VDH

… should be required weekly reading.

I’m sure that the Europeans are light-years ahead of us in the use of
public transportation. They probably are wiser in their per-capita
energy utilization, and their primary and secondary education may be
superior. But there is also something of Calypso’s island about them.
For all their professed enjoyment of food, shelter, and lovemaking,
the Europeans are bored silly with their listless routine and are
increasingly timid — this from a great people who should not, but
really do, live in terror of their own past. Like Odysseus in his
comfy subservience to Calypso, these mesmerized and complacent
sensualists sometimes contemplate leaving the comfort of their
fairyland atoll and in boredom weep nightly, gazing out at the
seashore. But as yet they lack the hero’s courage to finally build a
raft and sail rough seas to confront suitors who are trying to crash
their civilization.

This war would be over far sooner if 350 million Europeans insisted on
a modicum of behavior from Middle Eastern rogue regimes, rounded up
and tried terrorists in their midst, deported islamofascists, cut off
funding to killers on the West Bank, ignored Yasser Arafat — and
warned the next SOB who blew up Europeans in Turkey, North Africa, or
Iraq that there was a deadly reckoning to come from the continent that
invented the Western military tradition. Indeed, European
sophistication and experience, combined with real power, could be a
great aid to the West in its effort to promote liberal and consensual
governments outside its shores. But if they do not even believe in the
unique legacy of their civilization, then why should we — much less
their enemies?

It is better for the people to abuse their freedom than the government to abuse the people

A fine essay from Frederick Turner along the same theme as the article I linked to yesterday: why this “strange and unholy alliance” between the Left and Islamo-Facists?

At this time in the world’s history a great turning point is imminent.
And here we begin to see why there is this strange and unholy alliance
between idealistic liberalism, the vestiges of the old socialist left,
traditional third world authoritarians, and the unrelenting forces of
Islamic totalitarianism, theocracy, and terror. However various their
ideas of what is the good, all are united in their desire for an
enforced law of the good. Even elements of the human rights movement,
much of the anti-globalist community, and a large swatch of the
philanthropic world — the so-called NGOs — still yearn for a
government that, through sumptuary laws, high taxation, political
correctness, and entitlements, would force to happen what people ought
to, but do not make happen of their own free will.

As C. S. Lewis said, theocracy is the worst form of government, because those who know they have the Will of God (or the force of history, or the UN declaration of rights, or whatever) can and will do absolutely anything to enforce it.

Fair and Balanced

Den Beste has yet another excellent (and long) essay on the current tranzi yammering for a non-Iraqi trial for SH.

He explains the general tone of the anti-US camp — hysterical incoherent anger — as cognitive dissonance at having to defend the world’s worst people and regimes (the Taliban and SH) versus the US, which is far better by any conceivable standard than those — and many others.

Just the other day a European friend expressed to me the concern that SH would not get a fair trial. As Stephen Green (I think) said yesterday, SH’s guilt is not in question. The really only fair trial would be one that revealed the true extent of his crimes.

But no, to the Raving Looney Moonbats (TM), the only fair trial would be one where SH was acquitted — or rather, any situation that embarrassed the US, no matter its moral cost.