Saturday, March 28, 2015

Appeasement of Communism is “the most dangerous course we could pursue”: The Eisenhower Quotes You Never Hear About

Today is the anniversary of the death of Dwight David Eisenhower, the general and Republican president whom leftists love to quote when it concerns warnings against the military industrial complex (i.e., America's military industrial complex alone and no other country's).

It may come as a surprise, then, to learn that, in Ike's viewpoint, appeasement of Communism is not only a dishonorable course but is
the most dangerous one we could pursue.
From an International Herald Tribune "50 Years Ago" item:
Appeasement of Communism is not only a dishonorable course but is “the most dangerous one we could pursue,” President Eisenhower said [on April 5, 1959]. Speaking in academic robes before 4,000 persons at a special convocation of Gettysburg College, the President said: “The world paid a high price for the lesson of Munich — but it learned it well.” The President made an emphatic plea for his foreign aid program as vital for the security of the non-Communist world despite the view of “uninformed” Americans who want to end, cut or terminate it. 
I remember an internet page from many, many years ago that tried to thoroughly debunk the idea that Ike's statement about the military-industrial complex were the alpha and omega of his thoughts — ignoring, fr'instance, the far more numerous quotes on the dangers represented by the communist block — but I have never been able to find it again.

(Might any readers be able to help here?)

In any case: compare 1959's “the most dangerous [course] we could pursue” to 1961's "we must guard against" ("we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex"). Which is the strongest language here? I.e., which threat, in Ike's mind, is the greatest of the two here? Is it really America's military–industrial complex? Is it not correct that in no way is there any talk of disarmament or pacifism in the 1961 speech?

Related: Ike on War and the World's True Pacifists

How many Democrats (including the one in the White House) truly believe the following? It hardly seems to be an Eisenhower quote widely distributed in leftist histories…
There is nothing wrong with America that the faith, love of freedom, intelligence and energy of her citizens cannot cure. 
How about this one — which tends to discredit somehow Democrats' lesson-giving to everyone on war and peace, especially members of the military for whom they harbor contempt?
I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity. 
Notice that that quote also goes far towards shredding the left's chickenhawk "argument". (…"more importantly: notice how this position can be turned against the so-called peace camp. If only a soldier can speak for the war, then how can somebody who is not a soldier speak against the war?")

How about this Ike quote on the governance of his Democratic successor in the White House? (Ike does not seem to have been a George W Bush, refusing to criticize a "fellow" president.) The quote doesn't seem to be preeminent in many leftist history books either…
Gen. Eisenhower took out after the President himself in his harshest criticism yet of Mr. Kennedy’s handling of foreign policy. He said it was the product of aimless drift. While he did not mention Cuba by name, he said tartly at a televised political rally tonight that “no threatening foreign bases were established” and no Berlin walls were built during his own Administration. 

Friday, March 27, 2015

In our society, “Diversity” is a goal pursued above all others, including competency; it is the magic word that makes the lowering of standards okay

… the value of a two year degree was not in question until the [Sarasota (Florida) police] department determined that it was a stumbling block to minority applicants who always seem to need some hand-holding to get over the finish line
writes Benny Huang.
Don’t blame me for saying it, blame Chief [Bernadette DiPino] for implying that minority applicants can’t meet the same standards as everyone else.

Chief DiPino, of course, doesn’t fret over the adverse effects of lower standards. According to Sarasota’s local CBS affiliate, “DiPino says there are other important requirements she looks for such as character, integrity and life experience.”

Like a good charlatan, DiPino deftly constructs a false choice—either Sarasota PD will have cops who embody those universally admired traits or it will have cops with college degrees. As if it can’t have both. But, as she already admitted, the goal is not to increase the police department’s quotient of “character, integrity, and life experience,” but rather to boost its melatonin.

“We’re not lowering our standards,” says Chief DiPino. Apparently ditching a two year degree requirement in favor of a GED does not constitute a lowering of standards. “We’re looking for people with good character, integrity, it doesn’t matter [the] color of skin…”

Except it does matter. If skin color were not an issue, Sarasota would have a colorblind hiring process, which it clearly does not. The chief has decided that there are just too many white guys on the force and she’s determined to remedy the situation. When she says that she just wants to hire the best people, without regard to race, she’s telling a big, fat, honking lie. If the chief wants more integrity on the force she should start by working on her own.

Sarasota’s hiring policy is just the latest in a nationwide pattern involving the lowering of standards in order to increase “diversity,” a commodity so valuable that it apparently supersedes pretty much all other considerations.

In Columbus, Ohio, the police and fire departments have become more lenient in hiring cops and firefighters who have taken prescriptions drugs not actually prescribed to them, who have had their driver’s licenses suspended for reasons such as failure to pay their car insurance, and who have had “minor physical or emotional domestic violence in the past 10 years” that didn’t result in criminal charges. Again, “diversity” is the magic word that makes it all okay. The Columbus police and fire departments are just too white, so now they will accept deadbeats. The implication here is that minorities are disproportionately delinquent in their financial responsibilities, which is actually not that far off the mark, but unmentionable unless you happen to be advocating “diversity.”

Amy DeLong, chief of Columbus’s Civil Service Division, echoed Chief DiPino almost word for word: “We are not lowering standards.” You’re not?

DeLong continued: “This is a tweaking and obviously we don’t want someone who is physically abusive or has a bad driving record, but we don’t want to eliminate people that could be good police officers.” What a relief! I thought standards were being lowered, when in fact they’re just being “tweaked.”

In North Miami, Florida, the police department abandoned its swimming test in 2004 because black applicants couldn’t pass it. Swimming is raaaaacist! Like all standards destined to be abandoned, the swimming test was uncontroversial until a push for diversity made people question its necessity. Suddenly it became a silly requirement with no practical application to police work, something like knowing how to juggle or ride a unicycle. There’s just one problem—a police officer, in the course of his duties, might someday have the swim. He might have to, oh I don’t know, rescue someone from drowning.

Once we’ve accepted that cops don’t really need to know how to swim, it’s only a short mental hop to the idea that lifeguards don’t either. Yes, lifeguards. In 2013, the city of Phoenix decided that it needed more minority lifeguards at its city pools. “The kids in the pool are all either Hispanic or black or whatever, and every lifeguard is white and we don’t like that,” said a Phoenix official. Geez, no racism there. She added that “the kids don’t relate; there’s language issues.”

Hmmm…maybe the kids should learn English? Sorry, asking people to learn English is racist. I take it back.

 … In our society, diversity is a goal pursued above all others, including competency.

Monday, March 23, 2015

To put it in terms that gays might understand, economic transactions should take place between “consenting adults”

Militant homosexuals get a little overheated whenever it’s suggested that other people have rights too
sighs Benny Huang.
The current debate we’re having over wedding cakes, wedding flowers, B&B’s, and a variety of other services is not about discrimination; it’s about sovereign individuals being able to engage in economic transactions on a voluntary basis.

Which is why homosexuals, if they really want a cake for their mockery of a wedding, should find someone who actually wants to make it for them. My advice is this: do business with people who want to do business with you. To put it in terms that homosexuals might understand, economic transactions should take place between “consenting adults.” If one party doesn’t consent, the deal is a non-starter.

The concept of voluntary economic transactions is essentially what Silk was trying to articulate before the New York Times trimmed his quote, seeming to suggest that homosexuals have no right to be served but everyone else does. What he was really trying to say is that no one has a right to be served. That’s no small distinction.

 … I believe that any private business should be able to decline my patronage for any reason and they don’t owe me or the government an explanation. That’s their right, just as it’s my right to shop with their competitor. Anything else would be involuntary servitude by definition, which is prohibited by the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution.

Advocates of coerced economic transactions find this line of reasoning hard to refute so they resort to accusations of hypocrisy as a means of avoiding it entirely. As angry lesbian columnist Sally Kohn sneered in a recent Daily Beast column, “Those championing the right to discriminate generally want the right to discriminate against others, but for others to not be able to discriminate against them.” She cites zero examples.

Newsflash for Sally: I have been denied service on account of my nationality and I didn’t run crying to the government. It happened a few years ago in Tokyo when I walked into a small neighborhood diner and was brusquely “greeted” by a grouchy old Japanese woman, probably the owner, who informed me that she only served Japanese customers. Shaking my head in disbelief, I left and spent my money at a restaurant that actually wanted it. Yes, I was shocked and perturbed, mostly because my American upbringing bequeathed me a sense of entitlement to this woman’s labor. I grappled with the concept that she had the same right to choose her customers as I had to choose a restaurant. We had the opportunity to make a deal on terms agreeable to both of us but alas, we reached an impasse and the deal fell through. I had no legal recourse because there’s no law against refusing service to gaijin (foreigners) in Japan. Nor should there be. The Japanese have the right idea.

It’s called freedom. I kind of like it. …/…