Because celebrating Israel’s 60th Birthday is so unacceptable at Berkeley, some people decided to fly the Palestinian Flag on the university flag pole, located between VLSB and California Hall. I’m celebrating with alliteration.

All this week, the pro-Zionist student group Tikvah will be celebrating Israel’s 60th year of sovereignty. So it was no coincidence that the Palestinian flag was hoisted above campus. I also recognized some members of the Students for Justice in Palestine on sproul today wearing keffiyehs around their necks, which was probably not in recognition of Cinco de Mayo.

The Patriot’s own Ben Chapman took these photos of the Palestinian flag raised at half mast:

According to Chapman, UCPD took down the flag at around 2:40 pm because the flag was flown without the university’s permission.

Tikvah’s first event of the week, a special lecture from talk radio host Dennis Prager, drew no protesters. The topic of Prager’s talk was “Why Berkeley should be celebrating Israel’s 60th birthday.” Nearly all of the seats in 145 Dwinelle were filled for tonight’s presentation. Prager came with his usual on-air wit, straight-forward wisdom, and a few good stories.

He argued that universities, Berkeley included, are teaching students to hate Israel. One particular example came from a female UCLA student, whom Prager confronted on his radio show. The student had written an op-ed in the Daily Bruin that Prager described as “venomously anti-Israel.” She told Prager that her family was strongly pro-Israel, and so was she…until she got to her university.

Colleges have little reason to hate Israel, Prager contended, since the values of Israel are the same values cherished by our colleges. Israel, unlike its neighbors, is egalitarian, democratic, supportive of liberty, free speech, women’s rights, equal treatment of gays, and overall the type of society a school like Berkeley should be celebrating.

One of the most important points that Prager made was during the Q&A session. When asked if he was further polarizing the opposing sides by ignoring the alleged wrong-doings of Israel, Prager said, “Ask yourself this question: If Palestinians announced that they will put down their weapons today, what would the Israeli response be? And if Israel announced that they will put down their weapons today, what would the Palestinian response be? If Palestinians put their arms down, there will be peace. If Israelis put their arms down, there will be Holocaust.”

Celebrate Israel’s 60th birthday with Tikvah this Thursday at noon on Sproul Plaza. There will be free food, dancing, and music. Check out their Facebook group for info on other events taking place this week.

So the last post about France really got people commenting! I had no idea y’all were interested in France….er Israel so much. Anyway, this might interest you, being in slightly a similar vein (international things). And don’t worry, I won’t talk about how photogenic anyone is.

In this first article, Japan has opened a “baby hatch” so that parents can drop off unwanted children as an alternative to abortion which the article says has become commonplace. The Prime Minister is opposed to it, but the analysis of the article I rather agree with. Japan has a zero or negative population growth, characteristic of that type of post-industrial society. (The US might have the same problem if not for immigration). Dropping off children for adoption later will grow (if slightly) the population rather than if they children were aborted.

Next up to bat: apparently, the divorce rate is the lowest it’s been since 1970. This was a bit of a suprise to me, considering how the media hypes up these stats in the “culture war” or whatever you want to call it. The article says that more couples live together without marrying, and “other researchers have documented what they call “the divorce divide,” contending that divorce rates are indeed falling substantively among college-educated couples but not among less- affluent, less-educated couples”. So there’s some more incentive to graudate!

This article talks about another episode of religious appeasement, removing hospital crosses in Milan to “please muslims”. The article seems extreme, but later corrections (from people who could read the original italian) said it was one instance of a cross being removed. I picked this article as significant because of the stat: “Some 7,000 women give birth at the Mangiagalli each year. Of these, about 30 per cent are foreign immigrants, many of whom are not Catholic.” Rather than get all outraged and argue about Muslim or Christian sensibilities, consider the growing immigrant demographic in Europe which may save the countries from zero or negative population growth, and what that might mean.

Ok, go! comment!

Sarkozy has won the French presidency (via Drudge) in the race between he and equally-photogenic Segolene Royale. I was interested by this race, both because it happened at a time when lots of women seemed to be running (Merkel had just won, Hillary is on deck, and Segolene was up to bat) and because her first name looked a little like my last (honestly, I lose sleep over this name of mine).

Another reason I’m interested in this is because Royale said there would be riots if she lost. We’ve seen riots in France before, I wrote an article on it for the Patriot a while back. Are the riots a convenient excuse? “Vote for me or else” type thing? I wonder if the riots even have meaning for the majority of French people, since they happen almost constantly. But with over 75% turnout in the election (good job France!) some of those voters must be affected by riots in the urban areas. Perhaps a vote for the more conservative candidate was a statement against that sort of mentality of crime and vandalism if someone doesnt get their way. Imagine if college students ditched to riot in San Fran and LA when Gore didn’t win in 2000 [update: yeah i saw this error, thanks]. Even their responses on the Berkeley campus didn’t match burning cars. And imagine if Gore had threatened riots if he didn’t win. It bothers me when politicos say they speak for the people when the majority shows otherwise, and it seems like a shallow tactic to resort to.

But they deployed the police to the target areas anyway. We’ll see how it goes.

Update: Via LGF, this article states that “270 people were taken into questioning and 367 parked vehicles had been torched. On a typical night in France, 100 cars are burned”. One HUNDRED per night!

I’m liveblogging Presiden’t Bush’s statement right now.

“I realize many Democrats see this bill as a political statement. I have recognized it, now they should set politics aside”

“Congress ought to give General Petreas a chance to work”. (sp)

Examples of how the Iraqi Police and Army are progressing in their development and training.

A bellweather has been sectarian violence. Bush notes this is due to AQ, the enemy who we should be confronting.

“far more complex than a simple fight between Iraqis”: hints at Iranian and Syrian involvement.

Emphasis on goodwill, bipartisanship, and urgency of situation.

Did you see it? What did you think? I have to scurry to class, but expect further (unrelated) posts today.

There is a new online article by a new contributor, Jessica Vu. In the article she describes what happened in Vietnam after the United States completely pulled itself out.

In the days that followed, a new era of totalitarian rule was unleashed upon the Vietnamese people. The world could only watch and cringe as the newly reinstated Socialist government began its systematic persecution of opposition political leaders and their followers. Thousands of innocents were tortured and executed in “work” camps, mere euphemisms for concentration death camps. In this society, where any deviation from the party line had severe consequences, few dared to protest.

I hope you check it out.

Hey everyone, sorry for the radio silence, Spring Break and all that.

I’m going to update you on a few things that have been going on lately around our area, namely speaking events by Mark Steyn and Barak Obama. Much less famous than Obama, Mark Steyn is an author and commentator on world events. His blog, SteynOnline is home to book reviews, commentary on popular (and not so popular) culture, politics and world events in general. He is probably best known as the author of the book America Alone, and he was at Cal on March 14th as part of the Admiral Nimitz lecture series put on by the Naval ROTC (I believe, please correct me if i’m wrong, since it was two weeks ago I might not remember properly). His commentary that night concerned itself with the war in Iraq, America’s (and the West’s) place in global affairs, and the historical basis for the both.
Namely, that America has far and away the greatest military might of any other nation in the world (larger than the next 43 largest militaries combined), but we lack the will to use it. After 9-11, Steyn said we “belatedly found the will to use American power”, and that our hesitance in becoming a “bad guy” has actually made us weaker. When he references “us”, he means the West, or the “post 1945 global order” that espouses and enforces liberty, and encompasses “Western will, diplomatic muscle, intelligence, and civilizational confidence”, aka the lack of fear of promoting ones own culture.

On Iraq, Mr Steyn said that the left’s insistence on an exit strategy for the war is “the political equivalent to the kid in the back seat, saying ‘are we there yet’”. In his opinion (and my own), the best exit strategy is victory, and the fastest one is defeat. Which would you prefer?

Compare the physical muscle and hesitance of use of the US to North Korea, with it’s nuke-happy leader. He has the political will to exert his country, culture, and “values”, but hasn’t the physical, military strength to do it (say what you will about NK’s military, there is no danger of them getting very far). Another component of civilizational confidence, Steyn asserted, is demographics. The countries that are still having babies are those that are still growing. We all know what is happening in Japan, and most of Europe. Another factor that hampers exertion of American will and Western will in general, is that we train ourselves not to use it through education. Remember in an earlier post, where I referenced a Harvard student newspaper article about students helpless in the face of crime? Being taught to use our words, not to hit, to be “diverse” or “multicultural”, and being taught, more often than not, that the West is “Bad”. In our schools, we are taught all of this, which of course trains adults who will sacrifice their own culture, or like the Harvard student said, their personal safety, if they are not taught to respect it. Steyn called this “vitality”, or a survival instinct. I think we saw some of it after 9-11, but it’s been more dormant since then. Steyn said “multiculturalism is a unicultural phenomenon”, meaning you’d be hard pressed to find the kind of cultural acceptance the Western world promotes in a developing nation, like, say, China or North Korea. (caveat: diversity and multiculturalism are great in context. I’m talking at the expense of our own culture, here).

I loved this lecture, as I’ve been a fan of Steyn through his blog, and I converted my friend who had never heard of him before. However, you’d never guess by the audience. 145 Dwinelle was barely half full, and mostly of the different shades of ROTC students. For such a prominent and skilled speaker, I would have expected a bigger crowd.

On the other hand, Barak Obama drew a huge crowd (I can’t even estimate, as I was right in the middle of it) in Oakland city center on St Patrick’s day. The crowd was very diverse, and the speakers hammered this point relentlessly. Obama’s staff knew their demographic, and like the other carefully-worded points, took full advantage of this crowd.

We showed up around three, and took a spot in the grass in front of the City Hall building (I assume thats what it is, you know, the tall pretty one with the clock right in front of the Bart station). Luckily, my friend’s friend works for the campaign, so we got the coveted “blue” tickets, letting us be closer. However, as you can see from the photo, that was relative. Some aerial photos published on Drudge showed the massive crowd; even sitting on someone’s shoulders did not allow people where we were standing to actually see Obama. Music was playing, and it seemed almost like a 4th of july picnic. The music, like the speech, was geared towards the diverse audience, with “hyphy” rap, old school blues and oldies, Bob’s Dylan and Marley, etc. The first speaker was the Mayor of Oakland, proud to welcome the “most progressive congressional district”. He urged us to thank Barbara Lee for that honor of “having the audacity to see [our]self as a model for the entire U.S”.
Next up was an Iraq war veteran Greg someone, I couldn’t hear his last name. However, he was 180 degrees from what I expected, in that he mentioned the war only to set his time abroad as a frame of reference for the thing he missed the most, which was apparently the diversity of the bay area. The speakers, either by design or by co-incidence, didn’t mention anything about policy or any criticism.
Then Obama came out. He made some clever speech openers, anecdotes and the like, one about an Iowa or Illinois campaign rally when it was 8 degrees out (sorry, I can’t properly read my notes) where he was afraid that “no one would show up” (damn global warming). The bourgeoning crowd there suprised him, but not me. It was a clear display of his confidence and his support. Nothing breeds success more than talking about it, especially people braving cold and snow to support their local charismatic leader. Popularity and personality aside, onto issues.

Obama was convinced that we’ll be “a little poorer, and a little meaner” than the generation before us if we don’t “stand up”. His once-through hit healthcare, education, energy reform, global warming, the economy, and of course, the war. Let’s start where he did.

“We know what to do” was his refrain. On healthcare, we know that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Obama’s desire to make preventative medicine and care for chronic illness more accessible sounds great, but his claim of “universal healthcare by the end of [his] first term” doesn’t. He also suggested e-billing to reduce price errors, but I’d rather see e-prescriptions to end mis-medication due to inability to read doctor’s handwriting.

In education, I was happy Obama mentioned the need to meet the world’s abilities in math and science. However, he claimed the current system is making it “harder to go to college”. I have serious beef with that. It’s harder to go to college because more students are enrolled than ever before. It’s competitive, which is good. Also, college is NOT a right. If I have to pay for it, it’s not a right. If I have to compete and earn my place, its not a right. No one expects citizens to earn their free speech or their right to a fair trial. (End of personal tangent). Obama also pushed early childhood education and criticised “no child left behind”, at which the crowd went wild. Two instances in his speech prompted this much applause, and the other was the war. I told you, he knew his audience well, there were a lot of students there. The crowd continued to cheer while he called for more teacher pay and “flexibility”, (no mention of accountability). Again, he said, we know what to do.

The energy crisis was blamed on the lack of an “energy strategy”. Compare to the Mark Steyn commentary above on “exit strategy”, just for kicks. He also said, to my suprise, “Oil money helps arabs oppress their own people”. Obama continued with the typical end-the-generation-of-gasses, find-alternatives-to-fossil-fuels bit, etc, and advised us not to melt the polar ice caps anymore.

On the economy, Obama suggested the great wealth of today is not “evenly spread”, and that “only some benefit”, and the usual about how the cost of living and wages don’t meet. Some statistics should clear this up quickly, but it appealed to the audience. He was very careful never to fault individuals or the general populace with any of these issues. They were all blamed on corporations and Washington. He suggested wireless should be implemented in every major city to give everyone access to the internet, but I don’t see how that helps if you can’t afford a computer. He also said we should “give unions a fair shot” which is more than redundant, as unions dominate not only local economies, but local politics, as see in the Schwarzenegger campaign. (Teachers union all but bankrupting themselves, getting water poured on me by union-member protesters at Schwarzenegger events, etc).

And of course, none of his plan can be implemented until the US is out of “the war that should have never been authorized”. The lack of war commentary at first was clearly to allow full impact of his statements, which was clear as the crowd went crazy and didn’t let up the entire time he talked about the war. Obama is proud to have been against the war since the beginning, saying we are now less safe, and our safety and power in the world are diminished. I take issue with his stance on this, a stance which focuses only on the lives lost and not on what has been gained, or the mission in general. He repeated that our troops were “in harms way”, which is why we should bring them home. This is a misnomer: yes the troops are in a dangerous place, but they are not IN danger. They ARE the danger to the terrorists, and they are on the offensive almost all the time. However, this is my knowledge based on research and personal testimonies of friends over in Iraq, not the sources that Obama’s writers probably want to emphasize. However, Obama also wants to improve resources for veterans, which is great, but the fact that he meets with Dick Durbin every Thursday to discuss it over coffee doesn’t give me much confidence in what he’ll accomplish. He is also right that the Iraqi government should stand up, but they aren’t ready to, just yet. Obama is also sponsoring a bill to withdraw starting May 1st, which I naturally don’t support, but he suprised me again when he said we should withdraw because “we have business in Afghanistan and Iran”.

Throughout all of this, Obama was very careful to lay the blame in high places. His criticism of poor policy and bureaucracy was aimed politicos in Washington “consumed by cynicism and pettiness”, who are “out of touch”, despite the fact that their decisions “aren’t smoke”. This is an important strategy, in order to avoid making enemies and appeal to the majority.

He ended with the obligatory reference to Selma, and made his campaign an clear allusion to the civil rights struggle. This went along with the themes of inclusion, not blaming the common folk, etc, although I would not go so far as to equate the two. The crowd seemed satisfied, and dispersed to an extremely crowded bart.

My overall opinion was a feeling of being largel unsuprised by the message, with small but rather radical suprises in what he said about Iran, etc. Obama definetly has the charisma and appeal that Hillary and Edwards sorely lack, and he certainly knows his audience, at least in the bay area. It was nice to hear the opposition, but I’m still glad I’m a conservative.

I came across this clip during the downtime and knew that I had to post it. It’s a campaign commercial from the 1964 presidential election. Watch, react, then comment. HT: Right-Thinking.

Kerry Eskenas has a new article on America’s foreign policy:

It appears to have become a favorite pastime of the Democratic Party to pin the blame on President Bush for every injustice and all of the suffering that occurs in the world. It’s incredible to watch liberals speak with a straight face as they proclaim that the source of everything that is wrong in the world is not in the perpetrators themselves but is instead a consequence of the Bush administration. As time has gone on, this attitude has become crystallized in the words of prominent Democratic leaders and liberal interest groups…

It is time for the Democrats to acknowledge that the United States cannot be expected to solve all of the world’s problems. As a superpower, it is true that the United States has many responsibilities in the world. But it is irrational to assume that the ultimate blame for all of the world’s problems can be pinned on President Bush…

Check the whole thing.

National Review Contributing Editor Deroy Murdock has an excellent article out about the ridiculous September 8 Senate report that showed Saddam and Al Qaeda had no operational link.

Thoughts?

P.S. Bonus points will be given to thoughts that deal with the original topic at hand.

There has been much controversy in recent weeks over the use of the term “Islamofascist.” President Bush recently referred to the 20 or so potential terrorists (and the movement behind them) who hoped to bomb trans-Atlantic flights in the same fashion. Talk radio and conservative bloggers use the term as an epithet as well.

But some take offense to the term. Many Muslim groups, including CAIR (The Council on American-Islamic Relations) blast the term as offensive and inaccurate. But is it? Is the strictest form of Islamic Sharia law comparable to fascism? The American Heritage Dictionary defines fascism as:

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

The definition fits the term like a glove: Ahmenijad is hardly of the mind to share his authority with others. The Taliban never let its subjects purchase or even possess certain things, including music and television sets. Terrorism is, without question, axiomatic in this case. Censorship is common, certainly in the case of Salman Rushdie. And belligerent nationalism/racism is self-explanatory when you take a look at the desire for a pan-Islamic caliphate devoid of Jews.

I’m obviously convinced, especially when you observe the emphasis (in fascism and in Sharia) of the state or the society over the individual. Thoughts?

I don’t see how anyone could be less than ecstatic about the possibility of Cuba’s long national nightmare finally coming to an end. It’s about time for that tyranny to topple and for progress and prosperity to flood the island. So I was particularly disgusted to see this “Green” defense of Castro in the National Geographic. From the article, subtitled Will Cuban President Fidel Castro be remembered primarily as a man of the people, an authoritarian tyrant—or a conservationist?:

Castro handed power to his brother last week to undergo emergency intestinal surgery. His health remains uncertain, fueling rampant speculation about his legacy… Some experts say his environmental policies may be among his greatest achievements… And once Castro is gone, the experts say, a boom in tourism and foreign investment could destroy Cuba’s pristine landscapes.

Some more love:

A key player in Cuba’s green movement has been Guillermo García Frías, one of five original “comandantes” of the 1959 Cuban revolution… A nature lover with strong ties to Castro, García has pushed for a strong environmental ethic for a generation of scientists and government officials… “Comandante García’s enthusiasm for nature conservation has been critical to the successful development of a conservation infrastructure in Cuba,” said Mary Pearl, president of the Wildlife Trust in New York City.

The article does get one thing right though:

Isolated in part because of the U.S. trade embargo against the island, Cuba has been excluded from much of the economic globalization that has taken its toll on the environment in many other parts of the world… “The healthy status of much of the wetlands and forests of Cuba is due not to political influence as much as the lack of foreign exchange with which to make the investments to convert lands and introduce petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers,” Pearl said.

A better end to that sentence would be: “that has done more good for humanity than any socialist scheme.” So while defenders of Castro may approve of the nondevelopment that poverty brings, we should be ashamed that our policies continue to hurt those that least deserve it. Instead of celebrating economic isolation, like this article does, we need to let Cubans back into the fold. And if that means a shift in focus from wetlands to Wal-Marts, then so be it. Is stroking the sensibilities of first-world environmentalists that much more important than alleviating the suffering and deprivation of an oppressed people? This shouldn’t even be a debate.

Isn’t it hypocritical to be apoplectic about Mel Gibson’s anti-Semitic remarks while being oh-so indifferent about the killing of Jews in Haifa and elsewhere? Just today, twelve Israelis died from some of the 180 rockets lobbed into Israel. Additionally, Hezbollah announced it may begin firing missiles at Tel Aviv should targets in Beirut continue to be bombed.

Though it revealed the soul of a very, very troubled man, Gibson’s DUI arrest should not be considered a news story comparable to the conflict raging in Lebanon. Yet it has been discussed and debated ad nauseam by television pundits, radio commentators, activists, and, yes, bloggers. On the subject of the Mideast conflict, however, there need be no debate: an Israeli cease-fire is all that’s needed to curb the violence! After all, it worked so well before….

It’s great to see Gibson has learned his lesson, entered a rehabilitation clinic, and is seeking to heal the wounds of his remarks with the Jewish community. But, in all seriousness, don’t Shiek Hassan Nasrallah’s Katyusha rockets pose a greater threat to the Jewish community than the drunken remarks of a Hollywood actor? And isn’t the former just a bit more of an important story than the latter?

On July 31, 2006 the United Nations Security Council endorsed Resolution 1696, giving the Islamic Republic of Iran exactly one month to suspend its uranium-enrichment activities. This is a major turnaround for the international body; just weeks ago it seemed as if China and Russia were going to stall any and all efforts designed to put more international pressure on Tehran.

The major “power players” in passing this resolution were the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council – Russia, China, France, the U.K., and the U.S. – plus, surprisingly, Germany. Berlin has been quite active in the international coalition to stop Tehran’s uranium enrichment of late. This is mostly due to the November 2005 election of the center-right German Chancellor, Angela Merkel. She is now Washington’s biggest ally behind Blair, a voice of reason stuck in between France’s pacifist Chirac and Russia’s autocratic Putin.

Tehran learned a hard lesson today. It will not distract the international community, through its funneling of weapons and monetary support to Hezbollah’s murderous campaign, in an attempt to conceal its nuclear ambitions. The cities of Tyre, Bint Jbail, and Haifa may be dominating the news now, but Tehran will be in the headlines again. The “Perm 5+1” only signed a piece of paper today, but, given the divisive situation around the world and inside the U.N., that is a sufficient start.

Kerry Eskenas has more thoughts on the current conflict in the Middle East:

The reaction of the international community to Israel’s defensive war against Hamas and Hezbollah was all too predictable. Israel, along with the United States, understands that it is time to act in a strategic rather than diplomatic manner. Israel has already compromised with terrorists a number of times — most notably, the surrendering of the Gaza Strip and parts of the West Bank last summer. Yet the countries that blame Hamas and Hezbollah for instigating this war, with the exception of the United States, do not back up their rhetoric with support for Israel’s military response. The world’s constant calls for “restraint” by Israel as it works to defend its land and people from terrorists — which, it should be noted, are integral parts of neighboring nations’ elected governments — prove what Israel has long suspected: successfully winning over world opinion cannot protect Israel from the terrorist threat. As one Israeli soldier said, “If we don’t defend Israel, who will?” Israel must disregard world opinion and do what any other state would do in the event of attack. Namely, Israel must respond to these acts of war and crush Hamas and Hezbollah with force so that these threats are eliminated. A small-scale response in which these terrorist organizations are allowed to survive would only bring greater conflict in the future, when these terrorists build their strength up beyond the current level and determine that they are ready to attack Israel once again…