his run for the presidency. What makes this one different is three ago, the Paulites had a miniscule presence at CPAC. Now it has grown considerably. And because of this, look who else was at CPAC too: Thomas Wood, people from Antiwar.com and Lew Rockwell.com, the Campaign for Liberty, the John Birch Society. They held and led pannel discussion and gave speeches. Paul’s was the most attended. Three years ago, they probably wouldn’t be able to get into the parking lot, let alone the front door.
I’ve criticized David Keene of the American Conservative Union, which sponsors the event, before for being just another Washington hack, but I have to give him credit for letting the dissenters in this time and giving their views a hearing. Yes CPAC is filled with all those Blue Blazered mafiosi looking to make a living for Conservative INC. They didn’t give cheers to Dick Cheney or booed Ron for nothing. But at the same time, Ron Paul packed the house and got the most votes in a straw poll of those registered. His support fell among the youngest and as anyone will tell you, they rather be with the future than the past. That is the essence of Paul’s appeal and the strength of his support.
Whether this means Paul will run in 2012 is still up in the air, but its another step in the process, along with getting Carol Paul approval (absolutely crucial). I think if Rand wins the Senate seat in Kentucky, RP overwhelmingly wins re-election in Texas and another RP candidates wins a major office, than you can see the forces in place pushing Paul towards another run.
“A confidential blueprint for David Cameron’s controversial bid to impose more women, gays and ethnic candidates on reluctant party activists has come to light. The explosive six-page document proposes the use of subterfuge to end the white, male and middle-class image of the Conservative Party…. The document suggests using ‘stealth’ and stresses the importance of keeping ‘quiet’ over the plans to ensure more women, ethnic and gay candidates…. Suggesting a degree of subterfuge, the document goes on: ‘There are several reasons why the Party should not publicly proclaim the new methodology.’ ‘The more that the profusion of women, black, Asian or gay candidates appears to be the result of spontaneous open-mindedness on the part of grassroot activists the greater will be the accolades.’ The authors also admit white men will feel disadvantaged, stating: ‘The handling of white males should be done with sensitivity. They should not be made to feel second class and must be assured that the party wants them in Parliament.’” ~ Daily Mail
Geez, and people wonder why so many English conservatives are now voting BNP. Go figure.
Most of the spotlighted conservative leaders at the giant CPAC convention this weekend showed that they are far more interested in the feelings of Republican Party major donors than in offering help for 25 million Americans who can’t find a full-time job.
Americans might have hoped that finally at this meeting there would be a sign of true leadership in stopping the massive importation of new foreign workers during a jobs depression. But on that topic, hope was as scarce as at the Obama White House.
But reports from those at the convention (I wasn’t there) indicated that the thousands of (mostly young) conservative attendees seemed to have a much better grasp of what the country needs on immigration. They exploded into a standing ovation when a freshman congressman [Jason Chaffetz - R-Utah] on Saturday finally broke the taboo and stated emphatically:
“We need to lock down the border and enforce visas, reject amnesty and enforce our current laws, get rid of our rewards and incentives to be here illegally, mandate E-Verify . . . .”
The best example of how CPAC 2010 has failed the conservative movement is CPAC’s attempt to redefine (sabotage would be a more accurate term) the potent issues of illegal immigration and border security. Whereas grass-roots conservatives and millions of 912 patriots – along with 80 percent of the American people – understand the need for border security as a precondition for immigration reform, CPAC board member Grover Norquist is busy launching a new project in support of the Obama administration’s plan to grant another amnesty to 20 million illegal aliens. Neither border control nor immigration enforcement was included as a topic for any of the CPAC general sessions.
It is exceedingly odd that at the very moment everyone else is declaring the Democrats’ amnesty plan dead in the water, CPAC leader Grover Norquist and a handful of Republican lobbyists are conspiring to resuscitate it. It’s as though the pilots of an airplane headed to Houston decided instead to take the aircraft to Havana. But instead of a hijacking, conservatism’s Beltway Politburo calls it a strategic partnership with Latino activists.
What all this tells us is that it is not only the Republican Party that is suffering an identity crisis. So is conservatism.
In reality, the Republicans are just slitting their own throats. For example, without some sort of immigration moratorium, the GOP will not even hold Texas much longer. There is an odd disconnect among Republicans – even among the more libertarian Ron Paul supporters. If Texas turns into Mexico, it’s highly unlikely the new “Texans” would vote for a candidate like Ron Paul or anyone else wanting to cut back entitlements.
I just found this quote from the recently deceased Alexander Haig.
“The notion that the United States can remake the world in its own image, on its own, as a reaction to violence from abroad dates from Woodrow Wilson’s time. It’s an old populist con detached from reality; calling it a neo-con doesn’t make it any better. Does anyone believe that the United States can turn Afghanistan and Iraq into thriving democracies; reconcile India and Pakistan; transform the Middle East and do it all with a 10-division army and a $500 billion deficit?”
~ General Alexander Haig
I think Haig was more of an old school realist than a non-interventionist, but he is right on here.
Since we are discussing CPAC, I will repost an old article I wrote on the subject from 25 May 05. It is one of the first articles I ever had printed on the web.
We may not like the official “conservative” movement and its devotees, but like it or not, that is where converts to authentic conservatism are most likely to come from. Notice in the last paragraph I even use the conservative missionaries term. So here it is:
Apparently the newest sensation on the internet is the Epic Beard Man, a video showing a black man (spurred on by a black girl yelling “say it again, pinky” and “beat his white ass”) assaulting an elderly white guy on a bus, but with a surprise ending.
But in three days, the Oakland bus fight has logged over two million views, again not counting hundreds of thousands of views for the multiple exact copies on other accounts (a stupefying if sometimes useful YouTube phenomenon) and followups. It also inspired video remixes, mashups, YouTube replies, spinoffs (there’s a cult around a hipster girl silently watching the fight), and surprisingly talented drawings like the one above. Why all the attention over just another public fight?
Here’s the video. Warning: It’s quite graphic.
N.B. At the end of the video the black girl with the camera steals the Beard Man’s bag.
Given the cheers Dick Cheney received at the annual CPAC Conference, it makes this press release from the John Birch Society all the more spot on. There were many who questioned why the JBS would be allowed at CPAC but as it turns out, they may very well be the few sane (along with Ron Paul, CFL, Antiwar.com, LRC) people in the hall. Kudos to CPAC to allowing actual dissenters in the conference this year, otherwise it would have been complete political rally for the GOP.
Here’s what the JBS is trying to do, missionary work in a land of savages. This is from Thomas Eddlem.
“These days, I wonder if this country is even governable.”
That’s G. William Hoagland, a former adviser to the Senate Republican leadership on fiscal policy, quoted by Pat Buchanan.
Why does Mr. Hoagland doubt the US is still governable? As Buchanan explains, DC’s debt is simply unsustainable. The latest warning sounds from the Titanic’s groaning, cracking hull came this week when the Chinese rid themselves of $45 billion of its $790 billion in T-bills.
Something’s got to give, as Buchanan concludes:
Where does that leave Obama — and us?
Later this year or early next, to avoid a debt crisis, Obama will ask Congress to raise taxes and pare back entitlement programs.
Republicans will fight the taxes to the last ditch. Democrats, having lost dozens of colleagues in the November massacre, will rebel against the cuts in social spending.
And a paralyzed government will drift closer toward the maelstrom.
I’ll make a prediction: Democrats will not surrender their social spending. That’s how they keep their constituents loyal. And Republicans will not back off their unwinnable, unsustainable wars in the Middle East. Neither wing of the ruling class will give up so much as a dime of their hold on our money, money that keeps the corruptocrats in power. Scaling back is impossible, and squeezing taxpayers even more is impossible.
That brings us to the third option, the one that no one in power dare verbalize, but which Mr. Hoagland hinted at in the opening quote. The Federal government is overstretched, overspent, and overwhelmed. It’s time to wake up to this simple fact: It’s over.
“The Obama administration announced a $1.25 billion settlement Thursday to resolve charges by thousands of black farmers who say that for decades the Agriculture Department discriminated against them in loan programs.” ~ WP
Three questions: Our country has the highest deficit in its entire history, and Obama’s handing out even more taxpayer money? Is this not clearly a case of de facto reparations dressed up as “dispensed lawsuits”? What form of reparation will come next?
Here is the sequence of events as I understand them. The first hotel canceled. Then a second canceled. Then a third hotel was arranged, but it was supposed to be kept secret only to be released a day or two before the conference. But the hotel somehow leaked out and the third hotel wussed out as well. Finally, the Capitol Skyline was arranged but has now chickened out.
I became aware of the situation after the second hotel canceled. When I first read about it my immediate thought was don’t schedule it at a hotel. Schedule it at some sort of public venue that can’t discriminate.
From what I can tell the organization primarily behind this anti-AmRen jihad is R.E.A.L. headed by the cartoonish Jeffrey Imm. I know Ed Sebesta, Morris Dees, Heidi Beirich, and Mark Potok always come off as caricatures of PC thought enforcers, but Jeffry Imm really takes the cake. Even Cultural Marxist guru Herbert Marcuse would be embarrassed by this guys ham-handed attempts at right-think enforcement. “Love is More Powerful Than Hate – Love Wins.” Really? What? Are we in third grade?
To the degree (which is debatable) that AmRen is “White Nationalist” as opposed to simply “race realist,” I and in general this website have our differences with them, but allowing these anonymous PC thugs to shut down their bi-annual conference would have been a real tragedy.
If you are ever in DC, stay at the Capitol Skyline Hotel which has stepped up to the plate in the face of intimidation.
What’s behind the renewed interest in Country music? It’s a search for roots, for the authentic — for the real. And as the author of this piece says, that renewed interest is affecting more than just music:
But, it isn’t only in music and films that the essence of country is felt. People grounded in the earth are appearing everywhere. The Minute Men resort to civilian vigilance of their land, refusing to give it up without a fight. The grassroots Tea Party movements, mocked as fake Astroturfs by their detractors, insist on keeping their country authentic. Massachusetts residents voted for a senator belittled for his own down-to-earth pick-up truck, who promised to preserve some of the real America. Even Sarah Palin is on the ticket to restore love for country and land.
Country’s entry into more mainstream slots shows that ordinary Americans are rejecting the impersonal and uninspiring. They are searching for concrete and elevating examples of the world around them. Words, images and ideas reflecting this are taking precedence. It is not clear if this will last, but the showstopper country rendition of “America the Beautiful” by The Zac Brown Band at the Grammys gives room for optimism. Zac Brown sings of a real place in his other Grammy performance “Chicken Fried”: “And my house it’s not much to talk about/ But it’s filled with love that’s grown in Southern ground.”
Why has Country music surged back with such unexpected vitality? It’s the tonic we need in a time when all the promises of Modernism crumble before our eyes. Our heads and lives have been stuffed with the straw of abstraction. “Universal” rules have long been assumed to be superior to culture, tradition, and beloved old ways. Cosmopolitan detachment was supposed to replace natural affection for the sights, smells, and sounds of the places we grew up in.
We’ve overdosed on the virtual. We’ve withered away, spiritually, socially, and emotionally. Malnourished on a forced diet of the abstract, the universal, and the multicultural, we have reached the point where we can no longer do without that which makes us human. No wonder we’re witnessing a resurgence of loyalty to community, heritage, and land. No wonder independence movements based on historical bonds are redrawing the world map, and have finally shaken the stagnant, overgrown bureaucracies of the 20th-century megastate.
Country music — which is really Southern music — has become the anthem of homecoming.
Someone recently asked, what anti-interventionist will remain after Ron Paul retires?
Short answer: Possibly John Hostettler, who in some respects is even better than Ron Paul (esp. on immigration).
This week Democratic incumbent Evan Bayh announced he won’t seek reelection. John Hostettler is seeking the GOP nomination for Bayh’s vacant senate seat. If Hostettler should pick up the nomination, he would now have a real shot at winning general election. Long holding paleo-esque positions, Hostettler was one of six Republicans initially to vote against the neocon war in Iraq, and he’s been solid on immigration for quite some time. (Possible spoiler: Mike Pence could enter the race.)
Also of importance, J.D. Hayworth is running against McCain in Arizona for the GOP nomination. Although Hayworth is wrong on interventionism and nation building, he’s sound on illegal immigration. Many pundits say a Hayworth victory is a longshot (given the many resources at McCain’s disposal), while admitting this may be the most serious primary challenge McCain has seen since 1982. Personally, I cannot think anything that could create that warm, fuzzy sensation of contentedness more than McInsane losing the primary.
Addendum: I haven’t forgotten Rand Paul, but didn’t mention him above because much has already been said about his campaign in Kentucky.
If I ever go through an extended period of non-posting don’t be alarmed. It just means I extremely busy with other projects. But now that I have some down time, I will give my thoughts on certain topics of note:
– I watched Professor Gottfried’s address to the H.L. Mencken club and while I thought he made some good points and good critiques of paleoconservatism, it was hard for me to discern what he thought a more effective alternative would be. Maybe he really doesn’t know himself other than “well we have young people and they’re not part of Conservative INC.” That’s true, but then again so are we here at CHT, or TRI or FPR for that matter. Maybe what the “alt right” really is is a secular reaction to the religiosity among many conservatives (or I suppose a pagan reaction to conservatives Christianity) and belief that if the young are becoming less religious, then we need a conservatism that reflects this. But then what are we conserving then anyway? Old Slipknot T-shirts? Then was what’s the difference with libertarianism? Do we really want to be the home for the “straight-edgers?” It not even good heavy metal.
Working with ancient DNA can be much more problematic than sequencing genetic material from living species. Within hours of death, cells begin to break down in a process called apoptosis. The dying cells release enzymes that chop up DNA into tiny pieces. In a human cell, this means that the entire three-billion-base-pair genome is reduced to fragments a few hundred base-pairs long or shorter. The DNA also goes through chemical changes that alter the nucleotides as it ages–C changes into T, and G turns into A–which can cause the gene sequence to be interpreted incorrectly. In the case of the Neanderthal sample, somewhere between 90 and 99 percent of the DNA came from bacteria and other contaminants that had found their way into the bone as it sat in the ground and in storage. The contaminant DNA has to be identified and eliminated. Given the similarity between Neanderthal and modern human DNA, this can be especially difficult when the contamination comes from the people who excavated or analyzed the bone.