The Review
August 24, 2002
Talk about your greenhouse gasses...
(Review) The UK's Telegraph newspaper says that President Bush is right to blow off the Johannesburg Summit, since it will in any case degenerate into a series of anti-American screeds.
But they also make a point that too few people realize. Much of the Third World's economies, to the extent that they function at all, rely heavily on the fact that our economy does so well. If the rabid environmentalists get their way, the US economy will be seriously constrained. As a result, millions of people in the Third World will die.
But since a keen grasp of economics is not an identifying feature of the enviro movement, they will reject any such arguments. Or, more darkly, simply won't care about them, since they think there are too many people on the planet anyway.
The difference between us and them
(Review) According to FOXNews:
A podiatrist from Tampa, Fla., was arrested on Friday for possession of explosives and attempting to use them to destroy mosques and other Muslim centers in the area.
Police said Dr. Robert J. Goldstein had so many explosives in his home that he could have accidentally destroyed the 200-unit townhouse complex where he lives. Prosecutors said Goldstein planned to use guns and the explosives to destroy an Islamic education center and dozens of mosques.
Our enemies celebrate bombers as heroes and martyrs, and set aside thousands of dollars for their families. We hunt our bombers down and throw them in jail even before they start blowing stuff up. Yet another reason why liberal Western civilization is better.
If you can't beat 'em, then have them rounded up and sent to jail
(Review) Michelle Malkin writes that the state of California, whose public schools produce some of the worst-educated children in the nation, has decided that criminalizing home schooling should be a key part of education reform.
As I've said many times before, there's nothing like stiff competition to bring out the worst in government. Nowhere does this prove more true than in the battle between home-schooling parents and public school bureaucrats. More than 1.2 million children now call mom and dad their controlling educational authorities. Their overwhelming success -- in academic competition, on national tests, and in college -- poses a mounting threat to the government-run education monopoly and to the public school teachers' unions.
Despite abominably low test scores, enormous waste, unsafe classrooms and administrative incompetence, the public schools have remained a hallowed and untouchable fixture. How dare "uncredentialed" parents rise up in revolt? How dare they demand excellence, discipline, and a curriculum that reflects their values and love of country?
Mocking home schoolers as fringe radicals and religious extremists, meddling with their teaching materials, and forcing them to beg public school officials for permission to educate their own children wasn't enough to defeat the growing movement. So now California's educracy has adopted a new motto: If you can't beat 'em, criminalize 'em.
What the "educators" in California won't tell you is that nearly one-third of all classes in California public schools are taught by unqualified teachers.
You know, things like this are starting to get really tiring. Government officials don't want citizens to own guns, but are exempted from any responsibility to provide police protection. They won't let you educate your own children, but when they do it, they produce graduating classes of slack-jawed incompetents.
We'd better get back to the idea of limited, constitutional government folks, or before we know it, we will be the French.
Just because we're lefties doesn't mean we can't be warmongers, too
(Review) The editors of The New Republic argue that we need to invade Iraq.
In international emergencies it is we who must lead. The physical defense of the United States includes also the moral defense of the United States; but the defense of American values sometimes requires action in non-American places. Democracy in the Middle East--in Riyadh, in Cairo, in Baghdad--would be splendid. But biological or chemical or nuclear war would be intolerable. If we do not prevent it, it is not least ourselves that we will have betrayed.
Kinda reminds me of the good old days, when the main foreign policy difference between Democrats and Republicans was which party wanted to nuke Moscow first.
Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Sierra Club?
(Review) According to the Wall Street Journal, when it comes to forest management, Democrats in the western states are pretending they've never even heard of the Sierra Club.
The President's plan would streamline the regulatory and legal morass that now stymies forest cleanup. Some of this can be done by federal agencies, but Mr. Bush is also asking Congress for legislation to speed up thinning and to ensure that judges consider fire risks when they hear the usual green lawsuits.
The East Coast environmental crowd lost no time denouncing these ideas, trotting out the same, weary charge that they are a Trojan Horse for logging. That's easy to do when you live in Bethesda and Manhattan. Noticeably silent, however, were Western Democrats. With six million acres already burned, 2,000 buildings in ashes, 20 firefighters dead and an election coming, not even card-carrying liberals want to tout the green policies that created the dry tinder for this fire season.
The editors conclude:
This year's fires have filled the West with smoke and enormous damage, but they've certainly cleared the political air. Mr. Bush and Republicans should keep driving this issue, so voters in November understand precisely who's responsible for burning up the wilderness.
Environmentalists are keen on promoting plans without a thought as to the consequences. For years they've actively blocked almost every attempt at forest cleanup while pooh-poohing any arguments about fire dangers.
Now the west is burning, and their elected political allies in the West are running for cover.
And the fire season's just beginning.
Our Allies, The French
(Review) The editors of the NY Post write:
It was bad enough that a French book claiming that the 9/11 attacks were in fact a Pentagon plot became a best-seller in the land of brie and baguettes, berets and betrayal.
Now the French film company Studio Canal (a subsidiary of the troubled Vivendi Universal conglomerate) has made a movie that apparently "commemorates" 9/11- by attacking America.
"11"09"01 September 11" is an omnibus film made up of 11 11-minute short films by directors from 11 different countries, inspired by the 9/11 events. The filmmakers were given "total freedom of expression" by the French studio.
All those elevens; how droll.
The Egyptian submission includes material justifying attacks on American and Israeli civilians.
The Iranian one concerns Persian fears of an American nuclear attack.
And the British entry, by lefty lensman Ken Loach, invokes the Chilean coup of Sept. 11, 1973, (oh, look - another 11) in the apparent belief that the event justified the bin Laden attacks.
With friends like these...
August 23, 2002
Not keeping up with current events
(Review) You gotta love Georgie Ann Geyer's lede for today's column:
The Antarctic ice shelves are breaking up in the most potentially destructive thaw since the last ice age ended 12,000 years ago.
Really, Georgie? That's news to me. Because this study, which was written by scientists and everything, says that the sea ice in the Antarctic has been increasing for the past 20 years. In fact, I mentioned it yesterday.
Losing the real war
(Review) Mark Steyn speaks:
President Bush has won the first battle (Afghanistan) but he’s in danger of losing the war. The war isn’t with al-Qa’eda, or Saddam, or the House of Saud. They’re all a bunch of losers. True, insignificant loser states have caused their share of trouble. But that was because, from Vietnam to Grenada, they were used for proxy wars between the great opposing forces of communism and the free world. In a unipolar world, it’s clear that the real enemy in this war is ourselves, and our lemming-like rush to cultural suicide. By ‘our’, I don’t mean me or my neighbours or the American people. I don't even mean the Democrats: American politics is more responsive and populist than Europe’s, and when war with Iraq starts Hillary will be cheerleading along with the rest of them. But against that are all the people who shape our culture, who teach our children, who run our colleges and churches, who make the TV shows we watch — and they haven’t got a clue. Bruce Springsteen’s inert, equivalist wallow of a 9/11 album, The Rising, is a classic example of how even a supposed ‘blue-collar’ icon can’t bring himself to want America to win. Oprah’s post-9/11 message is that it’s all about ‘who you love and how you love’. On my car radio, John McCain pops up on behalf of the Office of Civil Rights every ten minutes sternly reminding me not to beat up Muslims.
The intelligentsia have forgotten one of the key components of Western liberalism. Sure, they get the part about tolerance for other's views, respecting the rights of others, and all of the touchy feely stuff. What they have forgotten is the other half of liberalism, the part that makes the warm and fuzzy stuff work the way it's supposed to. They've forgotten the creed of individual responsibility.
They want to keep the nice bits, but ignore the fact that, what makes the nice bits work properly is the idea that the reason we can all have respect for each other is that we all live by a common standard of behavior, that we adhere to it, and that we fulfill our responsibilities. Those who don't must be punished, either socially or legally, pour encourager les autres.
When we forget the creed of personal responsibility, we become helpless against those who might wish to victimize us. Our tolerance becomes a weapon in their hands to act with impunity, secure in the knowledge that they won't face any negative consequences. If we criticize them, then they can hammer us about our lack of tolerance, while they continue profaning the community's standards.
Civilization is a social contract: I will refrain from outraging your sensibilities if you refrain from doing the same to me. But, like any contract, it must be enforced equally on both parties, or it becomes a yoke to one, and a license for libertinism on the other.
"Don't blame anybody for the 9/11 attacks," the NEA sanctimoniously declaims. "But, if we have to blame somebody, we must blame ourselves."
If that's going to be the attitude we have, then we might as well put the bullet in our own heads, and save our enemies the trouble.
Caving in on steel
(Review)
Well, at least the real world is starting to impinge on Bush Administration economic policy. According to FOXNews:
The Bush administration, seeking to avert a global trade war over steel, announced 178 exemptions on Thursday to high tariffs the president had imposed in March to protect the battered domestic industry.
The latest exemptions, by far the largest granted, bring the amount of steel excluded from the high tariffs to 3.2 million metric tons, nearly a quarter of the 13.1 million metric tons of foreign steel covered by the original order.
U.S. steel companies accused the administration of buckling to foreign pressure and reneging on a campaign promise to do a better job than the Clinton administration in protecting American jobs.
"Little by little, the (original order) is being gutted," said Tim Roberts, a spokesman for WCI Steel in Warren, Ohio.
It's called "competitiveness", Tim. You, and the rest of the dinosaurs in your industry, maybe oughtta look into it. When the Europeans run unit labor costs significantly higher than ours and are still able to export steel cheaper than your company can produce it domestically, then, rather about whining about how cheap European steel is, maybe you might want to look at why your competition is trashing you. In fact, you may want to look at why mini-mills located in the Southern US are kicking your butts competitively as well. I mean, you know, while you're looking into it.
But, of course, as Adam Smith, the father of economics, observed more than 200 years ago, businesses are far more eager to convince the government to create public subsidies for them than they are to doing the risky, messy work of actually competing in the free market.
It's not like they have anything more important to do...
(Review) The Department of Justice, eager to protect us from our evil foes, have started to crack down on...Internet file swappers.
[Deputy Attorney General John] Malcolm said the Internet has become "the world's largest copy machine" and that criminal prosecutions of copyright offenders are now necessary to preserve the viability of America's content industries. "There does have to be some kind of a public message that stealing is stealing is stealing," said Malcolm, who oversees the arm of the Justice Department that prosecutes copyright and computer crime cases.
In an interview, Malcolm would not say when prosecutions would begin. The response to the 11 September terrorist attacks temporarily diverted the department's resources and prevented its attorneys from focusing on this earlier, he said.
Yeah, that was so inconvenient. Good thing that's all over, huh? I mean, so we can start concentrating on the really important stuff.
I know the recording and software industries declare that piracy costs them, as Carl Sagan would have said, "billions and billions" of dollars. I think those claims are wildly overinflated, mainly because they assume that everybody with a pirated copy would buy the original product if pirated copies weren't available. I think that's absolutely incorrect. For the most part, such piracy happens among people who wouldn't buy the product anyway. They'll take a pirated copy for free, but they aren't interested enough to buy it.
Is it hot in here, or is it just you?
(Review) Today's mandatory reading: Everything you need to know about Global Warming is contained in this well-written and detailed article.
First, I like it because the authors are Dutch. I lived in Brunssum for three years, and I loved living in The Netherlands.
Second, and maybe even more importantly, the authors aren't just journalists. Doctor Hans H.J. Labohm is a senior visiting fellow at the Nederlands Instituut voor Internationale Betrekkingen Clingendael. Doctor Ir D. (Dick) Thoenes is a former professor of chemical processes studies at the Technische Universiteit in Eindhoven.
No, I won't translate. Learn Dutch. I had to.
Even the secret court smells a rat
(Review) From today's Washington Post:
A May 17 opinion by the court that oversees the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) alleges that Justice Department and FBI officials supplied erroneous information to the court in more than 75 applications for search warrants and wiretaps, including one signed by then-FBI Director Louis J. Freeh.
Authorities also improperly shared intelligence information with agents and prosecutors handling criminal cases in New York on at least four occasions, the judges said.
In one case, the FISA judges were so angered by inaccuracies in affidavits submitted by FBI agent Michael Resnick that they barred him from ever appearing before the court, according to the ruling and government sources.
Referring to "the troubling number of inaccurate FBI affidavits in so many FISA applications," the court said in its opinion: "In virtually every instance, the government's misstatements and omissions in FISA applications and violations of the Court's orders involved information sharing and unauthorized disseminations to criminal investigators and prosecutors."
The judges were also clearly perturbed at a lack of answers about the problems from the Justice Department, which is still conducting an internal investigation into the lapses.
"How these misrepresentations occurred remains unexplained to the court," the opinion said.
Not that this is surprising. A government that routinely operates in secret is a government that abuses its authority. Until all men become angels, it will always be so. There are certainly times when secrecy is needed, but in such cases stringent oversight should be practiced.
[Full Disclosure: I was a military cop for a decade.]
What is, I think, the dirty secret of American law enforcement in general, is how often warrants are obtained on such "misstatements" or "omissions". Policemen are, in general, a great bunch of guys, who do a difficult job under trying circumstances. But, the ability to cut corners in police work, and the lack of oversight in many departments, allows these guys to get away with stuff they shouldn't be getting away with. The cops think they are doing the right thing by getting dirtbags off the streets, and for the most part, they are. But the line between zeal and zealotry is a very thin and blurry one, and its easy to step over it.
As the FISA cases here show, it gets stepped over all the time.
No Tea and Crumpets in Baghdad
(Review) John Derbyshire predicts that, when the balloon goes up, British PM Tony Blair will bail out of any attack on Iraq.
Blair is in a tough spot. His party is against any war in Iraq. Trying to force the issue might very result in Blair's ouster. So, he'll probably weasel out of it.
Frankly, the Left hasn't the stomach to defend Western civilization, being to busy trying to impose their egalitarian world-view on it.
The Vision Thing
(Review) His dad didn't have it, but Vctor Davis Hanson reminds us that, if he wants to be successful in leading America in war, George W. Bush better have a vision.
August 22, 2002
Break out the cocktail glasses, we've got plenty of ice
(Review) What with all the global warming going on, it appears that the Antarctic ice pack is increasing. In fact, it's been increasing for the last two decades.
In the new study, published in the Annals of Glaciology, Claire Parkinson of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center analyzed the length of the sea ice season throughout the Southern Ocean to obtain trends in sea ice coverage. On average, the area where sea ice seasons have lengthened by at least one day per year is roughly twice as large as the area where sea ice seasons have shortened by at least one day per year.
"You can see with this dataset that what is happening in the Antarctic is not what would be expected from a straightforward global warming scenario, but a much more complicated set of events," Parkinson said.
Well...duh! Of course it's complicated. That's why critics of the global warming theory have been hard to impress. Models that accurately model the global climate are hard to construct. The data showing the warming trend are contradictory. The evidence that global warming, if any, is due to human causes is nil. The earth's climate has always been variable. In the past, it was much warmer than it is now. At other times, it was also much colder than it is now.
That's because the climate is...well...complicated.
Nerdy Chickenhawks?
(Review) Tapped is taking potshots at the warbloggers, of which, I suppose I am one.
The only people hot to fight this war are a bunch of nerdy chickenhawks brandishing grandiose plans to remake the Middle East. Tapped is still of draft age, even if Richard Perle isn't.
Well, considering that a large majority of the American people seem to support an attack on Iraq, that seems like an overly tendentious characterization.
It also goes without saying that, unlike Tapped, the reason that I don't have to worry about the draft is because I was a career soldier, serving under Presidents Reagan, Bush 41, and Clinton. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. So, needless to say, I'm not impressed by Tapped's attack on my manhood, coming, as it does, from a group of fellows that wouldn't dream of willingly putting on our nation's uniform, and who, evidently, fear being drafted.
Oh, and by the way, since we don't have a draft, Tapped doesn't have to worry about it. Fortunately for them, there are a couple hundred thousand volunteers that will go over to Iraq in their place, so that Tapped can stay here in safety, taking potshots at the courage of others.
I know precisely what the troops will face going over there, and I'm still in favor of it. Just like I was in favor of finishing the job the last time.
Reality Check
(Review) Here's and interesting and sobering story about the realities of MOUT, Mobile Operations in Urban Terrain.
If Saddam puts his armies in cities, taking them out might be a lot more difficult than the Gulf War was. Much depends on their morale and willingness to fight. And, of course, in the end, they'll lose. But we need to get out of the mindset that war is a big, bloodless, video game. It isn't.
At the same time, we need to remember that it is sometimes necessary, to prevent an even greater evil.
Attention Saudi extremists: You can start bombing us now
(Review) Deroy Murdock reports that the new fingerprinting plan for Middle Eastern Immigrants doesn't quite go far enough. Saudi Nationals are exempt.
Hmm. Of the 19 hijackers on 9/11, how many were Saudis? 15? And isn't Osama bin Laden a Saudi, too? So, forgive me if I'm not swelled with confidence at the new plan.
Neither is Murdock, who writes:
Scientists have yet to invent a device powerful enough to measure the volume of derisive laughter gushing from Riyadh's palaces these days. No matter what the House of Saud does, no matter how egregious the latest outrage from the Islamist kingdom, Saudi Arabia's valets in the Bush administration never miss an opportunity to steam-press their masters' flowing white robes or freshen their virgin daiquiris.
And I thought I was bitter...
Long live the King
(Review) David Pryce-Jones suggests that the Hashemite kings might return to rule Iraq, within the framework of a constitutional monarchy.
The Cruel Calculus
(Review) My newest TechCentralStation column is up, in which I discuss an invasion of Iraq.
August 21, 2002
He will never, ever go away
(Review Once again, former President Bill Clinton is touted as the host of an afternoon talk show. FOXNews asks:
Dysfunctional marriages? Pressing social issues? Overachiever syndrome in the family? Cheating spouses? Who knows these issues better than former President Bill Clinton?
Who, indeed?
Yeah, the needle stings a bit, but at least the gurney's comfy
The verdict's in: David Westerfield is guilty of the kidnapping and murder of 6 year-old Danielle van Damm. That's guilty, guilty, guilty!
What are the Chances?
(Review) I'm shocked--shocked!--to learn that the FBI's newest 9/11 hijack suspect is from Saudi Arabia!
Republicans=Dinosaurs?
(Review) Steve Neal says that we may be entering a new era of solid Democratic party majorities in government. Now there's a frightening thought.
Democratization, not just Democracy
(Review) Tom Friedman points out that democracy alone is not the answer. The process of democratization is important as well.
Iran, though, is living proof of why, in a country with a long legacy of authoritarianism, you need a process of democratization before democracy. Which is why I would not favor America's demanding elections tomorrow in Saudi Arabia or Egypt.
What we should be advocating (and what democrats in these countries seek) is a soft landing, notes Larry Diamond, a democracy expert at the Hoover Institution. "That means," he said, "encouraging these regimes to gradually introduce authentic political parties, competitive and fair elections, even if they are initially only at the municipal level, more freedom of the press and greater judicial independence -- as a way of laying the groundwork for democracy."
For a period of years the current ruling families could retain key powers -- over the army and security services -- as a check to make sure elected governments act responsibly. (The army in Turkey and the king in Thailand have played that kind of guardian role, as their societies gradually built the habits of democracy.) Constrained by powerful oversight institutions, competing parties could learn the limits and obligations of power. Then gradually, more power could be transferred to them.
But that is not the Bush policy. The Bush policy today is to punish its enemies with the threat of democracy and reward its friends with silence on democratization. That's a sure-fire formula for giving democracy a bad name.
Also, George W. Bush will never live down the scene that Tom recalls:
Two weeks ago I was in New Delhi watching CNN, when on came President Bush talking about the need to deal with the threat from Iraq. I had no problem with what the president was saying. What bothered me, though, was that he was saying it in a golf shirt, standing on the tee with his golf clubs. Up to now Mr. Bush has conducted the war against terrorism with serious resolve. But he shows real contempt for the world, and a real lack of seriousness, when he says from the golf tee, as he did on another occasion: "I call upon all nations to do everything they can to stop these terrorist killers. Thank you. Now watch this drive."
Bad image to have dogging you. This is turning into W's version of Bush Senior's "Message: I care" fiasco. It's a simple rule: Don't talk about serious policy stuff on the golf course. I know it's stupid that you have to go put on a suit and tie just to give a 30-second statement. But it's images like this that dog you at re-election time.
Who's fault is it?
(Review) Why is the economy so bad, and who can we blame? Those are the usual questions when the economy is weak. The answers, however, aren't so simple. For some reason, we like to give presidents the blame for a bad economy and credit for a good one. But as Robert Samuelson points out, that isn't a very realistic view.
But what presidents and government can't do is guide the economy along a path of trouble-free prosperity. The job is too large; the pressures on the economy are too many; the government's tools (taxes, spending programs, interest rates, regulations) are too few. The growing criticism of Greenspan presumes that he and the Fed can accomplish this wondrous feat.
For the most part, the blame for a weak economy is on...us. After all, we're the ones who aren't spending any money. So, you can blame the Bush tax cuts, or the unreasonable optimism of the Clinton years, or Alan Greenspan, but, at the end of the day, The government's control over the economy is indirect, and monetary policy has far more of an effect than anything any president might do.
Recession is a monetary phenomenon, that is, a recession starts because people stop spending money. They start saving cash and putting off purchases. Until people feel they can start spending more money, there isn't much the government can do, except keep putting money into the system until people's demand for cash is satisfied. In other words, loosen up on monetary policy and/or cut taxes.
But there are limits to how much of either the government--or the president--can do.
George W. Bush, Invisible Man
(Review) Michael Kelly piles on the President, too, arguing that W is losing ground:
This has been a bad summer for the Bush presidency — needlessly, irresponsibly, dangerously so, a summer of willfully lost ground. The administration began the season with two great goals: to push successfully forward into the next major phase of the war on terrorism, and to restore national and international confidence in the American economy. It ends the season having made things considerably worse in both cases.
This is becoming a familiar refrain with W's critics, and I don't think they're too far from wrong. W made some horrible domestic policy deals (such as steel, textile & lumber tariffs) in order to garner support for his foreign policy. Unfortunately, not much has gone on there, as far as I can see. The Taliban's gone, but we haven't made too many smart moves since then.
Asnearly as I can tell, W sold out his principles on economic policy in exchange for support to do...nothing.
Policy Abhors a Vacuum
(Review) Ken Adelman argues that George W. Bush's lack of policy guidance on Iraq carries high costs and high dangers.
August 20, 2002
The China Syndrome
(Review Bryan Preston asks, "What will China do if we invade Iraq? He suggests they might take our pre-occupation there as an opportune time to invade Taiwan.
I'm not really worried about the possibility. From all I have been able to learn, China doesn't have the naval power to put an invasion force of any size ontoTaiwan. But, it is something to keep an eye on for the future. As Preston notes:
China views itself not as America's strategic partner, but as America's strategic competitor. In Asia and around the world, China is vying to replace the old Soviet Union as the next challenger to what it sees as America's ambitions toward hegemony. To this end, China's People's Liberation Army (probably the most misnamed military in the world — it neither belongs to the people nor liberates them) issued an annual white paper predicting war with the United States within ten years.
*sigh*
Remember when the fall of the USSR was gonna provide a peace dividend?
Connecting the dots
(Review) Asla Aydintasbas--try saying that three times, quickly--attempts to make the connection between Abu Nidal, September 11 and Saddam.
I suspect that Saddam will soon depart this vale of tears.
More fuel for the fire
(Review) Evidently, the Iraqis are hosting some of the Al-Qaida's ranking members. Just another reason to whack Saddam Hussein.
Pulling No Punches
(Review) Mark Steyn tells it like it is:
What a pity we're no longer capable of being "judgmental" and "discriminating." We're told the old-school imperialists were racists, that they thought of the wogs as inferior. But, if so, they at least considered them capable of improvement. The multiculturalists are just as racist. The only difference is that they think the wogs can never reform: Good heavens, you can't expect a Muslim in Norway not to go about raping the womenfolk! Much better just to get used to it.
As one is always obliged to explain when tiptoeing around this territory, I'm not a racist, only a culturist. I believe Western culture -- rule of law, universal suffrage, etc. -- is preferable to Arab culture: that's why there are millions of Muslims in Scandinavia, and four Scandinavians in Syria. Follow the traffic. I support immigration, but with assimilation. Without it, like a Hindu widow, we're slowly climbing on the funeral pyre of our lost empires. You see it in European foreign policy already: they're scared of their mysterious, swelling, unstoppable Muslim populations.
Islam For All reported the other day that, at present demographic rates, in 20 years' time the majority of Holland's children (the population under 18) will be Muslim. It will be the first Islamic country in western Europe since the loss of Spain. Europe is the colony now.
Or as Charles Johnson, whose excellent "Little Green Footballs" Web site turns up dozens of fascinating Islamic tidbits every day, suggested: "Maybe we should start a betting pool: Which European country will be the first to institute shari'a?"
No reason for me to drop my two cents in here. Mark's already said all that needs to be said.
Cynthia McKinney, Loser
(Review) With 100% of the precincts reporting:
Denise Majette 62,750 61%
Cynthis McKinney 43,673 41%
Buh-bye.
PAY THE PRICE
(Review) MELANA ZYLA VICKERS argues that we have to pay the price, and occupy Iraq as long as necessary. Just like Japan and Germany. Needless to say, I agree.
DON'T BOGART THAT JOINT, MY FRIEND
(Review) According to the report on MSNBC:
MORE THAN one-third of teens polled by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse said they could buy marijuana in just a few hours, 27 percent in an hour or less.
For the first time since the study began in 1996, marijuana edged out cigarettes and beer as the easiest drug for teenagers to buy — 34 percent said it’s the easiest of the three, compared with 31 percent for cigarettes and 14 percent for beer.
Overall, however, 75 percent of students said they have not smoked marijuana.
Oh. I see. "Sure we can buy it any time we want. But that would be wrong."
The annual survey of 1,000 teenagers did not specify whether drugs are easy or difficult to buy at school, but 62 percent of public school students said their schools are “drug-free,” nearly double the number who said the same in 1998.
Well, those are mixed results, to say the least.
amnesty for the underlings
(Review) In today's Washington Post, THOMAS GRANT makes the following argument about offering amnesty to SADDAM HUSSEIN's subordinates:
1. Saddam ensures all of his subordinates have blood on their hands, so they'll be more loyal to him if the regime is in danger. If Hussein falls, they know that they'll be next because of their complicity in his crimes.
2. Saddam relies on subordinates carrying out his orders if he wants to launch a WMD attack. Subordinates who think they have no other option will obey him, and unleash a holocaust.
3. Offering a blanket amnesty to Saddam's subordinates leaves them a way out of trouble, by simply refusing to obey Saddam's orders. They will know that if Saddam falls, they won't necessarily fall with him, hence, their level of desperation, and willingness to launch WMD attacks is lowered.
It's sounds logical. I'm not sure if it's entirely valid, but it's something that we should perhaps give some thought to.
NUKE THE WHALES
(Review) NICHOLAS KRISTOFF says it's time to end the ban on hunting for some whale species. Just, you know, not the ones that are too cute.
the moral clarity of the u.n.
(Review) Part-time Libyan dictator and full-time whack job MOAMMAR KHADAFI will be the next chairman of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Isn't that just priceless? What else do you need to know about the UN?
If you still think the US should be particularly concerned about the consensus of opinion at the UN, then listen carefully: You are a a fool.
Personal note to Moammar: Nice outfit. I'm sure the matching purse and shoes are equally lovely.
(Review) Part-time Libyan dictator and full-time whack job MOAMMAR KHADAFI will be the next chairman of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Isn't that just priceless? What else do you need to know about the UN?
If you still think the US should be particularly concerned about the consensus of opinion at the UN, then listen carefully: You are a a fool.
Personal note to Moammar: Nice outfit. I'm sure the matching purse and shoes are equally lovely.
Faint Praise
(Review) What's the deal with BRENT SCOWCROFT? JOHN DERBYSHIRE thinks he knows.
Presidents necessarily surround themselves with highly credentialed people like Scowcroft, and they are right to do so. They are also right to keep them at arm's length and rely on their own judgment when the time comes to make decisions. As our own Rick Brookhiser has pointed out: "The wise leader should strive to have intellectuals on tap and not be one himself." Kept on a short leash, and forbidden to take any public initiatives themselves, these policy-wonk types are very useful. Insufficiently well supervised, they are walking calamities. The name "Ira Magaziner" mean anything?
There is a buzz going around conservative websites that Scowcroft is a wimp, an equivocator with a distaste for American power and a soft spot for our enemies. I don't think this is quite right, that 1989 toast notwithstanding. Cautious, yes — he admits to that himself — but not a cringing, guilt-addled America-last accommodationist, not a Warren Christopher or a Cyrus Vance. He was tough-minded about the Soviets and on board with the Gulf War after some initial misgivings about U.S. casualties.
The Scowcroft problem is not one of timidity or over-accommodation: It is one of commitment to managerialism. To Scowcroft, international relations are to be managed. The Soviets were to be managed; the Chinese are to be managed; Saddam Hussein is to be managed. This business of managing the world requires high skill and deep experience; and there is no place in it for emotion, sentiment, rhetoric, moral judgment, dramatic initiatives or leaps of the imagination.
In other words, they're useful to have around to manage policy, but not necessarily very good at making it.
(Review) DOGS AND CATS, SLEEPING TOGETHER: I've seen it, and I'm still not sure I believe it. RICHARD DREYFUSS writes for--of all places--National Review, to produce a moving tribute to CHARLTON HESTON.
I'm pretty sure this is one of the signs of the apocalypse. Next thing you know, MARTIN SHEEN will be writing praises to RONALD REAGAN in The Weekly Standard.
(Review) "A SMALL COUNTRY FAR AWAY, ABOUT WHICH WE KNOW LITTLE": In its best NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN style, the EU is preparing to ensure "stability" by preventing Montenegro from gaining self-determination and national independence. Montenegro's president, MILO DJUKANOVIC, writes in today's Washington Post:
A destabilizing, anti-reform coalition supported by certain bureaucracies of the European Union is threatening to set back the progress of democracy in Montenegro.
Since the signing in March of the Belgrade agreement on a new Serb-Montenegrin union, a combination of forces within Yugoslavia has tried to hijack the negotiation process and force Montenegro into a tighter Serbian orbit. Among these forces are loyalists of former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic, militants supporting the Bosnian Serb wartime leader, Radovan Karadzic, Liberal Party leaders and various members of Yugoslav security services.
The EU has an execrable record on just about anything having to do with the former Yugoslavia. Why should they stop now?
(Review) NOT AS WOBBLY AS YOU THINK: According to THOMAS OLIPHANT, the media is exaggerating the rifts in Republican ranks about going to war against Iraq.
If the ghosts of national security advisers past are what President Bush has to worry about as he stumbles toward a decision about Iraq, then he has nothing to worry about.
Through a combination of press oversimplification and partisan spin from opponents (and, ironically, proponents) of war, the impression has been created of widespread disagreement with the administration on the part of Republican and Democratic predecessors, including senior policy makers in the administration of Bush's father.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The people who have sat where Condoleezza Rice sits have questions and challenges for Bush. They do not, however, step forward as opponents of war but instead as advocates of war as a last resort, as opponents of war without allies, without laborious preparation of public opinion in this country and abroad, of war without careful planning for the rebuilding of Iraq.
Opponents of an attack on Iraq have attempted to portray Bush as beset by broad disagreement from within the Republican Party's foreign policy establishment. And hard-line proponents of war have portrayed those who have raised questions as appeasing naysayers, presumably allied with such other right-wing betes noires as Secretary of State Colin Powell.
Rubbish.
I suspect that a lot of the anti-war spin is based on ideology, rather than facts.
August 19, 2002
(Review) ABU NIDAL UPDATE: Iraqi authorities are suggesting that ABU NIDAL, who was "found" dead in his Bagdad apartment with multiple gunshot wounds, appears to have committed suicide. Now, that's what I call determination.
(Review) A BLINDING GLIMPSE OF THE OBVIOUS: The US gave a lot of support to SADDAM HUSSEIN during the war with Iran in the 1980s. No, really, they've got documents and everything. Imagine that.
Wait a second, didn't I already see this in the news somewhere? Hmm, when was it? Let's see...Oh, yeah, I remember! It was almost 20 years ago! Glad to see the boys and girls at MSNBC are catching up.
Of course, in my paranoid way, I sniff a veiled attempt to blame America--isn't it always America's fault?--for Saddam's subsequent activities.
(Review) WAR CRIMES IN AFGHANISTAN?: It appears likely that Northern Alliance troops under the command of General ABDUL RASHID DOSTUM are responsible for the deaths of an estimated 1,000 Taliban and Al-Qaida prisoners. Packed into cargo containers, they appear to have suffocated or expired of previous wounds during a mass transport to the Sherberghan prison camp. They were subsequently buried in a mass grave at Dasht-e-Leili, about 15 miles from Sherberghan.
Note something carefully here: Nobody was lining up these guys and just shooting them. The Northern Alliance commanders may have been criminally negligent in the way the prisoner convoy was organized and conducted, but nobody is alleging that these prisoners were, say, lined up and shot. That's not a defense, by the way, just a statement to put it in context. There is a difference between callous negligence and direct action, although they are both crimes, even if the difference is between a charge of Murder in the First Degree, or Murder Two (Depraved Indifference).
US Special forces A-Teams were in the area, working with General Dostum. According to Newsweek Which broke the story:
Nothing that NEWSWEEK learned suggests that American forces had advance knowledge of the killings, witnessed the prisoners being stuffed into the unventilated trucks or were in a position to prevent that. They were in the area of the prison at the time the containers were delivered, although probably not when they were opened. The small group of Special Forces soldiers were more focused at the time on prison security, and preventing an uprising such as the bloody outbreak that had happened days earlier in the prison fort at Qala Jangi. The soldiers surely heard stories of deaths in the containers, but may have thought them exaggerated. They also may have believed that the dead were war casualties, or wounded prisoners who, among thousands of their comrades, simply didn't survive the rugged journey from the surrender point to the prison.
Civil wars are nasty. Civil war in a country like Afghanistan, where the Geneva Convention is a set of rules far more honored in the breach than the observance, is nastier still. When you use proxies like the Northern Alliance in a campaign, you lose the ability to supervise or control them. If they decide to do questionable things, there simply isn't much you can do about it, short of calling the whole campaign off. And even then, you don't stop such things, they just go on without your knowledge.
In any event, Newsweek suggests that Gen. Dostum didn't even know it was going on, and that the fault lies with lower-level officers who were the ones responsible for actually organizing the prisoner convoy.
Of course, the Pentagon slipped up here. Newsweek reports:
But it’s also true that Pentagon spokesmen have obfuscated when faced with questions on the subject. Officials across the administration did not respond to repeated requests by NEWSWEEK for a detailed accounting of U.S. activities in the Konduz, Mazar-e Sharif and Sheberghan areas at the time in question, and Defense Department spokespersons have made statements that are false.
This isn't the type of story that's gonna go away. You have to get out front on these things and tell the truth. Yeah, it doesn't make our allies look good, but lying about isn't gonna get you very far, either. It just makes you look like there's something to hide, even if you don't. Trust me: Journalists hate to be lied to. If they find out you're doing it, they will savage your rep. It's just not a game you want to play.
And, of course, it gives plenty of ammunition to those who are determined to blame the US for anything bad that happens.
"The issue nobody wants to discuss is the involvement of U.S. forces," says Jennifer Leaning, professor at the Harvard School of Public Health and one of the pair of Physicians for Human Rights investigators who pushed their way into Sheberghan. "U.S. forces were in the area at the time. What did the U.S. know, and when, and where, and what did they do about it?"
Well, that's an interesting question, but it doesn't have much relevance. The Special Forces teams weren't in command of Gen. Dostum or his troops. Even if they had full knowledge of any mistreatment of prisoners, there wasn't much they could do about it. They were small teams of 4 or 5 guys, cut off from any substantial US Support, in the midst of a foreign army fighting a vicious civil war. Moreover, in all likelihood, they didn't find out about the mistreatment until after the fact. And it's not like there were enough US troops around to stop it, even if they knew about it before the fact.
In the final analysis, it's an Afghani problem. It was a civil war, and some Afghanis let some other Afghanis die. The responsibility, moral and legal, lies with those Afghanis who organized and supervised the convoy, and failed, intentionally or otherwise, to ensure the minimum of humane treatment for the prisoners. Those are the guys who should be strung up.
But that, of course, would provide no satisfaction to the "progressives" who would prefer America to take the blame.
Review) GOOD RIDDANCE: Palestinian terrorist leader ABU NIDAL has been found shot to death in his home.
(Review) ECONOMIC RECOVERY STILL WEAK: In another sign that the economic recovery remains weak, the Conference Board's index of Leading Economic Indicators, which predict economic conditions for the next six months, fell by 0.4, to 111.7.
(Review) BLAME AMERICA: The National Education Association (NEA) is preparing teachers for the Anniversary of 9/11. They're telling teachers not to assign blame to any specific group for the attacks. Well, except for America.
Evidently, some of the lesson plans, compiled together under the title "Remember September 11" and appearing on the teachers union health information network Web site -- takes a decidedly blame-America approach, urging educators to "discuss historical instances of American intolerance," so that the American public avoids "repeating terrible mistakes."
"Internment of Japanese Americans after Pearl Harbor and the backlash against Arab Americans during the Gulf War are obvious examples," the plan says. "Teachers can do lessons in class, but parents can also discuss the consequences of these events and encourage their children to suggest better choices that Americans can make this time."
The NEA's web site for this, www.neahin.org is set to go live on August 26th.
Here's an idea. Why don't educators concentrate on teaching children how to read, write, and do math, and leave the politics to somebody else? Maybe then, we'd cut down on the number of functional illiterates graduating from High School.
Just a thought.
(Review) GRAY DAVIS, LOSER?: All the media in California have gone out of their way to make GRAY DAVIS look like a shoo-in for re-election, and BILL SIMON a loser.
Well, call me crazy, but I think Bill Simon has a chance, We may regularly elect Democrats to the legislature out here, but we also regularly elect Republicans to the Governor's Mansion. And Gray Davis is despised as governor. Even Democrats hate him.
I wouldn't count Simon out just yet. It's a long time until November.
(Review) PRESIDENT CLINTON II: DAVID BOSSIE predicts that HILLARY CLINTON will run for President in 2004.
He has some good reasons, but, somehow, I doubt it.
(Review) THEY EVEN KILL PUPPIES: A new video recovered in Afghanistan indicates that Al-Qaida may already have created a chemical weapon. Guess what they tested it on?
(Review) AH, THE FREE AIR OF DEMOCRACY: JOSHUA MURAVCHIK says that democracy is spreading, brining the promise of a more peaceful world. I have argued elsewhere, however, that while the spread of democracy is a good thing, it is no panacea.
After all, the democratic city-states of ancient Greece warred against each other regularly. The republican city-states if renaissance Italy were constantly at each other's throats. Republican France and parliamentary England were traditional enemies. Democracy is great, but it is, at the end of the day, merely a system for choosing a country's government, not a cure for conflict.
(Review) ALAN GREENSPAN GETS NO RESPECT: ROBERT NOVAK suggests that the outcome of last week's FOMC meeting implies that ALAN GREENSPAN is losing control of the Fed.
August 18, 2002
(REVIEW) MORTIMER ZUCKERMAN declares that GEORGE W. BUSH is right about SADDAM HUSSEIN, and an attack on Iraq.
(Review) RONALD BAILEY writes in the LA Times that, thanks to fear-mongering by the European Union, millions of people are starving in Africa.
But, hey, as long as we save the planet by not tampering with nature, everything's OK, right? I mean, when you make an omelette...
This is what happens when ideologues are put in charge of policy.
(Review) TOM FRIEDMAN writes in today's NY Times:
From the moment this intifada got rolling, Palestinians have never been able to explain why they were adopting armed struggle, killing Israeli civilians with suicide bombs and exposing their own people and institutions to utter devastation — when they had a credible opening diplomatic offer to end the occupation.
Oh, yes, Palestinian spokesmen, and their chorus in the Western diplomatic corps and media, would tell you things like this: The U.S. offer wasn't for 96 percent of the West Bank, it was for only 90 percent (not true), or the U.S. and Israeli proposals did not offer the Palestinians a contiguous state in the West Bank, but just a collection of "Bantustans" (not true). But even if the opening U.S. and Israeli offers were as insufficient as the Palestinians claim, they never justified this ruinous war. A Palestinian peace overture to improve those offers would have gotten them so much more and spared them so much pain.
But the Arab and European "friends" of the Palestinians, instead of confronting them on this issue, became their apologists and enablers, telling us why the Palestinians' "desperation" had led them to suicide bombing. It was their enabling that helped produce this situation where the Palestinians, two years into a disastrous war, are meeting to decide what it is about.
I suspect they'd better figure it out soon.
(Review) CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER explores the HOWELL RAINES crusade at the NY Times to stop an invasion of Iraq, pointing out at least one egregious case of dishonesty.
