« April 2005 | Main | June 2005 »
May 31, 2005
The Complexities Of The Non Vote
Bill Rice over at The Fourth Rail has an excellent analysis of the French non vote on the EU constitution. The whole piece is well worth your time, but a couple of his points really stood out to me:
Many voted non as a direct rejection of any hint of free-market reforms to France's socialist workplace. Though of course in an altruistic sense one would wish for the best for all French workers, I'm certainly not going to cry in my beer over their insistence on flogging the dead horse of socialism. In fact, as Lexington Green points out over at Chicago Boyz, an independent nation whose citizens willingly choose socialism is still preferable to a stifling, lifeless multi-nation bureaucracy "sucking what life remains out of the old continent".
The rejection of the constitution will throw a wrench into efforts to coordinate and integrate military forces, which will subsequently make alliances with the US more attractive for uncommitted countries. Very interesting possibilities indeed exist for the countries of "new Europe". I hope GWB and Condi Rice are adroit enough to take advantage of the opportunity.
As problematic as the French and Germans and Spaniards have been vis-à-vis the war in Iraq along with their general animus towards America, I have never wanted their cultures to be subjugated to and diluted by some overarching European union. In spite of some of the more reactionary views to be found among the right, I think we are all better off with the states of old Europe retaining their cultural independence.
Posted at 10:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)The Latest On Zarqawi
According to the Sunday Times of London, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is still alive although seriously wounded, and he has escaped to Iran for medical treatment (hat tip to The Counterterrorism Blog):
IRAQ’S most wanted terrorist has fled the country for emergency surgery after an American airstrike left him with shrapnel lodged in his chest, according to a senior insurgent commander in close contact with his group.
He has suffered from bouts of high fever since being wounded by a missile that struck his convoy three weeks ago as he fled an American offensive near the town of al-Qaim in northwestern Iraq, the commander said.
According to the Times sources, Zarqawi was wounded by two different pieces of shrapnel, one of which entered near his shoulder and tore away a "large chunk of flesh".
I guess our prayers for gas gangrene didn't take.
Posted at 09:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)May 30, 2005
Breakthrough In Adult Stem Cell Research
AJStrata discovered this fascinating item over at NewsMax:
Scientists at Australia's Griffith University have engineered a breakthrough in the field of adult stem cell research that's so significant, say experts, that it could render the debate over embryonic stem cell research moot.
The results of the four-year research project showed that olfactory stem cells can be turned into heart cells, brain cells, nerve cells – indeed, almost any kind of cell in the body – without the problems of rejection or tumors forming, a common side effect with embryonic stem cells.
I am by no means an expert on this subject, but the article goes on to highlight two points that, to me, are of primary importance: 1) there appears to be some research that shows that embryonic stem cells can cause tumors; and 2) the adult stem cells studied by the Australian team can be taken from the patient, thus eliminating the possibility of rejection.
These are both questions that deserve to be explored in great detail by the considerable resources of the MSM. Yet we've heard...nothing.
And regarding the first point: The left has begun to use the so-called Precautionary Principle in earnest as a cudgel to smite mightily the causes they oppose. Simply put, the principle states that infinite caution must be employ when dealing with a question concerning the environment, public health, etc., no matter what the science says about the statistical probabilities involved. We've all heard this before: "Well, we don't know what effect _________ will have, so until we do, you should eliminate it completely from your life."
Seems like the questions about embryonic stem cells would certainly warrant some caution along these lines--if one is playing fair. And one would certainly expect this report from Australia to be big news.
If one is playing fair.
The Payoff: Third Day
On the morning of the 15th, a cold, cloudy day, the 101st resumed its drive northeast of Bastogne.
On the east side of the Bastogne-Houffalize highway the 327th advanced against the high ground east of Bastogne, moving just before noon and seizing their objective before dark. They met only moderate resistance though artillery and mortar fire dogged them all the way. Contact was regained with the surrounded Ace Company, ending that group's day and a half of isolation. The combined company was in good shape though suffering somewhat from shortages of ammunition, food, and water.
Leonard Rapport and Arthur Norwood, Jr., Rendezvous With Destiny: A History of the 101st Airborne Division, p. 655.
"They met only moderate resistance..."
To the survivors of a bitter fight that left tens of thousands dead, merely moderate resistance was surely welcomed. But in a perfect illustration of the mindless random cruelty of war, my uncle Lee was caught by fate: he was killed on this day by a "tree burst", a mortar round that hit high in a tree and detonated, raining shrapnel on those below. He was 22.
Lee was a rifleman in the 327th Glider Infantry; his outfit was part of a sustained four-day attack aimed at pinching off the lower half of the infamous salient. This was the last big operation for the 101st in the Battle of the Bulge, and my mom always said, "If he had made it two more days, he would have been OK." She was right--by the end of January 17th, the fighting was finished; by the 20th the division had left Bastogne for Alsace, 160 miles to the south.
As a teenager I devoured all 829 pages of Rendezvous With Destiny, reading from an edition that belonged to my other uncle Pete, who had been in another army unit relatively close by.
The book was fascinating as a teenager, but now as I reread those chapers I'm overwhelmed with the magnitude of the battle, and the war. Lee was killed on a day when things were winding down, but of course it was still an overwhelming tragedy for my mom's family. And that tragedy was repeated over 400,000 times in World War II, in the US alone.
So, to all those surviving families, and in honor of those who have died defending our freedom:
Thank you.
Posted at 09:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)May 29, 2005
Support The Troops
Via Winds of Change, here's a worthwhile way to put your money where your mouth is. Snipers are a very important resource to have in an asymetrical war like the ones in Iraq and Afhanistan--wars in which the enemy is indistinguishable from ordinary civilians, and takes refuge behind women and children.
These soldiers acquire an extraordinary level of training and discipline, and they are making a real difference. Unfortunately they do not receive all the specialized gear they need due to the usual intricacies of the military beaurocracy.
Help support them by clicking here. I just did.
Posted at 11:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)On To Holland
French voters have overwhelmingly rejected the EU constitution. As Lexington Green says at Chicago Boyz, "On to Holland."
Update: But really, the vote may be irrelevant. Even if approved, the EU's stifling, grasping micro-socialism would almost certainly have brought ruin down on the European economies. It seems to me that a nanny-state governing a country with a declining birthrate is a recipe for disaster.
Posted at 06:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)May 28, 2005
Oh, Now I'm Reassured
I'm not exactly reassured by this developement (via Outside The Beltway):
Work on nominees could return Lott to ranks of GOP leadership:
[S}enators involved in the talks say Lott was instrumental in pushing the Senate to the brink of a historic clash - and in pulling it back. It was a remarkable role for the former Senate leader whose career was nearly ruined by an ill-advised tribute to the late Sen. Strom Thurmond two-and-a-half years ago that made him sound nostalgic for the days of segregation.
In the end, by maneuvering behind the scenes, Lott displayed more flexibility than the man who replaced him at the helm of the Senate, Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn. - and he may have enhanced a political rehabilitation that could return him to the leadership ranks.
I agree with a commenter to this post--this certainly won't cause a rush of donations to the RNC, to say the least.
Posted at 04:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)Would Any Democrats Like To Comment?
Not only is George Bush's foreign policy "oppressing" millions with the power of self-determination, his domestic agenda is playing out exactly like the Democrats said it would.
Yes, indeed. Those Tax Cuts For The Wealthy are causing all of our state governments to drown...in record revenues (via The Anchoress):
State government revenues are soaring again, ending a period of budget shortfalls and prompting proposals for tax cuts and new spending initiatives for the first time since 2000.
Tax collections rose to a record $600 billion in the states last year, up 7.2% over 2003, the biggest increase since 2000. The money is rolling in even faster this year as many states report double-digit revenue increases through April.
No mistake, this is good news, but we conservatives should be careful to not just put the subject on the back burner in order to fight other battles. The persistent enemy remains uncontrolled and/or inefficient spending. It's analogous to the war on drugs: as long as demand is there, the drug trade will always exist; likewise I think the spending side of the budget equation will always be the hardest to deal with.
Posted at 12:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)May 27, 2005
We Are Doomed, Doomed (No. 47)
From Stop The Bleating comes this pathetic yet by-now-utterly-predictable item:
A re-enactment of the Battle of Trafalgar is not an opportunity for "French-bashing", says the Royal Navy. Instead of the British taking on a French/Spanish fleet at next month's event to mark the battle's bicentenary a "red" force will take on a "blue".
Navy organisers fear visiting officials may be embarrassed at seeing their side beaten, The Sunday Times reported.
Portsmouth MP Mike Hancock said an event which did not acknowledge who the enemy was is "absolute twaddle".
Usually an angry, well-spoken Brit is a wonder to behold. But MP Hancock misfired with "twaddle"--I'm quite sure that one of Patrick O'Brian's characters would have done much better ("Grass-combing, dutch-built buggers" comes immediately to mind.)
Official literature for the event refers to "an early 19th-century sea battle" instead of the Battle of Trafalgar, The Sunday Times said.
Red hell and bloody death! Damn their eyes!
I'm glad Admiral Nelson is not around to witness this travesty.
Posted at 10:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)"Me Not Happy", Indeed
I often worry about how spoiled Americans seem to be. My parents' generation grew up in the Great Depression (unimaginable to the boomers, let alone Gen X) and then fought and won WWII (Can you imagine 300 combat deaths a day, for almost four years? I didn't think so.) This may seem like nostalgic harping, but remember--those old folks were 20 years old when all that was happening. I doubt we could handle it today.
Dr. Sanity has a great post up on wealth, privilege and happiness. Check it out--especially the perfectly hilarious cartoon.
Posted at 04:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)May 26, 2005
More Thoughts On The Coalition Of The Chillin'
As the aftershocks from the Senate compromise continue to reverberate around the blogosphere, I retest my own position every so often to see if I've changed my mind. The answer so far is "no"; I'm still a member of the Coalition of the Chillin'.
Right now there are passionate arguments being made that cover the spectrum: good deal vs. bad, left vs. right. The correlation factor is low, randomness of viewpoint is high. At some point in the future all these opinions will converge to a common consensus on whether the deal was good for Republicans, or good for Democrats. Each new day's events--the Bolton vote in the Senate today, for example--will add incrementally to the pile of hard evidence that will determine the vedict of history. Hugh Hewitt's Daily Standard column captures this idea very well--he places a lot of emphasis on the potential energy the current situation holds, enerygy that will be explosively released the instant a Supreme Court vacancy becomes available.
I think it's important to separate the analyses into at least two groups: arguments about what should have happened; and arguments about, given the fait accompli of the compromise, how we should evaluate the deal that was made.
Most of the conservatives who are most outraged by the deal on grounds of principle fall into the first group. Hugh Hewitt is one of many, as is Peggy Noonan.
The second group comprises the Coalition of the Chillin'--those of us who choose to concentrate on the hand we were dealt by our Senatorial representatives--the consequences of a republic, I suppose. We have tended to emphasize the value of the "judges in hand", along with the discounting of Harry Reid's claim that "The nuclear option is gone for our lifetime."
I should emphasize that I'm wholly in agreement, in principle, with Hewitt and Noonan: I do wish that Frist had led a "take no prisoners" assault on Reid and his band of hyperbole-slinging blowhards, and I'm quite sure that most of the other coalition members would wish the same. But that didn't happen.
I still believe that the confirmed judges will exert an influence that will extend beyond their respective courtrooms; and I believe that the Constitutional option remains in play.
But as Hugh Hewitt said, the ball is in the air. Let's hope the Republicans don't whiff.
Posted at 10:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (1)German Election Update
Chirol at Coming Anarchy has more analysis on chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's call for a general election in Germany.
Some of Chirol's conclusions:
1) By calling elections so soon (they're expected to be in the fall), Schoeder is trying to make the best of a bad hand, by limiting the time the opposition has to get organized.
2) There's a good chance that we will see Angela Merkel, the pro-American head of the Christian Democratic Union, appointed the next chancellor of Germany.
Posted at 01:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)Azerbaijan's New Pipeline
Bill Rice at The Fourth Rail notes an important milestone in petro-political-geopgraphy--the opening of a new oil pipeline from the Caspian sea to the Mediterranean. The pipeline has several important advantages: it doesn't traverse the Middle East; it will stimulate oil production in Azerbaijan; and it will help augment and stabilize the international oil market.
Also very important from a political standpoint is the impact US support of the pipeline has had on Azerbaijan. Rice concludes:
With a current GDP of roughly $30 billion, the oil pipeline, which cost over $3.6 billion to build will contribute a substantial gain to the country's fortunes and help bring stability to a former Soviet State while increasing Georgia's wealth as well. [...]
Such diplomatic and capitalist triumphs are important to take note of for they demonstrate models of constructive multi-country engagement and economic improvement that support long term democratic change.
The more free markets, the better.
Posted at 12:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)More Senate Realism
Over at Redstate.org Doverspa has a great analysis of the Senate compromise:
[The deal] perserves the filibuster which is generally a friend of conservatives and does not take us on the first step toward eliminating all filibusters. It sets a standard for when judicial filibusters are acceptable and that standard is high. Most likely Supreme Court nominees will not be filibustered unless they are unqualified (i.e. not judges) or disturbing enough that they wouldn't even pass an up-or-down vote in the first place.
One thing that bugged me about invoking the Constitutional option is that (correct me if I'm wrong) it would have squelched the use of the filibuster for any legislation, and I'm not down with that. The precedent was for judicial nominees to not be filibustered; I was never on board with banishing the filibuster for any type of legislation--who knows what the future will bring?
Doverspa goes on to chastise those who talk of witholding contributions to the RNC, noting quite correctly that holding and increasing the Republican majority in the Senate is the surest way to render this whole episode moot.
Posted at 12:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)May 25, 2005
Is Ramesh Coming Around?
Yesterday Ramesh Ponnuru had his doubts about the Senate compromise. Maybe, like a lot of us, his views are evolving:
[What makes] Mickey Kaus so sure that public attention to a Supreme Court fight makes a rules change less likely? Maybe it makes the denial of an up-or-down vote less sustainable for the Democrats. In fact, I think that's very likely.
It's likely because of the fact that three (at least) new judges, vilified as "extremist" by the Democrats, will be comfortably installed in their courts. And it seems obvious that although the federal judges were important enough on their own, the real motivation behind this fight concerns the upcoming Supreme Court vacancies. That's why I feel it was so important to get the three judges confirmed. Their confirmation will establishe a vital precedent, and also provide the Republicans with a public relations cudgel of epic proportions.
Posted at 10:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)May 24, 2005
OK, My Mind Is Officially Blown
As someone who musically came of age in the seventies, Steely Dan was and remains one of my all time favorite groups. They always featured suberb players, not the least of whom was guitarist Jeff "Skunk" Baxter. Now I find, through Outside the Beltway, that Baxter has embarked on a second career as an expert consultant on terrorism and defense issues.
Baxter joined his first group at age 11, was one of the six original members of Steely Dan, and concluded his first career in 1979 after a long and successful stint with the Doobie Brothers.
His defense work began in the 1980s, when it occurred to him that much of the hardware and software being developed for military use, like data-compression algorithms and large-capacity storage devices, could also be used for recording music. Mr. Baxter's next-door neighbor, a retired engineer who worked on the Pentagon's Sidewinder missile program, bought him a subscription to an aviation magazine, and he was soon reading a range of military-related publications.
Baxter began thinking hard on such topics as how to adapt existing systems to unforseen threats. He drafted a five page paper on converting the Navy's Aegis anti-aircraft system to an anti-missile system, and gave the paper to his friend Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA). The rest is history--Rohrabacher took the report seriously, passed it along up the ladder, and now the Navy is planning to outfit at least one ship with just such a system. And Jeff Baxter, armed with top security clearances, has a growing pile of defense industry job offers.
I guess it's never too late to change careers.
Zarqawi = Wounded?
According to Reuters, al-Qaeda in Iraq says that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has been wounded:
"O nation of Islam... Pray for the healing of our Sheikh Abu Musab al-Zarqawi from an injury he suffered in the path of God," said a statement from the Al Qaeda Organization for Holy War in Iraq. It's authenticity could not be verified.
Hat tip to Instapundit, who wonders
Is it unChristian to pray for gas gangrene?
I can't answer the theological question, but I endorse the sentiment. Maybe this commenter's prediction has come true.
Posted at 11:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)Podhoretz, Making Sense On The Compromise
John Podhoretz echoes my feelings about the Senate compromise:
But what happened last night is very important. It breaks the Democratic logjam on circuit-court nominees. It establishes the principle that conservative judges have every right to serve on the higher benches even if Democrats can't stand it. And it means that if Republicans have to break the filibuster to ensure an up-or-down vote on a Supreme Court justice, they will have a very strong argument indeed. The argument will be that they are breaking the filibuster out of respect for the tradition that says the choices for the highest court must be advised and consented to by the full Senate.
Emphasis mine: I believe that this will turn out to be very important indeed, when emotions subside and the durable gains become clearer. Even though the real substance of this fight may be future nominations for the Supreme Court, having someone like Janice Rogers Brown confirmed has got to scare the bejeezus out of the reactionary left.
And those two issues may not be unrelated.
UPDATE: Paul Deignan at Info Theory has further thoughts on this. Very interesting--the Democrats may be in zugzwang.
Posted at 01:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)May 23, 2005
Schroeder: The End Of The Rope?
German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and his Social Democratic Party have gotten a lot of mileage out of the anti-American vituperation they've been spewing for the last few years. But the well just ran dry. John Fund reports in today's WSJ OpinionJournal:
Three years ago, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder cynically used opposition to liberating Iraq to play an anti-American card just before elections in which he trailed his Christian Democratic opponents. [...] Yesterday, facing a likely loss in elections in Germany's largest state, North Rhine-Westphalia, his Social Democratic Party's union backers played another anti-American card, this time depicting U.S. investors as blood-sucking parasites. [...] This time, the tactic failed. Mr. Schoeder's party went down to a stunning defeat, losing the largely working-class state, home to one out of five Germans, for the first time in nearly 40 years.
And the numbers could not be spun: the partners of Schroeder's Social Democrats, the Greens, also failed miserabley--along with the other left-wing alternative parties. Faced with these hard facts, Schroeder has now called for a national election no later than this fall, a year earlier than expected.
Bad news for Mr. Schroeder is also good news for America. The Christian Democrats have announced that Angela Merkel, their pro-U.S. party chairman, will be their candidate for chancellor in the fall elections.
Ms. Merkel is a physicist who lived in East Germany when the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. While cautious, she is the closest thing German politics has to a Margaret Thatcher. When asked earlier this year if she detected any similarities between her ideas and the reforms that Britain's Iron Lady carried out in the 1980s, she told the Independent, a British newspaper, "My whole life was changed by reunification. I have experienced change as something good, not something to be avoided."
This is wonderful news. Now let's just hope the EU constitution is rejected.
May 22, 2005
"Think Kafka, Without The Bug."
I'm often utterly baffled by how the "progressives" continue to support the cause of dictators whose record of oppression and murder is beyond any reasonable doubt. And it is most gratifying when one hears of a brave soul who succumbs to empirical evidence, summons his courage and renounces his heartfelt convictions.
The Ten O'Clock Scholar focuses on just such a person: writer Keith Thompson explains in an essay in the San Francisco Chronicle how he came to leave the left, or rather how the left left him. Thompson writes of his metamorphosis ("Think Kafka, without the bug."):
My estrangement hasn't happened overnight. Out of the corner of my eye I watched what was coming for more than three decades, yet refused to truly see. Now it's all too obvious. Leading voices in America's "peace" movement are actually cheering against self-determination for a long-suffering Third World country because they hate George W. Bush more than they love freedom.
A left averse to making common cause with competent, self- determining individuals -- people who guide their lives on the basis of received values, everyday moral understandings, traditional wisdom, and plain common sense -- is a faction that deserves the marginalization it has pursued with such tenacity for so many years.
All of which is why I have come to believe, and gladly join with others who have discovered for themselves, that the single most important thing a genuinely liberal person can do now is walk away from the house the left has built. The renewal of any tradition that deserves the name "progressive" becomes more likely with each step in a better direction.
Powerful stuff--the whole article is a equally as good. And Ten O'Clock Scholar adds:
It is precisely people like this that I look to as the vanguard of reform of the Democrats, in order to present a reasoned, loyal, and USEFUL opposition to the Republicans, because one-party rule is no nirvana.
Although I haven't yet laid it out in writing, this point is one of the primary ideas underlying this blog, and indeed my current sense of the political situation: Intellectual honesty demands support of basic human freedoms and rights. The Democrats, by allowing themselves to be hijacked by the anti-freedom, marxist-based left, have abrogated their vital role as one of the parties in our time-tested two party system.
Posted at 09:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)Countries In Glass Houses...
I guess it's a measure of how much our elected pols hide behind speech that is obfuscating boilerplate that when someone actually does lay it on the line, it hits you like a ton of bricks. From LGF we get this delicious account of Republican Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon telling an audience of Arab leaders that until progress is shown in their own countries, these leaders can forget counting on a US president to pressure Israel for a Palestinian state:
"Until we have someone on the other side who is willing to say 'Yes,' we're not going to continue to prostitute the American presidency to people who aren't serious," said Smith, one of six U.S. congressmen who attended the forum. "It's a mystery to me why Arab countries can't work on their own countries before Palestine is fixed," he added.
"Obviously one of the greatest commitments that we have is to the Jewish people and the state of Israel, to try and manage the difficult process of the peace there and securing that nation, and doing so in a way that, if possible, is just to the Palestinians," Smith told a panel that included Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa, top officials from Jordan, the Palestinian territories, Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as academics from Iran and Turkey.
Wonderful advice. Working on your own country first--are you listening President Vicente Fox?
Posted at 10:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)May 21, 2005
Dole, Fortas And The Myth Of The 1968 Filibuster
As the battle over President Bush's nominees to the federal bench continues to rage, an oft-repeated assertion is that Republicans used a filibuster to defeat Lyndon Johnson's Supreme Court nominee Abe Fortas. Bob Dole emphatically sets the record straight (hat tip Right Wing News):
The claim Fortas was not confirmed due to a "filibuster" is off-base. A filibuster, commonly understood, occurs when a minority of senators prevents a majority from voting up-or-down on a matter by use or threat of permanent debate.
That simply did not happen with Fortas, where the Senate debated the nomination's merits quite vigorously.
Dole goes on to recall that Fortas's nomination to Chief Justice was eventually withdrawn by Johnson, because it became clear that Fortas had nowhere near the votes required to pass (and the opposition was strongly bipartisan). Dole then skips forward in history to the Clinton administration to emphasis the historic Senate precedent of not filibustering judicial nominees:
I recall two judicial nominations of President Clinton's particularly troubling to me and my fellow Republican members when I was the Republican Leader in the Senate. Despite our objections, both received an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. In fact, I voted to end debate on one of these nominees while voting against his confirmation. Republicans chose not to filibuster because it was considered inappropriate for nominations to the federal bench.
Again: note that the word "filibuster" is not found in the Constitution; neither is the concept of an up-or-down vote for judicial nominees. What we have left, then, is precedent: the long-established precedent of not filibustering judicial nominees.
What the Constitution does say, explicitly, is that the Senate should provide its "advice and consent". I cannot for the life of me understand how it can be argued that by delaying a terminal action, i.e. an up-or-down vote, the Senate is fulfilling the duty it is charged with by the Constitution. By "terminal action" I mean to say that the vote is the actual consummation of the directive of the Constitution; the vote is the only action that represents the Senate as a whole.
And riding over all of this is the other explicit charge by the Constitution: that the Senate has the right to set its own rules. Period.
May 20, 2005
Minutemen vs. MSM-men
Tuscon reporter Leo Banks, writing in OpinionJournal yesterday, casts a bright light on the cavernous divide separating the attitudes of the media elites from those of the people who live and work along the border.
He lists some eye-opening stories: a rancher's newborn calve was beaten to death and barbecued on the spot; nightly damage to ranch fences; spigots left open all night in an area where water is precious; cars racing down unlit backroads at speeds over 100 mile per hour.
In the Tucson Sector alone in January 2005, the Border Patrol arrested 35,704 people, seized 34,864 pounds of marijuana, and impounded 557 smuggling vehicles. In one month.
The best part of this story is that while the elite media's agenda on the Minutemen played well on the coasts, Arizonans weren't buying it. A poll found that 57% of the state's residents supported the border-watch project, which sent the editorial page of Tucson's Arizona Daily Star into a stammering fit, calling the number alarming. Of course, this is a paper so politically correct it can't even bring itself to call illegals illegals. Its writers refer to them as migrants or, my favorite, border crossers. But as the Minutemen plan to expand operations to five more states--and a new citizen group, the Yuma Patriots, begins patrolling--that 57% heartens me. It looks to me like the rednecks won.
The Republican leadership had better pay attention to this story. And part of the blame must fall on businesses who employ illegals--the idea that illegals just do "the jobs that Americans won't do" doesn't quite hold up when you read this:
Twenty-four of the workers arrested were here in the Houston area, twenty of them with jobs at Lyondell, a refinery between the 610 Loop and the Beltway on Highway 225. Others were working as Brock company contractors at the Valero Plants in Houston and in Texas City.
"They obtained positions and jobs inside with Brock company by providing fraudulent ID to show that they were authorized to work in the US," said Scott Hatfield with Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Not exactly people doing yardwork.
Posted at 06:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)May 19, 2005
Who Started It?: Counter-counter Arguments
At JustOneMinute, Tom Maguire presents a counter argument to the assertion that "the Newsweek story didn't really cause the riots" (hat tip Decision '08):
The May 12 Times has terrific on-the-spot reporting which may help resolve the controversy - one easily supported view is that peaceful demonstrations motivated by the Newsweek article were hijacked by violent groups hoping to cause trouble. In that sense, Newsweek did not "cause" the violence, which may be what General Eichenberry in Afghanistan had in mind. [David Frum describes the hijacking here].
I think that it was a combination of gripes about the existing political situation; outside agents fomenting the riots for their own purposes; and the fortuitous arrival of the made-to-order Newsweek story. Frum makes a point that I was ruminating on this afternoon (emphasis mine):
Whatever one thinks of the reactions of the poor and probably uneducated Afghans who rioted in response to this incitement, from a political point of view it's important to keep one's eyes on the motives and actions of the sophisticated urban politicians who put the mob in motion. The story of the Afghan riots [...]is one more reminder that much of the extremism and violence of Middle Eastern and Central Asian politics is the handiwork of cynical local power-seekers pursuing selfish advantage.
I cannot comment on whether Islam is itself an "intolerant" or "violent" religion; it's too massive a subject, and I just don't know that much about it. For whatever reason, it's clear that some of the poorest countries on earth happen to be predominately Muslim. Afghanistan is one of those countries, and it seems very reasonable to agree with Tom Maguire's conclusion: it indicates a pretty low level of reasoning power to want to--literally--hang those that don't agree with you, and we must keep an eye on those that are trying to take advantage of that lack of reasoning. It may be more the fault of the people, and those manipulating them, than the religion.
Posted at 10:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)May 18, 2005
OK, Who Really Caused The Riots In Afhanistan?
It's been asserted (by Fargus and others) that the violent demonstrations in Afghanistan were not linked to the Newsweek/Koran story. Here's an interesting analysis of the instigators' possible motives, and of some the other background issues (hat tip to Winds of Change):
Many Afghan politicians, especially those who have lost power recently, have equated the presence of the U.S. military in the country with a continuation of Karzai's administration. While not openly critical of the U.S. and the rest of the foreign military presence in the country, these politicians have expressed uneasiness about the issue. The demonstrations loudly echoed those hushed sentiments.
This certainly does reinforce the Army after-action report cited by Fargus.
But it doesn't let Newsweek off the hook for its shoddy work. That's a separate story. In fact I can really see four different stories rolled up here:
1) Whether or not the Newsweek story actually caused the rioting.
2) The larger story of who was behind the violence. (And make no mistake, it was organized by someone.)
3) The even deeper question of anti-US sentiment in the Muslim world, and how much we should worry about it.
4) Newsweek's butchering of the ethics of reporting. Jay Rosen has a comprehensive post on the sourcing issue--it's well worth reading.
May 17, 2005
"Is That What You're Saying Here?"
What's up with the PC prohibition against anger, anyway? I read something once about anger being a necessary precursor to justice, i.e., the troops that liberated Dachau had every right to be very angry indeed.
The Anchoress is angry. She expounds on the staggering (and depressingly familiar) display of disrespect, contempt, and ultimately hatred the press displays toward the White House, the President, and the military. I will not requote her carefully constructed broadside, but she did include a transcript of today's White House press briefing. The following question--for me--just leaped off the screen:
Q Are you asking them to write a story about how great the American military is; is that what you’re saying here?
This quote reveals the kernel of truth at the center of the rat's nest of rhetoric. Paraphrase: "Are you insane? You want me to write a story on how great the military is? I didn't sweat j-school at Cornell to be Rummie's chump." Her presupposition, of course, is that the military could not possibly be anything other than evil. The true bias, arrogance, and prejudice (in its literal sense of "pre-judging"), is perfectly framed by this statement.
And another thing: Why in bloody hell aren't these journalists required to state their names and associated employers before they are allowed to ask a question. This is standard procedure in other news briefings.
Posted at 11:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)May 16, 2005
The Cold Calculus Of A Journalistic Fraud
Wretchard at The Belmont Club delivers a sharp smack to Newsweek over its "journalistic integrity" (hat tip: Bill Roggio):
Their efforts at "confirmation" yielded a denial and a non-denial from Defense officials, but no confirmation. In predicate calculus, Newsweek asserted P. Their attempts at confirmation yielded ~P and Null. Hence they concluded P, which is wrong, wrong and wrong. It is wrong from the pont of view of elementary logic. It would be wrong anywhere, even in the Andromeda Galaxy. But apparently it is right at Newsweek.
The two-facedness of the MSM is again on appalling display. Consider Rathergate and the simpering tributes heaped upon Dan Rather at his retirement: If Rather was as good a journalist as everyone claimed, how then did he fail to stop the obviously bogus story that went out under his leadership? The other explanation was that he was a liar. He's a fraud as a journalist either way.
Likewise, in this case Newsweek will no doubt hide behind its mainstream facade of J-school arrogance; it looks like they will adopt the CBS stratey of rope-a-dope half-apologies. But these kind of major ethical disasters might just begin to have a cumulative effect. Combined with the very real toll in deaths and damage to the reputation of the US, this event might have a far greater backlash against Newsweek than the Newsweek bigwigs are anticipating.
UPDATE: Austin Bay has a great recap of his MSNBC appearance today. He wonders if Newsweek will grit their teeth and conduct an honest and tough investigation, or whether they'll take the CBS/CNN route and do as little as possible. He concludes with a thought that adds to my conclusion above:
I suspect Newsweek thinks this incident will somehow “blow over” and they’ll get by with some slight degree of professional embarrassment. I also suspect no one serving in Afghanistan thinks the “blow over” Newsweek faces in New York in DC is anything like the heat they face in Kabul.
Just so. My wife commented after we watched the coverage on Brit Hume's show, "I wish they could have rounded up the wives of some of the soldiers over there, to see what they think about Newsweek."
Posted at 01:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)May 15, 2005
Thoughts On Operation Matador
Strategy Page has in-depth observations on Operation Matador. (hat tip: Instapundit). Here are some bits I thought were important (all emphasis mine):
[T]he marines received a friendly reception in many villages, the people relieved to see someone who could run off the terrorists and restore order. Iraqi police, troops and border guards have come in behind the marine operation, as the Iraqi government has not had any presence in this area since early 2003, and not much before that.
One bright bit of news is the arrest of two former cabinet ministers for corruption. It remains to be seen if these two, and several others, will actually be prosecuted. [...] But as Iraqis who have lived in the United States point out, the only way to deal with corrupt politicians is to put them in jail. That happens in the United States and Europe, and those places prosper. [...] But it remains to be seen if Iraqis can do it.
Stategey Page notes that US forces and Iraqi military and police have learned to harden their installations against the jihadi tactics.
This left the terrorists with civilians, which they have been killing in large numbers. While Sunni Arab propaganda, especially outside Iraq, blames all this on "the American occupation," inside Iraq the mayhem is blamed on foreign fanatics, particularly from Saudi Arabia. Iraq and Saudi Arabia have never had a cozy relationship, and that long standing tension has been pumped up because of all those terror attacks carried out by Saudi Arabian Islamic radicals.
The marines and soldiers are out in the desert because the Iraqi police and army have more of central Iraq under control. This means that coalition troops can go take care of other business.
The entire post is well worth your time.
I think the continued targeting of Iraqi civilians by foreign jihadists can only increase Iraqi nationalism, and result in a corresponding increase in recruiting for and effectiveness of the Iraqi army and police. Furthermore, these recruits will be driven more and more by the solid motivation of protecting their own interests (family and property), in addition to the desire for a good salary.
Strategy Page's point about the historical distrust and tension between Iraq and Saudi Arabia is fascinating; indeed, Iraq's (especially an even moderately democratic Iraq) relations with its neighbors will be one of the most important and interesting areas to focus on going forward.
Posted at 11:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (1)May 14, 2005
The Huffington Disaster
Mark Coffey at Decision '08 has a comprehensive summary of the epic train wreck that is The Huffington Post. She is the current holder of the Decision '08 "Weekly Jackass Award".
Well-deserved. Huffington is a jackass among jackasses.
Posted at 10:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)Stock Tip: Buy Hellfire
Bill Roggio at The Fourth Rail relays the news that another senior al Qaeda member has been introduced to the Hellfire missile. From ABC News:
Haitham al-Yemeni, a native of Yemen known for his bomb-making skills, had been tracked for some time in the hope that he would help lead the United States to al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, intelligence officials said. But with the recent capture in northwest Pakistan of Abu Faraj al-Libbi, thought to be al Qaeda's No. 3 man, officials worried al-Yemeni would soon go into hiding, and decided to take action.
Bill makes the key observation that this guy was taken out by a Predator drone aircraft in Pakistan, which means one of two things: Pakistan was unaware of the operation and the US proceeded anyway (very unlikely given the long-term importance of relation with Pakistan); or Pakistan was aware of the operation, thus giving its tacit approval.
Bill goes on to note the importance of the stated long-term observation of the now-deceased target:
Any observation of al-Yemeni would probably be conducted by or in conjunction with Pakistani intelligence (ISI - Inter-Services Intelligence). Human intelligence would be required to keep such close tabs on him as indicated by this article, and the ISI would have to be involved at some level. That fact that he could be watched for a long period of time without the ISI leaking this information to al Qaeda or their sympathizers suggests the ISI is not as porous as is believed to be the case.
Emphasis mine. Bill concludes by pointing out the further implication that tracking this guy's location on a long-term basis also brings in a ton of data on his safehouses, contacts, etc.
Let's hope that these jihadists meet the same end that this guy did in Yemen in 2002:
May 13, 2005
"Acquired Situational Narcissism"
The always-informative Dr. Sanity provides her expert opinion on why some of our "esteemed" elected officials act as they do:
There is a description of a disorder called "Acquired Situational Narcissism" which seems to apply to many of our elected officials. If you take someone with a few narcissistic traits (and what politician doesn't have them?) and put them in a situation where they are adored, worshipped, and make to think (by the adoring and worshipping staff) that they are the center of the universe; and that words from their mouth are the font of all wisdom and knowledge--you would get something similar to the grandstanding meatheads we see every day on our TV screens.
Yes. And another thing: we are all aware of the reputation the Senate has for "collegiality" and the legendary politeness with which even bitter enemies address each other, and indeed these are admirable and useful traits. But they aren't ends unto themselves. The reason for the existence of the Senate (indeed all the branches of government) is to carry out its duties to the people under the rules set forth under the Constitution.
Posted at 01:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (3)Good News For Dartmouth
Peter J. Robinson and Todd Zywicki have succeeded in their "insurgent" campaign to win election to the Dartmouth College Board of Trustees.
Good for them, and good for all of us who wish for the unseating of postmodern relatavism as the dominant influence on the academy.
Posted at 01:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)May 12, 2005
Armor Geddon Returns!
Woo-hoo! Carpe Bonum says that Armor Geddon is back.
Just this morning, as we watched combat video on FoxNews of Operation Matador, my wife asked, "How's your tank guy doing?"
She was referring to Lt. Neil Prakash, the outstanding young tank commander, whose blog of his combat experiences contains some absolutely riveting accounts of the fighing in Iraq.
Here's my first post about Armor Geddon.
Posted at 11:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)Lies, Damned Lies, And The Truth
We've all heard the line about "lies, damned lies, and statistics", but I think that quote is sometimes a smokescreen for people who either can't understand the stats, or who hold a POV that is demolished by the stats.
Dave at Logical Meme highlights a piece by Walter Williams, who writes on "How Not To Be Poor". Dave singles out the following quote:
The 1999 Bureau of Census report might raise another racial discrimination question. Among black households that included a married couple, over 50 percent were middle class earning above $50,000, and 26 percent earned more than $75,000. How in the world did these black families manage not to be poor? Did America's racists cut them some slack?
Well, these are some statistics that just have to be bogus--if you're a liberal devoted to perpetuating the racism-as-root-of-all-evil card. Williams goes on to demolish some more canards of the racism/poverty industry, by showing how the number of children living in poverty in not correlated to race; it's correlated to family stability and family economics:
When black children are compared to white children living in identical circumstances, mainly in a two-parent household, both children will have the same probability of being poor.
Along the same lines, we hear all the time in the MSM about X percent of Americans are now living in poverty. Of course the question to ask is, "What, exactly, is the definition of poverty? And who defines it?" A couple of years ago, Jonah Goldberg wrote a great column on the relativity of the poverty line:
[A]ccording to Robert Rector, an economist with the Heritage Foundation who uses the government's numbers, the typical person in the poorest fifth of U.S. households today spends as much as the person of average wealth in the early 1970s (adjusted for inflation).
The typical "poor" American, according to census data, has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a VCR and a color TV. It should go without saying -but usually doesn't -that in, say, 1960, someone who had a color TV, a refrigerator, air conditioning and a car would not be considered poor.
Anyone with an active, healthy skepticism ought to be able to discern this without statistics. But I guess "ought" is the spoiler word here.
May 11, 2005
Goldberg On Conservatism
Jonah Goldberg has written a powerful article on one of my favorite topics: What does it mean to be a conservative? Here's a juicy bit:
Any ideology or outlook that tries to explain what government should do at all times and in all circumstances is un-conservative. Any ideology that sees itself as the answer to any question is un-conservative. Any ideology that promises that if it were fully realized there would be no more problems, no more trade-offs, no more elites, and no more inequality of one kind or another is un-conservative. [...] A good many hippies who’d never hurt a fly are more completely totalitarian in their thinking than most members of the Soviet politburo ever were.
Here he effectively fleshes out one of my two personal tenets of conservatism: Humans, and human enterprises, are not and can never be perfect. This idea underlies what Jonah cites as the central topic of his essay--the idea that above all, conservatives are comfortable with contradiction. True conservatives are inherently anti-dogmatic:
Think of any leftish ideology and at its core you will find a faith that circles can be closed, conflicts resolved. Marxism held that in a truly socialist society, contradictions would be destroyed. Freudianism led the Left to the idea that the conflicts between the inner and outer self were the cause of unnecessary repressions. Dewey believed that society could be made whole if we jettisoned dogma and embraced a natural, organic understanding of the society where everyone worked together.
The beauty of the conservative movement — as Buckley noted in that original essay — is that we all get along with each other pretty well. The chief reason for this is that we all understand and accept the permanence of contradiction and conflict in life.
The belief in the perfectibility of humans--what an insidious and malicious idea! I've often thought that the human race, when taken as a statistical average, is more good than evil. That's a fine and healthy proposition to believe in. Where most liberals/leftists go astray is to assume that that statistical average has to hold for any random person.
As Jonah concludes: conservatives deal with this inherent human characteristic more honestly than do liberals and leftists.
Posted at 11:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)The Ten Postulates of PC
The Ten O'Clock Scholar highlights the "Ten Postulates of PC". He excerpts from an excellent post at Gates of Vienna:
- 1. America is uniquely evil.
- 2. America is never justified in defending itself.
- 3. Illiterate people from poor societies are superior to Americans.
- 4. The Earth would be better off without human beings.
- 5. Making a profit is always immoral.
- 6. Differences between individuals or groups are unfair.
- 7. For Designated Victim Groups, strong feelings excuse all behavior.
- 8. Policies informed by Judæo-Christian principles are inherently suspect.
- 9. Conservatives are hypocrites; liberals are sincere.
- 10. There are no acts of God; there are only acts of Government.
Read the rest of his post. It gets even more interesting.
Posted at 01:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)May 10, 2005
Abu Ghraib: Responsibility And The Chain Of Command
Dr. Sanity presents some pithy analysis of the recent revelations from the Lindy England trial:
That [purported ringleader Charles] Graner could survive for any length of time in the military only demonstrates the laxity with which some reserve units were commanded. The grotesque breakdown in military discipline that permitted the blatant flauting of military rules and regulations; and provided a fertile environment were such acting out behavior could thrive without serious consequences--can be laid squarely on the immediate officers in the chain of command to Graner and England. (General Karpinski was found guilty of dereliction of duty and demoted to Colonel) It also suggests that the military reserves needs to clean up their act and begin to demand professional and appropriate behavior from both their officers and enlisted personnel.
That anyone could believe for a moment that this kind of behavior and the resultant events at Abu Ghraib would be condoned by a professional military service is completely absurd.
Indeed. And Baldilocks notes that others, in between ex-general Karpinski and the enlisted soldiers Graner and England, have also been held accountable.
The question of the adequacy of reserve units to handle this job is certainly still open, and it is one that could go very high up, indeed. But in my layman's opinion, the actual responsibility for the abuse should stop with the commanding officer.
I would have preferred, though, that Karpinski be made to accept direct responsibility for the actions of her unit at Abu Ghraib.
May 09, 2005
John Kerry: An Endless Source of Amusement?
Maybe we should set the Sandia Lab folks onto the task of seeing whether we could harness the collective mirth generated by each latest pronouncement of John Kerry. We could have an easy source of unlimited energy.
Captain's Quarters comments on a Boston Globe story that relates how Kerry is attempting to redefine himself as (get a load of this!) a Washington outsider.
The Boston Globe reports that John Kerry has transformed himself into that most hackneyed of political clichés, the "outsider" candidate, despite having spent the last twenty years in Washington DC. Using the hilarious notion of turning a twenty-year career in the Senate into outsider street cred, Kerry insists on firing up crowds by talking about how Washington ignores the little people...
It's impossible to imagine how anyone can take this guy seriously, and that's an observation that hasn't changed.