Loyalty without truth
is a trail to tyranny.
|Tuesday, 15 November 2005 at 20h 37m 6s|
Another reason why Limbaugh is a pig
Thanks to crooks and Liars [SOURCE 1] [SOURCE 2].
Have you seen this "Adopt a Soldier" program Rush has started? You would figure
that a program targeted for our troops would actually help them in some small
way. Maybe the money would go to some equipment, supplies or anything the
troops could actually use over in Iraq that will help them survive. Here's what
they get for 49.95:
"Support our men and women in uniform by giving a subscription to Rush 24/7 and
the Limbaugh Letter to a member of the US Armed Forces. He or she will receive
unfettered access to Rush 24/7 online as well as every big, colorful issue of
The Limbaugh Letter "
Rush is charging 49.95 for a solider to receive his radio broadcast and
According to the transcript of Rush making the announcement on his show, Rush
I've got an idea for you liberals. Liberals are always out there saying
you "support the troops." Well, then adopt a soldier! Join the Adopt-a-Soldier
program at RushLimbaugh.com if you're a lib and you want to say you support the
troops. This is a great way to prove it.
" Liberals are all self-serving scum, manipulating their mass audience for
personal gain. They have no integrity."
So I suppose he'll castigate the donations organized by "liberals" that
sollicit funds so that urgent supplies get to the soldiers. But then, nothing
like a Limbaugh letter and free online access to Rush's online website to help
console our brave soldiers in Iraq, eh?
|Monday, 14 November 2005 at 13h 51m 9s|
Thanks to Kevin Drumm. [SOURCE]
MANIPULATING INTELLIGENCE....Did the Bush administration
mislead the country during the runup to the Iraq war? It's true that they
turned out to be wrong about a great many things, but that doesn't answer the
question. It merely begs it. Were they sincerely wrong, or did they
intentionally manipulate the intelligence they presented to the public in order
to mask known weaknesses in their case?
The case for manipulation is pretty strong. It relies on several things,
but I think the most important of them has been the discovery that the
administration deliberately suppressed dissenting views on some of the most
important pieces of evidence that they used to bolster their case for war. For
future reference, here's a list of five key dissents about administration
claims, all of which were circulated before the war but kept under wraps
until after the war:
The Claim: Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, an al-Qaeda prisoner
captured in 2001, was the source of intelligence that Saddam Hussein had
trained al-Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons. This
information was used extensively by Colin Powell in his February 2003 speech to
What We Know Now: Al-Libi's information was obtained under torture.
early as February 2002, the Defense Intelligence Agency circulated a report,
labeled DITSUM No. 044-02, saying that it was "likely this individual is
intentionally misleading the debriefers." Link.
This assessment was hidden from the public until after the war.
The Claim: An Iraqi defector codenamed "Curveball" was the
source of reporting that Saddam Hussein had built a fleet of mobile biowarfare
labs. Curveball's claims of mobile bio labs were repeated by many
administration figures during the runup to war.
What We Know Now: The only American agent to actually meet with
Curveball before the war warned that he appeared to be an alcoholic and was
unreliable. However, his superior in the CIA told him it was best to keep
quiet about this: "Let's keep in mind the fact that this war's going to happen
regardless of what Curveball said or didn't say, and the powers that be
probably aren't terribly interested in whether Curveball knows what he's
talking about." L
ink. This dissent was not made public until 2004, in a response to the SSCI report that was written by Senator
The Claim: Iraq had purchased thousands of aluminum tubes to
act as centrifuges for the creation of bomb grade uranium. Dick Cheney said
they were "irrefutable evidence" of an Iraqi nuclear program and George Bush
cited them in his 2003 State of the Union address.
What We Know Now: Centrifuge experts at the Oak Ridge Office of the
Department of Energy had concluded long before the war that the tubes were
unsuitable for centrifuge work and were probably meant for use in artillery
rockets. The State Department concurred. Link.
Both of these
dissents were omitted from the CIA's declassified National Intelligence
Estimate, released on October 4, 2002. Link.
They were subsequently made public after the war, on July 18, 2003. Link.
The Claim: Saddam Hussein attempted to purchase uranium
yellowcake from Africa as part of his attempt to reconstitute his nuclear
program. President Bush cited this publicly in his 2003 State of the Union
What We Know Now: The primary piece of evidence for this claim was a
document showing that Iraq had signed a contract to buy yellowcake from Niger.
However, the CIA specifically told the White House in October 2002 that
the "reporting was weak" and that they disagreed with the British about the
reliability of this intelligence. Link
. At the same time, the State Department wrote that the documents
were "completely implausible." Link.
Three months later, in January 2003, Alan Foley, head of the CIA's
counterproliferation effort, tried to persuade the White House not to include
the claim in the SOTU because the information wasn't solid enough, but was
Five weeks later, the documents were conclusively shown to be forgeries. Link. In July 2003, after the war had ended, CIA Director
George Tenet admitted
publicly that that the claim should never have been made. Link.
The Claim: Saddam Hussein was developing long range aerial
drones capable of attacking the continental United States with chemical or
biological weapons. President Bush made this claim in a speech in October 2002
and Colin Powell repeated it during his speech to the UN in February 2003.
What We Know Now: The Iraqi drones had nowhere near the range to
reach the United States, and Air Force experts also doubted that they were
designed to deliver WMD. However, their dissent was left out of the October
2002 NIE and wasn't made public until July 2003. Link.
This is not a comprehensive list ....
One final word on this: the issue here is not who was right and who was
wrong, or even whether the overall weight of the evidence was sufficient to
justify the war. It would have been perfectly reasonable for the White House
to present all the evidence pro and con and then use that evidence to make the
strongest possible case for war. But that's not what they did. Instead, they
suppressed any evidence that might have thrown doubt on their arguments, making
it impossible for the public to evaluate what they were saying. In fact, by
abusing the classification process to keep these dissents secret, they even
made it impossible for senators who knew
the truth to say anything about it in public.
This is not the way to market a war. It's certainly not the way to market a
war that requires long term support from citizens in a democracy. But that's
how they marketed it anyway.
|Sunday, 13 November 2005 at 17h 42m 15s|
Lies and a shameful President
Bush's agenda is to destroy democracy in the
backdrop of war to conceal his real motives. Remember now, he's a war
prezident who hit the "trifecta."
There never was any WMD.
American troops have used weapons
of mass destruction called "White Phosphorus" and Napalm against the Iraqi
resistance. Do we go to war
against WMD, only to use it ourselves against the "enemy" that is supposed to
Saddam got his original chemical
weapons in the 1980's from United State defense contractors with the connivance
of the Reagan administration. Donald Rumsfeld himself made a trip over to see
Saddam in 1988 to conclude the deals.
President Bush used false evidence
about Saddam's nuclear capabilities, and mentioned Nigerian yellowcake
purchases that he knew was based on forged evidence. He sent then Secretary of
Defense Colin Powell to utter more lies to the United Nations about "mobile"
chemical trailers and aluminum tubes for centrifuges, that were known
falsehoods within the intelligence community. This is why Colin Powell
recently admittedly that his moment before the UN was most shameful experience
in his life. But that's what Bush does Colin you fool. He uses people and
then spits them out like an old beer can.
Ahmed Chalabi is a known liar, who
fled Jordan during the 1980's in the trunk of a car because he was defrauding
the Bank he was heading. He
was the head of a front organization in the United States during the 1990's
called the Iraqi National Congress which got federal funds in order to exist.
Yep, gotta fat 100,000 dollar salary from Uncle Sam so's he can make up shit
and pretend that he is a real rebel leader like Gandhi, Ho Chi Minh, or (even)
Chalabi's lies were used by the administration to justify the invasion of Iraq,
because he was originally supposed to be installed as the mafioso leader of a
Iraq, until he got caught funneling money to various political organzations and
had to flee to ... Iran. Meanwhile, ex-CIA point man Ilyad Allawi is now the
next installation of freedom. But fear not, Chalabi still flies back to the US
to meet with administration leaders so they can discuss his next assignment.
Excuse me ... Bush pulled out the inspectors 3 weeks before they were finished
and had a faked news conference in the Azore Islands declaring he was invading
anyway. He never went back to the UN after the results of the inspection like
Bush said he would do.
Bush is now currently lying about this, saying that Saddam never let the
inspectors in, or that he had no choice. He had a choice, and that choice was
always to invade Iraq no matter what. Stop "playing politics" and "re-writing
history" Mr. President.
The Bush administration refused to listen to the military planners and the
intelligence that wasn't doctored if it disagreed with Ahmed Chalabi's rosy
scenario's. No planning was ever done, and as a result the troops did not have
supplies and the proper organization to conduct a professional operation. But
hey, what's wrong with Halliburton contractors dispatching rotten food when
soldiers can eat some food the Italians shared with them and American
corporations can make billions of profits?
The military protected one agency building in Baghdad from looting. One and
one. The Ministry of Oil building. Looting occurred everywhere else,
including the Ministry of Nuclear Science and the Museum of Baghdad. Ammunition
dumps were left unguarded all the way up to Baghdad so the American cameras
could make up a news bit about Iraq being free in less than 3 weeks. All that
ammo eventually got filched and is now being used by the "insurgents." And hey
Wait just one minute, wasn't the war about "Saddam's Nuclear Arsenal" and the
military doesn't have a plan to guard the ministry of Nuclear Science or the
ammo dumps? Are they really this incompetent, or was this only the first
indication of what the real intentions were?
Keep in mind that the invading
troops were not provided with chemical weapons gear. If the administration
(especially Donald Rumsfeld) really believed that Saddam had WMD, wouldn't it
make sense to have the god damn gear -- just in case!!! Are they really this
incompetent, or was this yet another indication of what the real intentions
Bush himself declared in his speech the night before the invasion :
And now I have a message for the Iraqi people. Do not destroy oil wells.
Yep, do not destroy oil wells was the message for the Iraqi
people. Sounds more like a threat. He could have said that America was not
invading Iraq, but was only intervening to establish a free society. He could
have reassured the Iraqi's that his intentions were good. But no. That's not
what he said is it?
Funny how Saddam's old torture
prison Abu Ghraib, is currently being used in similar ways. That's because
they invaded to take control, establish a front government and intall a secret
police network to kill political opponents and union leaders. That's what
happened in nearby Iran when the Shah was put up by and earlier gang of thugs
during the 60s and 70s, much like Saddam was also abetted during the 1980s. If
we were really trying to create democracy in the middle east -- rather than
rigged plebiscites called "elections" -- take a look around at the nearby
states. All of them are either dictatorships or royalist oligarchies. Why
would we enlist autocrats and dictators in the fight to install "freedom" in
the Middle East? Would bank robbers gladly work with the chief of police ,
unless the chief was on the take?
Instead of freedom however, the
Iraqi's get "shock
and awe" because apparently we have to kill and bomb them so that they can be
Tax cuts for the wealthyduring time of war, when we have to borrow from the
Saudi's, Indians, and China with interest? Do you give a rich investor $100,000
so he can hire 9 men for $10,000 and keep $10,000 for himself, or do you just
give the whole 100,000 to the 10 men without the "benevolence" of the boss man
handing out the cash. But isn't it a big assumption that the boss man will
split the take 1 to 9? This is what the fools who hawk "trickle-down"
economics ignore -- that it is god damn wasteful because the rich just get
richer. Even if a few jobs do get created in the process, more jobs get created
when more people have more money because the economy is demand driven. Giving
fat cats and corporations extra cash so they can make more and sell more
completely obviates the reality that you can't sell more products to people who
have less money.
Massive corruption and incompetence in the contracting process. American
corporations are favored, friends of the lobbyist network get lucrative
contracts as "consultants", even though hiring Iraqi's would not only be
but also more effective -- especially when the unemployment rate in Iraq is
between 40 and 60 percent.
Why did Paul Bremer replace Jay
Garner during the first 4 months? Garner wanted to pull out as soon as
possible. Bremer went on to write the Iraqi constitution and build a
political base of repression, while overseeing 14 permanent bases on Iraqi
soil. Do you invade a country to make it a democracy, only to write the
constitution and then install 14 permanent bases?
If we really are fighting them
over there so they won't fight us here, who is they? Would they be the 100,000
Iraqi people who inadvertantly died? Should the non-terrorists respect the
United States when US forces completely destroy their country in the name of
defeating the terrorists?
If we are really fighting a war on
terror, then why did the administration destroy the very CIA operation that was
investigating the funding of the terrorist networks and nuclear proliferation?
This was the operation that involved Valerie Plame, in case you didn't know.
And the "terrorists" that attacked
on September 11th were all Saudi's or Egyptians with Saudi passports allowed
into the United States without any oversight. Then all the Saudi's were allowed
to leave without any interrogation by September 13th on planes. When the FBI
was investigating the "WAMY" charity network, the Bush administration stopped
the investigation because the bin laden family was involved. Brother Marvin
Bush was in charge of an obscure Security Consulting firm that handled the
security operations at the World Trade Center 6 months prior to 9-11. The same
company also handled the airport in NYC. Strange coincidence indeed. The
company was eventually bought out and dissolved by another firm in 2002.
My Conclusion: The terrorists are in the White House. The Bush gang has
friends with the Saudi monarchy and the bin laden's since the 1950's. It's
called Real politik. Install dictators and monarchists to repress dissent over
the resource allocations, and use them as handlers for covert operations. For
instance : Why was the Pakistani minister of Intelligence operations wiring
money to Atta 2 days before September 11th ?
|Friday, 11 November 2005 at 18h 52m 1s|
Good kitty, gone bad
|Thursday, 10 November 2005 at 19h 41m 36s|
Here comes the propaganda machine
Thanks to the awesome billmon.org .
Top White House officials say they're developing a "campaign-style" strategy in
response to increasing Democratic allegations that the Bush administration
twisted intelligence to make its case for war.
White House aides, who agreed to speak to CNN only on the condition of
anonymity, said they hoped to increase what they called their "hit back" in
White House to Hit Back at Democrats
November 8, 2005
The seven tapes were already in Sirica's hands, and it was only a matter of
time before they would become public at a trial. Haig wanted to blunt the
impact of their disclosure in any way he could, to seize the issue on the
President's terms. The preferable course was for Nixon to make a speech of
contrition -- accept responsibility for past mistakes, acknowledge the abuses
documented in the tapes, pledge a bright future. But Nixon could never
undertake an act of public confession. He was too proud, it would break him.
Haig knew Kissinger had already suggested something like that. Ziegler had
rejected the notion, saying "Contrition is bullshit.".
Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein
The Final Days
|Thursday, 10 November 2005 at 19h 6m 48s|
Another point about Alito
From Americablog, blogger John in D.C.
...CNN's legal affairs expert, Jeffrey Toobin, just said that there does seem
to be a distinction between what Alito said he'd do and what he actually did,
Tobin then seriously misstated the entire problem.
Toobin said there are two issues here:
1. Whether it's prohibited for Alito to participate in a specific case;
2. Whether there was some sort of computer glitch in the clerk's office that
failed to notify Alito that he should have recused himself in the case.
But Toobin's description of the issues is missing the most important issue.
The issue here isn't whether Alito was or wasn't required, under court rules,
to recuse himself from these cases. The issue is that Alito promised, seemingly
under oath, NOT to hear these cases, period - but then went ahead and heard
them anyway. That's a lie. It's also possibly perjury. And at the very least,
it suggests he intentionally misled the Senate Judiciary Committee ON THREE
SEPARATE OCCASIONS in order to get confirmed.
As for Toobin's second argument, that the reason the case came to Alito was
perhaps a computer glitch, again that's not the issue. The question is not HOW
the cases came to Alito, the question is WHY Alito didn't recuse himself, as
promised under oath, AFTER the cases came to him, regardless of how they came
In the Vanguard case, Alito went out of his way to argue that there was no
reason he should have to recuse himself. Not only does that negate the computer
glitch argument - it doesn't matter how Alito got the case, he was perfectly
happy KEEPING the case and argued that he should keep the case. But what's
more, Alito actually had the nerve to argue that there was no reason to recuse
himself from this case when there was a very good reason - he had previously
promised to recuse himself, under oath.
Again, it's nice to split hairs about whether Alito was "legally" required to
recuse himself under court rules dealing with conflicts of interest, etc., but
that's not the issue here. The issue is that Alito promised, we assume under
oath, to recuse himself in order to convince Senators to confirm him. Then
after Alito got confirmed - bam! - he turned around and broke his promise, and
hear the case anyway. And not just once, but three times.
The man is a liar, quite possibly a perjurer, and at the very least he's
someone with a proven track record of saying anything to Senators in order to
be confirmed. There is now no reason any Senator should vote for Alito based on
By the way, Toobin is a hack. He writes books about political events that seem
to be unbiased and thorough to the non-expert, but which somehow skip over
major relevant portions of those events and focus on largely inconsequential
portions of the same events.
But Jeffrey Toobin is the expert the television audience gets. Not someone
with more knowledge, and more integrity like University of Michigan History
professor Juan Cole -- or Princeton economics professor Paul Krugman -- or ....
Who the hell is Jeffrey Toobin? Whoa, a journalist ... yeah, well judge thee
by the traces of thine works.
Mr. Toobin, how could you write a whole 250 page book about the 2000 Florida
election and write only
2 weak sentences about the Felon lists and the entire history of DBA-
Choicepoint contracts and the three (yes, three) judicial decisions which
informed Governor Jeb Bush that the way that Felon lists were being collected
were unconstitutional. And the two sentences themselves stated that Mr. Toobin
held these events to be of dubious value.
In addition, Mr. Toobin neglected to mention the role John Roberts played in
the White House legal team. He did not even mention the fact that staffers
were flown to West Palm Beach on Enron jets to fake a citizens' protest. And
Mr. Toobin, your take on the ruling by the supreme court was benign to the
point of distraction. You completely obfuscate the event with your book-wide
theme that the Gore team was inferior to the legal team of Bush because the
Bush team went on the attack from day one.
My God lad, the Court came in and stopped the law from taking effect,
completely ignoring the despicable obstruction by the Rethuglican's (real
Republican's would never act as such). As I've said in a recent post, the court
could have made many rulings -- one that could have validated the sanctity of
the vote, even to the point of ordering a new vote. Ordering a new vote is not
without precident (albeit not at the Presidential level) -- but that is not
what happened now, is it Mr. Toobin. And not a word too that Antonin Scalia
and Judge Thomas had ties to the Bush campaign (family members working for the
administration -- Scalia's son even got appointed to head the government agency
that overseas OSHA regulations, and not without a righteous criticism).
So what is your real purpose Mr. Toobin?
CNN's legal affairs expert, Jeffrey Toobin
|Thursday, 10 November 2005 at 19h 16m 26s|
Daddy, I want my lollipop
This comes from
It concerns the dropping of drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge
from the Budget in the hopes that the Budget could pass the House.
More than 20 Republicans have told the House leadership they would not vote for
the budget unless they were assured ANWR won't be added into the final House-
Senate compromise, the Washington Post reported Thursday.
ANWR is just one of many controversies in the bill, which aims to save $54
billion over five year by reducing programs like Medicaid, food stamps, student
loans and child support enforcement.
House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, R-Iowa, said it's incorrect to call
these "cuts." They are small reductions in the growth of government programs,
he told the House Rules Committee Wednesday night.
Rep. James McGovern said the reductions will cut services for poor people at a
time when need is growing. About 300,000 people will lose eligibility for food
stamps, he said.
"To say that these aren't cuts is to imply that somehow …. real people aren't
going to get hurt," he said. "Well, if this budget moves forward as its
currently written, real people will get hurt."
Nussle said the Democrats are doing nothing to improve the situation.
"Where's your plan?" Nussle demanded. "Where's your plan for the people who
need this help?"
I love that last bit by lame ole Jim Nussle. How many ideas and alternative
policy choices do those who oppose this have to say before politicians like Jim
Nussle can stop playing games about how they are deaf to everything but their
own one track mind. Howard Dean had plenty of ideas he shared during his run
Presidency. He still shares his ideas. Everyday in fact, but alas, what
voices does the "liberal media" put on the air everyday. And hacks like Nussle
know this. He preys on the ignorance of the television addicts who get their
news completely from television.
(Note to reader -- it's called research. You can't expect info to come to
you. And don't expect the information that does will be the truth.)
Current ideas Mr. Nussle can't hear: Reform the tax code. Enforce the tax
laws. Revoke the tax cuts for the wealthy. That's three alone that various
Democrats and opposition Republican's have offered. But when you mention those
ideas to the men whose voices appear in the media (like Nussle) they find some
problem with the idea.
It's not that the Democrats have no ideas, Mr. Hackster Jimothy Nussle. It's
that you are arrogant and would rather play politics than honestly attempt to
address the nation's problems. Your own reckless ideas however must be
perceived for the makeup you put on the pig.
It's a pig. You are a pig too, Mr. Nussle, a virulent, shameless pig. Which
is why Tom Delay appointed you to your current position in the first place.
House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle (R-Iowa.)
|Thursday, 10 November 2005 at 18h 4m 13s|
It's not about Journalistic rights, Judith
It is about being a dishonest political hack.
This comes from Atrios. [SOURCE]
Adam Clymer, retired political correspondent for the Times, recalls an episode
during the 1988 presidential campaign, when Miller was deputy Washington bureau
Then the political editor based in New York, Clymer was awakened just after
midnight one morning by a call from Miller, he says. She was demanding that a
story about Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis be pulled from the paper.
The story was too soft, she complained -- and said Lee Atwater, the political
strategist for Vice President George H.W. Bush, believed it was soft as well.
Clymer said he was stunned to realize that Atwater apparently had either seen
the story or been told about it before publication. He and Miller argued, he
recalls, and he ultimately hung up on her, twice.
When she was the deputy Washington bureau chief she was taking stories about
the Democratic candidate and showing them to the opposition before they were
|Wednesday, 9 November 2005 at 20h 58m 31s|
Reason versus faith
"You cannot reason a person out of a position that they did not first
reason themselves into."
-- Jonathan Swift
|Wednesday, 9 November 2005 at 17h 35m 13s|
The Problem with Frenchness
This is a great post by Juan Cole. The piece so definitively
situation in France that I am reproducing the entire post on my own blog. The
hard-link at juancole.com
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
-- by Juan Cole
The Problem with Frenchness
Readers have asked me for comment about the riots in France that have now
provoked emergency laws and a curfew. What I would rather comment on, however,
is the myths that have governed many rightwing American comments on the tragic
events. Actually, I can only think that the disturbances must produce a huge
ice cream headache for the dittoheads. French of European heritage pitted
against French of African and North African heritage? How could they ever pick
I should begin by saying how much these events sadden me and fill me with
anguish. I grew up in part in France (7 years of my childhood in two different
periods) and have long been in love with the place, and the people. We visited
this past June for a magical week. And, of course, I've been to Morocco and
Tunisia and Senegal, and so have a sense of the other side in all this; I
rather like all those places, too. How sad, to see all this violence and
rancor. I hope Paris and France more generally can get through these tough
times and begin working on the underlying problems soon. At this time of a
crisis in globalization in the wake of the Cold War, we need Paris to be a
dynamic exemplar of problem-solving on this front.
The French have determinedly avoided multiculturalism or affirmative action.
They have insisted that everyone is French together and on a "color-blind" set
of policies. "Color-blind" policies based on "merit" always seem to benefit
some groups more than others, despite a rhetoric of equality and achievement.
In order to resolve the problems they face, the French will have to come to
terms with the multi-cultural character of contemporary society. And they will
have to find ways of actively sharing jobs with minority populations, who often
suffer from an unemployment rate as high as 40 percent (i.e. Iraq).
Mark Steyn of the Chicago Sun-Times commits most of the gross errors, factual
and ethical, that characterize the discourse of the Right in the US on such
For instance, Steyn complains that the rioters have been referred to as "French
''French youths,'' huh? You mean Pierre and Jacques and Marcel and Alphonse?
Granted that most of the "youths" are technically citizens of the French
Republic, it doesn't take much time in les banlieus of Paris to discover that
the rioters do not think of their primary identity as ''French'': They're young
men from North Africa growing ever more estranged from the broader community
with each passing year and wedded ever more intensely to an assertive Muslim
identity more implacable than anything you're likely to find in the Middle
East. After four somnolent years, it turns out finally that there really is an
explosive ''Arab street,'' but it's in Clichy-sous-Bois.
This paragraph is the biggest load of manure to hit the print media since
Michael Brown (later of FEMA) and his Arabian Horse Society were profiled in
Arabian Horse Times.
The French youth who are burning automobiles are as French as Jennifer Lopez
and Christopher Walken are American. Perhaps the Steyns came before the
Revolutionary War, but a very large number of us have not. The US brings 10
million immigrants every decade and one in 10 Americans is now foreign-born.
Their children, born and bred here, have never known another home. All US
citizens are Americans, including the present governor of California. "The
immigrant" is always a political category. Proud Californio families
(think "Zorro") who can trace themselves back to the 18th century Spanish
empire in California are often coded as "Mexican immigrants" by "white"
Californians whose parents were Okies.
A lot of the persons living in the urban outer cities (a better translation of
cite than "suburb") are from subsaharan Africa. And there are lots of Eastern
European immigrants. The riots were sparked by the deaths of African youths,
not Muslims. Singling out the persons of Muslim heritage is just a form of
bigotry. Moreover, French youth of European heritage rioted quite extensively
in 1968. As they had in 1789. Rioting in the streets is not a foreign custom.
It has a French genealogy and context.
The young people from North African societies such as Morocco, Algeria and
Tunisia are mostly only nominal Muslims. They frequently do not speak much
Arabic, and don't have "proper" French, either. They frequently do not know
much about Islam and most of them certainly don't practice it-- much less being
more virulent about it than Middle Easterners.
Aware of their in-between-ness, young persons of North African heritage in
France developed a distinctive identity. They took the word Arabe and scrambled
it to produce Beur (which sounds in French like the word for "butter"). Beur
culture can be compared a bit to hip-hop as a form of urban expression of
marginality and self-assertion in a racist society. It is mostly secular.
Another thing that is wrong with Steyn's execrable paragraph is that it assumes
an echt "Frenchness" that is startling in a post-Holocaust thinker. There are
no pure "nations" folks. I mean, first of all, what is now France had a lot of
different populations in it even in the 18th century-- Bretons (Gaelic
speakers), Basques, Alsatians (German speakers), Provencale people in the
south, Jews, etc., etc. "Multi-culturalism" is not something new in Europe.
What was new was the Romantic nationalist conviction that there
are "pure" "nations" based on "blood." It was among the more monstrous mistakes
in history. Of course if, according to this essentially racist way of thinking,
there are "pure" nations that have Gypsies, Jews and others living among them,
then the others might have to be "cleansed" to restore the "purity."
Yet another problem: France has for some time been a capitalist country with a
relatively strong economy. Such economies attract workers. There have been
massive labor immigration flows into France all along. In the early 20th
century Poles came to work in the coal mines, and then more came in the inter-
war period. By the beginning of the Great Depression, there were half a million
Polish immigrants in France. Their numbers declined slightly in the next few
years. There were even more Italians. There isn't anything peculiar about
having large numbers of immigrants who came for work. And, few in France in the
early 20th century thought that Poles were susceptible of integration into
French society. Minister of the Interior Nicolas Sarkozy, who has made himself
unpopular by exacerbating tensions with intemperate language, is the son of
immigrants (I guess he does not count as "French" according to Steyn's
Steyn wants to create a 1300-year struggle between Catholic France and the
Muslims going back to Tours. This way of thinking is downright silly. France in
the 19th century was a notorious ally of the Muslim Ottoman Empire, and fought
alongside Muslims against the Christian Russians in the Crimean War. Among
contemporary French, 40 percent do not even believe in God, and less than 20
percent go to mass at all regularly. Many of the French of non-European
heritage are also not religious.
The French repaid the compliment of Tours by conquering much of the Middle
East. Bonaparte aggressively and viciously invaded Egypt in 1798, but couldn't
hold on there. But in 1830 the French invaded Algeria and incorporated it into
France. Algeria was "French soil." They reduced the Algerian population (which
they brutalized and exploited) to marginal people under the colonial thumb. The
French government of Algeria allowed hundreds of thousands to perish of famine
in the 1870s. After World War II, given low French birth rates and a dynamic
capitalist economy, the French began importing Algerian menial labor. The
resulting Beurs are no more incapable of "integrating" into France than the
Poles or Jews were.
So it wasn't the Algerians who came and got France. France had come and gotten
the Algerians, beginning with Charles X and then the July Monarchy. They
settled a million rather rowdy French, Italians and Maltese in Algeria. These
persons rioted a lot in the early 1960s as it became apparent that Algeria
would get its independence (1962). In fact, European settler colonists
or "immigrants" have caused far more trouble in the Middle East than vice versa.
The kind of riots we are seeing in France also have occurred in US cities (they
sent Detroit into a tailspin from 1967). They are always produced by racial
segregation, racist discrimination, spectacular unemployment, and lack of
access to the mainstream economy. The problems were broached by award-winning
French author Tahar Ben Jalloun in his French Hospitality decades ago.
(Americans who code themselves as "white" are often surprised to discover
that "white people" created the inner cities here by zoning them for settlement
by racial "minorities," excluding the minorities from the nicer parts of the
cities and from suburbs. As late as the 1960s, many European-Americans were
willing to sign a "covenant" not to sell their houses to an African-American,
Chinese-American or a Jewish American. In fact, in the US, the suburbs were
built, most often with de facto government subsidies in the form of highways
and other perquisites, as an explicit means of racial segregation. Spatial
segregation protected "white" businesses from competition from minority
entrepreneurs, who couldn't open shops outside their ghettos. In France,
government inputs were used to create "outer cities," but many of the same
forces were at work.) The French do not have Jim Crow laws, but de facto
residential segregation is a widespread and intractable problem.
The problem is economic and having to do with economic and residential
exclusionism, not with an "unassimilable" "immigrant" minority. (The French
authorites deported a lot of Poles in the 1930s for making trouble by trying to
unionize and strike, on the grounds that they were an unassimilable Slavic
On the other hand, would it be possible for the French Muslim youth to be
pushed toward religious extremism if the French government does not address the
underlying problems. Sure. That was what I was alluding to in my posting last
The solution? Recognizing that "Frenchness" is not monochrome, that France is a
tapestry of cultures and always has been, and that sometimes some threads of
the tapestry need some extra attention if it is not to fray and come apart.
GOTO THE NEXT 10 COLUMNS