(Review) According to Time Magazine, a new book by Gerald Posner is about to make the Saudis look...bad. Posner relates the story of al-Qaida bigshot Abu Zubaydah, who, through a neat little bit of subterfuge, spilled the beans.
When questioning stalled, according to Posner, CIA men flew Zubaydah to an Afghan complex fitted out as a fake Saudi jail chamber, where "two Arab-Americans, now with Special Forces," pretending to be Saudi inquisitors, used drugs and threats to scare him into more confessions.If this is true, then maybe the fit is about to hit the shan.Yet when Zubaydah was confronted by the false Saudis, writes Posner, "his reaction was not fear, but utter relief." Happy to see them, he reeled off telephone numbers for a senior member of the royal family who would, said Zubaydah, "tell you what to do." The man at the other end would be Prince Ahmed bin Salman bin Abdul Aziz, a Westernized nephew of King Fahd's and a publisher better known as a racehorse owner. His horse War Emblem won the Kentucky Derby in 2002. To the amazement of the U.S., the numbers proved valid. When the fake inquisitors accused Zubaydah of lying, he responded with a 10-minute monologue laying out the Saudi-Pakistani-bin Laden triangle.
Zubaydah, writes Posner, said the Saudi connection ran through Prince Turki al-Faisal bin Abdul Aziz, the kingdom's longtime intelligence chief. Zubaydah said bin Laden "personally" told him of a 1991 meeting at which Turki agreed to let bin Laden leave Saudi Arabia and to provide him with secret funds as long as al-Qaeda refrained from promoting jihad in the kingdom. The Pakistani contact, high-ranking air force officer Mushaf Ali Mir, entered the equation, Zubaydah said, at a 1996 meeting in Pakistan also attended by Zubaydah. Bin Laden struck a deal with Mir, then in the military but tied closely to Islamists in Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (isi), to get protection, arms and supplies for al-Qaeda. Zubaydah told interrogators bin Laden said the arrangement was "blessed by the Saudis."
Zubaydah said he attended a third meeting in Kandahar in 1998 with Turki, senior isi agents and Taliban officials. There Turki promised, writes Posner, that "more Saudi aid would flow to the Taliban, and the Saudis would never ask for bin Laden's extradition, so long as al-Qaeda kept its long-standing promise to direct fundamentalism away from the kingdom." In Posner's stark judgment, the Saudis "effectively had (bin Laden) on their payroll since the start of the decade." Zubaydah told the interrogators that the Saudis regularly sent the funds through three royal-prince intermediaries he named.
(Review) In case you need more evidence that the LA Times poll was a bit hinky, we now have the Survey USA poll taken for LA, San Diego and San Francisco TV Stations:
| CA Governor Recall | 8/26/2003 |
| Remove Davis | 64% |
| Keep Davis | 35% |
| Undecided | 1% |
| Data Collected | 8/23/03 - 8/25/03 |
| Geography | State of California |
| Universe | 591 Certain Voters |
| Margin of Error | 4.0% |
| CA Governor Replacement | 8/26/2003 |
| Schwarzenegger | 45% |
| Bustamante | 29% |
| McClintock | 11% |
| Ueberroth | 6% |
| Huffington | 3% |
| Other | 4% |
| Undecided | 2% |
| Universe | 572 Certain Voters |
| Margin of Error | 4.2% |
| Client | KABC-TV Los Angeles |
That corresponds with all the other polls fairly closely. Which, of course, the Times poll does not.
So, the polls look like this, when you stick 'em all together:
| Poll | Recall Davis - YES | Recall Davis - NO |
| 64% | 35% | |
| 50% | 45% | |
| 63% | 35% | |
| 58% | 36% | |
| 58% | 37% | |
| 69% | 26% | |
| 54% | 35% |
| Poll | Schwarzenegger | Bustamante | McClintock | Ueberroth | Huffington |
| 45% | 29% | 11% | 6% | 3% | |
| 22% | 35% | 12% | 7% | 3% | |
| 31% | 25% | 17% | 8% | 3% | |
| 23% | 18% | 5% | 4% | 3% | |
| 22% | 25% | 9% | 5% | 4% | |
| 42% | 22% | 13% | 7% | 7% | |
| 25% | 15% | 9% | 4% | 4% | |
| *Republican Pollster, Simon votes reallocated to voters' second choice. | |||||
(Review) Another poll of the CA recall race has been released that contradicts the LA Times poll from earlier this week.
I thought the Times's poll was screwy at the time, but now I know it was. Frankly, the poll was as biased as can be.
The questions themselves are subtly tilted towards obtaining an anti-recall result. For instance, the Times asked several questions about the recall:
--Some people say that this recall election is an attempt by Republicans to overturn an election they lost in November 2002. Do you agree or disagree?These questions are little more than subtly disguised arguments against the recall. There could, after all, have been some other questions asked:--Some people say that a gubernatorial election with 135 candidates on the ballot to replace Governor Davis diminishes
the seriousness of California’s electoral process. Do you agree or disagree?--Some people say that recall elections like this one interfere with an elected state official’s ability to fulfill his or her
duties and efficiently run state government. Do you agree or disagree?--Does the fact that the special recall election will cost the taxpayers at least 66 million dollars enter into your decision to
vote yes or no to recall Governor Davis, or does that fact not enter into your decision at all?--Some people say that this recall sets a dangerous precedent in California because after the success that Davis’ opponents
have had in calling this special recall election, every elected governor from now on is likely to have to face a recall attempt by his or her opponents. Do you agree or disagree?--Some people say that California has made it too easy for a recall measure to qualify for the ballot and that the state
should require a larger percentage of voters—more than the 12 percent it is now—to qualify a recall measure for the ballot. Do you agree or disagree?
--Some people say that a recall election allows the voters to express legitimate dissatisfaction with an elected official by removing him from office for failing to execute his duties competently.
--Some people say that Gray Davis' record at restraining state spending makes a recall necessary in order to select a governor who can repair the damage done to the state's finances.
You know "some people" say a lot of things. Funny though, that the LA Times could only find arguments opposed to the recall. Ask those questions of a middle of the road voter, then ask how he feels about the recall. Chances are, after being barraged with a list of negative arguments about it, his support is gonna be a little soft.
That simply isn't how polling is supposed to be done. There should be an equal number of positivce and negative arguments presented to the pollee, to avoid biasing his answers.
Moreover, the Times asked at least one question that they know to be untrue.
In a recall election, a replacement candidate does not have to win by a majority vote. Because there are so many candidates on the replacement ballot, it is possible a new governor could be chosen with the support of less than 20 percent of the voters—even if, for example, Davis lost the recall election by 51 percent to 49 percent. Does knowing this could possibly happen make you more likely to vote in favor of recalling Gov. Davis, or more likely to vote against recalling Gov. Davis, or won’t it change the way you are likely to vote one way or the other?Nobody is going to win with less than 20% of the vote. This is a purely theoretical and mathematical possibility. As a practical matter, it has never happened in any recall election, and it clearly won't happen in this election either. Voter behavior revolves around a few candidates, irrespective of how many are running. It is far more likely that, whoever wins the recall election (assuming Gray Davis is recalled), they will receive 40%+ of the vote. Indeed, it is far more likely for the winner to receive more than 50% of the vote than it is to receive less than 20%. And the Times knows this. This seems like another thinly disguised anti-recall question to me.
Here's another interesting question. When asking about the individual candidates, compare the first sentence of these two questions:
--Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante is running as the only major Democratic candidate on the recall ballot.Why not pop in a little campaign ad for Cruz Bustamante? He is the only democrat on the ballot, you see. It's especially important to note that when asking questions in a state with such a preponderantly Democratic voter base. "He's the only Democrats on the ballot! Think about that before you answer!"--Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, will also be on the recall ballot.
I think it's becoming abundantly clear why the LA Times poll turned out the way it did, and why its results are contradicted by every other poll.
And I'm not the only one who thinks so, evidently. The editors of the Victorville Daily Press aren't pulling any punches about it today, either.
When the Los Angeles Times published its latest recall poll a week ago, the results were remarkably favorable to Democrats. The Times said Californians were in favor of recalling Gray Davis, but by a very small margin, 50 percent in favor, 45 percent against. The Times also said Cruz Bustamante leads Arnold Schwarzenegger in the race to replace Davis, 35 percent to 22 percent.After looking at the actual poll, I'm inclined to agree.Other recent polls, of course, show much stronger support for the recall, and either show Schwarzenegger ahead or tied with Bustamante. The Public Policy Institute of California says Arnold is ahead and Gray Davis is way behind, while the Field Poll shows Bustamante and Arnold in a dead heat, and Davis losing big.
What's going on? Easy. The Los Angeles Times is, and has been, incredibly partisan regarding politics. Only those with remarkable memories can recall the last time a Republican seeking statewide or national office got a Times editorial page endorsement. Was it Abraham Lincoln? Teddy Roosevelt? It certainly wasn't either of the Bushes, and we can't imagine the Times not endorsing Adlai Stevenson, Jimmy Carter, any of the Kennedys, Lyndon Johnson, Bill Clinton, Al Gore ... the list is depressingly one-sided.
(Review) Not content with bombing US Troops in Iraq, Iraqi factions are now bombing each other. A car bomb exploded during Friday prayers outside the holiest shrine for Shiites in Iraq, and up to 17 people were reported killed.
What's the deal? I mean, what is it about the Arab Muslim world that makes bombings the standard act of disagreement? All I can say is, it's a good thing that Islam is the "religion of peace". Imagine what it would be like if it wasn't.
August 28, 1963
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of captivity.
But one hundred years later, we must face the tragic fact that the Negro is still not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatize an appalling condition.
In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check which has come back marked "insufficient funds." But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check -- a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to open the doors of opportunity to all of God's children. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood.
It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment and to underestimate the determination of the Negro. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.
But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.
We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny and their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone.
And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.
I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.
Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair.
I say to you today, my friends, that in spite of the difficulties and frustrations of the moment, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a desert state, sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day the state of Alabama, whose governor's lips are presently dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, will be transformed into a situation where little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls and walk together as sisters and brothers.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.
This is our hope. This is the faith with which I return to the South. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.
This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring."
And if America is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!
Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado! Let freedom ring from the curvaceous peaks of California!
But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia! Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!
Let freedom ring from every hill and every molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.
When we let freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"
(Review) Finally, CA Lt. Gov Cruz Bustamante's past association with MEChA is being covered by Big Media.
Well, FOXNews, anyway.
(Review) Harold Myerson, writing in today's Washington Post, elegantly demonstrates that the Left hasn't had a new economic idea since 1887, when Das Kapital was first published in English.
Myerson apparently believes that Wal-Mart is the focus of modern evil in the world.
Just as Ford, GM and the UAW once drove up wages for workers who were nowhere near auto factories, so Wal-Mart drives down wages for workers who never set foot there.Prior to Henry Ford's assembly line revolution, cars were built by hand, one at a time. The use of the assembly line allowed that same number of workers to produce a vastly larger number of cars. This is what we call a "productivity increase".
Henry Ford was not a nice man who increased salaries just so his workers could all buy a car. He increased salaries because a) he could afford to do so as a result of the vastly increased productivity of the assembly line, and b) higher wages attracted larger numbers of potential workers, from whom he could choose the cream for his operation.
Ford didn't raise wages oput of any concern for the welfare of the worker. And the workers who worked for him knew it. In fact, it's rather surprising to hear a man of the Left praise Ford in this manner, since the Left in general has been less than impressed with Henry Ford's sterling altruism. As the Marxist historian Mark Rupert wrote in Producing Hegemony, "In the mid-1920s, one production worker described as follows the relentless pace and intense effort which his job required, and the consequences of failing to meet that standard on a daily basis: 'You've got to work like hell in Ford's. From the time you become a number in the morning until the bell rings for quitting time you have to keep at it. You can't let up. You've got to get out the production...and if you can't get it out, you get out.'
So let's not make Henry Ford into something he wasn't.
And let's not make Wal-Mart something it isn't either. Wal-Mart doesn't exist to provide large numbers of jobs that pay what Mr. Myerson believes are adequate wages. Wal-Mart exists to provide inexpensive products to consumers. That's it.
But beyond that, Wal-Mart, and retailing in general, simply can't produce the productivity increase in their "associates" that Henry Ford produced when he built the Highland Park plant in 1914. Since labor costs are the largest fixed cost for retailers, any across the board wage increases will result in price increases to consumers. Now, maybe consumers will flock to Wal-Mart in order to pay higher prices for the goods they need, because they want to support Wal-Mart's altruism in paying their workers more.
But, considering how much trouble and turmoil there's been in retailing among higher-priced chains in recent years, I tend to doubt it. Higher priced retailers have had to close stores and lay off thousands of workers. In the real world, that's the trade-off. Higher prices mean reduced demand, which means reducing the number of available jobs.
And let's also not pretend that the Wal-Mart workforce is the same as Ford's. Ford's men were the primary--indeed, the sole--breadwinners for their families. Wal-Mart employees tend to be secondary income earners, teens, and retirees. Myerson frames the argument as if retail employees were trying to support their families of their wages, which is, in the main, untrue.
Controlling as it does so much of the low-end retail market, Wal-Mart has, with great success, pressured suppliers to cut their labor costs. No other American company has done as much to destroy what's left of the U.S. clothing and textile industry or been so loyal a friend to the dankest sweatshops of the developing world.Yes, Myerson is probably right that Wal-Mart's existence depresses wages for people who don't work there. But that's because people shop there for the low prices. Again, Wal-Mart is the largest US retailer because people prefer to shop there, and the reason they do so is because, when given a chance, people prefer to pay less for a thing than more. To keep prices low, Wal-Mart pressures suppliers to reduce their prices. Wal-Mart has no responsibility to subsidize high wages for their producers. Wal-Mart's responsibility is to provide its customers with the lowest prices possible for the goods they sell.
Myerson is implicitly arguing that Wal-Mart should charge higher prices to the 99% of consumers who buy there, so that the 1% who work in the textile industry can make more money.
And if life was all fuzzy kitties, that idea might just work.
Those dank sweatshops, by the way, have thousands of people begging to work in them, because the other jobs that are available are worse. I guess Mr. Myerson would rather have no Asians at all working for an American wage, rather than thousands of Asians working for lower wages. Nevermind that the cost of living in those countries is far lower than in the US, so that their real wages, even at what Mr. Myerson would call sweatshop wages, are higher than that of most of their fellow citizens.
Well, perhaps Mr. Myerson is right. Perhaps its better that they starve, rather than make what their society considers o living wage. Because if Mr. Myerson has his way, that's exactly what will happen. Americans are paid high relative wages because we have high productivity. We produce more units of product per unit of labor. Foreign workers are, in the main far less productive. They make, therefore, far less money. If Mr. Myerson thinks that compnaies will pay a western producivity wage for non-western productivity workers, then he's just insane.
And unless American unions can find the political leverage to block Wal-Mart's expansion into non-southern metropolitan areas, the company poses a huge threat to the million or so unionized clerks who work at the nation's major supermarket chains.Well, for a Democratic activist, whose party receives untold millions in AFL-CIO political contributions, I imagine that the prospect does have the ring of crisis.
For the rest of us, who do, after all, occasionally have to buy food to feed our families and ourselves, the prospect of lower food or clothing prices is not quite as frightening.
And considering that the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that wages are rising by 3.5% while inflation is at 1%, I'm not ready to get exercised about falling wages quite yet.
Yes, collective bargaining is a valuable tool to force rapacious employers into being less so. But there is a reason why union membership has declined over the past three decades, and it's not because company goons are cracking the heads of union organizers. Most businesses now offer pay and benefits that are acceptable to their workers, and, in response, workers see less of an incentive to unionize.
I would also note that, union organizations regularly take political stands and support candidates that are anathema to about half the work force. Perhaps the idea of belonging to an organization that will use worker's dues to support candidates and causes that the workers themselves dislike may also have something to do with the lack of enthusiasm the American workforce feels towards unions.
It may just be me, but I don't recall the moment when the American people proclaimed their preference for an economy driven by Wal-Mart to the one driven by General Motors.Well, maybe it was when we decided to start buying Toyotas and Nissans in preference to the crap Detroit was putting out, and started shopping at Wal-Mart because they offered the same products for less.
It's called "voting with your feet."
Evidently, the idea of American consumers responding to the market in a rational way seems to mystify Mr. Myerson.
It is, after all, one thing to live in a nation where the largest employer wants workers to make enough to afford its cars; quite another to wake up in an America where the largest employer wants workers to make so little they'll be compelled to buy low-end goods in a discount chain.Actually, I make a very comfortable living. And I still go to Wal-Mart and Target. I'm not "compelled" to do by low wages. The only sense I am "compelled" is in the sense that I have a compulsion to spend as little of my money as possible when I buy stuff.
And I love the turn of phrase that Wal-Mart "ants workers to make so little they'll be compelled to buy low-end goods in a discount chain." Mr. Myerson is evidently showing off his amazing psychic powers. He knows what Wal-Mart "wants". Not that he provides no evidence of how he knows what Wal-Mart "wants". He just knows it.
His whole argument is a perversion of how the market works. Well, actually, it's not so much of a perversion as it is a demonstration of total ignorance.
Indeed, polling has consistently showed that a clear majority of the American people have been dubious about the benefits of free trade -- but these are the only polls that the political elite, so poll-driven on other questions, has consistently ignored.I'd say that's a great credit to the political elite.
Nine out of Ten economists believe that Free Trade is a benefit for everyone who engages in it, and the tenth guy is generally a MArxist whacko like Mr. Myerson. Ever since England repealed the Corn Laws after the Napoleonic Wars, it's been obvious that free trade beats mercantilism hands down for increasing the nation's prosperity.
And neo-luddites like Myerson or Ross Perot can whine all they want about the huge sucking sound of jobs fleeing to Mexico, or whatever, but history has demonstrated, again and again, that such arguments are foolish in the extreme.
Japan has a pretty protectionist economic system. For the last decade, it's been a shambling wreck. Remember when they were gonna rule the world, back in the 1980s? Mr. Myerson evidently feels that we should follow their path to prosperity.
I'll pass, thanks.
The relation of union power to mass prosperity is, in a word, causal. Anyone who doubts that should go to the only American city today where there's a boom in housing construction for the working class: Las Vegas. The MGM-Grand, the Bellagio and Caesar's Palace are the Ford and GM there, and a quite brilliant hotel workers union, which has won the right to represent the workers in all the strip hotels, is the latter-day UAW.Whatever Mr. Myerson is smoking, I'd like a dime bag.
Now, try and stay with me here. Las Vegas is raking in billions of dollars a year from gambling. They have, over the last several years, been building huge hotel/casinos. In order to keep the casinos running they need a huge influx of employees. Because the permanent population of Las Vegas is so small, that means that thousands and thousands of people have had to be imported from out of state. That also means that new housing has to be built to house the influx of new residents.
No, Mr. Myerson, what is "causal" in Las Vegas is not union employment. The cause of the housing boom in Las Vegas is the million of Americans who pour money into the casinos there, thus prompting corporations to increase the number of casinos, hence the number of new jobs and new workers.
To believe otherwise, is to believe that Las Vegas, would, without union labor, be just another sleepy desert town.
Now, Mr. Myerson may actually believe this, but it's fantastically stupid, and it's a perfect example of why I have nothing but contempt for the Left.
(Review) Alan Dershowitz is evidently feeling a bit of schadenfreude from the bombing of the UN headquarters in Iraq. And for good reason.
For more than a quarter of a century, the U.N. has actively encouraged terrorism by rewarding its primary practitioners, legitimating it as a tactic, condemning its victims when they try to defend themselves and describing the murderers of innocent children as "freedom fighters." No organization in the world today has accorded so much legitimacy to terrorism as has the U.N.It's always so nice to watch when someone on the Left "gets it."The bottom line is that the U.N. has served as an international megaphone for the perverse message that any people who feel that they are occupied have the right to resist occupation by randomly murdering innocent civilians anywhere in the world.
Now the chickens have come home to roost. Some Iraqis, who feel that they are now occupied, have taken the U.N.'s message to heart and are engaged in a "national liberation movement" of the kind long praised by the U.N. and are using the tactics rewarded by the U.N. against that very organization.
Now that the victims of "national liberation terrorism" are U.N. employees instead of Jewish babies, maybe the U.N. will finally come to its senses and understand that by legitimating and rewarding terrorism, they have created a Frankenstein monster that can be turned against any nation, organization or group. Unless there is a change, no one will be safe from this U.N.-created, -fed and -rewarded monster that threatens the entire world.
Well, yesterday's hideous internet access problem appears to be fixed. I had email, but no web access. Now, I have both. I tell you, it's only when you don't have it that you realize that the Internet is a jones worse than China White.
(Review) John Derbyshire weighs in on Chief Justice Moore, and the 10 commandments monument in the Alabame Supreme Court building.
As I started out by saying, I am no authority on jurisprudence. It may be, for all I know — I really can't see it, but it may be — that there really are sound Constitutional grounds for your never-ending campaigns to scrub every last jot and title of religion from our public places. But just take a look at our country.It's too bad Justice Moore shot himself in the foot. Alabama's Attorney General (and Federal judicial nominee) Bill Pryor offered to have the AG's office argue the case on reasoinable and constitutional grounds, but, as I mentioned in my earlier post, Justice Moore is a fringe figure. As Quinn Hillyer writes:There is a war on: People who hate America are working day and night to destroy us. Just a few months ago they murdered 3,000 of us, and brought down two of our noblest buildings. Manufacturing jobs are long gone, and middle-class paper-shuffling jobs are following them fast. Public-sector unions are pillaging our state treasuries to fund their 50-90 programs (retire at 50 on 90 percent of your salary). Meanwhile, trial lawyers are chewing their way like termites through the private sector. We have 13 million illegal immigrants scoffing at our laws and helping themselves to the welfare provisions that citizens have spent their lifetimes funding through taxes. Two million of us are currently in jail, and the one-eighth of our population that is black supplies one-half of those inmates. Our education systems are collapsing under absurd demands that "no child be left behind" — everyone must be above average! — and hundreds of thousands of citizens have fled those systems in disgust to school their kids at home. Our universities are in the hands of nihilist ideologues who hate their own nation, culture and ancestors. The political system has seized up, impossible-to-cut spending programs crashing head on into impossible-to-raise tax rates. Drop a cigarette butt into some power generator in Cleveland and you can shut down the northeastern U.S.A. for a day. A North Korean nuke has been smuggled across the Mexican border and hidden in a filing cabinet on the 102nd floor of the Sears Tower. (I made that up, but if it hasn't actually happened yet, it won't be long.)
And action to deal with all these problems is massively hindered by the fact that we can't even talk about them in public for fear of being branded with one of the half-dozen modern equivalents of the scarlet letter — "racist," "nativist," "elitist," "profiler," and the rest of the idiot schoolmarmish cant we hear from the guardians of our public virtue.
In short, we are going to hell in a hand basket here, and all you liberals can think of is to jab your finger in the eyes of 46 percent of your fellow citizens over some footling dubious point of Constitutional law? Just ask yourselves — please, please, ask yourselves: Is Roy's Rock really a proper target for my zeal, my energy, my passion, my money? Is my reaction to it in any kind of proportion to any harm it might conceivably do?
But Chief Justice Moore made matters worse. Rather than accept an offer from Gen. Pryor to have the state AG's office argue in favor of the Commandments on reasonable and responsible grounds, Moore insisted on hiring outside attorneys and on making sweeping and grandiose legal arguments sure to be rejected. No need for detailed legal quotations here. The upshot of Moore's court filings was twofold: first, that the monument did indeed carry what any rational person would call a specifically faith-centered message at least bordering on "establishment" of religion — namely, that it was "an acknowledgement of God" as the source of all justice; second, that he as chief justice of Alabama was personally not subject (at least in First Amendment cases) to the dictates of a federal court.It might have been an interesting case, if it had involved anybody other than Roy Moore.
Because the vital questions that should have been asked in this case about the limits to the US government under federalism were dismissed by Moore, who concentrated solely on an "acknowledgement of god" argument that he must have known wouldn't pass muster in a Federal Court.
(Review) Debra Saunders isn't impressed with Lt. Gov. Cruiz Bustamante's "Tough Love For California" budget plan.
If Bustamante is lucky though, voters will concentrate on his pulled promise and forget about his silly budget proposal, "Tough Love for California. "No doubt Glendale resident Nancy Spiller will be giddy with delight over Bustamante's plan.Tough? As in hard to digest? There's nothing tough about promising taxpayers that other people -- rich people, commercial property owners, smokers and drinkers -- will be paying $8 billion in higher taxes.
Especially when Bustamante is promising to reduce the slated increase in the car tax -- except for cars valued over $20,000. Yes, it takes a tough Democrat to tell voters that they can have bigger and bigger government, and not have to pay for it.
As Bustamante's political adviser Richie Ross says, "The greatest political slogan is 'free food and beer'."
Problem is, there was a $38 billion shortfall because state revenues dropped dramatically. And here's Bustamante saying he can stabilize spending by raising the taxes most likely to drop in hard times.
(Review) If the Bush Administration is serious about what Condoleeza Rice called our "generational committment bringing political and economic reform to the long-neglected Middle East, then Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan have three important questions that need to be answered:
Where are the troops?
Where is the money?
Where are the civilian personnel?
Important questions, because sufficient quantities of all three are needed, and, at the present moment, don't appear to be forthcoming.
(Review) Mark Steyn writes that Iraq is a key battlefield in the war against terror, and that the UN bombing should increase, rather than decrease our resolve, because the stakes are so high.
And so on Tuesday, up against an enemy unable to do anything more than self-detonate outside an unprotected facility and take a few Brazilian civil servants and Canadian aid workers with him, the global community sent out a Syrian ambassador to read out some boilerplate and then retreated into passivity and introspection and finger-pointing at Washington. This is the weirdly uneven playing field on which the great game is now fought. Islamic terrorism is militarily weak but ideologically confident. The West is militarily strong but ideologically insecure. We don't really believe we can win, not in the long run. The suicide bomber is a symbol of weakness, of a culture so comprehensively failed that what ought to be its greatest resource--its people--is instead as disposable as a firecracker. But in our self-doubt the enemy's weakness becomes his strength. We simply can't comprehend a man like Raed Abdel Mask, pictured in the press last week with a big smile, a check shirt and two cute little moppets, a boy and a girl, in his arms. His wife is five months pregnant with their third child. On Tuesday night, big smiling Raed strapped an 11-pound bomb packed with nails and shrapnel to his chest and boarded the No. 2 bus in Jerusalem.Read the whole thing.The terrorists watch CNN and the BBC and, understandably, they figure that in Iraq America, Britain, the UN and all the rest will do what most people do when they run up against someone deranged: back out of the room slowly. They're wrong. There's no choice. You kill it here, or the next generation of suicide bombers will be on buses in Rotterdam, Manchester, Lyons, and blowing up the UN building in Manhattan. This is the battlefield.
(Review) Fareed Zakaria says that the Pentagon's Plan A isn't working too well in Iraq. He has some concrete suggestions for Plan B.
Existing home sales was the only number of consequence to come out today, and it came in better than expected. 6.12 million new homes were sold last month. That is much better than either the 5.83M sold in June, or the analysts's expectation of 5.9M.
(Review) Robert Samuelson writes that the system of global trade is in trouble, due to its reliance on the US Trade deficit.
The justification for free trade is that everyone ultimately benefits. Countries do what they do best. Poor countries sell inexpensive labor-intensive goods (shoes, toys, clothes) to wealthy countries and buy sophisticated knowledge-intensive goods (jets, pharmaceuticals, industrial machinery). Living standards in all countries rise. Some workers and industries may temporarily lose, but most consumers benefit and most workers are ultimately re-employed in trade-competitive industries. Countries use their export earnings to buy more imports; trade doesn’t permanently destroy jobs. Spending is circular.Increasing trade deficits cannot be indefinitely maintained. And Japan is as good an example of any as to what happens when an export-driven domestic economy can no longer increase exports. Unless other countries are willing to learn from Japan's example, similar fates may await them.If too many countries hoard, the logic of free trade collapses. Trade can become an economic depressant and job destroyer. Too many sellers chase too few buyers. Countries compete for bigger shares of stagnant markets and try to shift unemployment abroad. In the 1990s, the U.S. economic boom—and the big trade deficits—postponed these pressures. But now the boom is over, the dollar has depreciated on foreign exchange markets (making American products more competitive) and the U.S. deficit shows signs of stabilizing. In June, it dropped slightly.
A great, if silent, struggle has begun. For decades, expanding trade (now about $8 trillion annually) promoted global progress. It reduced poverty and spread prosperity. But if the trading system can’t solve its basic problem--overreliance on the U.S. market--it could foster political division and economic vulnerability for all.
(Review) How good is out intelligence about what the North Koreans are up to? And how reliable is the information we do have? Jonathon Pollack has some doubts about it.
(Review) Time Magazine is running a long feature article about the US Armed Forces, asking if we have enough troops to meet our current committments.
I think we probably don't. The force is about half the size it was when I was on active duty in the 80s and 90s. And, the contacts I still maintain indicate to me that there has been a lot of dissatisfaction since the late 90s about the frequency and length of deployments.
The Bush Admionistration seems to think that they can embark on an abitious foreign policy of combating terrorism--and terrorist states--with an economically sized military. Well, maybe it's true that we can beat any of these guys in combat with fairly small forces. But what happens afterward?
Former Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Erik Shinseki, a man with whom I practically never agreed with on anything, predicted that a war in Iraq would need a couple hundred thousand guys on the ground to keep the peace after the fighting stopped. Don Rumsfeld's guys predicted we'd have only 30,00 troops in Iraq by September.
Presently, there are 140,000 of our troops there. Which prediction seems closer to the truth?
I think "defense transformation" is a wonderful thing. And it might just, in a decade or so, be everthing Runsfeld claims it will be. I am becoming increasingly skeptical, however, that it is everything Rumsfeld claims it is right now.
Shinseki was too much of a Fulda Gap1 guy to understand how to embrace transformation fully. Don Rumsfeld is, I think, not enough of a Fulda Gap2 guy to understand that transformation's promise lies mainly in the future, rather than the present.
(Review) Bill Whalen also notes some oddities about the LA Times' recall poll.
Oddity #1: Schwarzenegger has a positive press conference, runs an upbeat bio spot on statewide TV, and yet the Times reports that only a late surge in the poll brings him back to the same level as the Field and PPIC polls. One would assume that, after firming up his credentials as a fiscal conservative, Arnold would get more support from the right.There's something fishy about the Times poll. Maybe it's just that this is an odd type of election. But the poll's responses seem pretty contradictory to me.Oddity #2: Democrats had a week in which the dominant story line was intraparty division. Dianne Feinstein told Democrats to vote "no" on recall and skip the second half of the ballot; House minority leader Nancy Pelosi said to vote "yes" on Bustamante. Yet, according to Times, anti-recall sentiment is growing. It just doesn't add up.
Oddity #3: Bustamante received key endorsements from Democratic leadership groups, but also unveiled a budget "fix" that, if approved, amounts to the biggest tax increase in California history. Yet, in a survey adjusted for heavier-than-usual Republican turnout, Bustamante's poll numbers are nearly twice as strong as the PPIC's findings.
Oddity #4: The Times find that more than one-third of moderate Republican voters would support Schwarzenegger, and one-fourth would vote for Bustamante. This, even though the media have been telling voters night and day that Arnold is pro-choice and pro-gay rights--moderate to liberal on social issues. Bustamante's strength among Republicans sounds fishy: It's the kind of support you'd expect for a more familiar candidate, like Feinstein.
(Review) Jonathon Schell, in his regular "Letter From Ground Zero" column assessing the political fallout from the UN Bombing in Iraq last week, writes:
I can give myself as an example. I opposed the war in Iraq before it was launched and now regard it as a mounting disaster, with the worst yet to come. But according to a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, 69 percent of the public still think the war was worth it. Obviously, I'm out of step with the public.Really? Ya think?
(Review) A new poll done by the LA Times apparently shows that voters are divided on whether to replace Gray Davis as Governor, but a plurality want's Cruz Bustamante to replace him.
This poll is quite a bit different than the Field Poll conducted earlier last week, and even the LA Times' own reporting (free registration required), raises some question about the results. For example, only 50% of those polled support recalling Davis, yet the Times reports:
Overall, 72% of likely voters disapproved of Davis' job performance, including more than half of his fellow Democrats. Only 26% of likely voters approved.But, according to the times, only 50% want to see Davis recalled. That seems...counterintuitive.
Additionally, the surprisingly strong showing for Cruz Bustamante--the Times gives him 35% compared to Arnold's 22%--seems rather strange. Not only is the Times the only organization to come up with such a strong number for Bustamante, but they report:
Nearly eight in 10 likely voters said things in California were headed in the wrong direction, and nearly seven in 10 said the economy was in bad shape.And Cruz Bustamante is the guy they think will change directions? So if we get rid of the Democratic governor and replace him with another Democrat, that will change the state's policy direction? That seems counterintuitive as well.
Sacramento Bee political reporter Dan Weintraub interprets these odd results as follows.
In the coming week you will be hearing a lot of Republicans talking about liberal media conspiracies, and what they will see as an attempt by The Times to prop up the Democratic regime in Sacramento. I don’t think so. The poll may or may not be accurate. But having worked at The Times for 12 years, as well as at the Orange County Register and now the Bee, I have never seen any organized liberal (or libertarian) bias in the newsroom. It is true that many reporters are liberals, and that might color their view of the news or certain political figures. But mostly reporters just want to tell a good story. Davis would not be in the trouble he is in today if the press had not reported critically on his problems with the energy crisis, the budget and his pay-to-play fundraising style. And it’s just not credible to claim that The Times would skew a poll to try to help the Democrats. If the poll is wrong, it’s because telephone polling itself has become problematic in the age of cell phones, call-waiting and answering machines, and because this race, with its unique format and multi-candidate field, is going to be extremely difficult to assess.That, at least, can't be argued.
Considering how heavily California is weighted towards Democrats, it wouldn't surprise me to see Cruz end up with between 30%-40% of the vote come the day of the actual election. So the real question then becomes how many of the remaining 60%-70% of the electorate will Arnold attract on the actual day of the election? How many people who are now answering polls saying they support, say, Larry Flynt, will actually vote for him on the day?
(Review) Bill Simon has dropped out of the race to replace California Gov. Gray Davis in the Recall Election. More good news for Arnold, probably. Bad news for Gray and Cruz Bustamante, the Domocratic Lt. Gov. who's running to replace Davis.
(Review) Niel Cavuto is getting a bit peeved at the Europeans who are offering us economic advice.
And right about now, the Europeans are the last ones who should be lecturing anyone on things economic. Trust me, our economy ain't exactly firing on all cylinders. But at least it's firing on some. The French and Germans would be lucky to have it firing on any!This has been a pet peeve of mine for years. Every time I hear another collectivist Euro try to tell us how we should run our economy, my immediate response is, "Hey Kettle! It's for you. It's the Pot. He says you're black."But here's the kicker: these guys are telling us to start stimulating job growth. Last time I checked, France was looking at 9.5 percent unemployment. The Germans are at 10.6 percent, Italy's at 8.9 percent, and Spain's battling a jobless rate of more than 11 percent. These aren't exactly the kind of folks who should be lecturing anyone on anything having to do with jobs.
What's more, most of their economies are mired in recession, and those that aren't are, at best, looking at growth so tepid, it makes ours look gangbusters by comparison. Yet the people who lecture us on deficits are the very ones whose own red ink as a percentage of GDP makes ours look fiscally stellar by comparison!
I'm not saying France isn't right when it says our government spends too much here, but first take a look at what yours is spending there, because news flash to Jacques Chirac: Your socialist state is breaking your banks and your people.
And I have no problem having Germany correctly scold us on government intransigence. But this coming from a cradle-to-grave state that can't get its unions to budge on even the most basic of free market principles is a little galling.
Look, anyone is free to criticize. I just think it's good form to be in good shape when you do. Just like I won't tell you to put the cannoli down in the bakeshop, France or Germany shouldn't be telling us to put the waste down in our financial shop.
We know we have problems, and from what I can see, we're addressing a good many of them and making a good deal of progress. These things I know. Unemployment is heading back down. Theirs is going back up. Factory orders are improving. Theirs are worsening. Confidence numbers are advancing. Theirs are declining.
They're right. We're not perfect. But they're worse.
Getting advice on job creation from a continent that managed to create not a singe net new job from 1975 to 1995 probably isn't the best idea.
I always used to snigger when I would hear Europeans--and President Clinton--rave about how well the Dutch had done at bringing their unemployment rate down to 2%. You see, it's not hard to have a low "unemployment" rate when 14% of your workers are on freakin' disability. Either the Netherlands has the most fantastically dangerous workplaces in the industrialized world, or....something else is going on. Either way, it's not a model I'd be eager to emulate.
(Review) Mark Steytn wonders, as I do, how the French Government can be so insouciant about the heat-related deaths of 10,000 French citizens due to the current heat wave.
In Paris this spring, a government official explained to me how Europeans had created a more civilised society than America - socialised healthcare, shorter work weeks, more holidays. We've just seen where that leads: gran'ma turned away from the hospital to die in an airless apartment because junior's sur la plage. M Chirac's somewhat tetchy suggestion that his people should rethink their attitude to the elderly was well taken. But Big Government inevitably diminishes its citizens' capacity to take responsibility, to the point where even your dead mum is just one more inconvenience the state should do something about.Ouch.Meanwhile, Maggie Pernot wrote the other day to chide me for my continued defence of the Rumsfeld Death Camps at Guantanamo. The prisoners, she complains, are "kept in tiny, chainlink outdoor cages where they were likely to be rained upon". In fact, they have sloping roofs and cool concrete floors, perfect for the climate. If they had solid walls rather than airy wire mesh, they'd be Parisian sweatboxes and everyone would be dead. By contrast, if those thousands of French pensioners had been captured by the Marines and detained by Rummy in Cuba, they'd be alive today.
(Review) Former general Wesley Clark is once again testing the waters for a Democratic presidential run for 2004. But, as Alan Down writes, this may not be the guy we want running the show.
This is the man who, as NATO shifted from war-fighting mode into peacekeeping mode, ordered his ground commander to deploy a helicopter assault team to block a surprise Russian advance into Kosovo's major airfield — an order his British subordinate answered with a terse and chilling rejoinder: "I'm not going to start World War III for you." After both men appealed to their national commanders — a practice permitted under NATO's vague and unwieldy war-fighting conventions — cooler heads in Washington and London agreed with Clark's subordinate, concluding that NATO's unity was more important than Kosovo's airport. A humiliated Clark was forced to rescind his order. Two months later, he was unceremoniously replaced as Supreme Allied Commander-Europe (SACEUR). The turn of events stunned Clark: "I never saw myself as a 55-year-old retired general," he later said.Fortunately, he convinced his superiors to see him precisely that way.
(Review) The editors of the NY Post today lament the end of the Road Map's "Cease fire" with Palestinian Terrorists. As a read the article, one question was uppermost in my mind: Why is Yasser Arafat still alive?
I ask the question in the same way that Henry II asked about Thomas à Becket, "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?"
(Review) US Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY) writes in NY Newsday that his mind wasn't changed about the Road Map with the Bombings this week. It was changed two weeks ago when he met with Mahmoud Abbas two weeks ago.
We shook hands warmly. In his hands, we had been told, was the best hope for peace with Israel. He was selected to replace Yasser Arafat principally because he is not Arafat. He is moderate, and believes that the Palestinians were mistaken in using violence to pursue their goals. Sitting across the table, he seemed almost wistful when he noted that the Palestinian hudna (cease-fire) allowed "about half of Gaza to go to the beach last weekend. They don't want to return to violence."...Why do these nations prefer roadside bombings over road maps to peace? Abbas' comment under the portrait of Arafat was telling: Peace allows people to go to the beach. What he didn't say, but what the man in the portrait understands, is that when populations feel comfortable enough to go to the beach, they may start asking uncomfortable questions about why their leaders haven't delivered jobs, housing, infrastructure, modern schools, transparent economies, free elections. And, if they cannot blame Israel and the United States for their failures, whom will they blame? Removing the West as a scapegoat dooms those regimes to the scrutiny of their own people.Don't think that Yasser Arafat doesn't know this, and fear it. And don't think he'll just sit by and let it happen, either.
(Review) Here's a little home-grown terrorism to deal with. It appears that the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) torched a Hummer dealership in Covina, CA today. This is the same group that allegedly set off a multi-million dollar arson in San Diego a few months ago.
Fortunately, their arsons haven't killed anyone yet.
(Review) Howard Fineman writes that the Democrats are trying to turn the 2004 presidential election into a de facto referendum on the War in Iraq, and that this weeks UN truck bombing may help them do so. But, he notes, it isn't a strategy without risk for the Democrats, since they'll have to be ready to answer some tough questions, too.
But the Democrats will have to answer questions of their own. Are they for putting more American troops in? (John McCain, the Democrats’ de facto secretary of defense, is for doing so.) Do they want a bigger role for the brave but still politically discredited U.N.? Do they want simply to pull out of Iraq altogether? And, if not, why aren’t they backing the president instead of taking political potshots at the beleaguered leader of the free world?As far as I can tell, Democrats seem unable to answer those questions.
(Review) Michael Ledeen writes that our problems in Iraq seem increasingly to be the result of outside forces, rather than Iraqi die-hards.
Iranian and Syrian leaders made no secret of their intent, and Bashar Assad even gave an interview in which he brazenly informed us -- and potential recruits to the jihad -- that the terror masters would use religiously inspired insurrection, assassination and terrorism, first to bloody and then to humiliate the West, and anyone who joined us.The money quote in this article is, "The terror masters know that they would not survive successful democratic revolution on their doorsteps, because their own people would demand their freedom."Just a few days ago, Paul Bremer -- the de facto governor of Iraq -- complained at the large number of foreign terrorists flowing into the country, and he specifically labelled Iran as a prime mover. He announced that intelligence officers from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard were actively organizing terrorist operations.
Tuesday's Financial Times carried a front-page story warning that thousands of Saudis were headed to Iraq to attack U.S. and British targets.
Now perhaps more people will understand that the jihad in Iraq and Afghanistan is not limited to the citizens of one or two countries, but is waged against anyone who tries to make Iraq a free and successful country. The terror masters know that they would not survive successful democratic revolution on their doorsteps, because their own people would demand their freedom.
The facts have been available for a long time, and no one should be surprised at the truck bomb attack on the UN's offices in Baghdad on Tuesday, which claimed the life of the UN special representative to Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello.
But, as human nature contains an unlimited quantum of hope despite millennia of intensely unpleasant experience, many will resist drawing the obvious conclusions and, even more, be reluctant to take appropriate action.
That is the root of the problem. And it's a cancer that will have to be cut out of that society.
(Review) Like me, John Podhoretz predicted that the Road Map for thew Mideast would end in failure. He writes a postmortem for it in todays NY Post.
The tragedy is that some Palestinians — even the newly installed prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas — showed signs they did understand the rules had changed. But the circumstances of the past two days have forced them to choose sides between a democratic future and a present dominated by terror and murder.Until the Palestinians are willing to hunt down the terrorists in their midst, there won't be any peace for Israel.And they have implicitly chosen the terrorists and their murderous anarchy over the admittedly tricky and unpredictable path to peace.
Abbas and the Palestinian Cabinet say they'll crack down on "military displays" by the terrorists. That was about all Abbas got out of his colleagues, who wouldn't otherwise agree to arrest terrorists, to disarm terrorists or to do much of anything — except, doubtless, gloat privately at the sight of weeping Israelis.
And when Israel, after waiting 24 hours for Abbas to act, finally took matters into its own hands and assassinated a Hamas leader, Abbas attacked Israel — needless to say.
The ceasefire to which Palestinian terrorist groups supposedly agreed two months ago is now officially over. Of course, it was violated more than 200 times when it was still in force, but let's overlook that, shall we?
(Review) Well, You've gotta say this for Howard Dean: He certainly has a clear idea about the direction he wants his administration he wants to take. In today's Wall Street Journal, he promises us that is he is elected President, the first thing he'll do is repeal the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.
We can do better. As president, my economic policies will be focused and clear. I will begin by repealing the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, and using the revenues that result from the repeal to address the needs of the average American, invest in the nation's infrastructure and, through tax reform, put money in the hands of those most likely to spend it.Since tax rates are set by law by Congress, and Republicans will probably still control Congress after the next election, he may find that repeal is...problematic.
Still, you have to give it to the guy for pulling a Dukakis, and telling us up front that he will raise our taxes. But, considering that Americans historically reject candidates who promise tax increases, you should probably detract points for clear thinking.
(Review) The Newest opinion polls show that 58% of Californian's want to recall Gray Davis. Even more disheartening for Davis is that 38% of Democrats want to recall him.
Winning 50% of the vote in a recall election is tough if 38% of your own party wants to dump you.
(Review) Victor Davis Hanson writes that this is no time to get complacent in our war on terrorism, but rather to push harder. He thinks the latest terrorist attacks are a sign of the enemy's increasing desperation.
Because September 11 was a direct consequence of our early failures to confront our enemies, our general response to the latest challenges should be even greater defiance. It is time to bring to fruition the president's warning of nearly two years ago, that one is either with or against the terrorists. So Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, from which our enemies (many now in Iraq) operate, must either close their borders, turn over terrorists, and join the ranks of civilization — or chose the side of barbarism and accept the terrible consequences of such a fatal decision. And for the short term, we must continue on course-employing counterinsurgency tactics to go after the terrorists in the field, accelerating the transfer of governance to Iraqis to increase their visibility and responsibility in the conflict and restoring infrastructure to Afghanistan and Iraq.No surrender, no retreat.
(Review) State Senator Gil Cedillo isn't the only California politician with ties to MEChA. As Michelle Malking writes, Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante is no stranger to the organization, either.
As a student at Fresno State University in the 1970s, Bustamante was an active member of the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, or MEChA, which stands for the Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan. Bustamante repeatedly denies having a "radical ethnic agenda," but has refused to disassociate himself from his Mechista roots. In fact, Bustamante recently returned to Fresno State for a separate Latino commencement ceremony founded by two of his Chicano activist classmates.MEChA has been dismissed by some as a harmless social club, but it operates an identity politics indoctrination machine on publicly subsidized college and high school campuses nationwide that would make David Duke and the KKK turn green with envy. MEChA members in the University of California system have rioted in Los Angeles, editorialized that federal immigration "pigs should be killed, every single one" in San Diego, and are suspected of breaking into a conservative student publication's offices and stealing its entire print run in Berkeley.
MEChA's symbol is an eagle clutch