Eric, thanks, as always for your fine articles. On this one, I have trouble with the listing of successes. Example:
“In the process, Blair raised Britain’s living standards and employment, making it a magnet for massive foreign investment and entrepreneurial Europeans. But there was a heavy price: the cost of living skyrocketed and income disparity between Britain’s booming south and its left-behind north grew wider. London became one of the world’s leading tax shelters, with preposterously inflated land values and Monaco-like rents to match.”
There is a contradiction here. It appears plain that the paragraph shows the standard of living did not improve and any real terms, and this appears to be the experience of the poor living in Britain. It seems to me that the standard of living was only improved in terms of GNP or GDP; indicators that go up every time there is a disaster.
If flair and windfalls was all he had going, why state that he had many successes? True history would have been kinder if he had left before his luck ran out. Less damage would have been done to international law, the reasonable restraint of nations, and domestic concerns as well. History should indeed be less unkind to those who bow out before they burn down the house.
Posted by Raven at May 14, 2007 12:19 PM
Raven:
And —
“Such praise was somewhat deflated by the lamentable state of Britain’s crumbling health system, air, airports, and railroads.”
There is always a downside to these “economic miracles”. However, Mr. Margolis is an economic conservative, therefore policy changes that benefit the few business people who can take advantage of them are to be seen as “successful”.
As with most things, there must be a balance. Some of the great benefits gained by the few must be redistributed, in the form of infrastructure development (e.g. health, education, access to affordable water and power, roads, etc.) to ensure that all people benefit from these “economic miracles”. In a democratic society, that should be the primary function of the government, otherwise all we have is an oligarchy. And an oligarchy in today’s Western European and North American context is nothing more than a corporate state - rule by those who run the major corporations.
Posted by Weary at May 14, 2007 12:54 PM
Mr. Blair was a nice guy kinda PM. I didn’t agree with him on some social issues, i.e. free-for-all marriages and so on. He did pull something of a Roosevelt on the UK. I am pretty sure Iraq, if it goes on like this until they pull-out, will not be a lasting legacy on his behalf. Of course things could change if UK starts to experience the same number casualties as the US.
But there is another and more seriously disastrous issue in conjunction with the Iraq, and Afghanistan. Whether one likes it or not, the US is the enforcer and the upholder of the Western Civilization. There is a very likely a chance that the US dominance (along with the Western dominance) may not survive the nose dive that Dubya has produced. In a few decades or even less, Dubya might be attributed as a reborn Lucifer and Tony as his loyal pet. He might well be, of course along with Dubya, remembered as the destroyers of Western Society, and Prestige. Even more so Tony, as he belongs to an experienced nation of Western dominance.
Posted by John Edward at May 14, 2007 01:37 PM
Last week I was talking with a co-worker, 43 years old, college educated mid-level manager. It was lunchtime so I didn’t want to talk about work.
“So Tony Blair is retiring.” I mention, offering a non-threatening topic for discussion.
“Who’s he?” shrugged my co-worker.
It’s amazing how we “thinkers” put so much importance on some topics, when other people happily go through life not knowing or caring about any of the things the rest of us consider to be “ruining the world” or of “tremendous importance”.
Is ignorance bliss? While we seem to value knowledge, what good is it doing us? My co-worker asked me what good it does me to know that Tony Blair is the Prime Minister of Britain, and I really didn’t have a good answer. He shrugged knowingly, I felt like a fool.
DCanuck
DFool
Posted by D. Canuck at May 14, 2007 04:14 PM
Great post DCanuck! The apathy and ignorance of most westerners(and self deception of practically all of us) will bring about the end of our society - perhaps in our lifetime. At least we will not be responsible for this inglorious fall.
Posted by Paul Whiteside at May 14, 2007 04:40 PM
You shouldn’t feel like a fool my dear Canuck friend. He is the idiot in all of this. That kind of knowledge makes you a better citizen. You can thus better understand problems, reflect on different matters and opinions, have abroader view of complex matters and last, but most important of all you can critically analyse situations and interpretations to find your own “truth”. Basically, you are thus a better citizen if you ahve those aptitudes.
He is a dumbass, because if your discussion continued you would have seen that he has no concrete knowledge of anything only philosophical interpretations and questions which serve nothing but to confuse the hell out of you while bringing you no satisfaction at all. He asked you that because he is a dumbass and does not know anything. Knowledge is power my friend. Having it, makes you a master to any conversation
Posted by theking01 at May 14, 2007 04:44 PM
DFool - You might have said to your lunch partner that Blair’s silver (yet forked) tongue provided the sophistry and cloak of credibility that jsutified in the minds of the uninquiring the despicable invasion of a sovereign nation.
I read an acocunt that says 655,000 Iraqi’s have perished as a direct result of US-UK policies towards Iraq. That is not the upper bound estimate either. That is a lot of blood on the hands of these leaders of the “democratic-capitalist” world. Eric could have asserted that Blair, like his idol Bush, is a war criminal deserving of a lengthy prison sentence. Blair deserves to rot in hell along with Bush and his Administration.
Blair always struck me at georgie’s bum boy and did Dubya ever take that toady for a ride. On the matter of his purporting to have influence over Dubya, the only influence I saw was his cajoling getting W to admit emissions MAY have something to do with global warming. That was a one-off that soon dropped into oblivion.
Weary, as guru john Lennon said in “I am the Walrus” - “You are he as you are me and we are all together”. The very sad thing about the corporate agenda seizing the day is that, at best, the masses get a few crumbs - enough to fool them with false hope and keep them pacified. At worst, many innocent people get hurt, some badly, and others killed. All the while the environment takes a string of cumulative hits.
On a more peaceful note, I thought it touching Eric devoted this issue to his mom. Bless her and you Eric.
Posted by shazam at May 14, 2007 04:48 PM
Boy, am I good!
See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/blairs-kaleidoscope_b_48368.html
an excerpt:
Bush and Blair seem to have discovered early the truth about their friendship. Blair was as much the superior of Bush in mental grasp as he was his inferior in self-will and masculine charm. The cartoonists grasped easily, as the commentators did not, the underplot of male dominance and pliable submission. You can see it in some footage of their 2002 meeting at the Crawford ranch — Bush in his denims, shoulders bulked, arms swinging as he saunters; Blair a step or two behind, bobbing politely, eyebrows raised, mouth half-open, dressed in a turtleneck.
Posted by shazam at May 14, 2007 04:57 PM
Eric, a tribute to your mother Nexhmie Zaimi and the great work she did for Albania and Kosovo. Where can we findher book “Daughter of the Eagle” ?
As for Tony, I’ll wait to read his Memoirs! I’m still not sure why intelligent people such as Britain PM Tony Blair and Canada’s PM Stephen Harper are facinated by a man like G.W. Bush. Is it politics, or do they truthfully believe in the “cause” of America is actually spreading freedom and democracy?
I can see myself deceived if I may by the saying: We’re there to liberate Iraqis. It sounds true to some extent, but too naive on the other side.
Great minds went to waste….always happens!
Posted by Tamouh at May 14, 2007 08:35 PM
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again.. The only memoirs of Blair that I shall take any interest in will be those he delivers before the ICC.
Posted by Raven at May 14, 2007 08:51 PM
Eric, you are too kind! This war criminal deserves to spend the rest of his life behind bars. In addition, he has brought the British political arena into disrespect and, in the minds of many, is untruthful to the nines…
Posted by dikcoates at May 15, 2007 01:31 AM
Off Topic:
Hamas attacked a Gaza checkpoint run by Fatah in conjunction with the Israelis earlier yesterday, killing eight and engaging both Fatah and IDF personnel:
Hamas gunmen on Tuesday ambushed rival Fatah forces near a key crossing along the Israeli border, killing eight people in the deadliest battle yet in three days of factional fighting.
Monday’s fighting erupted when Hamas gunmen approached a training base used by Fatah forces that guard the crossing, officials said. The base was set up in part by an American security team sent to train Palestinians on how to check cargo and baggage at crossings.
The Hamas force attacked the base with rockets, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars, said Ahmed al-Kaisi, spokesman for the pro-Fatah Presidential Guard, which guards the crossing under an agreement with Israel. “We consider this a serious provocation and a crime committed in cold blood,” al-Kaisi said.
The attack occurred at the Karni crossing, which Israel closed after the attack. This puts a huge crimp in the already collapsing Gaza economy. Karni is the main entry point for goods imported into Gaza and the one checkpoint that Israel and the PA had fairly secured. The Hamas attack assures Gazans that they will starve even more quickly than before.
That appears to be a deliberate motivation. This was no impromptu clash between cranky militia patrols, which according to the truce between the two factions shouldn’t exist anyway. The Hamas attackers brought rockets and mortars, which means they had planned this mission ahead of time. When Fatah sent more security personnel to assist, they shot the vehicle and forced it off the road, and then surrounded the men in the car and riddled them with bullets. The only reason the Hamas unit retreated was because the IDF showed up with tanks, and their courage apparently only extended to an unannounced attack.
Posted by hegadumb at May 15, 2007 09:33 AM
I will respectfully disagree with Eric on his assertion that the Kosovar War was a great success for Blair. From the moment of that war I labelled Blair(and Clinton) a war criminal because he willingly chose war, as opposed to being forced into a war.
Kosovo proves that supporting war criminals simply because they achieve their objective only encourages them to greater war crimes - Iraq.
I do understand that Eric has consistently been anti-Serb which is the basis for his support of the Kosovo War. Yet the logic that Blair is not a criminal over it smacks dangerously close to the general American view that Iraq was a success until US troops started dying, which is when it became a crime in most Americans’ eyes. What happens to the aggressors is irrelevant in my view. Innocent Serbs/Iraqis have been killed in a war that never had to happen and that is the crime. To qualify that one war is good and the other bad because our side did not lose any treasure is highly immoral.
Which is essentially what we in the West are!
Posted by Paul Whiteside at May 15, 2007 10:16 AM
Gwynne Dyer article on same topic:
http://www.gwynnedyer.net/articles/Gwynne%20Dyer%20article_%20%20Blair.txt
Posted by Weary at May 15, 2007 01:11 PM
John Edward;
“Of course things could change if UK starts to experience the same number casualties as the US.”
The British have already experienced this, when considered in proportion to their deployment. I believe that the current British Iraq deployment is about 7500 combat troops, and they have suffered 150 fatalities. The Americans have deployed over 20 times that many soldiers, and have endured roughly 25 times the fatalities (over 3300).
Posted by chatman at May 15, 2007 03:03 PM
Paul Whiteside
“From the moment of that war I labelled Blair(and Clinton) a war criminal because he willingly chose war, as opposed to being forced into a war.”
For a politician to willingly choose force does not in itself brand one a war criminal. It is how that force is used, and the evil sought to be remedied through such use, that justifies categorization as a war criminal.
I don’t pretend to know all the details of what was going on in Kosovo, but just about every commentator, academic, and even the ICC, agreed that Slobodan Milosevic was a thug and a warmonger in his own right. NATO chose to use force after the situation over there began to reach catastrophic proportions. Again, it sounds like you (and Raven) know more about how and why NATO chose to do that than I do, but I would argue that, use of force congruent and measured against the facts on the ground, that ultimately prevents some greater evil or brought some real benefit is not a war crime per sé.
Given that I only know a little bit about the situation in the former Yugoslavia, I won’t take a position on whether Blair’s use of force there was proper or not.
That said Paul, I generally agree with you that military interventions are almost universally bad options, because they are costly in terms of treasure, lives lost and altered, and international reputations damaged.
I objected to our invasion of Afghanistan, and to Iraq, though I remember harboring some feeble hope that NATO might actually improve the lives of ordinary Afghans. As Gwynne Dyer writes, the current state of affairs in that country has more to do with post 2001 neglect than any state of affairs NATO sought to introduce at the time of its invasion. Had NATO and the U.S not invaded Iraq and instead focused on developing Afghanistan’s infrastructure, I wonder if things might not be at least somewhat different over there.
I vehemently condemned the Iraq invasion because the use of force was not proportional to the evil to be removed; as we should have seen in 2002, Saddam was the far lesser of evils, and that his Iraq threat to others and to his own people than the post-invasion Iraq we have created.
Posted by chatman at May 15, 2007 03:38 PM
Chatman,
I’m sure your knowledge of Serbian affairs is as good as mine, just as your awareness of all world issues seems to be right up there!
I have defended Milosevic to friends in the past but I won’t go in to all that right now. I do get misunderstood as people simplify the matter and think I’m saying he was a nice guy. All I’ve ever said is that I’ve seen no evidence that he was a war criminal. If arming his friends was a war crime then the entire western armaments industry is in trouble.
(No they’re not. The International Criminal Court is never for us. Our presumed goodness makes us immune to guilt.)
Regarding Kosovo, I’d simply like to see proof of ethnic clensing. The incident Clinton spoke of which served as the excuse to begin the NATO bombing was later researched by a Norwegian team. Instead of the civilian massacre proclaimed by all the war hawks, they ruled that the dead were KLA fighters made out to look like massacred civilians. In other words: a fraud. Perhaps there was some ethnic clensing but I’m still waiting to hear about it. And its been a long time now.
Of course there was ethnic clensing as the Serbs have been drivien out of Kosovo. Ironic that our politicians start a war claiming to prevent ethnic clensing, yet the result of their war guarantees ethnic clensing. But we all know how immoral western politicans are, which is why there is NO EXCUSE to ever support them when they want to use violence.
Footnote: an interesting interview on TVO tonight as it was stated that Bush would have invaded North Korea in 2003 had Iraq not gone bad. Makes sense as the clean sweeps of Kosovo and Afghanistan led to Iraq. It’s regretable we have to be thankful for all those dead Americans but it seems to be the only way to buy us a momentary peace.
Posted by Paul Whiteside at May 15, 2007 11:55 PM
Could it be that the reason Tony Blair and Stephen Harper joined (okay, in Harper’s case it was “wanted badly” to join) the Iraq War has to do with the PNAC (Project for the New American Century). The PNAC answers a lot of questions that otherwise seem inexplicable.
Had the American Neo-Cons pulled it off, Blair and Harper wanted to be on the “right side” of history. Many held their noses and joined the Nazis for the same reason.
DCanuck
Posted by D. Canuck at May 16, 2007 01:56 PM
Jeeves the butler reminds me of PG Wodehouse novels.
PG Wodehouse is without doubt the best comedy writer of our time :)
Posted by _RealityBites_ at May 16, 2007 02:26 PM
D. Canuck:
I often puzzled over why Blair jumped head first into this mess and I always thought it was because he was heavily bribed. However, I didn’t realize that Blair was so religious. With Stephen Harper, his religiosity is well-known in Canada so it came as no surprise to me when he signed up for Bush’s crusade. In fact, Bush even used the word “Crusade” until his spin doctors quickly put an end to that.
It was always clear to me that Bush’s and Harper’s motivation was in part religious. If Blair is indeed an ardent Christian as Dyer purports, then it makes a great deal of sense that at least part of Blair’s motivation is religious too.
While religion alone may not be enough of a motivator for Western leaders, especially outside of the U.S., in today’s secular climate, it certainly can push them over the top into bad decisions, which they already wanted to make for other reasons - e.g. world domination and control of oil.
Posted by Weary at May 16, 2007 03:34 PM
Unlike Eric, I can’t think of a single agreeable thing about Tony Blair (or his vile wife), either policy- or personality-wise. He’s a smarmy grinning sophist, even worse than Bush, a complete phony, absolutely hollow, a ventriloquist’s dummy. Take the worst of Bill Clinton plus the worst of George W. and you have Tony Blair.
Posted by hyperbolus at May 16, 2007 04:51 PM
I don’t know enough about Tody’s wife to label her BUT she was and is vehemently opposed to the invasion of Iraq and has made Tody’s life miserable on this point. Notice she did not accompany Tody on his current pilgrimage to the White House. Usually sunset junkets on th epart of lame duck leaders are in good part pleasure (or in George’s case, corporate work), and spouses tend to tag along. I think it is her way of protesting Tody’s obsequiousness and her dislike of W.
Posted by shazam at May 17, 2007 10:54 AM
Plus I bet their marriage dissolves within a year. Good on her as the ozzies would say.
I also wonder what kind of graft may be taking place - Tody paid big politically for his lending credibility to the invasion so W may have a gift or two for him to compensate.
Posted by shazam at May 17, 2007 10:57 AM
Interesting post comments on Eric’s part;
- I too am amazed that anyone actually took the position of war czar… there was a pretty good Daily Show skit about that position, and how it was the nucleus for all the “blame” that would arise from this lamentable policy. I guess you can always find someone to fall on their sword…
- I don’t like Ron Paul or any of his Republican brethren for a lot of reasons, but I also gave Paul a LOT of credit for telling it like it is on 9/11 and America’s exploitative foreign policy. What’s interesting is that even though Fox’s internet poll shows Paul as being pretty popular in the cyberspace community, the major networks are still going gaga over Rudy McRomney, the three most banal and cloying candidates in the pack (though honestly, I hate Duncan Hunter and Sam Brownback more than just about any candidate in on either side; it’s scary to me that such people are even considering a bid for the presidency).
- Amen on Falwell. I’m glad at least one person is not afraid to wear their disgust of Falwell, and their ambivalence regarding his death, on their sleeve. Dying was the only thing the man did that I ever appreciated.
Posted by chatman at May 17, 2007 07:54 PM
What is Eric doing… adding more stuff in the middle of the week. LOL
Anyway.. about Falwell. I remember emails coming from Americans here after our earthquake saying, “you thought what happened at New Orleans was God’s justice brought down on a sinful people…. how do you feel now?”
At least, I answered back, “we never said that… it was Falwell, who said THAT..!” LOL
I mean the guy was so corrosive, people would forget who said what, but his words would stay around to haunt them.
This is what an editorial in one of our papers said about him.
——————————————-
A rabble-rouser
The greatest achievement of US preacher Jerry Falwell, who died on Tuesday at 73, was his pioneering of what has come to be known as “televangelism”.
Building on that, the preacher who combined his holy calling with big business changed the face of US politics and brought the American religious
right to the dominant position where it is today.
It can be argued that had there been no Jerry Falwell there would be no George W Bush.
Mr Falwell was a driven man. Back in 1956 he established a fundamentalist church with just 35 members, in a bottling plant in Virginia. That same church developed into a religious empire which includes a church with a membership of over 24,000 followers.
He also started a college in 1971 which later became a university. Ironically, it was named Liberty University given that its founder was an outspoken opponent of other religions and of all liberal causes such as women’s equality. Shortly after the Sept 11, 2001, he famously implied that
feminists, liberals and gays were the real cause of the terrorist attacks.
One of his “gays” was the cartoon character Tinky Winky of the children’s programme Teletubbies, a comparison that caused uproar when he made it in 1999.
But the Republican Party had Mr Falwell praying at its national convention in 2000, when President Bush was first elected. Four years later, with the party seeking to keep its distance from the reviled figure now in political decline, he was only a guest.
The political heyday of the Rev Falwell had started in 1979 with his landmark founding of the rightwing lobbying group “Moral Majority.” The following year the group achieved the triumph of getting Ronald Reagan elected president, through its galvanisation of millions of conservatives persuaded into voting for the long-time champion of the American right.
When he relinquished the presidency of Moral Majority in 1987, he remarked that “I shudder to think where the country would be right now if the religious right had not evolved”. From the unprecedented political and moral crisis it faces today, the US would probably have been in a far better shape.
People like him also are proof that religious extremists are not the preserve of Muslim societies.
Posted by The Questioner at May 18, 2007 05:25 AM
Falwell was blaming the feminists for 911 ?!
Really ?
As only one of thousands of victim of the feminist run divorce-kidnapping-extortion industry, how could I say no? … especially when they are also partially responsible for global warming (seriously, think about it) :)
Posted by bigsugar999 at May 18, 2007 12:56 PM
If Daniel Pearl was a human being so was this guy
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6671067.stm
I’ve heard of numerous cases just like what happened to him
His sin was that he owned the land the body was dumped on. Imagine the luck
Posted by _RealityBites_ at May 18, 2007 02:24 PM
My God! I didn’t think anyone in America, from “either side”, would ever admit that 9/11 was caused by America’s action in the Muslim world, let alone speak those words in public. In the name of freedom, he must be silenced. (not to subtle sarcasm here).
Which led to the “logic” of…
1) We’ll never listen to anyone who bombs us!
2) We’ll bomb them until they listen to us!
“But wait a minute, if number 1 is true, then how would number 2 work?”
“Shut up!”
(with apologies to Bill O’Reilly, whom I believe has trademarked this expression)
From the very first day, the most forbidden question to ask in the Land of Freedom was “Why?” The only allowable responses came in the form of Toby Keith songs.
(Toby writing a song… “Hey pardner, what rhymes with Bald Eagle?”)
——————————————————-
While Falwell was everything that Eric mentioned above, at least he was straightforward enough to tell you what he believed. I did not like the man at all, and I probably disagree with almost everything he said, but in the light of recent American political ethics, at least you knew where he was coming from. Unlike… (long list deleted to save space).
——————————————————-
I don’t know much about Chirac, but the impression he left me was supreme arrogance. But I’ll defer to Eric’s opinions, as he knows more about the man than I ever will.
——————————————————-
I saw Tony Blair on the news last night chatting with George Bush. The fool was still saying that he believes the War in Iraq was a good idea. Absolutely incredible.
Some people are incapable of learning, and it’s not just the politicians! It’s the electorate that keeps voting these fools into power! We get the leaders we deserve. I know, it sucks.
“Democracy is the worst system, except for all the others.” Churchill, I think.
Have a happy long weekend.
DCanuck
Posted by D. Canuck at May 18, 2007 02:48 PM
Wolfowitz resigned!!
It should be noted that there was an agreement beforehand that;
1) The World Bank would accept blame for Wolfowitz’ actions,
2) The World Bank would not say anything bad about Wolfowitz
3) Wolfowitz would admit no wrongdoing.
What’s incredible is that Wolfie’s girlfriend used to work at the World Bank but was moved out to avoid a conflict of interest when he became president… but she stayed on the payroll! (how does that work?) And then Wolfie gave her a big, fat raise!
Unbelievably, the World Bank admitted that its regulations were not clear in these matters, thereby absolving Wolfie of any blame. Imagine, a robber at your local bank, getting an apology from the bank because there wasn’t a clear “No Robberies” sign posted and carefully explained to him.
How do these criminals keep getting way with this? Oh right, they’re in the White House.
DCanuck
Posted by D. Canuck at May 18, 2007 03:43 PM
Paul Whiteside:
“Regarding Kosovo, I’d simply like to see proof of ethnic clensing. The incident Clinton spoke of which served as the excuse to begin the NATO bombing was later researched by a Norwegian team. Instead of the civilian massacre proclaimed by all the war hawks, they ruled that the dead were KLA fighters made out to look like massacred civilians. In other words: a fraud. Perhaps there was some ethnic clensing but I’m still waiting to hear about it. And its been a long time now.”
Like I said, I don’t know much about that particular mess, and am not particularly interested in studying up on it. I do get to talk to soldiers who were there though, and they have interesting tales to tell.
I remember a few years ago a romantic relationship an ex-military friend of mine had with an Army Reservist who served in the former Yugoslavia; she was an aspiring med student, but a particular incident she experienced affected her pretty deeply, and I don’t think she ever recovered psychologically. It involved an exhumation of a mass grave that her unit helped supervise; something on the order of a hundred bodies.
Again, I don’t know who killed and buried those people there, or why, but what little I know from scholars and academics seems to indicate that Milosevic was involved in something more than merely arming friends, and that the Serbian army was indeed involved in it’s fair share of atrocity and nastiness. Does that make Milosevic more of a war criminal than, say, George W. Bush or Ariel Sharon? Probably not… but as you yourself admit, he wasn’t exactly a nice guy, and his hands certainly weren’t clean.
I was very disappointed that he died before a trial could properly reach his guilt or innocence.
Posted by chatman at May 19, 2007 04:20 PM
The truth is that there was no genocide in Kosovo, whatever Eric says or thinks. Remember all the propaganda about bodies in wells and soccer stadium concentration camps? Lies just as bogus as Iraqi soldiers throwing Kuwaiti babies out of incubators. Where are all the thousands of bodies, Eric? The UN, NATO, the FBI, etc. have had almost a decade to investigate, and found next to nothing. The real genocide is happening now, with Serbs being forced out of Kosovo, their several-hundred-years-old churches and cultural artifacts being vandalized and destroyed. The Kosovo Albanians are drug-running barbarian-terrorists on the same level as the Chechens.
Posted by hyperbolus at May 19, 2007 06:54 PM
And: say what you will about Jerry Falwell, but I say that he had more integrity and decency than those other two recently departed notables, Yeltsin and Blair (and I’m very far from being an Evangelical Christian).
And as for Cherie Blair (and Vanessa Redgrave and Louise Arbour—you won’t find three more hideous hags in all of the Brothers Grimm): I can think of no more just reward for such women than for them to have to live the rest of their lives under the rule of the Chechens and Kosovo Albanians they so adore. In such circumstances they would soon learn some valuable life lessons, not least of all when to keep silent.
Posted by hyperbolus at May 20, 2007 07:12 PM
Hyperbolus:
You think Falwell had integrity? Strange…
I think he was honest.. but such honesty is not always indicative of the kind of “integrity” this world needs. Seems to me that many Grand Wizards of the Ku Klux Klan have the “integrity” to say what they think; but the problem IS what they think, not their integrity, or lack thereof, in putting it out there.
Falwell was a bigot and a cultural supremacist. That he wore those views on his sleeve and in his heart has no bearing on his fact that he was a force of evil, regardless of his candor. Insincerity has its own dangers to be sure, but I’m not sure that I am ready to embrace Falwell because he trumpeted his bigotry… his “integrity,” as you call it, only made him less dangerous…
Posted by chatman at May 20, 2007 11:42 PM