« December 2005 | Main | February 2006 »
January 31, 2006
We Mustn't "Humiliate" Iran
RDS at The Ten O'Clock Scholar has a comprehensive timeline of the recent escalation of the Iranian nuclear affair. One highlight that jumped out at me was British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw's recent comment at the Davos conference:
Straw dismissed [the option of doing nothing] as irresponsible and stressed the diplomatic option, "to secure a bargain which would not involve humiliation of either side."
Emphasis mine. So Mr. Straw is basing British foreign policy, at least in part, on the consideration of Iran's feelings? Isn't one Chamberlain every 100 years enough?
January 30, 2006
KosKids: Running Out Of Targets
Byron York notes that the hysteria merchants over at Daily Kos are (predictably) turning on their own over the failure of the Senate Democrats to organize a filibuster. From a Kos open thread:
What I want is a complete list of every scumsucking f--kstick Democratic a--hole senator who voted for cloture. That's what I want.
[blah blah blah blah blah...]
I'M DONE WITH THEM. They are DEAD to me.
Yeah. CANTWELL and BYRD and LANDRIEU and BINGAMAN and every last motherf--king one of them, I'm DONE with them.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've seen this same charming sentiment--expressed in a very nearly verbatim fashion--flung out at conservatives over the lasts few months: first, upon GWB's re-election victory; and subsequently during the Roberts confirmation battle.
Now, after defeat upon defeat at the hands of conservatives, the far Left is tightening their target circle to include the "traitors" in their own party, such as Lieberman and Byrd (of all people!).
One more Supreme Court victory, one more successful Iraqi milestone, and the KosKids will be hurling that language at each other.
Posted at 06:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)Fireworks Done Right
My wife, the kiddo and I went to the Houston Zoo on Saturday--they were featuring a variety of activities in celebration of the Chinese New Year. We saw some neat dragon dancing and martial arts exhibitions.
But I'm afraid what we saw pales in comparison to the festivities in Shanghai. The blogger at Shanghai Diaries has some video of the city-wide fireworks that will blow your mind--talk about shock and awe!
(Thanks to Boing Boing)
Posted at 12:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)January 29, 2006
British Concern With "Late" Abortions
The other day I noted a clever but logically ludicrous statement made by a very pregnant pro-choice protester, and I observed that, under Roe v Wade, the mom-to-be in the photo had the option of aborting her obviously third term fetus. (Since I made that post I've decided I have an excellent litmus test to determine the depth of one's dedication to Roe: "As a supporter of Roe v Wade, it follows that you support a women's right to an abortion one day before her due date. Agree or disagree?"
Today Michelle Malkin highlights a very interesting report in the left-wing British newspaper The Guardian. The headline to the piece reads
Women demand tougher laws to curb abortions: Poll reveals growing concern over late terminations
That's good news--I'm concerned about late terminations, too. But further reading reveals exactly what's meant by a "late" termination:
Evidence of a widespread public demand for the government to further restrict women's right to have an abortion is revealed in a remarkable Observer opinion poll. The findings have reignited the highly-charged debate on abortion, and increased the pressure on Tony Blair to review the current time limits.
The survey by MORI shows that 47 per cent of women believe the legal limit for an abortion should be cut from its present 24 weeks, and another 10 per cent want the practice outlawed altogether. Among the population overall, reducing the upper limit was the preferred option backed by the largest proportion of respondents, 42 per cent, made up of a 36-47 per cent split among men and women.
Emphasis mine. To the those who responded to this poll, the word "late" as used in the headline doesn't mean eight or nine months; rather they are talking about late in the period in which abortions are legal in Britain--currently 24 weeks.
Of course, under Roe v Wade, there's no limit whatsoever.
Posted at 07:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)January 27, 2006
Just A Note...
...that blogging will be light today. Our internet connections have been uber slow for the last few weeks and I've tracked it down to the router for our home network. I just bought a new one and hopefully I'll be back up soon.
Posted at 02:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)January 26, 2006
The Iran Threat: Some Practical Questions
A couple of questions have been stuck in the back of my head concerning the threat posed by Iran's potential nuclear capability. First: a very worrisome threat scenario posed by pundits is that of an EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse) weapon. EMP is the supercharged burst of electricity generated by an air-burst nuke, and its been theorized that if Iran could explode one over the eastern seaboard, the entire electronic infrastructure of the country might be crippled. That's a tough enineering task, and Armed Liberal over at Winds of Change has some interesting speculation. As usual check out the comments for even more information.
Second, a lot of people seem to assume that Iranian nuke will be launchable on an Iranian missile, but weapon miniaturiazation is a huge and complicated task. It took years of work for the US to gain the expertise necessary to make a bomb that could be launched on a missile, where every pound is critical. In the comments to Armed Liberal's post, I found this very interesting piece by Jeffrey at Arms Control Wonk on this somewhat geekish but important topic.
Posted at 06:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)January 25, 2006
Clever, Smug and Clueless
I don't usually blog much about abortion--it's taken me a long time to sort out my feelings on this supremely emotional question. But in the last few months I've come to at least one rock-solid conclusion: Roe v. Wade is an abysmal decision and needs to be overturned.
Check out this photo from a San Francisco pro-choice rally I found over at K-Block:
Roe v. Wade says that this woman has a constitutional right to leave this rally, drive straight to the nearest abortion clinic and have her pregnancy terminated. This is not a question of religion--it's a question of the basic morality that should connect all of us humans--Christians, Jews, Moslems or atheists. This mom-to-be is marching to assert her right to absolute control of her own body, yet in the slogan printed on her belly she is imparting a thinking consciousness to her unborn child.
Here's a news flash for you, Ms. Smugness--when you're seven months pregnant, it's not just about you anymore.
Posted at 09:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)January 24, 2006
NEA Members: "You Will Be Assimilated!"
Mike Antonucci, sharp-eyed observer of the public education scene and head honcho at the Education Intelligence Agency, has about the same opinion of mission statements as I do: they are almost always an organizational placebo (and undoubtedly expensive) meant to give the impression of positive action. They are the demon spawn of the dreaded flip chart. (Oh the memories! Oh the humanity!)
So I'm not too surprised that Mike has a pretty low opinion of the National Education Association's new mission statement--although he does see some value in it:
But let's give credit where credit is due. The slogan that accompanies NEA Tomorrow is "Creating our future together through collective thinking and conversation."
My view is that "collective thinking" is an oxymoron, and that conversation in the midst of it is pointless, but can there be any doubt that NEA prizes collective thinking above all other things? Congratulations, NEA, for creating a slogan that describes your very essence.
Heh.
Intelligence: Covert vs Open Source
The Plame/Wilson affair raises my blood pressure for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is the way in which political partisans have played fast and loose with the concepts of "classified" information and "covert" operatives. I'm not an intelligence professional but I do know that these term have very specific applications; yet the original definitions of the terms matter not a whit to those who have a hot headline to write.
Indeed, crucial policy decisions and even some peoples' freedom might depend on when various previously classified pieces of data lost their holy status and descended back into the realm of wire service stories. At the basic level someone somewhere is making a judgment call and placing that "classified" label on selected information--but maybe we need to examine what the ramifications of that designation are.
CIA analyst Stephen C. Mercado (via Arts & Letters Daily) makes some very interesting points about the dangers of trying to direct the onrushing river of data into preconceived pigeonholes.
Overt and covert streams of intelligence are by no means completely parallel and distinct; they often mingle and meander over one another’s territory. Covert reports at times are amalgams of press clippings. And newspaper editors, for their part, frequently publish stories based on accurate leaks of classified material. Examples abound. Veteran CIA case officer James Lilley learned early in his career how Chinese agents had “swindled” his office with supposedly inside information on Chinese developments that later proved to be “embroidered versions of articles from provincial Chinese newspapers.”[4] Similarly, European con men reportedly passed off Soviet newspaper articles as intelligence from behind the Iron Curtain to operatives of the CIA and the West German Gehlen Organization in the 1950s.[5] More recently, journalist Bill Gertz of the Washington Times has leaked classified information in his stories. His published photocopies of actual intelligence documents underscore how the overt and covert streams mingle.
As an employee of the CIA Directorate of Science and Technology, Mercado argues that analysis of open source intelligence (OSINT) can be as useful, if not more so, than the covert stealing of secrets. He cites the blogosphere to illustrate: good case officers and their agents are a finite and expensive resource; yet as most of us know, there is a huge quantity of expertise available in blogs and on the internet in general. Intelligence collected by a good OSINT specialist can oftentimes match or exceed the product produced by covert means, at much less cost and with a more rapid response time.
This is a fascinating article; it's well worth your time.
Posted at 09:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)They Should Be Hung, Drawn and Quartered...
The scumbags who write malware, that is. I've got an infection of Spyware Strike, a particularly nasty and persistant desktop hijacker.
Thank god it's not on one of our main computers, but blogging will be light until I can kill it.
Posted at 12:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)January 23, 2006
The Pope And Islamic Reform: Where's The Discussion?
Diana West draws a deep breath and makes some pointed observations about the large white elephant sitting in the corner. The elephant in question was led in by Pope Benedict XVI, in the form of his recent statements (which I noted here) concerning the immutability of the Koran and the resistance of Islam to reform. West wonders about the media's silence on this potential bombshell:
But this is one bombshell that has yet to explode because no one wants to touch it. Hugh Hewitt posted the extraordinary interview online, a couple of blogs picked it up, and Middle East expert Daniel Pipes wrote a short piece taking exception to it, but, as the Asia Times Online columnist Spengler noted (in a column called "When even the pope has to whisper"), "not a single media outlet has taken notice." Posting the Spengler column at The Corner at National Review Online, Rod Dreher wrote: "Spengler is amazed by the silence from the Western media over this remarkable statement attributed to the current pope ... and he suggests that we shrink from acknowledging it because the consequences of the pope being right about this are too horrible to contemplate." Indeed, with one exception, NRO Corner regulars failed to comment on the pope's putative words -- noteworthy, given the magazine's tradition of a Catholic identity.
This is silence built upon more silence: the silence of the our western media in discussing the pope's comments, and the continuing lack of prominent discussion by Moslems concerning the relationship of Islam to the modern world.
And West makes the important observation that if the Pope is correct--that is Islam cannot be reformed (that is, to adapt itself to a modern world)--then it is not our responsibility to "solve" the problem by changing Western culture to ease the conflict. In other words, if Saudi princes (whose wealth flows directly from modern technology) want to talk on cell phones and work on laptops while flying modern jet aircraft to the US for the the best (western) medical treatment--all while funnelling millions of dollars to Wahabi fundamentalists--then so be it.
But we in the west must make policy decisions in our own best interest.
Posted at 09:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)January 22, 2006
Michael Yon says...
...that the article on Iraq in the January edition of National Geographic is one of the best he's seen. A preview is here, but given the quality of Michael's work, I'll be buying the hard copy.
Posted at 06:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)A Hypothetical Trouncing...
The always-dependable Mark Coffey at Decision '08 highlights an interesting poll in which, in a hypothetical presidential race, John McCain trounces Hillary Clinton to the tune of 52% - 36%.
I wonder what if a McCain/Giuliani ticket is possible? (Or a preferably Giuliani/McCain).
And what about Condi Rice. Unfortunately Mark has found that Jay Cost says "Forget it."
Blah!
January 21, 2006
How Barbaric! How...Insensitive!
From the Brussels Journal (thanks to Andrew Stuttaford):
“From 1 March onwards people who want to settle in the Netherlands (e.g. to join family members or to marry someone living there) will have to pass a preliminary test at the Dutch embassy in their country of origin. In this so-called “integration test” the immigrants have to prove that they have sufficient knowledge of the Dutch language and the geography, history and political system of the Netherlands. The fee for taking the test is 350 euros. Those who do not pass are not allowed to enter the Netherlands. Those who do pass have only taken the first hurdle. After their arrival in the Netherlands they will have to pass a second – more difficult – exam. The exams are part of a bill proposed by Rita Verdonk, the Minister for lntegration. The Dutch House of Representatives approved the bill on Thursday. The Dutch Senate had done so last month.”
Sounds great to me, but I wonder how much the Dutch economy depends upon immigrant labor. France and Germany might well have to decide between economic reform (i.e. giving up short work weeks, long vacations and early retirements) aimed at restoring productivity, and tolerating an increasingly disaffected and unassimilated population of immigrant workers.
Posted at 11:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)January 20, 2006
Iran: Should We Invade?
I wrote the other day about my concept of life as a statistical continuum--the idea that the natural laws of statistical probability give results that are sometimes counterintuitive to everyday life. A good example is the recent hurricane season in which two category five storms formed and threatened the Gulf Coast within two weeks of each other. This seemed extraordinary but really wasn't when you consider that one storm has no "prior knowledge" of what's gone before--conditions were extremely favorable for storm formation, so a bunch of storms formed.
Likewise I think that we must approach the Iranian problem with a similar mindset. It's accepted that fear of reliving World War I led to timid and appeasing policies in dealing with the rising threat of German National Socialism, and likewise I strongly feel that the Iranian threat must be analyzed on its own merits--disconnected as far as possible from the Iraq experience.
Thomas Holsinger at Winds of Change has an exhaustive and sobering analysis of our choices in dealing with Iran. His conclusion: invade now.
It is obvious that Iran’s leaders cannot be deterred from developing nuclear weapons. The U.N. won’t stop them. Diplomatic solutions won’t – the mullahs’ bad faith is obvious. Their diplomacy serves the same purpose as Japan’s with us in late 1941 after their carrier attack fleet had sailed for Pearl Harbor - to distract us from the coming attack. We are at that same point now, only we know the Kido Butai is coming and have no excuse for surprise. Iran’s President has openly stated their real intentions. Iranian diplomacy merely lets the willing deceive themselves
According to Holsinger, there isn't time for a home grown regime change--our military must overcome the mid-1930s mindset and act now, preemptively. He feels that Iranian possession of nuclear weapons will spur a regional arms-race, and Holsinger ominously notes that several neighboring countries have more economic resources than Pakistan or North Korea--both of which have developed nuclear weapons.
Commenter CatoRenasci put it concisely:
Starkly put, we have the choice of fighting now without being full prepared politically or militarily, or fighting later when we or Israel have been attacked. [...]The Iranians know -- as most politicians and intellectuals in the West either don't know or are unwilling to admit -- that if they use nuclear weapons, even against Israel, they will have opened a Vernichtungskrieg - a war of extermination in which the Israeli's and the West's overwhelming nuclear superiority will really make most of Iran a radioactive glass parking lot.
The key question, of course, is do they care? Given the history of Iranian behavior over the past three decades, I don't think the answer can be said to be yes with sufficient certainty to be the safety of our entire civilization on the answer.
The broader questions, in a way, is do the mass of the Iranian people -- who are not by and large fond of the ruling mullahs -- understand that they are on the verge of being exterminated if the mullahs are not removed? I doubt that as well.
"The key question, of course, is do they care?" This is the key question, of both the mullahs and western anti-war Left. I think there is a tendency of Republicans and centrist Democrats to assume that the Leftists just have a (radically) different opinion about policy, but their goals ultimately align with our own. I think this is a mistake.
I believe there is a strain of suicidal fatefulness that underlies both the postmodernist radical Left and regimes like that found in Iran. It is a mistake to attempt to deal rationally with either, because I think in the final analysis they don't care--nihilistic destruction is their goal.
January 19, 2006
Thursday Quick Picks
Here are some interesting items for your perusal:
Debbie Schlussel has a must-read roundup of the characters involved in the ACLU lawsuit challenging the NSA electronic intercept program. (hat tip: Michelle Malkin)
AcademicElephant has yet another example of John Bolton's exemplary work as US ambassador to the UN.
The long-awaited Barret Report has had its teeth pulled. Mark Coffey at Decision '08 has the details.
Sweetness & Light brings us the inspiring story of a former "human shield" who was rescued by US Special Forces after being taken captive in Iraq. (Inspiring because of the Special Forces, of course!) To date he still has uttered no words of thanks to his rescuers (and I bet they couldn't care less). (via The American Thinker)
Dymphna at Gates of Vienna reports on the latest outrageous story from our "border" with Mexico. Unbelievable, even in the context of our farcical immigration policy.
Posted at 09:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (1)January 18, 2006
Iran: Best Choice From A Bad Lot?
Stanley Kurtz highlights Charles Krauthammer's devastating piece on the Iran problem. In brief, Charles concludes that our choices are down to two options: 1) stay our present course of inaction and allow Iran to go nuclear; or 2) take action ranging from sanctions to a military strike.
The result of the first choice is that a psychopathic totalitarian regime will have weapons that can cause a thousand 9/11s in an instant. And I mean a thousand, literally. Anyone who's considered this situation at all must realize that this is self-evidently true.
What is not self-evident, and what Krauthammer points out, is that if any significant action is launched against Iran the mullahs have it in their power to drive oil to $100 a barrel. One observation that follows immediately is that $100 a barrel oil and the ensuing economic shock will separate out those Democrats who are honest when they say they can put national security ahead of partisan politics.
As far as military options go, (as Michael Ledeen points out) if we are concerned about collateral civilian deaths (yes, women and children) on a small scale, then we have our work cut out for us in dealing with Iran's large scale facilities, many of which are certainly buried deep under heavily populated areas. I think that at least some military strikes might be unavoidable, but they--and perhaps a blockade--need to be in concert with the only long-term solution: regime change.
We must lose our squeamishness about encouraging the overthrow of clearly psychotic governments. Ledeen:
There were three political revolutions in Iran in the last century, and another one is simmering today. There is a lot of fighting going on right now in the Arab regions, just across from southern Iraq. And interestingly enough, the regime is not using regular forces to quell the demonstrations, or even the shock troopers of the Revolutionary Guards, or even the fanatical Basiji. Instead, the mullahs have called in the killers from the Lebanese Hezbollah, and from the Badr Brigades in Iraq. [...] It is [...] confirmation that tyrants fear their own people above all others.
The mullahs know it, but the West seems not to. Our failure to support revolution in Iran is already a terrible embarrassment, and risks becoming an enormous catastrophe. Almost everyone who writes about the chances for revolution takes it for granted that it would take a long time to come to fruition. Why must that be so? The revolutions in countries like Georgia and the Ukraine seem to have erupted in an historical nanosecond. Nobody foresaw them, everyone was surprised. [...] The entire region is awash with revolutionary sentiment, and nowhere more than Iran. Why assume — because no one can possibly "know" such things — that it would take a long time?
And even if you believe that revolution cannot possibly succeed before the successful completion of the mullahs' nuclear project, is that a reason to abandon the policy altogether? On the contrary, it seems self-evident that it would be even more urgent to support revolution in a nuclear Iran than earlier, doesn't it? [...]
On the other hand, we do know what will happen if we continue to dither [...]. Terror against our troops and our friends will increase; nuclear blackmail will become a commonplace in the Middle East; the fanatics of Tehran may very well fulfill their promise to wipe Israel from the map.
Is that better than supporting democratic revolutionaries? Such a program has an additional benefit, one that is not subject to the doubts and uncertainties that attend the others: It is the right thing to do, and it would be even if Iran had no nuclear program, and was not the world's leading terrorist supporter. It is part and parcel of our national mission, and it is the ultimate example of doing well by doing good.
How about it?
Emphases mine. Most of the people in Iran are under thirty years of age--many are pro-American, and all of them are too young to have lived through the revolution. If the democratic process has taken root in the chaos of Iraq, a country whose political and physical infrastructure was ruined by Saddam, think of the possibilities in Iran, a country far more populous and advanced that its Arab neighbor.
It's past time to abandon mealy-mouthed half-commitment to policies that are doomed to fail. How about it, indeed?
January 17, 2006
Laws, Reasonableness And The Statistical Continuum
John Ray at Dissecting Leftism notes yet another example of the law of unintended consequences from--you guessed it--California:
They emigrated from Taiwan as boys, worked hard, kept close to family, and now - before either is 30 - they are stuck with a little lawsuit with big statewide implications. Bill and Sam Wu of Elk Grove have joined the burgeoning rolls of California business and property owners under siege by serial suers. In this case - and there are many - the Wus are the target of a prolific Carmichael attorney, who has filed more than 150 disability-access lawsuits since August 2003.
To some, Scott N. Johnson, who is quadriplegic and drives a full-size van with hand controls and a wheelchair lift, is a crusader for the disabled, busting businesses for violating the federal Americans with Disabilities Act. To others, he is an opportunist - the Wus say extortionist - who makes a fat living driving around town, scouring mom-and-pop operations for even the smallest infractions, then filing lawsuits and squeezing out quick settlements.
This goes back to my theory of Life As A Continuum Of Statistical Probabilities. How do we weigh the right of reasonable access of a handicapped person against the right of a business owner make his living free from unreasonable laws? The key concept is, of course, what is reasonable. There are no certainties in life: we have a reasonable expectation that we will survive a trip to the corner grocery, but there is some small but statistically important chance that we could be killed in an auto crash along the way. Some of us will get cancer and die before the age of forty. An African-American citizen is much less likely to encounter institutional discrimination today than fifty years ago, but the chance is not zero. How do we balance correcting an unjust situation for the greatest number of people against creating a new injustice for another group (potentially much larger than the first)? How far are we required to go on the statistical curve?
Do handicapped citizens of all levels of disability have a right to the same level of access as a non-disabled person to every public place of business? The aforementioned Mr. Johnson is a quadriplegic. What percentage of disabled people are quadriplegics and should that level of disability be used to set the standard of access to all businesses, large and small?
It seems to me that a common scenario has been played out yet again: a societal deficiency has been justifiably highlighted by activists; the public consciousness has been raised and laws are passed; activists, having accomplished 99% of their goal then proceed to spend all their time chasing the last one percent. And that one percent is in the statistical no-man's-land of unreachability.
And the rest of us pay the price.
Posted at 09:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (2)January 16, 2006
John Bolton Rocks!
John Bolton's performance as US Ambassador to the UN continues to exceed all my expectations. He recently sent a letter to Secretary General Kofi Annan criticizing an annual UN meeting for using a map that failed to include Israel. From the Jerusalem Post (via The Corner):
In the letter, written on January 3, and revealed on The New York Sun on Friday, Bolton wrote: "It was entirely inappropriate for this map to be used. It can be misconstrued to suggest that the United Nations tacitly supports the abolition of the state of Israel."
"Given that we now have a world leader pursuing nuclear weapons who is calling for the state of Israel to be 'wiped off the map,' the issue has even greater salience," he stressed.
The convention, which was attended by Annan, was conducted on the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, held on November 29 - the anniversary of the 1947 date when the UN ended the British mandate over Israel, a move which effectively led to the establishment of the Jewish State six months later.
Emphasis mine. So Kofi Annan attended this conference, which by the way commemorates the rejection by the Arabs of a Palestinian state, and saw nothing wrong with a map that showed Israel to be nonexistent? It's not like the map wasn't displayed prominently--Eye on the UN has the damning photographic evidence (hat tip: Powerline):
As the "map of Palestine" without the state of Israel stands in the background, Secretary-General Kofi Annan addresses the public meeting at UN Headquarters. The anniversary of the UN partition vote that survivors of the concentration camps celebrated, has been described by Secretary-General Annan as "a day of mourning and a day of grief." Palestinians and other Arabs refer to it as part of "Al-Nakba," meaning the "catastrophe" that is the creation of Israel.
When Annan's shameful but typical actions were exposed, the UN spokesman for Annan replied with the usual mealy-mouthed excuses. Back to the Post:
The UN Chief Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric thanked Bolton on behalf of Annan for bringing the issue to his attention. He noted that the decision to put up the map was reached by a committee, and not by Annan personally.
"This gives a very unfortunate impression that the United Nations favors replacing Israel by a single Palestinian state, which is not the case," Dujarric said.
Given the lopsided slant over the years of favorable UN attention to the Palestinian "cause", I think that Mr. Dujarric might very well be mistaken.
January 15, 2006
Iran: Is A Blockade In Order?
It's becoming increasingly apparent that the big story of 2006 will be a showdown with Iran over its naked ambition to develop nuclear weapons. The situation is rife with Big Problems for us: First, how do we impress upon a "war-weary" public the very serious danger posed by a nuclear Iran; and second, what should be our course of action.
Regarding the first problem: We were over at my mom's today for our usual Sunday lunch, and she casually mentioned that today was the sixty-first anniversary of my uncle Lee's death. He was killed in the waning days of the Battle of the Bulge--and he was one of 19,000 US soldiers who lost their lives in five weeks of combat. That's why I use quotes with the term "war-weary". We are a fat, dumb and happy society that has already forgotten, for the most part, what happened on 9/11. Nuclear weapons in the hands of someone like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pose a threat of casualties of an order of magnitude that only our parents and grandparents are familiar with.
So who is this guy who's the president of Iran? Dr. Sanity casts her professional eye on the situation, and her conclusions are sobering:
In my career as a psychiatrist I have encountered many psychotic individuals with religious delusions. One study suggests that those patients with religious delusions are suffering from a particularly virulent form of schizophrenia, where the potential for self-harm or harm to others is significantly increased. The study concluded that "religious delusions are commonly found in schizophrenia and that by comparison with other patients who have schizophrenia, those patients with religious delusions appear to be more severely ill."
Dr. Sanity notes previous reports that detail some of Ahmadinejad's pronouncements and concludes that the man is dangerously delusional.
The schizophrenic patients I have seen with religious delusions were often the hardest to treat and least responsive to medication. Most of them had such severely impaired thinking processes that they could hardly function on a day-to-day basis; let alone would they have been able to rise to a position of influence or power in any culture. But there were a few who were notable for their single-minded and persistent incorporation of everything they came in contact with into their delusional system; and who had only contempt for anyone who didn't subscribe to their psychotic ideas. These latter patients exhibited a psychopathically clever and manipulative intelligence that was completely immune to any insight into their illness. These patients' were chillingly and frighteningly serious about their delusion, and to them you were nothing.
OK, so I'm convinced the guy is supremely dangerous. But what exactly are we to do? Iran has evidently learned a lesson from the destruction by Israel of Iraq's nuclear reactor in the early 80's. Iran's nuclear facilities are not concentrated in one area and they are in hardened underground facilities, so air strikes may or may not be effective.
Mike Burleson at New Wars Blog reaches back 43 years and many thousands of miles closer to home, and remembers a situation similar to the one we're facing today:
In October 1962, American reconnaissance flights discovered Russian built nuclear missiles on Communist Cuba, which could reach targets deep in the mainland. Ignoring the advice of his military advisors who called for air strikes and an amphibious invasion, President John Kennedy ordered the Navy to establish a “quarantine” or blockade around the island, in an attempt to force the Soviets’ hand. Shamed in the UN, and fearful of a nuclear war, the Russians finally relented and agreed to remove the weapons.
A similar crisis is brewing over Iranian attempts to build nuclear weapons, and a similar response could be the answer. Naval forces could be used to stop the flow of oil from leaving Iranian ports. [...]
A naval quarantine would be more desirable, in that military force would be utilized without necessarily any attacks. Though the Iranian ayatollahs could care less of any economic effect upon their own people, cutting off the oil flow would influence those who depend on the Iranians, namely Russia, China, and Europe. It would further prove to these nations who are straddling the fence on imposing economic sanctions that America is serious about denying nuclear weapons to terrorists and their supporters.
This sounds pretty promising: As powerful and adaptive as our land forces have proven to be in Iraq, they are still fighting an enemy who has at least some native advantages. On the sea, US power is absolute: it would be pretty difficult for an couple of guys to sneak an IED up next to a destroyer. A blockade is inherently passive; there is little chance for collateral civilian deaths. And the suspension of Iran's oil exports would be a powerful cudgel to the heads of our recalcitrant European and Asian "allies".
This is something to think about.
January 14, 2006
See Ya Sunday
No blogging today. I'm driving up to Dallas (8 hours roundtrip--Texas is a big state) for the last bike races of the season.
See you on Sunday.
Posted at 12:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)January 13, 2006
Liberalism vs Conservativism
Shrinkwrapped has a great post up about those that move from liberal to conservative (funny how you hardly ever hear of anyone going in the other direction). In his post he cites liberal blogger Barbara O'Brien's post on the definition of liberal and conservative (emphasis mine):
[...] In the real world, oppression comes out of the private sector just as readily as the public. In fact, if government doesn't step in and put a check on private sector oppression, ordinary people can become as powerless and persecuted in a free country as they would be in a totalitarian state. The most blatant examples of this in American history involve racial minorities, but there also has been economic oppression where the wealthy were able to mercilessly exploit the laborers of all races who created their wealth. But liberalism assumes that We, the People, are rational beings who can recognize problems and use representative government as a means for solving those problems, thus achieving systemic improvement in the human condition. Thus, in the 20th century We, the People authorized government to ensure fair labor practices, for example.
But in the conservative mind, all checks on the power of the wealthy to get wealthier amounts to collectivism, which is the same thing as Communism. Where ordinary citizens are able to use government as a tool to protect themselves from oppression, that (to a rightie) is coercion and just a step away from Stalinism. In a free society, government should step aside so that big corporations can shortchange their workers and rob them of their lives and dignity without interference.
Barbara is up in arms over what she feels is conservatives' improper definition of "liberal"--she says, "It's true that liberalism is about liberty." But having said that she proceeds to cough up all the unsubstantiated class-warfare canards about the business class vs. the "ordinary citizens". And before any Lefties out there scream "Enron!", please note that one, two or even ten bad examples does nothing to prove that free-market capitalism is not the most effective scheme for generating (not redistributing) wealth the world has ever seen. Where would you rather live, Barbara--South Vietnam or South Korea?
I think Barbara makes the classic liberal mistake of assuming that utopia is reachable. In the comments to Shrinkwrapped's post I said:
Regarding the definitions of conservative and liberal: The ones I've come up with for my own use are centered around the ideas of rationalism, empiricism and human fallibility. Liberals think they can change the world for the better with their plans that are independent of the real world. Conservatives base their policies on what has succeeded or failed in the past. It's important to note that conservatives are not opposed to change per se; it's mindless change for change's sake that we're against. Liberals will cling to their pet plan even in the face of verifiable disastrous results (e.g. the public school curriculum).
Human fallibility goes to the heart of the matter. Conservatives know there are no perfect humans, therefore any government, business, church, human rights organization, bridge club or little league team--anything done by humans--likewise cannot be perfect. Liberals dream up a utopian version of everything, combine it with the aforementioned blindness to real world results and proceed to rail about the perceived failure to achieve perfection.
This liberal utopianism is obvious when you consider their seizing on an Abu Ghraib or Enron and then extrapolating to general condemnation from an isolated example. And the "oppression of the poor by capitalism" idea really falls apart when you closely look at the real world data. For example: A 1992 Treasury Department study showed that between 1979 and 1988, 86 percent of those in the bottom income quintile moved to a higher quintile, and 35 percent in the top income quintile moved to a lower quintile.
Classical liberalism is concerned with freedom--freedom of the individual, not the reshaping of that individual's human nature into a utopian mold.
UPDATE: Oh brother...is there anything worse than a misspelling in the title of a post? Especially "conservativism"! No wonder I'm so far down in the ecosystem.
Posted at 09:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)Cutting Through The Hysterical Miasma
Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters reports on the testimony by Judge Alito's peers in support of his nomination. In cutting through the hysterical miasma emanating from the Democratic members of the judicial committee, Judge Ruggeri Aldisert, who was appointed by Lyndon Johnson, said the following (emphasis mine):
I speak now as the most senior judge on the 3rd circuit. [...]And as the chairman indicated, Senator Joseph Clark of Pennsylvania was my chief sponsor when President Lyndon Johnson nominated me to the Court of Appeals, and Senator Robert F. Kennedy from New York was one of my key supporters.
Now, why do I say this? I make this as a point that political loyalties become irrelevant when I became a judge.
Judicial independence is simply incompatible with political loyalties, and Judge Alito's judicial record on our court bears witness to this fundamental truth.
I have been a judge for 45 of my 86 years. And based on my experience, I can represent to this committee that Judge Alito has to be included among the first rank of the 44 judges with whom I have served on the 3rd Circuit, and including another 50 judges on five other courts of appeals on which I have sat since taking senior status.
And there's an end on't.
January 12, 2006
Pope Benedict On Islam And Christianity
A few days ago RDS at The Ten O'Clock Scholar highlighted a fascinating and important interview Hugh Hewitt conducted with Father Joseph Fessio, provost of Ave Maria University and friend of pope Benedict XVI.
Speaking about the challenges the Christian west faces from the growth of Islam, Fr. Fessio made drew a conclusion that hadn't occurred to me before: Both the US and western Europe are faced with declining birthrates. In Europe the problem is so bad that immigration is necessary in order to maintain the workforce of these industrialized countries. The difference noted by Fr. Fessio is that European immigrants are by and large Muslim, and since cultural coexistence is antithetical to the teachings of the Koran as the immigrant populations grow the pressure on western culture grows accordingly. Islam will not change because the Koran is immutable; either the immigrants themselves are made to leave (unlikely given the economic necessities) or the traditional western culture of the host countries will resolve the conflict by becoming more amenable to Islam. And since the principles of Islam and Enlightenment-based western culture are incompatible, it's the latter that will disappear. In the US however, our main source of immigration (legal and illegal) is Mexico and Central America--obviously predominately Christian countries.
I had never considered this. Even though there are plenty of cultural differences between US natives and our immigrants, the differences pale in comparison to those in Europe. The point hinges on a comparison between the teachings of the Bible and those of the Koran, as noted incisively by Pope Benedict:
HH: Father Fessio, before the break, you were telling us that after the presentation at Castel Gandolfo by two scholars of Islam this summer with Benedict in attendance, as well as his former students, for the first time in your memory, the Pope did not allow his students to first comment and reserve comment, but in fact, went first. Why, and what did he say?
JF: Well, the thesis that was proposed by this [Islamic modernist] scholar was that Islam can enter into the modern world if the Koran is reinterpreted by taking the specific legislation, and going back to the principles, and then adapting it to our times, especially with the dignity that we ascribe to women, which has come through Christianity, of course. And immediately, the Holy Father, in his beautiful calm but clear way, said well, there's a fundamental problem with that, because he said in the Islamic tradition, God has given His word to Mohammed, but it's an eternal word. It's not Mohammed's word. It's there for eternity the way it is. There's no possibility of adapting it or interpreting it, whereas in Christianity, and Judaism, the dynamism's completely different, that God has worked through His creatures. And so, it is not just the word of God, it's the word of Isaiah, not just the word of God, but the word of Mark. He's used His human creatures, and inspired them to speak His word to the world, and therefore by establishing a Church in which he gives authority to His followers to carry on the tradition and interpret it, there's an inner logic to the Christian Bible, which permits it and requires it to be adapted and applied to new situations. [...H]is seeing that distinction when the Koran, which is seen as something dropped out of Heaven, which cannot be adapted or applied, even, and the Bible, which is a word of God that comes through a human community, it was stunning.
Now, I'm not a theologian, but this appears to be a particularly Catholic interpretation of the Bible; there are of course heated debates continually raging (mainly among Protestants) about how the Bible should be interpreted. Indeed some fundamentalist Protestant interpretations seem to hew more to the Islamic idea of an unchangeable scripture delivered by God.
But at least the debate is happening in Christianity, and I'd bet that a majority of Christians believe that Scripture is adaptable to some degree. (Indeed, even the most dedicated Bible-literalist would probably have trouble following some of the Old Testament teachings.)
As RDS noted in his post, Fr. Fessio tells Hugh that the Pope is pessimistic about Islam adapting to the modern world, the world created by the ideas of the European Enlightenment:
JF: Yeah, [the idea] that Christianity can engage modernity just like it did...the Jews did Egypt, or Christians did to Greece, because we can take what's good there, and we can elevate it through the revelation of Christ in the Bible. But Islam is stuck. It's stuck with a text that cannot be adapted, or even be interpreted properly.HH: And so the Pope is a pessimist about that changing, because it would require a radical reinterpretation of what the Koran is?
JF: Yeah, which is it's impossible, because it's against the very nature of the Koran, as it's understood by Muslims.
HH: And so, even the dialectic that was the Reformation is not possible within Islam?
JF: No.
Father Fessio thinks that America might become the last bastion of Christianity and western civilization--a culture that celebrates the supreme rights of the individual; the ascendancy of reason, freedom and tolerance; and a religion that allows for forgiveness.
In light of the events (the riots in France) and attitudes (indifference to the mortal threat of a nuclear Iran) seen recently in western Europe, he may well be right.
Posted at 10:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (1)January 11, 2006
New Year's Housekeeping
I've done some long-overdue housekeeping on my blogroll. Please welcome:
elephants in academia (Academic Elephant provides incisive conservative analysis from far behind enemy lines--in the heart of academia)
neo-neocon (brainy, ex-liberal and prolific)
The American Thinker (concise yet consistently ahead of the curve)
Right Wing Nuthouse (Rick Moran's essay-like posts are always well-reasoned)
Austin Bay Blog (hardly needs an introduction from me--syndicated columnist, novelist, Army colonel, uber-impressive polymath)
American Future (sometimes-home of Dr. Demarche--one of those rarest of breeds, a State Department conservative)
Posted at 11:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)Is Your Digital Data Safe?
My wife and I take a lot of photos, and for the last four years we've shot digital, exclusively. Of course, without the cost of film processing, it's also much easier to shoot a bunch of images--which leads to the question of storage.
I worked for a while back in the late nineties as a recording engineer, right at the time when digital recording became really commonplace in studios. Burning your own CDs was a wonderful new innovation that was used for both music and session data storage, and in a commercial studio the questions of durability and reliability of the storage medium, although they didn't stop adoption of the new technology, certainly generated a lot of debate.
In the ensuing years as our photo count rolled into the multiple thousands, I sporadically tried to find more info on the deterioration rate of the dye-based CDs we burn at home; all I could find out was that almost everyone, including pro photographers, archives to CD or DVD.
Now James Joyner at Outside the Beltway highlights an article in PC World that finally addresses the issue:
Opinions vary on how to preserve data on digital storage media, such as optical CDs and DVDs. Kurt Gerecke, a physicist and storage expert at IBM Deutschland, has his own view: If you want to avoid having to burn new CDs every few years, use magnetic tapes to store all your pictures, videos and songs for a lifetime. "Unlike pressed original CDs, burned CDs have a relatively short life span of between two to five years, depending on the quality of the CD," Gerecke says. "There are a few things you can do to extend the life of a burned CD, like keeping the disc in a cool, dark space, but not a whole lot more."
The problem is material degradation. Optical discs commonly used for burning, such as CD-R and CD-RW, have a recording surface consisting of a layer of dye that can be modified by heat to store data. The degradation process can result in the data "shifting" on the surface and thus becoming unreadable to the laser beam. "Many of the cheap burnable CDs available at discount stores have a life span of around two years," Gerecke says. "Some of the better-quality discs offer a longer life span, of a maximum of five years."
Gerecke's conclusion includes using magnetic tape as a backup (tape, if properly cared for, can last longer), or even backing up to another hard drive (hard drive costs are plummeting). The best piece of advice he gives: stay alert for new technology and be ready to migrate your data to new media as innovations are made.
Posted at 11:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)January 10, 2006
Mexico, Heal Thyself
This has been getting a lot of attention today (via Mark Krikorian at The Corner):
Diplomats from Mexico and Central America on Monday demanded guest worker programs and the legalization of undocumented migrants in the United States, while criticizing a U.S. proposal for tougher border enforcement.
Ah, they demand an end to our effort to enforce our own laws. Charming. But here's the essence of the story:
Mexicans working in the United States are a huge source of revenue for Mexico, sending home more than $16 billion in remittances in 2004, Mexico's second largest source of foreign currency after oil exports according to the country's central bank.
Emphasis mine. The question remains: Why is Mexico such a basket case? And what are Mexicans doing to fix it?
Famous Fables (And Some Not So Famous)
The other day someone forwarded to me a little essay that tried to predict how a pre-emptive strike against Iran might play out. There was some value in the story, I suppose, in that the reader was reminded that Iran is a far more powerful country than Iraq and that military operations are always unpredictable. But the piece was based on a string of assumptions that seemed very shaky to me (US carriers sunk by Exocet missiles; Mayor Bloomberg declaring martial law in NYC after gas hits $10 a gallon).
I'm not providing links, because when I followed the trail back to the article's parent site, I was flabbergasted to find myself up to my eyebrows in conspiracy theories and anti-semitic (oh excuse me, anti-Zionist) rants. I knew of course that sites like this exist, but it's still pretty weird when you find them.
So it was with great interest that I see that Chirol at Coming Anarchy recommends a very interesting State Department website that debunks a bunch of common conspiracy theories ("did a plane really hit the Pentagon?"; "AIDS as a bioweapon", etc.). And check out Chirol's discovery of the takeover of the Amazon basin by a joint US/UN protectorate!
This website won't do much to help those that really believe that stuff, but I think it's handy to have a lot of these fables categorized in one place, along with their refutations.
Posted at 09:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)January 09, 2006
Monday's (Late) Quick Picks
Rabbi Aryeh Spero says that "Patriotism Means Service, Not 'Dissent' ": "Though I have a right to eat, my eating is not an act of patriotism. Patriotism is service; and the act of denouncing one's country simply serves one's personal need to be heard."
AJStrata thinks he knows why Sen. Rockefeller has been mouse-quiet lately.
Dr. Demarche at American Future examines why America's international critics think that cultural interference is a one-way street.
Melanie Philips highlights a sobering analysis of the friendship between Iran and Russia.
Michael Yon is issuing a call for volunteers.
Posted at 12:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)January 08, 2006
Flailing In Desperation
Mark Coffey at Decision '08 reports that the liberal attack on Samuel Alito's Supreme Court nomination--already leaking oil in the worst way--has just taken another blow:
Among the talking points Democrats intend to smear Samuel Alito with is the allegation that he is sexist and racist because he belonged to a student organization at Princeton that opposed affirmative action. [...]
[T]he Democrats intended to call Stephen R. Dujack, the editor of The Environmental Forum magazine to testify about the Princton group.
But it seems that Mr. Dujack is "not quite the thing" after all:
Dujack confirmed to FOXNews.com late Friday that he was no longer testifying, but said he could not elaborate.
Earlier on Friday, [Texas senator John] Cornyn's office circulated a 2003 Los Angeles Times editorial in which Dujack compared animals killed for food to victims of the Holocaust. Whether the editorial factored into the decision to drop Dujack from the witness list was not clear.
"Was not clear"? (snort) Perhaps FoxNews wouldn't write what they couldn't be sure of, but here's an excerpt of Dujack's Los Angeles Times piece from April 16, 2003 (thanks to Powerline):
Like the victims of the Holocaust, animals are rounded up, trucked hundreds of miles to the kill floor and slaughtered. Comparisons to the Holocaust are not only appropriate but inescapable because, whether we wish to admit it or not, cows, chickens, pigs and turkeys are as capable of feeling loneliness, fear, pain, joy and affection as we are. To those who defend the modern-day holocaust on animals by saying that animals are slaughtered for food and give us sustenance, I ask: If the victims of the Holocaust had been eaten, would that have justified the abuse and murder? Did the fact that lampshades, soaps and other "useful" products were made from their bodies excuse the Holocaust? No. Pain is pain.
So, this is the caliber of person the liberal Left feels is qualified to speak against the nominee?
Welcome to the Supreme Court, Justice Alito.
Now, Go To Your Room!
Iran says it will resume nuclear fuel research on Monday, despite international appeals to desist. Officials say seals at nuclear research centres will be removed, ending a two year suspension.
The European Union has warned such a move could jeopardise a return to negotiations on Iran's sensitive nuclear ambitions.
Emphases mine.
"Please stop worrying us, or we won't continue to negotiate with you." This is staggering to the point of incomprehension.
Everyone knew what was at stake in our recent presidential election, but as the Iran situation threatens to dwarf Iraq in terms of potential impact, the importance of GWB's election has increased tenforld. If John Kerry was president, he would be mouthing the same vacuous, flaccid protestations as the EU...and this country would be sliding into mortal danger.
The next election doesn't bother me so much--even if a Democrat is elected, it won't be Kerry or Gore, and the situation might well have deteriorated to the point that the course of action is clear even to the liberals.
Posted at 03:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)January 07, 2006
Winding Down
This is the next to last weekend of racing for this season. I'm pooped...see ya tomorrow.
Ronnie Earle...
has won.
For now, anyway.
Posted at 04:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)January 06, 2006
Off The Shelf Nukes?
There's a truly disturbing post up over at Regime Change Iraq (via Elephants In Academia and Dr. Sanity).
According to the post, Iran is already in possession of four nuclear weapons, obtained from Ukraine.
Back in 1991/1992 three nuclear weapon devices the Mullahs had obtained from Kazakhstan were verified on ground in Iran and intelligence further estimates that Iran has totally between eight to 12 nuclear devices from the Soviet era.
The press leaks pointed to Iran possibly not proceeding with negotiations, reassuring internal supporters and preparing to confront the West. The final decision to disdain the European meeting was apparently made with the sudden incapacitation of Israel's Ariel Sharon.
I hope this turn out to be unsubstantiated, but if it's true there are two things that worry me beyond the obvious:
1) If they're off-the-shelf nukes that are even remotely modern, they could very easily be thermonuclear--that is, hydrogen bombs.
2) Along the same lines, they could also be miniaturized and ready for installation on a missile. Everyone's been talking about a "native" Iranian bomb and the possibility of the weapon being used on an Iranian missile, but according to my understanding, once a country has a workable nuke, it takes a further massive engineering effort to make the weapon small and light enough to fit on a missile. Buying an old Soviet nuke would short-circuit this time-consuming process.
Posted at 09:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)The "Screwed-upness Of Iraq" And Why It's OK
I remember a conversation I had with a liberal friend a few years ago in which I claimed that Israel was the only real democracy within a thousand miles of Jerusalem. (OK, maybe not a thousand miles, but you get my point.) My friend, a good Howard Zinn-enabled Leftist, made protestations that there were (cue sinister music) right-wing religious parties involved in Israeli politics. The proper reply occured to me the next day, as it so often does: Of course there are extremely conservative parties in Israel--but Israel is a cacophony of push-and-shove parliamentary democracy. There are parties of all stripes, from far right to far left. The Liberal Party in Israel hasn't exactly been shut out of power in the past 30 years. I contend that my original point stands.
Along the same lines Christopher Hitchens has a new analysis of the election politics in the coming year in Iraq. In his usual precise and comprehensive manner he presents his views on the coexistence of democracy with nationalism and warfare, and concludes that a messy and imperfect democracy is vastly preferrable to a murderous dictatorship:
The screwed-upness of Iraq is a given, but that very fact tells against those who would have let it rot or let it run on as it was. And this was, and is, the point of regime change to begin with.
Read the whole thing.
Posted at 10:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)January 05, 2006
Christiane Amanpour And The Surveillance Question
AcademicElephant asks some thoughtful questions about the suggestion that Christiane Amanpour was placed under some sort of government surveillance. (Thanks to Mark Coffey at Decision '08.)