Notionalism

Head butts and No buts

2006-08-01T18:08:00.000-04:00

Head bangin' and a lost cup. My dear niece loves soccer; she played for years, but 2 knees injuries ended her passion for the sport -- I cringed when she described resetting her knee each time it became dislocated. While on Holiday, the World Cup played out on TV, and she intently watched the games. Her "teams" were ousted late in the games. I like playing soccer with my son, but he's 3-1/2 years old, so it's a game, not a sport, but apart from his momentary enjoyment in running and playing with Daddy, the game draws a huge vacuum for me, but I guess that's because I'm uncultured. C'est la vie!

If I watched 15 minutes of the games, I'd be surprised, and it would have been more accidental than intentional. Thank Zeus, it's like presidential campaigns and it only occurs on a 4-year cycle.

Anyway, France is dancing to an odd tune this summer. Coup de Boule (Head Butt). I haven't a clue what they're singing, other than: Zindane struck, we blew the cup.

Next, we read France's summer smash reading hit is "Temoinage (Testimony), a hefty work of confession and stricture by the hyper-ambitious Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy." Some weeks ago, the Clearchannel disc scandal took off, it was reported that Sarkozy had accepted bribes. Later, the bank records on the disc were proven to be a fraud. The rumor mill suggested Prime Minister de Villepin's friends engineered the smear to discredit Sarkozy. And the speculation was, it occurred because of the pending release of Sarkozy's book.

The Dreyfuss Affair involved a half-Jew accused of treason based on forged documents. The Clearchannel disc scandal involved the half-Jew Sarkozy based on a "forged" bank records contained on a disc. The similiarities are uncanny.

Well, the French are at the beach lapping up Sarkozy's scolding. The initial release sold out within hours, and there's to be an "emergency reprint." We read Sarkozy tells his countrymen: "Among his more headline-grabbing suggestions is that the French should accept English as the modern world's lingua franca" (emphasis mine).

On Holiday

2006-08-01T18:02:00.000-04:00

For the whole month of July, I was on Holiday with my son -- it was truly wonderful.

The Land of the Setting Sun

2006-06-30T03:50:00.000-04:00

BBC News reports alarms bells are sounding in Japan, for they have just overtaken Italy as the country with the highest percentage of population over 65 years old, 21% to be exact. The news report goes on to say, the percentage of unwed Japanese is growing. We are told, local city councils are beginning "new projects" to provide more child care, are encouraging fathers to take paternity leave, and are starting matchmaking services.

Recently, The Japan Times reported on "sexless couples" -- my comments are here. In various news reports discussing Japan's sexless syndrome, Japanese are saying sex is "tiresome"or they're overworked.

Only a bureaucrat could say this: "Unless Japanese people get more active in having children, the birthrate is unlikely to rise," Kunio Kitamura, director of the Japan Family Planning Association.

Japanese men are blamed for this trend. "'It's generally the men who're cutting back,' remarks. Dr. Tero Abe, psychiatrist at Abe Mental Clinic." Not surprisingly, marital infidelity among women is increasingly common.

In 1994, Stanford University reported Professor Carl Djerassi, developer of the first oral contraceptive, discussed the need for Japan to modernize their "birth control practices," for they were using condoms, rhythm, "excessive dependence on abortion," and a large percentage of women were illegally using "high-dose steriods pills."

In the article, the scientists went to say:

One source of opposition is a small sector of the medical community, which stands to lose hundreds of millions of dollars from the abortions that are performed for about $1,000 in private clinics outside the universal health-insurance system. The official number of abortions performed in Japan is reported at around 440,000. But the actual number is higher - some estimates place it as much as three times greater - because a number of Japanese doctors perform such operations for cash and do not report them in order to avoid paying taxes. By comparison, about 1.5 million abortions are performed each year in the United States, which has twice the population. (emphasis mine)

Professor Djerassi was quoted as saying:

It is inevitable that, unless they are changed, domestic family- planning practices will adversely effect the Japanese government's ability to take an effective leadership position on birth control.

Twelve years later we know, the problem these Scientists were trying to fix -- and we should overlook Djerassi's economic self-interest -- wasn't really the problem that needed to be fixed.

For me, the most troubling thing was the "alarming" nature of Japanese doctors that perform abortions for cash, so they are not taxed, in a country with "universal" health care.

Let's see if I understand the Problem that Djerassi didn't fix: Dr. Saki kills a few unborn children by lunch, keeps the cash, doesn't pay taxes, doesn't have sex with his wife, but he's out banging his neighbor's, or he's out poking some little Geisha he met at Club Hedonism, while his wife's at Motel 6 getting bonked by GI Joe.

After Japan's defeat in the Second World War, Japan pledged themselves to pacifism; this principle is enshrined in their constitution. Two generations later, Japan has become a sexless society. Sixty years later, Japan's population grows older, young men and women delay getting married, and married couples are not having sex.

Of course, there cannot be a correlation, or is there? Perhaps, Fukuyama should study Japan's Last Sexless Man.

The Fall of the House of Blair

2006-06-29T06:45:00.000-04:00

Today, in the London Times, Anatole Kaletsky tells us Prime Minister Tony Blair final hour draws nigh. Kaletsky is uncertain whether "loyal" former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw will administer the mortal blow.

Setting aside the theme of Kaletsky's commentary for a moment, we do find some observations worthy of note. It seems the British embrace Blair's policy of market reforms in health care and education. Tellingly, Kaletsky says his countrymen: (1) "want easier access to doctors and more choice in schools," (2) "expect to be treated as customers, not supplicants or subjects," and (3) resent "dirty hospitals" and "underperforming schools."

How very odd? We've been told, by so many, that we should adopt the British form of health care. Dirty hospitals? I think, not.

Returning to Kaletsky's comments, he tells us the sons of Brutus are conspiring because Prime Minister Blair is President Bush's lackey in foreign affairs. Kaletsky tells us, if Big Blu's fall on Natanz or Arak at dawn tomorrow, Blair will be dispatched by morning tea.

It seems the "subservient relationship with George Bush has been the real cause of Tony Blair’s downfall." Kaletsky does offer us this cheery news. Once Blair is replaced by Sir Elton John, Boy George, or another British Lion preening on the backbench, by "reversing Blairite foreign policy," this action would restore the imperial majesty of "Britain’s national interests," with the added advantage of convincing Americans how "isolated" we are from our so-called allies.

After all, who can blame the Brits for offing a bootlicking, lackey toad. Kaletsky, slit his throat and be done with it!

For me, I welcome the day when Americans can no longer delude themselves by calling a wobbly neighbor stalwart, a foe an ally, or an enemy a "strategic partner."

BooMan snarls with a whimper

2006-06-28T19:58:00.000-04:00

Earlier today, I did an unwise thing. I posted BooMan's thoughts contained in an email without first getting his permission. When my transgression was pointed out, I apologized. And he graciously accepted my apology.

However, it is more than passing strange, for someone who blogs and says on his "About me" page, "The BooMan is not anonymous, and my true identity is not a secret" to complain that I used his name. As I know all so well, my excuse does not justify my careless actions.

BooMan was kind enough to post his rebuttal to my comments.

First, BooMan defended his earlier assertion that Islam is not expanding territorially. BooMan would have us believe there is no difference between Turkey, under AKP's leadership, and pre-war Afghanistan, under Taliban leadership. As Burckhardt taught us, there is a profound difference between a nation governed by the State, and a nation governed by its Religion. We see the former in Turkey, and we see the latter in pre-war Afghanistan. Perhaps, BooMan does not see the difference, but if Turkey was under Taliban leadership, I'm quite certain EU nations in Brussel would not be considering Turkey's application to become a member state.

Secondly, BooMan complains that I mischaracterized his statements, by conflating different thoughts, to produce an effect he never intended to convey. BooMan objected to me saying:

[BooMan] suggests our troubles with radicalized Muslims would end if we figured out "how to get our oil and gas to markets" from the Middle East. This notion defies common sense.

However, what I should have quoted was this:

If we want to stop being attacked, we need to figure out how to get our oil and gas to market without creating generation after generation of jihadists.

In my original comments, I did not point out BooMan's absurd notion of ownership of Middle Eastern natural resources, when he said "our oil and gas," which he tells us bin Laden finds so objectionable. But since he said it twice, that false claim of ownership shall not pass unnoticed. Seemingly, only in a progressive community is another man's property claimed as one's own.

More to the point, I added nothing to BooMan's original thought that wasn't already there. I merely exchanged the notion of "stop being attacked" with the notion of "our troubles would end."

BooMan is correct when he says "the fight will go on." And this very statement points to the fallacy of his entire argument. In BooMan's original rebuttal to Barone, he told us he knew why bin Laden attacked us. And BooMan believes if we "leave them alone" they will "leave us alone." All we have to do is "listen" and not create "generation after generation of jihadists." Try as I might, I have found no suggestions in BooMan's commentary instructing us how to achieve the ends he desires; that is, "getting [his] oil to market" without us being attacked.

In my comments, I pointed out Burckhardt's statement regarding the "detrimental" effects of trade between the West and Muslim nations. BooMan offered no rebuttal to Burckhardt's assertion. At best, BooMan offered an opinion that Muslims were being "insulted."

Next, BooMan returns to his "thesis" that bin Laden "was angry at the Saudi regime first, and America second," which surely explains why a "propagandist" attacked the militarily stronger nation first.

Finally, BooMan brands Bertrand Russell's and Jacob Burckhardt's comments as "insulting" to Muslims. Since BooMan has "read all those books," he knows full well they were equally "insulting" to Christianity and Judaism.

But BooMan complains, "Somehow, these racial assessments and historical opinions are supposed to be relevant to my article on Michael Barone's asshattery."

My dear Mister BooMan, the relevance is easy to explain: they described the Nature of Islamic civilization.

Long before we invaded Iraq, long before we blockaded Iraq, long before we had an airbase in Saudi Arabia, long before we were engaged in "economic exploitation" of the Middle East, long before the House of Saud sat on the throne -- Did I miss any of your causes of bin Laden's fatwas? -- these scholars (Russell and Burckhardt) told us about the Nature of Islamic civilization.

In the works of Homer, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Livy, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Hume, Locke, Rousseau, Burke, and Tocqueville, each one these Thinkers has commented on the Nature of people living within a given culture. For example, Livy told us Hannibal said the Gauls were perfidious by Nature. For example, Machiavelli told us about the religious and law abiding Nature of the Romans. For example, Professor A.T. Olmstead told us the Persian emperors knew the Greeks would sell their country for gold, for that was their Nature.

Even in your BooMan Tribune progressive community, we see banded together like-minded spirits that share a common Nature. As an aside: I took particular delight in some of the more refined "debate," that some might easily mistake for petty insults. Perhaps, that's part of the Natural charm of your progressive community.

No, Mister BooMan, you don't undertand Hume's chiming clock theory of causation, you don't know why we were attacked, and you don't understand why they "hate" us.

Your assertions are only opinions, not causes. Your arguments are mere whimpers.

Bring 'em to justice, Russian style

2006-06-28T16:37:00.000-04:00

On June 3rd, 4 Russian diplomats were abducted near their embassy in Baghdad. On June 26th, the hostages were butchered. Today, Russian President Vladimir Putin issued a fatwa.

BBC News reports, "The head of Russia's security services immediately pledged to see Putin's order carried out." There was no mention of "bringing them to justice."

The Kremlin press service was quoted as saying, "The President gave the order to Russian special services to take all measures for finding and eliminating the criminals who carried out the murder of Russian diplomats in Iraq." (emphasis mine)

Why can't President Bush issue a fatwa to the CIA commanding them to hunt down and eliminate those responsible for the deaths of Americans.

All or nothing

2006-06-28T15:18:00.000-04:00

Today, Der Spiegel's headline is: Israeli Forces Push into Gaza Strip. The story continues,

A hostage crisis has plunged relations between Israel and the Palestinian to the lowest point since Israel pulled troops and settlers out of the Gaza Strip a year ago. Israeli tanks backed up by helicopters and artillery advanced into Gaza on Tuesday night to pressure Palestinian militants into releasing kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, 19.

Writing in Der Spiegel, Henryk M. Broder discusses the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he tells us,

Now, however, the conflict has reached a new level. The Israeli withdrawal from Gaza last summer has more than anything motivated militant Palestinians to demonstrate to Israel that the conflict is not primarily about territory, the end of the occupation and the return to the 1967 borders. Rather, it's about all or nothing. It's about the control, not the division, of the region between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

... And the Israelis? Those who believed that unilateral action and the construction of a fence would result in the security that negotiations have been unable to provide are now being confronted with the bitter reality. Fences and walls cannot provide absolute security -- and no matter how high such barriers are, they can still be dug under.

... The Europeans are once again trying to whitewash things. One hears a lot these days about the so-called "prisoners' document" -- that mysterious paper in which representatives from Hamas and Fatah have agreed on a common position on Israel. It is said to be nothing less than an "indirect recognition" of Israel.

Two weeks ago, Der Spiegel interviewed Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Hayineh. He was more interested in getting invited, by German Chancellor Merkel, to the World Cup games. When Hayineh asked what he had to do to get tickets, Der Spiegel replied he had to recognize Israel's right to exist. Not surprisingly, Hayineh decided he'd rather watch the games on television.

Today, Broder reminds us,

One shouldn't forget that the PLO was founded in 1964 with the goal of freeing Palestine fromm the Zionists -- three years prior to the Six Day War when Gaza was still under Egyptian control and the West Bank was part of Jordan.

... The only difference between Hamas and Fatah ... is the question of how Israel should be defeated: either militarily or through the implementation of a "right of return" policy. Israel therefore has the choice as to whether it is wiped from the map either in battle, or by peaceful means.

... For this reason a "ceasefire" is the most Hamas is prepared to offer Israel, which the Europeans insist on misinterpreting as the first step towards recognition. Rather, it's merely a tactical pause in the war against Israel.

BooMan's reasoning is flawed

2006-06-27T18:01:00.000-04:00

On June 26th, Martin Longman (BooMan) responded to Michael Barone's editorial, "The New York Times at War With America."

Barone began with what he considered a self-evident truth, for he said,

... We know why [Islamofascist terrorists] hate us: because we have freedom of speech and freedom of religion, because we refuse to treat women as second-class citizens, because we do not kill homosexuals, because we are a free society.

BooMan took exception to Barone's explanation. "Every single word of it is dishonest," BooMan asserted.

"In order to determine why the so-called Islamofascists hate us," BooMan said, "I am going to go straight to the main source. Usama bin-Laden laid out his reasoning in a 1996 fatwa and a 1998 fatwa."

BooMan pointed out: (1) the 1996 fatwa "complains mainly of the corruption of the Saudi regime," and (2) the 1998 fatwa "is more specific to America's perceived faults." BooMan stated, "bin-Laden is critizing what he sees as economic exploitation by the West."

BooMan asserted:

It is true that bin-Laden subscribes to a kind of medieval version of Sunni Islam ... and he's hostile to modern innovations in Islam, including some what we rightfully refer to as human rights.

... there is nothing there, nothing even hinted at, to suggest that he hates America because of our freedoms, or the way we treat women and homosexuals ... His concerns are economic, political, and geo-political.

... And it is the refusal of the neo-conservatives to be honest about why Islamists are targetting U.S. civilians that has led ... to the total collapse of American credibility on the international stage.

The Islamists are not angry about the freedoms that Americans enjoy. They are perfectly content to let us go on enjoying them ... Islamists will leave us alone the moment we leave them alone.

After reading BooMan's commentary, I sent Mr. Longman a response:

In 1905, Professor Jacob Burckhardt told us Islam was a religion of conquerors. His critique of Islam and its civilization was harsh, but he was equally harsh on Christianity and Judaism. (Reflections on History and Judgment on History and Historians)

In 1918, Professor Oswald Spengler told us the same thing. (The Decline of the West)

In 1920, Professor Max Weber told us the same thing. (Economy and Society)

In 1945, Lord Bertrand Russell told us the same dang thing. (The History of Western Philosophy)

In 2006, you foolishly tell us: "They are perfectly content to let us go on enjoying [our freedoms]."

Your comments are the product of a shallow, lazy, and an historically uneducated mind.

Mr. Longman responded to my barbed criticism: (emphasis mine)

Funny, because I've read all of those books.

I don't know if you are even interested in debate, but you are taking one part of a comment and using it to make a rebuttal of all my thinking. Islam is gaining demographically, not territorily. Europe needs to worry about its inability to secularize its Muslim population, but that is the only area where they might make territorial gains, and it won't be done militarily, but through differential reproductive rates over centuries. Not really our army's concern, right now.

My point is that al-Qaeda does not intend to kill American citizens for the hell of it. They have specific goals. I didn't BTW advocate giving in to their demands, or leaving them alone. I advocated listening to their demands, so that we behave in an educated manner. We were attacked because we had an airbase and other troops stationed in Saudi Arabia and because we were blockading Iraq. Not because Usama has a problem with Pamela Anderson's tits, or because you and I can vote and watch porn and gamble.

If we want to stop being attacked, we need to figure out how to get our oil and gas to market without creating generation after generation of jihadists. Occupying Iraq isn't helping, and leaving Iraq is going to have a mixed effect, both positive and negative. But staying will only increase the negative and diminish the positive.

Well, I cannot speak to whether Osama bin Laden has a "problem" with Pamela's undeniable charms; however, I will say BooMan's reasoning is critically flawed.

In BooMan's response to me, he said Islam is expanding "demographically, not territorially." Islamic territorial expansion did not end at the Battle of Tours (732), or with the fall of Constantinople (1453), or at the siege of Vienna (1529), or with the Battle of Vienna (1683), or with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire (1919). In recent memory, we have witnessed Mullah Mohammed Omar seize control of Afghanistan (1996). And less than one month ago, the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) seized control of the Somali capital, Mogadishu. UIC Chairman Shaykh Sharif Shaykh Ahmed's statements are not so different than Osama bin Laden's statements, for Ahmed blames the United States for his country's bloody tribal factionalism.

BooMan would have us believe our present difficulties began with Osama bin Laden ("main source") and have been excerbated by our invasion of Iraq, and he suggests our troubles with radicalized Muslims would end if we figured out "how to get our oil and gas to markets" from the Middle East. This notion defies common sense.

Clearly, bin Laden is one among many that clings to a what BooMan calls a "medieval version" of Islam. As I stated in my initial response to BooMan, some of greatest minds of 19th and 20th Centuries have told us Islam is a "religion of conquerors" (e.g., Professor Jacob Burckhardt, Judgment on History and Historians). As recently as 1990, Professor Bernard Lewis discussed the folly of believing as BooMan does.

Is there any doubt Russians are engaged in oppression of Muslims in Chechen? Is there any doubt regarding Russian and Chinese desires to exploit Iraq's and Iran's oil and gas reserves for their own selfish ends? Since the end of the Persian Gulf War, has there been a greater "economic exploitation" of Iraq than the French and Russian involvement in Saddam Hussein's oil-for-food scandal? Where are bin Laden's fatwas on France, Russia, and China, Mr. Longman?

In 1996, bin Laden was expelled from Sudan and sent to Mullah Omar's Afghanistan. As Homer and Plato taught us "likes attract likes," so these kindred spirits made common cause.

BooMan analyzed bin Laden's fatwas against Saudi Arabia and the U.S. while ignoring Mullah Omar's words. Two months after September 11th, the BBC News interviewed Mullah Omar: (emphasis mine)

BBC: What do you think of the current situation in Afghanistan?
MO: You (the BBC) and American puppet radios have created concern. But the current situation in Afghanistan is related to a bigger cause - that is the destruction of America. And on the other hand, the screening of Taleban [for those who are or are not loyal] is also in process. We will see these things happen within a short while.

BBC: What do you mean by the destruction of America? Do you have a concrete plan to implement this?
MO: The plan is going ahead and, God willing, it is being implemented. But it is a huge task, which is beyond the will and comprehension of human beings. If God's help is with us, this will happen within a short period of time; keep in mind this prediction.

BBC: Osama Bin Laden has reportedly threatened that he would use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against America. Is your threat related to his?
MO: This is not a matter of weapons. We are hopeful for God's help. The real matter is the extinction of America. And, God willing, it [America] will fall to the ground.

Professor Jacob Burckhardt said, "Any importation from Western culture, however, seems to be detrimental to the Muslims, from loans and national debt onward" (Reflections on History). Mr. Longman, how does a Muslim country trade with the U.S. or Europe without importing a modicum of Western culture? Just as Commodore Matthew Perry's Black Ships irrevocably changed Japan, Muslims buying Western foundry products, Western oil and gas extraction and refinery technology, Western nuclear power plants, Western computers and telecommunication equipment, Western aircraft and motor vehicles, Western pharmaceuticals and medical technology, and Western armaments and munitions, each product and service we provide is "detrimental" to Muslim civilization, for Muslims are faced with the stark realization they cannot do what we do. Burckhardt said, "Something very peculiar and rather unparalleled in the history of religion is the enormous degree to which pride is taken in this religion, the feeling of absolute superiorty over all others, the utter inaccessibilty to any influences; these characteristics grow into innate arrogance and boundless presumption in general" (Judgments on History and Historians).

Burckhardt analyzed the struggle for primacy between the "three great powers" in a civilization: the State, the Religion, and the Culture (Reflections on History). In the West, two centuries of bloody war were required to end the Church's brutal mastery of Europe. Muslim nations have not resolved Burckhardt's conflict, which is nothing more than Plato's question: Who shall govern?

In BooMan's response to Barone, he correctly noted that bin Laden's concerns "are economic, political, and geo-political." Like the Muslim raiders and brigands (e.g, the Prophet Mohammed) that preceded him, bin Laden desires economic power, so he despoiled modern-day caravans as he could. In The History of the Western Philosophy, Lord Bertrand Russell stated: "The Arabs, although they conquered a great part of the world in the name of a new religion, were not a very religious race; the motive of their conquests was plunder and wealth rather than religion." Russell's characterization of Arabs aptly describes Osama bin Laden.

BooMan believes if we "leave them alone," while "getting our oil and gas to market," while Muslims obtain goods and services they cannot produce, then radical Muslims will not attack us. This notion defies common sense.

Professor Hannah Arendt said, "men are unable to forgive what they cannot punish and they cannot punish what has turned out to be unforgivable. This is the true hallmark of the offenses which, since Kant, we call 'radical evil' and about whose nature so little is known, even to us who have been exposed to one of their rare outbursts on the public scene." (The Human Condition)

Mr. Longman, is there any doubt that the events of 9/11 was the manifestation of "radical evil"? If you concede that point, then how can you know the "nature" of those involved to be able to foretell, with any certainty, they will stop attacking us if we do as you suggest ("listening to their demands, so we behave in an educated manner")?

Perhaps, Barone's overly simplistic explanation of Muslim "hatred" was too imprecise. However, contrary to the teachings of David Hume (A Treatise of Human Nature), you have established a causal relationship, for which you have no empirical evidence, other than the words of a so-called "propagandist," as you described Osama bin Laden.

Bring 'em home

2006-06-26T19:41:00.000-04:00

Today, The Japan Times' lead editorial is about the realignment of American forces. Japan government was concerned with reducing their "burden of hosting U.S. military installations." We're told "important issues" have yet to be resolved.

Interestingly, when Congressman Murtha is calling for a "redeployment" of our military forces to Okinawa, the Governor of the Okinawa prefecture is unhappy Marine Corps' Futenma Air Station's "relocation" has been delayed for another 8 years.

The Japanese are unhappy that they must pay "60 percent of the costs of transferring 8,000 U.S. Marine personnel from Okinawa to Guam." The Japan Times is miffed that they are required to "help pay the cost of building military facilities on U.S. terrority is in itself unprecedented and the issue is likely to stir intensive debate in the next Diet."

The editorial concludes, "Japan must pursue independence in security and economic policies. Excessive loyalty to the U.S. will be ridiculed by the international community and by Americans themselves."

After 50 years of defending Japan, I couldn't agree more. Pack our troops up and bring 'em home! Just as with Europe and South Korea, it's time our so-called friends and allies pay the cost of defending their own freedom and liberty.

Bruno the Bear: Rest in Peace

2006-06-26T07:43:00.000-04:00

Der Spiegel reports Bruno the Bear (Codename: JJ1) met a "tragic end." In the early hours of Monday morning, the brazen outlaw was cornered by Geman elite paratroopers, from the 1st Buggery Brigade.

Manfred Wölfl, a member of the Bavarian anti-terrorism task force, stated, "The shooting has happened, the bear is dead."

Bruno the Bear - Update

2006-06-25T14:41:00.000-04:00

The BBC News is reporting German authorities have issued a fatwa regarding legendary terrorist, Bruno the Bear. Elite German paratroopers, of the fabled Buggery Brigade, have been issued orders to "shoot on sight."

German Basket Cases

2006-06-25T13:55:00.000-04:00

During the jubilation of the Games, German Chancellor Angela Murkel called Germany an "economic basket case." Not surprisingly, the Huns were offended, so the barbarian hordes swarmed.

A seemingly unencumbered wit, Thomas Fricke sniffed and scoldingly responded,

Germans happily packing stadiums and city centers to watch matches and celebrate the tournament are disproving predictions of economic doom from politicians and killjoy commentators.

... there's no reason to think, as many commentators are expecting, that the nation will revert to its self-doubt and fear of economic decline once the World Cup party is over on July 9.

For some it seems, Germany's fortunes are symbolized by scurrying feet chasing after a silly white ball once every 4 years.

Virtual lynching

2006-06-23T18:06:00.000-04:00

A young Chinese man was betrayed by his wife. The man told his neighbors about his wife's unfaithfulness. Virtual sleuths discovered the identified of the man's wife's lover. Thousands demanded they be punished. Chinese netizens cried "chop off their heads."

This remarkable story appeared in an editorial in the China Daily. Raymond Zhou discusses how common place virtual lynchings are in China. Zhou could just as easily been talking about America, when he said,

Trial by virtual lynching has become the norm in China's cyberspace. When a controversy erupts, the rational voice is usually drowned out in vociferous condemnation.

I'm not saying our netizens are always wrong. As a matter of fact, they have a strong sense of justice - so strong that they see the world in only black and white. There's no room for shades of gray.

We have witnessed our own unique brand of flaming. Congressman Murtha is a true Flamer, for he's already convicted our troops of "cold blooded murder" in Haditha.

Murtha and others foolishly believe they can control an outraged mob. Like others that came before so inclined, they will be devoured by the beast of their own creation.

China's WTO flop

2006-06-23T03:44:00.000-04:00

In July 2000, William Greider, writing in The Nation, heaped scorn on the NY Times ("bell cow for the media") and in particular: Thomas Friedman and Paul Krugman.

Amusingly, Greider writes:

Thomas Friedman's views on globalization, reiterated twice a week, are simple: "Shut up and eat your spinach. Globalization is good for you, even if you're too stupid to understand why. Besides, there's nothing you can do about it." He resolves complex disputes on large matters with words like "crazy" and "ridiculous," accusing globalization's critics of being "quacks" and "extremists." His colleague Paul Krugman relies on a loftier form of condescension. "Economists are smarter than most people, and I'm smarter than most economists. Anyone who disagrees is an unlicensed hack or a hired gun with an economics degree from a second-rate university." Regular readers of the Times can attest that my mild caricature does not exaggerate. (Greider's caricatures are dead-on accurate.)

Greider's complaints were swallowed up by 1.26 billion Chinese consumers needing McDonald's Happy Meals. As Thomas Friedman fondly reminded us, wars are not fought between McDonald franchises.

Indeed, the Mandarin Sispyhus, with the help of so many others, pushed their boulder to the lofty summit of WTO membership.

In December 2001, after an epic, 15-year struggle, the BBC News hailed a mighty achievement: China joins the WTO - at last. China's "Official Gateway" told us: "China's WTO membership is expected to promote the country's own reform...."

That was then, this is now. CEIP's Minxin Pei writing in the Taipei Times tells a very different story. Pei begins by reciting his well-learned catechism:

Most Westerners believe in a theory of liberal evolution, according to which sustained economic growth, by increasing wealth and the size of the middle class, gradually makes a country more democratic.

In ancient times, Zeus bowed to Fate. Later, Hegel bowed to "rational" progress in the history of men (The Philosophy of History). Like those that came before, Pei, Friedman, Fukuyama, and so many others believe there are unremitting and implacable Laws of History, for their philosophies have been shaped by blending Hegel, Darwin, and Spencer. And as we shall see from Pei's commentary, he bows to Marx's class struggle theory.

Today, Pei admits China's "liberal evolution" has stalled. Oddly, Pei suggests Heraclitus' stream has stopped flowing, or Hobbes' upward or downward motions have ceased. Not surprisingly, Pei is flummoxed. Pei tells us,

Instead of democratic transition, China has witnessed a consolidation of authoritarian rule. Since 1989, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has been pursuing a two-pronged strategy: selective repression that targets organized political opposition and assimilation of new social elites.

This strategy emphasizes the maintenance of an extensive law enforcement apparatus designed to eliminate organized opposition. Huge investments have strengthened the People's Armed Police (PAP), a large anti-riot paramilitary force whose specialty is the quick suppression of anti-government protests by disgruntled industrial workers, farmers and urban residents. Frequent deployment of the PAP is a major reason why the tens of thousands of collective protests that occur each year (74,000 in 2004 and 86,000 last year) have had a negligible impact on China's overall stability.

Unmoved by facts, Pei clings to his "rational" theories and believes events will unfold as he has seen, while staring into his bowl of mead, for he tells us:

Although the CCP's carrot-and-stick approach has worked since 1989, it is doubtful that it will retain its efficacy for another 17 years.

... When things go wrong -- as is likely, given mounting social strains caused by rising inequality, environmental degradation, and deteriorating public services -- China's alienated masses could become politically radicalized.

... So it may be premature for the party to celebrate the success of its adaptive strategy. China's rulers may have stalled democratic trends for now, but the current strategy has, perhaps, merely delayed the inevitable.

Or Fukuyama's End of History creed was just so much idle nonsense?

USA v. ICC

2006-06-22T11:17:00.000-04:00

As John Locke taught us, our knowledge comes from our experience. The mayhem of war is something I do not understand, for I have not experienced it.

Thus far, I have refrained from commenting on these situations (e.g., Haditha). However, there are many that are consumed by these events: Michelle Malkin and Congressman Murtha, to name but two, for nobler or lesser reasons. Both are engaged in promoting their brand of factionalism.

The New York Daily News reports,

The new cases bring to 12 the number of servicemen facing the death penalty for actions on the battlefield.

Military law experts could not recall a previous time when so many troops faced capital punishment, suggesting the heightened awareness of commanders to the impact of atrocity allegations on the Iraq war effort.

Other investigations are on-going. Regardless of the outcome of the resulting court martials, I will not stand in judgment of these soldiers.

For me, I am thankful the United States is not a signatory to the Rome Statue.

In December 2000, President Bill Clinton signed the Rome Statue during the final days of his presidency, and on the very last day the statute was open for signing, knowing it would not be ratified. In May 2002, President George Bush "nullified" that signature. Arguably, one of Bush's finer moments.

Later, Ambassador John Bolton was quoted (NYT) as saying "abrogating the American signature" was "the happiest moment in my government service."

Internationalists and NGOs were indigant. For example, William Schultz, executive director of Amnesty International, claimed we were driven by "unfounded fears of phantom prosecutions...." (emphasis mine)

The Coalition for the International Criminal Court (CICC) tells us:

Since 2002, the United States has launched a full-scale multi-pronged campaign against the International Criminal Court, claiming that the ICC may initiate politically-motivated prosecutions against US nationals.

The CICC's 2,000 NGOs were apoplectic our government obtained Bilateral Immunity Agreements (BIAs) and enacted the American Servicemembers' Protection Act (ASPA) to protect our troops from being subject to the conventions of the International Criminal Court.

Does anyone seriously believe, if we were signatory to the Rome Statute, the ICC would not be investigating these events as war crimes?

21st Century Silk Road

2006-06-22T06:23:00.000-04:00

Turkish Daily News reports Prime Minister Erdoğan said,

... he remains the same man he was yesterday and had not, and couldn't have, changed, in contradiction to earlier statements about having changed and developed at the same time.

However, more importantly, he said:

[Erdoğan] also called on the energy world to accept the fact that oil transportation through the narrow Turkish straits was not sustainable. The tanker traffic in the waterway has reached a level that poses a serious threat to the safety of Istanbul. “It is no longer possible for us in Istanbul to live under this threat,” he said.

Prime Minister Erdoğan continued:

We have developed our energy strategy primarily based on this vision, taking into account global developments and expectations. We aim to make Turkey a transit country in the East-West and North-South axes. Our target is to transform the Ceyhan terminus into a center of commerce,” he said.

“As you know, the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan [BTC] pipeline has become operational. Next are the Samsun-Ceyhan bypass pipeline and the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum (Şahdeniz) natural gas pipeline via the Caspian,” the prime minister said.

“On the one hand, Turkey is leading in the implementation of the East-West energy corridor, also named the ‘silk road of the 21st century,' and on the other, by means of the Nabucco and Turkey-Greece-Italy natural gas pipelines, we are taking important steps on the road to becoming the fourth natural gas artery of the European Union by transporting Caspian and Middle East natural gas to Europe,” he added. (emphasis mine)

... Erdoğan said the Samsun-Ceyhan bypass pipeline would be added to the Kirkuk-Yumurtalık pipeline and the BTC pipeline and that the latter would be connected to Kazakhstan. “Ceyhan will become one of the most important energy centers in the world. Those tankers docking at Ceyhan will be able to simultaneously load Iraqi, Azeri, Kazakh and Russian oil,” he said.

Another dimension in Turkey's energy strategy is transporting Iraqi natural gas to Europe and the United States via Turkey, Erdoğan said. A project designed to transport the rich natural gas reserves of northern Iraq to the European Union and the United States through a newly built pipeline on to Ceyhan will be finalized in a few years, the prime minister stated.

Insular News

2006-06-21T19:06:00.000-04:00

China Daily reports Iraq insurgents say they "[have] decided to kill four kidnapped Russian Embassy workers after a deadline for meeting its demands passed." (I didn't realize the Russians had troops in Iraq, which necessitated butchering Russians to compel their troops to be withdrawn.)

Graciously, China Daily exhibits some rare treasures of Western civilizations for their devoted readers.

In more good news: China Daily reports "No [Bush] administration official has publicly raised the possibility bombing the North Korean missile before it could be launched." However, Jan Lodal -- a Defense Department official during the Clinton administration -- did say, "that he would not rule out a pre-emptive strike."

Xinhua reports "China pursues no selfish interests in Africa." Today, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao is in South Africa. Wen stated "China provided more than 900 infrastructure projects to African countries, including a railway line between Tanzania and Zambia." (Altruism, my ass!)

The Korea Herald reports:

North Korea yesterday made it clear that the motive behind its missile diplomacy is to draw the United States into dialogue.

...The United States has chosen to ignore Pyongyang's brinksmanship diplomacy, insisting it will only speak to the North at the six-nation nuclear talks that have been stalled since last year.

... Thomas Schieffer, U.S. ambassador to Japan and Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso said last week that they would close ranks on the missile launch matter to seek sanctions from the Security Council should Pyongyang execute the test-fire.

Analysts see this as unlikely, mostly because China, Pyongyang's main benefactor, and Russia, a former supporter of the North, would likely use their veto power over the issue.

Today's edition of The Japan Times front page does not even mention North Korea's "missile diplomacy." The Japanese are apparently more interested in sex. Nope, strike that! They're not interested in that either, but at least the Japanese have figured out that "sexless couples" don't have kids.

The lamps are still out

2006-06-20T19:15:00.000-04:00

As Europe plunged into the First World War, Great Britain's Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey observed, “The lamps are going out all over Europe; we shall not see them lit again in our lifetime."

In 2002, the National Council of Resistance in Iran (NCRI) "accused Iran of hiding a uranium enrichment facility at Natanz and a heavy water plant at Arak." The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) began investigating these charges.

In June 2003, President George Bush stated, the United States "will not tolerate the construction of a nuclear weapon in Iran." In October 2003, the EU-3 (Great Britain, France and Germany) began negiotation with Iran on their nuclear program. Specifically, the EU-3 was seeking Iran's agreement to forego uranium enrichment.

In November 2004, Iran formalized an agreement with the EU-3. Their agreement stated: "Iran has decided on a voluntary basis, to continue and extend its suspension to include all enrichment and reprocessing activities." The EU-3 acknowledged Iran's actions were a "voluntary" suspension as a "confidence building measure" and was not a "legal obligation."

Since then, the European charade has only become more disgraceful. Europe's lamps remain unlit. Their wicks have dry rotted from a malaise of moral turpitude that has settled upon them. Quaintly, all Europe cares about is soccer games and a military prison for terrorists in Guantanamo.

Europeans suck!

2006-06-20T14:47:00.000-04:00

Today, Paul Reynolds, writing for the BBC News, discusses "issues" that will be raised during tomorrow's US-EU annual summit in Vienna.

Charmingly, Reynolds tells us, Europe "has found some common ground in criticism of the US." Europeans are consumed by Guantanamo, and sort of concerned about Iran.

Tellingly, Reynolds found a scholarly, soft-power player, John Palmer who says,

What has changed in Vienna is that the Europeans are clearer about the dramatic limitation of the reality of the US as a superpower. It has not escaped their notice that the US had to turn to the European strategy for Iran. The Europeans resent an overbearing hyperpower but are aware of the problems of an implosion of worldwide US power and are worried at the implications for both the future of real multilaterism and potential isolationism by the United States. (emphasis mine)

We are Isolationists

2006-06-20T07:47:00.000-04:00

Today, Taipei Times has 2 interesting editorials: Martin Jacques and Richard Halloran see the world differently.

Jacques tells us our tough slog in Iraq has exposed America's weakness, he babbles about the "neoconservative view of the world, but he accurately states Iraq has:

[L]ed to an overwhelming preoccupation with the Middle East and, to a much lesser extent, central Asia, and the implicit relegation and neglect of US interests elsewhere.

Jacques continues,

China's search for secure supplies of oil and other commodities. To this end it has been acquiring a growing diplomatic presence in regions of the world like Africa and Latin America, making the US increasingly nervous about China's intentions ...

China is making it perfectly plain that it will not insist on the same kind of political strings as the US. We are only at the beginning of what will over time become a growing competition for the hearts and minds of the developing world. (emphasis mine)

Jacques leaves unstated what "strings" America attaches. And Jacques' commentary is simple-minded analyses if he believes affirmation of the PRC's raison d’être is not a "string." As we have recently seen, Afghanistan, Ghana, and Congo have all agreed with the central aim of China's foreign policy in their affirmation of a "one China policy." If that's not a "string," M. Jacques, then please tell us what it is?

Halloran offers us a solemn reminder that Australian Prime Minister John Howard lacks the insularity of many Americans and realizes the gluttonous ire of the wide-spread anti-Americanism is diminishing our resolve to remain committed to world affairs.

Halloran quotes Howard's commentary during a recent trip to the States, Howard said,

The world continues to need America, and the world will be a better place for the involvement and the commitment of the people of the United States of America in the years that lie ahead.

Those foolish enough to suggest that America should have a lesser role in the affairs of the world should pause and think whether they really mean what they say, because a world without a dedicated, involved America will be a lesser world, a less safe world, a more precarious world.

It is vital, for America's interests as much as those of the rest of the world, that America not retreat.

To the voices of anti-Americanism around the world, to those who shout `Yankee Go Home,' let me offer some quiet advice: Be careful what you wish for.

Halloran reports,

Political leaders and defense officials in Taiwan privately asked this correspondent a few weeks ago whether the US would keep its commitments to help repel a Chinese attack.

Halloran relates that Japanese officials are questioning America's commitment to their national defense. Recently, both President Bush and Secretary of Defense Rumsfield have acknowledged many Americans want to travel the "broad and inviting" path of isolationism and protectionism.

Halloran relates,

The Pew Research Center in Washington asserted last year: "Anti-Americanism is deeper and broader now than at any time in modern history."

At the same time, Pew researchers found that more Americans believed that the US "should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own."

This tendency should surprise no one. Cicero reminded us, "As with men, so with nations." Most Americans are isolationists in their own communities. Driving through most residential communities, we see many homes with stockade and chain-linked fences to shield us from the unwelcome gazed and intrusion of our neighbors. Walking down the streets of our cities, thousands of people pass each other while studiously avoiding any or all eye contact. Standing in our mass transit rail cars, we see passengers avoid talking to the person that brushes into them due the jarring motion of the train, while carrrying on a meaningless monoluge with their cell phone.

We are isolationists. And we despise Ingratitude!

What are the Chinese doing?

2006-06-20T07:04:00.000-04:00

They're building roads in Ghana; they're discussing "cooperation" in the Congo. They've formalized security arrangements with Afghanistan, "to fight the 'three evil forces' of separatism, extremism and terrorism as well as transnational crimes." And of course coincidentally, all three countries support a "one China policy."

Three years after they first sent a man into space, China announces they plan to put a man on the moon by 2024.

Next, we read on Strategy Page blog,

China has accelerated the installation of new anti-aircraft radars and missiles along its southeastern coast. This includes Chinese YLC2 3-D radars and Russian S300 anti-aircraft missiles. China has also revamped the air-to-air combat training for its Su-27 pilots, putting much more emphasis on realism, and tactics used by Taiwanese F-16 fighters. China has been working on improving its air defenses for years, but the sudden flurry of activity indicates a sense of urgency. Or maybe someone wants to show off by getting a job done on time, or ahead of schedule. (emphasis mine)

Asian News

2006-06-20T06:32:00.000-04:00

The Japan Times reports,

Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi warned, "If North Korea does not listen to us and launches a missile, the Japanese government would have to take severe measures in cooperation with the U.S.," Koizumi told reporters at his official residence.

Australia's Herald Sun reports,

Australia's Foreign Affairs Minister, Alexander Downer, said that a launch would be "highly provocative."

Mr Downer said he sent a message to North Korea's ambassador to Canberra, Chon Jae-Hong, "to warn him against a long-range missile test and to explain the serious consequences that would follow such a firing."

Taipei Times reports,

Opponents of a possible North Korean long-range missile test stepped up a diplomatic drive to stop the launch yesterday, issuing a barrage of warnings to Pyongyang and threatening retaliation if it goes ahead.

North Korea has taken apparent moves toward test-firing a missile believed capable of reaching the US, putting the region on alert.

North Korean state TV made its first mention of a missile last night, with a report referring to a Russian media report that dismissed US claims about its missile capability.

The North Korean evening news broadcast, monitored in Seoul, said nothing about whether the North intended to test-launch a long-range missile.

The Russian commentary said "the US claim that North Korea has a missile that can hit the US is unconfirmed speculation," according to the North Korean announcer.

However, the report added that the editorial had said the North "has the due right to have a missile that can immediately halt the United States' reckless aerial espionage activity."

The North's state media has been silent on the missile issue.

The chances of a launch were unclear yesterday, in part because of the weather at the missile site. There were cloudy skies and chances of showers in the area, with fog along the coast, said Kim Duck-wan, an official at the South's Korea Meteorological Administration.

Japan, the US, Australia and News Zealand all cautioned the North that a test of a Taepodong-2 missile would bring serious consequences.

Japan has taken a lead in calling for a halt to preparations. North Korea fired a missile over northern Japan in 1998.

"Japan has been urging North Korea to stop the attempt to launch a missile," Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said yesterday. "We are making efforts to urge North Korea to act rationally and with self-restraint."

"If it does not listen to us and fires a missile, we have to consult with the United States and take stern measures," he said.

He refused to specify possible steps, but other officials have mentioned sanctions and an appeal to the UN Security Council.

US Ambassador to Japan Thomas Schieffer, also said sanctions were an option.

In Seoul, the ruling Uri Party called on Pyongyang not to put its "friend in danger" by testing the missile, while the opposition accused the government of not leaning hard enough on the North to stop the launch.

Japan's Mainichi Shimbun reported last night that the fueling was apparently already complete. After fueling is finished, the missile has a launch window of about one month, the report said citing unidentified US officials.

You gotta love that comment about "reckless aerial espionage activity." Priceless.

North Korea, Missile Defense and Blogger Insularity

2006-06-20T05:25:00.000-04:00

The Washington Times reports,

The Pentagon activated its new U.S. ground-based interceptor missile defense system, and officials announced yesterday that any long-range missile launch by North Korea would be considered a "provocative act."

The U.S. missile defense system includes 11 long-range interceptor missiles, including nine deployed at Fort Greeley, Alaska, and two at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice added that any launch would be a serious matter and "would be taken with utmost seriousness and indeed a provocative act."

For years, we've been told a national missile defense system would not work, because Russia and China could overwhelm the system with too many incoming missiles; therefore, those opposed to its development and deployment seemingly reasoned it's better to let them all land than to destroy any incoming missiles.

Many bloggers (Michelle Malkin, Instapundit, Pajama Media) are still obsessing over the antics of Congressman Murtha and the so-called massacre at Haditha. Pitiful!

CEIP and CFR are both pitiful!

2006-06-19T18:06:00.000-04:00

Today, CEIP is seized by a potential threat to our nation. Indeed, CEIP provides a link ("Warnings of North Korean Missile Test") to a report they had issued in 2005. In fairness though, if you follow the associated link, you can get to some really swell maps. (Wonderful work, Jessica!)

Unlike CEIP, CFR actually prepared an article to highlight current events; albeit, CFR only linked to the work of others. Oddly, you will find buried in this article a link to a Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists -- the proud keepers of the Doomsday Clock -- article written in 2005.

I guess meaningful analyses is too much to expect from these foreign policy mavens.

North Korea's threat

2006-06-19T07:23:00.000-04:00

Today, the NY Times and Washington Times woke up, for both papers are reporting on their front page North Korea's plan to launch an intercontinental ballistic missile. The Post is still snoring.

Some bloggers are still asleep: Michelle is still snoozing, and the Pajama Media guys haven't woke up yet. But now that Drudge woke up, I'm sure we'll see some cut & paste editorialism from them soon.

European Disunion

2006-06-17T19:21:00.000-04:00

Deutsche Welle reports the Unionists are having a tough row. After a 2 day summit, the European Union member states (25) have decided they need another 2 years to decide what to do, so they pushed off a final decision until 2008. The ever comical Jacques Chirac says, "We need more time to reflect." (If it was surrendering his country, he wouldn't take that long.)

Last year, citizens of Netherlands and France rejected the ratification of the EU Treaty. Other countries (eg Germany) didn't allow their citizens to vote, they had the treaty ratified by their parliament. As the Germans reason, democracy is such a messy affair, it is far better if their subjects are told what to do.

Forty years ago, Fernand Braudel pointed out the difficulties of unification. Braudel pointed out Europe has not solved their lingua franca problem. And does anyone believe the French will accept English as the official language of the EU?

Insular News

2006-06-17T08:29:00.000-04:00

It was really quite comical. In 1998, Secretary of Defense William Cohen was testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Cohen said, "Based on intelligence estimates, the North Koreans are years away from multi-stage rocket technology." Three weeks later, the North Koreans lobbed one over Japan.

Now, the North Koreans are preparing to launch an intercontinental ballistic missile, which is capable of reaching our country.

News, you'd think, right? Wrong!

Just look at today's front page of the online editions of the NY Times, Washington Post, Washington Times, LA Times, or Chicago Sun-Times: Not One Word.

But the MSM hasn't totally failed us, the Chicago Tribune does have a front page story.

The NY Times mentions this news in their World section (7th item); the LA Times mentions this news in their World section (8th item). The Washington Post, the Washington Times, and the Chicago Sun-Times cannot even link to a story on the BBC News.

A passion for action

2006-06-16T11:06:00.000-04:00

Alexandra van Maltzan discusses the questionable "sanity" of many in the Democratic party, for their seeming disregard of our national defense.

I would quibble with the reasoning offered by Mark Steyn ("they are motivated by Bush hatred"), Peter Beinart ("liberals have grown cynical"), and Alexandra ("taboo" politics). Keeping with the principle of parsimony, I would offer a simpler explanation: ambition.

Sounds bites ("Bush lied, People died") are more than rhetorical flourishes. As David Hume taught us, reason gives rise to no action. War requires action; therefore, passions must be aroused. And not all wars are fought on battlefields.

When Hannah Arendt began her discussion of action, she quoted Dante: For in every action ... is the disclosure of its own image. The image I see is: Democrats are ravenous, and their prey is within their grasp. Arendt told us, "men are unable to forgive what they cannot punish." This unrealized desire fuels great ambition.

Machiavelli began his Discourses with a truism, for he said, "envy [is] inherent in man's nature." He told us a story about a host of Gauls moved into Greece and Asia. The Gauls sought peace with the king of Macedonia. The king displayed his gold to convince them of his power. The Gauls desired gold more than they wanted peace, so they bespoiled the king of his treasure.

Ambition and envy engenders great action, while reasoning folks sit and dither. Hume told us, reasoning left unchecked destroys reason. Machiavelli told us, "necessity will lead you to do many things which reason does not recommend." Often, those without political power are the most ambitious. To assuage this great desire, some will take ruinous actions.

Arendt told us, "power springs up between men when they act together and vanishes the moment they disperse." Thus, it should surprise no one to witness Senator Lieberman being tossed from the Tarpein Rock, for he was diminishing their power.

Titus Livy told us about the Plebs' desire for Agarian reform, for the people wanted land. Even while the Volscians and the Aequians were marching on Rome, "it was only with great difficulty that the tribunes were persuaded to allow national defense to take precedence over party politics."

Like Plebs sulking on the Sacred Mount, this past week progressive factionalists mustered in our nation's capital, for they want to seize the throne and banish the Patricians.

Bruno the Bear -- Terrorist extraordinaire

2006-06-16T09:56:00.000-04:00

NATO forces are being dispatched to the mountainous region of Bavaria to capture the elusive, terrorist mastermind: Bruno the Bear.

Germans are exhausted and weary from weeks of searching for this fiend. Der Spiegel reports Bruno the Bear (Codename: JJ1) was last reported spotted near Bad Toz, where he has laid waste to the surrounding countryside. Local residents have petitioned the United Nations Security Council to deploy their battle-hardened warriors (The Kofi Brigade) to protect them from this vile menace. Informed sources compare Bruno the Bear to famed, international terrorist: Carlos the Jackal.

Insular News

2006-06-15T23:44:00.000-04:00

Palestinian diplomats leave their country and go shopping for dough; one chap just brought back 12 exquisite Tumi suitcases full of money ($20 million). Last month, another chap brought home a paltry $800k. Why can't Condi go shopping where they do?

India's Tribune tells us Zarqawi was actually a resident of Lucknow -- and he was on the public dole. Where were they mailing his unemployment checks?

What's My Line reruns

2006-06-15T21:15:00.000-04:00

Just days after Zarqawi was blown to kingdom come, the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) gives us the low-down on "Zarqawi's Mysterious Successor."

Planet Serpo's Eben Kaplan tells us, Abu Hamza al-Muhajir appointment has "surprised many jihadists." You read this stuff and you think you're caught in a do-loop of a What's My Line? episode. My God, I hope the mother ship comes and gets Kaplan and takes him back home soon!

Our southern flank

2006-06-15T03:22:00.000-04:00

Our blindness is staggering. We look half way around the world for scoundrels, villains, and tyrants, yet we chose to ignore the tyrants close at hand.

In 1998, Hugo Chavez came to power in Venezuela. The next year I moved there to work on a South Korean construction project. Chavez was in his glory in those days, for he was adored by most. The mob was his base, and his words stirred their passion for change. Chavez reminded me of others I had read about before.

In December 1999, after 2 days of torrential rain, the hillsides along the northern coastline gave way; dwellings and hamlets were swept away, whole villages were buried, by mudslides.

Days passed before The Washington Post and The New York Times reported this disaster on their online edition. If memory serves, it was about 4 days before the disaster was mentioned by either. Prior to the "story" breaking, each morning before going to work, I'd fire off an email asking their editors why this "news" wasn't being reported.

Americans are blind to what is happening in South America. Case-in-point: a simple Google search of "venezuela flooding" (English only) on the papers' domain, we find 36 hits at the Post and 12 hits at the NY Times -- some of the hits are bogus. An estimated 50,000 people died in that disaster. Americans are like Mr. Sam Magoo jaywalking through world affairs led by a dumb mute.

Chavez bought 100,000 AK-47's assualt rifles. Chavez is buying 15 Russian-built military helicopters. Chavez is buying 24 Russian Sukhoi S-30 military aircraft. Chavez tells the world he is preparing for an "invasion" by American forces. And Chavez is marching Venezuela down a road that has been traveled before, for as he proclaims, to enthusiastic Londoners, "socialism is the way forward."

Hayek looked backward to pre-war Germany and told his countrymen, at a time they were at war with Germany, that they would become like their enemy. As Hayek reasoned, the policies and institutions they put in place to fight that war would exorably carry them down The Road to Serfdom.

Venezuela has a population of 25.7 million people, and Chavez plans to have "one million well-equipped and well-armed men and women." The BBC tells us, our statesmen have concerns about how this will effect "regional stability."

Professor AJP Taylor wrote about Europe's passion for "balance of power" politics and how disastrous that policy was, yet our statesmen are playing the same game, while a quiet invasion of migrant workers moves into our country. Edward Gibbon told us, Goths were fleeing from the westward march of the Huns, so Rome allowed them to move into their terrority; later, the Goths took up arms and helped defeat Rome.

Asian News

2006-06-14T20:06:00.000-04:00

Today, we find two interesting developments:

The Statesmen reports that former South Korea President, and Nobel Peace Prize laurete, Kim Dae-jung is traveling to North Korea to have a "dialogue" with North Korean leader Kim Jong Il regarding the unification of Korea.

The Japan Times reports the mayor of Yokosuka has agreed to host the deployment of the nuclear powered aircraft carrier USS George Washington (CVN-73).

How very odd? Korea wants to unify and Japan wants a nuclear powered aircraft carrier.

As Burckhardt said, "nothing wholely unconditional has ever existed."

Abandon all hope ye who carves here

2006-06-14T18:45:00.000-04:00

Carved in stone above the entrance to the dungeon of Bodrum Castle, where once the Knights of St. John tortured their victims, one reads: Inde Deus Abest.

Some claim it means: Where God Does Not Exist. Others claim it means: God Is Far From Here.

Turkey Daily News tells us, whatever it means, it appears to be a fake ("no historical significance"), so it is going to be scratched off, or maybe not?

"How do I get tickets to the games?"

2006-06-14T14:59:00.000-04:00

Der Spiegel has an interesting interview with Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Hayineh.

Throughout the tough questioning, Hayineh stayed on message: (1) return to 1967 borders, (2) divided Jerusalem, (3) right of 4 million Palestinians to return, (4) killing Jews eating pizza or riding buses is "resistance," and (5) the State of Israel doesn't have a right to exist. But, Hayineh did offer a 50 year cease fire.

But like all devout futbolers, Hayineh wants tickets to the World Cup games -- he was interested in the non-Jewish section.

The Gauls are at the gate!

2006-06-13T09:34:00.000-04:00

Machiavelli studied Titus Livy's Early History of Rome. Machiavelli told us,

he who would foresee what has to be, should reflect on what has been, for everything that happens in the world at any time has a genuine resemblance to what happened in ancient times ...

Many are familiar with The Prince. However, The Discourses more fully captures Machiavelli's reflections on ancient and modern times. His observations on government, religion, war, and politics are still relevant.

Today, a conclave of progressive luminaries gathered in our nation's capital. They want to take back America. Their watchword is progressive. Progressivism has a long political history in America. After a quick review of Wikepedia's discussion of this political philosophy, one may reasonably surmise their partisans have been progressively massaging this entry. We may safely assume they are telling us, their politics entail progress. Further into the discussion, we're told they have replaced Liberal with Progressive, because the term Liberal has a "decidedly negative association in the media."

How the mighty have fallen!

In the late 19th Century, Herbert Spencer scolded Liberals for wanting to ever increasingly constrain human activity through legislation (The Man vs the State). Human behavior doesn't change because we call something differently than we once did. Liberal passions are now progressive passions.

... the agents who bring such things about are men, and that men have, and always have had, the same passions, whence it necessarily comes about that the same effects are produced.

What is a nation?

2006-06-12T16:45:00.000-04:00

The other day I came across a discussion on TigerHawk's blog, "Notes on American nationalism." He was reading a book by a couple of Pew pollsters. In their book, they pointed to an article written in 2003 -- scholars are like bloggers, we keep passing the baton back and forth, but the difference is they (Pei, Kohut) are getting paid to think.

Now, what caught my attention was the scribblings of CEIP's Minxin Pei. He's a scholar, but his writing (which I've critiqued prior to joining the blogsphere) is too much cut & paste editorialism, heavy with polls, light on substance. Pei worships Polls, for he's a Rousseau "will of the people" thinker that believes that politics are science. Ideal gas laws work with molecules, so Ideal people laws must work too. Think of Asimov's Psychohistorians, that's what Kohut and Pei believe in; they want to be 2nd Foundationers.

Me, I'll stick with Professor Charles Beard's assessment of polls, they're not very reliable for they fail to capture the passion of the opinions held. Pollsters try to get past this known deficiency by asking questions that are to be answered by do you "strongly agree" or "strongly disagree".

Pew would ask, "Madame Defarge, do you 'strongly agree', 'agree', 'disagree', or 'strongly disagree' that King Louie should be beheaded?" After she got through pricking out both his eyes with her knitting needles, she'd cackle and say, "Could you repeat my choices?"

That's the sad reality of our political discourse; Legion wasn't banished to herded pigs, they ran off to determine the "will of the people."

For a host of different reasons, Pei's comments are pointless, for it's all about America being like other countries -- they're the norm because so many of them agree, and we're the statistical outlier. Pei's comments presupposes the way of others is superior to our own ways.

Pei like so many others are unmindful of two truths about people and by extension the nation they choose to form.

First, Plato taught us "likes attract likes." The importance of this should not be overlooked. We hear about anti-Americanism all the time. AAism is The STD of the 21st Century. We're carriers and we're infecting everyone. Europeans and Pei's like-minded kind are not like us, so they don't like us. They believe the way we live our lives is wrong because we do not live like they do. They believe if we lived our lives like others then the world be peachy and keen.

Second, Cicero taught us "As with men, so with nations." Leaving aside the Darwin- Spencer-Spengler organism theories of the human kind, our country reflects who we are. And our differences from other countries are so pronounced they are easily overlooked. After the last presidential election, Thomas Friedman -- it was before he was walled off from his adoring audience -- woke up and found he lived in a Red State nation, yet again. 'Sniff was livid and flummoxed by this not-so singular oddity. "How can this be?" he asked himself. He couldn't grasp it. For Friedman, the electorate's view of America was inconsistent with the self-evident truths he had painstakingly taught us so well. Thus we were unfit for his Blue State world, and he was determined not to live in a Red State nation. Truth be told, 'Sniff was relieved when TimesSelect walls were cast to keep out the barbarians.

Nowadays, so many people are talking to folks just like themselves they are surprised to find out there are folks out there that do not share their deeply held beliefs. Strangely, the internet has made some folks more insular than they were before.

Our nationalism is a reflection of who we are. Just because I don't live like others that doesn't mean the way I live my life is wrong, it just means I'm different. By extension, just because Americans see the world differently than Europeans that doesn't mean the way we see the world is wrong, it just means we are different.

In 1882, Ernest Renan gave a speech: What is a nation? (emphasis added)

A nation is a soul, a spiritual principle. Two things, which in truth are but one, constitute this soul or spiritual principle. One lies in the past, one in the present. One is the possession in common of a rich legacy of memories; the other is present-day consent, the desire to live together, the will to perpetuate the value of the heritage that one has received in an undivided form. Man, Gentlemen, does not improvise. The nation, like the individual, is the culmination of a long past of endeavours, sacrifice, and devotion. Of all cults, that of the ancestor is the most legitimate, for the ancestors have made us what we are.

Young Americans

2006-06-11T09:16:00.000-04:00

From Iraq, Pat Dollard tells a very different story. His documentary reflects the cultural heritage of the young men and women fighting and dying for our country. If you are looking for the war time prose of Hemingway, do not launch the clip.

God bless these fine Young Americans. You have my respect and gratitude.

Meta-intellectual Tom passes gas

2006-06-10T23:24:00.000-04:00

NY Times' ubergreen meta-intellectual crawled over the Select's wall to pass gas taxes.

Pecksniff Tom tells us he enjoys the freedom of darting off to JFK and dashing over to kowtow to Jintao. In 'Sniff's two dimensional world, there's no correlation between his unchecked travel budget and NYT's being downgraded by Goldman-Sachs. Sniff's not worried, for he knows that's what clerical help is for to be laid off -- Tom calls it being outsourced! -- when Times are bad. And to think, he won a business book award. What where those blokes thinking?

Back when Sniff was part of the global information age -- prior to TimesSelect walling out the crazies, foolishly thinking folks would pay to read what they thought -- the New York Times (NYT) was trading at $50 a share; nowadays, they're trading at half that! Knowing that Sniff's such a polling guy, what do those results tell you? Me, I'd say, "The model ain't working!"

Although he just escaped from Sulzburger State Prison, he wants to tax gas, so we're forced to buy green cars that run on things not yet invented, like that really cool car Doc Brown had.

French News

2006-06-10T20:34:00.000-04:00

Dateline - Paris

French authorities have arrested several men for smuggling frogs, not citizens, the species. When questioned, one victim exclaimed "Hmmrph!" with a decidedly Anglo-American accent!

In more news ....

Contrary to published reports regarding Louis XVI's final words, a newly discovered letter, written by Chief Executioner Sanson, confirmed Louis exclaimed: "Oh shit!" with a decidedly Anglo-American accent!

Babel fishing

2006-06-10T18:46:00.000-04:00

German newspapers are perplexing to read. Case in point, reading in the Deutsche Welle, we find this:

News | 10.06.2006 | 22:00
Far-right rally in German World Cup city

In Germany, nearly 5,000 people have demonstrated against right wing extremism and xenophobia. The protest in the city of Gelsenkirchen, which is hosting World Cup matches, came in response to an earlier rally by about 200 supporters of a German far-right party. A state court had banned the march by the extremist NDP, but Germany's constitutional court later lifted the ban. The counter demonstration was attended by politicians....

Shouldn't the lede say, Far-left rally out numbers Far-right rally 25:1?

Maybe it would make more sense if I ran it twice through Babel Fish. Nope, that didn't work, it's still gibberish.

Turtle Bay declares marshall law

2006-06-10T16:42:00.000-04:00

Sudanese tribal leader, Muwad Jalalabin, declared "If a UN force is sent here, I will call for jihad."

Secretary-General Kofi Annan continues to deny reports that he's "cowering in the loo."

When President George Bush was asked by reporters about America's willingness to defend the United Nations, President Bush quickly responded, "Coffee and his boys are all welcome to set up shop in Guantanamo."

Cordesman's grade: a freakin' zero!

2006-06-10T09:07:00.000-04:00

Anthony Cordesman and his fellow travelers (Kofi Annan, Jacques Chirac, Vladmir Putin, Dennis Kucinich, and Scott Ritter) were all opposed to the U.S. led invasion of Iraq.

In May 2004, Cordesman provided so-called expert testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Cordesman told us we were engaged in an exercise of "intellectual infantilism" because Iraq, and indeed the whole region, was shackled by its history of being enslaved by tryants and autocratic rulers. Cordesman reminded us there was "no history of pluralism, no or weak moderate political parties, and deep religious and ethnic divisions." Like George Wallace, Cordesman barred the gate of change.

In essence, Cordesman reasons as Aristotle did, for they believe that some are only suited for slavery.

Thus, it's not surprising we find Cordesman carping about the latest quarterly Department of Defense report, "Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq." The good doctor schoolmarmishly gave the DoD a failing grade.

In the incestuous swamp of DC's Jacobin clubs, it's not surprising we find Count de Borchgrave, polishing his steel of bitterness, ever ready to enflame mob dissent. The good Count's hourglass is half empty; as he believes, we have but 5 years before a nuclear weapon is detonated on our soil.

Not surprisingly, Cordesman found what he was looking for; however, the nugget unearthed wasn't worth the effort of the dig. As all noisome pedants do when combing through precious "data," Cordesman found only "meaningless metrics." Outside of the Beltway, mere mortals call this: "Go find me a rock," for it is nothing more than an endless search for just the right Pet Rock.

Once you get past Cordesman's breathless bulletized summary, you find little substance and much fuss over more "meaningless metrics." Navius' bird droppings are more useful than Cordesman's labored musings.

Perhaps, after the next Iraq quarterly report is issued, Cordesman may want to consult Jeff Goldstein's informative interview with Zarqawi, so he can better inform the American people how utterly incompetent the Department of Defense is.

Religion of Peace

2006-06-09T09:25:00.000-04:00

Years ago, I worked with Naseem; he was wise, gracious, and a gifted engineer. A few years ago, I worked with Raz; he was young, dynamic, and a fine engineer. We never discussed faith or politics, but I knew both men were devout Muslims.

Like most Americans, I could not fathom what happened on a beautiful day in September when our country was attacked. Like most, I instinctively knew it was an act of war.

On September 17, 2001, President George Bush, standing with representatives of America's Muslim community, told us: "The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don't represent peace. They represent evil and war."

In the aftermath, Norman Podhoretz told us how to win a war, which challenged our very existence. Others reminded us of the teachings of Professors Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington, who had years before pointed to a "clash of civilizations."

All the while, we were barraged with the constant reminder that Islam is a "religion of peace." Americans were confused by their personal knowledge of peaceful Muslims and the harsh reality that adherents of that faith had willfully slaughtered 3,000 people.

In our oblivious fashion, Americans glossed over Marines butchered in Beirut, soldiers butchered in a disco in Germany, sleeping passengers butchered in the skies over Scotland, airmen butchered in their barracks in Saudi Arabia, the bombing of the World Trade Center, Rangers butchered and mutilated in Somalia, diplomats butchered in two embassies in Africa, and sailors butchered when their warship was attacked. We were only concerned about whether the contestant would call his lifeline or ask the audience, for all we wanted was a million dollars and to be left alone.

In the aftermath, our Muslim community mobilized to enlighten an uninformed American public. Notably, the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) seized the moment to clear up our misconceptions. CAIR and others proudly told us there are 1.2 billion Muslims worldwide, 7 million Muslims live in our country, and "73 Muslim leaders from all over the world have condemned these attacks in a joint statement." This vanishingly small number of Muslim leaders added to our confusion.

While living in the eastern foothills of Tennessee, I met Naseem where some practice the perils of ritualistic snake handling. Like many, I am confused by my own faith -- the mystery of the Holy Trinity baffles me. For me, the simple beauty of the Five Pillars of Islam is as understandable and wise as the Ten Commandments or the Beatitudes.

Trying to make sense of it all, some of us are left with an unresolved conflict between a man riding on a donkey bearing an olive branch preaching his belief and a man riding on a horse wielding a sword preaching his belief. For many Americans, we are left with choosing from stomping dust from our boots or seizing a bloody sword to vanquish our enemies. Wise men from our past have tried to explain these mysteries and answer our questions.

In the last half of the 19th Century, Professor Jacob Burckhardt taught history at the University of Basel, in Switzerland. Nietzsche attended his lectures. While Burckhardt quietly lectured, the Islamic Ottoman Empire precariously held sway over much of the Balkans. On his deathbed, Burckhardt granted permission that his lectures be published. Principally, Burckhardt is known for his writing on the Italian Renaissance. But more importantly for our time, he taught us about the struggle for primacy between three great societal powers: the State, the Religion, and the Culture.

Burckhardt did not try to answer the question which power should hold sway in society or civilization; he simply analyzed the effects on people should one power emerge supreme, while the other powers were held in check. Burckhardt's judgments are harsh; they are ill suited to our modern age. Burckhardt discussed the two centuries of bloody conflict in the West to end the Church's brutal mastery of Europe.

Burckhardt spoke about the "problem" of his time was the "separation of church and state." He told us, "as soon as a state exists which permits freedom of speech, that separation comes about by itself." Today, when we read about 17 heads being found in a fruit box near Zarqawi's final bunker, we may reasonably surmise contrarian voices are not welcomed there. Although, our streets are not littered with ghastly symbolic objects, some Americans believe we are besieged by a priestly horde bent upon silencing all dissent. Clearly, our profound differences cannot be explained by telling us Islam is a "religion of peace" and bin Laden, Zawahiri, Zarqawi, Atta, and Bouyeri are aberrations.

With exacting clarity, Burckhardt told us quite the opposite. More than a hundred years ago, Burckhardt told his Swiss students, "modern American men of culture live without consciousness of history" (Judgments on History and Historians). Does anyone seriously believe that George Bush or Ted Kennedy have delved deeply into the course of human history to be better informed in their political judgments that affect so many?

Burckhardt told us, "we must turn back to Islam, with its stranglehold on national feeling and its miserable constitutional and legal system grafted on to religion, beyond which its people never advanced." Burckhardt told us, "Islam has only one form of polity, of necessity despotic, the consummation of power, secular, priestly, and theocratic." (Reflections on History)

Burckhardt continues, "The strongest proof of real, extremely despotic power in Islam is the fact it has been able to invalidate, in such large measure, the entire history … of the peoples converted to it." (Judgments on History and Historians)

Other scholars have studied religion and have formed similar judgments. Most notably, Professor Max Weber studied religion. He told us, "Muhammad constructed the commandment of the holy war involving the subjugation of the unbelievers to political authority and economic domination of the faithful." He continues, "To even a greater extent than the Crusades, religious war for the Muslims was essentially an economic enterprise directed towards the acquisition of large holdings of real estate, because it was primarily oriented to feudal interest in land." Weber spoke about the importance of the belief in predestination for Muslims, and this belief "often produced a complete obliviousness of self, in the interest of faith in and fulfillment of the religious commandment of a holy war for the conquest of the world." Weber told us, "Islam did not confront the ultimate problem of the relationship between religious ethics and secular institutions, which is the fundamental problem of the relation between law and religion." (The Sociology of Religion)

Last, we find the unconventional thoughts of a man who is unsure whether he is an atheist or an agnostic, but whose writings are imprinted with the reflections of a deeply religious man. Professor Bertrand Russell told us, "It was the duty of the [Muslim] faithful to conquer as much of the world as possible for Islam." Russell told us, "The Arabs, although they conquered a great part of the world in the name of a new religion, were not a very religious race; the motives for their conquests was plunder and wealth rather than religion." (The History of Western Philosophy)

However harsh these scholarly judgments may be, their unpleasant truths cannot be trumped by an assertion of peace. Thus it seems, until Islamic nations establish the primacy of the rule of law, and forswear century old religious tenets of conquest and subjugation, Islam cannot claim to be a religion of peace.

Good riddance

2006-06-08T07:37:00.000-04:00

Enjoy the virgins, al-Zarqawi!

Ideas that will work

2006-06-07T11:55:00.000-04:00

The American Thinker has a piece by Herbert E. Meyers which is a pleasure to read and contains ideas that will work.

Cluttered with words

2006-06-07T08:32:00.000-04:00

Today, Austin Bay a distinguished and informed former army officer asks us to engage in "A Forward Strategy."

Bay points out the difficulty President Bush has in sustaining America's waivering and seemingly weakening resolve, so Bush draws upon the closest historical analogy available: the Cold War. All readily admit the weakness of the comparison. Yet we hear, "It's like this, but it's not."

Using our dear colonel as a foil, we find Bay and others, great and small, comparing and contrasting, like freshmen college english students.

When we hear "Islamo-fascism" our eyes glaze over, for we do not know what that means. In a nation that struggles with simple definitions ("It depends on what your definition of is is."), we cannot understand "proactive" diplomacy, for many believe it is a facial cream which explains why Vanessa Williams is so drop-dead gorgeous.

Bay is talking to himself. Bay wades into Heraclitus' stream, struggling against the cascading time that surges about, believing once he crosses into the Land of Reason, his balking companions will join him.

As a learned military man, Bay must recognize the shallowness of his reason to achieve his noble end. David Hume taught us, reason gives rise to no action (A Treatise of Human Nature). War is action.

Bay will be left slogging homeward alone, chilled in his drenched toga, shall he continue to reason a case for war.

"Have your mullah call my mullah."

2006-06-07T04:45:00.000-04:00

If foreign policy or diplomacy is war by other means as Clausewitz aptly stated, we could easily borrow Clemenceau's wry observation and say, "Diplomacy is much too serious a matter to be entrusted to diplomats."

Today, Iran and America are dancing to diplomacy's intoxicating melodies. My preference would be a brace of pistols at 20 paces. Ajax v. Hector. Horatii v. Curiattii. Bush v. Ahmadinejad. Cast the die. Let Zeus hold aloft the scales of justice. Winner take all. "Heads you get nukes, Tails we kick the sh** outta you!" There is great beauty in simplicity.

The dance began long ago. Like Tolstoy's Natasha going to her first ball, Condi is aglow and bejeweled for this courtly ritual; one can but hope that Putin doesn't play the part of Anatoly, and bespoils her charms.

Rambouillet's indispenable housekeeper

2006-06-05T22:23:00.000-04:00

Time to redraw the map of Europe again, and shuffle a few chairs around at the United Nations and in Brussels. Once again, the Balkans have been balkanized. Montenegro declared its independence from the union of Serbia and Montenegro.

Twenty-three centuries ago, Aristotle said a nation should not extend farther than one could see from its highest hilltop -- only think of the nations of Monaco, Liechtenstein, Marino, and the Isle of Man. It appears, Aristotle's distant cousins have taken his message to heart.

The BBC has a timeline of the "dramatic and violent changes" that have occurred since the Yugoslav Federation broke apart in 1990's. The BBC leaves much unsaid. This area was ruled by the Ottoman Empire for almost six centuries. Following the defeat of that Islamic empire by the Allied Powers in the First World War, Yugoslavia was formed; it consisted of 6 federated republics: Bosnia-Hercegovina, Crotia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Slovenia.

We can skip over the Cold War era, when Yugoslavia was a client state of the Soviet Union. We need look back just 15 years ago when ethnic conflict began anew in the Balkans, following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

In 1991, Slovenia and Croatia declared independence; war began in Croatia.

In 1992, Macedonia declared independence; a peace treaty was signed ending the war in Croatia; Bosnia declared independence and war began there between ethnic factions. That same year the Federated Republic of Yugoslavia was reformed consisting of Serbia and Montenegro.

In 1993, war began between Bosnia and Herzegovania. In 1994, the war briefly ended when factions signed a peace treaty but fighting resumed later that year.

In 1995, the Dayton Agreement ended the war between Bosnia and Herzegovania. (Richard Holbrooke's, a secretary with no state, claim to fame.)

In 1998, war began in the Serbian province of Kosovo between ethnic factions.

In 1999, NATO launched a military campaign, which was unsanctioned by the United Nations, against Serbia. General Wesley "McClellan" Clark, NATO Commander, tellingly said "technically, that war was illegal." Eleven weeks of NATO (writ large as American) bombing, Serbia was defeated. And Kosovo became a protectorate under a United Nations' mandate.

In 2004, ethnic violence erupted in Kosovo. In 2006, ethnic violence erupted in Kosovo. Perhaps, we'll be redrawing the map of Europe again soon.

Two international misfits (Madeleine Albright and Richard Holbrooke) have told us repeatedly, prior to, and after our invasion of Iraq, our actions could lead to the balkanization of Iraq. Yet these same multilateral misfits encouraged America to go to war in the Balkans (twice), to prevent the balkanization of the Balkans, which continues unabated to this very day.

From March 1999, we read in International Herald Tribune: "[Albright's] intensive, often improvised, diplomacy raised concerns that her entry into the talks clouded the prospect for settling the civil war ... her performance injected new uncertainties into the situation and sowed doubts about the seriousness of U.S. diplomacy," quoting an unnamed American ambassador in Europe. The IHT quotes conservative critic Robert Zoellick, "she seemed to concentrate hard on tatics, but she lost sight of U.S. strategic goals, and even her tatics seemed imperfectly adapted."

At Rambouillet, Albright's peace initiative consisted of: (1) if Serbs don't agree, we'll bomb 'em, (2) if Albanians don't agree, we'll let the Serbs continue to kill 'em, (3) if neither side agrees, we'll pout 'cuz we can't bomb no one, and (4) if both sides agree, we'll give out scarab broaches to all the peacekeepers that will be sent in.

In a huff, she unleashed the dogs of war, so we bombed Serbia, yet ethnic violence continues, largely unnoticed by Albright and others.

Years ago, I was listening to Don Imus and he said something that cracked me up. Imus was talking about Albright, "Doesn't she look like she should be changin' sheets at a Red Roof Inn?"

Last week Albright was in Europe hawking her newest book. After reading her interview in Der Spiegel, all I could think of: "Why doesn't someone drown that old scarab in a bucket of cold urine?" Yeah, that's rude, but she prattles on about solving problems in Iraq or Iran, yet that old Stubenmadchen never cleaned up any messes.

Who can forget seeing her on CNN running after Arafat like a bitch in heat? Arafat scorned her and her master, and walked off to begin killing more Jews.

All we heard from Albright was: "If we use force, it is because we are America. We are the indispensable nation. We see further into the future."

Today, Albright says, "If the Democrats were still in power, [things] wouldn't be in this kind of shape ... we were bombing pretty heavy in the no-fly-zones. I thought we had Saddam Hussein in a box." (Hey Maddy, he's in a box now, but we call it a prison!)

Burckhardt's conflict

2006-06-05T08:50:00.000-04:00

Professor Jacob Burckhardt taught history at the University of Basel, Switzerland, in the last half of the 19th Century. During his lifetime, Burckhardt witnessed the Revolution of 1848, the unification of Germany and Italy, and the Franco-Prussian War. While he quietly lectured, the Ottoman Empire precariously held sway over much of modern-day Europe.

Some of Burckhardt's lectures may be found in two fine books: Reflections on History and Judgments on History and Historians.

In Reflections on History, Burckhardt discusses the conflict between the "three great powers," the State, the Religion, and the Culture. Burckhardt does not advocate the primacy of any one power in a society or civilization. Simply, Burckhardt analyzes the inherent conflict when one power gains mastery, while the other powers are held in check.

Burckhardt teaches us about the two centuries of bloody confict in Europe to end the Church's mastery over society. Burckhardt harshly criticized Christianity and Judaism.

Burckhardt tells us: "Islam has only one form of polity, of necessity despotic, the consummation of power, secular, priestly, and theocratic...." (Reflections on History)

Burckhardt continues: "While Islam of its very nature brings a certain barbarism in its train ... the gradual extermination of the subject people, creating a satanic pride in the victors, who came to display their utter contempt for human life...." (Reflections on History)

Moreover, Burckhardt tell us: "The strongest proof of real, extremely despotic power in Islam is the fact that it has been able to invalidate, in such large measure, the entire history (customs, religion, previous way of looking at things, earlier imagination) of the peoples converted to it." (Judgment on History and Historians)

Today, in our on-going struggles in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the gathering menace of a nuclear-armed Iran, Burckhardt's harsh criticisms of Islam would not be welcomed by our insular pundits, editorialists, and politicians.

Blue Man speaks

2006-06-05T06:44:00.000-04:00

Given the NY Times' obsession with Abu Ghraib, it is surprising we read about "Iraq's Horrors in Desert Graves."

John Burns writes about the "victims of mass murder." He tells us Blue Man was blindfolded, arms tied behind his back, placed in a trench, and shot. Blue Man is among an estimated 180,000 Iraqis buried in 200 registered mass graves.

It's doubtful weepy Andrew Sullivan and his kind will even mention this story. And if they do, it will only be to remind their readers that George Bush (41) is responsible for ending the Persian Gulf War on the Highway of Death.

Iran's Sarises

2006-06-04T10:14:00.000-04:00

Albert T. Olmstead was a professor of oriental history at the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago. Professor Olmstead spent his life studying the Persian empire. Olmstead's History of the Persian Empire is a vivid narrative of the rise and fall of this Aryan nation.

Today, when I look at pictures of Iran's Ayatollahs (Khamenei or Khomenei), why do I see the scowling faces of men emasculated centuries ago.

Professor Olmstead tells us about the men behind the throne, carrying the cup of power. Often these eunuchs (sarises) are king-makers themselves; and on occasion, they dispatched the king, and ruled in his stead. A cavalacade of them marched through ancient Persian history: Atiyawahy, Aspamitres, Artoxares, Nehemiah, Pharnacyas, Hermeias, and Bagoas.

The story of the eunuch Bagoas is most illuminating. Ochus was emperor of Persia at the end of the 5th Century (423-404 BC). On orders of Bagoas, Ochus was poisoned by an unnamed physician. Bagoas placed on the throne Arses. Two years later, Arses tried to poison Bagoas, but fell victim instead. Bagoas slew all of Arses' children and offered the throne to Darius III, the brother of Artaxerxes II. Later, Bagoas tried to poison Darius, but he was forced to drink the poisoned cup instead. Tellingly, Olmstead says, "Bagoas destroyed the Persian Empire."

Today, the Islamic Republic of Iran is ruled by Mullahs. In 2005, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected the sixth president of the country. During his inauguration ceremony, he kissed Ayatollah Khamenei's hand, the scowling eunuch behind the throne, carrying the cup of power.

Gen J'ers

2006-06-04T08:24:00.000-04:00

Today, Stewart Bell, writing in the National Post, discusses the gathering menance of radicalized Muslims, who are Canadian citizens. These "homegrown" terrorists are generally young, often well educated, and disenfranchised.

Bell discusses a declassified report, by Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), which analyzes this ever increasing and alarming threat. As Bell writes: "Western jihadist youth counterculture is the next phase in the evolution of global terrorism." Bell calls these adherents: Generation Jihad. (I'll coin the term: Gen J'ers!)

Gen J'ers have not been formally commissioned by al-Qaeda, but they show up to the party, in their panel truck full of ammonium nitrate fertilizer and diesel fuel, with hardwired cell phone detonaters, and a laptop wired for WiFi. For them, Canada is just "another battlefield."

Bell tells us, the report points to two causes: (1) a "sense of anger" for what they see as "oppression of Muslims"; and (2) parental influence, "Fathers with extreme Islamic beliefs are raising their children to be extreme believers."

Gen J'ers are difficult to unearth and thwart, for they move easily among their neighbors; and once they are caught, you cannot simply deport them, for they are citizens of the country they want to destroy. (Perhaps, a quick trip to the scaffold of destiny might suffice!)

The mobility of Gen J'ers in Western society makes them highly prized by their international comrades-in-arms.

Bell quotes Canada's Integrated Threat Assessment Center: "radical Islam will continue to appeal to the disenfranchised and those struggling with a personal or spiritual crises."

Madame Jessica is talkin' again

2006-06-03T20:58:00.000-04:00

Recently, Jessica Mathews, president of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP), wrote an editorial for NY Times. Here's my comments to her....

Ms. Mathews, you tell us "A nuclear Iran is dangerous enough, but...." And then you roll out the sad spectacle of the entire Middle East (if not the world) going nuclear. But you don't tell us why you believe that is so?

Given your propensity to listen to Hume's chiming clock and then tell us why things are so, it would be nice if someone at CEIP would tell us why this so. Perhaps, the causal link is one those esoteric, self-evident truths only revealed to like-minded NGO's during afternoon tea at Turtle Bay?

Not long ago, CEIP was crowing on the editorial pages of The Washington Post about how "diplomacy just made the world safer." I'm sure you fondly recall Cirincione's silly commentary. Unaided by Navius' birds, or any pecking hens, I knew he was hip-deep in bilgewater, for his belief defied common sense, which Kant correctly said is our best sense.

The oddest thing about CEIP is their inability to master the obvious.

No where in your commentary do you even closely approach the most fundamental flaw in your reasoning: the economic interests of the Security Council P-5 are not the same. In point of fact, you state something that is untrue when you assert, "the United States needs to make clear that the Security Council can resort to other steps...." Simply stated, Ms. Mathews: that's BS! Perhaps, I slept through the UN meeting when China relinquished its veto power, but the SC cannot do anything without China's agreement.

Beyond dispute, the economic interests of the SC P-5 are sharply divided and nationalistic in nature. We saw that in Balkans, with Russia; we saw that in Iraq, with France and Russia trading blood for oil; we see that in Dafur, with France, again trading blood for oil; and we hear it now regarding Iran, with Russia and China. Plato said "all wars are about economics."

The second fundamental flaw in your reasoning: you steadfastly believe others value things as you do. For two years, CEIP and others have been pushing the GRAND BARGAIN scheme, the "Buy 'em off" strategy. You value money, so you believe others value it equally so. The EU-3 thought that would work with Iran, and CEIP thought that would work. It didn't work with North Korea, and it's not working with Iran. Perhaps, the Iranians don't see LIFE as you do? Has that possibility, and all its ramifications, crossed your mind?

You tell us we need "clear-minded diplomacy," yet CEIP sat there in Kosovo saying the same thing years ago, to what end, Jessica? Are the problems there now, even after a war unsanctioned by the United Nations, carried out by the unilateralism of the Clinton administration's belief that America is "the indispensable nation," vastly different when CEIP was crying out for more "clear-minded diplomacy"? Do we not hear that Platonic Guardianship refrain ("indispensable nation") in your commentary? Clearly, you are drinking from the same poisoned cup as Secretary Albright.

While CEIP talks, Iran's centrifuges are spinning. While CEIP talks, Iran is uncrating some brand, spanking new missiles they just bought from North Korea, who bought them from Russia. While CEIP talks, Iran's president is telling Der Spiegel that Israel needs to go back to Europe, and the Holocaust is speculative history.

For a talker, it seems very odd for you to assert "it is wrong to claim" the NPT "gives [Iran] the 'right' to enrich uranium." Why assert it, Jessica? Quote us Chapter and Verse where it says they're WRONG in believing they have that right? Clearly, Iran has abundant natural uranium deposits, just like oil and natural gas, so why do the Iranians not have the right to process uranium, just as they process crude oil?

Ms. Mathews, this commentary is the product of a shallow and lazy mind. (Mathews is an accomplished scientist with impressive credentials, but there must have been a lab accident, for the poor gal's brains are fried!)

Homegrown terrorists

2006-06-03T19:33:00.000-04:00

On Friday, we read about a police raid in London, one man was shot. The Brits are looking for a "suicide jacket" that pumps poison gas.

Today, we read Canadian police "foiled a homegrown terrorist attack by arresting 17 suspects." These chaps took a page from Timothy McVeigh and they purchased 3 tons of ammonium nitrate. Three times the amount used in destroying the federal building in Oklahoma City. Not surprisingly, two so-called Americans, from Georgia, were involved. All the names released sound like they're Muslims.

This problem is very real, and these folks live among us. And having Grandma Harrison searched at airports by the TSA ain't gonna stop 'em.

A thorny Rose responds....

2006-06-03T07:42:00.000-04:00

Der Spiegel has published commentary by Flemming Rose, the cultural editor of Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that lit the fire of Muslim rage by publishing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed. (No genuflecting, or that "peace" saying, please!)

Rose tells us he once was a seeker of "the utopian state of multicultural bliss." Rose didn't find the Land of Bliss, as a student or as a reporter, in the Soviet Union. Later, Rose was "cured of [his] wooly dreams of idealistic collectivism."

Amusingly, Rose scorns John Lennon's silly song Imagine, for Lennon's false notion that a world without property would be an earthly paradise. (Put away the Bics, Stop swaying, and save our ozone layer!) Sadly, Yoko Ono became a very, very wealthy widow.

Rose is right: Imagine was "stupid" because it ignored a fundamental element of human nature. If a caveman spent hours fashioning a rock into a cutting tool, he was not going to relinquish his new knife to a lazy schmuck that sat there chewing his cud, watching, and waiting for the tool to be given to him, like Gollum expecting to be given a newly discovered ring.

Therein lies the grand fallacy of communism, the notion that a person will freely surrender or relinquish things once they have established by their hard labor that it is theirs. (Locke's 2nd treatise spells this out clearly.) Property of self, family, and things is engrained into our very existence, yet communistic (and to a lesser extent socialistic) creeds pretend this immutable fact is not so. Anyone with a baby, not yet a toddler, has experienced this truth when a sibling tries to remove a valued possession -- the screams do not diminish with age, either. Yet there are many that pretend this isn't true for other, while clinging to those things they possess ever more dearly.

Back to our friend in Denmark: Rose tell us Europe has failed to "grapple realistically" with its immigrant population. Rose points to the false notion of "left wing commentators" who believe that Denmark, and by extension Europe which goes unsaid, is "both racist and Islamophobic."

Rose tells us a "cult of victomology arose" which has been "exploited" by radical European Muslims. Rose asserts Europe may now be the "breeding ground for Islamic terrorism." For he notes that the prophetless Atta (a killer of thousands) and Bouyeri (a killer of one) became "born-again" Muslims after moving to Europe.

Rose points to two problems with Europe's approach to assilimation of their Muslim immigrants: Europe's cultural basis of nationality and its welfare state.

Rose tells us he published the Muhammed cartoons as an "act of inclusion," for Muslims are not above satire, criticism, or reproach.

Rose believes two things must happen in Europe. Without irony, he recommends drawing lessons from the Colonies. (Imagine that? ) Rose says their immigrants need to learn the language and learn to respect Europe's political and cultural traditions. (I assume this is a nice way of saying, "Stop burning Paris and knifing people on the street!") And Europeans must "jettison entrenched notions of blood and soil." (Harken? Do you hear the refrains of Hegel's dogma stamped into the soul of Europe 200 years ago -- that tune will not be easily silenced.)

Viewing Europe's troubles with their immigrant population from afar, we find unsettling things here with our immigrant population.

Recently, we've seen ethnic Hispanics (native-born and otherwise) marching for rights for illegal immigrants in our country. They've been demanding amnesty for those that violated our laws by entering our country illegally. They proudly marched, before the cameras of the world, carrying Mexican flags, which was disrespectul of the average American citizens, and foolhardy in the extreme. Not quickly enough, their public affairs officers told them they should carry a different flag, but that image will not soon fade from our collective conscious as American citizens.

Recently, we've heard about a brawl breaking out in a nail salon in the Boston area. (Perhaps, Teddy Kennedy may want to "grapple" with this reality!) We read one patron became irate because two women were speaking Spanish. Years ago, an irascible old Senior Chief yelled at two young Filipino sailors, "Speak English in my engine room!" What the one nail salon patron felt was what the Senior Chief felt. Summed up nicely as, "You're in this country, so speak the language of this country, or go the f*** back home!"

Rose may point to America as an example for Europeans, but many here point to Europe for so many solutions, most particularly the adoption of Europe's welfare-state approach.

Today, we read in the Washington Times an editorial telling us Google has removed a few conservative websites from its news service, which is the 5th most popular news website, for "hate speech." The Times' editorial tells us Google News cited "articles critizing radical Islam and Islamists" as their reason for dropping these sites, one of which has been restored. The Times speculates that it is Muslims that are complaining about these sites; Google then bows to this political pressure and cowardly drops the sites. (A very plausible explanation.)

But not to worry, Google News will point you to plenty of sites that criticize Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, and Jews; they're just afraid of knifing wielding Muslims that burn things that can not be slashed.

Uhmm.... Perhaps, Google will whack my blog....

Utilitarianism deployed in the Middle East

2006-04-27T13:21:00.000-04:00

The UN Security Council's dead line for Iran to end its enrichment of uranium is set to expire. Predictably, the Permanent 5 (P-5) are split. Russia and China are opposed to sanctions being placed on Iran, so nothing will be done in the Security Council, or in the General Assembly (for that matter).

We read Iran has bought themselves some new toys. Yes indeed, they have some new-old missiles. Russia built them, used them for awhile, and then sold them to North Korea. North Korea modified them to increase their range and payload. North Korea needed newer toys, so they sold their old ones to Iran.

All the while, Israelis are twitching. For they know, Iran's president is whacky. He wants Israel "wiped off the map," or moved to Europe or America. Yet there are some around busy pedantically equivocating about the translation of his words, but the meaning was clear to most, particularly the Israelis.

For years, we've been told if Israel would accomodate the Palestinians, all would be well. It's never been true. Recently, Hamas became the ruling party of Palestine. One terrorist (Arafat) replaced by others, who should be surprised.

Iran's leaders say they need nuclear power plants, so with the help of our friends the Russians they're building them one. Iran is the 4th largest supplier of crude oil in the world, so everyone understands their urgency for deversifying their energy stream, for they can never be sure when they'll have to impose sanctions on themselves for violating UN mandates.

Not long ago, Iran's president crowed ("we joined the nuclear club"), for they had succeeded in enriching U235 to 3.5%, a concentration commonly used in commmerical nuclear reactors. If one digs up a bucket of uranium, 7/10 of 1% of the uranium would be the isotope U235; this is the mostly commonly used fissile isotope, in reactors and bombs.

Then, it's a few spins away from the big bang fuel. Cascaded centrifuges continues the enrichment process until one has the concentration you want or need. The power plant blend (if you will) is generally in the 3-4% range; whereas, bomb grade concentration is >90%. Patience, time, plenty of feedstock, and abundant electrical power for running all those centrifuges is all one needs.

Good news is Iran has plenty of crude oil for burning to make electrical power, so they can make as much weapons grade fuel they want or need. More good news, Iran has plenty of uranium feedstock.

An aside: the Candians have a passion for natural uranium-graphite reactors (CANDUs); I've yet to hear anyone ask the Iranians what's wrong with that reactor design.

Iran is in race with Europe and America, with Israel twitching on the sidelines, but Europe is hobbled in the blocks. Iran knows their enemy. They know what Israel did to Iraq's reactor. Unlike Osirak, one well aimed bolt will not slay the Persian beast.

Not long ago, Jacques Chirac woke up, realized it was unlikely that Bush would nuke Paris, and remembered where the real threat was, for he reminded the Iranians the French have nuclear weapons and they would defend their country.

My guess is Iran's president chuckled at that far-fetched and silly notion, for everyone knows the French love surrendering Paris. As many historians have noted the character of a nation's people is steadfast and true; therefore, it defies common sense to believe the French have changed. After all, two thousand years ago, Livy told us that Hannibal said the French (Gauls) were perfidious by nature (The Early History of Rome). Five hundred years ago, Machiavelli told us French were no better than women in war (The Discourses). Nah, the Iranians are not worried about what the French say. It seems the French left their royal jewels (testes) in Moscow some years ago.

The Iranians are only worried about two countries, oil thirsty Americans and twitching Israelis. In spite of huge international pressure objecting to our invasion of Iraq in 2003, we did. Three years later, Americans troops are still there fighting and dying.

Yes indeed, a race is being run, whether Joe Six Pack or Jacques Croissant knows it. As the Iranians know, once a country has nuclear weapons, actions by others become very limited. The world community did nothing about India or Pakistan, and the world community has done nothing about North Korea. Knowing all this, Iran's centrifuges are spinning 24-7, regardless of what they say to the contrary.

Many commentators talk about tin-horn dictators and that one pivotal moment when the tyrant could have been stopped. The Europeans missed their chance with Hilter. The Americans missed that moment in the Persian Gulf War, when we stopped on the Highway of Death.

Now, we have another moment of import. While we decide, Israel twitches. For they've got jets and dozens of nuclear weapons, or that is what everyone (including me) believes -- some say they have 200 nuclear weapons. They probably have some of the "Crowd Pleasers" (high yield), as the Broken Arrow co-pilot quipped.

Back to the point, something will happen, and no one knows what. Does history repeat? Nah! Heraclitus' stream gurgles ever onward. But each time we step into it, even at the same place, we're always looking for that one rock that shifts under our weight, and tumbles us in, to be washed away by the surging current of change. Me, I would like to avoid the cold bath of 50 million dead as we saw in WWII.

Distances are short. Tehran to London is 2800 miles. Iran's newest missiles only has a range of 1500 miles, so London's safe (for the moment). So is Paris (2600 miles). So is Berlin (2300 miles). So is Rome (2100 miles). Iran's friends, Moscow is within the range of the missiles they made (1500 miles). My guess, that's one P-5 they can count on while they run their race.

DC to Los Angeles is 2700 miles. DC to Caracas is 22oo miles. Who among us wants Hugo Chavez to get his hands on a couple of those missiles? Even if they're not nuclear tipped? Does anyone believe Chavez wouldn't buy them if they were for sell?

The EU-3 shot their bolt last year with Iran. They're not going to do nothing until it's too late. It's hard to imagine our country doing anything, for we're a long way away from Tehran, and we've grown weary of Iraqis.

Secretary Albright has resigned herself to a nuclear armed Iran, and she's not alone.

Look at the spineless EU-3. If they were honest, they would admit they don't give a crap about a bunch of Jews; there's so few European Jews, but there are millions of Muslims in Europe, not to be confused with European Muslims. Europeans know mad European Jews will not brutally slaughter them in the beds, or while they walk down the street. But they fear Muslims in their midst, for they know what they've done to those they don't like or respect. Europe should speak the truth and be done with it, they should say "Jews go away!" for that would lessen their headaches and they could sit back and watch the World Cup games, while cursing Americans for not understanding world affairs.

Our country is not very different, but it's a different kettle of fish here. Look at American Jews, they are among the most vocal critics of Israel. For many of them, I'd hazard to say the majority of them, they'd give away all but Wailing Wall -- they must maintain the illusion they haven't abandon the land God gave to them, but they're practiced in the art of self-deception and denial. In our country, historically they support politicians that say much and do little about protecting Israel. Their love affair with Bill Clinton proved that. Clinton talked much, he bit his lip, and pushed Barak (who was only to willing to comply) to give up large areas of their country. So they say now, if only Arafat had wanted peace.

Meanwhile, very few are saying what is painfully true: Muslims do not accept the concept of Israel. It seems here, only Christians and so-called "neo-Con" American Jews support the State of Israel and its right to exist in its historical homeland.

One day we will hear the practical relativist says, "Let 'em have the bomb. What the heck, we can't kill a billion Muslims because of 20 millions Jews, can we?"

One day we will hear the practical Social Darwinists say, "Survival of the fittiest, that's my motto. If the Jews can't take a nuke and keep on tickin ... well they were meant to go the way of the dinosaur. Hey Schumyboxer, did you see this here? There's only 20,000 cheetahs left nowadays, we need to do something about that."

Lest we forget....

2006-03-25T10:06:00.000-05:00

Hannah Arendt observed "modern antisemitism grew in proportion as traditional nationalism declined."

Arendt pointed to an observation made by Alexis de Tocqueville regarding human nature. de Tocqueville's study of the French Revolution is as revealing as his study of our democracy.

In Arendt's formulation, "neither opression or exploitation as such is ever the cause for resentment; wealth without visible function is much more intolerable because nobody can understand why it is tolerated." (The Origins of Totalitarianism)

Does this describe our country today? Wealth without purpose? without function?

How many times have we heard Thomas Pecksniff Friedman tell us just the opposite? How many times has Friedman written the word "humiliation" in his commentary to explain the difficulties in the Middle East?

In Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov has a "fearful dream" about a powerless "peasant's nag," yoked to a wagon it cannot budge, which is beaten to death by an angry mob of brutal drunks. Is that horrible imagery so very different from Arendt's description of why the French nobility was slaughtered in droves?

Who does not disdain a cowering, wimpering dog?

Third Birthdays

2006-01-16T21:00:00.000-05:00

A story as old as the Bible is told anew.

On Saturday night, Bridgett called because Jacob wanted to talk to me. She mentioned that Jacob had been talking about "turning 3 years old" and that he "wants to go to Chuck-E-Cheese." She told me she wasn't going to have his birthday party there because "it's too expensive," but she would "take him to Chuck-E-Cheese next week or something." I didn't say anything, but something gnawed at me.

It all came together tonight. I awoke from a dream; I understood what gnawed upon me. I got up to pen these thoughts.

On June 13, 2002, Myles turned 3 years old. Bridgett and I had been dating for a few months. I recall us driving around while she talked about Myles' second birthday party. She's a fanatic about birthday parties -- it was something I never understood.

Bridgett told me about how much money she had spent on Myles' second birthday party. If memory serves, she rented an expensive Buzz Lightyear outfit. She'll tell you, she loves birthday parties. Even in remembrance, Bridgett was animated by the joy Myles felt.

As we rode around in her Suzuki, she told me about how Myles had eaten his cake, by grabbing handfuls and stuffing it into his mouth, and then just burying his face into the cake to gorge. She has pictures of his face smeared with bluish-green icing.

Bridgett was happy planning his third birthday party. She was excited thinking about the joy Myles would experience. For Myles' party, she had it at Chuck-E-Cheese in Lawrence. The same place we took Myles and Jacob to a half-dozen times later; and the same place, I took Jacob to after our divorce, when I visited him.

Myles' party probably cost her $10-15 per person. The McGinnis clan was there, Tina showed up sans children (as I recall), Margie was there, Marty didn't show up because of me, the Lairds showed up, and some others showed up but I don't recall their names. I recall Bridgett was bitter that many of her friends (like Robyn) and Myles' friends from day care didn't show up.

Later, her friends wouldn't show up for her thirtieth birthday party either. For that party, I watched Myles and Jacob, so she could go out and play with friends that wouldn't show up. Ask her, she'll tell you how angry and bitter she was.

Anyway, Bridgett was surprised when I told her I would go. She knew I didn't want anything to do with Jamie, for I was jealous of their past relationship and their on-going friendship. But I went. I don't recall Jamie showing up.

I spent most of my time watching or staying with Myles; he had a grand time running from one end of the place to the other. He enjoyed dancing in front of the camera, so he could see himself on the projected display, or dancing with the animated band of critters playing oft-repeated songs. Most of all Myles enjoyed darting about. He was very happy. We were happy for him. Afterwards, I recall hauling bundles of presents (Bridgett called it "loot") to her car.

When Myles turned 3 years old, Bridgett was working as a secretary making roughly $14 per hour. My guess is, she spent over half her weekly take home pay on Myles' party. Jacob turns 3 years old on February 12th.

On Saturday night, she told me Jacob talks about his upcoming birthday. Jacob told Bridgett what he wanted to do for his birthday. But Bridgett is not going to do that because "it's too expensive." Six months after I paid her fifty thousand dollars, she tells me what our son wants to do for his third birthday party is "too expensive."

More than once, Bridgett said to me, "With Myles it was different … it was special … it was all new." She was talking about giving birth to both her sons.

When she reads these things, it will hurt her feelings, she'll become incensed with indignation, and she'll lash out. I do not care about her pain, for I have had plenty of my own to shed.

Along about this time, Bridgett moved to Portsmouth. I was staying in Greenland. When we found out she was pregnant, I rented and furnished a house for her. I didn't stay there. I thought it was inappropriate for Myles' sake for us to be living together, while we were not married, even though she was pregnant with my child. Truth be told, Myles didn't want me there.

Even before Jacob was born, I told her, "You'll always favor Myles." She hated me for saying that.

Later, I recall her reading the Bible. She told me the story of biblical Jacob.

Esau and Jacob were Isaac's children. They were twins. Esau was the first-born. He thrust his arm from the womb, and a string was tied to his wrist to identify him as such. Later, Esau sold his birth right to Jacob for a bowl of stew. Much later, Jacob tricked their father into bestowing upon him the blessing Isaac intended to give Esau.

Later still, Jacob favored his youngest son, Joseph. His brothers sold Joseph into slavery. The brothers deceived Jacob by faking Joseph's death, for they were jealous of their father's devotion to their youngest brother.

Bridgett has told me on many occasions, "I'm like my father." And if you ask her, she will tell you -- and the bitterness of pain remembered resonates in her words -- how her father "favored Eddie over me."

As she tells it, Marty favored Eddie. Bridgett is like the one person she tells all she's like. Therefore, it was reasonable to conclude that Bridgett would favor one too. She always hated my reasoning.

Isaac favored Esau. Jacob favored Joseph. Marty favored Eddie. Bridgett favors Myles.

Myles' third birthday party was expensive and held at Chuck-E-Cheese. Jacob's third birthday party will be at her place, for what he wants is "too expensive."

You say, "Harrison, you proved nothing with this fable."

Perhaps, one day I'll tell you the story I call "Mommy's Special Time." It's a wee story about two half-brothers. The older brother was taken to the amusement park, the lake, and the theatre, while the younger brother was taken to Wal*Mart.

Perhaps, one day I'll tell you the story I call "Two Fathers." It's a longer story -- its end is yet untold -- about a mother of two half-brothers. Their mother never interferes with her older son's relationship with his father; whereas for her younger son, she often did intrude, so she could exact her vengeance and to give vent to her malice and hatred of his father.

And oh yes, I have quite a tale of Jacob's second birthday party too. It's a quaint story I call "Melusine." But I'll save that one for another day.

Jacob is my first and only born, and I favor him. My blessings are on him, forever and always.

Del Anthony Harrison
January 16, 2006

Southern man

2006-01-16T10:12:00.000-05:00

In 1831, Alexis de Tocqueville and Gustave de Beaumont traveled to the United States to see a "great republic." de Tocqueville's magnus opus Democracy in America is a testament to the greatness of our nation.

de Tocqueville writes:

the prejudice of race appears to be stronger in the states that have abolished slavery than in those where it still exists; and nowhere is it so intolerant as in those states where servitude has never been known (emphasis added).

In the South, where slavery still exists, the Negroes are less carefully kept apart; they sometimes share the labors and the recreations of the whites; the whites consent to intermix with them to a certain extent, and although legislation treats them more harshly, the habits of the people are more tolerant and compassionate. In the South the master is not afraid to raise his slave to his own standing, because he knows that he can in a moment reduce him to the dust at pleasure. In the North the white no longer distinctly perceives the barrier that separates him from the degraded race, and he shuns the Negro with the more pertinacity since he fears lest they should some day be confounded together (emphasis added).

Time passed. Christian conservatives lead the way. 600,000 Americans died during 5 years of bloody war to end slavery. A Republican president charted our course.

Time passed. Jim Crow. Plessey v. Ferguson. Southern Democrats institutionalized segregation by passing laws. The Supreme Court upheld those laws and created "super-precedents," which Senator Specter worships. Neil Young sings in Southern Man:

Southern man
better keep your head
Don't forget
what your good book said
Southern change
gonna come at last
Now your crosses
are burning fast
Southern man

I saw cotton
and I saw black
Tall white mansions
and little shacks.
Southern man
when will you
pay them back?
I heard screamin'
and bullwhips cracking
How long? How long?

Southern man
better keep your head
Don't forget
what your good book said
Southern change
gonna come at last
Now your crosses
are burning fast
Southern man

Lily Belle,
your hair is golden brown
I've seen your black man
comin' round
Swear by God
I'm gonna cut him down!
I heard screamin'
and bullwhips cracking
How long? How long?

Time passed. A Southern preacher lead the way. In 1963, Martin Luther King, Jr., stood in the shadows of a fallen American and poured out his soul. In his speech, "I Have a Dream," King told us:

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal." I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a desert state, sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.

Four and half years later, another great American was slain. But their words live on.

Southerners responded to Young's criticism. Lynyrd Skynyrd sang in "Sweet Home Alabama,"

Well I heard mister Young sing about her
Well, I heard ole Neil put her down
Well, I hope Neil Young will remember
A Southern man don't need him around anyhow

I was born in the South. I went to college in the South. I lived more than half my life in the South. Even though I live in a Border State, I will always think of myself as a Southerner. A few years ago, work took me to the North. There I observed the truism of de Tocqueville's observations eight score years later. Some of the most blantantly racist people I have ever known live in a state where only 0.7% of the population is black.

I say, Amen, Ronnie. Neil, up yours!

Right Answer, Wrong Reason

2006-01-16T08:41:00.000-05:00

Yet again, Dionne Micawber proves what Plato demonstrated long ago, it is quite possible to arrive at the right place by traveling in the wrong direction.

Dionne tells us the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy is "wrong and stupid." Three hundred years ago, John Locke taught us, knowledge is derived from experience. As we all know, Dionne has never served in the military, thus we may conclude his reasoning is equally "wrong and stupid," for it is based on nothing but unfiltered emotions.

Unlike Dionne the Communitarian, I did my time, but Dionne's communal spirit has never required that he sacrifice himself for the defense of his neighbors. In the 1970's, I made 6 patrols on a fleet ballistic missile submarine (USS BENJAMIN FRANKLIN SSBN 640). I know what it is like being in close quarters -- underwater with more than 100 men for as many as 72 days on patrol without surfacing to see the sun, breath fresh air, or to gaze upon those that enflames the natural passions, of healthy, virile men in the prime of their lives.

The last thing we needed to concern ourselves with was the sexual proclivities of our shipmates, either officer or enlisted.

One evening, while I was stationed in California at Mare Island attending the Navy's Nuclear Power School, a classmate of mine told me he had announced his sexual preference, and he was being discharged. He was very confused and relieved, I felt sorry for him. I had no idea he was "gay" until he told me he was. I didn't care about his preference, and I didn't want to know about it either, he was the first person to my knowledge that I had ever meet that was "gay."

Five years later, I was hurriedly re-assigned to another boat (USS BLUEFISH SSN 675). Three of us were flown from Norfolk to Italy to join this boat. I recall the clerks processing my travel orders joking about sending me to the "Blowfish." At the time, I thought they were telling me it was a crappy command.

The boat pulled into La Maddalena, a small island off the coast of Sardinia, to pick up the three of us, plus fruit, vegetables, milk, and mail; once food and men were aboard the boat, we steamed back out to finish its patrol assignment.

I'll never forget it. Soon after getting onboard, I met with the Executive Officer, he told me the story about these chaps getting busted for pot and then claiming they were "gay." The XO even showed me their bag of dope, for he had it stored in his built-in desk safe. These chaps were heading stateside to be processed out of the Navy.

These chaps used the policy, for they knew they would probably get re-assigned to some crummy duty station for their drug offense. At the time, it was not uncommon for sailors to get busted for drugs. After being on patrol for weeks, often the first night in port people became disorderly with the re-discovered freedom of living as normal people do. We all knew someone that got busted or heard stories about other "bubbleheads" getting busted and sent to an Oiler heading for Diego Garcia, to be off-loaded with the diesel fuel to serve out their enlistment, which was often years away.

What Dionne Micawber doesn't know is: a person's sexual preference matters not one jot or tittle when you are serving onboard a fleet ballistic submarine carrying enough nuclear weapons to destroy one's enemy. The only thing that matters is whether they are willing to execute the orders of our Commander-in-Chief. Whether Tom likes Sally or Dick matters not.

Only "busybodies" (Plato's term of art ) like Dionne think they know best about matters they know nothing about. As usual, Dionne's reasoning is the product of a shallow and lazy mind.

My sexual preference is no one business but my own, and I have no desire or need to know what another person's sexual preferences are. Given the complicated nature of human existence, the policy is wise and prudent promotes unit cohesion, which is vital when one is sent out to be the instrument of death, destruction, and mayhem the likes of which the world has never seen.

Blinded by science

2006-01-15T19:27:00.000-05:00

Today, the WaPo has an interesting article on fraudelent scientific research. The article states last year 265 claims were filed with the Office of Research Integrity (ORI).

How many of us would even have thought there was a federal agency that existed for dealing with such a "relatively rare" thing?

What brought this into focus was the reports last month that a South Korean scientist had faked his data on cloning stem cells. Recently, the chap confessed, while blaming others -- Bill Clinton probably chuckled knowingly, while biting his scarred lower lip.

The Post's article highlights some good ones:

Last year, a University of Vermont nutrition researcher who had millions of dollars in federal grants pleaded guilty to faking research on menopause and aging.

In the 1990s, scientists at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory falsely claimed they had discovered two atomic elements. In the 1980s there was John Darsee, the Harvard cardiologist who filled more than 100 journal articles with phony data.
And virtually every scientist today knows of William Summerlin, the brazen Memorial Sloan-Kettering scientist who in the 1970s blackened his white mice with a permanent marker to make it look as if skin transplants from black mice had been successful.
Even Gregor Mendel, the revered Austrian monk, is today widely believed to have cooked his numbers and not just his peas, which he used to derive the principles of modern genetics.
Last October, ORI concluded that Xiaowu Li of the University of California at San Francisco falsified three images in a published paper by using old photos of mouse melanoma cells and saying they were human pancreatic cancer cells.
Last June, ORI found that Jason W. Lilly of the Boyce Thompson Institute at Cornell University electronically replicated the image of a single genetic assay and then altered the copies so they would appear to be multiple assays.
In November 2004, ORI found that Ali Sultan of the Harvard School of Public Health plagiarized from another researcher's work and, when he came under suspicion, fabricated portions of an e-mail from his postdoctoral student in an apparent effort to falsely implicate the student.
In September 2004, ORI determined that Charles N. Rudick of Northwestern University used a photo-altering program to change the appearance of recorded nerve signals.

The one that surprised me that was left out was Pons-Fleischmann's cold fusion reactor in the mason jar and the researcher at MIT that "confirmed" their results. But I guess that wasn't an ORI case.

A long year has passed

2006-01-15T19:11:00.000-05:00

I sat on the sidelines last year. Changes in my personal life made my efforts here meaningless. I tried to affectuate an interest in the doings of the body politic, but I couldn't.

Snapshot of CY05: separation, new career, new state, new divorce, and traveling to see my son.

It's time to dust off the Blog.

Dear Jacob,

2005-08-13T19:46:00.000-04:00

My dear son, much time has passed, and many pivotal events have transpired that will affect your life in ways that your mother and I will never fully comprehend.

One day when you read this, I hope you're not looking for answers, for I have none. Like you, I only have questions.

Socrates spoke truly when he told us an unexamined life is not worth living. Examing my life tells me: you are the reason I existed. For without you, there would have been a void in the this world. My love for you sustains my life. And I miss you more than I can say.

My hope is: you will forgive me for all the hurt I have caused you, and all the things I have missed as you have lived your life.

With all my love,
Daddy

Beginning to End

2005-07-05T20:06:00.000-04:00

Lies told too many to count,
Affairs of deceipt crept about,
Used from beginning to end no doubt.

Troll-like in a basement she huddled,
Small child and large debt all muddled,
"Safe" and "comfortable" was I uncuddled.

Margie asks, "So what are you going to do,
When Bridgett divorces you?"
Jacob perch'd on knee nothin' knew.

From kitchen Marty says, "Stay out of it!"
Jacob perch'd on knee untroubled nary a bit,
"Happy birthday, son! Your party's a hit."

Then and Now

2005-03-12T19:19:00.000-05:00

There is a void, a gap, a hiatus, an emptiness,
Then and now.

We did, we made, we tried, we stopped,
Yesterday and tomorrow.

In my dream, I dream I am dreaming,
Perception or reality.

He's fifty and I am two, when I touch his hair,
I want to cry.

Exhausted and weary, I long for sleep....

Dionne Macawber

2004-11-26T05:22:00.000-05:00

EJ Dionne takes to the pulpit to lecture Americans on "gratitude," for he assumes we lack this "virture." Oddly, Dionne believes that "conservatives" do not understand why we form civil society, so he tells us the "self-made person" is a fiction, as if we thought otherwise.

Dionne wimpers on about the "politics of gratitude" and resurgence of "bleeding-heart liberalism." Dionne's menstraul whine made my eyes glaze over. Dionne Macawber kept writing in the hope he might actually write something worth reading.

Dionne wept. For he "can't know exactly where God would stand on [the] question" of the "politics of gratitude," which makes one wonder if Dionne knows where God stands on less weighty matter, for example: partial-birth abortion?

Dionne wept. For his Demopals "are casting about for new ideas that would demonstrate their 'moral values.'" Perhaps, when Dionne Micawber realizes our "customs and traditions that promote prosperity," also promote Life and do not promote same-sex marriage, he'll not have to cast about to prove to himself and others that his "moral" values are worth being grateful for.

Robert Kagan's "Power and Weakness"

2004-11-15T15:15:00.000-05:00

In Kagan's essay, "Power and Weakness," he offers his views on the differences between Europe and the United States and offers solutions to the growing divide in the Atlantic alliance. In summary, much of Kagan's narrative is persuasive; however, his conclusions and recommendations are wearily inadequate for an 11,000 word essay.

Kagan begins by referencing Kant's essay "Perpetual Peace." He liberally applies this thematic mortar to the washed out courses of a dysfunctional edifice being renovated by febrile bureaucrats. Without irony, Kagan writes "Europeans have a new mission born of their own discovery of perpetual peace."

Clearly, Kant recognized the folly of his utopian endeavor, for only a "theorist" could play a "game" far removed from the "empirical" world of practical politics. In keeping with Kant's "secret article" principle, we should consult with others, as Kagan has done by invoking popular Hegelianism made fashionable again by Fukuyama.

In the Philosophy of Right, Hegel scoffed at Kant's notion of "perpetual peace." Hegel's beliefs may be roundly criticized for much, but his understanding of practical politics exceeds Kant's Dutch innkeeper's signage view of the world.

The essence of Kagan's essay is "the most important reason for the divergence in views between Europe and the United States. America’s power, and its willingness to exercise that power — unilaterally if necessary — represents a threat to Europe’s new sense of mission. Perhaps the greatest threat ... [and] Europe does not see a mission for itself that requires power. Its mission is to oppose power."

If Kagan is correct, Europeans have forgotten 24 centuries of political discourse they pride themselves on having bestowed upon Western civilization. More importantly, if Kagan is correct, it tells us European reasoning is critically flawed, for it defies common sense to believe that political power can be opposed by the powerless.

When one read Kagan's sad narrative of Europe, one is reminded of Hegel's discussion of the cleansing nature of war on a state, for he observed "their freedom has died from the fear of dying," and evidence abounds that this debilitating malady hobbles all Europe does.

Oddly, Kagan notes "the new Europe really has emerged as a paradise." Europe is many things, but a democratic "paradise" it is not, for we know only 10 of 25 Member States of the EU will allow their citizens to vote on the ratification of the recently signed EU Constitution.

Strangely, Kagan makes repeated references to the notion of a "Hobbesian world." Fifty years after Hobbes offered us his world view, Hume taught us it was a "philosophical fiction" that "never existed." Two hundred years later, Kagan continues to espouse this same "philosophical fiction."

Kagan correctly notes Kant's problem with establishing a “state of universal peace” required "world government," and Kant was acutely aware it might pose a "greater threat to human freedom ...[than] the most horrible despotism."

Kagan asserts the United States solved this problem for Europe. Kagan seemingly believes the rapacious human spirit that drove Europe to ruinous wars of conquest, through much of its modern history, has dissipated in their dotage, or he believes none shall follow on trails blazed by their forebearers, as if Napoleon and Hitler were not inspired by Alexander and Caesar.

Kagan states "By providing security from outside, the United States has rendered it unnecessary for Europe’s supranational government to provide it. Europeans did not need power to achieve peace and they do not need power to preserve it." The short-sightedness of this notion is staggeringly childlike in simplicity. And this notion is clearly contradicted by two Balkans wars in the 1990's. President Clinton reminded us that Princip shot two people and millions died. KFOR reminds us 5 years after the Kosovo War elections were just held, "without significant acts of violence," and with "very low participation [by] Kosovar Serbs." Beyond dispute, Balkan insecurity still plagues Europe.

Kagan closing is extremely weak. One gets a sense Kagan was exhausted by his effort to describe a problem he does not fully understand. Kagan writes, "It would be better still if Europeans could move beyond fear and anger at the rogue colossus." For the United States, Kagan tells us we should:

"show more understanding for the sensibilities of others, a little generosity of spirit. It could pay its respects to multilateralism and the rule of law and try to build some international political capital for those moments when multilateralism is impossible and unilateral action unavoidable. It could, in short, take more care to show what the founders called a 'decent respect for the opinion of mankind.'"

In Lord Bertrand Russell's The History of Western Philosophy, he concluded his discussion of Hegel with a criticism, which aptly characterizes Kagan's reasoning. Russell wrote, "This illustrates an important truth, namely, that the worse your logic, the more interesting the consequences to which it gives rise."

Inability to master the obvious

2004-11-15T06:38:00.000-05:00

November 7th, Friedman told us: "after the collapse of the Camp David talks, that no deal was possible with Arafat" and "he never had the courage to tell them the truth: 'Palestine will have to be divided with the Jews forever.'"

November 14th, Friedman tells us "Arafat preferred to die ... rather than sacrifice his popularity...." Then Friedman continues his babbling about a "psychological breakthrough with the Arab world."

In more than one editorial, we've read 'Sniff Friedman analyzing "hot, sweaty, humiliated, grenade tossing" Iraqis, but Friedman has never asked his Saddam question about Arafat. On November 11th, Friedman asks (once again): "Is Iraq [Palestine] the way Iraq [Palestine] is because Saddam [Arafat] was the way Saddam [Arafat] was, or was Saddam [Arafat] the way Saddam [Arafat] was because Iraqis [Palestinians] are the way they are?"

'Sniff talks about the "the truth" the Palestinians need to hear, but that "truth" has existed only as long as the modern State of Israel. How many wars have Muslims fought to end the "the truth" that Friedman believes must last "forever"?

In 2000, Arafat walked away from Camp David, the al-Aqsa intifada began, because Arafat and his followers never accepted Friedman's everlasting "truth."

On January 2, 2001, Dennis Ross, sat with President Clinton and Chairman Arafat, told us Arafat "was never serious about making a peace deal at Camp David."

It defies common sense to believe, as 'Sniff Friedman and so many others do, that Palestinians, who send their children out to blow themselves and others up, will accept the notion of the State of Israel, even if they sign a piece of paper affirming their belief in the concept.

Kristof is armed

2004-11-13T06:15:00.000-05:00

One of my favorites is Nicholas Kristof. Not because I agree with him, but because I don't.

The other day he was crying about "freedom of the press" and pleading to China for help. Not so long ago, he was running around looking for Osama bin Laden. He's a regular tongue-in-cheek kinda guy.

Today, he's telling his like-minded pals: "gun-control efforts have been a catastrophe for Democrats ... [and] accept that handguns are part of the American landscape."

Kristof tells us "15 children under the age of 5 die annually in fatal gun accidents in the U.S., along with 18 children 5 to 9 years old." However grim those facts are (33 children will die), how does that compare to the 1.3 million abortions that will be performed this year? or just the 450-5000 partial-birth abortions that will be performed this year?

Until, Democrats can explain why they shed tears for the few, while they march to ensure that thousands are still slaughtered, they will continue to be overwhelmed by the wisdom the American people on election day.

Centralized Interlocutor Agency

2004-11-13T01:54:00.000-05:00

In the Washington Post, we read CIA senior staff is acting like a bunch of ill-tempered children.

Setting aside their widely reported failures regarding 9/11 and WMD in Iraq, we have others:

The CIA didn't see the Soviet Union collapse till they watched it on CNN.

The CIA didn't see North Korea ability to launch a multi-stage rocket.

The CIA didn't know where the Chinese embassy was in Belgrade, so it got bombed during the Kosovo War.

The CIA didn't see the Iranian revolution or Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.

The CIA didn't see India or Pakistan becoming members of the nuclear weapons club, nor did the CIA know South Africa had nuclear weapons until they announced they were doing away with them.

They're apparently too busy talking to reporters to do their job, so we shouldn't blame them for their lack of intelligence.

Dowdily Friedman

2004-11-11T08:07:00.000-05:00

Pecksniff Friedman continued his Dowdily wailing on Imus' radio show. On Imus, 'Sniff shabbily told us Abu Ghraib "happened" because we had poor intelligence, so "we tried to beat it out of 'em."

Few things are sillier than NY Times writers crying about Iraqi POW abuses when they live in a city where 5 women are raped and 1 person is murdered every day, and they utter not one word of complaint.

If it's any consolation to 'Sniff, in all likelihood, there are some Red Staters traveling from the WTC site to their airport, and they're hoping they'll not be victimized by the terrorists that commit 50 violent crimes each and every day in banefully blue NYC.

'Sniff Friedman remembers "20 months ago" so well, but he doesn't seem to recall what he wrote on September 13, 2001. While sitting in Jerusalem, 'Sniff wrote that 9/11 was the opening salvo in "World War III" and "it means there is a long, long war ahead." (As Aristotle wryly observed, "is" means many things.)

Fifty months ago, looking at the rubble of the WTC on CNN, 'Sniff asked many questions, but he's never answered any of those questions in the intravening months. Today, 'Sniff asks six more superfluous questions, as if world events are foreordained based on our ability to untie 'Sniff's Gordian knot. (Truly, Dickens' Pecksniff captures Friedman's essence.)

One thing we've learned in "20 months" is: Friedman has not grown any wiser. Long before Operation Iraqi Freedom, long before September 11th, Friedman worshiped the transformative secular creed of "neo-liberalism."

How many times have we heard 'Sniff tell us "globalization" would solve Third World problems? or would lead to democracy in China? or wars are not fought between Big Mac nations to prove his notional theory? Clearly, Friedman does not understand David Hume's chiming clock theory of causation.

In 1996, Professor Samuel Huntington, Clash of Civilization, scorned the "Davos culture" imprinted into Friedman's commentary. Huntington wrote: "The evidence simply does not support the liberal, internationalist assumption that commerce promotes peace." (Searching Friedman's Times page, we get 19 hits on "davos" and 125 hits on "globalization" -- we are what we write.)

How many times have we heard Friedman rationalize "Arab streets" behavior (e.g., jumping for joy when the WTC was destroyed, or Iraqis tossing grenades at American troops) because they were "humiliated"? (Searching Friedman's Times page for "humiliated" we get 10 hits.)

How often has 'Sniff told us "culture matters" for others, while forgetting it's equally true about Americans? Didn't we hear 'Sniff's "Two Nations" whine about Red Staters (and some very Blue ones) believing that same-sex marriage should be banned?

Has Friedman forgotten sitting in Jerusalem, on September 11, 2003, when he realized how weak the neck muscles were, for suicide bombers' heads are "blown straight up," and then he had his epiphany that culture really matters? But in 'Sniff post-election wailing, we heard him gnashing his teeth that many Americans object to the notion that abortions should be as readily available as Chinese take-out.

Since Saddam Hussein's statue fell "20 months ago," how many times has 'Sniff shed tears for the half-million Iraqis that were butchered by Saddam's tyrannical regime? (Searching Friedman's Times page for "mass graves" we get 4 hits; whereas, Searching Friedman's Times page for "abu ghraib" we get 6 hits.)

Nothing proves Friedman's cluelessness regarding Iraq more so than 'Sniff's Question 2 answer ("we are still at least two divisions short in Iraq") and his Question 5 quote ("We have never been able to persuade Iraqis that we aren't there for the oil."). Are we to believe more American troops will convince the Iraqis we're not there for their oil?

At the end of October, the European Union Commissioners signed their constitution, but only 10 of 25 Member States will allow their citizens to vote on its ratification. Will 'Sniff be surprised when Bush stands for the "group shot" with the German Chancellor, one of the countries that will not allow its citizen to vote for its ratification?

Here's an idea, 'Sniff: go back and answer the questions you asked yourself 4 years ago, then we'll talk about answering your latest batch meaningless questions.

You've gotta love Zell

2004-11-10T14:03:00.000-05:00

Senator Zell Miller rocked NYC during the Republican convention. Afterwards, he wrangled with Chris Matthews.

Yesterday, Zell laced Dullard Dowd, "The more Maureen Loud [sic] gets on 'Meet the Press' and writes those columns, the redder these states get. I mean, they don't want some high brow hussy from New York City explaining to them that they're id iots and telling them that they're stupid." Dullard tartly responded: "I'm not a highbrow hussy from New York. I'm a highbrow hussy from Washington. Senator, pistols or swords?"

(Mo', you ain't even highbrow.)

Smiley's Rousseauvian mistake

2004-11-10T09:10:00.000-05:00

Until this week, I'd never heard of Jane Smiley. But in the aftermath of the election, her wailing voice of unreason crossed my desk, and her commentary may be read here.

Smiley says: "The election results reflect the decision of the right wing to cultivate and exploit ignorance in the citizenry ... They know who they are—they are full of original sin and they have a taste for violence." (I can live with that.)

Smiley tells us her Blue State like-minded pals, they "[made] the Rousseauvian mistake of thinking humans are essentially good, and so they never realize when they are about to be slugged from behind."

Smiley invokes Rousseau's name, so Slate's readers might mistakenly believes she's an Intellectual. Indeed, Rousseau's essay (Discourse on Inequality) advanced the notion that "man is naturally good, and only by his institutions is he made bad."

Interestingly, Lord Bertrand Russell (History of Western Philosophy) devotes a whole chapter to Rousseau. Russell tells us, "Hitler is an outcome of Rousseau; Roosevelt and Churchill, of Locke." Russell quotes Voltaire, who replied to Rousseau, after receiving a copy of his essay, "Never was such a cleverness used in the design of making us all stupid. One longs, in reading your book, to walk on all fours."

It's a funny passage, which I have only partially quoted. I'm quite convinced, Smiley has never read Russell's criticism of Rousseau. Much of Russell's criticism is directed at Rousseau's Social Contract. Russell states "It's first-fruits in practice was the reign of Robespierre; the dictatorships of Russia and Germany (especially the latter) are in part an outcome of Rousseau's teaching."

In Thomas Carlyle's French Revolution, he often refers to the followers of the "Gospel of Jean-Jacques."

Wisely, Russell was aware there would be "further triumphs" for Rousseau's "ghost," but he chose not speculate on what they might be.

Gaullist France under seige

2004-11-09T15:45:00.000-05:00

We read in the Washington Times, French forces "fired on" Ivory Coast citizens, killing 7 and wounding 200 in the latest clash.

You've got love Gaullist France's unilateral brand of international diplomacy: "France, Ivory Coast's former colonial ruler, wiped out the nation's small air force in retaliation, sparking anti-French rampages by mobs of thousands in the fiercely nationalist south ... At least four days of confrontations have killed at least 20 other people, wounded 700." (C'est la guerre.)

Apparently, not only is French quisine delightful, so it seems are its citizens:

"'We are not going to leave,' one loyalist outside the French temporary base said, adding that protesters would take shifts to eat. 'If I get the French, I can eat them,' he said."

The Vanquished

2004-11-08T09:45:00.000-05:00

Josh Marshall has started campaigning against Hillary Clinton in 2008. Isn't it a little too earlier to start the next presidential election?

Andrew Sullivan, who told us his sexuality is a "non-issue," endorsed Senator Kerry in part because of his "social" position. For Sullivan, "social" issues equate to support for same-sex marriage. In his post-election commentary, Sullivan was vaporous with "fear" -- he told us, many of his gay friends were stricken senseless with fear.

Dullard Dowd was hysterical; she hates the Bush family with an unbridled passion, bordering on the unhealthy. Dowd tells us "The president got re-elected by dividing the country along fault lines of fear, intolerance, ignorance and religious rule ...[Bush] ran a jihad in America so he can fight one in Iraq."

EJ Dionne, who never "got over" the 2000 election, is more unhinged today than he was 4 years ago. Dionne signed on to Senator Edwards post-election battle plan, so he tells us the battle "rages on." Dionne insists that Bush doesn't have a "mandate." Although he told us differently when Clinton was elected and then reelected with with less than 50% of the popular vote.

'Sniff Friedman was horrified to wake up and found that many Americans (once again) rejected his politics.

Paul Krugmarx tells his like-minded pals that Bush is "a radical - the leader of a coalition that deeply dislikes America as it is." Krugmarx tells his cohort, "[we] must not give into defeatism." Krugmarx wants his socialist pals to "develop a political program aimed at maintaining and increasing the intensity. That means setting some realistic but critical goals for the next year."

Eric Alterman, who refuses to believe the MSM is "liberal" slams Newsweek's Michael Hirsh, for his "dime-store psychoanalytics a la Oedipus by way of Maureen Dowd."

It's amusing, these people spend so much of their life talking to those just like themselves, they are always amazed when they awake and find their political beliefs rejected by the majority of the American people, which they delusionally believe their voice represents.

Friedman's Blue State World

2004-11-04T07:49:00.000-05:00

October 28th, Thomas Pecksniff Friedman complained that Bush pushed "a far-right Republican agenda, domestically and globally, for which it had no mandate." Seven days later, 'Sniff Friedman concludes Bush "does have a mandate," with a slim 51% of the popular votes, and then he complains that Bush won with a "message" that connected "with America's heartland."

'Sniff Friedman has swallowed Senator Edwards' sophistry and rhetoric, so he tells us America is "Two Nations." As 'Sniff has no desire to live in my Red State nation, I have no desire to live in his Blue State World.

In Friedman's world, harsh, unpleasant, or judgmental words cannot be used, so abortion is encrypted as a "woman's right to 'control her body.'" In 'Sniff's world, forty million abortions have been performed, since the Supreme Court decided they would legislate our moral values -- generally speaking, in civil society, moral values are codified as a laws, since many people frown upon murder, larceny, brutality, false testimony, and so forth -- by their divisive ruling in Roe v. Wade.

In Friedman's world, less than 7% of the 1 million-plus abortions performed each year are due to fetal or maternal health issues, so roughly 900,000 Americans will be aborted or killed this year because they are unwanted, inconvenient, bothersome, or ruinous of a personal relationship or a promising career.

In Friedman's world, Ron Fitzsimmons, the former executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, admitted that 450-5000 partial-birth abortion, or "D&X-type" procedures, are performed each year, and "in most cases both the mother and fetus are healthy."

In Friedman's morally superior, godly world of secular rationalism, how merrily his neighbors logically leap from partial-birth abortion to Harvard's Steven Pinker rationalizing neonaticide to Princeton's Peter Singer rationalizing infanticide. As Pinker and Singer reason, if it's acceptable to kill a person before they're born, why not after they are born? As David Hume observed, reasoning left unchecked destroys reason.

In Friedman's world, it is inappropriate for 11 of 50 states to reject the notion that same-sex marriage is wrong, and they should defer to the wisdom of 5 judges sitting on Massachusetts' Supreme Judical Court. In 'Sniff's world, Cicero was homophobic for castigating the Greeks for their widely accepted practice of homosexuality. In 'Sniff's world, Cicero was wrong for teaching us laws should be based on customs, traditions, or natural rights; whereas, Friedman believes a "preference" should be the basis for law.

Amusingly, Friedman appears to believe that homosexuality is a "sexual preference" and disputes the notion that it is genetically determined. My guess is, 'Sniff stepped into a big pile of dog dookie with his Blue State neighbors with that heretical declaration of apostasy.

In Friedman's world, a "mandate" to govern is only permitted to those as enlightened as he believes himself to be. In 'Sniff's world, a democracy can only decide secular things. In 'Sniff's world, Platonic Guardians should rule the Red State barbarians, since we are only suited for Aristotelian slavery.

In Friedman's flat-earth, two dimensional world, John Galt was a real inventor that stopped the world, cold fusion technology was suppressed by Darth Cheney after being invented by Keanu Reeves, N-rays are real, the Star Gate is hidden in Area 51, and "conservation" fuels the 4 cars he owns.

I thank God, I don't live in Friedman's Blue State World.

Iraq seized OTAN (Part II)

2004-11-02T14:47:00.000-05:00

In Part I, we discussed how Operation Iraqi Freedom drove a dagger into the amoral soul of the United Nations. During our UN thrust and parries, we pricked our Atlantic partners. Since NATO was forged, it has been wounded many times by world events.

If the Atlantic alliance "withers on the vine," it will be events in Europe, not the greater Middle East, that decides its fate. (I hold out little hope that OTAN will die. Bureaucracies, such as OTAN and the UN, are not easy to kill.)

With the signing of the Treaty of Paris (1951), European integration began. The Maastricht Treaty(1992) created the European Union and established plans for a consolidate European defense force.

On October 29th, the European Commission signed the European Constitution; now, it must be ratified by the 25 Member States of the EU. The EU constitution quotes Thucydides: "Our Constitution ... is called a democracy because power is in the hands not of a minority but of the greatest number."

We will soon know, if the "greatest number" includes the citizens of Europe, or if the governing elite will decide their collective fate. As it stands, only 10 of 25 nations have agreed to allow their citizens to vote on constitutional ratification. Notably, Germany, Belgium, and Sweden have retained "power" in the hands the ruling minority, and they will not allow their citizens to vote. (True Euro-style democracy at work.)

The EU constitution has several key provisions: (1) Article 9 establishes the "principle of proportionality" in voting; that is, the voices of more populous nations will be amplified in EU decision making; (2) Article 10 establishes the "primacy of the Constitution over law of Member States;" and (3) Article 15 establishes a "common defense policy."

Forty years ago, Fernand Braudel, History of Civilizations, discussed integration of Europe. Braudel wrote the single most difficult task was resolving the lingua franca issue, which he noted was not being discussed as an impediment to integration. (It's still not being discussed in any language.)

With the Maastricht Treaty, European and American political and military leaders became concerned that a European army, independent of NATO, would drive a wedge into a weakened Alliance, suffering from the lost of its declared foe, when the Soviet Union collapsed.

With the development of the Eurocorps, American political and military leaders, of both parties, realized our citizens (or taxpayers) would grow increasingly resistant to maintaining a large troop contingent in Europe, so President George H.W. Bush and President Clinton were tepidly supportive of their initiative.

Jonathan Clarke, speaking at the Cato Institute, harshly criticized both Bush-41 and Clinton for their "myopic hostility" to European defense initiative.

During Clinton's presidency, we became involved in 2 Balkans wars: Croatian-Bosnian War (1991-1994) and the Kosovo War (1999). Although, no NATO member had been attacked, which would have invoked our treaty obligations, nor were there any strategic national interests involved, which might have provided a justification for our involvement, we went to war because Europeans lacked the wherewithal to end these conflicts diplomatically or militarily.

Both wars fueled continental urgency for the Eurocorps. In September 1999, Robert Wilkie, writing in Parameters, quotes NATO Secretary-General George Robertson: "Deploying a force of even a few tens of thousands, that is less than 2 percent of the total military personnel available to us, stretched our collective resources."

One month after Operation Iraqi Freedom was launched, Charles Kupchan, writing in the Financial Times, said the "diplomatic divide that has opened between the US and continental Europe is bringing the Atlantic alliance to a definitive end ... [the] alliance now lies in the rubble of Baghdad."

May 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell spoke about the matter: "that differences over the war in Iraq 'are behind us now. Now we have to come together again' to help the people of Iraq." Powell went on say, "Europe doesn't want to be considered only a checkbook, and the United States doesn't want to be seen as just a juggernaut. We do not have to work together the same way every time."

October 2003, Ronald Asmus, writing in Foreign Affairs, said "the manner in which the administration chose to topple Saddam Hussein -- led to a spectacular political train wreck across the Atlantic. Somewhere between Kabul and Baghdad, then, the United States and Europe lost each other."

December 2003, the China Daily news wrote: "Following the fall of Saddam Hussein, the world is still waiting to see the outcome on the two main battlefields: Iraq and trans-Atlantic relations."

June 2004, Lawrence Korb said Americans think of NATO when they think of the Atlantic alliance; whereas, "for European nations, like France, the Atlantic alliance is increasingly coming to mean the European Union."

Just this week, we read in UK's Telegraph, France, Germany, and Spain have formed a "triple axis" to limit Prime Minister Blair continental influence, to staunch supporter of the strengthening of the Atlantic alliance. The Telegraph writes: "Jacques Chirac, the French president and a harsh critic of the war in Iraq, brushed aside appeals for better transatlantic ties after George W Bush's re-election triumph and instead called for a stronger EU to confront Washington."

Just one year ago, we read, in the BBC News, Jacques Chirac said Europe's defence capability should be "completely consistent with our Nato commitments."

In August, President Bush announced plans to withdraw 70,000 troops, and their dependents, from Europe. (Long overdue!)

One other issue is further splintering the Atlantic alliance. In 1987, NATO member Turkey applied for accession into the European Union. Not surprisingly, France is opposed to Turkey's inclusion in the EU. (Where this ends is anyone's guess, but my money is on: Turkey will not be allowed to join to appease Gaul.)

I have maintained for many years, long before September 11th, that it was time for Europe to stop depending on the American taxpayers to provide their national defense, it ws time for Europe to spend the necessary resources to ensure a peaceful and stable continent, and for the United States to end our involvement in NATO.

That belief was reaffirmed in 1999, in the midst of our air campaign in Kosovo, it was widely reported that France was providing targeting data to our enemy.

It is time for OTAN to die!!

Sullivan's theory is impoverished

2004-11-01T08:06:00.000-05:00

There's no nice way of saying it: Andrew Sullivan's "theory" is the product of a shallow and lazy mind.

Sullivan's "theory" to explain why this "election is so hard,"

"[it's] not so easy to tell who's the liberal and who's the conservative anymore ... You want a future President who will be hard nosed about committing U.S. troops abroad, wants to balance every new spending item with a tax hike or a spending cut elsewhere and backs states' rights on social issues? Then go ahead and vote for the, er, Democrat, John Kerry."

Sullivan correctly points out that President Bush has done a crappy job controlling the growth of the federal government and has never placed any reasonable controls on federal spending. Bush's fiscal performance has been disgraceful.

The fundamental difference is: we can measure Bush's performance by his actions; however, Senator Kerry's record is one of inaction, equivocation, and runs contrary to his campaign promises.

For me, the 1991 Gulf War demonstrates Kerry is unfit to be the president, but Sullivan chooses to ignore that telling moment in Kerry's public life.

Does Sullivan believe Hussein's invasion of Kuwait should have been allowed to "stand," which Kerry's vote against the Gulf War would have permitted?

Does Sullivan believe, as Senator Kerry's vote proved he did, the United States should not take action that ensures the unimpeded flow of crude oil to Western markets? that ensures a brutal tyrant cannot impose his will on others?

Clearly, Sullivan's mind has unraveled if he believes Kerry is anything other than a profligate "tax & spend" Liberal, as he has been painted by Bush. Even EJ Dionne, the devout, Big Government communitarian, has labelled Kerry a "Massachusetts liberal." Self-inflated Michael Moore reminded us Kerry is well named as the most liberal Senator.

It defies common sense to believe (as Sullivan does) that President Kerry will be more fiscally responsible than Senator Kerry ever was.

One need look no further than Kerry's flagrant dissembling regarding his health plan. In March, R. Glen Hubbard, of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), wrote "Mr. Kerry's Math," in which he told us:

"Laws of math cannot be repealed--one cannot increase federal spending by $1.7 trillion over 10 years, slash the deficit over four years, and raise taxes only on those earning $200,000-plus to pay for the rest. More Americans would pay higher taxes under John Kerry's administration than John Kerry is willing to let on. Fully funding his promises would require repealing the entire Bush tax cuts, implying large tax increases for lower- and middle-income workers."

Ah yes ... the "social issues" of "states' rights." Sullivan has to encrypt his message. Recently, Sullivan has delusionally asserted his sexuality is a "non-issue," but nary a day passes in which Sullivan's "non-issue" is placed front-and-center in his commentary.

Does anyone doubt that if Bush had campaigned for a policy that would allow same-sex marriages that Sullivan would have endorsed Senator Kerry? Does anyone believe Abu Ghraib is more important to Sullivan than his desire to foist same-sex marriages on Americans that overwhelmingly reject them?

No, Sullivan's theory does not explain why this "election is so hard." Livy tells of a time when two armies were marching on Rome; many politicians chose to thwart Rome's mobilization of their armies, for they were more concerned with their political agenda than they were with the defense of their nation.

Our difficulty is Americans are a forgetful nation. We believe wars should be precise and clean as they believe the Kosovo war was -- although the problems that led to it have not been resolved. Unlike the Romans that fought the Volscians in war almost every year for 400 years, we have not experienced an implacable, unrelenting foe.

Today, many (Senator Kerry) long for the "nuisance" of pre-September 11th terrorism, in which hundreds of Americans were being killed at home and abroad, or they (Richard Holbrooke) believe the global war on terror (GWOT) is a metaphor, which cannot be won only lost. Many (Kerry, Holbrooke, Albright, EJ Dionne, etc.) are more concerned with their partisan political agenda, and they view the GWOT as "spending too much money" that should be spent on the ever-increasing socialization of American society.

Yes, "this election is hard" because it is meaningful. Unlike Sullivan, Hitchens knows this is a "single-issue" election -- read my response to their endorsements here. Many wish it were not so, for they value their issue most.

Kerry wants to socialize our health care system. Albright and Holbrooke want to internationalize our foreign policy. Dionne wants to nationalize our health insurance industry. And Sullivan wants to marry his friend.

As Sullivan presciently stated, "[blogging] takes up more time every day, and I'm becoming more impoverished by the minute." (Andrew, you're right, it's reflected in your commentary.)

Iraq Seized the UN (Part I)

2004-10-30T15:51:00.000-04:00

Joshua Muravchik, of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), pummels Kofi Annan and his merry band of rogues and misfits.

Two good things have come from our invasion of Iraq: (1) the United Nations has been marginalized to irrelevancy, and (2) the riff between the United States and Europe has widened.

United Nations Irrelevancy (Part I)
Within the world community, there are many that believe in the CONCEPT of the United Nations. (If you believe people are different than they are, the UN's declaratory principles are truly noble.)

The Preamble of the UN Charter states "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war," "reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights," "establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained," and "promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom." (Reading stuff like this makes my eyes glaze over.)

Roosevelt believed people can be different than they were. In his Four Freedom speech, he told us the world community should have: (1) the "freedom of speech and expression," (2) the "freedom of every person to worship God in his own way," (3) the "freedom from want," and (4) the "freedom from fear," which meant a "world-wide reduction of armaments." (Freedom from "want" and "fear"? It begs the question: was he daft?)

Muravchik takes the UN to task for their failure to fulfill its mission, which is to "unite our strength to maintain international peace." Muravchik cites 40-plus years of UN action regarding Israel to prove his case. Muravchik tells us, the UN has acted twice (Korean Conflict and 1991 Gulf War) to maintain "international peace," and on both occasions defered the matter by "writ of authority" to the United States.

The fundamental problem is: the United Nations is an oligarchial organization pretending to be democratic assembly. By Charter, the Security Council (SC) was assigned responsible to fulfill the UN's stated mission to maintain international peace, and the General Assembly was relegated to a subservient, non-entity role. The SC consists of 15 member states, 5 of which were established as permanent members, and with 10 rotating members serving a 2 year term.

The Permanent-5 (China, Russia, France, United Kingdom, and the United States) must affirmatively agree on a resolution for it to be passed by the SC. The P-5 have veto power over any resolution proposed.

Clearly, the Security Council is a dysfunctional oligarchy, which favors the Permanent-5. The P-5 must agree to act in concert or nothing can be accomplished by the Security Council, or the United Nations.

The undemocratic construct of the SC creates world wide hostility. For example, France was granted permanent member status; today, France has a population of 80 million; however, India with a population 12 times greater than France is not one of the Permanent-5. And therein lies the challenge to the SC's so-called international legitimacy.

In the run-up to Operation Iraqi Freedom, the United States went to the SC seeking a resolution authorizing the use of military force. France, Germany, Russia, and China were opposed to military intervention. France led the effort to quash a new resolution authorizing the use of force.

In 1999, we experienced a similar situation regarding Kosovo, where ethnic cleansing of Kosovar Muslims was being carried out by Christian Serbs. At that time, it was Russia that blocked SC efforts to be "seized" by the matter. Thus, NATO and the United States attacked a sovereign nation, that had not attacked another member state, without a UN SC resolution authorizing the use of force.

Muravchik cites Dore Gold's unreleased Tower of Babble, in which Gold highlights UN failures to act in Somalia, Rwanda, and Bosnia. In Somalia, a peacekeeping mission to provide humanitarian aid turned into a pitched battle, in which 18 Army Rangers were killed. In Rwanda, tribal war resulted in the butchery of 800,000 Rwandans. In Bosnia, thousands of Muslims were killed or driven from their homes by war. The UN's inaction in these three areas has been roundly criticized by many of the UN's staunches supporters.

Following the invasion of Iraq by America and its 30-plus allies, Secretary-General Kofi Annan was "seized" by visions of the impeding doom of his precious organization. Much ink has been spilled through the years discussing how to fix the UN.

The Global Policy Forum, who's declared mission is to "monitor policy making at the United Nation," states: "the [Security] Council [is] both undemocratic and often ineffective. The few powerful members dominate UN policy and frequently veto widely accepted decisions in order to further their own interests." (Imagine, my surprise.)

In April 2003, as any good bureaucrat would, Annan grasp for the thing he knew best, he named a "High-Level Panel" of international bureaucrats. As Annan stated:

"The past year has shaken the foundations of collective security and undermined confidence in the possibility of collective responses to our common problems and challenges. It has also brought to the fore deep divergences of opinion on the range and nature of the challenges we face, and are likely to face in the future.
The aim of the High-level Panel is to recommend clear and practical measures for ensuring effective collective action, based upon a rigorous analysis of future threats to peace and security, an appraisal of the contribution collective action can make, and a thorough assessment of existing approaches, instruments and mechanisms, including the principal organs of the United Nations."

When in doubt, get a bunch of washed out Internationalists in room, serve them tea and crumpets, pay 'em oodles of cash (in American dollars, only), and direct them to write a report that will be summarily rejected by those that must agree to surrender the power they granted themselves in 1945. (Kofi, you wouldn't have this problem if you were named UltraLord for the day.)

It defies common sense to believe any organization as dysfunctional as the United Nations can reform themselves. With luck, the United Nations was toppled when Saddam Hussein's statue fell. (Good riddance!)

Friedman plugs the world's hole

2004-10-28T06:45:00.000-04:00

Today, Friedman turned poetical; or, unbeknownst to us, Friedman is serializing his newest tome of torpor.

Friedman tells us there's a "deep worry" in America that "there is a hole in the heart of the world" and the American "moderate" political center "was always a fragile flower." (A fragile flower? 'Sniff, much more of this emotive, incontinent drivel and some of us may very well puke.)

Nothing is more certain about people than their similarity to those that came before them.

Three thousand years ago, Solomon said "what has been done will be done again." Two thousand years ago, Livy and Cicero commented on the constancy of human nature. Five hundred years ago, Machiavelli wrote "everything that happens in the world at any time has a genuine resemblance to what happened in ancient times." Two hundred years ago, David Hume taught us there are "characters peculiar to different nations and particular persons, as well as common to mankind." Fifty years ago, Arendt wrote "nothing in nature is more alike than one man to another."

If Friedman believes we are markedly different than our ancestors, he clings to a false notion.

Does Friedman believe we are more polarized about abortion than our ancestors were about slavery?

Does Friedman believe we are more polarized about war than those that voted for Woodrow Wilson because he promised he would keep America out of a war? or those that voted for General McClellan because he declared the Civil War a "failure" and urged "immediate efforts for a cessation of hostilities"? (Are Senator Kerry's words that much different than McClellan's?)

Friedman complains President Bush "nakedly exploited 9/11 to push a far-right Republican agenda, domestically and globally, for which it had no mandate." Does Friedman believe, if Bush had been elected or is re-elected with a resounding 90% of the popular vote that would grant Bush the right to "push a far-right" agenda "globally"?

Friedman's "mandate" criteria is the product of a shallow and lazy mind. Few things should trouble a so-called, self-described "neo-liberal" more than Friedman's own notional belief that the desires of the Many establishes moral value.

Plato and Aristotle rightly feared the Many, for the Many mandated that Socrates should die. Burke taught us, nothing is more tyrannical than being oppressed by the Many.

No 'Sniff, keep your "mandate" for deciding your choices. Kant taught us each of us "hears the call of an inner voice" that teaches us what is moral and just.

Amusingly, 'Sniff Friedman's mind is unravelling if he believes "the world liked Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan." Has Friedman forgotten the Seattle riots during the WTO summit while Clinton was president, where Clinton was mocked and scorned by many? News flash 'Sniff, a Google search of "clinton haters" on "Arabic" pages only shows 58,000 entries; whereas, "reagan haters" on "Arabic" pages only shows 28,000 pages.

Contrary to Friedman's notional belief, it defies common sense to believe those that are scratching out a meagre existence for their families in Venezuela, Brazil, Rwanda, Sudan, China, or North Korea care one jot or tittle about "a decent Iraqi election." ('Sniff, your insularity is showing.)

As Nietzsche wisely said, "Behold the superfluous! they vomit their bile and call it a newspaper."

Harvard's plagiarists

2004-10-27T10:43:00.000-04:00

The NY Sun runs a story that Senator Kerry "outsourced" his book to others, without crediting them for the work he plagiarized. Now that's a surprise.

The article goes on to say, "recent spate of stories about plagiarism allegedly committed by high-profile figures, such as a Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe ... and Doris Kearns Goodwin" a graduate of Harvard.

In March 2002, Timothy Noah, writing in Slate, told us "Goodwin continues to deny that what she did was plagiarism ('There is absolutely no intent to appropriate anyone else's words as my own, which is what plagiarism is')." Thanks, Doris, for clearing that mystery up. Click here for more details on Goodwin's conduct.

April 30, 2003, Maureen Dowd, "Hypocrisy & Apple Pie," quoted Professor Niall Ferguson in her op-ed piece, who had given a talk at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), regarding his notional theory on American imperialism. Ferguson stated during the CFR's Q&A

"In fact between I think it was '82 and 1922, they promised the international community they would leave Egypt 66 times, which I think must be some kind of record for diplomatic mendacity."

Dowd's quotation reads: "From 1882 until 1922, the British promised the international community 66 times that they would leave Egypt."

When I read the Ferguson quote in Dowd's piece, I knew he had borrowed it from another, so I sent an email to the NY Times asserting that Ferguson had plagiarized Professor AJP Taylor's The Struggle for Mastery in Europe.

In my email to the NY Times, I stated: "In 1954, Professor Taylor wrote 'Granville promised withdrawal ... and this promise was repeated sixty-six times between 1882 and 1922.'"

Since I had accused Ferguson of "plagiarizing" Taylor's work, I copied him on my email and he responded to my complaint. (Note: I have hardcopies of our emails to prove my statements contained herein are true.)

When it was all said and done, Ferguson and I traded 3 emails. In Ferguson's initial response, he asserted: (1) his statement was "a well-known fact, " (2) Professor "Taylor did no original archival research," (3) Ferguson said "Where I come from, we refer to errors of this kind as malapropism [sic]," and (4) Dowd should have "[published] appropriate footnotes to words of mine."

After Ferguson's initial response, I was like a hound with a gristly bone, for I knew I was being shined. That evening I went to Barnes & Noble to research Ferguson's Empire to see if Taylor's Mastery was footnoted or referenced.

In Empire, Chapter 5, Maxim Force (Page 235, hardcover edition), Ferguson stated: "a reassurance repeated no fewer than sixty-six times between 1882 and 1922." Taylor's Mastery was not footnoted or listed in the bibliography.

Nowadays, Professor Niall Ferguson teaches history at Harvard. How's that for a history lesson in "pedantry" -- as Ferguson artlessly accused me of being engaged in.

Both Goodwin and Ferguson would have us believe they had "no intent to appropriate anyone else's words" as their own, but they did.

Perhaps, Tribe, Goodwin, and Ferguson should read what Harvard calls "Misuse of Sources."

Smart gadflies attract

2004-10-27T04:34:00.000-04:00

Kristof states "based on their scores on military intelligence tests," as reported by John Tierney, President Bush is smarter than Senator Kerry, "Yet most liberals have not revised their view that Mr. Bush is a nitwit."

Recently, NY Times' Tierney "reported" on Bush's and Kerry's IQ scores. Tierney tells us, based on SAT score, President Bush (1206) probably has a higher IQ than Senator Kerry, which was extrapolated from Kerry's Navy Officer Qualification Test. For some inexplicable reason, Tierney fails to mention Kerry's SAT score (1190).

Tierney quotes Linda Gottfredson, an I.Q. expert at the University of Delaware, "People will often be misled into thinking someone is brighter if he says something complicated they can't understand."

The funny thing was: President Clinton's meagre SAT score (1032) compared to Al Gore (1355). (Wasn't Clinton suppose to have been the Big Brain president? So much for conventional media wisdom.)

Yesterday, I wrote that Andrew Sullivan and Christopher Hitchens, although they are voting for different presidents, they share one belief. They believe they are smarter than President Bush. Thus, by extension from Tierney's "news" report, they believe they are smarter than Senator Kerry, as well. And their intellectual disdain for Kerry is imprinted in their commentary announcing their choice.

Kristof tells us he wants a "clear-eyed thinker" as president. Nah, that's not what he wants. Plato taught us "likes attract likes," Kristof wants someone like himself as president. (Fortunately, Kerry is as conflicted on Iraq as Kristof is.)

Kristof's confliction, regarding genocide in Darfur and Iraq, proves he is delusionally "clear-eyed." Kristof advocates unilateral American "gumption" to end the genocide in Darfur, yet he has ignored the genocidal mass graves in Iraq in his quest for Euro-style Internationalism.

Kristof suffers from the same, self-inflated, intellectual hubris that plagues Sullivan and Hitchens. In the 24 centuries of Western civilization, we have gone from the gadfly Socrates, who told us he knew nothing, to those that believe they know it all.

What would they say about Gallipoli?

2004-10-26T20:26:00.000-04:00

Christopher Hitchens is kinda for, Andrew Sullivan is against. They share one belief, they both think they're smarter than Bush. (Does Suvla Bay prove Churchill was an idiot?)

I've heard, "I tell you, war is hell!!" I've heard, "Every fighter has a plan until he gets hit." I've heard, "No battle plan survives contact with the enemy." Hitchens and Sullivan believe war is like farming. As Eisenhower quipt, "[it] looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil, and you're a thousand miles from the corn field."

Hitchens bristles at Bush's "near-impeachable irresponsibility in the matter of postwar planning in Iraq." Sullivan is vaporous at the "incompetent conduct of the war since the liberation," and horrified over "Abu Ghraib ... the moral integrity of the war was delivered an almost fatal blow." (Sullivan, have you heard of Hatra?)

Hitchens notes this is a "single-issue" election; however, Sullivan has a sop bucket full of 'em. Indeed, Sullivan finds these are "dour days" and lists all his issues -- and of course, Sullivan's "non-issue" of his sexuality was only mentioned once. (What a surprise?) In the end, Sullivan went with Paglia's "hope" argument.

Apparently, Occam's principle of parsimony doesn't apply when one must explain why they're voting for Kerry.

Sign me up

2004-10-26T15:47:00.000-04:00

I like the idea To Jihad or Not to Jihad against CBS News and the NY Times. Where do I sign up? Can I get one of those really cool ACME rockets to take out the NYT?

Boot the naysayers

2004-10-25T19:37:00.000-04:00

Max Boot reminds us of how wrong so many were a dozen years ago regarding Operation Desert Storm. Boot kicks each one:

Sen. John Kerry: "I do not believe our nation is prepared for war. If we do go to war, for years people will ask why Congress gave in. They will ask why there was such a rush to so much death and destruction when it did not have to happen."

Columnist Robert Novak: "It is probable that after Bush orders the first shot fired, anything that looks American throughout the Middle East, North Africa and Europe could come into the cross hairs of a rifle sight or be blown up by a car bomb."

Former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski: "The United States is likely to become estranged from many of its European allies."

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy: "It'll be brutal and ugly. The 45,000 body bags the Pentagon has sent to the region are all the evidence we need of the high price in lives and blood that we will have to [bear]."

Former President Jimmy Carter: "The devastating consequences will be [felt] ... for decades to come, in economic and political destabilization of the Middle East region."

Herodotus tells a story about the King of Lydia. Croesus sends messengers to ask the Oracle at Delphi about going to war against the Cyrus the king of Persia. The Oracle reveals that "if he made war on the Persians he would destroy a mighty empire." And indeed he did, for he destroyed his own, and he was taken prisoner by Cyrus.

Our modern-day pecking hens are no better than Navius' birds at foretelling the fortunes in war.

Dionne just doesn't get it

2004-10-25T13:23:00.000-04:00

Dionne's partisanship continues unabated. Today, he slams Bush for what he might do, if he's re-elected. Heaven forfend, a duly elected president may actually try to fix a fiscally failing Social Security system or fix a tax system that is unfair and punitive.

October 7, 2001, Dionne told us we need to socialize "our national health insurance." Less than one month after September 11th, Dionne wanted to stop worrying about what he called "the profound seriousness that overtook the country" and get along with the business of socializing our insurance industry.

Can there anyone more clueless than Dionne? (And Dullard Dowd doesn't count.)

Three years ago, Dionne concludes by saying: "We might begin by taking the current seriousness seriously, and by agreeing that politics, public life and public service are too important to be trivialized or denigrated. If we don't believe that now, we never will."

During this past year, we have heard that Bush is comparable to Hitler, or more dangerous than Saddam Hussein, or Senator Biden telling us he's "brain-dead," or Helen Thomas telling us Bush is the "worst president in our history." (Was she sleeping during Nixon's presidency?)

A simple Google search on anti-Bush quote turns up 118,000 pages; whereas, anti-Kerry quote turns up only 74,000 pages -- there is 60% more traffic running against Bush.

Three years later, Dionne and his like-minded pals are still trivializing and denigrating public life and service.

Grand Alliance, Anyone?

2004-10-25T06:12:00.000-04:00

Zbigniew Brzezinksi spanks Bush and Kerry regarding Iraq. Brzezinksi tells us we need to "confront" Europeans with "strategic options" and we must convince them:

the best way to influence the eventual outcome of the civil war within Islam is to shape an expanding Grand Alliance (as opposed to a polarizing Holy Alliance) that embraces the Middle East by taking on the region's three most inflammatory and explosive issues: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the mess in Iraq, and the challenge of a restless and potentially dangerous Iran.

Civil war within Islam? The sound of that refrains grows ever louder. October 3rd, Thomas "Pecksniff" Friedman appeared on Face the Nation. Friedman stated: "We're going to have a small civil war in Iraq or a big civil war. This is the honest analysis." (Thanks 'Sniff, for clearing that up, since we know you have a tendency to talk-up a bunch of crap, when your mind wanders.)

Professor Jacob Burckhardt's Judgment on History and Historians should be required reading for all pundits. He discussed the bloody struggle by the State, Culture, and Religion for primacy in Western civilization. In the 14 centuries of Islamic civilization, they have not resolved Burckhardt's conflict.

Brzezinksi tells us we can "influence" the outcome of a Muslim "civil war" by: (1) the Grand Alliance issuing a "joint statement" on solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, (2) Europeans, including French and Germans, would provide "substantial financial contribution to the recovery of Iraq" and deploy troops in Iraq to reduce American presence, and (3) have "exploratory discussions on regional security issues" with Iran. (Is that a plan, or did I miss something?)

What happened with the 1993 Oslo Accords? 1995 Oslo 2? 1998 Wye River? or President Clinton's "Hail Mary, Nobel Prize" summit pass that Arafat bungled, before the Palestinians launched the intafada that continues today? (ZB has been smokin' a joint if he believes a "joint statement" is a magical incantation?)

Are we to believe the Muslim world has forgotten how the West carved up their land when their Turkish masters were defeated in World War I?

Are we to believe that Iran will not be consumed by the "eventual" civil war that Brzezinksi tells us is coming?

Does he helieve Iranian leaders do not understand the dangers they face from within and they'll be deceived by our "exploratory" talks to take weapons from them they believe they should possess?

In short, Brzenzksi tells us our great worry is not a "clash" of Western and Islamic civilizations, for he believes we should be concerned with an "eventual" intra-civilizational conflict that Professor Huntington addressed.

Be that as it may, how will a Grand Alliance be any more succesful than the 19th Century alliances that feverishly worked to hold the Ottoman Empire together through their diplomatic palor tricks that Professor AJP Taylor taught us about in The Struggle for Mastery in Europe?

Brzezenksi offers us just so much "three prong" baloney. (Thanks, I'll pass, I'm all full-up on Europeans.)

Scots-Irish political stew

2004-10-24T05:39:00.000-04:00

Make no mistake about it, I have no time for hyphenated Americans, be they African-, Italian-, French-, Asian-, Jewish-, Muslim-, or Gay-, it makes no difference to me. Take your hyphen and shove it.

James Webb, former Secretary of the Navy, writing in the Wall Street Journal, mentions a new group of hyphenated Americans that are poorly understood by politicians: Scots-Irish.

In the piece, Webb smacks down Charles Krauthammer for using an ethnic slur directed at this mongrel group of Americans. Webb says:

[The] most vicious ethnic slur of the presidential campaign came from Charles Krauthammer, after Howard Dean suggested that the Democrats needed to reach out to the "guys with the Confederate flags on their pickup trucks." Mr. Krauthammer, who has never complained about this ethnic group when it has marched off to fight the wars he wishes upon us, wrote that Mr. Dean "wants the white trash vote . . . that's clearly what he meant," and that he was pandering to "rebel-yelling racist rednecks.

Pardon me, but as Larry the Cable Guy would say, "I don't care where you're from ... that's funny."

Have all our hyphen wearers forgotten the United States is a melting, not a stew, pot? A place where we're suppose to form an integrated society? The American Heritage Dictionary quips: “Canadians... liked to think of their country as a mosaic rather than a melting pot” (Kenneth McNaught). Do we want to be as fractious as our Canadian neighbors in our desire to Balkanize our country into ethnic pockets? Who among us believes that our society, our civilization, is improved by tribalization?

And yes, I understand the importance of honoring one's heritage, but wearing a merit badge in divisiveness is something all together different.

And yes, there is a natural tendency for people to clannishly gather, or as Plato said, "likes attract likes." There's also a tendency for people to gather for spectacle, be they fires or lynchings. It does not follow that society should not suppress urges for folks to gather to feast on the misfortune of some or to huddle together and exclude others not like themselves.

What else don't I know?

2004-10-23T21:25:00.000-04:00

Recently, I received an email in response to my comments about Thomas "Pecksniff" Friedman. The respondent told me "Friedman has forgotten more about the workings of the Middle East than you'll ever know." I quite agree.

Friedman has forgotten the 14 centuries of autocratic rule in the Muslim world, while delusionally believing that "globalization" will produce democracy where it has never been embraced.

Friedman has forgotten the 1948 United Nations declaration that created Israel in the midst of the Muslim world, while believing the Muslims have forgotten.

Friedman has forgotten the abject failure of 1993 Oslo Accords, 1994 Washington Declaration, 1995 Oslo 2, 1997 Protocol, and 1998 Wye River Memorandum, or 2000 President Clinton's Oslo Peace Process summit, while believing the Palestinians will trade land for peace.

Friedman has forgotten the 9/11 terrorists did not live among the bedraggled, humiliated "Arab street" he has shed a thousand tears over.

Yes, it is true: Pecksniff Friedman has forgotten more about the Middle East than I will ever know.

Change the presidential term

2004-10-23T17:01:00.000-04:00

Earlier today, we had several visitors "getting out the vote" for Senator Kerry. I took perverse pleasure in telling them, and a couple of charming ladies at Wal*Mart, that I had already voted, by absentee ballot, for Bush.

I will be so glad when this election is over.

In the past, we had proposals or discussions about term limits for members of Congress. For many years, I have believed it's time we amend our constitution and change a presidential term to one, six year term, with no possibility of any other elective or appointed federal office in their lifetime.

Years ago, an associate of mine, a proud graduate of the Naval Academy, his novel idea was to build a compound in the middle of Kansas, lock members of Congress in for 3 months to get all their stuff done, not allow any outsiders in, and ship 'em home at the end of 3 months. He figured after one term, no one would want to serve again, and we could return Congress to a true gathering of Citizens that want to do the business of the nation and get on with their lives. I always liked his idea.

Clearly, something must change in our electoral process. Three weeks before our elections, ten thousands lawyers are mobilizing to repeat our 2000 election madness. It's funny, lawyers are among our most highly educated members of our society, but they are collectively more stupid than any other group. Do lawyers believe they can continue to do what they did 4 years ago without consequences?

David Hume trumps Steven Pinker

2004-10-23T08:24:00.000-04:00

On October 20th, Andrew Sullivan suggests "reason" leads one to support Kerry's candidacy for president. Sullivan cites two scholar that will vote for Senator Kerry.

Professor Camille Paglia tells us: "In the hope that he will restore our alliances and reduce rabid anti-Americanism in this era of terrorism when international good will and cooperation are crucial."

Professor Steven Pinker tells us: "The reason is reason: Bush uses too little of it. In the war on terror, his administration stints on loose-nuke surveillance while confiscating nail clippers and issuing color-coded duct tape advisories. His restrictions on stem cell research are incoherent, his dismissal of possible climate change inexcusable."

A simple reading of their reason reveals Paglia's choice is based on "hope," and Pinker delusionally believes he knows how Bush's mind works. Contrary to Sullivan's suggestion, their scholarly reasoning is an opinion, with no more merit than mine.

During this election cycle, Reason is battling Emotions. A month ago, Jim Hoagland, "Worldviews That Are Worlds Apart," told us: "These two candidates are night and day -- more precisely, they are emotion vs. reason, instinct vs. intellect."

Over two hundred years ago, David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature, taught us: reason gives rise to no action.

War demands action. Alexander did not defeat Darius because he hoped or reasoned he could. Wars are not won with hope, as Paglia suggests. Wars are not won with superior reasoning, as Pinker suggests. Wars are won by steadfast, unyielding, resolute action.

The Funeral Oration, that Thucydides placed in the mouth of Pericles, is an emotional appeal to his countrymen. Shakespeare's Saint Crispen's Day speech was an emotional appeal to his army. Livy cites numerous examples when Roman generals when facing certain destruction called forth the emotions (e.g., shame, anger, or fear) of their struggling armies and their fortunes changed.

Pinker's true complaint is he would have made different choices than Bush. Pinker's complaint regarding the lack of funding to secure "loose-nukes" is reasonable. However, given the widespread moral disagreement regarding stem cell research, Pinker's assertion that Bush's policy is "incoherent" is an emotional judgment.

Perhaps, Pinker believes there should be no moral bounds placed upon scientific research; however, most people would disagree with this notion.

Pinker reveals his true partisan colors when he complains about Bush's "dismissal of possible climate change [as] inexcusable." As a scientist, that deals with precise language and incontroverible data, Pinker choses to ignore the widely known FACT that 95 Senators (including John Kerry) passed a resolution, which stipulated what the Senate would consider an acceptable treaty on global warming (S.Res.98). Due to the passage of that resolution, President Clinton did not submit this treaty for ratification, for he knew it would be rejected.

Professor J.M. Roberts, History of the World, teaches us there have been 17 to 19 periods in which the earth has heated up and cooled off. Roberts tells us elephants once grazed on grassland in north Africa, an area dessicated long before man descended from his tree to begin motoring about using his infernal combustion engine.

As Pinker well knows, the science involved with global warming is not settled. It is more than passing strange for a scientist to be as blandly unskeptical as Pinker appears to be. As Darwin said, "a good deal of skepticism in a scientific man is advisable to avoid much loss of time." Or as Isaac Asimov said, "Man's greatest asset is the unsettled mind." But Pinker is content with his notional belief.

What we have shown is Pinker's complaint, regarding "climate change," should also be directed towards Senator Kerry. Perhaps, Pinker holds fast to the notion that it is unimportant what Kerry did, it is only important what he says he would do.

Kerry famously says, "I would do almost everything differently" than Bush. However, this is mere speculation or a counterfactual statement, for we can only empirical know what Kerry has done.

For a man that claims he knows How the Mind Works, Pinker may want to re-examine his own brand of scholarly dogmatism.

Friedman is Pecksniff

2004-10-21T14:37:00.000-04:00

The world is all wrong, just ask Friedman. Kerry can't campaign. Bush can't aim. Friedman is best described by Charles Dickens, "Some people likened him to a direction-post, which is always telling the way to a place, and never goes there."

Twice a week, Thomas L. Pecksniff , "who has never designed or built anything," tells us how to fix ("Let me explain") the world, with his flat-earth, two dimensional reasoning.

Those that can do, those that can't teach, and those that can't teach write editorials for the NY Times.

Andrew Sullivan's worst nightmare

2004-10-21T06:22:00.000-04:00

Sullivan posts a response to an email that is very revealing. A respondent is discussing Sullivan's notions on Kerry mentioning Cheney's daughter. Sullivan only "quibbles" with marginal details.

However, Sullivan goes on to say: "I live in a world where homosexuality is a non-issue. But many others - especially Republican parents - still do. And their worst nightmare, sadly, is a gay child."

It defies common sense for us to believe "homosexuality is a non-issue" for Sullivan. Like most males, he is consumed by his sexuality. During the past year, Sullivan's blog has been dedicated to the promotion of same-sex marriage. He has shed countless tears in this battle.

Sullivan has become a single issue consumer in the polling place. His protestations notwithstanding, for he tells us he is a "libertarian hawk." Sullivan tells us his politics blend "fiscal conservatism, cultural liberalism and foreign policy hawkishness." Sullivan is telling us he's a tigh-fisted, libertine, who believes that Saturday Night's Alright (For Fighting) with one's enemies.

A fine blend indeed, until one must make choices, whether to pay so one's friends may play or to punish one's unruly neighbors. Choices are as inconvenient as facts.

Unfortunately for "eagles" like Sullivan, Herbert Spencer told us what "liberalism" became at the end of the 19th Century. And in the last century, Liberalism has evolved to a point where many so-called Liberals object to being "labeled" as such, as Kerry reminded us during the presidential debates, or as Sullivan has reminded us by trifurcating himself.

In the essay "The New Toryism," Spencer scolded Liberals:

"They have lost sight of the truth that in past times Liberalism habitually stood for individual freedom versus State-coercion ... Liberalism has to an increasing extent adopted the policy of dictating the actions of citizens, and by consequence, diminishing the range throughout which their actions remain free."

Are we to believe that "cultural liberalism" is only domestically so? Would Sullivan argue the "culturally" accepted practice of female genital mutilation is acceptable to his laissez-faire, cultural creed? Like other Eagles, my guess is Sullivan would choose to end that practice if he could, regardless of where it is practiced, and regardless of how fervently the practitioners believed in its merits.

Unfortunately, Sullivan's eagles nest is built on a tripod with uneven legs, so he's forced to rock about to keep from losing his balance in his war of choices.

Inconceivable

2004-10-20T16:03:00.000-04:00

WSJ knows a good reader's response when they see one. (Scroll down, 5th letter)

Lindberg hits a homer

2004-10-20T10:28:00.000-04:00

Tod Lindberg has offered some meaningful commentary on Kerry's campaign.

Lindberg points to three mistakes Bush has made: (1) allowing budget surpluses to become a growing deficit, (2) allowing Iraqi insurgency to thrive, and (3) he squandered the trust we had bestowed upon him when he "took America to war having misunderstood the situation and gotten the reason wrong." Ouch!

Instead, Kerry has chosen to promote Congressman Charlie Rangel's notion that we need to reactivate the draft and the delusional notion that Bush plans on "privatizing" Social Security.

As many have commented, Kerry is running a HEADLINE campaign. God help us if the Red Sox beat the Yankees, Kerry will be more unbearable than he already is.

Grand bargains

2004-10-20T07:50:00.000-04:00

Today, Robert Samuelson tells us our Nuclear Nightmare is real and neither Bush or Kerry have a plan to deal with this madness. In varying degrees, both presidential candidates believe we can buy our way out of this mess.

On August 29th, Senator Edwards, during an interview with The Washington Post, promised the Kerry administration would seek a "grand bargain" with Iran.

The underlying premise in a "grand bargain" is: Money means as much to others as it does to those that are offering it.

Herodotus told us Croesus' wealth did not save him from his enemies. Machiavelli tells a story about a King of Macedonia:

"the king, in order to display his power and to frighten them, showed them a lot of gold and silver; whereupon the Gauls who up till then had been intent on peace, broke off negotiations, so eager were they to relieve him of that gold. So the king was despoiled on account of the very thing he had accumulated for his defence."

With luck, Iranians and North Koreans have not read Herodotus or Machiavelli.

Kofi Annan is Vizzini

2004-10-20T06:44:00.000-04:00

Today, Claudia Rosett rips Kofi Annan a new one. Rosett tells us Annan finds it "inconceivable" that Russia, France or China might have traded Oil-for-Blood.

Doesn't that remind you of The Princess Bride, when Inigo Montoya said to Vizzini, "You keep using that word [inconceivable]. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Kristof serves up a steaming pile of gumption...

2004-10-20T04:50:00.000-04:00

Kristof tells us "just a bit of gumption" will end the "fear and death" in Darfur. One of the true altar boys in the Church of Modern-Day Internationalism, Kristof wants "to push a meaningful U.N. resolution even at the risk of a Chinese veto, and to insist upon the deployment of a larger African force."

What am I missing? Haven't we been told Turtle Bay diplomacy was good stuff? Haven't we been told that unilateralism is an amoral nationalistic sin, and multilateralism is a Kantian virtue or Aristotle's true "good"? Haven't we seen Kristof and others kissing Annan's ring of power?

Prior to our invasion of Iraq, Kristof told us we needed to let diplomacy work its magic. We didn't hear Kristof wanting to contravene the will of the French and Germans.

Since the fall of Saddam Hussein, a true genocidal master, all we've heard from Brother Nick is "Where's the WMD?" Kristof has been too busy looking for bin Laden to look for mass graves in Iraq.

Kristof has tears galore for Sudanese being slaughtered, but Kristof has never squeezed out one single tear for any Iraqi that was slaughtered. Why is that, Kristof?

Just War: Hehir, Walzer, and NY Times

2004-10-19T17:25:00.000-04:00

Hugo Grotius, On the Law of War and Peace, stated: "The grounds of war are as numerous as those of judicial actions. For where the power of law ceases, there war begins." Grotius continues: "The justifiable causes generally assigned for war are three, defence, indemnity, and punishment."

Since World War II, the United States has not declared war once; however, we have fought wars in Korea (1950-1953), Vietnam (1964-1972), Iraq (1990-1991). Bosnia (1995), Kosovo (1999), Afghanistan (2001), and Iraq (2003-2004). With the exception of Vietnam, we have American combat troops in all these places. One could reasonably argue none of these wars satisfied Grotius' "just" war criteria. And none of these wars were "absolutely necessary."

In Korea, we killed an estimated 1.9 million Koreans and Chinese, while we lost 33,000 American troops. In Vietnam, we killed an estimated 1.5 million North Vietnamese, while we lost 58,000 American troops. Is it any wonder why so many in the world question our judgment and our reason when we go to war?

Rev. Byran Hehir and Professor Michael Walzer, members of the Pew/Brookings group studying "religion in foreign affairs," claim we should only become involved in "just" or "wars that are absolutely necessary." The NY Times shares their view of war.

September 12th, the NY Times, "Preventive War: A Failed Doctrine,"told us:

"Before the Iraq fiasco, American leaders rightly viewed war as a last resort, appropriate only when the nation's vital interests were actively threatened and reasonable diplomatic efforts had been exhausted."

In theory, no one should reasonably object to the formulation of a "just" war by Hehir, Walzer, or the Times. However, we know Professor Walzer couldn't "just sit and watch" regarding ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, nor could Walzer "abandon the principle of nonintervention" he had to "honor its exceptions" and advocate our military involvement in Bosnia.

Rev. Hehir has been equally inconsistent in defining a "just" war. As part of Pew/Brookings group, Hehir tells us Operation Iraqi Freedom is an unjust war. However, in May 1999, Hehir told us:

"My support of Kosovo as just cause is part of a larger argument, which calls for recasting the moral-legal-political calculus of policy in the direction of justifying some interventions for humanitarian reasons."

Excuse me, Gentlemen, if you could justify our military involvement in Kosovo and Bosnia as "just" wars, it defies common sense to tell us Operation Iraqi Freedom is an unjust war. Are we to believe the slaughter of half-million Iraqis by a murderous tyrant is of less importance than the thousands that were "cleansed" in the Balkans by another murderous tyrant?

Hehir spoke of wars as "absolutely necessary." David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature, taught us a cause is always necessary, but necessity "exists only in the mind." In human affairs, our wars are always a matter of choice.

Even from the undisputed right of self-defense or self-preservation, contained within the Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, it does not follow that war is ever "absolutely necessary," as Hehir would have us believe. It may be prudent, wise, noble, courageous, or foolhardy to fight, but war is always a choice we make.

Beyond dispute, Hehir and Walzer are unprincipled hypocrits of the finest kind.