Hey you jerks out there, don't wanna keep annoying you but they leave me no choice:
BELGIUM IS LAUNCH PAD FOR TERRORISTS
"The report(from the Belgian Parliament's intelligence committee) said most of the recruits were second and even third generation immigrants, chiefly from North Africa, who appeared to have rejected the Belgian way of life, even though Belgium, like neighbouring Holland, had tried to serve as a model of tolerant integration.
The report concluded that Belgium had become "a logistical support base" for terrorist groups abroad - favoured by bin Laden's al-Qa'eda network, the Algerian Armed Islamic Group GIA, the Wabahi Tabligh movement and the Hamas-linked Muslim Brotherhood.
The FBI complained bitterly after September 11 that the Belgian judiciary was withholding key information needed to track down al-Qa'eda activists before the intelligence leads turned cold.
It has since come to light that leading terrorists have been travelling the world on Belgian passports, either stolen or sold by corrupt officials.
One of the killers of Gen Ahmad Shah Massoud, the leader of Afghanistan's Northern Alliance, carried Belgian documents.
Filip Deman, a leader of the growing anti-immigrant Vlaams Blok movement and a member of the parliamentary investigation, said Belgium's elite coalitions had been brushing the Muslim problem under the carpet for years.
He said: "It was taboo to even talk about it under our code of political correctness, but this report cannot be ignored.""
Never heard about this report in our press. Figure not much was done with it.
But what should I care, soon the Vlaams Blok and its members are going to be outlawed for being racists...
MFBB
Wednesday, June 09, 2004
Tuesday, June 08, 2004
Joining the Reagan Frenzy
Well, it seems I spoke a little to soon in my earlier comments about the press keeping things classy in regards to Ronald Reagan. The spinfest has begun, with both sides trying to out shout the other so they can put their stamp, or smear as the case may be, on the Reagan legacy. While many on the right are getting pretty heated up about the attempts to degrade Reagan's place in history, I see this as inevitable. In a society as politically polarized as America's is, it is impossible to have a great impact on the world and not infuriate around 50% of the population in the process. Anyone who actually manages to influence real change, as Reagan did, is going to become a demon to half of us.
Is all this debate about a dead president important? You bet it is. While many will write off the back and forth in the media as simple partisan background noise, what's happening here is a struggle to write history. I know first hand how important this is, because for a long time I took as fact many of the things that Reagan's opponents had forced into the public consciousness. Years ago I took for granted that Reagan was pretty stupid, that he personally said it was OK to consider ketchup as a vegetable on school lunch menus, that he was just fine with $500 toilet seats for the military, and that he was seriously outclassed by the wily Gorbachev in their many summit meetings. I specifically remember that last point being pounded home in a PBS documentary. The line went something like this: "a study in contrasts; the sophisticated, worldly Gorbachev, and the awkward bumbling Reagan." Combined with some well edited shots of Reagan looking confused and Gorbachev looking relaxed and confident, that was enough to convince a fairly intelligent 18 year old that the 40th president wasn't all he was cracked up to be. Unfortunately, I had been duped, and it took a lot of years for me to figure it out. When I was older, I caught another documentary on Reagan and Gorbachev on the History Channel. This one relied very heavily on actual interviews with the people involved in the summit meetings (imagine that) rather than an omnipotent voice over to help you to understand what was going on. I was stunned to hear the Russian generals state over and over how they felt as if Reagan took control of the meetings from the very start and that Gorbachev never seemed to get his footing. They also admitted that they thought Jimmy Carter was a complete joke, and that they toyed with him by pretending to be interested in his disarmament ideas just to get him to concede them whatever they wanted. When Reagan was elected, they knew the jig was up.
As with any account of history, there is more than one side to the Reagan legacy. Many of Reagan's critics bring up sound points: Were there illegal dealings in the Iran contra scandal? It's likely there were. Was Reagan slipping a little towards the end of his second term? Maybe. Did he delegate important decisions that he should have been more involved in? Perhaps. These things should be debated and investigated, because we can't learn from our mistakes if we can't figure out if they were ever made or not. But let's not be so petty that we can't accept simple, provable fact. The desperation on the part of some to deny Reagan credit for ending the cold war, among other things, is simply laughable. He did it. There were cameras. There are documents. Accept it and move on. There's plenty not to like about Ronald Reagan, or anyone else for that matter, without having to make things up.
Well, it seems I spoke a little to soon in my earlier comments about the press keeping things classy in regards to Ronald Reagan. The spinfest has begun, with both sides trying to out shout the other so they can put their stamp, or smear as the case may be, on the Reagan legacy. While many on the right are getting pretty heated up about the attempts to degrade Reagan's place in history, I see this as inevitable. In a society as politically polarized as America's is, it is impossible to have a great impact on the world and not infuriate around 50% of the population in the process. Anyone who actually manages to influence real change, as Reagan did, is going to become a demon to half of us.
Is all this debate about a dead president important? You bet it is. While many will write off the back and forth in the media as simple partisan background noise, what's happening here is a struggle to write history. I know first hand how important this is, because for a long time I took as fact many of the things that Reagan's opponents had forced into the public consciousness. Years ago I took for granted that Reagan was pretty stupid, that he personally said it was OK to consider ketchup as a vegetable on school lunch menus, that he was just fine with $500 toilet seats for the military, and that he was seriously outclassed by the wily Gorbachev in their many summit meetings. I specifically remember that last point being pounded home in a PBS documentary. The line went something like this: "a study in contrasts; the sophisticated, worldly Gorbachev, and the awkward bumbling Reagan." Combined with some well edited shots of Reagan looking confused and Gorbachev looking relaxed and confident, that was enough to convince a fairly intelligent 18 year old that the 40th president wasn't all he was cracked up to be. Unfortunately, I had been duped, and it took a lot of years for me to figure it out. When I was older, I caught another documentary on Reagan and Gorbachev on the History Channel. This one relied very heavily on actual interviews with the people involved in the summit meetings (imagine that) rather than an omnipotent voice over to help you to understand what was going on. I was stunned to hear the Russian generals state over and over how they felt as if Reagan took control of the meetings from the very start and that Gorbachev never seemed to get his footing. They also admitted that they thought Jimmy Carter was a complete joke, and that they toyed with him by pretending to be interested in his disarmament ideas just to get him to concede them whatever they wanted. When Reagan was elected, they knew the jig was up.
As with any account of history, there is more than one side to the Reagan legacy. Many of Reagan's critics bring up sound points: Were there illegal dealings in the Iran contra scandal? It's likely there were. Was Reagan slipping a little towards the end of his second term? Maybe. Did he delegate important decisions that he should have been more involved in? Perhaps. These things should be debated and investigated, because we can't learn from our mistakes if we can't figure out if they were ever made or not. But let's not be so petty that we can't accept simple, provable fact. The desperation on the part of some to deny Reagan credit for ending the cold war, among other things, is simply laughable. He did it. There were cameras. There are documents. Accept it and move on. There's plenty not to like about Ronald Reagan, or anyone else for that matter, without having to make things up.
Monday, June 07, 2004
How many men have had a song titled "The Man Who Made Those Pussyfooters and Weaklings Feel Ashamed." written about him by people from a country he helped free?
Ronald Reagan did.
Ronald Reagan did.
Sunday, June 06, 2004
Now THIS is art. I bought this fine triple portrait at a discount store in the early 90's for $5. It was one of about 200 in the box. I know I could get at least $3.50 for it now. This wonderful Sally Evans pastel was very useful for confusing crunchy art students who saw it in my apartment when I was in art school in the early 90's. Since then it has adorned the men's room at Artifact, my former company in Atlanta, GA. It now resides in my permanent collection of high art in my office.
It's nice to see that Reagan's legacy seems to be surviving the onslaught to make him look like he was an inept fool while in The White House. There's a lot of people who's ideological universes don't make sense with an intelligent Ronald Reagan in existence. As for me, I think he is one of the best examples of the right man at the right time in American history.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)