Random Thoughts

Armenians, Turkey, and the Sky is Blue

The US House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee has declared that the mass killing of 1.5 million Armenians in Turkey during 1915  was genocide.

WASHINGTON — The House Foreign Affairs Committee voted narrowly on Thursday to condemn as genocide the mass killings of Armenians early in the last century, defying a last-minute plea from the Obama administration to forgo a vote that seemed sure to offend Turkey and jeopardize delicate efforts at Turkish-Armenian reconciliation.

And it only took them 95 years to make this astute observation.

Next up, the US Senate will declare that the sky is blue.

The Armenians were NOT killed. Even if there’s proof, it never happened.

And now Turkey is unhappy with the US.

But to Turks, what happened in 1915 was, at most, just one more messy piece of a very messy war that spelled the end of a once-powerful empire. They reject the conclusions of historians and the term genocide, saying there was no premeditation in the deaths, no systematic attempt to destroy a people. Indeed, in Turkey today it remains a crime — “insulting Turkishness” — to even raise the issue of what happened to the Armenians.

Of course it wasn’t “systematic;” herding hundreds of thousands of people away from their homes and villages, executing them by the tens of thousands, sending tens of thousands of them on a forced death march, it was…spontaneous? A whim? No, wait, I remember the excuse: “They all moved away.”

Turkey has perfected the art of national denial. Suck it up, admit to your country’s past sins, and maybe then you can legitimately move past them Until then, they are hanging like a rotting albatross around your collective necks.

For those who are unaware of this holocaust and the subsequent efforts to pretend it never happened, a little reading might be useful.

Yes, they’re clickable. I’m all about education, especially in the face of deliberate, willful ignorance.

Nothing like this really ought to surprise me anymore. From the national to the personal, if we’re not ignoring killing, we’re celebrating it. H/T Brutally Honest. Days like this, I despair for humanity.

Unthinkable

I don’t have the words…

This tragedy just continues to echo around us. The depth and breadth of suffering is unthinkable.

Elsewhere, the Anchoress has a powerful update on Haiti.

And here is an inside scoop from the aid efforts of the USNS Comfort (H/T Confederate Yankee).

And we remain the losers

I really don’t care who wins the Nobel Peace Prize. I mean, Al Gore has one, as did Yassar Arafat. Clearly, they’ll give the thing to just about anyone. Still, it does make me feel rather nauseous to think that a man can be given a Nobel Peace Prize merely for talking about what he wants to do, who took office only two weeks before the Prize nomination deadline. Amazing. But then again, the man in question got to the presidency on nothing more substantive than that by which he gained the Nobel Prize, so in a weird, rather eerie way, it all fits.

It doesn’t make life in these United States one whit better for anyone beside the President either. We don’t need a Nobel Prize winner, we need a person who is actually doing things.

At this moment, many Americans are longing for a President who is more bully, less pulpit. The President who leased his immense inaugural good will to the hungry appropriators writing the stimulus bill, who has not stopped negotiating health-care reform except to say what is nonnegotiable, whose solicitude for the wheelers and dealers who drove the financial system into a ditch leaves the rest of us wondering who has our back, has always shown great promise, said the right things, affirmed every time he opens his mouth that he understands the fears we face and the hopes we hold. But he presides over a capital whose day-to-day functioning has become part travesty, part tragedy; wasteful, blind, vain, petty, where even the best-intentioned reformers measure their progress with teaspoons. There comes a time when a President needs to take a real risk - and putting his prestige on the line to win the Olympics for his hometown does not remotely count.

Ah well, Obama doesn’t need to do anything to get applause. He merely needs to exist.

And then I think about nominee Greg Mortenson, and my heart aches.

Compare this to Greg Mortenson, nominated for the prize by some members of Congress, whom the bookies gave 20-to-1 odds of winning. Son of a missionary, a former Army medic and mountaineer, he has made it his mission to build schools for girls in places where opium dealers and tribal warlords kill people for trying. His Central Asia Institute has built more than 130 schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan - a mission which has, along the way, inspired millions of people to view the protection and education of girls as a key to peace and prosperity and progress.

Thing is, Greg Mortenson doesn’t need a Nobel Peace Prize. His ego, unlike that of the current US President, does not demand public notice. Winning–or not winning–a clearly meaningless award will not change him at all. He will go on dedicating the days of his life to true service of others, working “in the trenches,” unknown by most of mankind even while making a very real, lasting change in the lives of others.

Mahatma Gandhi never won the Nobel Prize either. I’d say Mortenson is in excellent company.

Locutusprime at Brutally Honest explains the true worth of this dubious prize:

The Nobel Peace prize is nothing that is won. It is simply given. And it is nothing more than the door prize awarded by the collective thinking of anti American Marxist and communist around the world. It has absolutely less than nothing to do with the origins of its original inception or concept. The prize is nothing more than a booby prize awarded by the anti west, anti capitalism, anti democracy cabal of Marxist communist dissidents and their dregs in academia.

Confederate Yankee underscores the absurdity of it all:

Nobel committee chairman Thorbjorn Jagland was pressed by the media to explain why Obama deserved the award, and could only offer this defense: “As to whether the prize was given too early in Mr. Obama’s presidency, he said: ‘We are not awarding the prize for what may happen in the future but for what he has done in the previous year. We would hope this will enhance what he is trying to do’.”
Barack Obama won a Nobel Peace Prizefor campaigning for President.

Wordsmith at Flopping Aces posits that Bush really ought to be credited/blamed for Obama’s Nobel.

Neo-neocon reminds us of the inherent bias of the Nobel commitee, and that 1990 Nobel winner Mikhail Gorbachev presided over the fall of the Soviet Union.

American Power considers the ramifications of Obama’s Nobel Prize upon Afghanistan and Iraq.

And The Anchoress thinks that Michelle ought to have shared in the award.

Edited to add…

A look at the nominees who were passed over. If anything underscores the worthlessness of a Nobel Peace Prize, a comparison of relative accomplishments ought to do it.

Cognitive dissonance and deliberate remembrance

Two book reviews in a row…what can I say? Summer is winding down and I’m trying to get as much reading done as I can before I have to do a ton of reading for school. It’s different when you have to read a book.

I just finished this rather weighty tome, but it is well worth the time and effort: Why We Watched by Theodore Hamerow.

Hamerow explores with meticulous research “why mass brutalities, accepted as almost understandable, almost predictable while they were occurring, began little by little to be perceived as unspeakable atrocities.” By looking in turn at the attitudes and experiences in both Europe and the Americas during the 1930s and 1940s, Hamerow reveals that Germany was not alone in its attitude toward “The Jewish Question.”

Why read this now? Well, for me, the growing push toward socialism in America has struck a nerve. I want to understand how Germany could go from a republic to a heinous example of dictatorship and ethnic slaughter. It happened, but how could it in a “modern” world? How could reasonably intelligent sophisticated people accept what their government pushed upon them, beginning with socialized medicine and ending with genocide?

I have also recently read This Has Happened: An Italian Family in Auschwitz by Piera Sonnino. Published after her death in 1999, it is a poignant memoir recounting the experience of Sonnino’s Italian Jewish family who perished in the Holocaust.

Coincidentally, Rachel Lucas has finally blogged on her recent trip to Auschwitz-Birkenau. Her first-person experience is stunningly powerful.

…first you have to pass through the most infamous gate in history. It was the most surreal moment of my life so far. There I was, facing this object I’ve seen in a thousand photographs, something that is attached in my mind to pure abject despair and massive human suffering…and it’s surrounded by happy tourists. It was almost like a Disneyland version of hell, just because of all the serene camera-toting tourists. Of which I was one, I know that, but still. It was nothing short of the worst case of cognitive dissonance I think I’ll ever experience.

…I will tell you right now. The entire day was a series of intensely upsetting moments of terrifying and physically sickening clarity, interspersed with tears, laced with disbelief and all surrounded by a general feeling of impotent but genuine strong rage.

Click the link. Read her blog. Follow the links in her blog. You will not come away unmoved. This is not ancient history, and it behooves us to remember.

Scottish values

There are many reasons why Scotland never has been and never will be a world power. Why it was rolled over by England. Why it–despite persistent calls for Scottish independence–is of no substantive worth in terms of global politics.

This is one big reason:

The release from prison Thursday of the only person ever convicted in the 1988 bombing that killed 270 people aboard a Pan Am flight over Lockerbie, Scotland angered and outraged victims’ relatives, who said they were left feeling wronged again.

Abdel Baset al-Megrahi was released Thursday after serving eight years of a life sentence in a Scottish prison. Scottish officials said the former Libyan intelligence officer’s prostate cancer was advancing and that they were bound by Scottish values to release him. He was recently given only months to live.

“Scottish values?” What the heck would those be, I wonder. Apparently making sure that a mass murderer has a comfortable death at home is “Scottish values.” Apparently “Scottish values” come down firmly on the side of a convicted felon who gave no comfort nor mercy to 270 innocent travelers. Apparently Scottish values include trampling on the law that demanded a life sentence for the murderer, figuring that 8 years served was enough. That would be about ten and a half days served for each murdered passenger.

Cohen and other relatives said they believe he was released so world leaders could appease Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi because access to his nation’s oil is so important….The Times of London reported that al-Megrahi was to return to Libya in Gadhafi’s jet — something else the victims’ families saw as an affront.

Gadhafi will be visiting New York in September, where he will address the UN immediately after Obama. We can look forward to the photo op of the two men smiling and shaking hands like old friends. Nobody is as cordial to dictators and thugs as the current US President.

Obama and good buddy Hugo Chavez

“Twenty years later, this is the last sad chapter where government leaders have no moral backbone,” said Bert Ammerman of River Vale, whose brother Tom was killed on the flight.

Certainly Scottish leaders have no moral backbone. I suppose in that way they’re no different than any other politicians.

Obama was bold enough to call al-Megrahi’s release “a mistake.” Mr. President, putting a tablespoon rather than a teaspoon of salt in the stew is a “mistake.” Letting a convicted murderer go scot-free (pun totally intended) is a disgusting travesty of justice.

In other news…

The MSM is determined to brush off concerns about Obamacare. Gateway Pundit offers startling insight into the mentality behind end of life care and the Obama health care plan. When they say “You don’t need to worry,” that’s when you ought to really start worrying.

The creator of the Obama Joker posters is 2009’s answer to Cool Hand Luke. H/T Brutally Honest.

And this ought to be mandatory reading for anyone even remotely curious about the whole Cash for Clunkers program. H/T Flopping Aces.

Moral Relativism in the Classroom

Last night I encountered my very first genuine authentic really truly straighforward moral relativist.

It was quite fascinating. And it affirmed for me why it’s been a Good Idea to spend considerable effort and money over the years to provide a private school education for my children.

Imagine if you will the setting of our encounter: A university classroom, filled with 25 adults ranging from under age 21 to well past age 40. Their one thing in common is that all are attempting to become credentialed California school teachers.

The class is entitled “Social and Cultural Foundations of Education.” The professor is an elderly gentleman with a PhD and more years of academic experience than I’ve been alive.

Last night’s initial discussion topic was “A teacher’s character is more important than a teacher’s technique. Yes or no?” Using several texts and a Power Point presentation, the professor engaged the class in a discussion of character and authority as it relates to teaching. Being as we’re in California, and multiculturalism/diversity is a huge issue, eventually we were talking about how to handle students who come to our classrooms with cultural baggage that is unacceptable in the US (treating women as inferior, for example).

And that’s when the moral relativist–I’ll call her “Daisy”–entered the discussion with this statement:

“Who are we to decide what’s ‘moral’ or ‘right’ and what’s not?”

Her tone was decidedly aggressive; she clearly had a firm opinion to express.

The professor smiled in that “Oh good, I’m going to make an example of you” manner that invariably tells me it would be wisest not to respond to whatever he says next.

He asked, “Well, there are moral absolutes, aren’t there?”

Daisy’s tone became more pugnacious. “Only what the law defines, and who are we to say that our laws are right for everyone? Who are we to impose them on the rest of the world?”

“So you don’t think there are any stituations, any behaviors, that are simply always wrong?”

“Only if they’re against the law. Apart from the law, no. There are no moral absolutes apart from the law. And our laws only apply here.”

“Well, Daisy, what about rape? The violation of another person? Wouldn’t that be a moral absolute, absolutely wrong?” The professor’s smile widened, thinking he had her trapped.

Daisy didn’t miss a beat. “It depends on the laws of the country. In some places it wouldn’t be wrong. If it’s acceptable in another country, that’s their choice.”

The professor’s mouth came very close to literally dropping open, his smile gone in an instant. “Well…we’re clearly not going to agree on this,” he said slowly. The class as a whole was silent for a long moment, then a few voices murmured various things including “That’s anarchy,” and “How can you ever support something like rape?” The professor intervened calmly with “Daisy’s viewpoint leads into the question of what the purpose of public education is.”

We began to discuss that topic, though the students were slower to respond to one another, and a general sense of discomfort prevailed for the remaining 20 minutes of class.

After class, I approached the moral relativist, a thin, plain young woman in her 20s wearing a rumpled t-shirt, jeans and no makeup. I said pleasantly, “I couldn’t see who was speaking earlier. Are you Daisy?” She looked warily at me and said “Yes. Everyone probably hates me now.” She laughed bitterly.

For a split second I wanted to respond, “That wouldn’t be ‘wrong,’ would it? Not if it’s our cultural norm to hate someone like you.”

But I bit my tongue and smiled gently and said instead, “No. You’re entitled to your opinion.”

Of course, it’s not that simple. Her moral relativism is going to be foisted on the next generation. God help the students she will have in her tender care.

No bread for you, infidel!

Never mind my own petty personal financial problems. I read stuff like this, and I feel like my head’s about to explode:

A Saudi Arabian widow aged 75 has been sentenced to 40 lashes and four months in prison for mingling with two young men who were reportedly bringing her bread.

Khamisa Sawadi, a Syrian who was married to a Saudi, breached rules barring women from meeting with male non-relatives, a court ruled.

The two men, including Sawadi’s late husband’s nephew Fahd al-Anzi, were also found guilty and sentenced to prison terms and lashes.

Mrs Sawadi argued she saw 24-year-old al-Anzi as a son and even breast-fed him when he was a baby.

But the court, which had acted following a tip-off from al-Anzi’s father, dismissed her evidence.

…The court verdict read: ‘Because she said she doesn’t have a husband and because she is not a Saudi, conviction of the defendants of illegal mingling has been confirmed.’

Sawadi commonly asked her neighbours for help after her husband died, said Saudi journalist Bandar al-Ammar, who reported the story for Al-Watan.

…Saudi Arabia’s strict interpretation of Islam prohibits men and women who are not immediate relatives from mingling and women from driving. The playing of music, dancing and many movies also are a concern for hard-liners who believe they violate religious and moral values.

A special police unit called the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice enforces these laws, patrolling public places to make sure women are covered and not wearing make up, sexes don’t mix, shops close five times a day for Muslim prayers and men go to the mosque to worship.

H/T Rachel Lucas. This lady’s 75 freakin’ years old–what possible harm can there be in her meeting with ANYONE? She should have just gone without the bread, starved to death if need be, and upheld their asinine virtue laws. And how dare those two men bring an old lady bread; what were they thinking?! They must be punished.

If ever there was a reason to drill for our own oil and become utterly independent of Arabian oil, this is it. This cruelly ridiculous crap that enslaves and tortures an entire gender. If it weren’t for their oil, the Saudis wouldn’t have jack to sell to the world, and they be reduced again economically to the primitive barbarians they still are socially.

Not that I have an opinion, or anything.