Camille Paglia’s critique of President Obama’s speech at Cairo University

Excerpts from Camille Paglia’s critique of President Obama’s speech at Cairo University:

“Barack Obama was elected to do exactly what he did last week at Cairo University — to open a dialogue with the Muslim world. Or at least that was why I, for one, voted for him, contributed to his campaign, and continue to support him.”

“…the now widespread stereotyping of Islam as medieval and inherently violent and intolerant ensures eternal war. Visionary leaders are vitally needed on both sides to call for mutual understanding and rational coexistence. Yet, post-9/11, troublingly few voices of Muslim moderation have emerged.”

“Obama’s speech (which I read rather than heard) seemed to my teacher’s eye like a strong first draft rather than a polished final product…Despite his Ivy League background, Obama evidently still lacks a reliable circle of erudite, cosmopolitan analysts like those John F. Kennedy drafted via his Harvard network.”

“Obama’s cursory two-sentence summary of the past relationship between Islam and the West — jumping from “conflict and religious wars” to “colonialism” — seemed vague and timid.”

“…the gravest omission was that Obama failed to fully articulate the most basic Western concepts of legal process and civil liberties, which have inspired reformers around the world. The president of the U.S. should be an eloquent ambassador of those ideals wherever he goes.”

“Obama projected himself as a floating spectator of other people’s beliefs (as in his memory of hearing the call to prayer in Indonesia). Though he identified himself as a Christian, there was no sign that it goes very deep. Christianity seemed like a badge or school scarf, a testament of affiliation without spiritual convictions or constraints.”

“By approaching religion with the cool, neutral voice of the American professional elite, Obama was sometimes simplistic and even inadvertently condescending, as in his gift bag of educational perks like “scholarships,” “internships,” and “online learning” — as if any of these could checkmate the seething, hallucinatory obsessions of jihadism.”

“…before he can sway hearts and minds, the president will need to show that he understands the ultimate divergence and perhaps incompatibility of major creeds. At the finale, his recitation of soft-focus quotes from the Koran, Talmud and Bible came perilously close to a fuzzy New Age syncretism of “all religions are the same” — which they unequivocally are not. The problem facing international security is that people who believe something will always be stronger and more committed than people who believe nothing — which unfortunately describes the complacent passivity of most Western intellectuals these days.”

Piracy is no laughing matter

1. Policing the world is nothing new for the United States. When we’re provoked we defend ourselves. This is not simply a 20th/21st century phenomenon.
2. Piracy is no laughing matter. The crime of piracy is considered a breach of jus cogens, a conventional peremptory international norm that states must uphold. Those committing thefts on the high seas, inhibiting trade, and endangering maritime communication are considered by sovereign states to be hostis humani generis (enemies of humanity). ~ Piracy – Wikipedia
3. Dealing with pirates has historically become a greater problem for the U. S. when we’ve placated them. During our dealing with the Barbary Pirates in the early 1800s The United States continued to pay up to $1 million per year over the next 15 years for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. Payments in ransom and tribute to the privateering states amounted to 20 percent of United States government annual revenues in 1800. ~ The First Barbary War – Wikipedia.

   Yeah, that didn’t work.

This did finally work – History Lesson – First Barbary War excerpt (aka The U. S. becomes the police of the world):

On Thomas Jefferson’s inauguration as president in 1801, Yusuf Karamanli, the Pasha (or Bashaw) of Tripoli, demanded $225,000 from the new administration. (In 1800, Federal revenues totaled a little over $10 million.) Putting his long-held beliefs into practice, Jefferson refused the demand. Consequently, in May 1801, the Pasha declared war on the United States, not through any formal written documents but by cutting down the flagstaff in front of the U.S. Consulate. Algiers and Tunis soon followed their ally in Tripoli.

In response, Jefferson sent a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress. Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli “and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify.”

Enterprise capturing Tripoli

The schooner USS Enterprise defeated the 14-gun Tripolitan corsair Tripoli after a fierce but one-sided battle on August 1, 1801. ~ First Barbary War – Wikipedia.

There is no nuance regarding the situation we find ourselves in with the Maersk Alabama or what should be done about it. If direct action is not taken these occurences will simply grow in frequency.

Defend the Conscience Clause

President Obama is ready to rescind the Conscience Clause, which allows doctors who morally object to performing abortions to opt out of those procedures.

Many like Dr. Suzanne T. Poppema, board chair of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, will try to frame the argument with a false dicotomy:

Good Health Care vs. Ideological Demands.

Everything we do is rooted in something religious, moral, or philisophical, whether we know it or not. Everything we do is motivated by a deeper belief in something.

This a battle over moral absolutes and not simply “good healthcare”. This is a battle over whether the state should be allowed to override what a doctors conscience dictates.

Please take action by

• Educating yourself on this issue
  • The Heritage Foundation: HHS Conscience Clause Regulation: Securing the Blessings of Liberty
  • CNN: White house set to reverse health care conscience clause
  • Wikipedia
• Informing your family and friends
• Letting your voice be heard.
  • American Center for Law and Justice: Sign the petition to protect pro-life doctors

What law did AIG bonuses break? Connecticut Attorney General says, “…they were undeserving of it.”

Glenn Beck interviewed Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal about why he was demanding AIG execs return their bonuses (Remember, these executives don’t get paid a salary, just a once a year bonus).

Jeff Poor from NewsBusters summarized,

“Blumenthal claimed the AIG executives were “undeserving” of the bonuses. Blumenthal also pointed out the bonuses paid out were to increase next year. However, Beck pressed Blumenthal on the legality of that and Blumenthal came up blank in this exchange:”

BECK: Is that against the law?

BLUMENTHAL: Well, it is against public policy. And it is unsanctioned by law.

BECK: Is that against the law?

BLUMENTHAL: It should be against the law.

BECK: Is it against the law?

BLUMENTHAL: It’s against the public policy and against the taxpayer…In my view it is unrequired by law.

BECK: It is a yes or no question. Counselor, it is a yes or no question. Is it against the law?

BLUMENTHAL: It is not against the law and I have never said that it is against the law, and I have never said that we would bring an action.

BECK: Then you know what you should do? You should enforce the law. You shouldn’t use your bully pulpit to gain popularity.

You’re pathologically incapable of accepting responsibility for these things

My apologies for amplifying the echo chamber. But you must watch Minister of The European Parliament, the gutsy Daniel Hannan (the youngest MEP ever) scold British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

[Read his posts on the Telegraph.]

Where is the United States of Americas Daniel Hannan? Stand up!

HIGHLIGHTS:

• “I see you’ve already mastered the essential craft of the European politician, namely the ability to say one thing in this chamber and a very different thing to your home electorate.”
• “The truth, Prime Minister, is that you have run out of our money. The country as a whole is now in negative equity. Every British child is born owing around £20,000. Servicing the interest on that debt is going to cost more than educating the child.”
• “Now, it’s not that you’re not apologising; like everyone else I have long accepted that you’re pathologically incapable of accepting responsibility for these things. It’s that you’re carrying on, wilfully worsening our situation, wantonly spending what little we have left.”
• “You cannot spend your way out of recession or borrow your way out of debt.”
• “And when you repeat, in that wooden and perfunctory way, that our situation is better than others, that we’re ‘well-placed to weather the storm’, I have to tell you that you sound like a Brezhnev-era apparatchik giving the party line.”
• “They can see what the markets have already seen: that you are the devalued Prime Minister of a devalued government.”