In Vino. Veritas!
Over the break, while in the liquor section of a supermarket in the Dominican Republic, I saw this ad.Either you will find this funny without my explaining it to you, or no amount of explaining will do the trick.
1/3/2005
Over the break, while in the liquor section of a supermarket in the Dominican Republic, I saw this ad.Either you will find this funny without my explaining it to you, or no amount of explaining will do the trick.
Death of a Statesman
1/1/2005
Quick Study
I’ve been on vacation recently—which explains the dearth of new posts here at IsThatLegal—but a reader has just brought an item to my attention that I just couldn’t let pass without comment.
Earlier this year, when President Bush nominated Daniel Pipes for a seat on the board of directors of the U.S. Institute of Peace, Pipes—a Harvard-trained historian—was asked whether he thought the Japanese American internment of World War II was wrong. Pipes, an outspoken advocate of racial and ethnic profiling in antiterrorism policy, demurred. “I don’t know enough about it to have an opinion,” Pipes said.
Many—including I—thought it as unlikely that Pipes had no opinion about the Japanese American internment as it was that Clarence Thomas had never discussed Roe v. Wade before joining the Supreme Court.
Democratic opposition to Pipes’s nomination to the U.S. Institute of Peace killed his confirmation in the Senate, so President Bush gave Pipes a recess appointment. His term is set to expire in January 2005.
Comes now Daniel Pipes (just as his recess appointment expires!) with a year-endpress release for book review of Michelle Malkin’s “In Defense of Internment: The Case for Racial Profiling in World War II and the War on Terror,” in which he says this:
That’s quite a journey in a few short months. Back in April, Pipes didn’t know enough about the internment to have an opinion about it. Now Pipes knows enough not only to say that the internment was justified, but to offer his critical opinion of the entire academic literature on the internment.
Wow. Smart guy.
Earlier this year, when President Bush nominated Daniel Pipes for a seat on the board of directors of the U.S. Institute of Peace, Pipes—a Harvard-trained historian—was asked whether he thought the Japanese American internment of World War II was wrong. Pipes, an outspoken advocate of racial and ethnic profiling in antiterrorism policy, demurred. “I don’t know enough about it to have an opinion,” Pipes said.
Many—including I—thought it as unlikely that Pipes had no opinion about the Japanese American internment as it was that Clarence Thomas had never discussed Roe v. Wade before joining the Supreme Court.
Democratic opposition to Pipes’s nomination to the U.S. Institute of Peace killed his confirmation in the Senate, so President Bush gave Pipes a recess appointment. His term is set to expire in January 2005.
Comes now Daniel Pipes (just as his recess appointment expires!) with a year-end
Leftist and Islamist organizations have so successfully intimidated public opinion that polite society shies away from endorsing a focus on Muslims.
In America, this intimidation results in large part from a revisionist interpretation of the evacuation, relocation, and internment of ethnic Japanese during World War II. Although more than 60 years past, these events matter yet deeply today, permitting the victimization lobby, in compensation for the supposed horrors of internment, to condemn in advance any use of ethnicity, nationality, race, or religion in formulating domestic security policy.
Denying that the treatment of ethnic Japanese resulted from legitimate national security concerns, this lobby has established that it resulted solely from a combination of "wartime hysteria" and "racial prejudice." As radical groups like the American Civil Liberties Union wield this interpretation, in the words of Michelle Malkin, "like a bludgeon over the War on Terror debate," they pre-empt efforts to build an effective defense against today's Islamist enemy. Fortunately, the intrepid Ms. Malkin, a columnist and specialist on immigration issues, has re-opened the internment file.
Ms. Malkin has done the singular service of breaking the academic single-note scholarship on a critical subject, cutting through a shabby, stultifying consensus to reveal how, "given what was known and not known at the time," President Roosevelt and his staff did the right thing.
That’s quite a journey in a few short months. Back in April, Pipes didn’t know enough about the internment to have an opinion about it. Now Pipes knows enough not only to say that the internment was justified, but to offer his critical opinion of the entire academic literature on the internment.
Wow. Smart guy.
