And Now: A Deeply Felt Monument To Pain And Sorrow

Beware What You Want (You Just Might Get It)

Pity the poor liberals. It seems that everything they've ever said and believed about the Iraq war was wrong. Not that they care - the truth is arbitrary to them. Getting their way, getting their choice of president, was all that mattered:

While the media have been quick to run with WikiLeaks’ U.S. State Department cable releases to undermine Washington’s efforts to effect stability in unstable parts of the world, it is slow, if not silent, in giving credit where credit is due. Although other credible sources confirmed it before WikiLeaks did, in receiving similar disinterested responses from the media, it should be clear now that President Bush’s concerns about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program were well-founded.

The 2003 Iraq invasion by U.S. forces also launched a massive effort to find WMDs. By late 2003, as determined in a review by a Wired Magazine editor of WikiLeaks documents on the issue, the Administration was losing faith WMDs would be found. But, as Wired reports, the WikiLeaks documents clearly show "for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction. . . . Chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam's toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict — and may have brewed up their own deadly agents."
 
A September 2004 New York Times op-ed by the former head of Saddam’s nuclear research program supported this, as well. He wrote:

"[T]he West never understood the delusional nature of Saddam Hussein’s mind . . . he lived in a fantasy world . . . .  giving lunatic orders . . . he kept the country’s Atomic Energy Commission alive . . . Saddam fooled  . . .  the world . . . . [O]ur nuclear program could have been reinstituted at the snap of Saddam Hussein’s fingers."
 
Of note too is a January 2004 revelation by Syrian journalist defector Nizar Nayuf. He reported there were three locations in Syria where Iraqi WMDs had been transported prior to the 2003 invasion and were being stored. He also revealed some of these sites were being built with North Korean cooperation. This explained why three years later Israel attacked a nuclear facility being built in Syria by Pyongyang — and Syria’s subsequent failure to criticize Israel for fear of drawing further international attention to what Damascus had been doing.

Ahh, delusion. It's such a wonderfully common thing today. Where would we be without it? Where would liberalism be without it? One has to wonder, considering:

To the extent that there is such a thing as a "peace movement" in America, its members are a contemptible lot. But why are peaceniks so unworthy?

For one thing, because pacifism is dumb. It is merely the reductio ad absurdum of the trivial truth that war is bad. Philosophers and statesmen have a wide range of opinions as to when going to war is wise, justified or necessary. Only a child or a simpleton thinks the answer is "never." Thus the "peace movement" tends to attract the dull and the immature.

To be sure, under some circumstances it takes courage to stand against one's government. A public pacifist in Nazi Germany, or in Iran or North Korea today, would be an admirable figure notwithstanding the naiveté of his ideology. By contrast, being a pacifist in 21st-century America entails risking exactly nothing.

Well, nothing but the country, that is. Like we said, pity the poor liberals.

After this latest round of lies, and political fiascos, they're never getting this one back.

Superficial As All Get-Out (So Get Out)

"Is Buddhism pacifist? One would think so, to hear the Declarations of the Dalai Lama and those who claim there has never been 'Buddhist war.' So has Zen Buddhism's 'drift' to militarism been only an aberration, after the timeless message of Gautama, the warrior-prince who, once he became the Buddha, preached nonviolence? We are not simply faced here with a gap between theory and practice. Even though Buddhism has no concept of a 'holy war,' it doesn't mean its doctrine does not at times legitimize the recourse to violence and the just war.

In whatever countries Buddhism has became official ideology—whether Theravada Buddhism in Southeast Asia or Tantric Buddhism in Tibet or East Asia—war has often been zealously waged. At present, the Buddhists of Sri Lanka, for example, have openly taken up the struggle against the Tamil freedom fighters. What is true of Japanese Zen holds equally for other forms of Buddhism. Long before its lyrical metaphysical flights exerted their charm, Buddhism took hold first and foremost as a tool for protecting States.

How can one kill another person, when, according to good Buddhist orthodoxy, all is emptiness? The person who kills with full knowledge of the facts kills no one, since he has realized that all is but illusion, himself as well as the other person. The idea, moreover, is not exclusive to Buddhism, since it can be found in the Hindu scriptures, in the Bhagavad Gita. In China a Zen text similarly states that, if a murderous act is perfectly spontaneous, it is of the same order as a natural disaster, and thus entails no responsibility. One finds this sort of sophism in the writing of Zen apostles like D.T. Suzuki. Here as elsewhere, the recourse to higher truths provides justification for the worst aberrations."

-- Bernard Faure, pointing out that Buddhism is bullshit and we can kill them all - if we do it spontaneously - which is the last thing I thought I'd find, reading Sangam.org.

Thanks to Poncho and Lefty - but especially Lefty - for the tip.

Stop Monkeying Around (With Human Nature)

"Reveries about human perfection do not exist solely in the enthusiastic systems confected by Karl Marx, or in the REM sleep of Hugo Chávez, or through the utopian certainties of millenarians. There has been a persistent belief through countless societies that life is better, much better, somewhere else. In some yet-unfound reality there is an expression of our best natures -- our loving, peaceful, lyrically fair human core.

Anthropologists have been at the center of this quest, its practitioners sailing off to find that elusive core of perfection everywhere else corrupted by civilization. In the 1920s, Margaret Mead found it in Samoa, where the people, she said, enjoyed untroubled lives. Adolescents in particular were not bothered by the sexual hang-ups that plague our repressive society. Decades later an Australian researcher, Derek Freeman, retraced her work and successfully challenged its validity. Still, Mead's work and that of others reinforced the notion that our way of life was artificial, inauthentic, just plain wrong.

Enter primatology, which provided yet more questions about essential hominid nature -- and from which species we could, perhaps, derive guidance about our inner core. First studied in the wild were the baboons, which turned out to have harsh power politics and sexual inequity. Then Jane Goodall brought back heartwarming film of African chimps who were loving, loyal, fine mothers, with none of the militarism of the big bad baboons. But her subjects were well fed, and didn't need to scratch for a living in their traditional way. Later it became clear that chimps in fact formed hunting posses. They tore baby baboons they captured limb from limb, and seemed to enjoy it."

-- Lionel Tiger, on the silliness of pacifism as a human desire, in The Los Angeles Times.