September 1, 2010
Shhhhhhhh.
You are correct if the mission was to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Or if the mission was to please the Liberal Left. By those criteria, he got a twofer.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at September 1, 2010 11:37 AMNot sure what you mean by all that BR. Mind elaborating?
Posted by: T. Greer at September 1, 2010 12:24 PMSure. When Obama took office, he promised a number of things including closing Gitmo and ending combat operations in Iraq by August 31, 2010. The Left has been hammering him for continuing Bush-era war strategies, not closing Gitmo as promised and sending more troops to Afghanistan. Obama needed a "win" with his base by meeting yesterday's deadline.
In looking at the situation on the ground, we have seen a significant rise in insurgent attacks, including a coordinated attack on 13 sites right after our combat troops exited. The Iraqi government, though exceeding the expetations of some (read: Biden, Obama) still is not fully stable after the last elections. Thus, it would likely have been more prudent to keep combat forces in place for another few months until the current Iraqi government is settled and they are in a better position to repel insurgents. However, Obama's domestic political agenda seems to have trumped military conditions. If these conditions continue to deteriorate, then he will have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Not a given, perhaps, but if conditions do deteriorate, I seriously doubt that he will send troops back in. Hope I'm wrong.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at September 1, 2010 1:00 PMI'd say "Mission Accomplished" at liberation (true when the infamous banner was unfurled) and at basic stabilization (I'll accept the V-I date of 11-22-08).
I'll join you that the Bush-era goal of a "stable ally in the War on Terror" is threatened, but declaring a transition from combat on August 31, 2010 does not bug me.
Many things do bug me. The suggestion all troops would be gone in a year was bad. I'd suggest the examples of Germany and South Korea where our troops are stationed on bases in friendly soil.
All in all, we have civilian control of the military and a troop presence of 50K strikes me (military tactical genius that I am) as reasonable. Would another year of 100K troops make a huge difference? Is this not the reduction of forces agreement created by President Bush? This President badly needs a victory lap so he's taking it.
Put me down as offended by Our President's diffidence to our achievements and disturbed by the lessons he learned, but I don't think he has yet broken Iraq. President Bush's hard fought victory will likely endure.
BR-
I believe you overestimate the docility of the democratic base. There are very few lefties (or isolationists) I know who think that leaving 50K troops in the country fulfills Obama's campaign promises. (This seems to be the standard reaction).
The decision to draw down in Iraq, I think, has much less to do with Mr. Obama's electoral base than does the continuing mess that is Afghanistan. The bright minds in the Pentagon know that they can't run two 100,000+ troop counterinsurgencies at the same time. It is not politically feasible. Heck, given the turn over rates of the officer corp, it isn't militarily feasible. The decision to continue on in Afghanistan was the decision to draw down in Iraq.
The staged "withdrawal" of combat troops may not impress the moveon.org crowd but for a guy with so few promises kept he had to have this one.
Speaking of militarily feasible, a retired Major General whom I hold in high regard claims that VICTORY is possible, but not via COIN (Counter-Insurgency) strategy. [Scroll down to COIN Stubbornly in Place]
Posted by: johngalt at September 1, 2010 10:48 PMAugust 25, 2010
Defying the FDA
I'm a law and order guy, but taking on the FDA will always entitle you to a "hell yeah."
ELMHURST, Ill.--Victoria Vasconcellos, the petite founder of an Internet retailer in this Chicago suburb, is in the thick of a regulatory battle that could affect millions of American cigarette smokers.Ms. Vasconcellos imports electronic cigarettes from a Chinese manufacturer and sells them on her website, Cignot.com, to 14,000 customers. The 48-year-old is part of a growing legion of e-cigarette purveyors who are defying the Food and Drug Administration, which contends the nascent nicotine products are drug devices that require pre-market approval and may pose their own health risks. The FDA began intercepting shipments of the products from China two years ago.
But, but, but -- we haven't told you can yet!
August 24, 2010
Building Mosques and Building Dialog
James Taranto rarely misses the point. But I suggest that he has on the groundzeromosqueraversy.
He has devoted many column inches to this topic. Today, he opens with
So what are we to make of Faisal Abdul Rauf, the imam whose plans to build a fancy mosque near Ground Zero have caused such a frenzy? Even backers of his plan disagree sharply.
Not to say evaluations of Imam Raul are not germane and all, but I think his level of moderation or actual intent is quite beside the point. Clearly, he is a right bastard.
A real moderate or a caring clergyman would not pursue this. You'd have to be a bastard to do it, since he continues, I think syllogism proves my point.
And yet in America we let bastards be bastards rather than empower government to determine who can be and where. A decent man would not dishonor New Yorkers and Americans. But I'd rather Imam Son'f'bitch proceed than empower the government to protect us from offense.
Great rhetorical question, JG.
The issue of separation of Islam and Sharia Law has been underdiscussed in the national discourse. It is mentioned, but not as part-and-parcel of Islam. Certainly, most Muslims in this country abide by the law of the land.
England is experiementing with Sharia courts to adjudicate Muslim issues. This is described as "a law within a law," but is in fact "a law above the law." Sharia law is allowed to supercede English law. Muslims basically get to choose whichever court is most to their advantage.
Not here - no way, no how.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at August 26, 2010 4:09 PMI am not advocating for Sharia law. I am advocating for freedom of worship as provided for in the First Amendment. I'm uncomfortable denying that right because of what some members did.
You may legitimately prosecute someone who incites violence, jg, no argument. But you cannot deny their right to build a place of worship because they might someday say it.
On Main Street in Pittstown you've got a point. A stone's throw from the site of 9/11 is far different. (And what's wrong with the Islamic "place of worship" 11 blocks from there?) New York city, state and the federal governments, in their infinite political correctness, have yet to build a "Ground Zero" memorial to the innocent victims of 9/11 who were murdered nearly 10 years ago. The possibility of a monument to the faith and ideology that spawned the 9/11 murderers being built there first is intolerable to the countrymen of those innocent victims, not to mention their families.
Or have we forgotten? ("It isn't Islamophobia when they really ARE trying to kill you.")
Posted by: johngalt at August 27, 2010 9:43 AMThis also seems to be germane to the conversation. I found it while searching our archives for a "have we forgotten" link.
Posted by: johngalt at August 27, 2010 9:45 AMI love the blog but this one would be best conducted with very loud voices over very dark beer.
I'm completely down with you, jg. It makes me want to puke that this loser is erecting a monument to Osama Bin Laden's great victory in 2001. I hate it with every morsel of my being.
But part of freedom is allowing other people to do things you hate. And to answer your direct points, I'll return to "who decides?" Brother jg says there's already a mosque -- what is the correct density? It's too close to ground zero -- so we establish a mosque free zone? How many blocks is okay? Imam Rauf is not moderate enough -- who draws the line?
The answer is to let free people do legal things as they choose. AND BE PROUD! There are no churches in Saudi Arabia, but there are mosques in the 9/11 debris field. We're good. Freedom is good.
Well, let's talk about the two types of law. There's the "natural law" that Jefferson and Bastiat talked about, which is that people have rights and can defend themselves against aggressors (including organizing with others for voluntary, common defense). Bastiat noted that "the law" itself became "perverted" from the concept of collective energies of defending rights to taking from one man and giving to another.
Sharia law is statutory law: it's not based on natural rights, but rather it's codified law that imposes the rule of one individual upon others. Women and infidels are second-class citizens. Now, if Mrs. Ali Akbar Husseini al-Hamid wants to follow the terms of Sharia law in her marriage, and she is voluntarily subjecting herself to the terms of a law she believes is correct, then it's her business. The problem is that Sharia law doesn't work that way. She's liable to get her head chopped off in an honor killing, like that poor woman in upstate New York who wanted to divorce her bastard husband.
However, we can't lump everyone together and say that the mosque will be based on Sharia law, and even if it were, we can't hold all members accountable for actions they may not necessarily support. If there's evidence that it's a haven for terrorists, then we have reason to shut the whole thing down. If there's some husband abusing his wife and justifying it under his "traditional law," then we can do something about him, but it would still be hard-pressed to make a case against the whole mosque.
As JK said, freedom means that others will do things you don't like. One liberal myth is that we need to "respect" others. Unalienable rights don't require anyone to "respect" others or what they do, only that you don't infringe on others' rights. So we can think the local imam is lower than dog poop, while still not infringing on his equal freedoms of speech and property.
I don't want this mosque built. It's a deliberate monument to the hijackers that I am damn sure the mosque-goers are glorifying. The very name "Cordoba" is from what the Moors did in Spain to commemorate a victory. However, we can't use the same darkness that our enemies use against us. We need to use the light of freedom, showing them that we won't stop them from building here, but we will be watching every last little thing they do, and we're already exposing them for what they are.
I wonder what "tolerance" and "mutual respect" would greet, say, students from a Hasidic yeshiva if they went to the mosque for a field trip?
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at August 27, 2010 11:48 AMMISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
Sadly, the Commander-in-chief won't say it and our sad Vice President won't think it. But I will shout it from the ThreeSources Rafters: "Well done, lads and ladies!"
"We've met our goal," Gen. Ray Odierno, the commanding general in Iraq, told reporters Tuesday. "But the story is not about 50,000. The story is that we are continuing to be committed to Iraq. But our commitment is going to change."Odierno said that going forward, the focus will be on economic, political, cultural, and technological developments as opposed to just the military relationship.
There are currently 49,700 troops in Iraq and that number will remain level through next summer, Odierno said.
That was some partisan excerpting. The AP story leads with props to President Obama for meeting a campaign promise and bringing the troop level below 50,000.
We turned a fear society into a free society and deposed a tyrant who was a threat to the free world. Did we create paradise? I suspect not -- but a free people can.
Thanks to all who serve!
UPDATE: Mark Tapscitt reminds it cost less that the failed stimulus.
"props to President Obama for meeting a campaign promise and bringing the troop level below 50,000."
Yeah. That lying scum will blame Bush when it suits him, and take credit for his predecessor's timeline. And that SOB Biden dared to claim, in front of the VFW no less, "One month after his inauguration, at Camp Lejeune, President Obama laid out a plan for ending the war in Iraq responsibly, and we have followed it closely ever since."
If George Bush had said this in 2004, the lamestream media would have blasted him. "Experts" would have called him optimistic in the face of certain failure. But now the Great Plagiarist can express the very same sentiments without being questioned. "This process can sometimes be frustrating, and there will be ups and downs, but I am confident that the Iraqis will form a national unity government soon."
But if Iraq plunges into darkness once American forces are all gone, it'll be a rewriting of history akin to "We have always been at war with Eastasia." Obama will simply blame Bush for pushing the timeline in the first place.
So how about closing Guantanamo, huh?
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at August 24, 2010 11:57 AMEven worse to me, Perry, is that the pullout is predicated on the surge which was enthusiastically opposed by Senators Biden and Obama.
Media notwithstanding, I think most Americans recognize the victory as being W's. The wisdom of the enterprise will be debated for some time, but I don't think anyone will attribute victory to Obama-Biden.
Well said and a thoroughly deserved post my blog brother. Like the soldiers I saw riding across the border to Kuwait I will say, "We won!" And in addition to "Thanks to all who serve" I will add "under our government's ridiculous rules of engagement."
And Tapscott's point is important [not to mention that fabulous graph again]: Official CBO price tag for 3 months of war and 5 years, 9 months of nation building is $709 billion, versus $787 billion for the "Stimulus" bill to be spent in 3? years. Those numbers are darned similar, aren't they? It's almost as if the Dems said, "If America can afford to spend over $700bn for war she can afford over $700bn on pork." Nah, they couldn't be that crass, right?
Posted by: johngalt at August 24, 2010 2:56 PMAugust 6, 2010
Hiroshima
Reading through the Presidents, I have come to like almost all of them better after learning more about them. Even those I disagree with -- say TR -- I have come to respect for their patriotism and sincerity. The first words I ever heard Glenn Beck say were "I HATE Woodrow Wilson!" That was a bad first impression. I disagree with President Wilson's philosophies and policies. I abhor many things he and his administration did. But I do not hate him.
One guy that went down was President Truman. McCullough's superb biography was quite complimentary but I was surprised at his commitment to Progressivism (always thought he was the "reasonable" successor to FDR, but he crusaded for government health care) and almost disgusted by the TJ Prendergast, Kansas City machine that spawned him. McCullough is probably right that he was honest -- but he came out of a putrid, corrupt system.
One thing I will not countenance is the idea that he is a "War Criminal" for the atomic bomb decisions. A Japanese friend at college loved to rail about "Truman the War Criminal."
Today brings news that the Obama Administration is offering a soft apology -- sending a low level diplomat to a service the US has typically eschewed. Warren Kozak worries that any hint of an apology shows moral equivalence.
Young people today may have a hard time understanding that point because of the moral equivalence and political correctness that have taken over our society, our media and especially our universities. It teaches our children that all countries have good and bad elements within them -- something so obvious that it's trite. But this lesson has become so powerful that it is not out of the norm for young people today to believe that, while World War II was certainly horrible, all sides share some blame.Concerning today's event in Hiroshima, the State Department said "at this particular time, we thought it was the right thing to do." It may indeed be the right time for our two countries to share this event. But by tacitly placing all of World War II's participants in the same category, we undermine the ability of future generations to identify real evil, putting them at great risk.
I'm colored by historical absolutes about the brutality of Hirohito's Japan, but also of personal anecdotes. My Mother-in-Law (no jokes from me, this woman is my second Mother) grew up in occupied Philippines and saw incredible acts of depravity.
Of course, that does not earn an A-bomb, but it went all the way up. Truman made the right call and proceeded courageously. I'm glad we are allied with modern Japan, but I am not in an apologizin' mood.
Complete Text:
A Hiroshima Apology?
Japan's continued focus on remembering the bomb has been an understandable sore point for its Asian neighbors, who suffered greatly at its hands. .ArticleComments (221)more in
By WARREN KOZAK
For the first time since the United States dropped the atomic bomb on Japan 65 years ago, today the U.S. ambassador to Japan will attend the official commemoration ceremony at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial. The U.S. ambassador has always declined the annual invitation, but this year is different. President Barack Obama decided to acknowledge the event with the presence of a high-level dignitary. As State Department spokesman Philip Crowley explained, Ambassador John Roos will be there "to express respect for all the victims of World War II."
Gene Tibbets—the son of Brig. Gen. Paul W. Tibbets Jr., the pilot who dropped the bomb on Hiroshima—called the Obama administration's decision "an unsaid apology." Whether or not that's the case, by saying "all the victims" Mr. Crowley raises the specter of moral equivalence, a problem that's grown worse over the years when it comes to judging right and wrong during World War II and throughout history.
The U.S. dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945. When the Japanese still didn't give up, the U.S. dropped a second bomb on Nagasaki three days later. On Aug. 15, the Japanese surrendered unconditionally, ending the most brutal war in the history of the world.
Japan remains the only country ever to have been targeted by atomic bombs. More than 120,000 Japanese died instantly from the bombings and perhaps as many succumbed to radiation poisoning afterwards (the exact number will never be known). It should be noted that when President Harry Truman was considering whether to invade Japan instead of dropping the bombs, his advisers estimated that an invasion would result in one million American casualties and at least two million Japanese deaths. In the strange calculus of war, the bombs actually saved Japanese lives.
If the Obama administration wants to ease the friction over this event or even to apologize, then perhaps it is also a good time for the Japanese government to begin to discuss World War II truthfully with its own people.
Since 1945, Japan's narrative has centered almost exclusively on the atomic blasts and its role as victim—with short shrift given to the Japanese invasions of China, Manchuria, Korea, Hong Kong, the Philippines, Indochina, Burma, New Guinea and, of course, the attack on Pearl Harbor. Japanese children have learned little about the Rape of Nanking or the fact that as many as 17 million Asians died at the hands of the Japanese in World War II—many in the most brutal ways imaginable.
There is also the inconvenient truth that Japan started the war in the first place. There would have been no war in the Pacific between 1937 and 1945 had Japan stayed home.
Focusing on the atomic bombs paints the Japanese as victims, like other participants in World War II. They were not. The Japanese, like their German allies, were bent on global conquest and the destruction of other people who did not fit their bizarre racial theories. Japan's continued focus on Hiroshima and Nagasaki has been an understandable sore point for its Asian neighbors, who suffered greatly at its hands.
There are times when ordinary citizens understand history better than their leaders. In approaching Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Mr. Obama should consider a related event that took place 25 years ago. On May 5, 1985, President Ronald Reagan made a rare public relations gaffe when he visited the Kolmeshohe Cemetery near Bitburg to lay a wreath at the graves of German soldiers.
His reasoning came from a decent place—he wanted to help bolster his ally, German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, and he thought that enough time had passed to allow both countries to move on together. But a firestorm erupted when it was learned that the graves were not just those of ordinary Wehrmacht soldiers but of SS troops as well. President Reagan dug in his heels despite strong protests and laid a wreath at the brick tower that loomed over those graves.
The protests came not because people refused to move on or because the postwar bonds between Germany and the U.S. were not strong and real. They were then and they remain so today. Rather, the anger came because the president's act created a tacit understanding that U.S. soldiers were no different than SS Storm Troopers, whose bloody tracks still leave a horror throughout Europe that can barely be equaled in that continent's long, lamentable history. The G.I.s were liberators. The SS were demented murderers. Period.
Young people today may have a hard time understanding that point because of the moral equivalence and political correctness that have taken over our society, our media and especially our universities. It teaches our children that all countries have good and bad elements within them—something so obvious that it's trite. But this lesson has become so powerful that it is not out of the norm for young people today to believe that, while World War II was certainly horrible, all sides share some blame.
Concerning today's event in Hiroshima, the State Department said "at this particular time, we thought it was the right thing to do." It may indeed be the right time for our two countries to share this event. But by tacitly placing all of World War II's participants in the same category, we undermine the ability of future generations to identify real evil, putting them at great risk.
Mr. Kozak is the author of "LeMay: The Life and Wars of General Curtis LeMay" (Regnery, 2009).
Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material [LIKE POSTING IT ON YOUR GODDAM BLOG!] are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008
I admit I don't understand diplomospeak, br, maybe our striped-pants friend tg will explain it.
Modern Japan is a great ally and I dislike the thought of denying them anything. But I think Kozak's analogy to the SS and Reagan at Bitberg is apt. As is a concern that they continue to teach this victimology over an objective assessment of their country's 20th Century leadership.
@ka: "Coming out ahead." I assume you mean that Deming was a better advantage than MacArthur was a loss? I completely agree.
jk: yeah, in hindsight, that was pretty poorly worded on my part. Should anyone ask: no, I'm not making light of 200,000 vaporized souls, and I wasn't thinking "nuclear destruction of two cities in one hand versus Deming in the other - seems like a fair trade to me." What I *meant* was, rebuilding and modernizing their nation from their pre-war condition to Japan, Inc., is a great leap forward.
I probably have a kinder view of MacArthur than you; on the other hand, Japan took Deming to heart more than America did. American industry - especially American automakers - ccould still learn a lot...
Posted by: Keith Arnold at August 6, 2010 5:13 PMJK: Any way to de-Rupertize the text of the article and send me a copy?
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at August 6, 2010 5:28 PMI pasted the complete text in the "Continue Reading.." portion ("Rupert forgive me, for I hath sinned against thee...")
Would EVERYBODY please send me an email. Backup Boy lost his Outlook contacts apres le deluge.
Posted by: jk at August 6, 2010 5:52 PMInteresting article. I would not be comfortable comparing those who died at Nagasaki and Hiroshima with SS troopers. Unlike the SS troopers, the average Japanese civilian was not a murderer. I mean, if this was the Yasukuni Shrine it would be an entirely different matter....
As for an apology? I probably wouldn't offer one. Were I in Truman's shoes I would have done the same. And the fire bombing of Tokyo and environs was orders of magnitude worse. That does actually make me a bit squeamish. Were I in Truman's shoes I do not know if I would have been able to authorize the dropping of 1,700 tons of incendiary bombs on civilian homes.
But nobody remembers the firebombs today. And that is for the best, isn't? It is better to just let these things go quietly, I think. I'd rather not be asking the British government to apologize for Tarleton and his men.
Conservative estimates are of 1M American lives saved and over 5M (that's million) Japanese lives saved by the bombs (another one of my passions is military history).
I've studied it quite a bit because my uncle was to be in the 1st wave, and my Dad was slated for the 3rd wave in Operation Olympic. I've seen the quite a bit of evidence of the land-based "kamikazes" that were planned as a reception (Al-Queda suicide-bomb-rafts? Japs had them too, called "Shinyo").
So, I'm not unbiased, but neither do I hate the Japanese: I rather like their country and their friendship in fact! Their monument at the center of Hiroshima is very touching, but I wouldn't be there to apologize either.
Posted by: nanobrewer at August 11, 2010 12:11 AMJune 15, 2010
Quote of the Day
The American flag carried that truth through a forest of muskets and bayonets, into all the shackled corners of the world, past the frozen forests of Europe and the graveyard islands of the Pacific, and to the grey dust of the Moon. It passes nightly over the communist squalor of Cuba and North Korea, the butchers of Tiananmen Square, and the high priests of the Middle Eastern death cult. Let none of them ever look upon the Moon without remembering that free men walked there first. No slave or suicide bomber will ever leave a footprint beside the one Neil Armstrong made. -- Doctor Zero
June 7, 2010
The Boys of Pointe Du Hoc
A good friend of this blog emails a link to President Reagan's incredible speech June 6, 1984.
Sugarchuck says "no comment necessary." I'm going to have to agree.
Three Sourcers homework assignment: Compare and contrast this address from Reagan with Obama's first address to Europe. Extra credit: compare and contrast each respective president's address at the Brandenburg Gate. Ask yourself how we could have fallen so far.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at June 7, 2010 2:33 PMMay 21, 2010
Close Enough for Me!
One in every crowd, is there not?
LEE SMITH says Lebanese-American Rima Fakih, this year’s Miss America winner, isn’t necessarily a fully Westernized Muslim just because she wore a bathing suit. She may well be what her admirers say she is, but to know for certain you’d have to look into her head and her heart, not at her body or clothes. The same is true for any other beauty pageant contestant, but there’s something else, too: Some bikini-clad women in Lebanon, believe it or not, support Hezbollah, just as a small number of Middle Eastern doctors perversely become terrorists.
We all have to start somewhere if we're going to all get along. And I am ready to offer Ms. Fakih the benefit of the doubt.
Photo: MissUSA
"Fully westernized muslim." In my book a muslim is westernized enough if he/she is content to live under western law and refrains from murder.
Oh yes, and as for the photo of Ms. Fakih... Like.
Posted by: johngalt at May 22, 2010 7:13 PMAppreciate your live coverage of Colorado GOP. Next year, I may have to cover Miss USA.
Posted by: jk at May 22, 2010 8:43 PMBravo and Huzzah!
Why did the DJIA drop 376 points yesterday? Perry and I insist it is an aggregate and attempts to oversimplify are antithetical to what a market is.
Why did "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" pass at ThreeSources without pictures, firebombing, or beheading? Well, it's an aggregate. I was slowed but not stopped by thoughtful appeals from respected friends in the 3src commentariat. As a hack of an artist, I was concerned that the respectful image I was planning (a light pencil sketch to be screened back over Arabic verses) would not be guaranteed to connote my intentions. And, I had to meet a job candidate over a long lunch and my time was limited.
As promised, blog friend Terri shared her letter (but not the image) she sent to revolutionmuslim.com.
But I was blown away by the winners of Reason's "Everybody Draw Mohammed" contest. Masterful work. Mine would have been so far behind these, I am glad I did not participate. Brilliant!
UPDATE: No, I can unequivocally deny that I was interviewing, Rep Sestak.
May 18, 2010
Drawing The Prophet
I have not been able to contact my Muslim friends about "Everybody draw Mohammed Day" and confess I was suaded by SC and Terri's appeals to my Better Angels.
But Nick Gillespie has a powerful post today on why Reason will be participating (they will publish their contest winners. I will link and likely grab a respectful image or two.
Compelling, no?
And at the heart of the liberal project is ultimately a recognition that individuals, for no other reason than that they exist, have rights to continue to exist. Embedded in all that is the right to expression. No one has a right to an audience or even to a sympathetic hearing, much less an engaged audience. But no one should be beaten or killed or imprisoned simply for speaking their mind or praying to one god as opposed to the other or none at all or getting on with the small business of living their life in peaceful fashion. If we cannot or will not defend that principle with a full throat, then we deserve to choke on whatever jihadists of all stripes can force down our throats.
[...]
Our Draw Mohammed contest is not a frivolous exercise of hip, ironic, hoolarious sacrilege toward a minority religion in the United States (though even that deserves all the protection that the most serioso political commentary commands). It's a defense of what is at the core of a society that is painfully incompetent at delivering on its promise of freedom, tolerance, and equal rights. It's a rebuttal to the notion that we should go limp in the clinches precisely because bullies and bastards can punch or blow us up.
John Stossel's show that night will be "on free speech and Islam."
Like.
Especially, "jihadists of all stripes" i.e. Muslim, Venezuelan, North Korean, Progressive...
Posted by: johngalt at May 19, 2010 2:37 PMMay 12, 2010
Reading List Nomination
Mike Rosen's 10 am guest today was author Lee Harris, whose most recent book entitled The Next American Civil War: The Populist Revolt against the Liberal Elite might find a welcome place on the reading list of every ThreeSourcer.
Throughout our history, Americans have always challenged the definition of liberty, and this has allowed us to progress as a society. Harris argues that this debate is good and necessary, and that we must take this new populist uprising seriously if we are to defend our founding principles. A masterly and visionary work that weaves current events with philosophical investigation, The Next American Civil War rethinks Americans' most elemental ideas of freedom in order to enable the people of the United States to face the challenges of our times.
Harris has penned other titles that, were I a more prolific reader, I'd likely have read by now. Civilization and It's Enemies explains that historical amnesia leaves the west unprepared to defend itself from the barbarism of al-Qaida (and the sneeringly dismissive review of the book by Publisher's Weekly is reminiscent of the vitreol once reserved for the likes of Ayn Rand). The Suicide of Reason: Radical Islam's Threat to the West carries the theme further and "offers strategies by which liberal internationalism can defend itself without becoming a mirror of the tribal forces it is trying to defeat."
But The Next American Civil War apparently concerns a different threat to western liberal internationalism namely, liberal internationalists.
Here's a link to the audio interview, wherein he even mentions the Woolworth's' Waitresses jk blogged about back in ought-five.
Ah, September ought five, happy days! I still had no idear that the Republicans weren't going to usher in some libertarian paradise...
I'm still lumbering through the Presidents but try to give myself one piece of candy per month if I keep up with my medicine. Professor Jeffry Miron's Libertariaism from A - Z is fun. But if there were a quorum who wanted to read this and discuss on these pages, I'm in.
Sounds like a must read. Thanks for the tip, JG!
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at May 12, 2010 6:47 PMMay 4, 2010
A Line Worth Remembering
Before Mayor Giuliani took to Larry Kudlow’s program to become the Apostle of supply-side economics, I had already had a moment of swoon for Hizzoner. We've discussed his authoritarian history and I am not brining up the argument again.
But I was not the only one who heard this line. John Podhoretz recalls it today, and Ramesh Ponnuru links and excerpts:
[G]overnment officials believe it is their role to provide reassurance even when they cannot do so. And they’re simply wrong about that. The American people are far more sophisticated about these things than those officials appear to believe, and they can be talked to like adults. That was the lesson, in part, of the immediate aftermath of September 11, when Rudy Giuliani simply said that the “number of casualties will be more than any of us can bear, ultimately.” He sugar-coated nothing. And that is the truth of crises and crisis management.
Without question, that was the best thing I ever heard a politician say. All the journalists were trying to feed their headline writers by getting the mayor to suggest a casualty figure on 9/11. Giuliani said "more than we can bear." I can still see and hear it.
May 3, 2010
Burying the Lead
New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, at his news conference yesterday afternoon, said he would not rule out the possibility that the Times Square attack could be related to the recent threats against the creators of the comedy TV series "South Park," who have been threatened online for allegedly defaming Muhammad. The bomb-filled SUV in Times Square was parked next to the headquarters of Viacom, the parent company of "South Park." That coincidence needs to be thoroughly pursued. -- WSJ Ed Page'Scuse me? Has anybody else heard this? I think this is huge -- but it does not "fit the narrative."
James Dellingpole has heard it. South Park: The most dangerous show on television?
Posted by: johngalt at May 3, 2010 3:28 PMPfft! Foreign press -- those guys don't even believe in global warming!
Posted by: jk at May 3, 2010 4:10 PMMay 1, 2010
Every Day (was) Draw Mohammed Day
Some superb discussion continues on the righteousness and efficacy of "Draw Mohammed Day." Thanks for all the thoughtful comments.
One thing that I did not mention is my belief that this is not a fundamental, axiomatic part of the Muslim faith. This is a brand new thing for CAIR types and the never got a date crowd at RevolutionaryMuslim.com to be offended about. There have been many respectful depictions of the prophet through time by devout Muslims.
This is not a central tenet, it is a new, post-Qutb, Taliban thing (I first heard of the Taliban when they were mashing up millennia-old Buddha statues). The Internet Segue Machine comes through again: a collection of Mohammed images, from the respectful to the Matt&Trey.
I'm softening due to appeals to me better angels as well as general disbelief in my "Spartacus Defense." But I still think these folks are whacked.
April 27, 2010
Draw Mohammed
It is not often that I part ways with James Taranto. His humor and genial outlook are an inspiration to me, as is his ability to engage the other side and hold to principle. (Plus he's had me on BOTW a few times and I am very easily bought!)
But I have to respectfully diverge from "Everybody Burn the Flag." Taranto seriously explores and comes out opposed to "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day:"
The problem with the "in-your-face message" of "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" is not just that it is inconsiderate of the sensibilities of others, but that it defines those others--Muslims--as being outside of our culture, unworthy of the courtesy we readily accord to insiders. It is an unwise message to send, assuming that one does not wish to make an enemy of the entire Muslim world.
I have a few weeks and plan to correspond with a couple of Muslim friends before then. But unless I get a change of heart, tune in May 20 for a respectful -- if badly executed -- image of the Muslim prophet.
Courage is a funny thing. I'm not extremely worried about ritual beheading with our small readership (a whois does provide my infidel address) but it is way out of my comfort zone intentionally to offend innocent people. I don't take that lightly.
But the heart of liberty for me is that none of us is empowered to prevent another from offending us. I'm disturbed by "Milton Friedman, Father of World Poverty" signs but I'm not issuing fatwas. One of the prices of freedom is extending it to others, and this religious group has no standing to tell me what I can and cannot draw.
Had our elites stood up for freedom, I would pass. Rare kudos to Jon Stewart, by the way. He was brave and correct in his defense of his colleagues. But I think it is unfortunately required -- to preserve freedom -- that everybody draw Mohammed.
UPDATE: Taranto posts some thoughtful responses today -- hey I told you he was a swell guy!
Very well said SC and, like Taranto, I think you approach Islam as it might be and not as it is now. Specifically, I'm unaware of any "New Koran" that tempers the faith's teachings from those of the 6th century.
I wonder this: How can your Muslim friends look you in the eye and tell you their religion deserves your respect when, if not tempered by their participation in western society, it teaches them that you are less than human and they have a right, which springs from their own "fidelity" to Islam, to harm you?
Posted by: johngalt at April 28, 2010 3:05 PMJohn Galt’s comment on my post contains within it one of the most pertinent questions we will answer in our lifetimes; is Islam compatible with the values of 21st. century America? There are clearly Muslim fundamentalists in this country that wish to do us harm and there are others, as evidenced by the Minneapolis cab drivers that wish to live under Sharia, rather than laws written in accordance with the Constitution. That being said, there are Christian fundamentalists and many other factionalists who would live outside of our laws and do us harm as well. The question is, how do we gauge the threat. I have been asking myself that question since 9/11. The answer I’ve come to rests on two assumptions and I’ll readily admit I could be wrong, but I hope that I am not.
My first assumption is this: the Koran, like the Bible, is a spiritual text and as such, it transcends place and time. It is also like the Bible in that it is an ancient text written in a specific historical, geographical and cultural location and it shares the Bibles’ historical limitations, in that books written to benefit people living in small tribal patriarchies, will contain elements sensible to those cultures and not our own. It is my belief that most contemporary Muslims, interpret their Koran as most contemporary Christians interpret the Bible, not literally but figuratively. Both documents give ample opportunity for those so inclined to miss the forest for the trees but the Muslims I know seem to be living a Koran that teaches tolerance and living in God’s love and service. I don’t hold the specific details of the Bible against it, acknowledging that it has been used to justify terrible things over the centuries, nor do I hold that the Koran and it’s followers must be locked into a violent, 6th century world view.
My second assumption is that most Muslims in this country share our belief in the Constitution and the declaration of Independence. Most of my Muslim friends are immigrants, so they came here seeking freedom and I believe they see our founding documents as their best hope for securing that freedom. They are willing to live and let live.
Obviously, if I am wrong, we are all in a world of hurt and the years to come will be perilous indeed. If I am right, we need not insult followers of a great world religion to defend our First Amendment. We are not required to follow the British in creating a parallel society, one for Sharia and one for English law. Rather, we demonstrate through speech and tolerance the value of free speech. Let the cartoonists draw Mohammed when it suits them but for the rest of us, let’s speak hard and with compassion. And don’t forget to write Al Franken.
Woot! I am with SG here.
I'll add this question:
What is the goal here? Are we standing up for our right to free speech? Or is this an attempt at the 'Spartacus' defense, as mentioned earlier?
I am not sure drawing Mohammed is a particularly effective way to achieve either goal.
Consider the audience. Lets say some 4 million Americans draw Muhammad on draw-Muhammad day. How will the average Muslim see this? How much you wanna bet that 'freedom of speech' will never enter the discussion? No, it will be - 'see, look at intolerant Muslim-hating Americans." That is how the Muslim street will see it. Tribalism writ large. And how does that help us? What will the American people gain by being thrown into an us-vs-them competition with Islam itself?
Lets not fool ourselves. We can scream ourselves silly saying, "I'm doing this to protect the right to insult any belief and creed", but all that will be heard is, "I'm doing this to protect those who insult your beliefs and creeds." And ot be honest, this isn't a message I am too keen on sending.
Posted by: T. Greer at April 29, 2010 2:23 AM
Well, that's how the West-hating Muslim world will see it. Tolerant Muslims, wherever they are, will see that Americans are at worst being "ignorant" about that Western ideal of free speech. Rational people will ask themselves, "They're being offensive, but won't Allah take vengeance? Is it necessary for me to kill over this?" So someone can have his opinion, and you can have your opinion that his opinion is dog poop.
My purpose is to expose the irrational ones, the closet jihadists: they seem normal but will suddenly demand the shedding of "infidel" blood. This is why I use the old term Mohammedan for jihadists, to show that their religion is about Mohammed, not Allah. The Spartacus motive isn't mine yet still has merit for others. "And what if you track down these men and kill them, what if you killed all of us? From every corner of Europe, hundreds, thousands would rise up to take our places. Even Nazis can't kill that fast."
"us-vs-them competition with Islam itself"
Who made it "us-vs-them" in the first place, though? Even without the cartoons, the jihadists still make it "us-vs-them." Maybe this amounts to poking an anthill, but then we can see just how many ants there are.
It's really a shame that the jihadists make it "us-vs-them." In my travels around Mindanao, except for certain places few civilians dare to go, I've seen lots of Muslim Filipinos (at least those who wear traditional clothes) living peacefully with their largely Roman Catholic countrymen. Some men wear traditional robes, and mwomen wear hijab (burkas are very rare), yet virtually all are peaceful people.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at April 30, 2010 9:50 PMWho made it "us-vs-them" in the first place, though? Even without the cartoons, the jihadists still make it "us-vs-them."
Agreed. But don't we play into their hands by reinforcing the narrative?
Poke the anthill? That is a fair reason - better than most I have heard. But if the act of poking the anthill creates more ants?
Posted by: T. Greer at May 1, 2010 2:26 AMI don't think we could "reinforce their narrative" beyond what the jihadists already believe: the parades for 1400 years have called for beheading those who insult the Prophet, as well as a caliphate across the world.
By definition the number of total ants won't change. We'll just see more of them than before. Oh yes, I recognize that "Draw Mohammed" will be offensive, and it will offend Muslims who weren't offended before. But we'll see which were willing to commit violence after being offended.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at May 2, 2010 8:39 PMApril 20, 2010
Truth in Media (no, REALLY)
Just when you thought it wasn't safe to consume any establishment media news product comes this in US News and World Report: Global Warming, Ethanol, DDT and Environmentalism’s Dark Side
Those who question global warming alarmists’ claims and policy prescriptions have been compared to holocaust deniers. Yet what are we to call environmentalists whose policies have resulted in the deaths of millions and could exacerbate poverty and hunger? The movie title Not Evil, Just Wrong may be too charitable.
Snap! Now that's what I call 'Hope and Change' in the news business. How did this happen? The story was written by Carrie Lukas, VP of Policy and Economics at the Independent Women's Forum (because "All issues are women's issues.") Their mission:
The Independent Women's Forum is a non-partisan, 501(c)(3) research and educational institution. Founded in 1992, IWF focuses on issues of concern to women, men, and families. Our mission is to rebuild civil society by advancing economic liberty, personal responsibility, and political freedom. IWF builds support for a greater respect for limited government, equality under the law, property rights, free markets, strong families, and a powerful and effective national defense and foreign policy. IWF is home to some of the nation's most influential scholars—women who are committed to promoting and defending economic opportunity and political freedom.
OK, sounds good so far. They may have been founded in 1992 but it's hard to believe this has been their mission all along. I think JK'd have linked 'em by now! ;) Better late than never though.
UPDATE: Here's the link to the entire US N&WR entry and not just the excerpt on balanced-ed.org. It's an editorial. Oh well, the flicker of hope felt really good for those few minutes. Still check out iwf.org though.
In my defense, I have linked to the filmmakers several times.
Posted by: jk at April 20, 2010 4:07 PMI don't think iwf.org is affiliated with 'Not Evil, Just Wrong' but I could be wrong, not evil too.
Posted by: johngalt at April 20, 2010 5:23 PMApril 11, 2010
"Capitalism is the only truth that keeps the nation healthy and fed."
I happened upon this on FNC's Huckabee show yesterday and have to share it, now and for posterity.
Actor Jon Voight, one year the junior of my 'mad-as-hell over the state of American governance father' uses his interview on the show as a platform for a ranting expose against the sitting President of the United States, except that he isn't ranting - he's sober as a judge and serious as a heart attack.
Hat Tip: Marc Schenker at Associated Content who gives a thorough review of the letter and its presentation. Special recognition for the word "Bailoutpalooza."
UPDATE: [12APR 12:38 MDT] I checked google news to see if any other media outlets were talking about the Voight letter. You can see all four related stories here. But you can't see the original story that I HT'ed anymore. Apparently AssociatedContent.com has blackballed it. And earlier today the original author, Marc Schenker, posted another story revealing the censorship. Of course that posting gets "The content you're looking for has been removed" treatment as well. But google saw it before it was yanked.
Associated Content Censored My Accurate Reporting on Voight's Criticism of Obama Associated Content - Marc Schenker - 19 hours ago today. As some of you have read, my article of today ACCURATELY REPORTED on Jon Voight's criticism of Barack Obama, which was delivered on Mike Huckabee's ...
Is this a genuine case of internet censorship? Anyone know how to access the google cache pages?
AssociatedContent.com "is an open content network. AC's platform enables anyone to participate in the new content economy by publishing content on any topic, in any format (text, video, audio and images), and connects that content to consumers, partners and advertisers."
Apparently some content is less equal than others.
Mega hat tip: The patriot who youtubed the Huckabee appearance - "DouggieJ." It may only be a matter of hours before youtube blows him away too.
Note: As of this UPDATE, the video has 18,458 views (compared to 196,251 who viewed 'Obama can't name any ChiSox players?')
I dunno man. It's nice to hear a Hollywood cat talk up capitalism, but I think rape and poison are over the top.
Posted by: jk at April 11, 2010 3:27 PMA more appropriate word may be found than rape but poison is precisely correct: "Giving them the idea that they are entitled to take from the wealthier who have lived and worked in a democracy that understands that capitalism is the only truth that keeps a nation healthy and fed." [pointed glare]
Keep swallowing that and, when you run out of the wealthy, you're dead.
Posted by: johngalt at April 11, 2010 6:00 PMMarch 30, 2010
Denver TEA Party III
I don't yet have firm plans to attend tomorrow's Denver TEA Party [4pm at the State Capitol] but if I go, these will be my signs:
And...
Are any of the Colorado brothers interested in going? I have two blank poster boards and need someone to carry the second sign.
UPDATE: 3/31 0850 MDT - According to People's Press Collective the scheduled 4pm start time is unlikely. Travel delays from Grand Junction mean the start time will probably be 5pm instead.
Also, I had assumed that Palin and other headliners were on board for the entire tour. Not so.
In the event that none of us go to the event I invite others to contribute their sign ideas in the comments.
UPDATE II (jk): Blog friend Sugarchuck sends a pic:
Not out of line at all. Besides not having to walk from a parking spot we'll also be livin' the green life in the carpool lane!
Posted by: johngalt at March 31, 2010 10:58 AMPosted before update -- whatever you decide. I'm not sure Palin's absence isn't a plus. With all respect to the guv, I'd rather attend a freedom rally than a "Sarah Palin rally."
Posted by: jk at March 31, 2010 10:59 AMMore signs:
WHAT PART OF "ENUMERATED POWERS" DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?
ENEMY OF THE STATIST
|
V
(A couple of these would make good 3Srcs T-shirts!)
News of Ms. Palin's absence serves mostly to explain the dearth of local advertising for the event.
jk: I emailed you to discuss logistics. [@3srcsdotcom]
Posted by: johngalt at March 31, 2010 1:05 PMGot your email, thanks. $50 seems a bit excessive for gas but we're thinking it over...
Posted by: jk at March 31, 2010 1:51 PMWhat did you expect in the "new energy economy?"
Posted by: johngalt at March 31, 2010 2:56 PMMarch 20, 2010
CODE RED Rally in D.C. via Cell Phone Vid
This is cool! Tania Gail of PAWaterCooler.com is going to the Capitol rally today and she's posting live video clips to her website via cell phone. If you click on the image it links to her qik.com page which shows a google map of her location when the video was recorded.
11 minutes ago she posted this clip. "Holy cow, people are coming!"
March 6, 2010
Video of the Week
[Embed removed -- it annoyingly defaults to play, but give this a listen at the link]
"You want to thank us for freedom, send beers 'cause we need 'em" Masterful!
Hat-tip: Blog friend Terri
"MMMMM, beer!"
Get your ground-poundin' butts back home to Wyo safely boys and I'll happily drive up and buy you a round or three.
Posted by: johngalt at March 8, 2010 8:49 PMAnd I got the next three!
Posted by: jk at March 9, 2010 10:14 AMMarch 4, 2010
An Anniversary Worth Celebrating
March 4, 1801: The Marine Band performed at a Presidential Inauguration for the 1st Time for President Thomas Jefferson
Hat-tip: @SemperFiHank (And y'all ought to be drinking his coffee!)
February 26, 2010
QOTD
From Thomas Paine's "Common Sense":
"Earlier in this work, I threw out a few thoughts on the propriety of a Continental Charter, (for I only presume to offer hints, not plans) and in this place, I take the liberty of rementioning the subject, by observing, that a charter is to be understood as a bond of solemn obligation, which the whole enters into, to support the right of every separate part, whether of religion, personal freedom, or property, A firm bargain and a right reckoning make long friends."
The breadth and depth of all American patriot's wisdom at the time of our country's founding remains awe inspiring.
February 18, 2010
The Real Lesson of Evan Bayh?
Coverage of Evan Bayh's retirements has focused on "the partisan divide" and the notion that there is no longer room for moderates in the debate. The prevailing group-think seems to be that "extremists" on both sides have hijacked the respective parties and forced out the moderates. This analysis is essentially correct, but does not recognize the underlying dynamics.
Over the past 80 or 90 years, the US has gradually drifted to the left in the form of expanded government regulation, bureaucracy, oversight and personal intrusion. During the periods in which Conservatives have prevailed at the ballot box, the result has been an arrest or a slowing of the leftward drift, not an actual move back to the right. There have been some notable periods of deregulation and reduced tax burden, but even under Reagan, the actual size of government never slowed as measured by Federal budget or number of agencies. The best we have enjoyed is a smaller government as a percent of GDP, but that does not represent an actual return of personal authority and freedom to the people.
The country has now reached a crossroads: we either move once-and-for-all into Euro-socialism or we start to reclaim the individual liberties that the Constitution and founders intended. To use a football analogy, the Left can see the goal line and is intent on crossing it. At the same time, the Right understands that this is a goal line stand. We either stop the Left and push them back or we lose the game.
The Tea Party protests are the manifestation of this reality. An awaking population is not only saying "no" to nationalized heathcare and "no" to expanded government, many are saying, "Return Liberty to its rightful owners." In this fundamentally ideological battle, there is no middle ground. Prior comprise has only resulted in extending the time to a socialist state.
No mas. It's time for smash-mouth football.
You hit a nerve, br. I think we should take up a collection and buy every journalist a history book. Would that slow the preening "unprecedented partisanship" stories? Jeeeburzz.
I really do rank Senator Bayh among the good guys. Yet I am alarmed at this rising chorus of "politics is broken" because they cannot steamroll-through the Euro-socialism you discuss.
Curiously, with so many things in government and politics truly broken, this is what we software guys like to say a feature, not a bug.
The problem is that the media covers policy like they do sporting events. So much of the coverage is on the "process" and the "players" and how things might play out. Success is measured by what gets done. If a policy proposal is defeated, it is a "loss", despite the fact that it might be a victory for the American people.
There seems to be less discussion of whether the policy is a good idea than whether a proposed bill will become law.
Posted by: HB at February 18, 2010 11:26 PMThat's a very good point, hb. I had not thought of it in those terms.
Perhaps the reason for the media's focus on the process is their underlying bias that additional regulation is almost inherently good (unless it addresses gay rights or abortion). With that as an assumption, they don't have to address the good/bad analysis and can therefore just focus on the win/loss.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at February 19, 2010 12:22 PMFebruary 15, 2010
Now, That's What I Call a Jarhead!
WSJ: U.S. Marine Walks Away From Shot to Helmet in Afghanistan
MARJAH, Afghanistan—It is hard to know whether Monday was a very bad day or a very good day for Lance Cpl. Andrew Koenig.On the one hand, he was shot in the head. On the other, the bullet bounced off him.
In one of those rare battlefield miracles, an insurgent sniper hit Lance Cpl. Koenig dead on in the front of his helmet, and he walked away from it with a smile on his face.
"I don't think I could be any luckier than this," Lance Cpl. Koenig said two hours after the shooting.
Hoo rah!
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at February 16, 2010 11:27 AMFebruary 9, 2010
Giants Still Walk the Earth
"She went on to say violence against women in the Islamic world is systemic and written into the religious texts that are also used as state law in some countries."
And yet, NOW's Terry O'Neill thinks the most important example of violence against women for her to criticize is Tim Tebow "tackling" his mom.
Posted by: johngalt at February 10, 2010 1:26 AMIt is stunning to listen to her. I dare you to find one thing she says which is false, yet in aggregate it is so incendiary.
I think the greatest article the Weekly Standard ever ran was the comparison between her and Frederick Douglass. link
Yes, quite. In this respect (and probably others) she is very much like another giant who once walked the earth.
They are incendiary not because of their beliefs, but because of the threat they pose to the beliefs of others.
Posted by: johngalt at February 10, 2010 3:48 PMDon't Ask Bret Stephens, Don't Tell Bret Stephens
Wow. Bret Stephens takes to the WSJ Editorial Page today for a powerful and thoughtful piece on gays in the military. He first exposes some of the more frivolous and emotional arguments on both sides of the debate. Then he plays in the middle, and makes what I feel are incontrovertible points.
But does "don't ask, don't tell" contribute to military effectiveness? Probably not. One problem is that by demanding that gay and lesbian service members keep their sexuality a secret, it makes them uniquely susceptible to blackmail. It creates a security hazard where none need have existed.More problematic is that it has meant the dismissal of more than 13,000 service members since the policy came into force. Assume that the presence of openly gay people in uniform poses real if intangible risks to morale or capability. It's still worth pondering whether those risks outweigh what amounts to the loss of an entire division of war-fighters.
He closes with positive reactions from the British, Canadian, and Israeli militaries.
I think it's a good idea -- I'd just hate to see President Obama do something right and ruin his streak.
UPDATE: Ilya Somin concurs
The Australian, British, Canadian, and Israeli armed forces are all among the best in the world. If they allow gays to serve openly with no ill effects, that strong suggests that the US can as well.
February 8, 2010
Happy Birthday, BSA!
Today marks the 100 anniversary of the Boy Scouts of America. In those 100 years, more than 110 million American boys have learned self-reliance, self-respect, leadership, teamwork, survival and a dedication to service - not to mention how to stay warm in below-zero temperatures and not burn the eggs when cooking over an open fire.
The Refugee is proud to be an Eagle Scout with Son of The Refugee close to that rank as well. The Boy Scouts remain the largest, most effective organization for teaching the core values that made this country what it is. Happy birthday, Scouting!
January 20, 2010
You Laughed at Me, Eh?
Wondering aboot freedom's next home, I suggested that out neighbors to the North have been heading in the right direction.
Holy Hockey Pucks, eh? They've now passed us in the Heritage/WSJ Freedom Index.
The U.S. lost ground on many fronts. Scores declined in seven of the 10 categories of economic freedom. Losses were particularly significant in the areas of financial and monetary freedom and property rights. Driving it all were the federal government's interventionist responses to the financial and economic crises of the last two years, which have included politically influenced regulatory changes, protectionist trade restrictions, massive stimulus spending and bailouts of financial and automotive firms deemed "too big to fail." These policies have resulted in job losses, discouraged entrepreneurship, and saddled America with unprecedented government deficits.
Canada is now #7, with the United States right behind at #8.
Despite their socialist health care system, they've had some conservative leaders who (gasp) somehow reduced their deficits at the same time they lowered taxes. I need not elaborate on what we've been doing here...
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at January 20, 2010 10:08 PMJanuary 19, 2010
Woo Hoo
Okay. I b'lieve...
I hope Boxer and Feinstein are having a hard time sleeping tonight. "If we've lost Massachusetts..."
Posted by: Keith at January 19, 2010 10:09 PMThe 364-day drunken bender of President Obama and congressional democrats is now, effectively, over. The Republic has survived. Barely.
Posted by: johngalt at January 19, 2010 11:46 PMYeah, jg, maybe, but they're leaving us one hell of a bar tab that somebody's eventually going to have to pay.
Posted by: Keith at January 20, 2010 12:21 AMNot to mention all the barf on the floor and the furniture. But at least they didn't burn the house down.
Damn. I haven't felt this good about something I watched on TV since CU won the college football national title in '89.
"Good night, Marcia,
"Good night, Marcia,
"Good night, Marcia,
"It's time for you to go."
January 13, 2010
Quote of the Day
Christopher Caldwell also weighs in, apropos the attempt to kill Kurt Westergaard . . . and, in a very explicit sense, intellectual freedom. Few industries congratulate themselves on their "courage" and "bravery" more incessantly than artists and journalists — at least when it comes to plays about a gay Jesus, or joining the all-star singalong for Rock Against Bush. But it's easy to be provocative with people who can't be provoked. Faced with an opportunity to demonstrate real courage, the arts and the media shrivel up like a bunch of dying pansies. -- Mark Steyn
January 12, 2010
A "Freedom Recession"
The WSJ Ed Page runs a sobering but essentially correct synopsis of this year's freedom report:
Democracy's troubles are summed up in "Freedom in the World 2010," the yearly report card published today by Freedom House. We're in a "freedom recession," the advocacy group says. For the fourth consecutive year, more countries saw declines in political and civic rights than advances, the longest such period of deterioration in the 40 year history of this widely cited report.Start with the "axis of engagement" states that President Obama sought to butter up diplomatically in his first year in office. The authoritarian regimes in Russia, Venezuela, Iran and China all became more repressive in 2009, according to Freedom House measures. America's attempts to play nice didn't make the other side any nicer.
I think they short-shift President Bush a bit, for backing down after the 2006 midterms. I suggest that he had his hands full with the Iraq surge and a possible unraveling from all the gains made. He was less of a Sharanskyite in the last two years, but he focused diminished political capital on what was important.
Gotta read the whole thing, but the end is worth excerpting as well:
If in the days of Jack Kennedy or Ronald Reagan, we worked to fashion the world into a better place guided by the belief that the urge to live in freedom is universal, today we act as if we are resigned to taking the world as it is. We used to nudge countries toward liberal democracy. Now we assume the price of nudging is too high.Meanwhile, the enemies of democracy have set out to undo the gains of the post-Berlin Wall era, and many are succeeding.
Psht. In terms of foreign policy, Bush's last two years were his best. When I try and think of his great fp successes -- the Indian nuclear deal, for example (everybody seems to forget how significant that deal really is), or the stabilization of Iraq -- I find that they reached completion near the end of his second term. It was before his last two years he messed up, not during them.
More pertinent to the editorial's point, however - what kind of "nudging" are they talking about? It all seems very vague to me.
Posted by: T. Greer at January 13, 2010 5:58 AMWell stated, tg. I had certainly forgotten the Indian nucyulur deal...
I return to this blog's founding and the Natan Sharansky quote from which we adopt the name. The second inaugural address was built on Sharanskyism. Secretary Rice and President Bush were both handing out copies of "The Case for Democracy" to staff.
I think it is safe to say that you appreciate the striped-pants diplomacy of the State Dept better than I (odd, because stripes are very slimming...) and I think it is safe to say that the penultimate two years were far more devoted to conventional diplomacy. We absolutely agree, however, on the stabilization of Iraq.
But what I would call his fp successes were built on Sharanskyite ideas. I'll see your Indian deal and raise you Libya. Freedom was “on the March" in Lebanon, Georgia and Iraq because they felt the Third Source of power: "the power of the solidarity of the free world."
I know the country has lost its taste, but President Obama cannot say a kind word about Iranian protesters, and the Administration’s handling of Honduras is an embarrassment.
Nobody is left to trim freedom's lamp. Nobody will lead against the forcers of darkness,
December 29, 2009
Lack of Global Leadership for 200, Alex?
I have not whacked the folks at Reason Magazine for -- what -- weeks now. How is it that I agree with them on everything and disagree with them on everything else? Like ManBearPig, it doesn't add up.
Today Steve Chapman posts a solemn but truthful look back on the March of Freedom in 2009:
This year marked the 20th anniversary of the blossoming of democracy around the world, stimulated in part by the fall of the Berlin Wall on Nov. 9, 1989. Far from producing much new growth, however, 2009 brought to mind an old folk song: Where have all the flowers gone?
Steve, buddy, can I be honest with you? The "flowers" were in full bloom when a Sharanskyite US President was leading the world with a bold call for more self government and liberalism.
When Reason Magazine joined those who piled on an unpopular Administration in an unpopular war, freedom's growth was impeded. When Reason Magazine's editor published a polemic book attacking Senator McCain and lambasted him throughout the election, it contributed to the election of a candidate who displays zero interest in using even the bully pulpit to promote freedom.
Said Reason editors and staff were no doubt on firm philosophical footing when they criticized President Bush and Candidate-Senator McCain. But big-L Libertarians are supposed to be so smart about unintended consequences are they not?
You and your buddies, Steve, would do nothing to contribute to American leadership of a Liberal International Economic Order (LIEO). Welcome to your world.
Libertario delenda est!
Well crafted post, JK! Could not have been said better nor more forcefully.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at December 29, 2009 2:11 PMMany thanks for the kind words, br. I'll confess to liking it, too. Bloggers soon learn that your pop hits do not always match your critical, artistic triumphs...
Posted by: jk at December 29, 2009 3:56 PMNot exactly completely truthful though, is it? Chapman writes "Democracy did not fare so well in Honduras, where the military roused President Manuel Zelaya from his bed at gunpoint and put him on a plane to exile in Costa Rica."
But after what the AP describes as "Central America's first coup in 20 years" the Hunduran congress voted 111-14 to keep him out of power. And he was "roused from his bed at gunpoint" because he ignored a ruling by the Honduran supreme court, which said a referendum could not change the national constitution in regard to presidential term limits.
It is true that "democracy" did not fare as well here as in, say, Venezuela or Bolivia, with masses of leftist agitators rigging elections to have their way. But the 125 members of the Honduran congress exercised democracy. And all of this goes to show that liberty, not democracy, is the ultimate savior of humanity. Strange that a Libertarian would confuse this important distinction.
Posted by: johngalt at December 30, 2009 5:13 PMI missed that. It does look like Chapman joins the US State Department in being on the wrong side of the issue. That should be punishment enough for a Reason contributor.
And yet he is not wrong to list it as a dark moment in history when the Obama Administration sided with Hugo Chavez over the Honduran Supreme Court.
Food for thought: Barack Obama loses in a walk to the Republican candidate in 2012. Do you suppose the Republican will have to settle for sharing power with Obama, ala Mugabe?
I have to think the transition would result in far more damage than popping the W's off of some keyboards.
Posted by: johngalt at December 30, 2009 6:05 PMGo Packers!
We've got several flavors of football fan 'round these parts, but I have to give some props to the boys from the frozen tundra of Lambeau field. I recently reconnected with a great friend of this blog. When I was posting at Berkeley Square Blog, I met then Maj. Jay Greeley who had been recalled and was serving in Mosul.
Now LTC Greeley is an Army liaison to the FAA. He sent me a couple of emails, and I know everybody at ThreeSources will dig these pictures.
"Every Thursday a group of us arrive at Walter Reed about 3pm and stay no later than eight to sit with the soldiers. Two years ago, Gen Campbell called me up and invited me to contact the Packers organization. The Gen was an Alumni of St. Norbert College (SNC), knew that I had a connection with Bob Harlan, and said to "get the stuff.""Mr. Harlan, then acting Pres of the Packers, sent eight boxes overnight of game balls and other stuff. Soldiers received hats, coats, everything... This is the family of a young man who lost his left leg and left arm. His younger brothers came from Arkansas and did not bring coats for the cool fall. So the Packer ladies packed some coaches jackets and the word is that they went in the Locker Room and grabbed them from the head coaches’ lockers as they had the biggest ones.
"A year later we were able to give Bob Harlan his thank you from the Walter Reed Warrior BDE Commander. With me was a young Sgt that was with me in Mosul, his unit supported some tough operations. He was assigned to St. Norbert College (SNC) ROTC."
There are other great pictures in the email and I can forward them to any ThreeSourcer who is interested, Some depict current patients so I will not post them publicly. I will leave you with one picture of our friend, receiving his service coin from some fellow named Petraeus – you may have heard of him.
I had the chance to talk to LTC Greeley on the phone for an hour yesterday, He is a fire hose of interesting information and great stories. I know I'm joined by all ThreeSourcers when I say "Thank you for your service!"
December 28, 2009
Too Long for Quote of the Day
The spirit of Sharansky lives, even though it is so unfashionable in America today that even I am becoming sheepish. Here's the WSJ Ed Page today:
In Iran and China, Christmas weekend brought two inspiring examples of the high price that men and women are still willing to pay in the eternal struggle for political freedom.In Beijing, the Chinese Communists ignored the protests of more than a dozen countries and sentenced 53-year-old literary critic Liu Xiaobo to 11 years in prison for the crime of peacefully agitating for democracy. His verdict came after a two-hour, closed-door trial Wednesday from which diplomats, his wife and his chosen lawyer were barred.
"When he decides to do something, he doesn't regret it,'' said his wife, Liu Xia, who was allowed to speak to her husband for 10 minutes after he learned his fate. "He said he hopes to be the last person punished for practicing freedom of expression" in China. No wonder Chinese officials are so afraid of Mr. Liu, who wields the power of the unbreakable individual spirit.
Meanwhile, in Tehran, democratic protestors continued to risk their lives and freedom by going into the streets despite an increasingly brutal government crackdown. On Sunday, security forces opened fire on demonstrators in the College Square neighborhood, killing at least four and injuring dozens, according to witnesses and opposition Web sites. The nephew of opposition leader and former presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi was among the dead.
It's impossible to know when these freedom fighters will realize their democratic goals, but they deserve our admiration and support.
Yes, we are kindred spirits are we not?
Posted by: johngalt at December 28, 2009 1:08 PMFor those interested, this is what Liu was arrested for. That was about a year ago. I wonder why they even need a trial - they have not had a problem detaining him for a year.
Posted by: T. Greer at December 28, 2009 9:19 PMThis is the government Thomas Friedman so admires, tg. Sure they can detain a political prisoner for a year wuthout trial -- but the government is empowered to make people use CFLs!
Posted by: jk at December 29, 2009 10:15 AMDecember 7, 2009
Recognition
I know Microsoft is the root of all evil and all, but an Instapundit reader points out a little discrepancy:
vs:
I know, it's not like it was Earth Day or something...
That's a great picture of Pearl Harbor I had never seen before.
Kudos to MSFT. Boo on GOOG.
Posted by: AlexC at December 7, 2009 7:27 PMAnd you can mouse over hotspots to get additional information.
Posted by: jk at December 7, 2009 8:01 PMNovember 22, 2009
Al Gore Wishes he Never Invented the Internet
This whole post at Minnesotans for Global Warming is hilarious and biting, but here is the part I find most relevant to prior posts of my own:
The Global Warming Extremists controlled the argument for years by saying, it's only legitimate science if it's published in certain journals and peer reviewed, and if you control the Journals you control the science. But sadly with Al Gore's invention, the anointed few are losing control, much like the medieval church did with the invention of the printing press.
November 11, 2009
Nice!
Reason Magazine has been a very vocal critic of recent missions, and a constant critic of anything that can be considered military expansionism or adventurism. But this is an awesome tribute to some guys who ensured many of the freedoms we argue over:
Hat-tip: Instapundit
November 5, 2009
Freedom on the March
Sad that President Obama could not find the time to celebrate the fall of the Berlin Wall in Berlin. But glad Chancellor Angela Merkel addressed a joint session of Congress:
[F]or me America seemed completely out of reach . . . then on the 9th of November 1989, the Berlin Wall fell.And this border which had divided a nation, for decades, keeping people in two different worlds, was now open. And this is why for me, today is first and foremost a time to say thank you.
I thank all those American and Allied pilots who heard and heeded the desperate appeal of then-Mayor of Berlin Ernst Reuter, in 1948, who said, you, the nations of this world, cast your eyes towards the city.
For months, these pilots flew food to Berlin for the airlift, saving the citizens from starvation. Many of these soldiers risked their lives. Dozens lost their lives. We shall remember and honor them forever . . .
I think of John F. Kennedy, who won the hearts of the Berliners, when, during his visit in 1961, after the wall had been built, he reached out to the desperate citizens of Berlin by saying, "Ich bin ein Berliner." I think of Ronald Reagan, who, far earlier than most, clearly saw the sign of the times and, standing in front of the Brandenburg Gate, already in 1987, called out, "Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." This appeal shall remain forever in my heart.
October 22, 2009
Communist Humor
WSJ's "Noatble & Quotable" picks up a Der Spiegel Article by Hans-Ulrich Stoldt and Klaus Wiegrefe
"What would happen if the desert became communist? Nothing for a while, and then there would be a sand shortage." Jokes like that made the rounds among East Germans during the communist era, and West Germany's intelligence service would collect them, as a way to assess the public mood behind the Iron Curtain but also to amuse its masters in Bonn, the West German capital.
October 20, 2009
Our CARE Package Showed Up
Hank at Devil Dog Brew, forwards a note from a Colonel in Afghanistan:
Hank, I want you to know that I received the Devil Dog Brew care package donated by John Kranz of Erie, Colorado. This is absolutely one of the best care packages I have ever seen. Our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines will all enjoy the coffee, snacks, and gifts. We are all thankful for Americans like John who take the time to send a package like this one. Thanks to you for providing quality products and supporting the Military. Also, thanks to John for his generosity.Semper Fi, Greg
Don't send the FTC after me, I make no money for my endorsement, but this coffee is very good. We've all become used to the "Seattle-Style" roast where the beans are toasted (detractors call it burnt). I like this taste but have to admit this is a refreshing change. It is full flavored and robust without the toasted edge. I recommend it highly.
October 13, 2009
Selling Freedom to a Polity That Does Not Value It
Media Flash - Female, non-white, lauds Ayn Rand's 'Atlas Shrugged' explaining how it changes lives.
JK asked the title question. This is my first answer.
Hat tip: Brother Russ
News flash: Communism Bad
I really enjoyed this Matt Welch piece this morning. I was gonna link then I wasn't, then I was.
But a great friend of ThreeSources sent the link with the suggestion "This ought to be required reading for all Americans." And I cannot argue.
It was the largest breach of the Iron Curtain in a generation, and it kicked off a remarkable chain of events that ended 11 weeks later with the righteous citizen dismantling of the Berlin Wall.Twenty years later, the anniversary of that historic border crossing was noted in exactly four American newspapers, according to the Nexis database, and all four mentions were in reprints of a single syndicated column. August anniversaries receiving more media play in the U.S. included the 400th anniversary of Galileo building his telescope, the 150th anniversary of the first oil well, and the 25th anniversary of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. A Google News search of “anniversary” and “freedom” on August 23, 2009, turned up scores of Woodstock references before the first mention of Hungary.
Get used to it, if you haven’t already. November 1989 was the most liberating month of arguably the most liberating year in human history, yet two decades later the country that led the Cold War coalition against communism seems less interested than ever in commemorating, let alone processing the lessons from, the collapse of its longtime foe.
How can you "sell" freedom to a polity that does not value it?
October 6, 2009
The Segue.
I'm going to risk embroilment in the FTC regulation on blogs for product endorsements. But please be assured that I receive NO remuneration for my recommendation.
Yet I have to report that the Devil Dog Brew and Sniper's Brew coffee arrived today, I opened the Sniper's Brew and it is AWESOME!
Good company, good coffee, good cause.
Which Devil Dog roast did you choose? (There are 3 roasts darker than "Bold.")
Posted by: johngalt at October 7, 2009 12:54 PMI hope everybody's sitting down -- I actually scored decaf of both Sniper's and Devil Dog. When the decaf is good, you know you've hit a vein.
Posted by: jk at October 7, 2009 12:57 PMThanks for the tip! This could bring me out of my mourning of the demise of my local Peaberry coffee shop. Forget blue and red, at least we can agree on dark coffee and dark beer.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at October 10, 2009 9:27 AMAgreed, and agreed on Peaberry, where was it, 120th & Sheridan?
Out-o-towners: Peaberry was a local chain that competed with and was purchased by the wicked evil Starbucks Corporation. Company stores switched over, but a few individual franchises kept on under the Peaberry banner.
Really good stuff, although as they attained ten or so stores, my Berkeley educated niece decided that they too were evil. Business is great as long as you're not successful at it. (Hope I didn't step on teh Kumbaya moment.)
September 26, 2009
Devil's Dog Brew
If any ThreeSourcers enjoy both coffee and supporting those who wear the nation's uniform, you can shop at www.devildogbrew.com/ It was started by a retired Marine and coffee enthusiast.
In addition to coffee, they have an "Operation MRE" package with Coffee and nuts and sunflower seeds and Tabasco sauce and t-shirts. The website notes, however, "The Coffee Mug, Gerber® Folding Knife & US Marine Corps Edition Operation Enduring Freedom 9MM Beretta® which are pictured are all good pieces of gear but these are mine and not included in the Operation MRE package."
My friend, Hank, (Semper Fi!) helped me order some coffee for me and agreed to ship the kits to servicemembers. Great project Sir, good luck!
Hat-tip: Instapundit
Many Thanks, I'd like to tell them who this is from. I'm sending it to the boss I used to work for, he's actually in this story, (I post to a blog as the Marine Contributor) Claire's been a great friend. He's deployed to Afghanistan and I might even get a few great pics to share.
With Utmost Respect, Semper Fi, Hank
www.kneedeepinthehooah.com/2009/02/hank-and-bar-girls
Posted by: Hank at September 27, 2009 3:12 PMThis gets better every minute. My blog brothers and I disagree on almost everything around here.
Yet we are unanimously in awe of the courage and sacrifices of the men and women who defend the freedom we cherish. I'll send you personal information under separate cover.
September 21, 2009
Give Local Gov'ts More Power or Face Secession
That's the warning given by Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman Vincent Cable regarding the powerful central government in ... the United Kingdom.
He told delegates that the party was committed to "generally federal solutions" that would let the Scots, the Welsh and the Northern Irish gain more revenue-raising powers to create "much more genuine home rule but within the UK"."Unless we grapple with this, it will lead to conflict and possible secession. We have to start raising the warning here and now about what could happen."
Apparently they have some Limey Glen Beck over there raising his own rabble. Another common theme between UK and US governments was also mentioned:
He also called for electoral reform to stop the practice of "rotten boroughs", where MPs felt under no threat due to their large majorities. Making votes count was crucial to improving the behaviour of MPs, said Cable.
I'd like to co-opt that term for the congressional districts of Jared Polis and Diana DeGette of Colorado, Barney Frank of Massachusetts, Charles Rangel of New York, and at least a hundred other congressmen across the land. Can I get a hell yeah?
(And 10 bonus points to the first who can explain what an "unelected quango" is.)
The UK is ten steps worse than we are here... I can understand where the secessionist sentiment might come in. They are a true nanny-state. More surveillance than East Germany, a greater social net than France, and no difference at all between the two parties.
The U.S. is not this bad yet.
This also explains, in part, why we do not have our own little Dan Hannans running around, and why your call for a "Hell ya" will not be heard by many. Sad, but true.
Posted by: T. Greer at September 21, 2009 8:16 PMHell yeah, and it's a perfect fit for Rangel. His district is almost entirely within upper Manhattan, which politically is entirely rotten. All five New York boroughs are.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at September 21, 2009 9:43 PMSeptember 11, 2009
Happy Patriots Day
Eight years ago, we were attacked for our freedom.
Reasonable people may disagree on the actions since then, but we should not forget the motives of the attackers: our freedom is abhorrent to them.
July 22, 2009
Bad Gig
Blog friend Terri brings to light the poor plight of the Pakistani stand-up comic. It seems the following jokes are illegal:
“Terrorists have kidnapped our beloved Zardari and are demanding $5,000,000 or they will burn him with petrol. Please donate what you can. I have donated five litres.”To commemorate the ascension to the Presidency, Pakistan Post has officially launched a new stamp. But the people of Pakistan are confused which side on the stamp to spit on.
Robber: “Give me all your money!”
Zardari: “Don’t you know who I am? I am Asif Ali Zardari.”
Robber: “OK. Give me all my money”
July 21, 2009
Hotel Philosophy
Sadanand Dhume has a great guest editorial in the Wall Street Journal. He examines why luxury hotels have been a target for radical Islamic terrorists and I think that ThreeSourcers will enjoy his reasoning
From a radical Islamic perspective, however, an international hotel is much more than merely a convenient target of opportunity. It also represents, in microcosm, the antithesis of the world that radical Islamists, both violent and nonviolent, seek to create.
[...]
For Islamic radicals, who seek to order all aspects of 21st century life—from banking to burqas—by the medieval precepts enshrined in Shariah law, the secular nature of a hotel is galling enough. But perhaps this would not matter as much if it weren’t appealing to local elites. In a place like Peshawar or Kabul, and to a large degree even in Jakarta or Mumbai, a five-star hotel represents an island of order and prosperity in a sea of squalor. It hints at the prosperity promised by free markets and a culture of individual liberty. It is living proof that the worldly can successfully be split from the divine. It also acts as a bridge to the West. For example, star players of Manchester United, the British soccer club, were scheduled to stay at the Ritz-Carlton before the attacks forced them to cancel their visit to Indonesia.
July 13, 2009
If we're going to LOVE Republican Women...
Governor Palin is quite attractive, but can I love Liz Cheney? She has some pointed words in the WSJ today about President Obama's speech to the students in Moscow. She thinks he is rewriting the history of the cold war:
The basis of the Cold War was not "competition in astrophysics and athletics." It was a global battle between tyranny and freedom. The Soviet "sphere of influence" was delineated by walls and barbed wire and tanks and secret police to prevent people from escaping. America was an unmatched force for good in the world during the Cold War. The Soviets were not. The Cold War ended not because the Soviets decided it should but because they were no match for the forces of freedom and the commitment of free nations to defend liberty and defeat Communism.It is irresponsible for an American president to go to Moscow and tell a room full of young Russians less than the truth about how the Cold War ended.
Awesome. Read the whole thing.
An emailer points out that her husband has a shotgun and is not afrad to use it.
Purely professional, Mister Vice President, purely professional...
Posted by: jk at July 13, 2009 11:55 AMLynne is the President's wife. This is Liz, the daughter. The straight one.
Posted by: AlexC at July 13, 2009 1:48 PMThanks -- mea maxima culpa! Still think the shotgun part holds true...
Posted by: jk at July 13, 2009 2:06 PMNot long ago I mused about a Palin/Cheney ticket for '12. Pairing Palin with this Cheney is even more interesting to ponder:
"Change? We'll show you change!"
Posted by: johngalt at July 15, 2009 3:48 PMJune 11, 2009
Cannot Make This Stuff Up
We're closing Gitmo! My soul will feel so cleansed when this process is complete. Finally, to have a President that understands complex moral imperatives. The WSJ Ed Page reports that a little American lucre has solved the nasty problem of the Uighurs:
Months of moral grandstanding and intense diplomacy are finally yielding dividends: President Obama has convinced Palau, a Pacific archipelago and long-standing U.S. ally, to resettle a small group of the least dangerous Guantanamo detainees. All it took was $200 million in foreign aid to a country with 20,000 residents and a GDP of about $164 million.Headed to Palau are the Uighurs, ethnic Chinese Muslims who were picked up in 2002 near Tora Bora. Some of them received weapons training at Afghan camps affiliated with al Qaeda or the Taliban as part of their separatist movement -- the Uighur minority is brutally repressed by the Chinese government -- though they are not considered threats to the U.S. or other Western nations. But they were left in legal limbo because they could not be returned to China, where they would likely be tortured or worse, and no other country would give them sanctuary.
So the least dangerous are gone, at a cost of only $11.7 million per detainee. No doubt that Palau will treat them much better than the American military -- and less doubt that they are secured from future terrorist activity. It's a proud day for this great nation!
A. The Bush administration declared them innocent so they should technically be allowed freedom. B. Nobody wants to take them, so I guess Palau is where they end up? What happens with all the other detainees? And why so expensive?
Good, humorous post.
http://www.newsy.com/videos/palau_s_potential_prisoners
I can't wait for the '60 Minutes' expose' about six months from now: "Watching these former U.S. detainees day-to-day lives here on this Pacific island one can't help but wonder, were they better off at Guantanamo? And should the U.S. have just kept it's 200 million dollars."
Hey, it could happen!
Posted by: johngalt at June 12, 2009 7:43 PMMay 29, 2009
Way More Patriotic Than You
There is nothing a libertarian enjoys more than a trip to the DMV -- it validates everything he believes. I even had the good fortune of going from the hospital (drug study visit -- I be fine) to the Weld County Clerk & Recorder Del Camino extension east of Longmont. Trust me, the medical folks are still better, though I know there are plans to "fix it."
When number 93 was finally called, I must confess that the woman who served me was courteous and professional. When I told her I was picking up "Support the Troops" plates, she told me how beautiful she thought they were and how popular they are (I don't think we're in Boulder any more, Toto!) But the wait and the impersonal feel, and the uncomfortable chairs do validate my beliefs. You'd never go here unless you had to. For any other purpose, you would find another venue.
But, I do have my "Support the Troops" plates proving -- once again -- that I am way more patriotic than anybody around here. Have a great weekend!
May 22, 2009
Three Warriors
I have not linked -- positively -- to Peggy Noonan in some time. I think you have read enough of my negative links that I won't go into. Besides I come to praise our Margaret, not bury her.
She brings her sweetness and love of country to her column today. And it is a great warm up for Memorial Day weekend.
The category of military hero—warrior—fell off a bit, in part because of the bad reputation of war. Some emerged of heroic size—Gens. Pershing and Patton, Eisenhower and Marshall. But somewhere in the 1960s I think we decided, or the makers of our culture decided, that to celebrate great warriors was to encourage war. And we always have too much of that. So they made a lot of movies depicting soldiers as victims and officers as brutish. This was especially true in the Vietnam era and the years that followed. Maybe a correction was in order: It's good to remember war is hell. But when we removed the warrior, we removed something intensely human, something ancestral and stirring, something celebrated naturally throughout the long history of man. Also it was ungrateful: They put themselves in harm's way for us.For Memorial Day, then, three warriors, two previously celebrated but not so known now by the young.
Superb.
May 21, 2009
Quote of the Day
I found a High School friend on Facebook. Seeing that he listed US Navy as an employer, I said "Thank you for your service." He replied:
Hi John, thanks for the comment about military service. It means a lot. As I live in Australia there is a lot of anti-American and anti-military sentiment. I also recall a comment years ago from someone we went to primary school with. She ripped into me about being in the military. I suppose that is easy to do when you watch the news and see negative stories. The story behind the news story is pretty amazing and most who have been there have a great deal of pride in their service. Sorry for writing a book. Thanks for the comment.
Many things disappoint in life. But the thought that these people are not treated like the heroes that they are. That chaps my hide. Thanks to all who serve!
Here, here!
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at May 21, 2009 11:45 PMApril 22, 2009
Exploit-the-Earth Day
In 1970 a US Senator created 'Earth Day' to "inspire awareness and appreciation for the earth's environment." But this movement has since metastasized from "appreciating" the earth's environment to deifying it. As a result, any productive human activity can be villified as "pollution."
In contrast, Objectivist philosopher and publisher Craig Biddle wrote that the correct moral path is to celebrate "Exploit-the-Earth Day" instead. [email article - Click 'continue reading' for the full text.]
Environmentalism rejects the basic moral premise of capitalism—the idea that people should be free to act on their judgment—because it rejects a more fundamental idea on which capitalism rests: the idea that the requirements of human life constitute the standard of moral value. While the standard of value underlying capitalism is human life (meaning, that which is necessary for human beings to live and prosper), the standard of value underlying environmentalism is nature untouched by man.
For at least 45,000 years human beings have been exploiting the resources of earth and nature for their survival and prosperity. There is certainly no rational reason to quit now. In celebration of exploiting the earth I have created two original prints and I publish them here now for free public use.
There is no middle ground here. Either human life is the standard of moral value, or it is not. Either nature has intrinsic value, or it does not.On April 22, make clear where you stand. Don’t celebrate Earth Day; celebrate Exploit-the-Earth Day—and let your friends, family, and associates know why.
Hat tip: jg's friend, henceforth (and long overdue) to be known as 'brother' Russ.
{Hint: Right-click on 'save target as' not 'save picture as' below so that you'll get the high resolution versions.}
________________________________________________________________________
Op-ed from The Objective Standard
On April 22, Celebrate Exploit-the-Earth Day
by Craig Biddle
Because Earth Day is intended to further the cause of environmentalism—and because environmentalism is an anti-human ideology—on April 22, those who care about human life should not celebrate Earth Day; they should celebrate Exploit-the-Earth Day.
Exploiting the Earth—using the raw materials of nature for one’s life-serving purposes—is a basic requirement of human life. Either man takes the Earth’s raw materials—such as trees, petroleum, aluminum, and atoms—and transforms them into the requirements of his life, or he dies. To live, man must produce the goods on which his life depends; he must produce homes, automobiles, computers, electricity, and the like; he must seize nature and use it to his advantage. There is no escaping this fact. Even the allegedly “noble” savage must pick or perish. Indeed, even if a person produces nothing, insofar as he remains alive he indirectly exploits the Earth by parasitically surviving off the exploitative efforts of others.
According to environmentalism, however, man should not use nature for his needs; he should keep his hands off “the goods”; he should leave nature alone, come what may. Environmentalism is not concerned with human health and wellbeing—neither ours nor that of generations to come. If it were, it would advocate the one social system that ensures that the Earth and its elements are used in the most productive, life-serving manner possible: capitalism.
Capitalism is the only social system that recognizes and protects each individual’s right to act in accordance with his basic means of living: the judgment of his mind. Environmentalism, of course, does not and cannot advocate capitalism, because if people are free to act on their judgment, they will strive to produce and prosper; they will transform the raw materials of nature into the requirements of human life; they will exploit the Earth and live.
Environmentalism rejects the basic moral premise of capitalism—the idea that people should be free to act on their judgment—because it rejects a more fundamental idea on which capitalism rests: the idea that the requirements of human life constitute the standard of moral value. While the standard of value underlying capitalism is human life (meaning, that which is necessary for human beings to live and prosper), the standard of value underlying environmentalism is nature untouched by man.
The basic principle of environmentalism is that nature (i.e., “the environment”) has intrinsic value—value in and of itself, value apart from and irrespective of the requirements of human life—and that this value must be protected from its only adversary: man. Rivers must be left free to flow unimpeded by human dams, which divert natural flows, alter natural landscapes, and disrupt wildlife habitats. Glaciers must be left free to grow or shrink according to natural causes, but any human activity that might affect their size must be prohibited. Naturally generated carbon dioxide (such as that emitted by oceans and volcanoes) and naturally generated methane (such as that emitted by swamps and termites) may contribute to the greenhouse effect, but such gasses must not be produced by man. The globe may warm or cool naturally (e.g., via increases or decreases in sunspot activity), but man must not do anything to affect its temperature. And so on.
In short, according to environmentalism, if nature affects nature, the effect is good; if man affects nature, the effect is evil.
Stating the essence of environmentalism in such stark terms raises some illuminating questions: If the good is nature untouched by man, how is man to live? What is he to eat? What is he to wear? Where is he to reside? How can man do anything his life requires without altering, harming, or destroying some aspect of nature? In order to nourish himself, man must consume meats, fruits, and vegetables. In order to make clothing, he must skin animals, pick cotton, manufacture polyester, and the like. In order to build a house—or even a hut—he must cut down trees, dig up clay, make fires, bake bricks, and so forth. Each and every action man takes to support or sustain his life entails the exploitation of nature. Thus, on the premise of environmentalism, man has no right to exist.
It comes down to this: Each of us has a choice to make. Will I recognize that man’s life is the standard of moral value—that the good is that which sustains and furthers human life—and thus that people have a moral right to use the Earth and its elements for their life-serving needs? Or will I accept that nature has “intrinsic” value—value in and of itself, value apart from and irrespective of human needs—and thus that people have no right to exist?
There is no middle ground here. Either human life is the standard of moral value, or it is not. Either nature has intrinsic value, or it does not.
On April 22, make clear where you stand. Don’t celebrate Earth Day; celebrate Exploit-the-Earth Day—and let your friends, family, and associates know why.
***
In honor of Earth Day, I suppose we should remind everyone of the awesome power of green energy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKcD_aLZ9EI
Well, okay, it's more of a bluish-green.
Posted by: Keith at April 22, 2009 8:20 PMHA! The people waiting with breathless anticipation remind me of the ones on the train in the 'Atlas Shrugged' tunnel scene.
Posted by: johngalt at April 23, 2009 12:33 PMMarch 20, 2009
Republic or Oligarchy
Most of us, I'm sure, are familiar with the idea that "left" vs. "right" or "liberal" vs. "conservative" are imprecise definitions of political philosophy. What I've promoted instead is that political structures are organized along a continuum from fully collectivized to complete individual liberty.
This excellent video presentation by YouTube's "notdemocracy" describes the balance as one between "total government" and "no government." Five basic types of government cover the spectrum: monarchy - oligarchy - democracy - republic - anarchy. But only two of these are "stable" forms of government: oligarchy and republic. The other three naturally evolve into one of those two. (Hint: Everything becomes an oligarchy except a republic.)
Readers who watch this will understand why I consider it so important to fight for the integrity of the original Constitution, which means removing antithetical amendments to it such as the 16th.
Hat tip: Dr. Ignatius Piazza via jg's friend Russ.
Not that excellent. Whoever put this together blindly clings to "law" and does not recognize the concept of peaceful capitalist anarchy, just because it has no "law." So what? We have plenty of "law" today, and what has that done for personal liberty?
When this guy speaks of "law," is he talking about natural law or man-made law? Is he talking about the natural right to defend yourself and your property, which are a priori and need no legislation to enforce or guarantee? No, he speaks of "law" in the sense of rule.
Now, the problem with republics is that they degenerate into democracy. Tytler said, "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury." From the very start of our "republic," the federal government practiced wealth redistribution. It was a trickle but increased during the days of "internal improvements," then in the 20th century with the welfare state.
As far as "stability," that exists only with slaves who don't rise up against their masters. Everything else about human society will wax and wane.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at March 21, 2009 4:04 PMI don't know about this guy, but he refers to America's founders. They attempted to establish a man-made law that codified natural law - and no more. Then they attempted to preserve man's inalienable rights from future man-made laws via the Constitution. The Constitution is the only thing that stood in the way of a natural degeneration to democracy and beyond.
You may be able to cite examples of wealth distribution based on tariffs and fees but I think you'll agree the real heavy lifting wasn't possible until the progressive income tax effectively enacted by the 16th Amendment. That was in 1913. Democracy in America is, therefore, essentially a 20th century phenomenon.
As for anarchy as a desirable political system, I think even Rand would agree with the proposition that "the proper amount of government makes everyone freer." Of course this statement is vague as to quantitization of "proper" but clearly it is more than "none."
Posted by: johngalt at March 21, 2009 7:09 PMI think that people who watch this video dont realize that the creator pulled a lot from Plato's republic, that book went through these steps in much the same way but what Plato left out was that his republic was in reality not a republic but an oligarchy because the people would be ruled by a guardian class, and that the transitions from republic to democracy usually have to be sparked.
Posted by: caritas at March 22, 2009 1:54 AMI like the video's rejection of absolute democracy. It's a good introduction to those who don't understand why "one man, one vote" is not the ideal.
It does, however, imply the existence of an ideal law. I appreciate rule by law but suggest we have not yet seen the text of that ideal. The original Constitution we all admire permitted slavery and counted people as three-fifths based on their skin color.
You want to keep all the Amendments but the 16th? Then it is a Republic? That seems awfully capricious. You call shenanigans on Wilson, but Lincoln had Federal troops in place to push the 14th. I think the 12th and 17th do more to degenerate republicanism into democracy. (You'll recall I wanted to rescind both until I encountered Governor Blogojevich, now I am not so sure.)
It is damned difficult to structure law; stop by my HOA meeting or get Sugarchuck to tell you a tale or two about township council. My problem with this video is that it papers over this difficulty. Like Perry, I see it championing a Law that does not exist.
Caritas -- great handle but you have to share it with my test server at work. I do wish I had a webcam to watch Johngalt as he reads your accusation of promulgating Platonicy.
Posted by: jk at March 22, 2009 12:25 PMI didn't take caritas as accusing me of promulgating [word] Platonicy [?]. He said Plato's Republic was an oligarchy. That's more than I know on the subject, but it agrees with what I and the video have said.
Which is not that the 16th Amendment is the Constitution's only problem, nor that the Constitution was perfect. I agree with the idea of an "ideal law" analogous with Perry's "natural law." That this law is "a priori and need[s] no legislation to enforce or guarantee" is proven false by the violation of this law all over the world (including, more and more, here in the USA.)
The Constitution sought to guarantee natural law. It did the job fairly well right up to the point where amendments such as (but not limited to) the 16th were adopted by unconstitional processes.
Some (ahem) have suggested the American people would quickly re-ratify the 16th Amendment if so proposed. I say it was more likely in 1913, before the public really understood what it would lead to. And yet it was necessary at the time to falsify the results in the state legislatures. In the full light of day, with a complete airing of the facts, it doesn't even fare as well as the old ERA (equal rights amendment).
Posted by: johngalt at March 23, 2009 2:52 PMI don't know about this guy, but he refers to America's founders.Well, that in itself means nothing. Many liberals today refer to the Founding Fathers, like when Democrats proclaim themselves "The party of Jefferson."
Even then, which Founding Fathers? Jefferson believed in real liberty, while Alexander Hamilton was a statist who desired one United State government to rule all (which is what
They attempted to establish a man-made law that codified natural law - and no more. Then they attempted to preserve man's inalienable rights from future man-made laws via the Constitution. The Constitution is the only thing that stood in the way of a natural degeneration to democracy and beyond.Yes and no. The problem with the Constitution is the consolidation of power, and making it absolute law without any ability to question it. If you don't obey, for example, the 16th or 18th Amendments, no matter how bad the law might be, you're a criminal.
Declaring something "the law" does not necessarily mean it is right or proper. Many bad things have been set forth as legislation, statute, etc. Now you might say, by what standard are we to craft law? It's simple: is a particular "law" doing anything for all persons' lives, liberties and property, or is it a bad law that redistributes and/or targets specific individuals or groups?
"The rule of law" does not mean that law must always be obeyed. It means that whatever law there is, it must apply equally to everyone, else it's merely the rule of men.
You may be able to cite examples of wealth distribution based on tariffs and fees but I think you'll agree the real heavy lifting wasn't possible until the progressive income tax effectively enacted by the 16th Amendment. That was in 1913. Democracy in America is, therefore, essentially a 20th century phenomenon.It most dramatically increased speed in the 20th century, yes, but "internal improvements" began in the early 19th, as did the first income tax under Lincoln. It became a matter of the federal government getting more money from the states, and borrowing more.
All the money in the world doesn't matter if the government has no desire to spend it, and if the people have no desire to elect officials who will redistribute their neighbors' wealth. The "democratic process" took root in the early 19th century as people began asserting their "right to vote," and by the late 1830s the U.S. national debt necessarily increased. It wasn't as much as the 20th century, but relative to the budget then, it was tremendous. The national debt had nearly been paid off under Andrew Jackson, then started going up under Van Buren.
As for anarchy as a desirable political system, I think even Rand would agree with the proposition that "the proper amount of government makes everyone freer." Of course this statement is vague as to quantitization of "proper" but clearly it is more than "none."Government must exist only with the consent of the people. Not just "the majority" of the people, but "the whole people" constituting everyone. Thus the "proper" amount is the maximum that any given person is willing to give.
Even so, you're talking about a "political system" rather than a government. That's where corrupt favor-trading and wealth redistribution enter.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at March 23, 2009 9:41 PMMarch 12, 2009
Constitutional Taxation
One or two of you may have noticed my comment under Tuesday's Quote of the Day. Fewer still may have followed any of the links. I got a chance to investigate futher today.
From a November 7, 2002 Press Release by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Counselor at Law, Federal Witness and Private Attorney General:
On a much broader scale, the absence of liability statutes raises the specter of widespread government fraud, going all the way back to the year 1913. And, there is no statute of limitations on fraud.The main problem which the SUBPOENA seeks to solve is to confirm, once and for all, the apparent absence of any federal statutes which create a specific liability for income taxes imposed by subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code.
(...)
The absence of any statutes creating a specific liability for subtitle A income taxes means, quite simply, that federal income taxes are totally and completely voluntary, in the common everyday meaning of that term. Liability only begins when Form 1040 is signed.
So it would seem that refusing to complete a tax return, or even completing it and refusing to sign it, may legally absolve an individual of any federal income tax liability. I met a man who actually adhered to this strategy in the early 1990's. At the time I thought he was a madman. Now I believe I've found his justification.
But what of that pesky federal witholding that AlexC lamented?
Further stunning proof that these taxes are truly voluntary can be found at IRC section 3402(n). Here, Congress has authorized a form called the “withholding exemption certificate” abbreviated “WEC”. The term “withholding exemption certificate” occurs a total of seventeen (17) times in that one statute alone.However, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) has never created an official form for the WEC.
I haven't yet found any information on the status of the legal action since the date of this press release. (Is there an honest judge left anywhere in the United States Federal Government?) Here, however, is Counselor Mitchell's brief essay "Let's Dismantle the IRS: This Racket is Busted"
Let’s Dismantle IRS:
This Racket is Busted
by
Paul Andrew Mitchell
Private Attorney General
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
It’s time to dismantle the Internal Revenue Service. This organization has outlived its usefulness.
The hunt was on, several years ago, when activists like this writer confirmed that IRS was never created by any Act of Congress. It cannot be found in any of the laws which created the U.S. Department of the Treasury.
The U.S. Supreme Court quietly admitted as much, at footnote 23 in Chrysler Corp. v. Brown. In a nation governed by the rule of law, this omission is monumental.
The search for its real origins has taken this nation down many blind alleys, so convoluted and complicated are the statutes and regulations which govern its employees rarely, if ever.
The best explanation now favors its links to Prohibition, the ill-fated experiment in outlawing alcohol.
The Women’s Temperance Movement, we believe, was secretly underwritten by the petroleum cartel, to perfect a monopoly over automotive fuels. Once that monopoly was in place, Prohibition was repealed, leaving alcohol high and dry as the preferred fuel for cars and trucks, and leaving a federal police force inside the several States, to extort money from the American People.
All evidence indicates that IRS is an alias for the Federal Alcohol Administration (“FAA”), which was declared unconstitutional inside the several States by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1935. The result of the high Court’s decision in U.S. v. Constantine confined that FAA to federal territories, like Puerto Rico, where Congress is the “state” legislature.
Further confirmation can be found in a decision by the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Used Tire International, Inc. v. Manual Diaz-Saldana, which identified the latter as the real “Secretary of the Treasury.” The Code of Federal Regulations for Title 27 also identifies this other “Secretary” as an office in San Juan, Puerto Rico.
This is ominous data. It serves to suggest that IRS has no authority whatsoever to mail envelopes from the “Department of the Treasury.” Such obvious deception is prohibited by federal mail fraud statutes, and defined as a predicate to racketeering.
Moreover, the vagueness now proven to frequent the Internal Revenue Code forces a legal conclusion that the entire Code is necessarily void, read “no legal effect.” The high Court’s test for vagueness is obviously violated when men and women of common intelligence cannot agree on its correct meaning, its proper construction, or its territorial application.
Take, for instance, a statute at IRC section 7851. Here, Congress has said that all the enforcement provisions in subtitle F shall take effect on the day after the date “this title” is enacted. These provisions include, for example, filing requirements, penalties for failing to file, and tax evasion.
Guess what?
Title 26 has never been enacted into positive law, rendering every single section in subtitle F a big pile of spaghetti, with no teeth whatsoever. Throughout most federal laws, the consistent legislative practice is to use the term “this title” to refer to a Title of the United States Code.
To make matters worse, conscientious courts (an endangered species) have ruled that taxes cannot be imposed without statutes assigning a specific liability to certain parties.
There are no statutes creating a specific liability for taxes imposed by subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code. This is the set of statutes that impose the federal income tax.
Look at it this way: if Congress imposed a tax on chickens, would that necessarily mean that the chickens are liable for the tax?
Obviously not! Congress would also need to define the farmer, or the consumer, or the wholesaler, as the party liable for paying that tax. Chickens, where are your tax returns?
Without a liability statute, there can be no liability.
This now opens another, deeper layer in this can of rotting worms. If IRS is really using fear tactics to extort an unlawful debt, then it qualifies for careful scrutiny, and prosecution, under the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act aka “RICO”.
How fitting, and how ironic, that IRS is legally domiciled in Puerto RICO.
When we get down to brass tacks, we find that Congress encourages private Citizens to investigate and bust rackets, mainly because it perceived a shortage of public prosecutors talented enough to enforce RICO statutes against organized crime syndicates.
This shortage is the real reason why the RICO statute at 18 U.S.C. 1964 awards triple damages to any party who prevails, using the civil remedies it provides. And, happily, State courts like the Superior Court of California also enjoy original jurisdiction to litigate and issue these remedies.
All of this would approach comedy in the extreme, were it not also the case that IRS launders huge sums of money, every day, into foreign banks chiefly owned by the families that founded the Federal Reserve system.
Did you think the Federal Reserve was federal government? Guess again!
One of the biggest shocks of the last century was an admission by President Reagan’s Grace Commission, that none of the income taxes collected by IRS goes to pay for any federal government services.
Those taxes are paying interest to these foreign banks, and benefit payments to recipients of entitlement programs, like federal pension funds.
So, the next time your neighbors accuse you of being unpatriotic for challenging the IRS, we recommend that you demand from them proof that IRS is really funding any federal government services, like air traffic control, the Pentagon, the Congress, the Courts, or the White House.
Don’t hold your breath.
Honestly, when all the facts are put on a level table top, there is not a single reason why America should put up with this massive fiscal fraud for one more day.
It’s now time to dismantle the Internal Revenue Service.
Keeping all those laundered funds inside this country will result in economic prosperity without precedent in our nation’s history.
Let’s bury IRS beneath the Titanic, where it can rust in peace forever along with the rest of the planet’s jellyfish.
America deserves to be a living, thriving Republic, not another victim of Plank Number Two in the Communist Manifesto.
About the Author:
Paul Andrew Mitchell is a Private Attorney General and
Webmaster of the Supreme Law Library on the Internet:
http://www.supremelaw.org
See also:
“U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Falls Silent in Face of SUBPOENA for Tax Liability Statutes”
“31 Questions and Answers about the IRS”
“What Is the Federal Income Tax?”
“Electronic Censors Found at U.C. Berkeley’s Law School”
“Private Attorney General Backs UCB’s Graduate Instructors”
“Paul Mitchell Blasts Clinton, Rubin for Racketeering”
“Paul Mitchell Applauds House Vote to Kill IRC”
“Paul Mitchell Urges Nation to Boycott IRS”
“The Kick-Back Racket: PMRS”
“Congresswoman Suspected of Income Tax Evasion”
“Our Proposal to Save Social Security”
“Charitable Contributions by the Federal Reserve”
“Legal Notice in re Withholding Exemption Certificates”
“A Cogent Summary of Federal Jurisdictions”
“BATF/IRS -- Criminal Fraud”
“Income Taxes and Government Fraud”
“A Monologue on Federal Fiscal Fraud”
“Miscellaneous Letters of Correspondence”
# # #
I s'pose. I know a guy (and I think you do, too) who makes an impassioned and reasonable sounding case that he does not have to pay taxes because of a non-capitalized 's' in State in the 14th Amendment.
So, that works just fine until he gets a job and has to explain it to HR that "he doesn't need to fill out a W-4 because he is a sovereign citizen of the State of Colorado." I just think this will land you in the same (rhymes with 'jackpot') place.
The sad part of my disbelief, though, is the alacrity with which our State and Federal legislators would rectify any situation that threatened incoming revenue. I don't think that a Congress that just passed a trillion or two in spending last month would allow a return to 19th Century funding.
Posted by: jk at March 13, 2009 10:38 AM
I gave a few minutes thought to the consequences of a tax that everyone has to pay. Since one can't get blood from a turnip and government spending can't stop on a dime, the deficit would be monumental until outflows could be made to match inflows. It would be chaotic - perhaps even disastrous (particularly in urban areas.) But it would be RIGHT.
Posted by: johngalt at March 13, 2009 11:30 AMStop me if I'm just being argumentative. But I think you're falling into the Libertarian trap of "misoverestimating" your electoral support.
Again I suggest that your most optimistic scenario is realized. Justice Ginsberg, writing the concurrent opinion of the court's 8-0 majority (Associate Justice Scalia was hunting with Dick Cheney) vacates the 16th Amendment.
You and I would cheer; Rep Ron Paul and Jeff Flake would jockey for position; The Fair-taxers would fill SPAM-filters everywhere...
...and the rest of the world would act as quickly as it could to overcome this little procedural obstacle. This could threaten health care to children! The AARP would mobilize 60 million hotel-discount card holders with a TV blitz. In the end a crushing majority would line up to get back to the status quo ante before their checks were delayed.
Sad, perhaps, but I cannot look at any recent election cycles and see a desire for a do-over (maybe on "Dancing with the Stars...")
Posted by: jk at March 13, 2009 2:31 PM"... this little procedural obstacle."
Are you suggesting that the Constitution of the United States could be amended by an act of congress, or of the president?
I suppose you have cause there because that's what's been done in the case of the 16th amendment, and others. I'm afraid the constitution has become nothing more than a rallying cry for freedom-loving Americans. It sure doesn't stop our government from doing what it damn pleases.
Posted by: johngalt at March 17, 2009 1:26 PMI'm suggesting that they'll do whatever it takes. If they can ignore it they will, but if they have to, they will break the world land speed record in ratifying a new amendment. They could do it in three days, with very little objection.
Posted by: jk at March 17, 2009 1:54 PMMaybe I'm just a rube. Two-thirds of the members of both houses of congress, then majority vote by legislatures of three-fourths of the states seems a tall order to me. Three days? Really?
And a separate question: You really don't think we could muster 34 senators OR 145 congressmen to keep America as the world's sole Republic?
http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html
February 20, 2009
21st Century Paul Revere
I'm dubbing CNBC's Rick Santelli the Paul Revere of the 21st Century, and his clarion call is "The looters are coming! The looters are coming!"
Video here (You gotta see this!)
"Cuba used to have mansions and a relatively decent economy. They moved from the individual to the collective. Now they're drivin' '54 Chevys. Maybe the last great car to come out of Detroit."(...)
"They're [floor traders on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange] pretty much of the notion that you can't buy your way to prosperity. And if the multiplier that all of these Washington economists are selling us is over one then we never have to worry about the economy again. The government should spend a trillion dollars an hour because we'll get 1.5 trillion back.
(...)
"If you read our founding fathers, people like Benjamin Franklin and Jefferson, what we're doing in this country now are just making them roll over in their graves."
The division is not over race, as AG Holder claimed, but over productivity. The "racism" charge is now merely a distraction. The new administration has contempt for anyone who can earn his own living through industriousness and productive effort. Instead they confiscate wealth from producers and lavish handouts upon the lazy and the corrupt. They are, in the truest sense of the term, looters. And they control the levers of power in the administrative branch of our government. We're about to see if the "separation of powers" model can withstand their assault on the Constitution.
Here's another smackdown worth looking at.
Posted by: T. Greer at February 21, 2009 12:52 AMGood one, tg. And by good I mean, of course, very bad. I love the line "...the Ebenezer Scrooge - Rick Santelli plan where we just let these people rot."
I think Chris Matthews is proof that the media rots your mind far worse than politics. He worked with Tip O'Neill and the leading lights of the Democratic party his whole life and came out well-reasoned, polite and practical. Ten years on MSNBC and he became a raving, frothing, hyper-partisan lunatic.
Sorry for the strong words but I'll stand by the comparison. A politician or advisor has to deal with opposition. Once you get your own show you are the law.
Posted by: jk at February 21, 2009 11:48 AMI love this guy. I have spent the last hour viewing youtube clips of the man, and I really think somone needs to make a Sentelli youtube channel.
Here are my favorites:
*Santelli Reams Liesman for Defending Bernake
*Rick Santelli on Market Intervension
*Santelli pissed off about the bailout
And yes, Chris Matthews is ridiculous. But honestly speaking, I think Santelli was the one who came off better there. For one, he never had to resort to asking who the other guy voted for.
Posted by: T. Greer at February 21, 2009 8:29 PMDecember 24, 2008
Merry Christmas
Hans von Spakovsky tells the story of Christmas 1919, celebrated by his father and 16 others as they skied across the arctic to escape Communism.
I will not excerpt, you'll want to read it all.
December 16, 2008
Jacques Plante Journalism
Montreal goaltender Jacques "Jake the Snake" Plante was known for great goaltending, being the first NHL goalie smart enough to wear a mask, and the occasional bon mot. Having worked between the pipes myself, I kept one of his quotes taped to my monitor for several years: "How would you like a job where, if you make a mistake, a big red light goes on and 18,000 people boo?"
I wonder if Secretary Rice feels that way. Long time readers know my fondness for her knows few bounds. She has been one of the most articulate spokespeople for the administration’s foreign policy. (Okay, that’s not too hard.) She also has a compelling biography which has given her an appreciation for civil rights and the true non-duck-huntin' meaning of our Second Amendment rights.
The striped-pants crowd at State has ameliorated her Sharanskyite stance for freedom more than I'd like, but she has been a rock on Iraq and a staunch friend of Israel. On Iran and North Korea, the administration has not been able to achieve all of its goals. Jacques Plante did not shut out his opponents every game either.
The WSJ Ed Page lights the red lamp today and leads the boos with Condi's Korean Failure. My boys have been pretty tough on Rice. Ambassador John Bolton is held in high esteem there. Bolton, whom I admire for promoting American interests in the UN, doesn't realize that the country does not hunger for his bellicosity. He wants to take a tough line on Iran and North Korea, fine. The administration used all of its political capitol holding the line on Iraq.
I think that was the right choice. The six party talks were a good idea, outsourcing a little diplomacy to China. Diplomacy did not work, surprise. There were not many other options. I'd like Ambassador Bolton, and the WSJ Ed Page to admit that.
The Refugee generally shares Blog Brother JK's favorable view of Condi. (He points out, with some pride, that Condi, Sec. Gale Norton, Sen. Pete Domenici and The Refugee all hail from the same Alma Mater, Denver University. Of course, so does Sec. Madeleine Albright, but you can't win 'em all.)
However, he must diverge with BB JK on the DoS assessment and side with the WSJ. Condi's tenure has seen no improvement in State's proclivity for appeasement and an unwillingness to call out the world's dictators. We continually "pay it forward" only to get an "NSF" in return. "Foggy Bottom" is more than a locale - it's our negotiating strategy with enemies.
JK is correct that N. Korea and Iran are essentially impossible to negotiation with. However, throughout the 20th/21st century history of Secretary of State, we have yet to have one with the integrity and backbone to say, "Having no deal with these thugs is the best we could negotiate, and no deal is better than any deal."
To close out the hockey theme, The Refugee would like to point out that the seven-time national champion DU Pioneers are currently on a seven game winning streak and ranked 5th in the nation for NCAA hockey. Oh, and one more thing: CC sucks!
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at December 16, 2008 4:12 PMWell, they're really my brother's Tigers, not mine, so I'll let the last line slide -- Go Pioneers!
The Refugee sets a pretty high bar for Secretary Rice. She has not cleaned up the Aegean Stables at State nor improved the proclivities of a mind-numbing bureaucracy. She didn't develop a cure for Cancer either.
But she did pave the way for the President's policies in Iraq and, as documented by Kim Strassel (her tinfoil hat repels John Bolton's poisonous thoughts), left substantive improvements in many of the world's trouble spots.
I put Bolton in the same category as the Free-Tibet and fix Darfur crowd. There is a distinct limit to our possibility to "fix things" and far less domestic appetite for additional intervention.
johngalt's dad was a DU engineering professor in the '60's and '70's so I got to go to a few games as a tyke. I loved the little bearded man ('Boone') in a 'coon skin cap mascot for the "Pioneers." Now, the PC police are running him out of town to be replaced with a stylized pigeon.* Sigh.
Nonetheless, GO PI's!
* I searched for 20 minutes and couldn't find a better link than this one.
Posted by: johngalt at December 18, 2008 12:58 AMJG hits a nerve with the Refugee, as Boone was the mascot while he attended school. Chancellor Coomb recently killed Boone for all time because "It does not reflect the cultural diversity that we desire," or some such excuse. So, Chancellor, white guys with beards embarrass you? Besides, how does a hawk/chicken/stylized pigeon reflect these values better - what type of student are you recruiting? Are pinfeathers an entrance requirement?? Yeesh.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at December 18, 2008 3:48 PMDecember 15, 2008
Freedom on the March
Blog Brother Boulder Refugee hopes the reflexive anti-Bush partisans take a teachable moment from the shoe tossin' Muntadhar al-Zeidi. My sanguine-meter is set pretty low on this one, but you have to admit, Iraq is looking pretty free and democratic. Here's the WSJ news pages:
Iraqis Rally in Support of Man Who Threw Shoes at BushBAGHDAD -- Thousands of Iraqis took to the streets Monday to demand the release of a reporter who threw his shoes at President George W. Bush, as Arabs across many parts of the Middle East hailed the journalist as a hero and praised his insult as a proper send-off to the unpopular U.S. president.
I remember the President throwing a strike on a ceremonial first pitch a few years ago. Maybe he should have challenged Zeidi to shoes at 20 paces.
December 14, 2008
The NYTimes's Vision for Iraq
“That conversation must be candid and focused. Americans must be clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave. There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide. Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan and Syria. Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make power grabs. Perhaps most important, the invasion has created a new stronghold from which terrorist activity could proliferate.”Don Surber calls it "Despicable." "But Bush stood tall."
I got the special eight-year-commemorative-Bush-Bashing issue of Reason last week and I have been absorbing all the AP-MSM proclamations that President Obama is inheriting a World destroyed by President Bush. And I may have mentioned that Gene Healy ends his otherwise excellent, important book with a three chapter jeremiad on the evil that is W.
He's no President Coolidge, mind you, but I will be throwing some soft cheers through the end of his term. I recommend Elizabeth Strassel's exit interview with Secretary Rice. Chris Wallace had a great one last Sunday with her as well. The Bush Years have not been a model for limited government and fiscal discipline, but he leaves two solid SCOTUS justices and a world that thankfully does not match the NY Times's vision of the Middle East. The number they don't mention in the War stats, observes Surber, is 24 million Iraqis liberated. I would add Afghanistan and the Palestinian controlled areas even though they have not made the best use of self-directed government.
December 5, 2008
Merry Christmas, My Friend
There is hope this season. On of my leftiest, most Bush-despisin' friends emailed me a poem and a link to a snopes story about it. From Snopes, I learned that the author is Corporal James M. Schmidt, USMC. It has circulated the Internet adapted to Army, Navy, and perhaps Zoroastrian versions. But here is the original, as it appeared in Leatherneck in 1991.
MERRY CHRISTMAS, MY FRIEND
'Twas the night before Christmas, he lived all alone,
In a one-bedroom house made of plaster and stone.
I had come down the chimney, with presents to give
and to see just who in this home did live.As I looked all about, a strange sight I did see,
no tinsel, no presents, not even a tree.
No stocking by the fire, just boots filled with sand.
On the wall hung pictures of a far distant land.With medals and badges, awards of all kind,
a sobering thought soon came to my mind.
For this house was different, unlike any I'd seen.
This was the home of a U.S. Marine.I'd heard stories about them, I had to see more,
so I walked down the hall and pushed open the door.
And there he lay sleeping, silent, alone,
Curled up on the floor in his one-bedroom home.He seemed so gentle, his face so serene,
Not how I pictured a U.S. Marine.
Was this the hero, of whom I'd just read?
Curled up in his poncho, a floor for his bed?His head was clean-shaven, his weathered face tan.
I soon understood, this was more than a man.
For I realized the families that I saw that night,
owed their lives to these men, who were willing to fight.Soon around the Nation, the children would play,
And grown-ups would celebrate on a bright Christmas day.
They all enjoyed freedom, each month and all year,
because of Marines like this one lying here.I couldn't help wonder how many lay alone,
on a cold Christmas Eve, in a land far from home.
Just the very thought brought a tear to my eye.
I dropped to my knees and I started to cry.He must have awoken, for I heard a rough voice,
"Santa, don't cry, this life is my choice
I fight for freedom, I don't ask for more.
My life is my God, my country, my Corps."With that he rolled over, drifted off into sleep,
I couldn't control it, I continued to weep.I watched him for hours, so silent and still.
I noticed he shivered from the cold night's chill.
So I took off my jacket, the one made of red,
and covered this Marine from his toes to his head.
Then I put on his T-shirt of scarlet and gold,
with an eagle, globe and anchor emblazoned so bold.
And although it barely fit me, I began to swell with pride,
and for one shining moment, I was Marine Corps deep inside.I didn't want to leave him so quiet in the night,
this guardian of honor so willing to fight.
But half asleep he rolled over, and in a voice clean and pure,
said "Carry on, Santa, it's Christmas Day, all secure."
One look at my watch and I knew he was right,
Merry Christmas my friend, Semper Fi and goodnight.
December 2, 2008
The Food Is Certainly Better
The central question in Reason Magazine's 40th Anniversary issue is whether we are more free than in 1968 or less. As much as big-L libs love to look at the dark side, about all of them were pretty upbeat. Veronique de Rugy highlights the conundrum "Government has grown, but freedom has grown faster."
As Milton Friedman showed in Capitalism and Freedom, such wealth both feeds and is a byproduct of freedom. On one hand, freedom in economic arrangements produces wealth. This, in turn, produces a demand for more liberty, which then produces more prosperity. Thus, increasing wealth is usually correlated with increasing economic freedom. The deregulations of the airline, telecom, and trucking industries in the 1970s, and the marginal tax rate cuts and control of inflation in the ’80s, contributed to the widespread prosperity of the ’90s.Yet, the wealth accumulation of the last 40 years has also made the government bigger. Real federal spending increased from $774 billion in 1968 to $2.5 trillion in 2008—a 225 percent increase—and federal spending per household grew from $11,800 to roughly $21,000 over that period, in constant dollars. This forms a libertarian paradox: economic freedom and wealth breed not just more political freedom, wealth, and choice but also more government.
David Boaz's book of his collected essays is likewise pretty upbeat. JohnGalt once suggested a freedom meter. Like the end-of-the-world clock, we could dial it up or down based on elections, legislation, and our moods that day.
I watch a nephew discover Ayn Rand and the liberty movement (I gave him my 40th Anniversary issue). I feel sorry that he did not discover the movement when Ronald Wilson Reagan was President. On the other hand, he gets the Internet. Ultimately, I have to accept that the additional wealth is a good tiebreaker for 2008.
I'll play the contrarian - color me partially unconvinced.
I've read the article, and what stands out to me is that there's no satisfactory definition of "economic freedom" stated. I'm left with the idea that the writer sees "economic freedom" and "having more money to spend on more stuff." Indeed, if we're going to measure economic freedom by the number of poor people (as defined by the Census Bureau) who own air conditioning, color televisions, and refrigerators, then she is right - and it's time to declare victory in the War on Poverty so they'll stop taxing my income to death and using the revenue to buy air conditioners, televisions, and refrigerators for the so-called poor. We have the richest poor in the world here.
But "economic freedom" must also mean "the freedom to spend the money I rightfully earn in the ways I see fit, or to not spend it at all if I so desire." If I own an asset (let us say a plot of land) that I cannot use in a sensible way as I see fit (such as to build a business, as a result of the government declaring it a wetland), then I have wealth but no economic freedom in that regard.
The same applies to what should be called individual unfunded mandates. If I have ten extra dollars, then I have more wealth; but if the government outlaws cheap incandescent light bulbs and requires me by law to spend an extra twenty dollars a year on compact fluorescents, I have less economic freedom. If my wife, who (bless her heart) loves pork rinds, suddenly cannot enjoy them because the nannystate's diet wing bans them now that we can afford to add them to the grocery list, then we lack economic freedom.
Look at the whole concept of Tax Freedom Day. With some fluctuation, Tax Freedom Day has advanced later in the year as time goes by, and that does not take into account those individual unfunded mandates. It also doesn't take into account the effect on the cost of goods purchased with my increased wealth due to government meddling in markets and production. Finally, it doesn't take into account the federal debt, which is a bondage - though a bondage postponed.
Wait until the government gives us universal health care and starts nationalizing industries, and see how much economic freedom we lose.
I see it as a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. I doubt that "wealth accumulation of the last 40 years has also made government bigger." Instead, I see it more as a matter of, as Americans created more wealth, our government became greedier and demanded a bigger and bigger piece of it. Government does not create wealth; at best, it can provide an environment where the citizens can create wealth. Our government, as a result of its felt need to regulate and dictate more and more aspects of our lives, has cost us freedoms, both economically and politically.
I'll wait until later in the day to scroll down the page and play village contrarian on the issue of immigration.
Posted by: Keith at December 2, 2008 4:02 PMThe problem is that you cannot quantify freedom. You're either free or you're not. (Austrian economists like me tend to reject quantification of abstract concepts like "good" and "bad," which we hold cannot be measured objectively.)
We were not truly economically free under Nixon's wage-price controls. We're certainly not truly economically free today. But how do you assign a value to gasoline lines and stagflation versus a federal bailout and New York's mandate that all health insurance cover everything (meaning men are insured for hysterectomies)?
Different times, same BS, same problem. Don't be satisfied today just because you have your iPod, hi-def TV and other toys. A gilded cage is still a cage, so the saying goes. Be willing to demand freedom, even if it means having less wealth.
Ask yourself: do you love wealth more than you love liberty?
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at December 3, 2008 11:20 PMDecember 1, 2008
Thanksgiving, CCXIV
A note from a Navy Seal:
Hat-tip: Hugh Hewitt
November 21, 2008
We Won.
A group is promoting tomorrow, 11-22, as V-I Day to celebrate a US Victory in Iraq.
I haven't wanted to step too far on the sunny side of a fragile situation but today I am ready to claim victory. A prescient pundit (Jay Nordlinger? Mark Steyn?) said -- way back when -- that if we do well in Iraq, we can look forward to their protesting against us, that a free country that hates America was a sign of success. Well.
Yahoo/APBAGHDAD – Thousands of followers of a radical Shiite cleric protested a proposed U.S.-Iraqi security deal Friday, burning an effigy of President George W. Bush in the same square where Iraqis beat a toppled Saddam Hussein statue five years ago.
Chanting and waving flags, Muqtada al-Sadr's followers filled Firdous Square to protest the pact that would allow American troops to stay for three more years.
I saw video of shouting and pushing in the Iraqi Parliament yesterday. Folks in suits and nice haircuts were throwing stacks of paper. This blog is named for Natan Sharansky's book that bifurcates between fear societies and free societies. There have been a million mistakes in Iraq, and I am sympathetic to an informed and reasoned suggestion that we should never have gone in. But we have flipped a fear society to a free society -- and I will never apologize for that.
johngalt: that day can't come soon enough - and with him already being branded a "house Negro" by one of their number, that day will arrive rapidly. The real question is what Obama will do about it when it happens.
I dread the day that these same people decide we're weak and spineless enough to make their next attack on American soil. We could run an office pool on when and where that will happen. I wonder if his fanatical groupies will figure out he's not who they thought he was before that day comes.
But those people yelling in parliament can take up guns very quickly... heck, most of them were terrorists (or something close to it) before they got elected.
The problem comes when the factions cannot settle their disputes by means of yelling at each other. Once that happens, it is all too easy to pick your guns back up...
I also do not think it is fear of U.S. retaliation that has kept terrorists from attacking America. Honestly, we can act spineless or stoic- those bent on reaping terror will do so if they can. To imagine otherwise is to lull yourself into a false sense of security.
~T. Greer, nitpickingly pointing out that the "house negro" statement came from Zalwahiri, al-Qaeda's 2nd in command- quite different from the Mahdi mob burning Bush's effigies.
And the Germans could descend into Socialism -- no, wait a minute -- but that does not nullify their liberation from fascism.
I'm thinking that we have provided Benjamin Franklin’s famous "Republic if you can keep it." Sure it could go bad but its present signs are extremely encouraging.
I hope you're right that our promised future spinelessness will be without cost. Closing up Gitmo, sending terrorists home, pulling out of Iraq on a domestic political schedule and treating future attacks with law enforcement and not military response might scare the hummus out of our enemies but it seems counter-intuitive.
jk, I don't know if I can buy that argument. After all, couldn't have Bush said the same thing back in 2003 when Saddam was ousted? We did liberate the Iraqis from the Baathists- surely the next five years of violence were just the Iraqis failing to "keep" their society free?
Honestly, I have problems seeing where the cost of our spinelessness comes in. Your average terrorist is a fanatic. He expects to die for his cause. Gitmo is nothing but a source of anger for him. The supposed toughness of America really is an irrelevant factor.
Let me put it this way- did Al Qaeda decide to launch a terrorist attack in 2001 because we elected a Texas wussie?
I will qualify this by saying that withdrawing from Iraq is a bit different than the other examples you mention- like the videos of roadside bombs, footage of American troops withdrawing from Iraq could help the terrorists by letting them claim that they won. However, I think the link between Domestic treatment of terrorists and number of terrorists committed to harming the U.S. is small.
~T. Greer
"The supposed toughness of America really is an irrelevant factor."
I'll argue with that one. The "average" terrorist may be a fanatic but far fewer of them will sign on with a group that is clearly getting its ass kicked around the world by a determined adversary. Volunteering to be a Jihadi Joe was far more attractive when the biggest threats to your existence were UN resolutions, occasional rocket explosions at the neighborhood milk factory, and the very real possibility of jail time should you be unlucky enough to get arrested while visiting New York City.
Posted by: johngalt at November 22, 2008 8:56 PM@JG: Someone who chooses to hijack an airplane and ram it into a building is prepared to die. I have a hard time believing that such a man really cares if his failure to kill himself will result in CIA torture or jail time.
Of course, there is a difference between destroying terrorist groups and their affiliates across the world and increasing the level of punishment the odd terrorist receives if he is unsuccessful.
One works and one doesn't.
November 15, 2008
Blast From the Past
An Insty post dated 9-15-2001:
BE PATRIOTIC: BUY SOMETHING. That's what Scott Norvell says and he's got a point. I went to the mall yesterday, and it was deserted. It's actually magnifying the terrorism's damage when people stay home and the economy suffers.Okay, people will make up for lost time soon. But going out to a movie, or dinner, or shopping isn't just good for the economy. It's a way of carrying on life as normal. That's a victory of sorts, too.
President Bush has been completely maligned for telling people to "go shopping" after 9/11. I forget what/how/if he said, but it has joined the lore of President GHWB and the supermarket scanner and VP Quayle's "You Say Poh-taht-oe." When you remember those days and the feeling that we would never return to "normalcy" (Thanks, President Harding!) that we enjoy today, it was pretty decent advice.
Hat-tip: An older, wiser Insty who thinks we may soon be called into service again: "We shall fight them in the strip malls, we shall fight them in the restaurants, we shall fight them online -- we shall never surrender!"
November 11, 2008
Happy Veterans' Day
Not a better way to spend it than a quick contribution to The Injured Marines Semper Fi Fund
Hat-tip: Hugh
UPDATE: Terri has four choices.
And Taranto links to Cigars for Soldiers Boy, that''s a "Nuke the Gay Whales for Jesus" outfit -- how many ways can you annoy a leftist?
November 5, 2008
Quote of the Day
I spent most of the morning in a room full of Sons of Iraq leadership, watching Al Arabia's coverage of said election. Explaining the electoral college through an interpreter is, in case you've never done it, kind of an adventure.-- Milblogger Bad Dogs and SuchFrom a nice collection of military bloggers' reactions at Mudville Gazette
October 22, 2008
American Journalism Dismantled by ... a Democrat
If John McCain is going to win this election it will be with the help of great Americans like Orson Scott Card. A science fiction writer (who's work dagny likes) he's also a Democrat and a newspaper columnist published in North Carolina. And according to Rush Limbaugh (where I first heard this) he's far enough left to be pro gun control. And yet, he takes American newspapers apart:
I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.
(...)
This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.
(...)
Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?
I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."
(...)
But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.
(...)
If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe — and vote as if — President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.
If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats — including Barack Obama — and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans — then you are not journalists by any standard.
You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city.
Every blogger should link this column.
Every American should send it to his local newspaper.
October 20, 2008
Turkmeni Democracy.
Haven't had a real "Freedom on the March" post in a while, but Scholar's Stage links to an article in Diplomatic Courier called Can Democracy Truly Blossom in Turkmenistan? It seems the fiat of wacky "Turkmenbashi" has been replaced by a written Constitution. DC concedes there are issues:
Many feel that the constitution lacks components vital to a functioning democracy, such as a constitutional court and freedom of expression and that the document was designed to please foreign investors. Essentially, the document was not created for the people, but for the elites and to open up markets to stimulate economic reform.
Prosperitarian rule in a land that ends in S-T-A-N is nothing to sneeze at. Nor is the small Asian Republic's willingness to stand up to neighbor Russia:
Nevertheless, Turkmenistan’s move towards democracy is favorable to the West. Acting as an economic ally, Turkmenistan stands to gain more than it would lose by developing amicable relations with Europe and the United States. This provides a counterweight for Western states against a “Resurgent Russia” that they seem concerned about.The opening of Turkmen markets has the potential to damage Russo-Turkmen relations and hurt Russia’s economy. With Russia being ruthless on payments and on the natural gas supply to Europe including many former Soviet republic and satellite states—Ukraine and the Czech Republic—many are more than likely to flock to Turkmenistan for gas. Turkmen gas will be cheaper and there will be less politics involved. This would threaten Russia’s energy supremacy in Central Asia and in Europe weakening Russia’s status as an energy abundant state.
Perhaps the light of liberty lives, albeit in France, Canada, and Turkmenistan.
October 3, 2008
Banned By YouTube
Do y'all watch Pat Condell? Samizdata links frequently to his deeply offensive -- and absolutely hilarious -- anti-religious rants. YouTube is blocking it, so samizdat Adriana Lukas is trying to spread the word. I'm happy to oblige:
Hm, do we link to him frequently? I saw this guy for the first time on Geoff Arnold's blog and it's the blocking by YouTube rather than his views that got me to link to him...
Posted by: Adriana at October 4, 2008 10:38 AMFrequently being in the eye of the beholder, I guess. I have seen him only through Samizdata and I have seen him three or four times.
Condell is a little more incendiary than I prefer around ThreeSources but, like you, I will lend an IP address to avoid censorship. He has a right to be heard.
Offensive? Only to Islamists. (In this post at least.)
Posted by: johngalt at October 6, 2008 2:55 PMAugust 22, 2008
Random House Bows To Catholic Pressure, Pulls Novel
KIDDING!
Had you there, didn't I? Actually it was a novel about the nine year old wife of the Prophet Mohammed, and author Sherry Jones is now looking for another publisher.
"Random House made the decision to cancel its US publication of the novel 'The Jewel of Medina' after much deliberation and with great reluctance," a statement from the publisher sent to AFP said."The decision was based on advice from scholars of Islam, among several creditable sources, that publication of this book might be offensive to some in the Muslim community and could incite acts of violence by a small, radical segment."
Hat-tip: Eidelblog, where Perry wonders about a possible double standard.
It's strange. I'm trying to think of when Catholics "strongly advised" Dan Brown and Doubleday regarding "The Da Vinci Code," or when Protestants issued death threats against someone for mocking Jesus. You might remember, Catholics did protest against "The Golden Compass," but show me one person or structure that was ever threatened.
This is a dangerous slope. And another reminder of the unseriousness of the civil libertarians. I get goose bumps when I think of the ACLU defending the right of Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois (man I hate Illinois Nazis!) but that was a long time ago.
This means that the terrorists have achieved some of their objectives. That is, change the behavior of non-Muslims to "respect" Islam. It emboldens further fear and intimidation. More precisely, the double standard that PE notes subjugates all other religions to Islam. We must not allow ourselves to be intimiated.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at August 22, 2008 11:58 AMIt's the militant arm of the Salvation Army we should be worried about.
Sheesh... there are literally tens of thousands of people (some may be your neighbors) who are trained to use those bells as truncheons.
Let's not even discuss those buckets. This is a family blog.
Posted by: AlexC at August 22, 2008 12:15 PM(The Knights have those swords, ac!)
Br, your tense betrays you -- as you point out, we have already allowed ourselves to be intimidated. Game over.
Posted by: jk at August 22, 2008 12:46 PMWe have certainly lost a few battles, but The Refugee doesn't think the war/game is over yet. Americans have a history of being pushed just so far. This Refugee is not ready to break out the prayer rugs just yet.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at August 22, 2008 4:57 PMI suspect you're right. It just seems that publishing is now lost to freedom. First it was academia, then media, now to see Random House afraid to publish a book after we saw booksellers capitulate on Salman Rushdie in the 90s.
Disheartening.
August 5, 2008
Requiescat in Pace
A blog that takes its name from Natan Sharansky would be remiss to not spend a few words on the passing of his great compatriot and fellow dissident, Alexander Solzhenitsyn. I'll offer links to better writers:
James Lileks (HT Insty):
Naturally, I was in the perfect mood to read the entire Gulag Archipelago. I got all three volumes from the drugstore – which should have told me something about the land in which I lived, that one could buy this work from a creaky wire rack at the drugstore – and it taught me much about the Soviet Union and the era of Stalin. After that I could never quite understand the people who viewed the US and the USSR as moral equals, or regarded our history as not only indelibly stained but uniquely so. Reading Solzhenitsyn makes it difficult to take seriously the people in this culture who insist that Dissent has been squelched. Brother, you have no idea.
Solzhenitsyn speaking at Harvard in 1978:
Some people sincerely wanted all wars to stop just as soon as possible; others believed that there should be room for national, or communist, self-determination in Vietnam, or in Cambodia, as we see today with particular clarity. But members of the U.S. antiwar movement wound up being involved in the betrayal of Far Eastern nations, in a genocide and in the suffering today imposed on 30 million people there. Do those convinced pacifists hear the moans coming from there? Do they understand their responsibility today? Or do they prefer not to hear?
The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page:
Solzhenitsyn warned of "an atmosphere of moral mediocrity, paralyzing man's noblest impulses," and a "tilt of freedom in the direction of evil . . . evidently born primarily out of a humanistic and benevolent concept according to which there is no evil inherent to human nature." His own prison-camp experience after World War II told him evil was all too real and had to be confronted.However dourly Russian his warnings often were, Solzhenitsyn fortified the West with the truth and will to triumph in the Cold War. The great, inspiring irony of "Ivan Denisovich" is that it ends with Shukhov concluding that, even amid his icy prison, the day was "almost a happy one."
I read a funny article a few weeks ago about how Hollywood releases a new McCarthyism movie about every year to great fanfare, yet never a movie about the depredation of Communism. I wish they'd skip next years telling of the blacklist and trade it in for a heroic movie about this world hero.
Shhh. We Won.
Don't tell the NYTimes, or Senator Obama. But the war in Iraq is over and we won.
Bret Stephens claims this in his Global View column on the WSJ Ed Page. And I wholeheartedly agree. Stephens won a $100 bet from Francis Fukuyama "that Iraq would be a mess five years after the invasion." Stephens collected on the basis of troop casualties but takes the time to enumerate what has been accomplished.
Here's a partial list: Saddam is dead. Had he remained in power, we would likely still believe he had WMD. He would have been sitting on an oil bonanza priced at $140 a barrel. He would almost certainly have broken free from an already crumbling sanctions regime. The U.S. would be faced with not one, but two, major adversaries in the Persian Gulf. Iraqis would be living under a regime that, in an average year, was at least as murderous as the sectarian violence that followed its collapse. And the U.S. would have seemed powerless to shape events.Instead, we now have a government that does not threaten its neighbors, does not sponsor terrorism, and is unlikely to again seek WMD. We have a democratic government, a first for the Arab world, and one that is increasingly capable of defending its people and asserting its interests.
We have a defeat for al Qaeda. Critics carp that had there been no invasion, there never would have been al Qaeda in Iraq. Maybe. As it is, thousands of jihadists are dead, al Qaeda has been defeated on its self-declared "central battlefield," and the movement is largely discredited on the Arab street and even within Islamist circles.
We also have -- if still only prospectively -- an Arab bulwark against Iran's encroachments in the region. But that depends on whether we simply withdraw from Iraq, or join it in a lasting security partnership.
After "Mission Accomplished," supporters are too chicken to use the W word. But I ain't: we won the war. Much work remains in Iraq, and the wider war continues, but Iraq has been won.
July 25, 2008
Quote of the Day
Sen. Obama did not want to have a trip to see our wounded warriors perceived as a campaign event when his visit was to show his appreciation for our troops and decided instead not to go. -- Obama adviser, Air Force Maj. Gen. Scott Gration (Ret.)From Jake Tapper. Apparently, it would be inappropriate to visit the troops as a campaign stop, but it's fine to have a "citizen of the world" campaign rally in Berlin.
Hat-tip: Instapundit
July 4, 2008
1215 Reenlist in Baghdad
BAGHDAD – How are you spending your 4th of July holiday? While most Americans probably slept, 1,215 Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines raised their right hands and committed to a combined 5,500 years of additional service during the largest reenlistment ceremony in the history of the American military. Beneath a large American flag which dwarfed even the enormous chandelier that Saddam Hussein had built for the Al Faw Palace, members of all services, representing all 50 states took the oath administered by Gen. David Petraeus, Commander of Multi-National Forces Iraq.Petraeus, reiterating earlier remarks made by Command Sergeant Major Hill, said that the unprecedented ceremony sends a “message to friend and foe alike.” He told those assembled that it is “impossible to calculate the value of what you are giving to our country . . . For no bonus, no matter the size, can adequately compensate you for the contribution each of you makes as a custodian of our nation’s defenses.”
Happy Fourth! Hat-tip: Instapundit.
UPDATE:
Words fail. To share a country with these young men and women.
June 20, 2008
Pictures From Ramadi
A superb post about Ramadi reconstruction, starting with a traffic jam on Route Michigan. "Last year it was empty except for US soldiers trading shots with Al Qaeda."
And don't miss this set of pictures (.pdf file). Nine pictures of hope and change that the defeat-at-all-costs crowd is willing to give away,
Hey, I recognize the Arabic on the back of that cart. It means "The closer you are, the slower I go"!
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at June 23, 2008 1:28 PMJune 18, 2008
Chicks Love a Guy in Uniform
http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/06/this_is_importa_1.html
Hat-tip: Insty
June 13, 2008
Irish Eyes are Smilin'
I'm in the habit of having a beer every day, either with my evening meal or after it. I've got a case of Guinness in the fridge that I use for satisfaction of that occasional craving for cream stout. Tonight, I'll lift not one but two pints of Ireland's proud heritage to the brave and fortunate souls of that fine emerald isle, for they were given a rare say in their own affairs and told the peddlers of 'world government' to piss off:
All 27 European member states have to ratify the treaty for it to go come into force next year. So far it has been approved by 18 members including Britain, but Ireland is the only country to put it to a public vote.(...)
The outcome was triumph for a highly-effective No Campaign masterminded by the Libertas group led by the multimillionaire Declan Ganley.
Libertas argued that the Treaty would undermine Ireland’s influence in Europe, would open the door to interference in taxation and enshrine EU law above Irish law.
For Brian Cowen, the newly-installed Irish Prime Minister, the result was a disaster. All the main political parties, aside from Sinn Fein, had supported the Treaty and made strenuous efforts to win the referendum.
Mr Cowen now has to face the embarrassment of explaining to his fellow European leaders why he failed to persuade his nation to adopt the Treaty.
Why did he fail to "persuade his nation" to adopt the Treaty? Because the decision was put in the hands of its citizens instead of its government. Each group can be expected to act in its own self-interest and in Europe, as in America, those interests are more and more incongruous.
UPDATE: I beg a thousand pardons for the carelessness of this ill-traveled yank and respectfully replace "British Isle" with emerald isle. (We'll tell the bloody queen to piss off straight away too!)
The Republic of Ireland is one of the great, last holdouts for freedom in Europe. Low taxes, generous incentives for entrepreneurship, an interesting health care model. Sadly, they have banned smoking in Pubs, so nobody's perfect.
Enjoy your Guinness, but I'd be a little more cautious about calling it a "British Isle." That's not going to win you a lot of friends, Colonist.
May 20, 2008
An Excellent Charity
Spirit of America helps the US Military to help in Iraq and Afghanistan. They get school supplies, and soccer balls, and clothing that US forces can use to help in the communities they serve. I invite you to peruse the website and see the great projects.
It seems that they have a special opportunity to raise funds before Memorial Day, in the form of a matching grant.
Greetings Friends and Supporters!In honor of Memorial Day and National Military Appreciation Month, an anonymous donor from the Pacific Northwest has presented Spirit of America with a challenge. . .if we can raise $5,000 in the next 72 hours (3 days), he pledges to match that and here's the real bonus. . .if we can raise that $5,000 in the first 24 hours, he will continue to match donations all the way up to $10,000 over the next 3 days!
It is an awesome and very deserving charity. You can give here.
April 28, 2008
A Prize Worth Having
Venezuelan Student Movement Leader Awarded $500,000 Milton Friedman Liberty Prize
Washington, D.C. –The Cato Institute has announced that Yon Goicoechea, leader of the pro-democracy student movement in Venezuela that successfully prevented President Hugo Chávez’s regime from seizing broad dictatorial powers in December 2007, has been awarded the 2008 Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty.A 23-year-old law student, Mr. Goicoechea plays a pivotal role in organizing and voicing opposition to the erosion of human and civil rights in his country. In his commitment to a modern Venezuela, Goicoechea emphasizes tolerance and the human right to seek prosperity.
Venezuela’s student movement emerged in May of 2007 in response to a government-ordered shutdown of the nation’s oldest private television station, RCTV. In the face of ongoing death threats and continual intimidation due to his prominent and vocal leadership, Mr. Goicoechea has been indispensible in organizing massive, peaceful student protest marches that have captured the world’s attention.
Well done, Yon! Hat-tip: Rick Sincrere
April 15, 2008
Ambassador Bolton
I have great respect for Ambassador John Bolton and consider it a Senate crime that he was not confirmed -- imagine, an American ambassador pursuing American interests at the UN!
All the same, his bellyaching about the President's North Korea policy is becoming tiresome. He has another guest editorial in the WSJ today (I think this is the 491st -- and he has appeared on their FOX News show as well). I have no substantive disagreement with his call for a hard line -- were I President, we'd have invaded last Thursday.
But I don't understand who or what is served by his impolitic tone:
President George W. Bush is fond of comparing himself to Ronald Reagan. But as he meets with South Korean President Lee Myung-bak in Washington this week, his policy regarding North Korea's nuclear weapons program looks more like something out of Bill Clinton's or Jimmy Carter's playbook.
Tearing down President Bush might advance Bolton's popularity, but I don't see it advancing his interest or position. I don't think President Obama is going to be significantly tougher, yet his constant harping damages the Republican brand and makes it more likely that we'll elect someone who will have Kim Jong Il in for a State Dinner.
Of course Republicans can criticize President Bush. We may have done that once or twice here. But the Bolton attacks are constant, relentless, and fail to account for other concerns: Iraq, Iran, the opposition party in Congress. Nor do they seem to include the decorum and respect I think he owes a man who nominated him to the U.N.
April 14, 2008
Putting ThreeSources' Weight Behind Instapundit
|
With a straight face, I add my nano-influence to Professor Reynolds.
I ordered a copy of Michael Yon's book. Yon has done much to promote the idea of liberty and victory in Iraq, has provided an awesome example of blog quality and influence, and has given us some spectacular reads. I gave him a little money a while back. But I think buying the book helps him, demonstrates support for a pro-troop viewpoint -- and I bet it will be a helluva read. |
April 1, 2008
Islamic Tolerance
Assemble your own segue:
Jonah Goldberg reacts to Fitna and compares it to "Darwin Fish." (HT-Terri at I Think ^(Link) Therefore I Err [Happy Blogiversary!])
It's fine for Muslim moderates to say they aren't part of the cancer; and that some have, in response to the film, is a positive sign. But more often, diagnosing or even observing this cancer -- in film, book or cartoon -- is dubbed "intolerant" while calls for violence, censorship and even murder are treated as understandable, if regrettable, expressions of well-deserved anger.
Blog Brother Cyrano sends a link to The Child and the Invader It's on MEMRI TV I cannot embed, but watch a couple of these. These cartoons get their plotlines from Itchy and Scratchy, but cast adorable blue-eyed Persian children as the mice and a cartoonishly evil soldier as the poor cat. The Invader has a Star of David (subtlety is not a family value!)
These cartoons made Brother Cyrano angry, but they kind of scared me. The plotlines are transparently stupid but the production values are very good. The animation itself is clever and professional. Pretty dang good propaganda.
The issue is always always always that good Christians are expected to pony up taxes to support "Piss Christ" while so many of our Islamic friends riot at cartoons. Goldberg is correct in pointing out a middle offense of moderates' tacit approval. Free speech is the freedom to offend, as long as it's not an incumbent Senator within 60 days of an election. Everybody else needs to learn to live with it.
March 18, 2008
Hitch Was Right!
Slate magazine is celebrating the fifth anniversary of the invasion (liberation, anybody?) of Iraq. And boy, do they know how to party:
Slate has asked a number of writers who originally supported the war to answer the question, "Why did we get it wrong?"
They made the mistake of asking the question of Christopher Hitchens, and he delivers a beauty:
I am one of those who, for example, believes that the global conflict that began in August 1914 did not conclusively end, despite a series of "fragile truces," until the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union. This is not at all to redefine warfare and still less to contextualize it out of existence. But when I wrote the essays that go to make up A Long Short War: The Postponed Liberation of Iraq, I was expressing an impatience with those who thought that hostilities had not really "begun" until George W. Bush gave a certain order in the spring of 2003.
Though "a hash" was made of the effort so far, Hitchens enumerates the successes:
But I would nonetheless maintain that this incompetence doesn't condemn the enterprise wholesale. A much-wanted war criminal was put on public trial. The Kurdish and Shiite majority was rescued from the ever-present threat of a renewed genocide. A huge, hideous military and party apparatus, directed at internal repression and external aggression was (perhaps overhastily) dismantled. The largest wetlands in the region, habitat of the historic Marsh Arabs, have been largely recuperated. Huge fresh oilfields have been found, including in formerly oil free Sunni provinces, and some important initial investment in them made. Elections have been held, and the outline of a federal system has been proposed as the only alternative to a) a sectarian despotism and b) a sectarian partition and fragmentation. Not unimportantly, a battlefield defeat has been inflicted on al-Qaida and its surrogates, who (not without some Baathist collaboration) had hoped to constitute the successor regime in a failed state and an imploded society. Further afield, a perfectly defensible case can be made that the Syrian Baathists would not have evacuated Lebanon, nor would the Qaddafi gang have turned over Libya's (much higher than anticipated) stock of WMD if not for the ripple effect of the removal of the region's keystone dictatorship.
All those writing ass-covering essays in the series need to address why those goals were wrong or not worth the effort expended.
February 25, 2008
Worthy Donation
I hope you all got a chance to see Ezra Levant's defending himself from the Alberta Human Rights Commission. It's entertaining to see a pugnacious instead of submissive response to a tinhorn bureaucrat.
Blog Brother Cyrano emails a recommendation too support Levant against lawsuits.
Over the past month, the public’s reaction to seeing their government interrogate a journalist has snowballed into a national discussion about freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the separation of mosque and state. What started out as an issue reserved to the blogosphere and talk radio has jumped into the mainstream media, and even into Parliament. To my delight, the Canadian public – across the political spectrum – has been overwhelmingly supportive of free speech and critical of these Orwellian commissions, and groups like the Canadian Association of Journalists and PEN Canada have recently weighed in, too, and very vigorously.We’re winning in the court of public opinion – and I say “we”, because it was the blogosphere that moved this story from the “undernews” to where it is today.
Well, now I’m being threatened with a lawsuit because of our campaign for freedom.
Not a bad way to spend a few bucks, if you can. The way I see it, you're either with Levant or you're with the 7th Century fanatics who cannot weather a cartoon.
December 26, 2007
A Thank You Letter
On Michael Yon's site from LTC Jim Crider, thanking America for letting him serve us so proudly.
The experience of war changes people. For some it is a negative change but most manage to absorb the experience and use it to make themselves stronger. I have said goodbye to a mortally wounded soldier in the hospital, spoken to grieving family members of our casualties, and tried to comfort soldiers who just lost their best friend in a single violent moment. I have been under fire, looked insurgents in the eye, and seen corruption up close. I have also seen people emerge from oppression and live with hope for the first time in years. I have seen children reach up and grasp the hands of American soldiers just because they trust them. I have felt the desire to help and then been given the resources to do it. Finally, I have felt the close knit camaraderie that develops when you serve with a group of people fighting for a cause larger than self. Yes, this experience has changed me. I am stronger, more driven, and humbled all at the same time.
Those who know me know I am not often speechless. But this one time...read the whole thing.
Hat-tip: Insty
December 20, 2007
Me and Vlad
As a former TIME Magazine Person of the Year laureate myself, I was saddened by this year's choice. I don't line up with Hugh Hewitt and Governor Romney too frequently, but they are right this time.
General David Petraeus should have been the pick. Putin will use the cover to propagate totalitarianism, Petraeus -- and the troops -- should be rewarded for their unexpected and improbable accomplishments.
December 13, 2007
Diyala or Duluth?
Nope, it's not apples-to-apples and it is not statistically meaningful. But that does not make it uninteresting:
The tragedy of Ice and IEDs
Tragically, 32 people have died in the US since Sunday as a result of ice storms in the midwestI would like to take this opportunity to point out that during the same time frame (Sun-Wed) only 2 US military service members have died in Iraq, and only one of those was due to hostile action.
Interesting, and a great reminder to the "grim milestone" crowd that a 0% death rate is not the standard of comparison for peacetime.
November 27, 2007
The Twelfth Imam
Osama Bin-Laden had it all wrong. Why convert the Infidel with the sword?
The 7th Century is over and the Great Satan is now for sale:
NEW YORK - Wall Street rebounded sharply Tuesday after the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority said it will invest $7.5 billion in Citigroup Inc. — a vote of confidence for the nation's largest bank, which has suffered severe losses amid the ongoing crisis in the mortgage market. The Dow Jones industrials rose 150 points.
Don't think I have lost my free-trader instincts. I do not seriously mean to compare Bin-Laden religious hooliganism with a legitimate business trade (especially one that sent the DJIA up 150 points!) At the same time, I'd suggest that the Muslims of the world embrace modernity (as all of my Muslim friends have) and engage people with ideas and trade.
UPDATE: I removed a line with which I was not comfortable, celebrating Persian and Arab successes in innovation and trade. It was complimentary but I don't want to get into ethnic stereotyping.
Well, if the turban fits, right? :)
Arabs were among the greatest traders, which is one of their great lost legacies. Sinbad the Sailor wasn't an adventurer first; his seven voyages weren't pleasure cruises.
As I pointed out to someone yesterday, the dollars come home to roost. Arabs gain nothing by sitting on the cash they receive by selling us oil. And how wonderful the U.S. economy might be that even a troubled company like Citi (if you believe the news hype) can draw that kind of investment.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at November 28, 2007 3:41 PMNovember 20, 2007
Don't Tell the "High Life' Man
Even the NYTimes is reporting good news from Baghdad today, Breitbart finds
Baghdad by night -- juice bars, neon lights, bustling streets
And then, suddenly, you've arrived and the mirage has become an oasis of generator-driven light; a colourful jumble of trendy juice bars, cosy restaurants, fruit shops, roadside eateries and fish vendors, where children play, families dine and lovers meet."Even two or three months ago we would have been afraid to come here at night," said 20-year-old Hussein Salah, an off-duty soldier, slurping a milkshake with his wife, Shihad, at the Mishmesha (apricot) juice bar in Baghdad's relatively safe Karrada suburb.
"Now we sometimes sit outside here till one or two in the morning. It is quite safe. The security situation is vastly improved," said Salah, the orange light from a nearby flashing palm alternatively brightening and dimming his clean-shaven face.
Declines in Iraqi civilian casualties and a sharp reduction in bomb and mortar attacks have sparked optimism that the capital is at last starting to revive.
It's a short step from juice bars to Appletinis, however, and soon I fear the Miller High Life Man will pull up in an armored Humvee and revoke some poor Iraqi's Miller license...
Hat-tip: Hugh
Strange, I can't post a reply to this one.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at November 22, 2007 3:04 PMNovember 7, 2007
Freedom of Worship
Insty posts an email and this pic from Michael Yon:
I photographed men and women, both Christians and Muslims, placing a cross atop the St. John's Church in Baghdad. They had taken the cross from storage and a man washed it before carrying it up to the dome. A Muslim man had invited the American soldiers from 'Chosen' Company 2-12 Cavalry to the church, where I videotaped as Muslims and Christians worked and rejoiced at the reopening of St John's, an occasion all viewed as a sign of hope. The Iraqis asked me to convey a message of thanks to the American people. 'Thank you, thank you,' the people were saying. One man said, 'Thank you for peace.' Another man, a Muslim, said 'All the people, all the people in Iraq, Muslim and Christian, is brother.' The men and women were holding bells, and for the first time in memory freedom rang over the ravaged land between two rivers.
A beloved but moonbat relative of mine works almost full time now to establish a US Department of Peace. I recommend 'Chosen' Company 2-12 Cavalry, they seem to be doing a hell of a job.
UPDATE: Chris Muir's take.
November 6, 2007
There's a Grim Milestone in There Somewhere
Wait, wait -- there's gotta be some some bad news in here...Hold the Presses!! I found It!! Before it got better, it was worse!
AP: 2007 is deadliest year for US in IraqThe grim milestone passed despite a sharp drop in U.S. and Iraqi deaths here in recent months, after a 30,000-strong U.S. force buildup. There were 39 deaths in October, compared to 65 in September and 84 in August.
Those AP guys are good, give 'em props.
I hear before modern alternative medicine, MILLIONS died from the flu. EVEN WHEN YOU GAVE THEM THE VACCINE! If they had only chanted and burnt eco-sensitive incense ...
Posted by: mdmhvonpa at November 6, 2007 12:11 PMSick thing is, while 2007 was the deadliest year in Iraq, the month-by-month numbers show a DRAMATIC decrease after the surge.
Oops! Something the MSM left out, huh?
November 3, 2007
Dissident Down But Not Out
ThreeSources patron saint Natan Sharansky is profiled in a nice interview in the Wall Street Journal OpinionJournal (free link) this weekend. First, the sad truth:
The fortunes of Mr. Sharansky and his ideas about freedom rose and sunk with President Bush's opinion polls. His "The Case for Democracy" came along, three years ago, when the administration seriously looked to push it in the Muslim world. The president loved the book, and Mr. Sharansky became the in-house philosopher for the Bush Doctrine. "If you want a glimpse of how I think about foreign policy, read Natan Sharansky's book," blurbs Mr. Bush on the back cover of the paperback edition.But democracy is a dirty word these days. So Mr. Sharansky is lonely too, bounced out of Israeli politics and out of favor. He, Vaclav Havel and other former Eastern European dissident faces of the freedom agenda are dismissed as Cold War naďfs, pernicious Utopians, or worse--men whose moral Manichaeism has no business in the "complex Middle East."
Even with the freedom movement "on its back foot," Sharansky is pretty sanguine about Russia, and moderately upbeat about the Mideast. It's a great read.
October 8, 2007
Happy Columbus Day
I know nobody in ThreeSources Land has to work today on the big holiday, so take some time to enjoy Jules Crittenden's celebration of "the most unPC holiday of the year."
That’s why I intend to celebrate it doing the most unPC thing I can think of. Working for a living.Columbus Day celebrates the arrival of Europeans in the New World, which critics note marked the onset of a lot of death, power shifts, slavery and domination of the continent by new ethnic groups. Essentially, a continuation of history as usual as far as the Americas, Europe, Africa and Asia were concerned, all of which had practiced those things repeatedly. Only in the Americas, an acceleration of history, something different.
From this complex, sometimes disturbing history of boldness, vision, determination, misery, blood and hope in the cauldron of New World, emerged the greatest nation history has seen, founded on noble ideas, some of which we are still finetuning. An example to the rest of the world, which is still having trouble with a lot of the basics. Happy Columbus Day.
I finally scared off my last leftist friend a while back. He stayed with me through my support of the War in Iraq, free markets and all. But in our last email exchange, I pointed out that there was scant evidence of human rights in the 1000 years before the Europeans arrived. He directed me toward the Iroquois Constitution. I must admit, that was more sophisticated than this "great white hunter" (my new nickname with this particular interlocutor) had known.
Yet it is basically a defense pact, open only to those who spoke a particular language. There was a stab at self government, but I still see nothing of individual rights or freedom. That came on boats.
Standard disclaimer: the abrogation of treaties with indigenous Americans is one of our great shames and is completely indefensible. A nation of laws should have done better. But we (we, kimosabe?) came and established a free enough society that Samuel Colt could prosper and invent interchangeable parts, economically manufacturing firearms. The settlers did not have guns because they won the lottery.
And that's your racist, ThreeSources hate for the day -- have a great Columbus Day! Hit all the sales!
So what you're leftist ex-friend is saying is it's only OK to forcefully defend yourself from others if you're part of a group, and then only if that group is non-European.
While the nativists protest parades in Columbus' honor, I'd like to protest his federal holiday. How many tax dollars go to pay people not to work in the name of this "genocidal racist?" (1/365th of what it costs to get them not to work year round in their government jobs, I suppose.)
Were someone to press this issue, however, they'd just change the name of the darned thing like they did with Presidents Day. Something like, "Continental Discoverers and Exploiters Day."
Posted by: johngalt at October 8, 2007 3:25 PMAmen on the holiday. We lack for sufficient days to honor those who truly had a part in making this nation great. Having Washington and Lincoln share "President's Day," whatever. At least I like it better than Labor Day.
Posted by: jk at October 8, 2007 3:33 PMY'know, I thought said leftist friend had stopped speaking to me, but now I remember: it was he who sent the "six black lab puppies Internet mail hoax." I guess we are friends after all.
Posted by: jk at October 8, 2007 3:37 PMOctober 3, 2007
General Pace's Speech
This was posted on Hugh Hewitt's site:
Thanks to all who serve.
Mission Accomplished
Instapundit links to an essay titled Mission Accomplished, with a very optimistic look at the future of coalition involvement in Iraq.
The great question in deciding whether to keep fighting in Iraq is not about the morality and self-interest of supporting a struggling democracy that is also one of the most important countries in the world. The question is whether the war is winnable and whether we can help the winning of it. The answer is made much easier by the fact that three and a half years after the start of the insurgency, most of the big questions in Iraq have been resolved. Moreover, they have been resolved in ways that are mostly towards the positive end of the range of outcomes imagined at the start of the project. The country is whole. It has embraced the ballot box. It has created a fair and popular constitution. It has avoided all-out civil war. It has not been taken over by Iran. It has put an end to Kurdish and marsh Arab genocide, and anti-Shia apartheid. It has rejected mass revenge against the Sunnis. As shown in the great national votes of 2005 and the noisy celebrations of the Iraq football team's success in July, Iraq survived the Saddam Hussein era with a sense of national unity; even the Kurds—whose reluctant commitment to autonomy rather than full independence is in no danger of changing—celebrated. Iraq's condition has not caused a sectarian apocalypse across the region. The country has ceased to be a threat to the world or its region. The only neighbours threatened by its status today are the leaders in Damascus, Riyadh and Tehran.
Weekly Standard? National Review? Nope, across the pond.
September 29, 2007
Not Everyone Has been Convinced
General Petraeus’s testimony and report has brought a sizeable number of people back into belief that our cause is just in Iraq and that the US military can succeed.
A good friend of this blog sends a link that reminds that the belief is not yet unanimous. "Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh has consistently led the way in telling the story of what's really going on in Iraq and Iran. SPIEGEL ONLINE spoke to him about America's Hitler, Bush's Vietnam, and how the US press failed the First Amendment." Der Spiegel counters Hersh's worldview with hard questions like "Is this just another case of exaggerating the danger in preparation for an invasion like we saw in 2002 and 2003 prior to the Iraq War?"
Hersh: We have this wonderful capacity in America to Hitlerize people. We had Hitler, and since Hitler we've had about 20 of them. Khrushchev and Mao and of course Stalin, and for a little while Gadhafi was our Hitler. And now we have this guy Ahmadinejad. The reality is, he's not nearly as powerful inside the country as we like to think he is. The Revolutionary Guards have direct control over the missile program and if there is a weapons program, they would be the ones running it. Not Ahmadinejad.SPIEGEL ONLINE: Where does this feeling of urgency that the US has with Iran come from?
Hersh: Pressure from the White House. That's just their game.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: What interest does the White House have in moving us to the brink with Tehran?
Hersh: You have to ask yourself what interest we had 40 years ago for going to war in Vietnam. You'd think that in this country with so many smart people, that we can't possibly do the same dumb thing again. I have this theory in life that there is no learning. There is no learning curve. Everything is tabula rasa. Everybody has to discover things for themselves.
My correspondent mentions that he is right about that: some people never learn.
September 28, 2007
Vaclav Havel on Burma
In a just world, Vaclav Havel (or Vaclav Klaus) would be Secretary General of the United Nations. A good friend of the blog sends this link to a Guardian -- yes, the Guardian -- column by Havel:
On a daily basis, at a great many international and scholarly conferences all over the world, we can hear learned debates about human rights and emotional proclamations in their defense. So how is it possible that the international community remains incapable of responding effectively to dissuade Burma's military rulers from escalating the force that they have begun to unleash in Rangoon and its Buddhist temples?For dozens of years, the international community has been arguing over how it should reform the United Nations so that it can better secure civic and human dignity in the face of conflicts such as those now taking place in Burma or Darfur, Sudan. It is not the innocent victims of repression who are losing their dignity, but rather the international community, whose failure to act means watching helplessly as the victims are consigned to their fate.
The world's dictators, of course, know exactly what to make of the international community's failure of will and inability to coordinate effective measures. How else can they explain it than as a complete confirmation of the status quo and of their own ability to act with impunity?
This Sharanskyite becomes despondent. I believe that we could militarily pursue stability in Iraq and promote freedom elsewhere, but it is obvious that our political class cannot. With the US pinned down by Senator Levin, the despots of the world know impunity quite well.
There's certainly an argument for our direct intervention. Some say "but only if the people want it, because we can't determine for a people who their leaders should be." But didn't the Iraqis want Saddam ousted? Isn't it obvious that the Burmese want their military dictators ousted. But there's a problem: where does it end? If we intervene in Myanmar, why didn't we in Darfur? There are so many conflicts, and we can do only so much. That's why I personally favor something akin to our support of the Contras, delivering the weapons and equipment so the people can free themselves.
I think there's an argument for some action in, and if we do things right, it wouldn't take much for us to go in and kick some ass. But it will be bloody for the Burmese people, who I think will be slaughtered in revenge by a retreating Burmese military.
Just send in John Rambo, but won't happen till next year.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at September 28, 2007 1:37 PMSeptember 18, 2007
Bring it on!
Stand and be counted, Democrats Legislators.
The Democratic leader said he will call for a vote this month on several anti-war proposals, including one by Sen. Carl Levin that would insist President Bush end U.S. combat next summer. The proposals would be mandatory and not leave Bush wiggle room, said Reid, D-Nev."There (are) no goals. It's all definite timelines," he told reporters of the planned legislation.
Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Monday night he would have agreed to turn his summer deadline into a nonbinding goal if doing so meant attracting enough votes to pass.
Let's get those votes on record. Who's with MoveOn.org and who is with the forces of freedom and modernity?
See that part?
"non-binding goal"
That's like playing poker with worthless chips. Voting for "non-binding" legislation allows politicians to make the "courageous" attempt to support something, without facing the consequences of actually supporting it via statute.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at September 20, 2007 1:14 PMSeptember 13, 2007
Blink
Or, as the WaPo calls it "Democrats Push Toward Middle on Iraq Policy."
After two days of congressional testimony from Army Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador to Iraq Ryan C. Crocker, the battle lines in the House and Senate over the war have begun to shift, with moderate members of both parties building new momentum behind initiatives that would force the White House to make modest changes to the military mission but not require a substantial drawdown of troops by a set date. Democratic leaders, who have blessed the new approach, now believe that passing compromise legislation is the first step toward more ambitious measures aimed at ending the war, although that tactic is likely to result in stiff opposition from Democratic activists who want a rapid troop withdrawal.Just months ago, Democratic leaders gave short shrift to any bipartisan bills deemed insufficiently strong by their left flank. A Senate measure to institute the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, headed by Republican former secretary of state James A. Baker III and Democratic former Indiana congressman Lee H. Hamilton, never came to a vote after Reid slammed it as "weak tea." And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) blocked consideration of a bill to force the Bush administration to plan for withdrawals after antiwar Democrats denounced it.
Now if we can just do something about Senators Warner and Lugar...
September 11, 2007
Hsppy Patriots' Day!
Y'all tired of this picture yet? I'm not.
Instapundit readers will want to know that I shot it with a Palm iiiC
September 10, 2007
Petraeus!
K-Lo at NRO has a great collection of quotes from General Petraeus’s testimony today:
2006 was a bad year in Iraq. The country came close to unraveling politically, economically, and in security terms. 2007 has brought improvement. Enormous challenges remain. Iraqis still struggle with fundamental questions about how to share power, accept their differences, and overcome their past. The changes to our strategy last January—the surge—have helped change the dynamics in Iraq for the better. Our increased presence made besieged communities feel that they could defeat al-Qa’ida by working with us. Our population security measures have made it much harder for terrorists to conduct attacks. We have given the Iraqis the time and space to reflect on what sort of country they want. Most Iraqis genuinely accept Iraq as a multi-ethnic, multi-sectarian society—it is the balance of power that has yet to be sorted out.
Hat-tip: Instapundit
September 6, 2007
Senator Schumer's Worst Moment
It's hard to pick, but I watched video of this speech on Hugh Hewitt's site yesterday and I was appalled.
J.D. Johannes posts commentary today with video of one of those loser Lt. Colonels whom Senator Schumer sent to war and now calls a failure. Don Surber weighs in as well (HT Insty on both)
Schumer heads the Democratic Senate campaign for 2008. Remember when James Clyburn of the South Carolina, the No. 3 Democrat in the House, said that good news from Iraq would be bad news from the Democrats?Small wonder Schumer wants to downplay the success of our military in Iraq. For shame.
Shame indeed.
September 4, 2007
Neighborhood Watch Program
Baghdad. Kimberly Kagen has a superb guest editorial in the Wall Street Journal Today (paid link) titled The Tide is Turning in Iraq
Skillful combat -- and skillful negotiation -- have transformed the area formerly known as "the triangle of death" into a region of dawning, if precarious, stability. As Coalition forces consolidate their gains in these areas, they are also striking Shiite militia sanctuaries east of Baghdad and further south and east along the Tigris River valley. Gen. Odierno and his division commanders cleared territory gradually throughout Phantom Thunder and Phantom Strike, so that they could hold it after clearing operations.The tribal movement begun in Anbar has spread throughout central Iraq, as thousands of Sunnis have either volunteered to join the Iraqi Security Forces or formed local defense groups under Iraqi government and Coalition auspices. These "concerned citizens" groups springing up throughout central Iraq have not been previously observed on this scale in the country. They permit U.S. and Iraqi forces to hold territory they have cleared more effectively. The volunteers who make up these groups, recruited and deployed in their own neighborhoods, have incentives to protect their families and communities. They are not independent militias, however. They are partnered with Iraqi Security Forces and Coalition forces.
The Baqubah Guardians, one such group, recently helped the Iraqi police in that city fight off al Qaeda insurgents until Coalition helicopters arrived. The Taji Neighborhood Watch association searched hundreds of homes for weapons caches. Iraq has hitherto lacked a local policing initiative, relying instead on national and regional models. The concerned-citizen groups are filling this gap while the U.S. and the Iraqi governments work to expand and improve the Iraqi Security Forces that many of these volunteers hope to join.
The President's surprise visit to Anbar was a shrewd move to show the gains that have been made. His political foes can hope for failure and pray for spectacular carnage in the next few weeks. I think most Americans are beginning to see some gains, no matter what Katie Couric thinks.
August 27, 2007
Bastiat On Iraq
ThreeSources's friend Josh Hendrickson at Everyday Economist has a smart piece this morning. He takes on those who now think that more command-and-control would have helped the Iraqi economy and concomitantly impeded the insurgency.
The EE links to reports that claim a slavish devotion to free market ideology spoiled an opportunity to keep services and jobs active in state-owned enterprises. He then responds with Bastiat's "seen and the unseen."
Messengers Thoma and Holland fail to take account of what is not seen on more than one account.Thoma and Holland behind the veil of what is seen, conclude that had the administration should have kept the infrastructure in place. It is easy in hindsight to make this call, but it ignores what is unseen. Suppose the infrastructure had been maintained and that the United States “put people to work doing something, anything.” Would this have improved the economic circumstances in Iraq? Bastiat certainly wouldn’t believe so:
I hate to tell people what to do, but I'd suggest one reads the whole thing.
August 20, 2007
Sharanskyism, circa 2007
This blog was christened in the heady days of the Orange and Cedar revolutions. Secretary Rice and President Bush were photographed with Natan Sharansky's The Case for Democracy. The second inaugural address was a book report.
The WaPo carries a comprehensive and sobering look at Bush's goal to end tyranny. Peter Baker's piece is titled "As Democracy Push Falters, Bush Feels Like a 'Dissident'" The President says he wears the "dissident" label with pride but I don't think anybody can be satisfied with "falters."
The days after the speech were heady. Eight million Iraqis went to the polls to elect an interim parliament, their purple-stained fingers a global symbol of emerging democracy. A political assassination in Lebanon triggered demonstrations known as the Cedar Revolution that toppled a pro-Syrian government and forced Damascus to end a three-decade occupation. And protests over a stolen election in Kyrgyzstan ousted another entrenched leader in the Tulip Revolution."There was this sort of euphoria," recalled Jennifer Windsor, executive director of Freedom House, which promotes democracy worldwide.
Bush and his team tried to demonstrate their commitment. The president met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Slovakia for a tense discussion about the Kremlin's crackdown on dissent. And when Egypt arrested opposition leader Ayman Nour, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice canceled a trip to Cairo. Two weeks later, Egypt released Nour.
When the Iraq poll numbers were nose diving, I told people that I was the last Sharanskyite. Now that the ambition is being blasted from Senator Carl Levin and Rep Ron Paul, I read this blog's beloved tag line and affirm myself to the Case.
Some people I respect around here are comfortable with a Hobbsion bellum omnium contra omnes but I see American economic and security interests are well served by the propagation of liberal values. Today, totalitarian regimes -- maybe someday even the U.S. State Department.
It's going to take time. I would have been a little kinder than Sharansky:
Still, after an invigorating start in 2005, progress has been harder to find. Among those worried about the project is Sharansky, whose book so inspired Bush. "I give him an A for bringing the idea and maybe a C for implementation," said Sharansky, now chairman of the Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies at the Shalem Center in Israel. "There is a gap between what he says and what the State Department does," and he is not consistent enough.The challenge Bush faced, Sharansky added, was to bring Washington together behind his goal.
"It didn't happen," he said. "And that's the real tragedy."
July 9, 2007
Is the GOP set to fold on Iraq?
A good friend of this blog emails today. Last week saw signs that the illustrious and brave GOP Senate coalition (yeah, right!) is set to cave with Senator Lugar's dash to the exit, Senator Domenici's joining him -- all as positive signals come out of Iraq
A NYTimes fromt page story today asserts that the White House is seeking an exit strategy before September based on GOP defections.
“When you count up the votes that we’ve lost and the votes we’re likely to lose over the next few weeks, it looks pretty grim,” said one senior official, who, like others involved in the discussions, would not speak on the record about internal White House deliberations.That conclusion was echoed in interviews over the past few days by administration officials in the Pentagon, State Department and White House, as well as by outsiders who have been consulted about what the administration should do next. “Sept. 15 now looks like an end point for the debate, not a starting point,” the official said. “Lots of people are concluding that the president has got to get out ahead of this train.”
Far be it from me to argue with "some administration officials" and people in the State Department, but I believe the President can and will hold this together.
We're a couple weeks away from the August news doldrums, when the Washington Press Corps will have to resort to chasing this year's Cindy Sheehan around this year's Crawford Texas for news. Our courageous Senators will go home to hide under their beds.
While the Senate cowers, our brave men and women in uniform will continue their successful counterinsurgency operations around Baghdad. When Congress reconvenes, they will wait two weeks for General Petraeus's report. And I feel Petraeus will surprise to the upside.
As I emailed, I have no dispositive proof that the Senate won't cave before recess, but I have faith in the President's resolve. I don't believe the New York Times and the anonymous leakers who just happen to agree with them.
In the meantime, I hope the remaining GOP Senators read the WSJ Ed Page, as well as the NYTimes:
The Democratic Presidential candidates are trying to out-compete each other to see who can demand a pullout faster. The goal for nearly all of them (save perhaps Senator Joe Biden) isn't to create some bipartisan policy that the next President could inherit and sustain; it is to use Iraq as a partisan club to win the 2008 elections, and only then worry about the consequences.Republicans may think they can distance themselves from all this, but they'll get no credit from voters if they contribute to an ugly outcome in Iraq. Their best prospect for making Iraq less important in 2008 is military progress that allows for a reduction in U.S. forces with honor and a more stable Iraqi government. A divided Republican caucus that undercuts America's military efforts while chasing the mirage of bipartisan comity will only make their own election defeat more likely.
I am further heartened that the GOP Presidential candidates are united in their support for the battle in Iraq and the larger war. (Rep Paul is an exception, but he makes a principled stand against "foreign entanglements" which differs in my book from cut-and-run. Besides, George Stephanopoulos says he won't win anyway.)
The GOP will soon have a new leader, and that leader will be resolute -- this will help stop defections.
July 7, 2007
Scots Wa Hae!
John Smeaton is a hero. Fame is so ill deserved for most, but not for Smeaton, the Glasgow baggage handler who kicked a flaming terrorist. Fan websites are springing up. A PayPal account to "buy him a pint!" now has more than $9000.
Being a good scot, he "prefers Wiskey" and seems to be handling his fame with dignity and modest aplomb.
Mr. Smeaton described his role more modestly. He says he joined police officers and others in subduing the attackers -- taking a kick at Bilal Abdullah, who on Friday was charged in the attacks. Then, Mr. Smeaton came to the aid of an injured bystander who'd joined in the rumble."I did nothing special," Mr. Smeaton said. "I just ran in and booted a guy."
His brogue is so thick that his interview required subtitles -- in Australia! Cheer up sons and daughters of the Enlightenment. The land of Adam Smith and David Hume has supplied another hero.
Twas doon by the inch o' Abbots
Oor Johnny walked one day
When he saw a sicht that
troubled him
Far more than he could say...
Now that's no richt wur
Johnny cried
And sallied tae the fray
A left hook and a heid butt
Required tae save the day.
Now listen up Bin Laden
Yir sort's nae wanted here
For imported English radicals
Us Scoatsman huv nae fear
All this from a Wall Street Journal story (paid link) which never mentions the anatomical target of the attack. Are they backing off, or is Dow Jones too suave to discuss "goolies?"
June 30, 2007
Near Miss
I have never seen Keith Oberman before. I have read about him, but didn't get the full KO Experience until I saw this YouTube clip on HotAir (Hat-tip: Insty I think)
He interviews a former CIA guy (Larry Johnson, who seems to be well known around the blogosphere as well -- I need to get out more). Johnson asserts that the London car bombs would have made a lot of noise but were unlikely to hurt anybody unless they were inside the car with the bomb. He and Oberman then go on a joint tirade about why we're in Iraq and why the London bomb gets more attention than bombs in Baghdad.
I'll cede that petrol and propane and nails seem less sophisticated than Iranian IEDs. But it plays into a media narrative that every foiled plot was "a bunch of jokers," "dropouts from al Qaeda," &c. The war isn't really real, terrorists aren't dangerous, we've been at war with Eurasia all along...
Imagine that 9/11 had been foiled. What a bunch of losers! Get this, they had box cutters. And they thought they would take over the plane and -- wait for it -- take over the cockpit and fly these planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon!
What a bunch of bozos -- clearly, we have nothing to fear from the likes of these losers.
Don't forget the spent the nights before going to tittie bars!
Posted by: AlexC at June 30, 2007 10:35 PMI am guessing that the reason a car bomb in London gets more publicity than a car bomb in Baghdad is because there isn't a war going on in London.
Posted by: Harrison Bergeron at July 1, 2007 5:40 PMYou are never going to get invited on Keith Oberman's show using goofy-ass logic like that. (Damn, I said "Ass.")
Posted by: jk at July 1, 2007 8:13 PMJune 28, 2007
Two Views of Iraq
A good friend of this blog sends a link to a Tony Blankley column in Real Clear Politics. Blankley's a smart guy and uses the same hair stylist as Senator John Kerry. But I don't agree with his downbeat assessment. He, like Congressional Democrats, is not waiting for September for General Petraeus's assessment. Blankley has an advance copy:
From all this and more, let me save you the bother of waiting for the September deluge of reports from the four corners of our government. Come September it will be the received wisdom of Washington that: (1) the Maliki government is hopelessly incapable of ever effecting the necessary political compromises to make Iraq a functioning government, (2) we cannot maintain our current troop strength in Iraq with the current size of our military, and (3) the Iraqi military will not soon be ready to replace our forces in combat or even heavy police duties.
That is the "metaphysical certitude" conventional wisdom, and one cannot pretend that that is not a likely outcome. But I have been heartened of late by reading Austin Bay, Michael Totten, and Michael Yon. Those guys serve it up pretty straight, and all three are cautiously optimistic about new operations and rules of engagement. Petraeus may surprise to the upside. I am joined in this belief by Victor Davis Hanson:
But for all the justifiable criticism of the Iraqi reconstruction, two truths still remain — the United States is taking an enormous toll on jihadists, and despite the terrible cost in blood and treasure, has not given up on a constitutional government in Iraq.The Sunni front-line states, who subsidized jihadists and still enjoy our misery in Iraq , , but they are now terrified that these killers, in league with the Iranians, will turn on them. The net result is not just that some Sunnis are helping us in Iraq, but that they are being urged to for the first time by those in the Arab world, who would prefer to see the Iraqi government, rather than the terrorists, succeed. And if Iraq is still a terrible disappointment, Kurdistan is emerging as a success few envisioned, refuting some conventional wisdom about the incompatibility of capitalism and constitutional government with Middle Eastern Islam.
Theocratic Iran is not exactly as “empowered” as is generally alleged, but in the greatest crisis of its miserable existence. As the mullahs up the ante in the region, they could very soon not only lose Iraq, but also their own dictatorship.
Blankley is ready to install what my emailer calls a new Saddam, and return to more decades of realpolitik and realism. VDH notes that the United States "has not given up on a constitutional government in Iraq." I'm not ready to either. Senator Lugar and Tony can throw in the towel. I will be the last Sharanskyite.
UPDATE: And do not miss J. D. Johannes's views on NRO.
June 21, 2007
Email Support to Marines
The Fighting 6th Marines are in the thick of it in Fallujah and one of their Colonels has asked for email
COL. SIMCOCK: (Chuckles.) I'll tell you what, the one thing that all Marines want to know about -- and that includes me and everyone within Regimental Combat Team 6 -- we want to know that the American public are behind us. We believe that the actions that we're taking over here are very, very important to America. We're fighting a group of people that, if they could, would take away the freedoms that America enjoys.If anyone -- you know, just sit down, jot us -- throw us an e- mail, write us a letter, let us know that the American public are behind us. Because we watch the news just like everyone else. It's broadcast over here in our chow halls and the weight rooms, and we watch that stuff, and we're a little bit concerned sometimes that America really doesn't know what's going on over here, and we get sometimes concerns that the American public isn't behind us and doesn't see the importance of what's going on. So that's something I think that all Marines, soldiers and sailors would like to hear from back home, that in fact, yes, they think what we're doing over here is important and they are in fact behind us.
On their blog, they thank Michelle Malkin and Blackfive for linking, and say that the effort is going well.
Just by way of an update, we've reached our halfway mark of 3000 e-mails. This is after despairing yesterday when the deluge had slowed to a trickle by yesterday evening. Then we got 900 e-mails over night. All in all in the past 24 hours we've gotten 1300 e-mails. I'm not counting the various spam e-mails, either, though "Queen Amallah," I hope you eventually find your money.If you have the time and inclination, why not register with Vox, drop us a comment and join our community? We've got a great readership here and lots of good regular commenters and plenty of content. I hope you stop by regularly; we update as often as is feasible.
The e-mail address for the campaign is rct-6lettersfromh AT gcemnf-wiraq DOT usmc DOT mil
Hat-tip: A Second Hand Conjecture
May 28, 2007
Happy Memorial Day II
I have read a dozen great posts about Memorial Day. But don't miss Dean Barnett's late entry:
Even if we put the tendentious political agenda aside, commemorating the fallen as victims does them a profound disservice. If the fallen were anything like any of the men I’ve spoken to who have served in Iraq or who are serving in Iraq or who will serve in Iraq, they would far prefer being celebrated as heroes than mourned as victims.Heroes are what the fallen were. They didn’t want to pay the ultimate price for their country, but they were willing to do so. Their lives were marked by courage and honor. On this of all days, let’s honor them by doing what they would probably prefer we do - celebrate their virtues and thank God that our country has been blessed with so many men who had such virtues in such abundance.
And let’s further count our blessings that we still have so many of their kind walking among us.
Amen to that.
Toby Keith put it thusly:
"And I will always do my duty no matter what the price
I’ve counted up the cost, I know the sacrifice
Oh and I don’t want to die for you, but if dyin’s asked of me
I’ll bear that cross with honor, cause freedom don’t come free.
I’m an American Soldier an American
Beside my brothers and my sisters, I will proudly take a stand
When liberty’s in jeopardy, I will always do what’s right
I’m out here on the front lines, sleep in peace tonight
American Soldier, I’m an American, Soldier."
Thanks to all the HEROES who serve.
Posted by: johngalt at May 28, 2007 8:00 PMHappy Memorial Day
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it." -Thomas Paine
I'd suggest Michael Yon's "Memorial Day Message" (that's his photo as well). He shares two stories of bravery from wounded soldiers under fire that must be read. He ends, sadly, sadly:
Both men often lamented to me how frustrating it was to be back home and realize that the average American is not aware of practically any of the progress that’s been made in Iraq. Both men darken with something closer to anger when they consider the sacrifices made by fallen soldiers and the fact that while the media most likely counted the deaths in all instances, they also most likely failed to mention any of the good things their fellow soldiers had accomplished while in Iraq.
Thanks to all who serve. Today, special thanks to all who gave all their tomorrows for our todays.
May 19, 2007
Letter from Iraq
Max Boot posted this letter from LTC Steve Miska.
Given that reality, we need to stand by the Iraqis. How long, you ask? I am on my second tour following a year in Tikrit from 2004-2005. A realistic goal is to have stabilized this region by the time my eleven-year-old son is old enough to serve in the military. Not that he is preordained to serve, but my hope is he will not have to deal with the complexity and tragedies that I have witnessed in Baghdad over the last eight months. My only other goal is to be able to look myself in the mirror every day, knowing that I stuck to my principles and did as much as possible to win in this very dangerous environment.If our government decides to prematurely pull out, I would fail to reach both goals, and my son and his generation may find themselves embroiled in something far worse than what we experience now—all because my generation couldn’t get the job done.
I'd sure read the whole thing, but it's your weekend.
Hat-tip to Instapundit and another round of thanks to all who serve.
May 13, 2007
Medal of Freedom Recipients
George Tenent has written a book to defend his reputation. While everybody has focused on some of his attacks on the administration, the Weekly Standard has pointed out that his book speaks much about al Qaeda presence in Iraq, the efficacy of aggressive interrogation procedures and the current threat from Iran. He thinks the Bush administration is discrediting him, but he did receive the nation's highest civilian honor: the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
Another recipient takes to his own defense, more credibly and succinctly. L. Paul Bremer has an editorial in the WaPo today, defending both the decision to de-Baathify Iraq and to disband Saddam's Iraqi Army:
Our goal was to rid the Iraqi government of the small group of true believers at the top of the party, not to harass rank-and-file Sunnis. We were following in the footsteps of Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower in postwar Germany. Like the Nazi Party, the Baath Party ran all aspects of Iraqi life. Every Iraqi neighborhood had a party cell. Baathists recruited children to spy on their parents, just as the Nazis had. Hussein even required members of his dreaded intelligence services to read "Mein Kampf."Although Hussein and his cronies had been in power three times as long as Hitler had, the CPA decree was much less far-reaching than Eisenhower's de-Nazification law, which affected all but the lowest-ranking former Nazis. By contrast, our Iraqi law affected only about 1 percent of Baath Party members. We knew that many had joined out of opportunism or fear, and they weren't our targets.
I'll confess that I had seen Bremer before the War and was mightily impressed by his apparent intelligence and competence. When he was picked to head the provisional government, I thought it was a great pick. When a then slowly-decaying Andrew Sullivan blamed him for the troubles in Iraq, Colon cancer, and the lack of good parking places in Provincetown, I wondered if I had misjudged.
Bremer admits some failures in judgment but defends himself from the CW.
Hat-tip: Terri at I Think ^(Link) Therefore I Err who points out that the editorial also reminds us of Saddam's depravity.
May 3, 2007
Stories from Occupation
Do. Not. Miss. the four part essay on Estonian Independence on Kojinshugi. I started reading Sam on his Unigolyn blog when he was in Estonia. He moved to British Columbia and I have kept up with his less political kojinshugi.
He recently returned to Estonia and has posted four parts of an essay on the nation's history, annotated with stories his relatives and memories from childhood. This, from the second part, caught my eye:
I remember signatures being collected in schools for the language law. I don’t know what the signatures were for, or why they were asking nine-year olds to do it. But I remember signing it and I remember feeling joy doing it. We were told we didn’t have to wear our Octobrist pins anymore. That day I went home and asked my mom for a hammer. I sat on the front steps of my house and I beat that grotesque pentagram and Lenin’s bald head into a flat piece of metal. I now wish I’d kept it, but back then I just wanted to be rid of it.They gave us new schoolbooks. The old ones all started with a four-page adulation of Lenin, the Lover of Children and Our Great Father. They said we could throw the old ones away. My school was only about 50 meters away from the Bronze Soldier and the Eternal Flame, a recessed gas fire, was still burning there. Me and some of my friends didn’t feel like dumping the books in a trash can. After school, we went to the Flame and we ripped those books to shreds and burned them. Keep in mind we were nine year-olds. No one told us to burn those books. We weren’t politically savvy. But we knew almost viscerally that this shit they had been forcing on us was pure, unadulterated evil.
My mother in law had the same feeling at a similar age, The occupying Japanese forces came to school on the first day and supervised the kids' cutting every reference to the United States, a Dollar Sign, or the American flag out of their schoolbooks. Mom knew, too, that that was wrong though she did not know how wrong or why.
You'll not find either Sam or my Mother in law at a peace rally holding up a "War Is Not The Answer" banner (well, Sam might be infiltrating the assembly for a podcast or something...)
I'm only half through. I will bug you again when I have finished it, but this is incredible stuff: the real prized jewels in the blogosphere,
May 2, 2007
We Win. They Lose.
Never know about the efficacy of an online petition, but I could not resist this one:
We win. they lose.When it came to defeating the Soviets, Ronald Reagan made it simple: "We win, they lose." Now more than ever, the defeatists in Congress must hear that same message. America will never surrender.
WeWinTheyLose.com is a new site where you can get involved in the fight to support our troops and secure victory in the War on Terror.
Sign the petition.
April 14, 2007
"Contest for survival"
For at least several years there has been a quiet underground movement to secure the rights of liberty and freedom for citizens of a major nation on the world stage. Brave national patriots, both within their country and in exile, expose themselves to boundless peril at the hands of the authoritarian regime that rules the country with an iron fist. America has committed military force to defend these ideals in Iraq and Afghanistan. But western nations give not even diplomatic support to those struggling for the same freedoms in this other, critically important, nation - at least not publicly.
This major nation is not Iran, nor Venezuela, China, Vietnam, North Korea or Zimbabwe (nee Rhodesia). It is one of five veto powers on the UN Security Council: Russia.
One Russian patriot, Alexander Litvinenko, has already lost his life in pursuit of the cause.
Another, billionaire Boris Berezovsky, lives in the UK under political asylum - a status that is continually threatened by Russia's Putin regime.
And today, world famous Russian chess champion Gary Kasparov has been arrested in Moscow for "shouting anti-government slogans."
Activists had planned to gather at a city centre square about one km (half a mile) from the Kremlin to protest at what they say is Putin's trampling of democratic freedoms and demand a fair vote to choose a new president in 2008.Teams of riot police, acting on a ruling from the city authorities banning the protest, pounced on protesters as they appeared in small groups near the square and swiftly loaded them into buses, Reuters witnesses said.
Surprisingly, Kasparov was able to make statements to reporters:
"Today the regime showed its true colours, its true face," the former chess grandmaster said during an adjournment."I believe this was a great victory for the opposition because people got through and the march happened."
Moscow police explain just how important it was to forcefully detain these "dangerous" citizens:
Moscow police chief spokesman Viktor Biryukov said about 170 of the "most aggressive" protesters had been detained."Thanks to the well-coordinated actions of the riot police and Moscow police, we were able to prevent an illegal gathering being carried out," he said.
This all serves as stark evidence why free men must never grant complete trust to government.
"For ordinary people in Russia today, it's a contest for survival," Anastasia Krampit, 39, said as she watched the protesters drift away.
April 11, 2007
If I Die Before You Wake
There's something in this flash video to offend eveybody around here: a countrified voice, religious overtones -- but I bet you're all gonna love it.
Hat-tip: my brother via email.
Yes God, bless the men and women who volunteer to defend freedom and understand that there are fates worse than death.
And God, may you damn straight to hell every so-called American who believes that evil may be left to fester on the other side of the world without concern that it may come this way again.
Just as does John McCain, I hold the American soldier in awe and reverence.
(No, I don't believe in God, but 90% of those soldiers do. And 90% of anti-war [anti-freedom] piss-ant Democrats do too.)
Posted by: johngalt at April 12, 2007 11:00 AMMarch 27, 2007
CornHuskers For Surrender
ThreeSources friend The Everyday Economist, emails a link to this article and suggests that "Somewhere, Osama is smiling."
Sad to see the US Senate voting for defeat. Curious to me was that the reasonably red state of Nebraska supplied both the switchers that allowed this one to pass.
Similar legislation drew only 48 votes in the Senate earlier this month, but Democratic leaders made a change that persuaded Nebraska's Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson to swing behind the measure.
Additionally, Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a vocal critic of the war, sided with the Democrats, assuring them of the majority they needed to turn back a challenge led by Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss.
Insert your own Taranto joke about Senator Hegel, I would be surprised if many of the good people I know in that great state will be happy that their two Senators gift wrapped this present for enemies.
March 20, 2007
Well then don't play
Colorado Rep Marilyn Musgrave (R-Atlantis Farm and environs, I believe...) has a good record on spending and the war, and I was happy to see her win a close re-election in 2006. But she opens herself to the old joke "We've established what you are. We're now quibbling over price."
She may just go ahead and vote for defeat in Iraq so that she can bring home some Federal jack to her constituents:
"She hates the games the Democrats are playing," said Guy Short, chief of staff to Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.), a staunch conservative who remains undecided, thanks to billions of dollars in the bill for drought relief and agriculture assistance. "But Representative Musgrave was just down in southeastern Colorado, talking to ranchers and farmers, and they desperately need this assistance."
If you hate the game so much, Rep Musgrave: don't play.
Hat-tip: Instapundit, one of whose readers wonders "Um… I thought the Democrats had a 'mandate' on Iraq? Why do they need to buy votes?"
March 19, 2007
A Question for War Opponents
Today's Democrats can be divided into three groups:
- Those who regret supporting the war;
- Those who never supported the war;
- Those who would not have supported the war if they "knew now what they knew then."
I'll concede that there are some Democrats who still support the war, but they have no representation in party leadership, so I dismiss them.
I encourage everybody to read Michael Totten's amazing report on progress in the Kurdish north. He compares a visit there fourteen months ago to a recent visit. Erbil, the "capital" city of Iraqi Kurdistan (Totten eschews the scare quotes) is a bustling and booming metropolis, rivaled in growth and construction only by Dubai. Totten notes plans for the tallest building in Iraq, as well as mobile-phone billboards (with attractive, unscarved females!), construction -- all the signs of commercial life.
Kurdistan’s rise flips Iraq on its head. The Kurds are ahead, but they started from nothing. Under Saddam’s regime they had the worst of everything – the worst poverty, the worst underdevelopment, and worst of all they bore the brunt of the worst violence from Baghdad. 200,000 people were killed (out of less than four million) and 95 percent of the villages were completely destroyed.The Kurds seem happy and well-adjusted. Scratch the surface, though, and any one of them can tell you tales that make you tremble and shudder. Everyone here was touched by the Baath and by the genocide. If living well is the best revenge, the Kurds got theirs.
“You see this place now with its government, its democracy, and its system of laws,” my guide Hamid said. “It wasn’t like this even recently, believe me. Before, it was a jungle.”
It is an awesome read. Totten is not very optimistic on Baghdad or Anbar, and the desire for Kurdish independence, which I have supported for years, has some troubling repercussions.
All the same, the liberation of the Kurdish North from Saddam Hussein is a huge success -- dare I say "Mission Accomplished?" This region is showing its neighbors the advantages of freedom and plurality as it gives hope and opportunity to its citizens. This could not have happened without coalition troops.
I ask all those who have abandoned -- or who proudly proclaim they've never given -- support to the mission if the liberation of the Kurdish North is not in and of itself a good reason for war. And if you think I'm going too far with that, how can you deny the opportunity for freedom to the rest of Iraq? It is a credit to the coalition troops that they gave opportunity to all Iraqis. Some have embraced it and some have elected to pursue tribal vendettas and brutal power struggles.
But you cannot read this and call the war a mistake and a failure.
Hat-tip: Insty (all my links today are: Coals to Newcastle...)
The Kurds started to benefit from the US the day we started the Northern No-Fly Zone. The peshmergas (sp?)gladly joined out troops 4 years ago (Today as the MSM keeps drumming into our heads, BTW) as gratitude.
I, too, would LOVE to see an independent Kurdistan we can call an ally in the Middle East.
It probably won't happen because we're too busy keeping the Turks happy so we can maintain our presence at Incirlik.
Posted by: TrekMedic251 at March 19, 2007 8:35 PMMarch 9, 2007
News Item of the Decade
What's that? Did Bill Gates promise to buy Apple Computer and divide all of its stock amongst all the AIDS patients in Africa? Did Mahmood I'mInAJihad just convert to Christianity? Did Hillary divorce Bill? No.
Owning guns in D.C. may soon become legal, as federal appeals court ruled that the right to bear arms applies not only to militias.Three years ago, a lower-court judge had told six D.C. residents of high-crime neighborhoods who wanted the guns for protection that they don't have a constitutional right to own handguns.
City argued that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies only to militias, not individuals.
Today judge held that the Second Amendment doesn't just apply to militia service, or to people with "intermittent enrollment in the militia."
Just what was this D.C. gun ban? From the Cato Institute via P.R. Newswire: "Under existing law, no handgun could be registered in the District, and even pistols registered prior to D.C.'s 1976 ban could not be carried from room to room within a home without a license."
Well, what's wrong with that CNSnews? If that is the "democratically-expressed will of the people of the District of Columbia" then who cares that, "Even though the nation's capital had one of the strictest gun bans in the country, it also suffers from one of the five-highest murders rates of major cities nationwide?" I guess two out of three federal appeals judges care:
In a 2-1 decision, the judges held that the activities protected by the Second Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued intermittent enrollment in the militia."The court also ruled the D.C. requirement that registered firearms be kept unloaded, disassembled and under trigger lock was unconstitutional.
(...)
"The district's definition of the militia is just too narrow," Judge Laurence Silberman wrote for the majority Friday. "There are too many instances of 'bear arms' indicating private use to conclude that the drafters intended only a military sense."
The opinion of the lone dissenting judge is telling. Her foundation for supporting the 30-year old law was not that individuals are not militia members, or that handguns are not hunting tools. Instead she wrote, "the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a state."
Can I believe my eyes? I'm still not sure I believe a sitting federal judge actually wrote this. The reporter must have misrepresented, right? I wonder if she would also argue that the first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, twentieth (take a breath), twenty first, twenty second, twenty third (oh really?), twenty fourth, twenty fifth, twenty sixth and twenty seventh amendments don't apply to D.C. because "it is not a state?"
For some time now I've been considering creation of a "Slave-o-Meter" that reflects the global movement toward collectivism and away from individual liberty modeled after the Union of Atomic Scientists' "Doomsday Clock." I was dissuaded by the notion that the "Slave-o-Meter" would only ever move in one direction: toward collectivization of humankind. (And because I still haven't thought of a better name than Slave-o-Meter.) This development in D.C. is one rare, delicious, possibly temporary case where it moved noticeably in the other direction.
UPDATE: [13 March] I am eternally grateful to JK for his comment link to the WaPo editorial on this. It allows me to share this remarkable quote:
"While the ruling caught observers off guard, it was not completely unexpected, given the unconscionable campaign, led by the National Rife Association and abetted by the Bush administration, to broadly reinterpret the Constitution so as to give individuals Second Amendment rights."
So in the document that begins ... We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America, an interpretation by the "National Rifle Association and abetted by the Bush administration" that one of its amendments applies to "individuals" is "unconscionable."
DUDE! WHERE'S MY COUNTRY?!
I humbly suggest "Serfdom Miles." How far down Hayek’s road we are. Like the clock, it will be hard to weight multiple parameters into a single, scalar quantity.
I am not so pessimistic as you. It is disturbing to see the free word give up its liberty by bits and pieces -- at the same time, I look at the Heritage /WSJ index of economic freedom and see that more and more people are escaping from the least free nations.
In a Sharansky sense, I'd say this planet is doing well, although in a Friedmanite, Hayekian sense, we may be giving back some gains.
Following the Constitution in the US Capitol is a good sign.
Thank GOD a court in this country FINALLY understood what the Second Amendment really means!
Now,..how soon before the knee-jerk reactions from the "let's talk" liberal crowds??
Posted by: TrekMedic251 at March 9, 2007 8:34 PMNot sure what time the WaPo hits the streets, tm, but the answer is "less than 24 hours."
Dangerous Ruling: An appeals court ruling would put handguns back in D.C. homes
Quelle Horreur! Guns in homes...
Posted by: jk at March 10, 2007 12:26 PMThanx for the link, jk
Posted by: TrekMedic251 at March 11, 2007 12:02 PMThe WaPO article JK links to above is hysterical, in more ways than one. However, I recommend reading the comments to the article. At one point a commenter notes that the comments are 82% in favor of the ruling. Perhaps there is hope for DC yet????
Posted by: dagny at March 12, 2007 7:31 PMCapitalism for Campesinos
ThreeSources's "Freedom on the March" category was created in January of 2005. Freedom seemed in true ascendancy. Iraqis were showing their purple fingers, Libya was giving up on its nuclear programs. The cedar and orange revolutions were just around the corner.
Freedom has lost some ground since then, I won't dwell on it.
Yet I don't think Latin America has scored a post in this category in all that time. Today, the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page calls for (paid link, sorry!) more free trade with Latin America to counter the new left of center message with one of freedom and prosperity.
This is the root of the U.S. problem in Latin America: the lack of trade leadership. The 2002 Bush steel tariffs did their share of harm, but the biggest obstacle is Congress. The Central American Free Trade Agreement barely passed last year, and now Democrats are saying they want to renegotiate bilateral deals with Peru and Colombia that have already been signed. Trade is by far the biggest leverage the U.S. has in the region, and the best tool for improving living standards and strengthening democracy. If Congress fails to renew "fast-track" negotiating authority this year, the problem will get worse.The best alternative to Hugo Chávez's Marxist revival is the vision Mr. Bush offered earlier this week to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce: "Latin America needs capitalism for the campesino, a true capitalism that allows people who start from nothing to rise as far as their skills and their hard work can take them." It's a shame Mr. Bush can't reinforce that message with greater promises of access to the U.S. market.
It doesn't look good, but it reinforces my pragmatism. President Bush fumbled the ball when he enacted the steel and softwood tariffs and the GOP Congress has sucked on trade issues.
But I watch Rep Charlie Rangel, and Senator Webb and it appears that protectionism has completely taken over the Democratic Party.
March 5, 2007
A Toast to Baghdad
Muhammad and Omar from the great blog, IraqTheModel, have a guest editorial in the Wall Street Journal today, saying the things I am thinking but am afraid to say out loud: the surge is working.
So after only a couple weeks we can feel, despite the continuing violence, that much has been accomplished. Many Baghdadis feel hopeful again about the future, and the fear of civil war is slowly being replaced by optimism that peace might one day return to this city. This change in mood is something huge by itself.The brightest image of the past two weeks was the scene of displaced families returning home; more than a thousand families are back to their homes under the protection of the Army and police. This figure invites hope that Baghdad will restore its social, ethnic and religious mosaic.
Marketplaces are seeing more activity and stores that were long shuttered are reopening -- including even some liquor stores that came under vicious attacks in the past. This is a sign that extremists no longer can intimidate people and hold the city hostage. All of this gives the sense that law is being imposed.
Checkpoints are not seen as scary threats to the innocent. They look more professional and impartial as they include members of the police, Army, Multinational Forces and even traffic cops with laptops verifying registration papers. We've lost the fear that checkpoints might be traps set by death squads; they search everyone, even official convoys and ambulances.
We feel safer about moving in the city now, and politicians who used to hide behind the walls of the Green Zone are venturing out. Watching Mr. Maliki walking on Palestine Street in central Baghdad gave a positive impression that the state, and not the gangs, owns the streets.
No doubt dark days lie ahead. But if Iraq can gain some security in its capital, that sets a foundation for order.
March 1, 2007
Seven Minutes
I had heard about this, but I finally followed an Extreme Mortman link, and watched this speech by Rep. Sam Johnson’s (R-TX).
Must watch.
I did a few weeks ago. It sent chills down my spine!
Posted by: TrekMedic251 at March 1, 2007 9:53 PMFebruary 26, 2007
They Don't Make Democrats Like This Anymore
Senator Lieberman, in a guest editorial in the Wall Street Journal (free link)
But we must not make another terrible mistake now. Many of the worst errors in Iraq arose precisely because the Bush administration best-cased what would happen after Saddam was overthrown. Now many opponents of the war are making the very same best-case mistake--assuming we can pull back in the midst of a critical battle with impunity, even arguing that our retreat will reduce the terrorism and sectarian violence in Iraq.In fact, halting the current security operation at midpoint, as virtually all of the congressional proposals seek to do, would have devastating consequences. It would put thousands of American troops already deployed in the heart of Baghdad in even greater danger--forced to choose between trying to hold their position without the required reinforcements or, more likely, abandoning them outright. A precipitous pullout would leave a gaping security vacuum in its wake, which terrorists, insurgents, militias and Iran would rush to fill--probably resulting in a spiral of ethnic cleansing and slaughter on a scale as yet unseen in Iraq.
I appeal to my colleagues in Congress to step back and think carefully about what to do next. Instead of undermining Gen. Petraeus before he has been in Iraq for even a month, let us give him and his troops the time and support they need to succeed.
That's a responsible opposition position. He understands the gravity of the fight, the souring position held by the electorate. He doesn't line up and salute but he supports his own vote to confirm General Petraeus.
They Will Hold Their Manhood Cheap
...that they did not fight with Prince Harry on St. Crispen's Day.
I join Bret Stephens of the The Journal Editorial Report in applauding a particular UK troop deployment:
[Paul] Gigot: Next, on the heels of the British government announcing it will withdraw some troops from Iraq, comes news of a notable deployment. Bret?Stephens: Yes, well, once upon a time, there was an English prince, who went by the nickname Harry--most of us know him better as Henry V--who had what you might call a misspent youth and then found his place in history on the battlefield called Agincourt. Well, today, there's another English prince, also called Harry, also with something of what you might call a misspent youth, who is now, by his own choice, going to be deploying to Iraq to lead a squad of soldiers in southern Iraq. And I think a lot of people wonder what the purpose of an aristocracy is, especially when most European aristocrats spend their time disgracing themselves on the pages of HELLO! I think young Harry is showing what that purpose is. It is to set an example. And I think he's made the British very proud.
February 25, 2007
Murtha Stumbles
Those are the words of WaPo staff writers, Jonathan Weisman and Lyndsey Layton, not me. They point out that the plan was to unite Democrats and divide Republicans. But...
But a botched launch by the plan's author, Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.), has united Republicans and divided Democrats, sending the latter back to the drawing board just a week before scheduled legislative action, a score of House Democratic lawmakers said last week."If this is going to be legislation that's crafted in such a way that holds back resources from our troops, that is a non-starter, an absolute non-starter," declared Rep. Jim Matheson (Utah), a leader of the conservative Blue Dog Democrats.
Murtha's credentials as a Marine combat veteran, a critic of the war and close ally of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) were supposed to make him an unassailable spokesman for Democratic war policy. Instead, he has become a lightning rod for criticism from Republicans and members of his own party.
Sorry Rep. Murtha is having a bad day, but when you can't get the Washington Post on board for some antiwar and anti-administration politicking, you have a problem.
I'm thinking some "Don't blame me, I supported Irey" T-Shirts might be good right about now...
February 23, 2007
Democracy Midwifed
There is another casualty of the partisanship that has turned the Iraqi liberation into "Bush's War" and formed a solid line of Democrats in opposition. We're missing the political twists and turns as a new nation is birthed in the fecund Mesopotamian crescent.
The Wall Street Journal (news pages) reports today that Ahmed Chalabi has a new position in the government.
BAGHDAD, Iraq -- In his latest remarkable political reincarnation, onetime U.S. favorite Ahmed Chalabi has secured a position inside the Iraqi government that could help determine whether the Bush administration's new push to secure Baghdad succeeds.In a new post created earlier this year, Mr. Chalabi will serve as an intermediary between Baghdad residents and the Iraqi and U.S. security forces mounting an aggressive counterinsurgency campaign across the city. The position is meant to help Iraqis arrange reimbursement for damage to their cars and homes caused by the security sweeps in the hope of maintaining public support for the strategy.
I don't blame partisan wrangling, the insurgency has been very adept at impeding the birth of civil society. I think the opponents have played into their hands.
Put me in those polls where a majority of Americans still see and demand success. Give General Petraeus a chance. Then, instead of sniping at the administration from the sidelines, watch an inchoate nation unfold, real time.
February 20, 2007
IBD Poll
Among many great reasons to be depressed, it's hard to top the polls showing that Americans do not believe they can win in Iraq, do not feel we can win in Iraq, and do not care whether we win in Iraq.
I suspect it has been finely inculcated, yet still stand silenced (not my normal state) when I hear my countrymen are willing to allow another Vietnam outcome. I risk cherry-picking a poll, but Larry Kudlow references an Investor Business Daily Poll that tells a different story.
Speaking of Investors Business Daily, they posted tremendous polling data last Friday on Iraq that you won’t read about in the mainstream media.Contrary to common wisdom, most Americans want to win in Iraq.
The poll was conducted by IBD’s polling partner TIPP. This is Raghavan Mayur’s company and they are very accurate pollsters.
Based on 915 respondents, the IBD/TIPP poll revealed that as of February 7th, 66% believe that it's “very important” or “somewhat important” to win in Iraq. That includes 85 percent of Republicans, 63 percent of Independents, and 53 percent of Democrats.
It goes on to say that 58 percent are “very hopeful” or “somewhat hopeful” of a U.S. victory in Iraq.
I am very hopeful and believe it is critical to win.
February 15, 2007
Screw TNR!
If I may recount: TNR comes out boldly for the Iraq war, then turns tail and attacks the mission when it gets difficult, piling on to support antiwar candidates and help pull the President’s party out of power.
Now, its editors are crying into their 1945 Château l'effete that It's becoming obvious: No one is going to save Darfur
Precisely because neither of these [UN] options ever seemed likely to work, we have argued over the past year that nato intervention is the best way to end the genocide. We still favor that approach, but we have no illusions that the Bush administration will ever undertake it. Last week, speaking at a panel in Washington, D.C., John Prendergast of the International Crisis Group urged Western governments at least to weigh the possibility of military action against Sudan--but then conceded, "It's a laughable concept as we sit here today." True enough. At this point, we would be happy to see the West take any action that has even the remotest chance of stopping the genocide. Some efforts, such as a no-fly zone over Darfur or a naval blockade of Port Sudan, could, at least in theory, be undertaken unilaterally or by a small group of countries. Other proposals, such as travel bans that target government leaders or sanctions against Sudanese oil, would require broad consent from the international community to be effective.Unfortunately, none of these measures seem likely to happen any time soon. For one thing, when it comes to Darfur, we have shown time and again that we simply lack the will for substantial steps of any kind. For another, China--a major consumer of Sudanese oil and a longtime supplier of equipment to Khartoum's military--would almost certainly foil efforts to punish Sudan economically.
And so the West either isn't going to act or isn't going to act strongly enough, and the plight of Darfuris will become more dire by the day. Indeed, as recent reports of attacks on aid workers piled up, one humanitarian group, Médecins du Monde, decided to pull out of Darfur. If others follow, millions of displaced persons could soon be without water, food, or medicine.
Afghanistan, a good TNR journalist would say, is reverting to lawless Talibanism, and Iraq is a Quagmire and a mistake of the current administration.
The UN is powerless and disinterested, and TNR wants the administration to organize a coalition of the willing. Let's nuke China and free Tibet while we're over there.
Former TNR Editor Peter Beinart's book is subtitled "Why liberals, and only liberals, can win the war on terror and make America great again." I respect Beinart (and Martin Peretz) but his old magazine disproves his thesis almost once a week.
How Many Republican Defeatists?
I guess that's the last remaining question in the House. I'm relearning what a friend the "cooling saucer of the Senate" is to a minority party. Even with all our squishes and RINOs, the Senate GOP stalled the defeat resolution under Sen. McConnell’s bold leadership.
But, as they say, you can pass a Ham Sandwich in the house (if the majority party is not hallah or kosher) and we will soon see a bill "supporting the troops" but denigrating their mission and attempting to withhold the tools for victory. How many House GOP members will join the pusillanimity club? The WSJ Ed Page issues a warning: (free link)
All of this is something that House Republicans should keep in mind as they consider whether to follow this retreat. The GOP leadership has been stalwart, even eloquent, this week in opposing the resolution. But some Republicans figure they can use this vote to distance themselves from Mr. Bush and the war while not doing any real harm. They should understand that the Democratic willingness to follow the Murtha "slow-bleed" strategy will depend in part on how many Republicans follow them in this vote. The Democrats are themselves divided on how to proceed, and they want a big GOP vote to give them political cover. However "non-binding," this is a vote that Republican partisans will long remember.History is likely to remember the roll as well. A newly confirmed commander is about to lead 20,000 American soldiers on a dangerous and difficult mission to secure Baghdad, risking their lives for their country. And the message their elected Representatives will send them off to battle with is a vote declaring their inevitable defeat.
February 3, 2007
A Resolution I Can Support
Fellow Colorado blogger Terri at I think ^(link) therefore I err has written an alternate non-binding resolution, and one I could most certainly support:
1) Continue to let the troops know they have my full support and not in a William Arkin sort of way.2) Not vote for any Senator who votes for a non-binding, or a binding resolution requesting extra benchmarks or no extra troops as requested
3) Actively campaign against Senator Salazar who has decided to now call the Iraq war a quagmire along with his Democratic colleagues because he thinks it's expedient I'm sure. He was voted in as a moderate and now he thinks he was voted in because of a Democrat "surge". He's incorrect.
4) Continue calling the numbers on Hugh's website to voice my opinion!
Scroll up to the Global Warming resolution as well.
UPDATE: And Welcome to the blogroll. A good excuse to add a Colorado section.
Hey thanks for the link and the Blogroll!
You've been added to mine too, but I needed to switch over to wordpress. Beta blogger was not working on my Mac for longer than I wanted, so I went ahead and switched. Same name, just .worpress
January 16, 2007
Hope They Don't Practice
Second Iraq Hanging Also Went Awry - New York Times
BAGHDAD, Jan. 15 — Iraq’s turbulent effort to reckon with the violence of its past took another macabre turn on Monday when the execution of Saddam Hussein’s half brother ended with the hangman’s noose decapitating him after he dropped through the gallows trapdoor
I for one am glad that the new Iraqi government is showing so little proclivity for efficient executions. The last group was, perhaps, a little too good?
January 15, 2007
Give The Surge a Chance
Larry Kudlow points out that world markets are treating the President's new Iraq strategy more optimistically that the media, Democrats, and Senator Hagel, or as they're known in the blogosphere, the MSMDH.
But President Bush’s overhauled Iraq strategy, including a tougher line on Iran, is being viewed by investors as a plus for security in the Middle East. Two large aircraft carrier groups and 16,000 sailors have been positioned in the Persian Gulf. There also are indications that the U.S. will provide Patriot anti-missile defense systems to allies in the region. So, putting all this together, geopolitical risk premiums are actually declining — hence lower oil prices.While pundits and politicians are saying the new Bush plan won’t work, market investors are voting with their money for a much more positive verdict. And after surveying the details of the new Iraq strategy, I’m casting my lot with the investors.
The U.S. military buildup — including the strengthened naval presence — not only will provide better security for Iraq’s democratically elected government, but also enhanced security for the entire region.
[...]
Think of it: Falling oil prices not only reflect lower war and political risk, but they are actually doing enormous damage to one of the Middle East’s top risk producers: Iran.Political opposition by Democrats and Republicans to Bush’s new strategy may be hardening, but financial markets are pointing to a much more positive scenario. Might the president’s new plan actually work? World markets are saying give it a chance.
I agree.
Me too, Larry.
The contemptable General Wesley Clark was on FNC with Shawn Hannity last night saying, "We won the Cold War through diplomacy, we should be trying to win this war diplomatically too."
That's right Wes, the diplomacy of MX missles, Trident subs and a 600 ship navy. Not a shot was fired militarily, but a full economic broadside was required to bring down the "evil empire."
The same strategy could be effective now, perhaps even more so than with the Soviets. How? $20/bbl for oil would be a good start. Encourage domestic drilling in all the places we currently "preserve" and the bottom will fall out. Even if it required federal subsidies it would cost far less than $270 billion.
Posted by: johngalt at January 15, 2007 3:30 PMGeneral Clark won the war in Bosnia. I don't remember that they were dropping treaties and resolutions from 30,000 feet, but that was a long time ago. I might have forgotten.
Posted by: jk at January 15, 2007 4:52 PMDecember 30, 2006
[sic] Semper Tyrannis
Wow. The AP is on hand to tell you all you need to know about the late Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein. In U.S. tolerated, then villified [sic] Saddam you learn from one Calvin Woodward that Saddam wasn't such a bad guy (well, apart from those atrocities) but that America just has a need to personify its struggles -- especially one with a moustache.
WASHINGTON - When U.S. leaders decided it was time to despise Saddam Hussein, he made the perfect villain.He was cocky and cunning. He looked dangerous and deranged standing at rallies firing a gun into the air, conduct unbecoming a head of government.
He was Hitler Lite, or as the first President Bush put it, "Hitler revisited," lacking the endless armies, but close enough for U.S. purposes. He had a history of atrocities. His black mustache heightened the aura of menace.
Had Hitler shaved, I'm sure we'd have left him alone. (George Carlin had a great routine: "Stalin had a beard. Teddy Roosevelt had 'whiskers.'")
It just gets worse. The death of a ruthless dictator who has put hundreds of thousands of his countryman to death is such a grand occasion to do a little America bashing. Don't make fun of the AP mispelling in a headline though, you'll anger Joseph Rago and expose yourself as one of those petty bloggers.
December 29, 2006
JK Questions Their Patriotism
A terrible thought occurred to me a few weeks ago. It's not necessarily original but I think it deserves a hard look. And, today, I got the perfect segue to discuss it thanks to Perfesser Reynolds.
A strain of CW says that support for the war in Iraq has dropped because the struggle has been more difficult than anticipated. I have certainly believed this, and I have admitted to war opponents that I thought it would be easier.
But what has changed for the war opponents? We're not rationing gas, holding blackout drills, or conscripting their family.
War opponents are Bush opponents and they are merely being opportunistic. They count the casualties and await macabre, invented benchmarks: "more people have died in Iraq than have hit over .250 in the major leagues!” The problem is not lack of will, the problem is a lack of belief in American exceptionalism.
Instapundit links today to a Dave Kopel piece about long standing tribal conflict between "the Anuak, Nuer, Majangir, Opo and Komo." It's another lugubrious tale of tribal conflict than has gone on for n years, and you cannot help but glaze over, because the story is as common as it is sad. Reynolds links, and closes with this- startling yet true statement:
Nobody has cared, but now that Ethiopia is opposing the Islamists in Somalia with U.S. assistance, we'll no doubt see a sudden surge of "human rights" advocacy on the subject, though the whole disarmament thing might make it politically tricky . . . .
Nobody cares that people are killing each other, until the United States should have a strategic interest in siding with one tribe over another. To oppose the interests of the US, we will suddenly face education on the perfidy of the Ethiopians and the gentle goodness of the Anuak.
I remain in the shrinking population that supports the war because I think we have a far better life to offer and that we will ultimately reap security rewards for our efforts. Aside from the occasional Cindy Sheehan, it strikes me that the people who are doing the sacrificing, as a general rule, are prepared to continue sacrificing to achieve the mission. Those who have "grown weary" will not and never did sacrifice, they just do not believe in what America has to offer.
What has happened is that by failing to win the war, Bush has given the looney left every opportunity they could hope for to persuade the wishy washy "centrists" that the cost is not worth the reward.
(The only good part of this is that reward is being judged in terms of "American interests" and not "world security." Of course it would have been better for both had the war been conducted by warriors rather than diplomats.)
The looney left is not only uninvested, but counter-interested in American power projection in the mideast and around the globe. The centrists, on the other hand, ARE invested by way of taxpayer funding of the military mission.
Posted by: johngalt at December 29, 2006 10:19 PMObviously you're right on the tax issue and it seems out of character of me to downplay it. Considering the fungibility, lack of clear accounting and debt structure of the Federal Gub'mint, I question whether this is felt as a sacrifice.
Posted by: jk at December 30, 2006 12:21 PMDecember 26, 2006
The Booming Economy You Don't Hear About
Nope, not here. As Larry Kudlow has been mentioning, a boom in Iraq.
Larry links to an Amir Taheri piece in The New York Post
Four years ago, this was a jumble of rusting quays, abandoned houses and gutted buildings. By the spring of 2003, its population had dwindled to a few dozen, along with hundreds of stray dogs. There was even talk of abandoning it altogether.Today, however, Um Qasr is back in business as a port with commercial and military functions. Hundreds of families that had left after the first Gulf War in 1991 have returned - joining many more who have come from all over Iraq.
The boom in Um Qasr is part of a broader picture that also includes Basra (the sprawling metropolis of southern Iraq), the Shi'ite "holy" cities of Najaf and Karbala, Mandali on the Iranian border and much of Baghdad.
When the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank reported two years ago that the Iraqi economy was heading for a boom, skeptics dismissed it as misplaced optimism. Now, however, even some of those who opposed the toppling of Saddam Hussein admit that many Iraqis share that optimism.
Newsweek has just hailed the emergence of a booming market economy in Iraq as "the mother of all surprises," noting that "Iraqis are more optimistic about the future than most Americans are."
Of course they're more optimistic. The New York Times doesn't deliver that far.
December 15, 2006
Thank You Mr. Taranto
I know most of you read Best of the Web everyday, so I have not linked. But if you have missed any of the eight "Responding to Rangel" letters he ran during his vacation, Click on over and read every one.
I wrote a brief letter to Taranto to thank him. I always knew that the folks who wore our nation’s uniform were courageous, honorable, patriotic. But it is good for this Vietnam era brat to be reminded just how wrong Sen. Kerry and Rep. Rangel are to disparage their intelligence and capacity to compete in the private sector.
Mr. Taranto:Though I missed BOTW, my wife and I read the letters every day this week. I suspect we both cried every time.
What a gift to share a country with such people. What a Christmas gift to be reminded.
I gave little thought to a military career, although in Junior High I wanted to be like Capt./Maj. Nelson in "I Dream of Jeannie." I'm not one for regrets, but if I had it to do over again, I would have served.
Hope your vacation was enjoyable -- thanks again for the letters.
November 30, 2006
Changing the Narrative
President Bush's opposition, both in politics and in the Press, has successfully undermined the Iraq liberation with a constant focus on WMds. They are very good at this kind of myopic focus. I would cite the defense of President Clinton "It's all about sex" and the press redemption of Anita Hill, who went from discredited witness to feminist hero in a couple years of NYTimes and WaPo puff pieces.
That's all old hash (dude, did he say something about hash?) but they are being just as successful today advertising that the war was based on a lie and that the reasons crumbled when no WMD stockpiles were found.
A realistic look at the reasons for war must include the sanctions. And any discussion of the sanctions should include the widespread corruption unearthed by the Volcker report.
Nobody seems to be looking for either WMDs or Oil for food corruption anymore. But the WSJ Ed Page reports that Australia is proceeding with prosecution of an Aussie firm that paid bribes.
The Australian government started to act once Mr. Volcker's probe began turning over the rocks. Apart from the U.S., no other nation has launched a full-scale, independent criminal investigation into the crimes committed as part of Oil for Food. Mr. Cole's thoroughly readable report is available at www.oilforfoodinquiry.gov.au. He has recommended 11 AWB employees, plus a BHP Billiton executive, for criminal prosecution.Meanwhile, most other countries have done little or nothing to come clean. France, which was given preferential oil allocations, has only a lone prosecutor moving ahead, with little support from the Elysée Palace. Russia, which facilitated the oil allocations and blocked moves on the Security Council to investigate kickbacks, refused to assist Mr. Volcker, much less prosecute anyone. Ditto for China, which received huge oil allocations, and Vietnam, whose state-owned food companies paid kickbacks in exchange for business contracts.
Regarding the U.N., Mr. Cole notes that "The United Nations knew that Iraq was breaching sanctions by requiring payment of inland transport fees and surcharges or after-sales-service fees. It knew this between 1999 and 2003. . . It took no steps to publicize or warn member states of the Iraqi practices, and it took no steps to stop the practices." Mark it down as another coda to Kofi Annan's disastrous legacy as Secretary General.
Count me in the 40% who still support the war. The status quo was not an idyllic kite-flying paradise portrayed in "Fahrenheit 9/11" but an untenable dystopian fear-society where a corrupt leader was skirting sanctions to become a more dominant player in the politics of an important region..
November 20, 2006
While Time Magazine Slept
A ThreeSources reader sent me a link to Time Magazine's article on Pope Benedict XVI over the weekend. The suggestion was that BXVI might be as important an ally in the War on Terror as JPII was for Reagan in the Cold War.
The article was good and I hope my friend is right. I took the time to complete an online survey at Time.com, where I gave them a harsh assessment of their product and a stark evaluation of how frequently I visit their site (Never, unless somebody sends me a link).
sisu does a much better post on the article than I would have, under the title While Time Magazine slept.
The blog post points out that somebody paying more attention would not have been quite as surprised as Time, that then Cardinal Ratzinger had shown definite proclivities, and that perhaps a real news organization should have paid more attention.
Before Pope John Paul II died, there was discussions of the next Pope being from a country that has a "Islamic" problem, must like JPII was from a country that had a "Communist" problem.
The front runner was a Cardinal from Nigeria, some Catholics (myself included) were surprised that a German was picked. Though after reading Marc Steyn's "America Alone," it's easy to see how prescient the Pope's selection was.
It's obvious that Pope Benedict is willing to take on Islamicfascism head on. Witness his speech from a few month ago.
He's going to keep doing it, too.
Posted by: AlexC at November 20, 2006 3:24 PMAlex, Germany has a sizeable Turkish population. Turkey straddles the divide between East and West and therefore Christain and Muslim (as well as secular and religious).
Makes sense to me.
Posted by: TrekMedic251 at November 20, 2006 8:57 PMTrekmedic, I know... that's the thrust of my 2nd paragraph. Europe is slowly evoling into Eurabia, and Germany near the head of the pack.
Posted by: AlexC at November 21, 2006 12:39 AMNovember 17, 2006
My Kind of Diesel Mechanic
WCCO.com reports on a beauty queen who is giving up her title to serve our nation and the cause of freedom.
Jessica Gaulke is trading in life as Minnesota's queen of the lakes for a year in the Iraqi desert."There's obviously preconceived notions about beauty queens," said Gaulke, who was chosen as Minneapolis Aquatennial Queen of the Lakes in July.
Gaulke is giving up her title because her National Guard unit has been activated for duty in Iraq. The 22-year-old Augsburg College sociology student will be going to the Mideast as a diesel generator mechanic.
Senator Kerry could not be reached for comment. ThreeSources wondered if he would retract his famous comment: “You work on your poise, you get your lipstick right, you find an evening gown that fits, you can do well. If not, you get stuck in Iraq.”
Hat-tip: My lovely wife.
October 27, 2006
Times Do Change
I don't think anybody can be totally sanguine about the political situation in Russia. Arrested journalists and business leaders, renewed nationalism and expansionism. The promise of freedom when the Berlin Wall fell has not been realized.
Yet, in the long term, we can't forget the improvement from Sharansky’s incarceration to this:
I'm still on the British Midlands International email list, though I haven't been back to Blighty in years. BA has one flight per day to Denver; it's much smaller competitor flies twice into Moscow. Interesting.
October 6, 2006
Islam
I'm going to add some bad news to AlexC's depressing post yesterday about unceasing Muslim-Western violence in France.
Perry de Havilland first reports that "A Muslim police officer has been allowed to refuse to guard the Israeli embassy in London."
Disturbing, but then Havilland doubles down with Violence is just a symptom... it is all about Islam.
In strong but well reasoned words, Perry says that Islam, by demanding a "whole life" view is no different from Communism.
If Muslims want their religion to be treated with tolerance, they need to de-secularise it in the same way Christianity has (largely) done. But for as long as Islam advocates an imposed political order based on religious principles, it must not be treated either legally or socially as being above critique on any level whatsoever.Islam is the problem and, just like Communism and Fascism, it is simply incompatible with western post-Enlightenment civilisation. And also just like Communism and Fascism, it must be contained or defeated militarily when it threatens us but it must also be defeated as an ideology as well.
I have a few good Muslim friends, one of whom is very devout, the others are the equivalent of "Jack Mormons" (Abdul Muslims?) There are a billion and I'm a religiously tolerant guy. I'm not ready to start another Crusade.
Lawrence Wright in "The Looming Tower" bifurcates between traditionalist Muslims who subscribe to the imposed political order Havilland discusses and those who have been able to live in a secular world.
I can't join the Coulter/Malkin brigades who think Islam must be subjugated. But I am finding it harder to believe that we are fighting a small, isolated minority.
Big questions, but who cares. Did you guys know Rep. Mark Foley was gay?
September 24, 2006
Mr. Orwell, call your office
If you like running out of hot sauna into the icy pool, I can recommend a couple of interesting articles.
First, seriously, read Stephen Hayes's How Bad Is the Senate Intelligence Report? This was the cover of last week's issue (Felix Allen Macaca, Jr. has the current week) and is available free on the website.
The Weekly Standard, and Hayes especially, have been slow to lie down and accept the CW that Iraq would never work with al-Qaeda, 'cause Saddam was secular. You can get immediate troglodyte status with any thoughtful NPR listener by expressing the slightest doubt of that.
Hayes demolishes it
As early as 1982, the Iraqi regime was openly supporting, training, and funding the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist organization opposed to the secular regime of Hafez Assad. For years, Saddam Hussein cultivated warm relations with Hassan al-Turabi, the Islamist who was the de facto leader of the Sudanese terrorist state, and a man Bill Clinton described as "a buddy of [Osama] bin Laden's."
For several pages, Hayes enumerates inconsistencies, errors, and willful misdirection in the Senate Intelligence report which "proves" it.
Grab a large coffee and read that one coast-to-coast. It's cover story length, a little dry, and incredibly repetitive because Hayes finds so many errors to contradict. That's your sauna visit. After reading that article, you will be particularly informed on a topic about which most of the country is purposefully ignorant.
Then read as much as you can stand of the Page A01 bylined story in the WaPo Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Hurting U.S. Terror Fight
"It's a very candid assessment," one intelligence official said yesterday of the estimate, the first formal examination of global terrorist trends written by the National Intelligence Council since the March 2003 invasion. "It's stating the obvious."
Saddam Hussein's Iraq, long before President Bush blundered into the Pottery Barn, operated state sponsored paramilitary training camps for terrorists.
Beginning in 1994, the Fedayeen Saddam opened its own paramilitary training camps for volunteers, graduating more than 7,200 "good men racing full with courage and enthusiasm" in the first year. Beginning in 1998, these camps began hosting "Arab volunteers from Egypt, Palestine, Jordan, 'the Gulf,' and Syria.
Seems like recruitment was doing all right when President Clinton and Speaker Wright were running things.
Now the same "intelligence community" that participated in the Senate Intelligence Report, willfully obstructed the President, missed 9/11, sent the extraordinary Joseph Wilson IV to Niger, and said WMDs were a slam dunk should be believed in toto with a subjective assertion.
Because they're professionals, I suppose. It would be humorous to see the fourth estate so supportive of the veracity of every word from US government spooks. It would be humorous had it not been so successful in hurting the war effort and inculcating opposition in the electorate.
September 22, 2006
I'll preorder a copy
The more I hear about Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the more I like her.
She has located in the United States because the Dutch would not protect her from Islamic militants after Theo Van Gogh was murdered. I think she belongs here. George Will pulls himself out of an intellectual batting slump with this incredible column
Slender, elegant, stylish and articulate (in English, Dutch and Swahili), she has found an intellectual home here at the American Enterprise Institute, where she is writing a book that imagines Muhammad meeting, in the New York Public Library, three thinkers -- John Stuart Mill, Friedrich Hayek and Karl Popper, each a hero of the unending struggle between (to take the title of Popper's 1945 masterpiece) "The Open Society and Its Enemies.'' Islamic extremists -- the sort who were unhinged by some Danish cartoons -- will be enraged. She is unperturbed.
Hat-tip: Instapundit, whom I'll quote "Read the whole thing!"
September 4, 2006
Another One Bites the Dust!
"And another one's gone, and another one's gone. Doop doop doop da doop!"
US and Iraqi forces have arrested the second most senior figure of al-Qaida in Iraq and killed 20 fellow militants.{...}
"Hamid al-Suaidi led a group that kidnapped people. He ordered bombings and mortar attacks that killed a number of our armed forces and our citizens. Al-Qaida in Iraq is severely wounded," Rubaie [Iraq's national security advisor] said.
"After his arrest he gave critical and important information and we ended up killing 11 militants of the second tier of leaders and nine of the lower tier," Rubaie said of Suaidi.
I had to scroll through the "all 825 news articles" Google link to find one from Australia in order to avoid liberal media bias in the report. For example, the ITV [Britain] version that I took the photo from waited until the fifth of seven paragraphs before mentioning the captured man's name, and even then did it thusly:
Hours after an "embarrassed" US military again postponed a ceremony to hand command of Iraqi troops to the government, the national security adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie summoned reporters to a news conference to announce that Hamid Juma Faris al-Suaidi had been seized some days ago.
So after starting the story with, "Security officials [no mention of whose] claim [as it's apparently in dispute] to have arrested the second-in-command of the terror [what, no scare quotes?] group al-Qaeda in Iraq," they morphed this news item into a slanted report on the so-called occupation of Iraq by the US military. In the process they inplicity question Washington's sincerity to "let Americans go home."
If you still wonder why the majority public opinion is that things are going "badly" in Iraq, here's your answer.
Al-Qaida in Iraq?
Posted by: jk at September 4, 2006 10:48 AMIs it me,..or does that green thingy under his chin look like the bottom of a gallows??
What is that? I've seen that picture a hundred times and never quite got it.
The New Republic today says that this guy wasn't important and that the London explosive guys weren't really dangerous. Even our wins are losses.
Posted by: jk at September 5, 2006 1:14 PMAugust 26, 2006
Good WaPo Research
Samuel H. Preston and Emily Buzzell at the Washington Post answer a question that has been in the back of my mind but that I have been too lazy to research.
In short, there are a lot of young men and women serving our nation in Iraq. Every death is regrettable, but how many would die if they stayed home or went on spring break in Aruba?
Kudos to Preston and Buzzell for a nifty piece.
Between March 21, 2003, when the first military death was recorded in Iraq, and March 31, 2006, there were 2,321 deaths among American troops in Iraq. Seventy-nine percent were a result of action by hostile forces. Troops spent a total of 592,002 "person-years" in Iraq during this period. The ratio of deaths to person-years, .00392, or 3.92 deaths per 1,000 person-years, is the death rate of military personnel in Iraq.
To give away the ending, that’s half the US average. But wait, that includes 95 year olds and people not in the good health of our men and women in uniform.
U.S. men 18-39 only face 39% of the risk, which seems closer to an intuitive estimate. But -- insert your own W.C. Fields joke here -- on the whole, it's better to be in Iraq than be an African-American in Philadelphia; the latter is 11% more risky.
"The death rate of American troops in Vietnam was 5.6 times that observed in Iraq. " (I blogged that we lost well over twice as many in a short while in WWII fighting for eight square miles of Iwo Jima).
In short, to post the number dead is specious. Kudos to Professor Preston and Ms. Buzzell for the perspective, and to the WaPo for printing it.
Hat-tip: Insty
I'll wager that civilian deaths in Iraq are a similar fraction of those in Vietnam and WWII. Despite the aggressive efforts of subversive elements to create humanitarian crisis there, far more "innocent" women and children died as a result of thousand-plane raids and B-52 carpet bombing missions. War is still hell, and should be waged as a last resort, but western ingenuity, skill and respect for life has dramatically reduced the scope of collateral damage. (To the point that Hezbollah had to STAGE atrocity scenes in their recent "stab the sleeping tiger" war with Israel.
Islamic terrorists claim to "love death like we love life." We love life so much we try to spare those of the wives, daughters and children of even these murderous bastards.
Posted by: johngalt at August 27, 2006 12:29 PMAugust 22, 2006
Sharansky Lives!
I rarely link to Taranto, because I assume that every ThreeSources reader reads Best Of The Web everyday.
But an item today is so perfect, I have to highlight it. He links to a Thomas Friedman column about Iranians who are displeased that their government is giving 500 million to Hezbollah, when their nation is still damaged by war and earthquakes. Taranto adds:
This is one reason why democratizing the Middle East is such an important goal. It's very unlikely that a democratic Iran would be waging war on Lebanon. Democracy is a check on unnecessary war. Indeed, a drawback of democracy is that it's sometimes a check on necessary war; just look at Old Europe and its approach to Iraq, Hezbollah, etc.
My idealism has been bruised and beaten these days. Republicans are distancing themselves from the President on Iraq, the Israel/Hezbollah war in Lebanon did not end as well as it could (that understates but captures ThreeSources opinion).
I turned in my neo-Wilsonian merit badge awhile back, but Mr. Taranto has put a little fight back in my Sharansky side. Why we fight. What's at stake. Thanks to ALL who serve!
The Dark Side of Valuing Life
Okay, I've written my provocative headline for the year.
We do value life. People complain that we live in a "disposable society" because we replace instead of repair things."We value human labor and thought more than a television set!" retorts I, "This is a good thing."
Kids wearing bicycle helmets strikes old- schoolers as "wussification." I'm concerned that we pamper youth, but much of it is valuing life highly. The same can be said for lawsuits. Life is not cheap anymore.
The dark side is that the investment in war and freedom is now much more costly. Edward Luttwak of the Jerusalem Post (hat-tip Mickey, via Insty) compares eight IDF forces lost to WWII:
When an IDF company attacked the mountain town of Bint Jbail, losing eight men in one night, that number was perceived in Israel - and broadcast around the world - as a disastrous loss.Many a surviving veteran of the 1943-1945 Italian campaign must have been amazed by this reaction. There too it was one stone-built village and hilltop town after another, and though the Germans were outnumbered, outgunned and poorly supplied, a company that went against them would consider the loss of only eight men as very fortunate, because attacking forces could suffer a 150% or even 300% casualty rates - that mathematical impossibility being explained by the need for a second, third or fourth assault wave to take a small village.
Even that was not much as compared to the 6,821 Americans who died to conquer the eight square miles of Iwo Jima.
As Patton said "thank God that such men lived." They still live. Is not Iraq worth as much as eight square miles?
Can we leave Iraq as we did Iwo Jima, desolate and unihabited?
Posted by: silence dogood at August 25, 2006 3:43 AMI wonder if more lives have not been lost in the 8 square miles around Jerusalem than anywhere else on the planet.
Posted by: silence dogood at August 25, 2006 4:14 AMAugust 21, 2006
Freedom On Retreat
I will agree with The Wall Street Journal (free link) that the United States, Israel, and the cause of freedom have suffered a serious setback in Lebanon. The French have sandbagged us, the U.N. itself has shown its indifference to freedom, and the Bush/Rice promise that the region will not return to "the status quo ante" has been broken.
On Thursday, Jacques Chirac confirmed a Le Monde report that his government was prepared to offer only some 200 combat engineers (in addition to the 200 French troops already in Lebanon) to what is supposed to be the resolution's centerpiece: A 15,000-man U.N. force that will help the Lebanese army patrol their southern border and ensure that Hezbollah will no longer use the area as a staging ground for future attacks against Israel.Given that the French contingent was supposed to be at the vanguard of this enhanced force, it's unclear whether other nations will be willing to chip in with troops of their own. All of this after the French used the promise of a robust, French-led international force to get the U.S. and Israel to agree to a cease-fire and withdrawal. Even less reassuring is the insistence by French Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie that her troops will remain in the lead only until February, after which, apparently, it's salaam and adieu.
I will not join them in ascribing blame to the Secretary of State.
The person who should really be furious here is Secretary of State Rice. She midwifed this cease-fire in the name of Lebanese democracy and as a way to use diplomacy, and the U.N., to tame Hezbollah and frustrate its patrons. She also believed French promises, so it'd be good to know if she now feels she was lied to. If this U.N. exercise turns out to be as feckless as it increasingly appears, U.S. credibility will also be a loser.
As I commented before, I think the Secretary has been charged by the President to pursue the diplomatic tack. I don't think French perfidy is a surprise to her nor is the lesson is hers. The lesson here should be for the "multilateralists who believe that Kofi Annan's crew can solve problems in a difficult and dangerous world. Ned Lamont says we should negotiate with Iran and Syria. Sadly, Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) agrees.
Yet another failure of diplomacy, as Iran tests ten missiles and continues development of nuclear weapons. And the lesson remains unlearned.
Like Brit Hume, I don't think it's as bad as it looks. This is not so much a serious setback as a gigantic missed opportunity. That opportunity belonged not to the U.S., or even Israel, but to France and the U.N. Bush/Rice said, "OK Jacques, we'll be your huckleberry," and gave them the helm of the international diplomacy garbage scow. In apparent admission that diplomacy can't dissuade RFMO (religious fanatics with military ordnance) they surrendered even before their mission began. (Surrender being the ONE thing you can count on from the French.)
But there is a setback. Despite this massive failure on the part of the UN, greater even than the "oil for food" debacle, supposed serious American statesmen like Lamont and Hagel (and many more in the US Senate) still believe we should "talk" to Iran and Syria. And say what? "That's it, young men. You're in time out!"
Posted by: johngalt at August 21, 2006 3:06 PMJuly 17, 2006
Stand with Israel Rally - NYC
Pamela from Atlas Shrugs attended the Stand With Israel Rally in NYC today and gives a weblog report. She has great coverage on her site 'Atlas Shrugs' including some great photos of Hillary swallowing her bile when Elie Wiesel said, "Thank God Bush is in the White House."
Great stuff Pamela! Check it out.
UPDATE: Here's the Rush Limbaugh program transcript of Pamela's "breathless" call to the show on Monday. Man, she was on fire! (And if you look close on Pamela's post, you'll see that the very first trackback ping is: Three Sources!)
Not many times I wish I lived in New York, but I would have liked to have been there.
Posted by: jk at July 17, 2006 11:04 PMJuly 16, 2006
Iranian Nukes? We'll Soon Know
We knew this was coming sooner rather than later when we witnessed the "elections" of Ahmadinejad in Iran and Hamas in the Palestinian territories. When the "imperialist" American administration and the "Hitler" and "Ghengis Khan" like Israelis did nothing to provoke open warfare with Iran, those swell Iranian mullahs grew tired of waiting. As Robert Tracinski writes, "If, in the face of repeated threats and provocation by an aggressive dictatorship, you refuse to go to war, the war will eventually come to you." Two years after the 'forward strategy of freedom' swept the Syrian army out of Lebanon, Hezbollah was under growing pressure to leave as well. No reasonable person should have expected them to leave peacefully. (What do you think they are, pluralistic democrats? No, they're Islamofascists you fools!)
A timely example of such a fool is Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd, who said on Fox News Sunday this morning that, essentially, it's Bush's fault! Dodd attributes the military action in south Lebanon to diplomatic failure:
"It seems to be that you have to go beyond just understanding the friendship, which is important, but for Israel's benefit and our own, we have missed, I think over the last number of years, the ability to really engage in the kind of diplomatic efforts in the middle east. From 1967 up until the end of the Clinton administration, every administration has remained very, very engaged in the middle east. This administration unfortunately has seen the word diplomacy and negotiation as somehow a favor to your enemies. I think unfortunately we've allowed this time to elapse over the last several years, the resolution 1559 was adopted two years ago, and the administration's done nothing in my view to really insist that the Lebanese rid southern Lebanon of Hezbollah and so this time has gone through without really engaging in the process thus we find ourselves today, Israel certainly has the right to defend itself. What it's doing is absolutely necessary. If Lebanon and Syria will recognize that those soldiers need to be returned and also Hezbollah has to get out of southern Lebanon then I think you could bring a cease-fire about."
To be fair, it has been nearly five years since Islamofascists unilaterally slaughtered 3000 American civilians with airliners. But despite this, why is Dodd still endorsing the realpolitik appeasement cum stability strategy of the past thirty years? Does he genuinely believe that it will lead to regional and worldwide peace if we just give it another decade or three to work itself out?
I can't say whether it is a symptom or a cause of America's confusion in general, or Dodd's in particular, but there is clearly a filter in place between the events of the mideast and the front pages of America's news media. Compare some recent news excerpts in America to those in, notably, Australia:
WSJ- 'World Leadership Reacts To Escalating Mideast Violence'
"Haifa was hit with at least 20 rockets fired by Lebanese guerillas, in retaliation for a wave of bombings by Israeli airplanes early Sunday morning when about 18 powerful explosions rocked southern Beirut."
AP (via Houston Chronicle)- 'Hezbollah rocket barrage kills 8 in Haifa'
"Hezbollah's firing of at least 20 rockets at Haifa and 30 elsewhere came after Israel unleashed its fiercest bombardment yet of the Lebanese capital, starting after midnight Saturday."
And, in the most offensive of my three examples,
Chigago Tribune- '2 dead on Israeli warship; jets attack Lebanon anew'
"A draft resolution under consideration, from Lebanese Foreign Minister Fawzi Salloukh, demanded the release of Lebanese captives and detainees in Israeli prisons, and supported Lebanon's right to "liberate them by all legitimate means."
Meanwhile, Israeli warplanes renewed attacks on Lebanon early Saturday, targeting bridges, fuel depots and gas stations in the east and south, security officials said."
[...]
""You wanted an open war and we are ready for an open war," Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah said in a taped statement broadcast Friday. He vowed to strike even deeper into Israel with rockets."
The clear message to American voters: The "cycle of violence" continues and Hezbollah/Lebanon are defending their sovereignty from Israeli aggression.
In contrast, Australians read the following headlines:
The Australian- 'Militants' missile hits ship with Iranian troops' help'
"Israel says the troops involved in firing the missile were from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, an elite corps of more than 200,000 fighters that is independent of the regular armed forces and controlled by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei."
[...]
"A military official said the group was also believed to have longer-range projectiles that could hit the Israeli commercial hub of Tel Aviv."
The Australian- 'Strikes to intensify in four-stage strategy'
"In the first stage, which began shortly after the Hezbollah incursion across the border last Wednesday, Israeli warplanes attacked missile caches in south Lebanon and elsewhere, particularly those housing long-range missiles.
Fifty caches, some hidden underground and in private homes, were reportedly destroyed. It is unclear what percentage of the 13,000 missiles known to be in Hezbollah hands that accounts for."
[...]
"In the second stage, which began early on Friday, warplanes attacked the heart of Hezbollah power, shattering high-rise buildings in south Beirut housing the militia's command structure as well as the home of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, who was reportedly trapped for a while in the underground command centre when the building above it collapsed."
"The third and fourth stages are still secret. However, the sources said the operation calls for each of the four stages to be more powerful than the previous one."
[...]
"Israeli officials say the international community will not force Israel to stop before its goals are achieved."
Sydney Morning Herald- 'With US backing, Israel determined to go for the kill'
"Israel's goal is to either eliminate Hezbollah as a security threat, or altogether. The broader goal of the US is to strangle the axis of Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and Iran, which the Bush Administration believes is pooling resources to change the strategic playing field in the Middle East.
Whatever the outrage on the Arab streets, Washington believes it has strong behind-the-scenes support among key Arab leaders also nervous about the populist militants - with a tacit agreement that the timing is right to strike."
[...]
"Israel and the US would like to hold out until Hezbollah is crippled. "It seems like we will go to the end now," said Israel's ambassador to the US, Daniel Ayalon. "We will not go part way and be held hostage again. We'll have to go for the kill - Hezbollah's neutralisation."
These stories give a far different perspective on the current munitions exchanges: Israel is under attack by Iran-sponsored terrorists embedded in a third nation, Lebanon. Hezbollah rockets target Israeli civilians while Israeli laser-guided bombs target, Hezbollah rockets. Contrary to the protestations and accusations of one Christopher Dodd, the Bush adminstration has clearly been working in concert with regional and world governments to lay the groundwork for Israel to help Lebanon exorcise Hezbollah from its cities and countryside without manic diplomatic attempts to protect the terrorists.
Dodd warns that, "This could spin out of control to such a degree that we have a major, major war in the middle east." The reality is that the cold phase of that war has been raging since at least 1979, with Iran's Islamic revolution. Iran has decided it is time to turn up the heat on this war and it certainly appears that Israel, the Bush adminstration and key western governments anticipated it, were prepared for it, and are in the process of winning it.
There is little reason for concern that Israel's defense forces will fail in this effort. The two areas of concern are that diplomatic failures will allow allies like France and Russia to reverse course and, more ominously, that Iran's threat that attacking Syria " ... will definitely face the Zionist regime with unimaginable damages" portends their possession and imminent detonation of a nuclear bomb. Let us hope that western intelligence and military authorities have this matter as well in hand as they appear to have Hezbollah's rockets.
I hate to respond to a thoughtful post with an anecdote, but I have been thinking about Senator Dodd all week. I did not know he was on FNS, I have that TiVoed and will watch it soon.
I have been considering the Senator from Connecticut who is still respected by his party because I purchased some Contra Cafe coffee on July 4, and it recently showed up. The coffee is great and is grown by former freedom fighters in Nicaragua.
I think of Senator Dodd because I remember his fighting President Reagan tooth and nail. I think of he and Kris Kristofferson as leading the pro-Sandinista movement in the US. Rather than admit he was wrong, Dodd -- 20 years later -- opposed the nomination of Otto Reich to be Assistant Secretary of State. His crime? Supporting democracy against communism in the Western Hemisphere.
And one quibble. I would disagree with conflating the Iranian and Palestinian elections. The election in Iran was a farce and remains worthy of scare quotes. The election in palestinian-controlled-Isreal, however, was legitimate.
I'm not happy that they chose Hamas, though people should remember the other choice was Fatah. They were, however, real and legitimate elections and their constituencies are getting the government they deserve.
I include their number in my accounting of folks living under self elected government.
Yes, I hesitated to group them together for the reasons you mentioned, but I was trying to economize on words in this post, believe it or not. In defense I'll point out that when your democratic choices are limited by force or by "belief in unproven things" it is not a free election in either case.
I can live with this quibble though. My charming bride said she wasn't sure she shares my sanquinity that western intelligence and military authorities have this matter "well in hand."
That comment forced me to consider the source of my optimism. I re-read my own post to find the answer: The unprecented combination of Israeli resolve to "to to the end now," and not go "part way and be held hostage again," coupled with supportive words from key Arab leaders. The Israelis are implementing the Bush Doctrine and no one of consequence - not the multiculturalists of Old Europe nor the Islamic apologists of Egypt or Saudi Arabia - dares, strike that, chooses, to stand in their way. Selfishly, they all want Hezbollah "crippled" or, better yet, "neutralized."
Posted by: johngalt at July 16, 2006 7:33 PMJuly 11, 2006
$66 Billion in Unearned Guilt
I've been thinking about how to blog this story since it broke: Megabillionaire Warren Buffet recently donated (evading the estate tax in the process) $37 billion of his $44 billion in personal wealth to a charitable foundation established by Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and his wife Melinda. Combined with the $29 billion already under foundation control the resulting $66 billion is five times the wealth of the next largest, the Ford foundation.
I won't belabor the contradictions of Buffet praising the estate tax as an "equitable tax...in keeping with the idea of equality of opportunity in this country, not giving incredible head starts to certain people who were very selective about the womb from which they emerged." Or of his criticism of "dynastic wealth" coupled with the likely, though I haven't been able to document it, multi-million dollar inheritances he'll leave his own children.
I'm most interested in the issue raised by John J. Miller on the Opinion Journal page of July 7th. "The Microsoft mogul and his wife should not leave their foundation to posterity," he writes.
I fully agree with many points made in this editorial. For example:
"Surely there are better reasons to embark upon the world's biggest grant-making program than to salve the conscience of a guy who has no business feeling guilty in the first place."And, "If Mr. Gates views his foundation as a vehicle for guilt riddance, chances are his grants will fail often and spectacularly. Yet if he views it as a way of furthering his already enormous contribution to society through nonprofit rather than for-profit means, then perhaps he will make a positive difference in the areas where he is focusing his efforts: global health and American education."
But Mr. Miller's principal point is not just that a charitable foundation should be used to further the values of its benefactor(s), but that it must necessarily be constrained to shut itself down after some arbitrary number of years for fear of the "harmful trend" of "an organization that exists in perpetuity, clinging tightly to its assets and ever further removed from its benefactors and their intentions."
It seems to me that if you want your wealth to live on and contribute in your image after your passing, you'd want it to do so for as long as possible. The trick here is to build something that can't be highjacked by others for their own purposes after your passing. This is exactly the problem that faced the founders of the United States government. So here we have another instance of resignation that nothing can retain its original nature and purpose against the pressure of revisionism.
The irony here is that the Gates Foundation, which has chosen to make a positive difference in the areas of global health and American education, has an opportunity to counteract such pressures. The reason the American Constitution, the American government and the American way of life are under threat today is precisely because of revisionist pressures endemic to modern American education. If the Gates Foundation threw even a fraction of its weight behind a return to accurate and objective teaching of American history and civics it could single handedly save the nation from apathetic disintegration.
Alas, such an effort is unlikely from a man who says, "We really owe it to society to give the wealth back."
Well said.
It strikes me that this giveaway is the world’s largest Rorschach test. Folk Marxists can either coo in delight that the Gateses have discovered "what's really important" or more likely think "damn well time those robber barons gave some back!"
I'm guessing a rare moment of unity for ThreeSourcers believing this will end very badly. I suggested when it happened that they clearly would do less good for society giving it away than they did when they earned it. Now I fear O'Sullivan's law will kick in [Every non-Conservative organization becomes more liberal over time] and that this money could become a colossus of unintended consequences, doing far more harm.
"Or of his criticism of 'dynastic wealth' coupled with the likely, though I haven't been able to document it, multi-million dollar inheritances he'll leave his own children."
-as far as I've heard in previous interviews with, and statements from, Buffet, he has no intention of leaving millions to his own heirs. And his beliefs against dynastic wealth are purportedly based on the idea that inheriting abstract sums of material wealth begets more laziness than not. I don't believe his support for the estate tax is any more elaborate than that.
Agree or disagree, there's very little hypocrisy in his position on this - unless you know something about his motives that I don't know. But then it seems like a lot of people are in the business of questioning what others do with their money, and here I thought that was a liberal tendency.
Posted by: howard at July 12, 2006 11:32 PMHoward, I said in my post on this topic that "Mr. Buffett can do what he chooses, indeed that's the best benefit of having billions, is it not?"
http://www.threesources.com/archives/003037.html
Two concerns you'll hear around here are, one, that the foundation will devolve into something that doesn't match its founders' wishes, and that its gifts will do more harm than good. And, two, there is a distinct disconnect between his objection to dynastic wealth and his use of tax shelters for his own estate. The WSJ says:
"In explaining his charitable motivations this week, Mr. Buffett also went out of his way to say that he is "not an enthusiast for dynastic wealth." This is fair enough, and is also one of Mr. Buffett's arguments for so vocally defending federal death tax rates of 50% or more. But we can't help but point out that Mr. Buffett's gift will itself be shielded from Uncle Sam because it is going to a foundation. So in practice he is in favor of death taxes only for those whose estates are too small to hide in foundation tax shelters.
In addition to his Gates Foundation gift, Mr. Buffett also said he will give major donations well north of $1 billion each to separate foundations run by his three children and another in the name of his late wife. These gifts, too, will be shielded from taxation and will allow his heirs to wield power and influence long after the 75-year-old has gone to his just reward."
Gates and Buffet did a lot of good for people as they assembled their fortunes. I doubt they'll do half as much good giving them away, but that it sheer speculation.
Thank you Howard for the eloquent comment. I did try to learn what Buffet has or will leave to his children but was unable to find even the $1B donations to his children's foundations that JK informs us of by way of the WSJ.
So even if they don't receive direct cash inheritance, each will certainly award himself a salary as full-time director of the foundation. (Hey, a guy's gotta eat, right?)
I also wanted to clarify: The liberal tendency is not to question what others do with their money, but to control it. (Or prevent it altogether.)
Posted by: johngalt at July 13, 2006 3:56 PMJune 30, 2006
Freedom Babes
Compelling arguments and trenchant invective...
Rather than Santa Cruz's seceding, wouldn't it be better to keep Bolivia intact and use the pro-freedom (and attractive) protestors to force the national government away from collectivism.
(Side note: my in-laws hosted an exchange student from Santa Cruz. She would fit right in with this group.)
June 23, 2006
Australia, The Brave
- with action comes bravery, from the transcendent courage of the doomed at Gallipoli to the playful insanity of Australian-rules football. How can you not like a country whose trademark sport has Attila-the-Hun rules, short pants and no padding -- a national passion that makes American football look positively pastoral?
That bravery breeds affection in America for another reason as well. Australia is the only country that has fought with the United States in every one of its major conflicts since 1914, the good and the bad, the winning and the losing.
Why? Because Australia's geographic and historical isolation has bred a wisdom about the structure of peace -- a wisdom that eludes most other countries. Australia has no illusions about the "international community'' and its feckless institutions. An island of tranquility in a roiling region, Australia understands that peace and prosperity do not come with the air we breathe, but are maintained by power -- once the power of the British Empire, now the power of the United States.
Australia joined the faraway wars of early-20th-century Europe not out of imperial nostalgia, but out of a deep understanding that its fate and the fate of liberty were intimately bound with that of the British Empire as principal underwriter of the international system. Today the underwriter is America, and Australia understands that an American retreat or defeat -- a chastening consummation devoutly, if secretly, wished by many a Western ally -- would be catastrophic for Australia and for the world.
1914? I did not know that.
What a great and well deserved column. (An Aussie friend says he actually knows of a married couple named Bruce & Sheila, but I digress.)
I agree that Australia has been a staunch ally and dig further that they eschew what Krauthammer calls the "Yes, but" support of other allies. But in which conflict did Australia join us and Britain not?
Posted by: jk at June 24, 2006 10:31 AMI think it's Vietnam.
Posted by: AlexC at June 24, 2006 11:54 AMAn outstanding column. No wonder Oz's national anthem is "Advance Australia Fair!"
Posted by: TrekMedic251 at June 24, 2006 12:16 PMJune 16, 2006
Sharansky Blog Conference
Our blog's namesake held a telephone conference with bloggers. Pamela of Atlas Shrugs reports on the call.
Bush did a great thing bringing democracy to the Middle East . But the US has begun to backpedal. You speak of giving nukes to Iran. This is the policy of Clinton/Carter. And it failed horribly. It didn't work for North Korea it won't work now. We must actively support Iranian opposition
[...]
Sharansky really believes that people want to live free. He cited Muslims that he knows that pray five times a day and live in free societies and are happy. He said we should not "create demons, we have enough demons." He has complete faith in the individual's desire to be free.
She has an MP3 download available as well. I have not heard it yet.
Speaking of which... I'm going to see Senator Rick Santorum, Daniel Pipes and Natan Sharansky on Monday night. They will be discussing Middle East peace.
If I get to ask a question of anyone, do you have any suggestions?
(other than plugging threesources.com!)
When "A Case For Democracy" came out and President Bush delivered an inaugural address that Mike Gerson essentially stole from the book, the hope for freedom in the Middle East looked very bright.
I wonder if Sharansky is still hopeful after the setbacks and difficulties of the past year.
This business about giving Iran "nuclear technology" in return for "suspension" of nuclear enrichment activities defies reason. But, since Condi is at the helm of this freak show I'm inclined to give it some benefit of my doubt. Even if she's not the architect, I don't believe she'd sign on if she didn't see some point to what she's proposing.
And what is that point? My best idea to date is that they're going way, way, way out on a limb with regard to what they'll offer Iran's irrational government with the intent of either a) producing a crack in Iran's, thus far, impressive resolve not to negotiate that can then be parlayed into more realistic terms through further negotiation or b) demonstrating to the influential Iran friendly nations of the world, i.e. Russia and China, that even when we offer to basically give them what they're trying to produce they remain a non-diplomatic rogue state intent on mischief.
However this diplomatic dance plays out, let it suffice for me to say I have little concern that these offers will ever be delivered.
Posted by: johngalt at June 17, 2006 9:48 PMJune 6, 2006
Beinart's Subhead is Wrong
I'll likely buy Peter Beinart's new book, The Good Fight : Why Liberals---and Only Liberals---Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again.
Yet his thesis has been undercut by his own magazine. They have a disturbing report that while we are all looking at Iran, the nuke-capable leg of the axis-of-evil may be prepared to test a missile.
The Japanese and South Korean press reported in late May that U.S. spy satellites had picked up indications that North Korea was preparing to test launch a Taepo Dong II ballistic missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. TNR has confirmed that the United States has detected significant activity at a North Korean missile test site and that the administration is very concerned that Pyongyang is preparing a launch. What's more, some U.S. intelligence analysts warn that the North Koreans may test a three-stage rocket capable of striking the western United States. "Suffice it to say, it's got people's attention," says one State Department official.
Why? Well applying too much rational thought to Dear Leader is a losing game. But the TNR piece points out an interesting dynamic:
At first glance it might seem like the North would have a lot to lose from such saber-rattling: It could drive the six-party nations closer together and, rather than succeeding in their attempts to lift sanctions, could result in further financial restrictions from Japan, South Korea, and China, countries with which the North does a substantial amount of business. But Michael Green, an Asia expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a former Bush National Security Council senior director with responsibility for North Korea, says the North Koreans have shown in the past that, by creating a crisis, they are able to alter the diplomatic calculus. "The North Koreans have found that these crises are a good way for them to turn the chess board over and restart the talks," Green says. "In the past, by creating a crisis, they have gotten high level bilateral talks and even economic and aid assistance out of it."
Hell, a former US Secretary of State even brought wine!
Sorry Peter, you're my favorite lefty but the culture of military-loathing and abashed use of American power are rooted too deeply. President Clinton was a moderate and he taught North Korea how to kick the can down the road. Give me some neocons.
June 3, 2006
Ethics Training for Terrorists
The Denver Dailies led with this story:
US orders ethics training for all its troops in IraqBAGHDAD -- Seeking to quell outrage over allegations that Marines went on a killing spree against unarmed civilians in Haditha, the top US general in Iraq ordered all American troops in the country to undergo additional ethics training, the military said yesterday.
Which made me wonder if our enemies would be reciprocating, and forcing terrorists to complete ethics training in Saudi Arabia.
When bombing civilians, take care not to injure women and children, unless of course they are Jews or infidels or they are just hanging around the target site...
Your comment is nonsensical. First of all, what does Saudi Arabia have to do with anything? The war is taking place in Iraq, against Iraqi's, not in Saudia Arabia against the Saudi's. Second, Saudi Arabia is a US ally in the War on Terror. Are suggesting that it is, in fact, a terrorist haven? Third, you're suggesting that because terrorists kill women and children without justification, then we should be able kill to women and children without justification. Logically doesn't that mean that we would be no different from the terrorists?
Posted by: Jacob at June 3, 2006 7:15 PMNo, our ethics training sets us apart.
Point taken that I should be more careful not to disparage our ally. Make it a Pakastani madr -- no, wait...
Posted by: jk at June 3, 2006 7:20 PMThat's the trouble with allies these days, you just can't tell which side they are on.
Ethics training, sheesh.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at June 3, 2006 11:16 PMYes, Jacob, if "we" kill women and children without justification then "we" too are terrorists. However, the fact that terrorists kill our women and children (and fathers and brothers) without justification is, in fact, justification for killing anyone with any relationship to terrorists.
Posted by: johngalt at June 5, 2006 3:21 PMMay 18, 2006
We Stand On Guard For Thee
Ala at Blonde Sgacity has the story of a brave, fallen Canadian soldier and the note she left.
A female Canadian soldier who was killed in Afghanistan on Wednesday had written a letter to her sister saying how proud she was of her mission..."In an e-mail dated early March to her younger sister Kate, Capt. Nichola Goddard recounted carrying a 45-kilogram pack uphill on a two-kilometre march, as well as other daily challenges of her role in the Afghan mission.
"I feel like a poster child for why people should join the military," Goddard wrote. "It was an amazing 15 days."
In her e-mail, Goddard described moving into isolated areas, either by foot or with vehicles, to conduct shirras -- the Pashtu word for meeting -- with local elders.
May 7, 2006
Pieces of Paper
The news seems dire:
TEHRAN, Iran - Iran renewed its threats to withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty on Sunday, with its president saying sanctions would be "meaningless" and its parliament seeking to put a final end to unannounced inspections of its nuclear facilities.
Does anybody care one whit? (There are three-and-a-half furlongs in a whit.) Would anybody expect Ahmadinejad to keep the terms of a treaty?
You can say what you want about President Bush, but one thing I respect is that he does not put too much stock in a treaty or agreement with those who might be arguing in bad faith.
I remember Secretary of State Albright drinking champagne with Kim Jong Il after they had signed a piece of paper. Like most of these worthless treaties, it hampered, effectively, what the US could do -- while the other party ignored it entirely. Likewise Vice President Gore helped negotiate the Kyoto treaty, while the Senate he presided over voted 0-95 on ratification.
One joy of gritty Bush realism is that we put less stock in pieces of paper that propose to protect us.
I say let diplomacy work... like it worked for the Darfurians.
Oh, and it wasn't 0-95, it was actually 98-0 for the "Byrd Hagel" amendment which said, "No agreement, unless it affects ALL countries equally"
The Kyoto agreement was famous for ignoring China & India (both with currently exploding economies now), and much of the rest of the third world.
It wasn't so much a treaty to curb emissions, as it was a treaty to curb the United States & the first world.
Posted by: AlexC at May 7, 2006 10:50 PMApril 26, 2006
Freedom, Pragmatism, Optimism
Okay, so it's not up there with "Democracy, Whiskey, Sexy." But I have been questioned for putting all three together. Allow me to defend.
I created this blog category early in the life of ThreeSources. "Freedom on the March" was a centering concept around here and it united me, AlexC and JohnGalt. We watched Afghanistan hold elections, saw positive signals from Egypt, Kuwait, Lebanon, the Ukraine, and eventually, Iraq. Close to 100 million additional people are living under a government they voted for when compared to President Bush's inauguration day.
The annual reports from the Heritage/WSJ Index of Economic Freedom show improvement (although the United States has fallen back, thanks to Sarbanes-Oxley and other regulations). Yes, I am pretty happy with the advance of freedom in the world, although it is frequently messy.
The underreported story of the year is the business growth in Iraq and Afghanistan, Cars, mobile phones, and satellite TV are hot consumer items, and the rebuilding efforts are attracting those who can think big. The Wall Street Journal features a a guest editorial today (paid link) that highlights Afghanistan's attraction as "A Virgin Market."
KABUL -- The recent Yale graduate I was chatting with at a party here spoke Chinese and had lived in China, the seeming epicenter of all things capitalist. "Why did you decide to come to Afghanistan?" I asked. He stared at me. "This is the largest rebuilding and development effort in the history of the world. Who wouldn't want to be here?"After decades of conflict and the crippling legacies of communism and fundamentalism, Afghanistan is finally open for business. The signs are everywhere, from Kabul's traffic jams to Mazar-i-Sharif's building boom; from the opening of a Coca-Cola bottling plant to the country's first private university, the American University of Afghanistan, offering programs in business administration and information technology.
According to the World Bank, Afghanistan is ranked 16th among 145 countries for ease of opening an enterprise. The Afghan Investment Support Agency, the one-stop shop for investing in Afghanistan with streamlined business registration, reports that 754 foreign companies have registered investments of $1.3 billion in Afghanistan; some well-known names include Siemens (rehabilitating dams) and Serena Hotels (Kabul's first five-star). There are 13 private banks, including Standard Chartered Bank, Commerzbank-affiliated Kabul Bank, and ING-managed Afghanistan International BInternational Bank. A third mobile phone company, Lebanon's Investcom, will launch service in Kabul in June, having paid $40 million for its 15-year operating license. At least $100 million will be invested in cement manufacturing in 2006.
I believe the move towards freedom is inexorable. It may go in fits and starts, but it cannot be stopped. Hear me out:
1) Free economies always outperform non-free economies. That's a core belief to me and I could provide examples well into the night.
2) The more powerful economy -- over time -- will win an armed conflict. Like the Union in the US Civil War, they can persevere through mistakes and setbacks. Their opposition may have much going for it but they can rarely outlast a wealthier adversary.
3) Another core belief is that free societies innovate, learn, and adapt better than centralized, command-and-control. Professor Reynolds links to Strategypage for his underreported story of the war: the adaptation on troops using the Internet. Flight 93 is a testimony to free people adapting and using technology in war.
I'm talking glacial, continental drift time frames and rates here. Buffy would remind us that pain and hard times lie ahead. But I am still confident.
April 13, 2006
Is this not a better Iraq?
I confessed that while recent events had damaged the depth of my neo-Wilsonianism, I am still a Sharanskyite. I have not joined the Fukuyama-Will-Buckley club either. If I were Jewish, I'd be a neocon.
I will confess that living in Iraq in 2006 would suck somewhat. It is dangerous, unpredictable, and services are tenuous. Yet I am struck that LatteSipper (mmm, I'm a cappuccino guy but a latte sounds pretty good now) seems so convinced that the coalition actions have somehow "ruined" Iraq. Like Iraq was the idyllic Mesopotamian Eden depicted in the opening minutes of Fahrenheit 9/11.
I would choose dangerous freedom over stable tyranny any day of the week. My April 9 posting reminded us of the children's prisons and mass graves, the torture chambers, government rape.
As difficult as life can be, these people now have the opportunity to practice politics. Hundreds of newspapers are now published, Internet use is widespread. The political vessels have been revitalized pari passu, as the old Buckley might have said, with the rehydration of the southern marshes.
Austin Bay writes about unseen political infighting between clerics Sadr and Sistani in Sistani's Squeeze
Outsiders -- including U.S. government officials -- can bewail the Iraqi parliament's lack of progress in forming a government, but since the middle of March I strongly suspect the hidden story has been the Interior Ministry and the Iraqi nationalists' war on Sadr. It's a quiet police and political war waged with the blessing of Ayatollah Sistani. Creating a strong and stable Iraqi government (the so-called "national rescue front") is the goal. Sistani has advised Shia leaders to make concessions to Sunnis in order to establish a "unity government." That's an action anathema to Sadr.
It's a fascinating article as it stands. But it reminded me that I consider this an improvement over Saddam's dictatorship, not some broken mess that we have created.
March 31, 2006
Borders
We disagreed on Google around here. How about Borders Books? Dale at samizdata is Throwing down the gauntlet
The 'blogosphere' is alive with the recent announcement you will not stock the Free Inquiry issue with the Danish cartoons.
We abhor your cowardice in the face of the enemy and your lack of moral fibre to stand up for the First Amendment in the face of those enemies.Our publication, Samizdata, has joined the Borders boycott call which is spreading amongst other high profile network publications.
I resisted an MI:3 boycott last week and was shown to be wrong. I came out for Google when the blogosphere wouldn't and still stubbornly believe I am right.
But Borders I am ready to whack. Yeah, they own the store and can stock or not stock what they choose. While I concede that, I am deeply troubled by the chain’s capitulation to groups who would stifle speech. Borders makes a very public show of opposition to censorship with its celebration of "Banned Books Month."
Rabble-based violent censorship is better than gub'mint censorship, but it still keeps free people from selling and buying what free people want. I’m an Amazon guy myself (someday I'll do a post on Internet shopping for the handicapped) so I don't think I'll feel the pinch, but I am disappointed that an American bookstore chain is kowtowing to thuggish pressure..
I shop mostly at Amazon (mainly for selection), but there is alot to be said for going into a bookstore and browsing. Amazon doesn't give me the same experience. Although it's mostly B&N or the mall bookstores.
Borders? Kiss my @$$.
Posted by: AlexC at March 31, 2006 12:26 PMBooks ... what is that? Oh, the paper things I use to keep my monitor at eye level, right?
Posted by: mdmhvonpa at March 31, 2006 12:52 PMI, too, mostly shop via Amazon. However, go to Border's webpage and,...voila!,...its run by Amazon, as well.
I have to agree w/ Alex,...I like to browse every once in a while and, since I'm a Border's club member, I get some things cheaper than at Amazon.
Posted by: TrekMedic251 at March 31, 2006 8:48 PMIt is always a shock to find yourself on the other side. I normally defend Borders and Barnes & Nobel from my anti-corporate, anti-chain, anti-globalization friends.
One of my best leftist friends is a book editor who is convinced that the chains will push out the smaller publishers and reduce choice. I constantly argue that the bigs bring more choice to more places. The profit motive at work.
No denying the joy of a real bookstore visit, especially since the chains put coffee shops and comfy chairs in them. But, if I may cry medic, Medic, I have MS and find traditional shopping very fatiguing. About everything I buy now comes to my door. I miss the experience but online commerce is a real boon to me.
March 6, 2006
Sharansky on Democracy
Natan Sharansky's book, The Case for Democracy, was a major influence on this blog. Indeed, the name of our blog is taken directly from the pages of it. It appears at left.
Mr Sharansky writes in Sunday's LA Times on the Palestinian democracy and the Bush administration's insistance on fast elections in the Middle East.
- I believed, however, that the crisis presented an opportunity to begin a different kind of political process, one that would link the peace process to the development of a free society for Palestinians. I had argued for many years that peace and security could be achieved only by linking international legitimacy, territorial concessions and financial assistance for a new Palestinian regime to its commitment to building a free society.
Despite my faith in "democracy," I was under no illusion that elections should be held immediately. Over the previous decade, Palestinian society had become one of the most poisoned and fanatical on Earth. Day after day, on television and radio, in newspapers and schools, a generation of Palestinians had been subjected to the most vicious incitement by their own leaders. The only "right" that seemed to be upheld within Palestinian areas was the right of everyone to bear arms.
In such conditions of fear, intimidation and indoctrination, holding snap elections would have been an act of the utmost irresponsibility. That is why I proposed a plan calling for elections to be held no earlier than three years after the implementation of a series of democratic reforms. Three years, I believed, was the absolute minimum for democratic reforms to begin to change the atmosphere in which free elections could be held. Unfortunately, the plan was never implemented.
The recent election of Hamas is the fruit of a policy that focused on the form of democracy (elections) rather than its substance (building and protecting a free society). Rather than push for quick elections, the democratic world must use its considerable moral, political and economic leverage to help build free societies in the Middle East. We should tie trade privileges to economic freedoms, encourage foreign diplomats to meet openly with dissidents and link aid to the protection of dissents (as Bush did when he helped force the release of Egyptian democracy advocate Saad Eddin Ibrahim).
He concludes..
- Helping democracy take root in the Arab world will take time and persistence. Most Arab governments will try to stamp out any spark of liberty. But the democrats within these societies are our partners. We can help them by refusing to support those who repress them, and by making clear through both our statements and our policies that the efforts to expand freedom within their societies will benefit their countries as much as ours. The alternative is to return to the pre-9/11 delusion that a tyrant's repression of his own subjects has no consequences for us.
Great piece. I still consider myself a Sharansky-ite.
The Hamas election is a setback for peace but I am not certain it is a step back for freedom. Recall that the other choice was Yasser Arafat's Fatah party who had ruled with corruption and zero elections for decades.
There will be a demand from the world to continue with elections in "Palestine" and they might grow to make better choices.
Posted by: jk at March 6, 2006 10:11 AMI'm not sure so JK.
Was the election of Hamas a reaction to the generally craptacular performance of Fatah, (sort of a throw the bums out vote), or an endorsement of terror as statecraft?
If that question has been answered as the former, then maybe next time around, they'll find the right combination.
Posted by: AlexC at March 6, 2006 12:27 PMI am quite convinced AlexC that it is the later - Hamas' efficacy in improving the lives of "Palestinians" has been no less craptacular (what an awesome word!) than has Fatah's. But at least Hamas tells the poor scarecrows over there that there IS a cause for their misery and there IS a solution for ending it. The fact that they've misidentified both is irrelevant; they offer hope.
What Sharansky advocates is called "nation building." It can't be done. People aspire to their own dreams, not the ones you come in and teach them are best. Like children, people given freedom for the first time learn through their experiences. The steps Sharansky lists in his conclusion are the proper ones. (The problem is that the diplomatic corps and every other branch of government in every western nation including our own is, at best, schizophrenic on the principle of freedom.)
Posted by: johngalt at March 8, 2006 3:31 PMFebruary 27, 2006
WSJ Answers Fukuyama
My wobbly moment is solidifying without any help from PM Thatcher. Rather, it comes from today's lead editorial in the Wall Street Journal,(free link) which matches my objection to Fukuyama's "end of neocon history," namely, what else do you do?
Then there is the supposedly failed policy of the Bush Administration. In five years, it has brought four democratic governments to power in the Middle East: by force of arms in Afghanistan and Iraq, and through highly assertive diplomacy in Lebanon and Palestine. Mr. Fukuyama tells us that "by definition, outsiders can't 'impose' democracy on a country that doesn't want it."Leaving aside the niggling examples of Japan and Germany, exactly how are we to know that country X does not want democracy, except democratically? Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians and Lebanese have all made their democratic preferences plain in successive recent elections. And with the arguable exception of the Palestinians (arguable because Fatah was as undemocratic as Hamas), they have voted to establish considerably more liberal regimes than what existed previously.
This is not to say democracy is a cure-all. It is also not to say that the peril these democracies face, from terrorist insurrection or ethnic or religious feuding, isn't grave. Nor, finally, is it to say that the "Hitler scenario" can be excluded in a democratizing Middle East; that possibility is always present, especially among nascent democracies.
But democracy also offers the possibility of greater liberalism and greater moderation, possibilities that have been opened with the courageously pro-American governments of Hamid Karzai, Jalal Talabani and Saad Hariri. And as we stand with them, it seems to us that America's bets are better placed promoting democracies--even if some of them succumb to illiberal temptations--than acceding to dictatorships, which already have.
Or does someone have a better idea?
February 23, 2006
The Wake of War
Vietnam: beacon of freedom?
In another sign that Vietnam is beginning to attract a critical mass of foreign investment, Vietnamese regulators approved Intel Corp.'s plans to proceed with the country's single biggest technology project to date, a chip-assembly plant in Ho Chi Minh City.Intel's arrival is expected to be announced Tuesday at a ceremony with political leaders and Intel Chairman Craig Barrett. The size of the company's investment, likely to be several hundred million dollars, and its prominence in the technology sector signal a turning point in Vietnam's economic emergence.
The country is already an important exporter of food and textiles, and its success in attracting capital is growing. Merrill Lynch estimates that foreign direct investment in Vietnam reached $5 billion in 2005, an eight-year high. The influx helped lift annual economic growth to rates approaching those of Asia's biggest booming economies, China and India. During the past six years, Vietnam's gross domestic product has grown at an annual average of 7.4%, adjusted for inflation.
Like my Fukuyama post (for which I expected severe opprobrium), it makes me question my neoWilsonian beliefs. We failed to install capitalism and democracy in Vietnam, but they found it. Estonia found it, Socialist India and Communist China are finding it.
I definitely veered toward some basic precepts of isolationism in 2005. Not just the tough times -- a better feeling for the difficulty of affecting change from outside.
I wonder if the Soviet Union communist/socialist system not collapsed, if "creeping capitalism" would have had a chance to settle in?
They were the hardest of the hard core, keeping their satellites in line.
Man, I just think you have to look at what works. I love the Cuban exiles in Miami for their anti-Communism, but you have to call the embargo a 40 year failure.
This grabs me because Vietnam would seem to have everything against it, but it finds success and freedom -- how do you spread THAT!
Posted by: jk at February 23, 2006 2:25 PMYeah, but what if you can't see how good it is on the outside?
F*ck. Even the CIA didn't think the Soviets would call it quits in the 80s.
If you don't know any better, and only know what your told, I can see how you wouldn't understand that there is another way.
Posted by: AlexC at February 23, 2006 4:09 PMI recently watched a History Channel program on the Vietnam war. The lede promised to relate that war to the one in Iraq. There weren't any direct mentions of Iraq during the program itself but the parallels were there to see.
An invading army attempts to (reject or unseat) a tyrant's hold on the throats of an unwilling populace. Defeating the tyrant is also in the interests of the invading army, for reasons of capitalism and freedom. But there was a difference in Vietnam: a huge proportion of the populace was not only willing, but fiercely dedicated to the communist cause. Ho Chi Minh was a shrewd and effective politician with the persuasive power of Billy Graham. He had plenty of material to work with in his propaganda effort, given that France had been occupying the place as a colony since the end of WWII. And for what reason? Rubber plantations. Michelin tires.
The distinction in Iraq has been and must hasten to materialize, "we are here to liberate and stabilize, then we're going home." I say split the place up into three soverign states and move our forces to the borders between them. Help each state eradicate hostile elements within their state and then let the UN replace our border forces with UN forces.
Whatever the specific route we take to get there, we must let these people run their own affairs entirely as soon as we can. We are not their keepers.
Posted by: johngalt at February 25, 2006 10:39 AMFebruary 20, 2006
Re-accessing Iraq
The best anti-war piece you're ever going to see is in Sunday's NYTimes Magazine. After Neoconservatism is an adaptation of Francis Fukuyama's upcoming book, "America at the Crossroads."
I confess that I was thinking of Fukuyama's "End of History" over this weekend as I tired of the Cheney hunting accident. These are hard times for neocons; hard times for Sharansky-ites; and pretty tough times for Republicans (though it appears they're going to let us play the Democrats again this year...)
I was re-accessing the Iraqi liberation just before this came out. And it is a thoughtful exegesis. Fukuyama is no moonbat. I find much to agree with. Especially his retrospective questioning of the neo-Wilsonianism I felt so strongly.
The way the cold war ended shaped the thinking of supporters of the Iraq war, including younger neoconservatives like William Kristol and Robert Kagan, in two ways. First, it seems to have created an expectation that all totalitarian regimes were hollow at the core and would crumble with a small push from outside. The model for this was Romania under the Ceausescus: once the wicked witch was dead, the munchkins would rise up and start singing joyously about their liberation. As Kristol and Kagan put it in their 2000 book "Present Dangers": "To many the idea of America using its power to promote changes of regime in nations ruled by dictators rings of utopianism. But in fact, it is eminently realistic. There is something perverse in declaring the impossibility of promoting democratic change abroad in light of the record of the past three decades."
The Romanian model was expected to repeat in Iraq, and the insurgency was underestimated. I yield to no-one in my support for this administration and the war on terror. But I am frequently asked to look people in the eye and say we did the right thing. To fail to reevaluate is stubborn. Am I still a Sharansky-ite? Yes. Am I still a neoWilsonian? I don't know.
What is certain, and only partially conceded by Fukuyama, is that it is hard to conceive a pleasant counterfactual. Had we not invaded Iraq, Saddam would still be in power, Iran would be making nuclear noises, payments to suicide bombers' families would still be occurring, training camps would still be open. Fukuyama has no great illusions about the UN's being able to sort this out.
The conservative critique of the United Nations is all too cogent: while useful for certain peacekeeping and nation-building operations, the United Nations lacks both democratic legitimacy and effectiveness in dealing with serious security issues. The solution is not to strengthen a single global body, but rather to promote what has been emerging in any event, a "multi-multilateral world" of overlapping and occasionally competing international institutions that are organized on regional or functional lines. Kosovo in 1999 was a model: when the Russian veto prevented the Security Council from acting, the United States and its NATO allies simply shifted the venue to NATO, where the Russians could not block action.
Yet, in the next breath (or page) he is ready to hand it off to USAID, and the State Department, which I consider our own, local, UN.
If we are serious about the good governance agenda, we have to shift our focus to the reform, reorganization and proper financing of those institutions of the United States government that actually promote democracy, development and the rule of law around the world, organizations like the State Department, U.S.A.I.D., the National Endowment for Democracy and the like.
In fact, I will bend quite a ways to agree with Fukuyama on problems, philosophy, and past history. It is his present and future to which I cannot subscribe. In fact this startling assertion undermines his entire argument:
The most basic misjudgment was an overestimation of the threat facing the United States from radical Islamism. Although the new and ominous possibility of undeterrable terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction did indeed present itself, advocates of the war wrongly conflated this with the threat presented by Iraq and with the rogue state/proliferation problem more generally. The misjudgment was based in part on the massive failure of the American intelligence community to correctly assess the state of Iraq's W.M.D. programs before the war. But the intelligence community never took nearly as alarmist a view of the terrorist/W.M.D. threat as the war's supporters did. Overestimation of this threat was then used to justify the elevation of preventive war to the centerpiece of a new security strategy, as well as a whole series of measures that infringed on civil liberties, from detention policy to domestic eavesdropping.
Watching the Cartoon Wars for a couple of weeks, I cannot believe that we overestimate Islamicist Terror. And I accuse Fukuyama of underplaying the domestic safety that our foreign actions have produced. Robert Kaplan, quoted in the story, has stated that the original war was not worthy but that the larger conflict in which we are now embroiled is worthy of the blood and treasure.
Darkness
There has been good discussion on these pages about "The Bush Doctrine" and the application of absolutes toward questionable regimes like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
Good stuff, but let me pull up one I bet we can agree on: North Korea. I like the ThreeSources logo because it associates prosperity to politics and freedom. No segment of the map is clearer than the Korean peninsula. Dynamic, free, South Korea is vibrant and prosperous; their cousins in the north are dark as the sea. Here's a full-size look at the area:
Claudia Rosett today wonders why the US, through the UN is subsidizing this despotic regime.
It's bad enough that North Korea's Kim Jong Il is starving his people while building nuclear bombs. But why are we helping him?In theory, we're not. But the U.S. has been by far the largest donor to the aid appeal under which the U.N. World Food Program has shipped $1.7 billion worth of rice, corn, wheat and sugar into North Korea over a decade. Last summer the regime declared itself self-sufficient in food, ordering the WFP to wind down operations by the end of the year. But North Korea also let the WFP know that it would be happy to start receiving aid for state-run development projects. Obediently, the WFP has come up with a plan, awaiting approval from its executive board this coming week, to "work with the Government to support its strategy of moving towards development and away from humanitarian assistance." The "Protracted Relief and Recovery Operation" has a $102 million budget to deliver food and "transitional assistance" for Pyongyang's "strategy for recovery."
Just like Saddam, the UN will provide not only cover, but political favors Kim can dispose at his discretion.
If the WFP's new plan goes forward, Kim will be in the pleasant position of receiving free goods, enjoying plenty of control over who gets what, and taking credit for the handouts. Part of the WFP plan, for example, is to provide supplies for food-processing factories where the government will hire the workers, operate the plants, and in some cases -- how many is not clear -- "transport the product to the beneficiary institutions."There is no question that many people are hungry, and, as the head of the WFP office in Pyongyang, Richard Ragan, described it in a recent interview, "living on the edge." In the field of good works, one of the worst dilemmas is what to do when a tyrant holds hostage his own population -- trading on their deprivation to lever out of well-meaning donors whatever it is he really wants. But in North Korea, the WFP -- America's main conduit for aid into the country -- is losing whatever leverage it ever had. Big brother China and eager-to-appease South Korea are shipping substantial aid with few strings attached. Meanwhile, the U.S. is trying to corral Kim over matters as mortally important as nuclear bombs. This new program whipped up by the WFP to suit Kim's palate sends just one message: Yes indeed, we are chumps.
February 14, 2006
Half Million Rally in Beirut
... no Danish flags burned.
- Half a million flag-waving Lebanese packed central Beirut on Tuesday, a year to the day after the assassination of former premier Rafik al-Hariri, giving new impetus to Lebanon's anti-Syrian coalition.
The turnout was reminiscent of huge protests after last year's February 14 killing of Hariri and 22 others.
Those demonstrations, coupled with international pressure, forced Syria to end its 29-year military presence in Lebanon, although Damascus denies any role in the assassination.
Syria's Lebanese foes said Tuesday's rally would revive a campaign to force pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud to quit and to punish those behind the truck bombing that killed Hariri.
"By being present here today, you foil the conspiracy ... against Lebanon, against Rafik al-Hariri, against Lebanon's freedom, independence and dignity," the former prime minister's son and political heir Saad al-Hariri told the crowd from behind bullet-proof glass.
Believing he too could be killed, Hariri has spent more than six months abroad, but returned to Beirut for the anniversary.
Bring on the protest babes!
February 9, 2006
TNR Misses the Point
The subhead of the Peter Beinart editorial captured my imagination:
What Bush understands and the Danes do not
I have a ton of respect for Beinart, but I think he swings and misses in this week's editorial. I am still glad he is not swiping at the President, that's always a bonus in a "Democrat mag." And his point about more devout Americans empathizing better with devout Muslims than secular Europeans is interesting and well taken. I'll even accede to a certain hunger on the right for a "Clash of Civilizations."
But he then misses the mark on what I find to be the base of the contretemps. It is not that the cartoons were inflammatory or insensitive. The problem is the Islamicists' insistence that no likenesses are allowed and that a private newspaper -- and the government that chooses not to censor it -- is responsible to uphold Islamic law on non-Muslims.
In short, it is unusual to find Beinart defending the Administration and my saying, "No, Peter they are wrong!" But they are. Perhaps a bold defense of the free press is not appropriate, but the State Department went too far in condemning the cartoons.
February 8, 2006
The Jewish "Street" Explodes
Jonah Goldberg in The Corner
April 1, 2006. New York -- In response to a series of offensive cartoons published in an Iranian newspaper and subsequently printed in every newspaper around the globe, including many which had refused to publish the now-forgotten "anti-Muslim" cartoons last winter, the "Jewish street" erupted. At Brandeis University, a course on Lesbian motifs in Yiddish literature was briefly interrupted as students asked their professor what he thought about the controversy. In Washington D.C. a flurry of letters to the editor and press releases poured out of Jewish organizations. In New York, Commentary magazine -- a leading organ of the "neoconservative" Jewish Right -- announced it would run three articles on Iran in its next issue as well as an extensive letters section.
"This is outrageous but expected," thundered a furious Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League on a longer-than-normal appearance on MSNBC's "Hardball with Chris Matthews."Elsewhere Jewish tempers weren't running so hot. At Artie's Delicatessen on the Upper West Side of New York, Josh Greenberg ate a pastrami sandwich with a friend, Abe Kolman, hoping to avoid all the furor in the Jewish street. "Zabar's is a mad house today," Greenberg observed. When asked about the Iranian newspaper controversy, Greenberg said "What are you going to do?"
Kolman, an orthodontist, added "I'd stop eating Iranian pistachios, I guess."
The White House continued to plead with Jews across America to stay calm.
Not Jewish, but to show my solidarity, we burned our carpets to stick it to the Iranians.
I always dug hardwood floors anyway.
Posted by: AlexC at February 8, 2006 1:27 PMI'm starting to think that the primary employment in the ME for Muslims is 'Riot Mob Participant'. I've seen nearly 0 impact on their economy.
Posted by: mdmhvonpa at February 8, 2006 3:20 PMHey, a gig's a gig!
Posted by: jk at February 8, 2006 4:45 PMFebruary 7, 2006
They Have Eyes But Cannot See
Tucker Carlson had two very instructive interviews last night, both concerning the Danish Cartoon War (great as the words contretemps, kerfuffle, imbroglio, and l'affaire Cartoon are, I like the term "Cartoon War.")
First he spoke with Chicago Tribune Managing Editor James O'Shea about his paper's refusal to publish the cartoons. Carlson was upset that MSNBC would not allow him to show the cartoons, and O'Shea defended his paper's "unwillingness to offend sensibilities" [I am paraphrasing, but pretty accurately for a change]. Carlson repeatedly pointed out that you cannot really understand the story if you cannot see them, and pointed out that nobody hesitated to copy the Rolling Stone cover with Kanye West as Jesus. O'Shea held his ground, talked about how brave his reporters in the field are, and did not concede that cowardice played a part in this editorial decision.
After the interview, Carlson said "in twenty years, when nobody reads newspapers anymore, you can show that interview to anybody who wants to know why."
Next up was Rachel Maddow, from Air America. She is on almost every show. She is reflexively left-wing and anti-Republican. But she thankfully does not have the bilious, vicious nature of so many on her far left side of the world. She straight facedly drew equivalence between "Our fundamentalists" and "Their fundamentalists." Carlson rarely speaks for me, but he was perfect last night, saying that Jesse Helms and Bill Bennett try to cut federal funding for the NEA whereas they burn buildings and that many European journalists are hiding for their life. Maddow wasn't buying for a minute. All fundamentalists are bad, how can you think ours are benign?
So the Cartoon War clarifies many things. But only to those who will see.
BTW, if you still ain't seen them, Tim Blair has the infamous illos here. Burn my house down, I linked!
The lesson the be learned here..
If you're offended by something, light fires and destroy things. Some of the offenders (or their friends) will give you a pass and profusely apologize.
Posted by: AlexC at February 7, 2006 1:32 PMFebruary 6, 2006
The Cartoon War
That's what Austin Bay calls it.
At first take the name The Cartoon War may suggest something comic, exaggerated, or surreal. Those elements are in play– definitely in play. Cartoon and War are a collision, words that should not appear in the same serious sentence. They are a collision of values. But that’s the core of this, isn’t it? Likewise, the very real violence and anger add a heavy, instructive irony. The war between open and closed societies is not superficial, exaggerated, or surreal. The imagination is a battlefield. On a “technologically-compressed planet” the small and mundane –the cartoon– can quickly inflame; in a world of unfiltered, borderless information “the imagined” can have extraordinary consequences.
I laughed when I saw the headline "Cartoon Protests Turn Deadly." It seemed absurd. Of course, it is but absurd in a way that life and the enemies of freedom -- our enemies in the terror war -- are absurd.
February 5, 2006
Condi, whack somebody!
All about the cartoon imbroglio has been said by better writers, but there is one item that is getting an ill-deserved pass: the US State Department’s siding with suppressors of speech rather than freedom. I am conditioned to expect no better from the striped-pantsers, but Perry de Havilland at Samizdata takers 'em on
Land of the free, home of the brave, eh? Not in Washington DC it seems. Rather than face down the intolerant face of radical Islam, the US State Department is pandering to it. This is a national disgrace and I hope some US newspapers will show how they feel by supporting their colleagues in Denmark and publishing the damn cartoons themselves and telling Kurtis Cooper where he can stick his political master's craven opinions.
February 2, 2006
Threat to Freedom
Always on the ThreeSources blogroll: Day by Day
January 25, 2006
Google Capitulates
Ian at Banana Oil is closer to Chinese Google than I am, but he wonders whether anybody at the hypervalued company has read Sun Tzu:
Abject surrender is not the way to foster cultural change for the better.And don't think for a moment that this will be regarded as a move of strength or integrity. The Chinese will not respect you for this. Read The Art of War. They won, and got you to give them the victory on a silver platter. You are now the Communist government's bitch, whether you know it or not.
Way to go, guys.
I join the blogosphere in disappointment, but I cannot work up the high dudgeon. I wish Google had given the ChiComs a lecture; I wish Microsoft had told the EU to fuggedabout it instead of phony gestures such as hobbled versions and limited source distribution.
But both Google and Microsoft have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders that must supersede a company's desire to change the world. I'd say the same to Ben & Jerry.
In the case of China, I have to think the more information the merrier. The more people on even a bowdlerized Internet, the better chance that the benefits of freedom -- if not Falun Gong movements -- will be understood.
What works people up about Google is that their corporate motto was "Don't be evil."
Selling out to the red Chinese is a pretty big step in that direction, I'd say.
While I understand the fiduciary responsibility, can't a corporation have ethics? (damn, i sound like a dirty hippie)
Like not selling out to frigging communists?
Posted by: AlexC at January 26, 2006 2:59 PMMy opinion is certainly in the minority. While like most West-coasties their bumper-sticker credos do match reality, I guess if you consider filtering results on a search engine to be "evil," then I am wrong.
The ChiComs do a lot of real evil -- keeping one of its unfortunate subjects away from the edifying prose of ThreeeSources.com is a pity but not a piori evil.
My hope continues to be that as the Internet becomes more prevalent, more Chinese citizens find ways around the filters and that the volume of information becomes more than the officials can monitor.
The fiduciary responsibility does not supersede everything but I believe strongly that you are obligated to devote your efforts to increasing shareholder value.
January 16, 2006
Cookies for Troops!
Silence's daughter is selling girl scout cookies -- and you can have them shipped to the troops in Iraq.
Cool idea -- enabling the young ladies to pry money out of the patriotic Atkins crowd. If you don't have a closer relative, email jk [at] threesources [dot] com and I will help you hook the troops up with some Samoas and Trefoils...
January 4, 2006
V for Vendetta
Whilst waiting in the lobby of a theater after viewing 'The Chronicles of Narnia' (don't wait for a review from yours truly) I perused the posters for coming attractions. One caught my eye. It read - "PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE AFRAID OF THEIR GOVERNMENTS. GOVERNMENTS SHOULD BE AFRAID OF THEIR PEOPLE." Hey, this could be my kind of movie, I thought to myself! The title was 'V for Vendetta' and it was billed as, "An uncompromising vision of the future from the creators of the Matrix trilogy." Yeah, the Wachowski brothers... red pill, blue pill. Very interesting, I thought.
Here's what they offer by way of synopsis on the official site:
Set against the futuristic landscape of totalitarian Britain, V For Vendetta tells the story of a mild-mannered young woman named Evey (NATALIE PORTMAN) who is rescued from a life-and-death situation by a masked man (HUGO WEAVING) known only as “V.” Incomparably charismatic and ferociously skilled in the art of combat and deception, V ignites a revolution when he urges his fellow citizens to rise up against tyranny and oppression. As Evey uncovers the truth about V’s mysterious background, she also discovers the truth about herself – and emerges as his unlikely ally in the culmination of his plan to bring freedom and justice back to a society fraught with cruelty and corruption.
Other than the fact that totalitarian Britain isn't very futuristic, this idea has promise. We'll see. It's at least worth keeping an eye on leading up to the March 17 premiere.
It sounds interesting, and a couple hours looking at Ms. Portman cannot be called a waste.
I am skeptical of all things Hollywood and the choice of "totalitarian Britain" concerns me. I am guessing they don't mean what you and I think about the UK.
Yes, it is the land of Orwell and they have taken all the guns. But these guys would never find a bad word to say about Cuba or Syria or the Soviet Union yet they will go after our #1 ally in the War on Terror. Am I scratching too deeply?
January 3, 2006
New Year at the VFW
From the red part of the purple Midwest, I found this email very moving.
Sugarchuck was playing a gig at a VFW and they were doing karaoke while the band set up and:
They had some sort of Karaoke thing going while we were bringing stuff in and they sang that Lee Greenwood song, "Bless the USA." Anyway, everyone on the dance floor formed a circle and held hands, raised their hands in the air and swayed back and forth singing at the top of their lungs. everyone else in the bar stood as well and raised their hands and sang.No irony, no cynicism, no post-modernism, and everyone of those guys fought overseas, mostly in Korea and WWII, but there were a lot of Viet Nam guys and A few Desert Storm guys too. They've put their money up and when they sing that stuff it is moving beyond description. Most of us walk around every day never knowing how incredibly blessed we've been to have these people willing to protect us and fight for us.
Happy New Year to all who serve or have served.
December 21, 2005
Berkeley Square -- Banned In Iran!
The madness continues in Iran. The government will now choose music for its lucky subjects, increasing their decency substantially. The WSJ Ed Page says in "The Non-Music Man:
Now the Islamic Republic has taken another bold step on the road to Year Zero, this time by banning Western music. Tehran commuters, who in recent years have grown accustomed to listening to Eric Clapton or Kenny G., will now have to put up with whatever Mr. Ahmadinejad and the Supreme Cultural Revolutionary Council deem "decent." Don't expect "Crosstown Traffic" or "Baby You Can Ride My Car" to make the list.Iranians have been here before, as have other victims of dictatorship. Ayatollah Khomeini banned all forms of music after the 1979 revolution, but the rules were gradually relaxed after his death. In the Cambodia of the Khmer Rouge, music was banned along with all other expressions of art and culture, and hundreds of musicians were murdered. The Nazis extolled the music of Wagner, yet they famously tore down the statue of the Jewish-born Felix Mendelssohn in front of the Leipzig Gewandhaus.
Iran has one of the youngest populations in the world, and the youth are acclimated to American music and culture. I agree with the WWSJ Ed Page that the ultimate hope for Iran is likely an internal revolution.
I confess I had hoped for a fast domino-effect revolution after Iraq was liberated. I take full responsibility for that mistake but still hold that we will have to support an internal revolution if tacitly and covertly.
Sadly, the opposition party deals with this by contriving arguments about Valerie Plame, faux-outrage over NSA eavesdropping, and filibustering renewal of the Patriot Act.
UPDATE: TCS has a good column with more specifics.
I wonder if they are going to ban Butthole Surfers too!
Posted by: mdmhvonpa at December 21, 2005 12:08 PMNaaah! I'm sure Butthole Surfers will pass Supreme Cultural Revolutionary Council muster...
Posted by: jk at December 21, 2005 12:44 PM