63 Comments

1. ForNow:

Roger, the second link (ìboring sourcesî) is the same as the first. Also, ìboring orangesî would come closer to rhyming than ìboring sources.î Donít mind me, Iím exhausted.

Nov 8, 2004 - 9:23 pm 2. Kevin P:

Roger:

The reason Hollywood is silent is because it force them to come to terms with the ugly truth that this is a war, that they really do hate our freedom and our freedom to expose the ugliness of what they think is beautifull. If this had been, just for the sake of argument, a pro palestinian film maker who was accidently killed in an Israeli response to another suicide bomber, the Hollywood community would be holding candle light vigils and no doubt there would be a stirring tribute at the Oscars with the silly cycle of violence dribble thrown in to boot. Since this was a filmaker exposing the truth about the real consequences that allowing these madmen to take control of the Middle East and what they would bring to the world and since this is a damning argument against their worldview I feel there will be nothing but the continued silence from the bulk of the Hollywood Community. Silence and indifference are almost as ugly as the act itself.

Nov 8, 2004 - 9:26 pm 3. syn:

Nah, they don’t care. They have more important things like botox, boobs, beating bush bloody while defecating on the American soul to be concerned with the assassination of free speech around the world.

The American feminist movement is too busy induldging in the plight of it’s own micro-examined vigina to even recongize the horrors females around the world are forced to face on a daily basis. Oh they put on a good show of M Streep fighting for women rights but it’s all just an act.

That’s show biz folks.

Nov 8, 2004 - 9:39 pm 4. richard mcenroe:

Why not send a letter to the WGAw? They probably won’t do anything because he wasn’t killed by an Angry White Male, but at least it will be on the record…

Nov 8, 2004 - 9:40 pm 5. Syl:

There’s some dhimmitude and, may I say it, fear involved methinks.

Seriously.

The Islamists are pushing for hate speech laws and cry ‘hate speech’ and ‘racism’ to any criticism of Islam.

They will murder to prove their point. That has become increasingly obvious.

Michael Moore would be a dead man if he changed his spots. Sometimes I wonder if he knows it.

This war is more than al Qaeda but the Left insists it’s only against bin laden. And by doing so, they will be the first to be absorbed into dhimmitude by the Islamists.

Perhaps the left and such bodies as the NYTimes instinctively sense the danger of Islamism and thus their fear of confrontation has turned into abject hatred of Bush.

=========

OT aside

I’m experiencing near catastrophic failure somewhere between my pc and modem with up to 70% packet loss. Developing….

Nov 8, 2004 - 9:49 pm 6. Stephen_M:

Actually it’s not a stunning silence. They’re miming. “Perfidy: Not just a French thing.”

Nov 8, 2004 - 9:54 pm 7. thedragonflies:

How easy it is to appear brave when opposing faux fascists, otherwise known as Republicans. Opposing the real think takes real courage, oops, we’re just actors, don’t you know, we just pretend.

Nov 8, 2004 - 10:11 pm 8. blogaddict:

Remember when the fatwa against Rushdie had the power to deeply shock the artistic community? And yet Rushdie is, fortunately, still alive. Now an actual murder successfully carried out doesn’t seem to raise much of a fuss. I wonder why. Some of it is undoubtedly that there has been so much violence in the past couple of years that we have become somewhat desensitized. But I fear that some of it is the fact that admitting the savagery and implacability of the enemy we face would be tantamount to admitting that perhaps Bush was right after all, at least about terrorism.

Nov 8, 2004 - 10:27 pm 9. WichitaBoy:

Well, let’s look on the bright side. No need to worry or fuss. This reality is reality, not the one where Bush turns out to be Hitler. In this real world, artists are being killed and silenced, and it is a war, and it’s not going away, and there will be more attacks, and with their high birth rates there will be more and more Muslims willing to blow you, gentle reader, to smithereens for the cause. Sooner or later, reality will obtrude, probably in a rather violent manner.

But let’s be honest: Hollywood is languid and decadent, exactly as Bin Laden believes all of America to be.

Our opponents on the other side of the political divide have almost got it right: we are indeed extremely threatened by crazy religious people who live far away. They’re just a little confused on the proper location.

Nov 8, 2004 - 10:47 pm 10. Veruka Salt:

If he killed himself with a heroin needle, the would be all up in arms, ‘how could this happen, he was so young.. blah.. blahh..”

We would have charity concerts up the rear end.

Nov 8, 2004 - 10:52 pm 11. Samuel:

Roger

Do you not hail from Hollywood? Well then that makes at least one now doesn’t it? In all seriousness, you know the truth as well as any, these “friends” will risk little to show interest in things that might also put them in common cause with our President, they are reactionary remember? In this case being reactionary means, well being disinterested or non-reactionary. On the other hand they may be so pre-occupied with the fallout of this election that in their current state of gnashing teeth, they have no time for such trivial matters.

Roger, the truly sad fact, and it truly would break my heart if my utter contempt wasn’t so hardened toward them, is found in the fact that this just further cedes more of such moral high ground to the political right and this only does more to seal my fate as a neo-con (and many others as well I am sure). Think about it, they aren’t looking to justify one way or another anything that they perceive would help the “right-wing” these days no matter who it helps. That causes them to say “we have killed 100,000 Iraqis” when in truth we have saved even more than that. Anything this President does liberal, moderate or good is judged as unecessary or bad! Such utter blindness these people find themselves in, but really, if they can’t find a cause in Theo Van Gogh, where will they find one? Certainly it will be found where they ought not find it, somewhere in the forbidden and decrepit world of Michael Moore…DAMN THEM!

Nov 8, 2004 - 11:15 pm 12. Brian:

I was just reading an article about Why Art Became Ugly and I found this bit relevant:

It is helpful to remember that modernism in art came out of a very specific intellectual culture of the late nineteenth century, and that it has remained loyally stuck in those themes….

Artists and the art world should be at the edge. The art world is now marginalized, in-bred, and conservative. It is being left behind, and for any self-respecting artist there should be nothing more demeaning than being left behind.

Make of that what you will.

Nov 9, 2004 - 12:00 am 13. Tom Grey:

You know the reason, Roger, but you refuse to believe your friends are really so morally bankrupt.

They have decided that BushHitler is the Evil One — and therefore Islamists who oppose him is OK; and anything the Pali terrorists do is OK; and anything any Muslim does anywhere is “understandable” — meaning the victim deserved it (like the US deserved 9/11).

Please keep trying to awaken them from their self-absorbed stupor, and understand that Good exists, and Evil exists.

And that was Good to Boot Saddam. What comes next is part of the self-fulfilling prophecy — the Left seems to want it to be terrible, to prove their starting assumption. That BushHitler is Evil.

But really, Islamofascism is the big Evil right now.

Nov 9, 2004 - 1:47 am 14. David Thomson:

ìBut I fear that some of it is the fact that admitting the savagery and implacability of the enemy we face would be tantamount to admitting that perhaps Bush was right after all, at least about terrorism.î

They prefer to continue ignoring reality. The threat may simply disappear if we ignore it. The price tag to do otherwise is a steep one. It would compel them to grow up and assume the responsibilities of adulthood. The Western World, after all, must have unjustly angered these murderers. Why else would they be so enraged at us? If only a cowboy like George W. Bush wasnít in the white House. Canít we all just get along?

The terrorists are also usually dark skinned. It would be much easier to deal with if they instead possessed blue eyes and blond hair.

Nov 9, 2004 - 1:53 am 15. Grantman:

Roger – and all of your readers – here’s a link to Theo van Gogh’s film, “Submission.” It’s in Windows Media Player format. Except for the opening & closing prayers in Arabic, the film is in English with Dutch subtitles. Powerful, yes, but not worth his life.

Click on the opening front page and the download should begin:

http://www.genoeg.nu/

Nov 9, 2004 - 3:04 am 16. ambisinistral:

Alternate universe… before Bin Laden scaled it back, the original 911 Plan was to hijack jets on both coasts. Considering Jihadists’ antipathy towards ‘decadent’ American culture and their attacks on on American symbols almost certainly Hollywood, in some way, shape, or form would have been a target.

I wonder if that would have given them the message?

Nov 9, 2004 - 4:26 am 17. Hermie:

The artistic ‘community’ ignores reality, in favor of some fantasyland where you can indulge yourself without consequence, and anyone who disagrees with your stupidity is evil.

When there is a real and obvious threat, they prefer their illusions and stay within the boundaries of the ‘community’, rather than face the enemy.

Where is Barbra? Well, she prefers to post anti-Bush messages on her website, rather than call for action against Islamic extremists. She and others like herself, are still in denial that Muslim fanatics are far more dangerous than John Ashcroft.

Nov 9, 2004 - 4:45 am 18. David Thomson:

ìWhen there is a real and obvious threat, they prefer their illusions and stay within the boundaries of the ‘community’, rather than face the enemy.î

Their enormous wealth allows them to live in such a fantasy land. On top of that, they are used to people sucking up to them. Elvis Presleyís sycophants supposedly agreed with him regardless of how dumb he sounded. He could contradict himself within a ten minute period and still no one dared to take Elvis to task. How often is Barbara Streisland forced to defend her views? Once every ten years?

Nov 9, 2004 - 6:27 am 19. syn:

The only view Barbara Streisland will defend is the one she sees from her million dollar beach- front property mansion.

Man, if I could afford the number of body guards Bruce Springsteen has then I would walk around the streets of NYC freely expressing my views on the dire importance of fighting against Islamic Fascism.

But I can’t afford a bodyguard, so I tiptoe around being very careful not to risk offending anyone whereby feeling forced to keep my mouth shut for fear of my life.

I despise the coward in me.

Nov 9, 2004 - 6:48 am 20. Rick Ballard:

Why discuss the inaction of a group who are as intellectually dead as Arafat? At some point the irrelevance of these pseudo-intellectual artistes must become manifest by simply allowing them to rot in peace. The latest example of their hypocritical blindness might be appended to a very long list if anyone cared to keep a list.

Is it any wonder that Pixar’s ‘Incredible’ beat Sarandon’s ‘Alfie’ by over 11 to 1? Of course, ‘Incredible’ had the distinct advantage of utilizing actors whose range and versimilitude exceed anything achieved by Sarandon in the past twenty years, but 11 to 1?

Watching the mastodons struggling in the tar pit is boring, Daddy, can we do something else today?

Nov 9, 2004 - 7:21 am 21. Pam:

Hey,

Susan Surandan, Whoopie Goldberg et al, where the hell are you? Theo’s film was about women being abused and oppressed. He was killed for exposing Islam’s not so dirty secret about how they treat women. Oh, that’s right, that’s just Islam’s culture and we’re not supposed to judge culture unless it’s ours.

Nov 9, 2004 - 7:48 am 22. Pam:

I should have said, we’re not supposed to judge oppressive cultures, unless it is our culture that oppresses women.

Nov 9, 2004 - 7:52 am 23. lindenen:

The same could be said about the NAACP and other organizations when it comes to the situation in the Sudan or what Rubert Mugabe has done to Zimbabwe.

Nov 9, 2004 - 7:58 am 24. Clio:

Roger,

Hollywood types don’t LEAD the charge against intolerance or outright criminality. They must be recruited by someone with a much more personal stake. The question then is, where are the European artists and intellectuals who should be out in fron of this thing? Oh, right, cowering in their saferooms, writing out a big fat check to Suha–I mean the PLO, just in case…

Speaking of cowardice disguised as commentary, I came across this gem in today’s Boston Globe. Wow. Makes me wonder how the Dems can ever get into the “moral values” game again, if this is representative. Here are a few choice excerpts.

“A shameful succession of retaliatory fires and bombings at mosques and Islamic centers suggests that just below the surface of Holland’s open society runs the molten lava of xenophobic intolerance.”

Fair enough, right? All the jihadis did was murder a peaceful filmmaker with a famous surname. That doesn’t give anyone license to bomb a school.

But then the BG editors cite, approvingly, the mayor of the town where a bomb went off Monday, saying

“One single person who carried out such an idiotic act should not be allowed to affect Dutch society.”

Well, that’s not quite right, is it? There’ve been at least 8 arrests so far, and the conspiracy is only beginning to be unravelled. Estimates of 5% of Muslims in the Netherlands (50,000 people) who subscribe to extremist beliefs point to a bigger problem than “one single person.” The Globe is backing a losing horse, here.

But then they really stick their foot in it.

“there are all-too-familiar consequences of the anger that the murder of van Gogh has provoked. Surveys show a sharp rise in approval for right-wing politicians who preach the need to cut back on immigration from Morocco and Turkey, the countries from which most of the Muslims in Holland emigrated. One poll indicated that 47 percent of the Dutch feel less tolerant of the Muslims living among them since van Gogh was killed.

This syndrome — fear of a few violent extremists being transferred to the 1 million Muslims in Holland who are overwhelmingly peaceful — has a sorrowful history. It marks the recurrence of a fascistic will to play upon the insecurities of a people reputed to be among the most liberal and tolerant in Europe.

As in the past, racists and nationalists are appealing to the most primitive reflex of their own group: fear of the mysterious other. This pattern of anti-immigrant rabble-rousers manipulating anxieties about North African or Turkish communities is being replicated in nearly all the countries of Western Europe. It threatens to reawaken the dormant beast of European authoritarianism.”

So there we have it: less than a week after the murder of a controversial filmmaker, our American opinion-makers are prepared to step gingerly around his body to protect the innocent mass of European Muslim immigrants against irrational, fascistic forces. Nevermind that A) Holland never went fascist in the 30s and 40s, in fact suffered greatly for resisting the Nazis far longer and more courageously than just about any other occupied country; B) comparing Jewish Europeans of the early 20th century, a fully integrated population from whom no threat ever emerged, to today’s European Muslim minority is nonsensical, ahistorical and just plain stupid; C) this murder is far from an isolated incident, and while violence against Muslims should be condemned, the rising level of apprehension among Dutch citizens is both rational and, so long as it finds expression in lawful political discourse, desirable; and, finally, D) if it is wrong of the Dutch to question their current levels and sources of immigration based on the actions of a relative few, why is it not wrong for the editors of the BG to impute fascistic, xenophobic tendencies to the Dutch majority?

Nov 9, 2004 - 8:06 am 25. chris_m:

You silly people, you! You just don’t get it!

Rushdie wasn’t killed because that was during the Clinton administration. And Clinton was a defender of the oppressed and great leader! Now that we have the Hitler/Bush in power, we have brought upon our own demise! If only Al Gore had won, the 911 events would not have happened. Van Gogh would be walking the streets, the great Arafat would not be in a hospital. Vive La France!

Perhaps the inaction of hollywood is simply based on this thought, “We told you so, and there you go and re-elect Bush!”. This is depression of being so oppressed!

Nov 9, 2004 - 8:14 am 26. Coisty:

I’ve been wondering about this since it happened. To be fair it was on election day but in the days since I’d have expected some of those who championed Dixie Chicks and are still making films about McCarthyism – George Clooney just signed up for one – to comment.

I also read the British papers on a daily basis and haven’t seen any condemnation from there either. So I just started a thread on it at imdb.com and asked if there’s been any reaction from the European film community.

It’s on the second page of the message board at the bottom – http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0324660/

I’m hoping (though not expecting) someone will give the names of some European artists who’ve spoken out. French actress Emmanuelle Beart spends a lot of time defending the rights of illegal aliens from North Africa who are in France. I wonder if she has anything to say about Theo van Gogh.

Nov 9, 2004 - 8:55 am 27. Sandy P:

No Golden Globies for Mikey. See Drudge.

Nov 9, 2004 - 9:40 am 28. Michael B:

“The feeble enemy response suggests a real weakness.”

That line is taken from Belmont Club’s latest update (entitled The Enemy Starts to Collapse) on the Fallujah campaign – but also is reflective of the maunderings and ravings of Hollywood’s and the MSM’s PR-enhanced dead-enders.

That weakness is real; often enough it is self-inflicted as well (e.g., Streisand and other fantasists and egoists). Still, as Bill Whittle has recently noted, the key will be in taking positive advantage of those weaknesses and creatively supplanting them with strengths as the opportunity presents itself. There too the offensive now occurring in Fallujah as well as Iraq and the War on Islamofascism more generally is ripe with analogy.

Nov 9, 2004 - 10:20 am 29. RandMan:

thedragonflies said–

How easy it is to appear brave when opposing faux fascists, otherwise known as Republicans. Opposing the real thing takes real courage, oops, we’re just actors, don’t you know, we just pretend.

Lot of truth there. Many on the Left cite how Ghandi used passive resistance in his efforts to gain India its independence from the British. To the Left, this proved pacifism works. It never seems to dawn on the Left that Ghandi’s passive resistance would not have worked if, instead of opposing British rule, they had been trying to gain their independence from say Muslim rulers, or Russian communists, Maoist China, etc. Fools.

Nov 9, 2004 - 10:36 am 30. Old Dad:

Maybe someone can splain this to me.

I’m as willing to accuse the Hollywood elites of moral perfidy as the next guy, but I’m much more reluctant to accuse them of being crazy. As I see it, silence and passivity (on anyone’s part) in the face of Islamofascist terror is, well, crazy.

The Van Gogh murder is truly horrific, but no more so than the thousands that these animals have perpetrated. We might reasonably expect artistes to heed this wake up call in that the victim was one of their own, but you gotta wonder why the 9/11 alarm clock apparently didn’t work.

Some might call me paranoid, but when crazed thugs fly airliners into skyscrapers, behead innocent civilians in glorious technicolor, and brutally murder civilians in the public squares of Europe, I think we may have a problem. I think they are trying to kill us. As my kids would say, I’m not down with that.

Moreover, I’m not terribly interested in nuance, or root causes, or exquisite moral equivalencies right now. I’m interested in self defense, and I thank God that we have brave men and women fighting these bastards.

I’m not sure that the Hollywood elite are evil, morally bankrupt, perverse, (you fill in your favorite perjorative). I think I’ve convinced myself that they are in no small portion simply crazy.

Nov 9, 2004 - 10:48 am 31. Kevin P:

Roger:

The reaction of the Globe is typical of the moral bankruptcy of the left. Instead of focusing on the real threat of islamo fascism they prefer to wallow in self hate and focus on the reaction of the Dutch and why their response is the problem, not the act and the people who committed it. They try to twist the facts and somehow blame european intolerence of arabs instead of the known fact that a certain percentage of the arab world is committed to terrorism and will reach out all over the world to kill any artist who exposes their evil and will not bow down to the blackmail of the killers like the writers at the Globe have done.

The Globe will not get their heads out of the sand and they would rather blame the victims instead of the criminals. Muslims have more freedom to practice their own form of their faith in the west then they do in the land where Mohhamed was born. Some of them abuse this freedom to force the West to conform to their 7th century vision of the world and will use any tactic to bludgeon the west to bend to their will.

There is every reason to be worried about some of the nationalist movements that have sprung up in europe. But part of the reason their corrupt ideas are finding traction is because of the weak sister response of the left. Instead of reacting strongly to the obvious threat of islamo fascism they cling to the stupid thought that if we treat these thugs with respect they will change. Their lack of response only gives them the incentive to step up their murderous program of hate. Because they see that it works.

Nov 9, 2004 - 10:56 am 32. Kyda Sylvester:

If you’re looking for anything consequential to come from the Hollywood crowd, you’re in for a long wait. For all their supposed brains and talent (and we know they certainly have the scratch), they produce a commodity that is mostly crap. If Hollywood were in the business of manufacturing Widgets, it would have bellied up long ago having produced so many defective Widgets.

Actors in particular dwell in fantasy and flounder mightily when called upon to express thoughts that didn’t originate in other, usually better, minds. Even their real world existences, where they’re surrounded by yes people, are plastic and phony.

Hollywood believes that if our culture is reviled around the world, it’s because of the guy in the cowboy hat and his Bible thumping sycophants. What they either don’t recognize or refuse to acknowledge is the window on America for most of the world is that crap product Hollywood keeps sending it.

Nov 9, 2004 - 10:57 am 33. PeterUK:

Roger,

You’re the man,simply write them another script.

Nov 9, 2004 - 11:42 am 34. PeterUK:

This sounds more like Botox on the brain.

http://barbrastreisand.com/statements.html#wemusthavepatience

Nov 9, 2004 - 11:52 am 35. flenser:

Do they care someone was killed for making a film which protested violent abuse against women? Are they even interested?

Rethorical questions, I’m sure.

What they care about is that the American people are “collaborators” with the American government.

http://www.back-to-iraq.com/archives/000835.php#comments

A morbidly fascinating thread. Practice your marksmanship, people.

Nov 9, 2004 - 12:03 pm 36. Michael B:

There is another phenomenon that is seemingly being neglected by the MSM in Europe and America in their analysis of van Gogh’s execution. We don’t merely have this latest murder (and near-decapitation) flaunted in public. There is also a history of “honor killings” and similar Muslim/Islamicist themed executions which now number well into the hundreds in Europe.

I.e., a continuing history of prima facie, hard evidence – not fantasy, fear mongering or reactionary fervor and xenophobia – that serves as warrant for 1) thorough-going critique of basic multi-culti assumptions, 2) social/political action and 3) legislation backed up with due force – not pro forma writ followed by a complacency motivated by unexamined multi-culti dogma and assumptions.

Nov 9, 2004 - 12:08 pm 37. Rick Ballard:

Peter UK,

Wrt to the sentiments expressed in your link, I actually had similiar thoughts in 1964. Perhaps she will be able to exhibit patience for forty years, too. Let’s hope so.

Nov 9, 2004 - 12:14 pm 38. Manco_Dollars:

It is entirely possible that no actor or director would speak up for fear of assassination. After all, it’s not like any of them have the President’s security. I would not speak up publicly against Islam for the same reason.

Nov 9, 2004 - 12:16 pm 39. RandMan:

A morbidly fascinating thread. Practice your marksmanship, people.

Flenser, I think you mispelled a word. Instead of marksmanship, shouldn’t we be practicing our marXmanship.

No groaning from the peanut gallery, please.

Nov 9, 2004 - 12:17 pm 40. maryatexitzero:

A lot of people haven’t heard much about this story. I don’t watch TV news, but CNN and MSNBC on the web haven’t been covering it in detail. CNN ran the story under this odd headline Flowers as Dutch film man cremated. Who wrote that headline, the Google translator? It’s like they’re trying to hide the content…

It’s a shame that Hollywood and the media seems to be ignoring this. The best response is the one that only they can give; round-the-clock shows about Van Gogh and his work, constant showings of his film ‘Submission’, billboards about the film plastered all over Muslim neighborhoods. Extremists are attacking our free speech – we should attack back with more free speech than they can stand, in their face. The media is very good at that.

They could at least do some t-shirts. If they were willing to do that to “Free Winona”, they could do it for Van Gogh.

Nov 9, 2004 - 12:22 pm 41. Connecticut Yankee:

Here is a news item for Jamie Irons, when he shows up– it also speaks to Old Dad’s comment about the sanity-challenged population in Hollywood [link via Little Green Footballs]:

Traumatized Kerry supporters in Florida seek therapy: report

MIAMI (AFP) – Shocked supporters of defeated US presidential candidate John Kerry are seeking help from psychologists, who refer to their condition as “post-election selection trauma,” it was reported.

The Boca Raton News said Palm Beach, Florida trauma specialist Douglas Schooler alone has already treated 15 clients and friends with intense hypnotherapy since the Democratic candidate conceded on November 3.

“I had one friend tell me he’s never been so depressed and angry in his life,” Schooler said. “I observed patients threatening to leave the country or staring listlessly into space. They were emotionally paralyzed, shocked and devastated,” he told the daily.

“We’re calling it ‘post-election selection trauma’ and we’re working to develop a counseling program for it,” said Rob Gordon, the Boca Raton-based executive director of the American Health Association.

As Charles at LGF noted, the acronym for “post-election selection trauma” is PEST.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/afp/20041109/ts_alt_afp/us_vote_kerry_offbeat

Nov 9, 2004 - 12:22 pm 42. Jamie Irons:

Connecticut Yankee

The article you quoted about “PEST” was satirical, right?

Well, I have a simple, two-word suggestion for the sufferers of this (as yet not catalogued in DSM-IV TR) “disorder.”

MOVE ON!

More seriously, if it hasn’t been noted here already, I strongly recommend Jonah Goldberg’s NRO piece today on Democrats as sore losers.

Jamie Irons

Nov 9, 2004 - 12:41 pm 43. TedM:

The Dutch need to bring to bear, the Danish solution of WW II. The film should be shown at every movie theatre in Holland, befor their feature film.

Every window show have a banner saying THOU SHALT NOT KILL. Everywhere. On cars, on buildings on tee shirts. Show the bastards that the whole country is against them

Nov 9, 2004 - 12:45 pm 44. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Regarding post election trauma, this still applies to some of them.

But I’ve had a brainstorm! Here’s how Europe should deal with the muslim invasion:

First, assume that they need cheap labor who will also pay taxes to support the aging population.

We have a surplus of Mexican immigrants, many who go through hell (in the Arizona desert) to get here. The Europeans should simply throw out their muslims and take the far more peaceful and civilized Mexican peasants who come here. These people are usually very hard workers, have good family values, and speak one of the European languages.

BTW… did anyone notice that Turkey, which obstructed us during the war for fear of losing potential EU membership (the French of course whispered in their ear) have now been told by Chirac that they can forget that membership.

And what does this tell us about Arafat? (yes, it’s related). We get our information from the French (liars) or Palestinians (liars and killers).

Nov 9, 2004 - 12:51 pm 45. Connecticut Yankee:

Jamie Irons

It’s been suggested that it’s only a matter of time until Kerry et al. blame W for a bicoastal Thorazine shortage.

Apropos of Jonah’s article, I’ve been thinking that the Dems could take some lessons in accepting defeat this year from Yankees and Cardinals fans.

Nov 9, 2004 - 12:52 pm 46. notthisgirl:

… A little OT …

Someone yesterday made a half-kidding (I think) comment to Jamie Irons about the expected rize in anti-depressant medications since the elections.

Get a load of this: From the Captain’s Quarter blog … The Boca Raton News reported Tuesday that Palm Beach, Florida trauma specialist Douglas Schooler alone has already treated 15 clients and friends with intense hypnotherapy since the Democratic candidate conceded on November 3.

“I had one friend tell me he’s never been so depressed and angry in his life,” Schooler said. “I observed patients threatening to leave the country or staring listlessly into space. They were emotionally paralyzed, shocked and devastated,” he told the daily.

“We’re calling it ‘post-election selection trauma’ and we’re working to develop a counseling program for it,” said Rob Gordon, the Boca Raton-based executive director of the American Health Association.

I guess it’s TRUE!

Nov 9, 2004 - 1:01 pm 47. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Does anyone have theories about why this election caused such radical behavior and reactions on the part of the left?

We had unprecedented (in my memory) attacks on signs, Republican offices, and cars with Republican stickers (unfortunately, they ignored mine – so much for the free body work).

Now we have unprecedented emotional reactions.

As for the ones headed for Canada, door, back, out.

What the hell is going on?

Nov 9, 2004 - 1:11 pm 48. Jamie Irons:

notthisgirl, you quoted the “PEST” article:

…”I observed patients threatening to leave the country…

Promises, promises…

…or staring listlessly into space…

In my line, we call this “working”…

Jamie Irons

Nov 9, 2004 - 1:16 pm 49. Kevin P:

John:

As someone who was a rabid dog hater of Reagan I can tell you why the response is so intense. They really believe their own rhetoric. They sincerly believe that Bush is close to Hitler. They know for a fact that the Patriot act has destroyed the Bill of Rights. They know for a fact that Haliburton is the sole reason for the war in Iraq. Some even think that 9-11 was in fact a plot by government agents. They think that someday in the near future all people will be forced to make an altar call, “rape will be legal again”. Women will be fired from their jobs, blacks will become slaves again, and the “Steppford Wives” is a Karl Rove training film and not a piece of fiction. Some of us may see these type of statements as some of the normal hyperbole of a political year but a large segment of the democratic party has swallowed the Kool Aid and believe the dribble they hear from the Chomsky’s, Moore’s, Golbergs and Streisands. I lived in a similar alternative reality in the 80,s so i have a certain amount of sympathy. The only good thing to think about is that in the next 20 years many of the true believers, especially some of the younger ones, will be intoduced to real life and it will have a magical and positve influence on their view of the world.

Nov 9, 2004 - 1:31 pm 50. Sandy P:

John, they’re losing. It’s been about 70 years in power, The Wall fell (today?!) 15 years ago. Bankrupt ideology.

You know what the revisionist theory is.

They’ve never learned to be good losers. A bunch of 2 and 3 y.o. temper tantrums.

It’s really got to bite, if one looks at the electorate breakdown, to know that Nixon’s Silent Majority and the Vietnam vets bitch-slapped them hard after 30 years.

Plus the black Ohioan turnout for W of 20%!!!!??

Nov 9, 2004 - 1:34 pm 51. Rick Ballard:

“What the hell is going on?”

Where would they find hope? Gerrymandering guarantees the House through 2012, although the ‘06 Senate races leave both sides protecting about an equal number of seats the Dems would have to pick up 6 to regain a majority. Not a bet that I would take. Frist is already making noise about restricting the use of the cloture rule wrt judicial nominations. The Dems opened the door for that by the abuse of filibuster in the last two years. Bush will probably pick at least 3 Supremes and possibly 5.

Additionally, the Dems are going to have to restructure the party with a move to the middle that will truly and finally marginalize the left if they are to have any hope of regaining power in the next decade. Plus, Stalin’s dead, Kruschev’s dead, Mao’s dead and Castro has a bum leg. What’s a lefty Dem got to live for?

For centrist Dems, the problem is the lack of a bench and the lack of AAA farm clubs to support new talent. Right now, Bayh is the only centrist who makes any sense at all and the Clintonistas will knife him shortly. They haven’t quite finished looting the party treasury.

Oh, and one last thing, the MSM has been positively and irrefutably identified as the propaganda wing of the Dem party. They have therefore lost their utility in being able to influence the undecided.

Aside from that, the Dems have no reason to despair.

Nov 9, 2004 - 1:47 pm 52. Rick Ballard:

OTOH, George W. Bush is no more conservative than John F. Kennedy.

In the end, the Dems won.

Nov 9, 2004 - 1:59 pm 53. Jim:

What the hell is going on?

Two things, in my opinion. One is that the election spells a final curtains for American leftism, and leftists know it. Their ideals are their fetish and the corner is being turned now, beyond which there is no going back to a time when they could at least hope that their goals could be realized. Replacing hope, naturally, is rage, despair, and destruction, since they don’t have the scheme of values and character to place American society within a context of reasonable plausibility.

Another thing is that many in the Boomer and Generation X generations have fought long and in many cases losing battles with nihilism. They don’t have the character to react to political adversity with equanimity. Their gut instinct is to say for the umpteenth time in their lives, “F*** it, man!” These are massive generational swaths of nihilism that just aren’t there in the mid-20th C. generations of Americans, who can hardly understand why a kid would pierce his cheek and join a Stalinist group that he knows little about on a dare.

Both of these phenomena are genuine personality disorders, in my opinion. They are also linked, as leftism is nihilistic, at bottom.

Nov 9, 2004 - 2:02 pm 54. Sandy P:

Back in October, SF Gate had an article and it quoted, amongst others IIRC, ACORN.

They’ll be celebrating w/Kerry on the 2nd, but on the 3rd, the “progressives” are going to start separating and start their own party.

Bill Quick – Dailypundit has it in his archives.

10/6 article, I think.

Nov 9, 2004 - 2:16 pm 55. Catherine:

Coisty

I’m hoping (though not expecting) someone will give the names of some European artists who’ve spoken out.

Not me.

The situation over there is completely different from here. That’s one of the things that’s been obscured since 9/11: Europe is in a much more vulnerable situation than we are here.

I absolutely agree with TedM’s Danish solution: the film should be shown everywhere. Everywhere.

It’s obviously getting to be time for me to transcribe the notes I took on the anti-semitism in France lecture. One of the lines: “Jews live in fear.”

What is intensely unsettling to me is the fact that Muslims in Holland aren’t poor & aren’t discriminated against. There are no Muslim ghettos.

I’ve known since 9-11 that terrorism doesn’t come from poverty (my husband has read the historical literature on this). Now I realize I had been assuming nevertheless that ‘more money’ would help.

Now I see that more money has not helped in Holland.

Rather than blather on myself, here are excerpts from my notes.

The speaker was Henri Eisenberg, who was head of CRIF (I believe that’s the acronym.) This is the major Jewish organization in France. It was Eisenberg who persuaded Chirac to apologize for Vichy; Eisenberg also persuaded the Catholic Church to acknowledge its own role in the Holocaust.

EXCERPTS:

160 acts of antisemitism (violence?) in the past 7 months, compared to 75 acts in the same period in 2003

10 were committed by neo Nazis

50 were committed by North African immigrants

100 were committed by individuals for whom the motivation was not clear

Belgium has a similar phenomenon

anti-semitism today is very different from what the French have known previously

the desecration of the cemeteries is being done by neoNazis, who are also desecrating Cathoic & Muslim cemetaries (figures: 8 Jewish cemetaries, 7 Muslim cemetaries, 30 Catholic cemetaries)

The fact that they are desecrating Catholic & Muslim cemetaries as well doesn’t get reported in the international media, so people conclude that the desecrations are specifically anti-semitic acts

10% of French population is now Muslim

no one knows how many of these people are open to radicalization, or are radicalized already. I think there are estimates that 5% may be potential Islamists, but I can’t find this in my notes, and no one knows anyway. If 5% is the figure, 5% is an estimate.

There is tremendous difficulty integrating the children of these immigrants, because they live in ghettos where they never see Christian French, and they are frequently homeschooled as well

40% of French prisoners are Muslim

few Muslims vote in elections; they do not “feel” French

recently Muslim spectators booed when the Marseillaise was played at a soccer game

2nd intifada released immigrant anti-semitism. It was always there, but the intifada released it.

Everyone had been operating on the assumption that once the intifada was over, the antisemitic acts would die down. Now no one is sure. People hope the anti-semitism will die down, but they don’t know.

satellite TV is a huge problem; French Muslims watch Al Jazeera; the “death” of the boy Mohammad (I believe his death was staged) was played incessantly on Arabic TV

in France, Israelis are always called “Jews.”

It is not uncommon for a Christian French person to say to a French Jew, “Why do you treat the Palestinians so badly?”

Eisenberg’s entire lecture focused on attacks on Jewish children. That is where the real problem is; this is, apparently, a “children’s war,” Arab children against Jewish children, and the Arab children are winning. Jews fear for their children.

In October 2003 the principal of a well-known high school near the Luxembourg Gardens expelled 3 Arab boys, ages 11 and 12, who were constantly harrassing a Jewish student.

The 3 boys went to court, and the court reversed the principal’s action. Eisenberg thinks this was terrible. The principal need to be supported by the courts, and the public needed to know the principal would be supported.

The 3 Arab boys are back in the school, and the Jewish boy had to leave.

One of the most frightening aspects of the situation: there is no organization that is behind these acts. None. Jewish organizations can’t go to a Mosque or a Muslim political organization and demand that these acts stop. There is no ‘face’ on the problem.

The “extreme Left” supports Palestinians, routinely demonizes Israel, Sharon, Bush.

The NGOs are only concerend with Palestine. Some NGO or other actually had a slogan, “One Jew, one bullet,” a play on the “One settler, one bullet” slogan in South Africa.

Alain Finkielkraut says that the “Extreme Left,” the Greens & the NGOs have only two categories: oppressors & victims. So Jews are the new Nazis.

These groups don’t see themselves as anti-semitic because they have Jewish members.

Extreme leftists, NGOs & greens are closely connected to teachers, who are all on the left, and are “indulgent” of anti-semitism. The teachers see Arab children as victims, and feel guilty.

“The French are not more or less anti-semitic than they were 20 years ago.”

At the end of the 90s “you would have thought the French were less anti-Semitic.” French society denounced anti-semitism, there was no discrimination against Jews, Jews were successful.

“Nevertheless we have to clarify this optimistic picture.”

NOTE: my husband disagrees with my interpretation of Eisenberg on this point. I had the impression Eisenberg was saying that Jews were wrong to conclude, at the end of the 90s, that the French were now much less anti-semitic than they had been before. My husband says Eisenberg made the opposite claim.

And, in fact, at the end of his talk he said these words, “The country is not an anti-semitic country.” The new anti-semitism in France is coming from the “extreme right,” the “extreme left,” and from Muslim immigrants.

So I’m going to say he was unclear on this point. I also think it’s possible that the fact that the new French consul was sitting in the front row may have added some pressure. I don’t know.

Interestingly, the French consul stood up and told us all that in the next presidential election, “3 Jews” would be running: Sarkozy, Fabius, and one other person whose name I didn’t catch.

This was a bit of a shock, because none of these men is Jewish in the normal sense of the term. They are Catholics who have a Jewish ancestor, the same way John Kerry is a Catholic with a Jewish ancestor.

Eisenberg flatly rejected the consul’s characterization of Sarkozy and Fabius as Jewish, and they argued back and forth about it a bit. Eye-opening for the American audience, I’d say.

I’ve left out some parts, but this is the jist.

At the end Eisenberg said that even Jews who are living in expensive neighborhoods in the heart of Paris, as he and his wife do, “know that around us is violence. We know that Jewish children are victims of humiliation, and we think, ‘What about our children.?”"

This is close to a direct quote: “They have fear [speaking of Jews living in expensive neighborhoods.] For the moment we have hope that it will change, but we don’t know it will change. The general climate is a bad climate.”

One last thing.

A woman from AIPAC (sp?) asked a question about what kinds of lobbying CRIF is doing with the French government.

Eisenberg’s answer was revealing.

paraphrasing, but close: “Jews in America ask why we don’t have more influence with the government. You have to understand, you have the American people. You have allies, you have Christians with you, especially evangelical Christians. In France we have no one. We lobby alone.”

For me, this was a powerful moment: “you have the American people.”

Of course it’s true in one sense: “Jews” have the “American people” on their side, and so does Israel.

But we wouldn’t put it that way; we wouldn’t think of “Jews” and “Americans” as separate categories.

In France, Jews are not exactly French, it seems.

The next day I read an article about France and Israel in the FINANCIAL TIMES. At the end of the article the writer said that Sarkozy, “who is of Jewish descent,” would soon be visiting Israel.

My impression is that Jews in Europe are like blacks here: no longer discriminated against, but still seen as separate. I’m thinking of the ‘one drop of blood’ rule we use here, which defines people as black if they have one black ancestor. (I’ve forgotten how the rule goes, but I think that’s it.)

I have a ‘black’ friend here who is in fact mixed: her mother is black, her father white.

She is married to a white man, so her children have 3 white grandparents and 1 black grandparent. They have the same relationship to being black that John Kerry has to being Jewish.

But they are black, while John Kerry is Catholic.

I realize it’s not the same thing. Race and religion are apples and oranges.

Still, I think that for the society it is similiar. The larger society defines blacks as not-white no matter what, and in France the larger society defines Jews as not-French, no matter what.

Nov 9, 2004 - 2:42 pm 56. Catherine:

Rick B

WSJ says Dems are winning everything at local level, which makes a problem for future talent . . .

But this is still a closely divided country, and while the GOP won the major league pennants, Democrats did well in the AAA league of politics, the state legislatures. Republicans have to pay attention not only to where they are gaining votes, but also to the states and demographic groups where they are losing them.

Is that wrong?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110005866

Nov 9, 2004 - 2:47 pm 57. Rick Ballard:

Catherine,

A definitional difference. Fund refers to the state legisilatures as being AAA for legislative seats. I’m referring to the Senate and Governorships as AAA for the Presidency. What Fund glides over is that gerrymandering limits disputable House seats to less than 10% of the total. So we have have AAA clubs for both parties that have more than 3,650 players – more than 7,300 in total that are vying for 35-40 slots in the ‘bigs’. The Dems did OK at the local level this go around but the Presidential race sucks a lot of party resources from local campaigns. If they repeat in ‘06 there will be cause for hope. The 68 seat swing that Fund describes is a positive sign but it amounts to less than a 1% total pickup.

The President has accepted Ashcroft’s resignation.

Nov 9, 2004 - 3:06 pm 58. Catherine:

John Moore

I now think the entire reason this election has been so intense is the 2000 vote. (Well, the 2000 vote intensified by an order of magnitude by 9-11.)

Reading the British press is a revelation.

European elites, who were engaging in an unseemly degree of handwringing and muted Michael-Moore like catastrophizing going up to the election, are all falling in line.

It’s astonishing to behold.

A week or so before the election, Martin Wolf, Mr. Why Globalization Works himself, wrote a whole long column in the FT saying that if the American public re-elected George Bush we would be “telling the world” that “we don’t care.”

Please. This is Martin Wolf!

I’ve read one column after the other, since the election, in which the columnist says that Europeans thought because Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 & the election was thrown to the Supreme Court he was in fact an “accidental” president. They use that very word: accidental.

Europe experienced the past 4 years as an aberration, a departure from normalcy. And of course when you “add in” 9-11, which was nothing if not a Big, Fat departure from normalcy, you can see where they went off the rails.

Watching sanity break out in the European press is a sight to behold. I include the Daily Mirror in that: “Doh! 4 More Years of Bush!”—-that is not Michael Moore.

The Guardian has announced that President Bush has a mandate; and all the FT folks, every last one, is saying, in so many words, “Well, then. Bush, it is.”

I will never, ever again underestimate the power and central importance of legitimacy.

All governments–all of them, including totalitarian governments like Saddam’s–have to have legitimacy.

(A totalitarian government has to have the legitimacy of brutality. That is why, political scientists say, authoritarian governments fall rapidly the instant they start to liberalize. They lose the legitimacy of brutality, and since that’s the only legitimacy they’ve got, the people revolt. The Ceascescus in Romania are an example.)

Without legitimacy, you have chaos.

For Democrats, George Bush did not have legitimacy.

For them he was not the elected president. He lost the popular vote, and a conservative Supreme Court put him in office.

He wasn’t the real president.

I read today, either in The Corner or at opinionjournal, that the Kerry folks may have consciously planned to lose the popular vote themselves, but win the electoral college by taking Ohio.

Think how we would have felt if they’d pulled it off.

Bush would still have had his 3 million vote margin in the popular vote, but he would be out of office, and Kerry would be in.

That would have been a nightmare for the country, and if Kerry and his crew actually did intend this as a strategy, they deserve what they got and then some.

I’m going to be interested to see what happens in Europe in the next two years.

Remember Kagan’s essay about the U.S. lacking legitimacy?

We were all irritated by it, to greater or lesser degrees, but Kagan was right in historical terms: governments need legitimacy, and, in the world, countries need legitimacy.

History tells us this is true. It doesn’t matter whether we here on Roger’s blog “care” about legitimacy or not. Legitimacy is real, and it’s not the same thing as “being liked.”

I now think that Kagan and everyone else may have mistaken the reasons for America’s lack of legitimacy.

Universally, people have assumed that America lost legitimacy by “acting unilaterally” and “going around” the U.N.

I can’t possibly count the number of op-eds I’ve read about our catastrophic loss of “standing” in the world.

All of a sudden, our standing seems to be back. At least, the tone has changed utterly; the tone now is: The American People Have Spoken.

That’s the whole point of the Daily Mirror cover, and it’s the reason I like that cover. There it is for all to see: 59,000,000 people voted for George Bush.

We may be stupid people.

But there are a hell of a lot of us.

And we won.

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the catastrophic-loss-of-standing meme fades away. The American people have voted against the world and the U.N. (against CBS & Hollywood & the Times as well), and the message has been received & understood. We have awarded George Bush the standing he needs.

And we have withdrawn legitimacy from the United Nations.

Remember when Roger constantly argued that Bush had to be re-elected because a win for Kerry would automatically tell the world that we were abandoning the WOT?

He was right.

It didn’t matter what Kerry said in his campaign, how ‘tough’ he was. The only thing that mattered, in terms of the world, was the vote. A vote for Bush said: it’s a war, we’re in it, and we’re staying in.

The vote for Michael Howard in Australia said the same thing, and the vote for Tony Blair in England will ratify this sentiment for the third and final time. At that point the world will indeed have spoken.

I don’t know what will happen here in the United States.

The Dems have been through hell for the last four years. For the first time, I understand how they’ve experienced this presidency. I would be out of my mind now if Bush had 3.5 million votes and Kerry were the president-elect.

But I think it’s possible a lot of Democrats will simmer down.

If my husband is any indication (I don’t know whether he is or not), they will. He’s a naturally cheerful sort, except when it comes to Fighting An Insurgency, for god’s sake, and on the day after the election he said to me, matter of factly, “It’s a decisive win.”

He hasn’t been complaining since, and he’s already decided that Americans never vote a president out of office during the war, so Kerry couldn’t have won anyway.

He’s not taking it personally.

But it’s more than that.

He is acting as if this election makes sense.

That might just be the definition of legitimacy.

Nov 9, 2004 - 3:40 pm 59. Catherine:

Rick B

Thanks.

A follow-up on legitimacy.

I wonder whether some liberals will reconsider the strategy of having the courts impose liberal social changes on the country.

They have now had the experience of having the Supreme Court impose a president on them who lost the popular vote, and they didn’t like it.

THE RIGHT NATION argues that the reason we have culture wars over abortion while Europe doesn’t is not that we’re more concerned with morals.

It’s that Europeans got to vote on it.

I told that to my husband the other day: I said that Supreme Court decisions like Roe v. Wade result in culture wars because they lack the legitimacy of a democratic vote.

Then I said it’s a Really Bad Idea for liberals to handle gay marriage the same way.

He got that ‘Uh-oh, she’s right’ look.

Then he said the Supreme Court is “part of our democratic process,” but that was pretty lame and he knew it.,

We’ll see.

Nov 9, 2004 - 3:46 pm 60. ray_g:

My recollection of the Rushdie affair was that the reaction from Hollywood and the government was actually rather muted, or at least a lot less vocal about condemning the fatwa than I wanted them to be. As others have said, it is a lot easier to fight imaginary bogeymen than the real thing. Last I heard, the Dixie Chicks had not been arrested for sedition and wearing immodest clothing and stoned to death. (Please, no “they were already stoned” jokes). [BTW, my spell checker wanted to replace "fatwa" with "fatal". Funny how things go sometimes.]

Nov 9, 2004 - 3:46 pm 61. holdfast:

Catherine: – BANG ON!

To my mind, the / one of the reasons that Brown v. Board it so much more accepted than Roe is that Brown was essentially ratified by the Congress with the 1960s Civil Rights Acts. Now, there will always be the dead-enders, but I think that most fair-minded Americans are willing to put matters to a vote and live with the results, even results that they don’t agree with. With Roe, however, the matter was revomed from the legislative sphere; it was put in a box, and the public was told that they could look but no touch. Maybe that sort of thing works in Europe (see EU Constitution, the), but Americans are a far more ornery lot (’else the flag would likely include a small union Jack), they want a say, one that goes beyond filing an amicus brief.

Catherine talked about Bush’s legitimacy (or lack thereof) after 2000. I think that most of the lack was a result of the SCC decision rather than the Electoral College / Popular Vote split, though lefties tried to use both rhetorically.

Nov 9, 2004 - 4:14 pm 62. Rick Ballard:

Catherine,

Whether the leftist liberals are happy or unhappy, like it or don’t like it, have strong and strident opinions, are supported in those opinions by the MSM or throw themselves under trains is irrelevant to the process of governance of the United States. The Democrat Party is about to become the Democratic Party once again. Centrist liberals will have a voice and seat at the table but the lefties are going to be justly kicked to the curb by the party as a whole.

The Supreme Court was never envisioned nor was it intended to become a law making body. The Founders would abhor the Court as it stands today and would doubtless wonder why the other two branches had ever let it arrogate such power to itself. Roe was a bad decision, abortion is a legislative issue and the arrogance of the four idiots in MA in making the gay marriage decision may have proven to be the final straw. Both these issues (and many others of similiar ilk) involve questions that should be debated and resolved by the people we hire to perform the legislative function.

We will indeed ’see’ and I’m quite willing to live with any decision that our legislators come up with.

Nov 9, 2004 - 4:23 pm 63. Katherine:

ìThe Democrat Party is about to become the Democratic Party once again. Centrist liberals will have a voice and seat at the table but the lefties are going to be justly kicked to the curb by the party as a whole.î

Rick,

What are the bases for your prediction?

Nov 9, 2004 - 5:03 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: