Thursday, June 03, 2004
De-Clintonization
Pres. Bush must de-Clintonize the State Department. Read this. The US Fifth Column should not have jobs in its own government.
Happy Birthday Bernie
Happy 79th Birthday to Bernard Schwartz, now known as Tony Curtis -- yes, the movie star and father of Jamie Lee.
One of the most notable gifts Mr. Curtis (a Hungarian Jew) has bestowed (through his donations and fundraising), although it is not well known, is the Weeping Willow Holocaust Memorial in Wallenberg Park at the Dohany Street Synagogue in Budapest. The Weeping Willow is a metal structure with willow-like leaves that contain the names of the Hungarian Jews who died in the Holocaust. The Dohany Street Synagogue (aka the Tabac-Shul in Yiddish because Dohany is Magyar for "tobacco") is the largest in Europe. Wallenberg Park is named for Raoul Wallenberg, the Swedish diplomat who defied his government and forged travel documents that helped 20,000 Jews escape the Nazis. The Holocaust really only reached Hungary in 1944 -- before that the Nazi-collaborationist Hungarian government had avoided participating in the Final Solution. Nonetheless, approximately 50% of Hungary's Jews were killed in the Holocaust and Hungary had the second-largest number of Jews killed (560,000; Poland had 3,000,000) in the Holocaust.
Here is a picture of the Weeping Willow. Click his links to see more pictures, including the grave of Art Garfunkel's grandfather in the side yard of the Synagogue (which has gravestones of those who died in the Budapest Ghetto).
Here is a site that provides thumbnail history of the Holocaust. And here is another pic of the Willow.
One of the most notable gifts Mr. Curtis (a Hungarian Jew) has bestowed (through his donations and fundraising), although it is not well known, is the Weeping Willow Holocaust Memorial in Wallenberg Park at the Dohany Street Synagogue in Budapest. The Weeping Willow is a metal structure with willow-like leaves that contain the names of the Hungarian Jews who died in the Holocaust. The Dohany Street Synagogue (aka the Tabac-Shul in Yiddish because Dohany is Magyar for "tobacco") is the largest in Europe. Wallenberg Park is named for Raoul Wallenberg, the Swedish diplomat who defied his government and forged travel documents that helped 20,000 Jews escape the Nazis. The Holocaust really only reached Hungary in 1944 -- before that the Nazi-collaborationist Hungarian government had avoided participating in the Final Solution. Nonetheless, approximately 50% of Hungary's Jews were killed in the Holocaust and Hungary had the second-largest number of Jews killed (560,000; Poland had 3,000,000) in the Holocaust.
Here is a picture of the Weeping Willow. Click his links to see more pictures, including the grave of Art Garfunkel's grandfather in the side yard of the Synagogue (which has gravestones of those who died in the Budapest Ghetto).
Here is a site that provides thumbnail history of the Holocaust. And here is another pic of the Willow.
Freedom is for suckers?
Eamonn Butler in the Wall Street Journal Europe (link requires registration and fee) compares "Tax Freedom Day" in the UK, the Eurozone and the US. Tax Freedom Day is the day when you have finished working enough to pay your taxes. It is derived by measuring the total tax take of the country by its total income to derive a percentage, then translating that percentage to a day of the year. If the government takes 25% of the total national income in taxes, then Tax Freedom Day is around April 1 or 2 -- 90-91 days into the year.
In the US, Tax Freedom Day was April 11, the earliest Tax Freedom Day since 1967; in the UK it was May 28. In the Eurozone it is around June 28. In Sweden, July 29.
What's the point? The US predicted 2004 growth rate is 4.5%; the UK rate is 3.0%; the Eurozone = 1.7%. Notice anything? Indeed, the fastest growing economies of Europe (Ireland, parts of Eastern Europe) are the ones with the lowest and simplest tax rates. Remember this when you hear Europeans criticizing America for not taking care of its people: (1) the US growth rate far outstrips that of Europe, thereby providing numerous opportunities for Americans; (2) that growth rate is reflected in US per capita income ($35,400) -- compare that to the UK ($25,510), Sweden ($25,970) France and Germany ($22,240 and 22,740) [stats taken from World Bank 2002 data]. Seems like Churchill is right: socialism is characterized by equal sharing of misery.
In the US, Tax Freedom Day was April 11, the earliest Tax Freedom Day since 1967; in the UK it was May 28. In the Eurozone it is around June 28. In Sweden, July 29.
What's the point? The US predicted 2004 growth rate is 4.5%; the UK rate is 3.0%; the Eurozone = 1.7%. Notice anything? Indeed, the fastest growing economies of Europe (Ireland, parts of Eastern Europe) are the ones with the lowest and simplest tax rates. Remember this when you hear Europeans criticizing America for not taking care of its people: (1) the US growth rate far outstrips that of Europe, thereby providing numerous opportunities for Americans; (2) that growth rate is reflected in US per capita income ($35,400) -- compare that to the UK ($25,510), Sweden ($25,970) France and Germany ($22,240 and 22,740) [stats taken from World Bank 2002 data]. Seems like Churchill is right: socialism is characterized by equal sharing of misery.
New CIA head
George Tenet resigned today. See here for details. Those of us who thought Pres. Bush should not have kept Clinton's CIA Director in place now will have a new man to kick around. Out of all of Clinton's CIA people, I'd prefer to see James Woolsey back -- he seems to have more ability than Tenet or anyone else Clinton had in his intel posts (NSC head, DIA, etc.). A rumored replacement is Porter Goss, a Florida Republican Congressman and former spook (spy) himself.
Wednesday, June 02, 2004
VDH meets TNR
One of the most reassuring and straightforward writers to emerge since 9-11-01 is historian Victor Davis Hanson. He has his own website and is a regular contributor to National Review Online (Fridays). Today, his mental acuity is on exhibit at The New Republic in this piece. His ultimate point is clear:
A year ago, we waged a brilliant three-week campaign, then mysteriously forgot the source of our success. Military audacity, lethality, unpredictability, imperviousness to cheap criticism, and iron resolve, coupled with the message of freedom, convinced neutrals to join us and enemies not yet conquered to remain in the shadows. But our failure to shoot looters, to arrest early insurrectionists like Sadr, and to subdue cities like Tikrit or Falluja only earned us contempt--and not just from those who would kill us, but from others who would have joined us as well.
The misplaced restraint of the past year is not true morality, but a sort of weird immorality that seeks to avoid ethical censure in the short term--the ever-present, 24-hour pulpit of global television that inflates a half-dozen inadvertent civilian casualties into Dresden and Hiroshima. But, in the long term, such complacency has left more moderate Iraqis to be targeted by ever more emboldened murderers. For their part, American troops have discovered that they are safer on the assault when they can fire first and kill killers, rather than simply patrol and react, hoping their newly armored Humvees and fortified flak vests will deflect projectiles.
. . . In contrast, audacity is a force multiplier. A Sadr in chains or in paradise is worth more, in terms of deterrence, than an entire infantry division.
Read it all. If my link doesn't work, go to Instapundit and use his.
A year ago, we waged a brilliant three-week campaign, then mysteriously forgot the source of our success. Military audacity, lethality, unpredictability, imperviousness to cheap criticism, and iron resolve, coupled with the message of freedom, convinced neutrals to join us and enemies not yet conquered to remain in the shadows. But our failure to shoot looters, to arrest early insurrectionists like Sadr, and to subdue cities like Tikrit or Falluja only earned us contempt--and not just from those who would kill us, but from others who would have joined us as well.
The misplaced restraint of the past year is not true morality, but a sort of weird immorality that seeks to avoid ethical censure in the short term--the ever-present, 24-hour pulpit of global television that inflates a half-dozen inadvertent civilian casualties into Dresden and Hiroshima. But, in the long term, such complacency has left more moderate Iraqis to be targeted by ever more emboldened murderers. For their part, American troops have discovered that they are safer on the assault when they can fire first and kill killers, rather than simply patrol and react, hoping their newly armored Humvees and fortified flak vests will deflect projectiles.
. . . In contrast, audacity is a force multiplier. A Sadr in chains or in paradise is worth more, in terms of deterrence, than an entire infantry division.
Read it all. If my link doesn't work, go to Instapundit and use his.
UN dishonor
The UN is a reprehensible institution. Its latest transgression against all decency -- allowing Gaza terrorists to use a UN ambulance as a getaway vehicle after they ambushed and slaughtered six Israeli soldiers. Michelle Malkin has the details.
You want proof? Here's the video of the terrorists speeding away. And no US news outfit has sought a copy of the video to show on American TV.
What media bias?
You want proof? Here's the video of the terrorists speeding away. And no US news outfit has sought a copy of the video to show on American TV.
What media bias?
Moral equivalency or correct history?
Anne Applebaum is the author of Gulag -- an in-depth study of the Soviet concentration-camp apparatus for political prisoners. Today, her weekly Wednesday column in the Washington Post recounts the Warsaw Uprising, which began on August 1, 1944 and lasted for 9 weeks -- 50% longer than the French army lasted at the outset of World War II. At the end of her column, Applebaum drops this little bomb:
In fact, for millions of people, World War II had no happy ending. It had no ending at all. The liberation of one half of the European continent coincided with a new occupation for the other half. The camps of Stalin, our ally, expanded just as the camps of Hitler, our enemy, were destroyed. Not that you would know it, listening to Americans reminisce about D-Day, or the children welcoming GIs in the streets, or the joyous return home. Perhaps there is no such thing as an entirely "good war" after all.
Her dollop of moral equivalency is notable for its conventionalism. There is a large swath of historical theory that posits that the USSR and Stalin were as bad as or worse than Hitler and Nazi Germany. This concept is a dangerous fallacy on a number of levels, and deserving of more treatment than I can give on a weblog. Nonetheless, fighting WWII was an entirely "good war" -- it's the ultimate peace that had negatives.
The immediate criticisms: (1) Nazism was a government-imposed KKK -- a white supremacy conceit combined with centrally planned socialism that was popularly supported by (and indoctrinated into) the German people and not merely a construct put in place by a cadre of revolutionaries to impose a new rule upon an already subservient populace like the USSR (Read Daniel Goldhagen's Hitler's Willing Executioners re: the Nazi appeal to the Germanic volk and Richard Pipes' The Russian Revolution [the author's own condensed version will do] regarding the Bolshevik coup that created the USSR). The difference is tremendous -- systematic brainwashing of an entire people into acolytes of a supremacy movement based on an artificial concept of superior men and women versus the subjugation of vast populations for the communist elites. Which is worse? The one that works as a cult because the willingness of the people to join it infuses it with a legitimacy that is lacking vis-a-vis the leaders of the coup.
(2) Nazism endorsed the systematic destruction of millions of people because of its underlying theory of Aryan superiority; Communism did not contain such a concept, although it did justify deaths inflicted in the establishment of a communist state as a cost of revolution. The difference: again, an eagerness to cause destruction versus a willingness to endure it.
(3) Nazism's death camps and mass slaughter was a systemic government-run program; the Ukraine famine and numerous deaths attributed to Stalin were the work of a government apparatus controlled absolutely by a megalomaniac -- in other words, Hitler used his best acolytes (Eichmann, Himmler, Heydrich, Goebbels, Mengele, Goering) in a manner similar to a mafia boss and his capos; Stalin killed those closest to him.
In addition, Applebaum's column is too harsh (by far) on Churchill and too easy on both Roosevelt and Truman (and Truman is my second-favorite 20th century president). First, Churchill deferred to Roosevelt in Yalta and in many other respects after the US entered the War because the US had superior numbers and resources, the UK was spread so thin, and the power the UK would have AFTER the War would be so small relative to the US and USSR. But Roosevelt offered more to Stalin at Yalta than Stalin himself expected and FDR's ill-health made him a poor negotiator. Second, FDR and the US did not comprehend the USSR's territorial and ideological avarice; Britain had a better understanding but FDR continued to treat Stalin as the avuncular "Uncle Joe" portrayed in the US press. Third, Truman did not show resolve against USSR-inspired coups in Romania, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland after the War -- he only announced the Truman Doctrine in 1948 (which saved Greece and Turkey), after Eastern Europe had fallen under Soviet domination.
Nonetheless, Applebaum's article is a worthy read to understand the heroism of the Warsaw combatants, what they sacrificed and why they should be honored.
In fact, for millions of people, World War II had no happy ending. It had no ending at all. The liberation of one half of the European continent coincided with a new occupation for the other half. The camps of Stalin, our ally, expanded just as the camps of Hitler, our enemy, were destroyed. Not that you would know it, listening to Americans reminisce about D-Day, or the children welcoming GIs in the streets, or the joyous return home. Perhaps there is no such thing as an entirely "good war" after all.
Her dollop of moral equivalency is notable for its conventionalism. There is a large swath of historical theory that posits that the USSR and Stalin were as bad as or worse than Hitler and Nazi Germany. This concept is a dangerous fallacy on a number of levels, and deserving of more treatment than I can give on a weblog. Nonetheless, fighting WWII was an entirely "good war" -- it's the ultimate peace that had negatives.
The immediate criticisms: (1) Nazism was a government-imposed KKK -- a white supremacy conceit combined with centrally planned socialism that was popularly supported by (and indoctrinated into) the German people and not merely a construct put in place by a cadre of revolutionaries to impose a new rule upon an already subservient populace like the USSR (Read Daniel Goldhagen's Hitler's Willing Executioners re: the Nazi appeal to the Germanic volk and Richard Pipes' The Russian Revolution [the author's own condensed version will do] regarding the Bolshevik coup that created the USSR). The difference is tremendous -- systematic brainwashing of an entire people into acolytes of a supremacy movement based on an artificial concept of superior men and women versus the subjugation of vast populations for the communist elites. Which is worse? The one that works as a cult because the willingness of the people to join it infuses it with a legitimacy that is lacking vis-a-vis the leaders of the coup.
(2) Nazism endorsed the systematic destruction of millions of people because of its underlying theory of Aryan superiority; Communism did not contain such a concept, although it did justify deaths inflicted in the establishment of a communist state as a cost of revolution. The difference: again, an eagerness to cause destruction versus a willingness to endure it.
(3) Nazism's death camps and mass slaughter was a systemic government-run program; the Ukraine famine and numerous deaths attributed to Stalin were the work of a government apparatus controlled absolutely by a megalomaniac -- in other words, Hitler used his best acolytes (Eichmann, Himmler, Heydrich, Goebbels, Mengele, Goering) in a manner similar to a mafia boss and his capos; Stalin killed those closest to him.
In addition, Applebaum's column is too harsh (by far) on Churchill and too easy on both Roosevelt and Truman (and Truman is my second-favorite 20th century president). First, Churchill deferred to Roosevelt in Yalta and in many other respects after the US entered the War because the US had superior numbers and resources, the UK was spread so thin, and the power the UK would have AFTER the War would be so small relative to the US and USSR. But Roosevelt offered more to Stalin at Yalta than Stalin himself expected and FDR's ill-health made him a poor negotiator. Second, FDR and the US did not comprehend the USSR's territorial and ideological avarice; Britain had a better understanding but FDR continued to treat Stalin as the avuncular "Uncle Joe" portrayed in the US press. Third, Truman did not show resolve against USSR-inspired coups in Romania, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland after the War -- he only announced the Truman Doctrine in 1948 (which saved Greece and Turkey), after Eastern Europe had fallen under Soviet domination.
Nonetheless, Applebaum's article is a worthy read to understand the heroism of the Warsaw combatants, what they sacrificed and why they should be honored.
More Stephen Hayes
Today National Review Online has an online interview with Stephen Hayes, author of The Connection: How al Qaeda's Cooperation with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America. Most notable fact from Hayes: the Clinton Administration itself believed that Saddam had intimate connections with al-Qaeda. Hayes also traces the Saddam/al-Qaeda links mentioned in the press in the late 1990s; in contrast to the media's stock-in-phrase that al-Qaeda would not work with Saddam because he was secular and they are religious nutters (a crock if ever one existed).
UT goes PC
The latest attack by the politically correct: at University of Texas, one prof. proposes to FORCE students to study another culture for a semester. Not many details, but the story is here.
Tuesday, June 01, 2004
How d'ya like me now?
The Monk has a new look, courtesy Doug Bowman at Stop Design.com. I think it's easier on the eyes thanks to the muted colors and dark background and less of a SCREAM from the growth-hormone infused font size. Plus, I'm pretty pleased that I was able to figure out how to reconfigure things after some brief instruction from Doug.
Another good read
Walter Olson of Overlawyered.com now has his book in paperback. Title: The Rule of Lawyers: How the New Litigation Elite Threatens America's Rule of Law.
Taking stock
This is from Andrew Sullivan a frequent critic of President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld's handling of the Iraq reconstruction:
JUST A QUESTION: If someone had said in February 2003, that by June 2004, Saddam Hussein would have been removed from power and captured; that a diverse new government, including Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, would be installed; that elections would be scheduled for January 2005; and that the liberation of a devastated country of 25 million in which everyone owns an AK-47 had been accomplished with an army of around 140,000 with a total casualty rate (including accidents and friendly fire) of around 800; that no oil fields had been set aflame; no WMDs had been used; no mass refugee crises had emerged; and no civil war had broken out... well, I think you would come to the conclusion that the war had been an extraordinary success. And you'd be right. Yes, there are enormous challenges; and yes, so much more could have been achieved without incompetence, infighting and occasional inhumanity. But it's worth acknowledging that, with a little perspective, our current gloom is over-blown. Stocks in Iraq have been way over-sold. I even regret some minor sells myself. Now watch the media do all it can to accentuate the negative.
JUST A QUESTION: If someone had said in February 2003, that by June 2004, Saddam Hussein would have been removed from power and captured; that a diverse new government, including Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, would be installed; that elections would be scheduled for January 2005; and that the liberation of a devastated country of 25 million in which everyone owns an AK-47 had been accomplished with an army of around 140,000 with a total casualty rate (including accidents and friendly fire) of around 800; that no oil fields had been set aflame; no WMDs had been used; no mass refugee crises had emerged; and no civil war had broken out... well, I think you would come to the conclusion that the war had been an extraordinary success. And you'd be right. Yes, there are enormous challenges; and yes, so much more could have been achieved without incompetence, infighting and occasional inhumanity. But it's worth acknowledging that, with a little perspective, our current gloom is over-blown. Stocks in Iraq have been way over-sold. I even regret some minor sells myself. Now watch the media do all it can to accentuate the negative.
Mark these words
A must-read interview with the last surviving fighter in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising of the Jews against the Nazis. His name is Marek Edelman, and his comments are translated from a Polish newsweekly transcription of a TV interview he gave. The Chrenkoff blog has additional information (click link above). Here are some excerpts:
Interviewer: But there are people who say it's [Iraq, the war against Islamofascism] not our business.
Edelman: And whose business is it? Every war with fascism is our business. In 1939 there were also many people who said that the war in Poland was not their war, and what happened? Great nations fell because politicians listened to those who were saying that it's not worth dying for Gdansk [Danzig]. If only we'd intervened militarily after Hitler re-entered Rhineland we probably would not have had the war and the Holocaust.
Interviewer: Many people do understand that, but they don't understand why the Americans have to go to the other side of the world and fight over Iraq now.
Edelman: And why did they go to Europe then? Who defeated Hitler and saved Europe from fascism? The French? No, the Americans did. We thanked them then because they saved us. Today we criticise them because they're saving somebody else.
* * *
Interviewer: But the Spanish withdrew their troops from Iraq after the terrorist attack in Madrid.
Edelman: Please don't tell me what the Spanish did. So what? Do you seriously think that it will save them from further attacks? No. The weak just get punched in the head. Pacifism lost a long time ago.
Interviewer: There are more and more voices saying that Poland shouldn't work so close with the Americans and that instead we should get closer to France and Germany.
Edelman: France used to be a great power, culturally and intellectually. And what happened to them? They didn't want to fight for their own democracy, they thought it wasn't really their war [in 1939]. And they lost everything, because when you bend over and take it - even once - then you're finished. And what's that whole talk about the difference between American politics and European politics? There is no other politics but international democratic politics. If we withdraw from Iraq now, what do we have left? Cosying up to Iran and Saudi Arabia? ...
Interviewer: But there are people who say it's [Iraq, the war against Islamofascism] not our business.
Edelman: And whose business is it? Every war with fascism is our business. In 1939 there were also many people who said that the war in Poland was not their war, and what happened? Great nations fell because politicians listened to those who were saying that it's not worth dying for Gdansk [Danzig]. If only we'd intervened militarily after Hitler re-entered Rhineland we probably would not have had the war and the Holocaust.
Interviewer: Many people do understand that, but they don't understand why the Americans have to go to the other side of the world and fight over Iraq now.
Edelman: And why did they go to Europe then? Who defeated Hitler and saved Europe from fascism? The French? No, the Americans did. We thanked them then because they saved us. Today we criticise them because they're saving somebody else.
* * *
Interviewer: But the Spanish withdrew their troops from Iraq after the terrorist attack in Madrid.
Edelman: Please don't tell me what the Spanish did. So what? Do you seriously think that it will save them from further attacks? No. The weak just get punched in the head. Pacifism lost a long time ago.
Interviewer: There are more and more voices saying that Poland shouldn't work so close with the Americans and that instead we should get closer to France and Germany.
Edelman: France used to be a great power, culturally and intellectually. And what happened to them? They didn't want to fight for their own democracy, they thought it wasn't really their war [in 1939]. And they lost everything, because when you bend over and take it - even once - then you're finished. And what's that whole talk about the difference between American politics and European politics? There is no other politics but international democratic politics. If we withdraw from Iraq now, what do we have left? Cosying up to Iran and Saudi Arabia? ...
Saddam -- Al-Qaeda, the links are there
Your initial reading list for the day:
Andy McCarthy describes some of Saddam's links to al-Qaeda in this piece.
But a more detailed rundown has been pieced together by Stephen Hayes, a Weekly Standard reporter who has been investigating the Saddam connections to al-Qaeda for years. Here is his latest article. And here is a link to his new book.
Andy McCarthy describes some of Saddam's links to al-Qaeda in this piece.
But a more detailed rundown has been pieced together by Stephen Hayes, a Weekly Standard reporter who has been investigating the Saddam connections to al-Qaeda for years. Here is his latest article. And here is a link to his new book.
Monday, May 31, 2004
Memorial Day
The Monkette2B and I went to the closest National Cemetary today to honor the servicemen and -women who did so much for so many and asked for so little.
It is a humbling experience. The men and women buried in our National Cemetaries (there are 119 maintained by the US Department of Veterans Affairs and the list is available online) gave of themselves more than has ever been asked of me or the vast majority of my generation. True heroes don't seek heroism, but instead perform their duty to the best of their ability with courage, integrity and determination. It is our duty to remember them, and honor them as their service honored this country and the generations that live in freedom that they provided and defended.
It is a humbling experience. The men and women buried in our National Cemetaries (there are 119 maintained by the US Department of Veterans Affairs and the list is available online) gave of themselves more than has ever been asked of me or the vast majority of my generation. True heroes don't seek heroism, but instead perform their duty to the best of their ability with courage, integrity and determination. It is our duty to remember them, and honor them as their service honored this country and the generations that live in freedom that they provided and defended.
Conventional wisdom, and more
The first two months of the 2004 baseball season are history and here's the question, who's right, my dad or the baseball geeks? Back in the day, my pa always used to say "don't bother me until August" about standings. The baseball geeks have routinely noted that about 75% of the teams that have made the playoffs in the six-division era have been within 4 games of first place on June 1.
One thing has not changed. From 1998-2003, the AL East has finished in the same order: Yanks, RedSax, Jays, O's, D-Rays. From 1999-2002, the RedSux had at least a share of first place on June 1; last year, they were 1/2 game out. This year, more of the same: the Yanks and Redstiffs are tied for first going into June 1 games.
So let the race begin. Good signs for the Yankees = an 18-8 May with a 12-6 road record, including 6-3 in the West Coast locales that have usually been a black hole for the Yanks, and now the hitters are starting to stink less (the Yanks were the highest scoring team in the league before the Memorial Day games). Next step, consistent pitching. The Yanks have about 4 weeks to get that together before they face the RedSux again.
One thing has not changed. From 1998-2003, the AL East has finished in the same order: Yanks, RedSax, Jays, O's, D-Rays. From 1999-2002, the RedSux had at least a share of first place on June 1; last year, they were 1/2 game out. This year, more of the same: the Yanks and Redstiffs are tied for first going into June 1 games.
So let the race begin. Good signs for the Yankees = an 18-8 May with a 12-6 road record, including 6-3 in the West Coast locales that have usually been a black hole for the Yanks, and now the hitters are starting to stink less (the Yanks were the highest scoring team in the league before the Memorial Day games). Next step, consistent pitching. The Yanks have about 4 weeks to get that together before they face the RedSux again.
Say what?
Reuters has finally lost its sanity.
What relevance does this statement ("the gun [ ] is kept in a small study off the Oval Office where Bush displays memorabilia. It is the same room where former President Bill Clinton had some of his encounters with former intern Monica Lewinsky") have to an article about how Pres. Bush keeps the gun Saddam had on him when US troops captured him in his rat nest?
Should Clinton have kept a bronze impression of Lewinsky's lips in his memorabilia cabinet?
The gun was mounted and presented as a gift by the soldiers to their Commander-in-Chief and the President displays it with other memorabilia. The spin put on this by Time and Reuters seems to be that this is either indicative of Pres. Bush's trophy hunting or is somehow abnormal. Honestly, if FDR or Churchill had put Hitler's head on a pike, I'd have had no problem with that. I'm thinking that the Knesset could have done that with Eichmann after the Mossad nabbed him in Buenos Aires in the early 60s. Talk about the press being out of touch . . .
What relevance does this statement ("the gun [ ] is kept in a small study off the Oval Office where Bush displays memorabilia. It is the same room where former President Bill Clinton had some of his encounters with former intern Monica Lewinsky") have to an article about how Pres. Bush keeps the gun Saddam had on him when US troops captured him in his rat nest?
Should Clinton have kept a bronze impression of Lewinsky's lips in his memorabilia cabinet?
The gun was mounted and presented as a gift by the soldiers to their Commander-in-Chief and the President displays it with other memorabilia. The spin put on this by Time and Reuters seems to be that this is either indicative of Pres. Bush's trophy hunting or is somehow abnormal. Honestly, if FDR or Churchill had put Hitler's head on a pike, I'd have had no problem with that. I'm thinking that the Knesset could have done that with Eichmann after the Mossad nabbed him in Buenos Aires in the early 60s. Talk about the press being out of touch . . .
Memorial Day
This is the day most associated with the beginning of summer, days at the beach, and a nice 3-day weekend after 3-4 straight months of full work-weeks. But it is REALLY the day to reflect upon the sacrifices of our war dead, what they accomplished and the bravery, strength and determination they showed on behalf of themselves, their loved ones and this nation.
Today, there is a loss of perspective regarding war, sacrifice, duty, honor and patriotism. Mark Steyn puts some of this into perspective:
All wars are messy, and many of them seem small and unworthy even at the moment of triumph. The unkempt lice-infested Saddam Hussein yanked from his spider hole last December is not so very different from the Jefferson Davis captured in May 1865 while skulking away in women's clothing, and thereafter depicted by gleeful Northern cartoonists in hoop skirts, petticoats and crinolines.
Conquered and captured, an enemy shrivels, and you question what he ever had that necessitated such a sacrifice. The piercing clarity of war shades into the murky grays of postwar reconstruction. You think Iraq's a quagmire? Lincoln's ''new birth of freedom'' bogged down into a centurylong quagmire of segregation, denial of civil rights, lynchings. Does that mean the Civil War wasn't worth fighting? That, as Al Gore and other excitable types would say, Abe W. Lincoln lied to us?
* * *
But that's the difference between then and now: the loss of proportion. They had victims galore back in 1863, but they weren't a victim culture. They had a lot of crummy decisions and bureaucratic screwups worth re-examining, but they weren't a nation that prioritized retroactive pseudo-legalistic self-flagellating vaudeville over all else. They had hellish setbacks but they didn't lose sight of the forest in order to obsess week after week on one tiny twig of one weedy little tree.
There is something not just ridiculous but unbecoming about a hyperpower 300 million strong whose elites -- from the deranged former vice president down -- want the outcome of a war, and the fate of a nation, to hinge on one freaky jailhouse; elites who are willing to pay any price, bear any burden, as long as it's pain-free, squeaky clean and over in a week. The sheer silliness dishonors the memory of all those we're supposed to be remembering this Memorial Day.
Read his whole editorial here.
Today, there is a loss of perspective regarding war, sacrifice, duty, honor and patriotism. Mark Steyn puts some of this into perspective:
All wars are messy, and many of them seem small and unworthy even at the moment of triumph. The unkempt lice-infested Saddam Hussein yanked from his spider hole last December is not so very different from the Jefferson Davis captured in May 1865 while skulking away in women's clothing, and thereafter depicted by gleeful Northern cartoonists in hoop skirts, petticoats and crinolines.
Conquered and captured, an enemy shrivels, and you question what he ever had that necessitated such a sacrifice. The piercing clarity of war shades into the murky grays of postwar reconstruction. You think Iraq's a quagmire? Lincoln's ''new birth of freedom'' bogged down into a centurylong quagmire of segregation, denial of civil rights, lynchings. Does that mean the Civil War wasn't worth fighting? That, as Al Gore and other excitable types would say, Abe W. Lincoln lied to us?
* * *
But that's the difference between then and now: the loss of proportion. They had victims galore back in 1863, but they weren't a victim culture. They had a lot of crummy decisions and bureaucratic screwups worth re-examining, but they weren't a nation that prioritized retroactive pseudo-legalistic self-flagellating vaudeville over all else. They had hellish setbacks but they didn't lose sight of the forest in order to obsess week after week on one tiny twig of one weedy little tree.
There is something not just ridiculous but unbecoming about a hyperpower 300 million strong whose elites -- from the deranged former vice president down -- want the outcome of a war, and the fate of a nation, to hinge on one freaky jailhouse; elites who are willing to pay any price, bear any burden, as long as it's pain-free, squeaky clean and over in a week. The sheer silliness dishonors the memory of all those we're supposed to be remembering this Memorial Day.
Read his whole editorial here.
Sunday, May 30, 2004
Just remember this . . .
. . . the next time you hear about the depradations in Abu Ghraib. It's the Sudanese government's policy to use the Janjaweed Arab "militia" as its front in its ongoing unofficial war against the black Sudanese animists and Christians. The Sudan is controlled by an Arab and Muslim fundamentalist government. Read about the situation here. At least the British papers cover this.
Saturday, May 29, 2004
Growing up with Auntie
A nice op-ed about how the BBC (aka "Auntie" in some British circles) and its cultural outlook on America has shaped British opinion on the US for decades, and why that's dangerous today. From the Daily Telegraph.
Geneva Conventions redux
More on the Geneva Conventions and how they do not apply to Gitmo Bay detainees or al-Qaedans in Iraq. This is from Professor John Yoo, who was the subject of 200 students protesting his publishing a law review article on which this editorial is based. Why? Those students are from UC-Berkeley, bastion of liberal anti-war sentiment and a University whose protest roots have wandered far from the Free Speech protests of the early 1960s. Here is the editorial.
Friday, May 28, 2004
Quote du jour 2
Courtesy Lileks' screed, this Google-cached quote from Graham Danton:
A while ago I was asked to visit North Devon to speak about ‘DEMOCRACY AND THE EU’ for 10 minutes. Had I been free to attend I told them one minute would have been ample time. EU Commission: unelected. EU Court of Justice: unelected. EU Court of Auditors: unelected. EU Investment Bank: unelected. EU Economic Committee: unelected. EU Committee of the Regions: unelected. European Bank: unelected. EU Council of Ministers: we have 10 votes out of 87. EU Parliament: we have just 13.9% of the votes. Democracy? My mistake - it took only 26 seconds. Out of those 1189 people we can DE-ELECT just 88 Britons - one Minister and 87 MEPs. Just how many of the other 1101 does the Leader of the Conservative Party think have the “interests and values of the British people” on their agendas?
A while ago I was asked to visit North Devon to speak about ‘DEMOCRACY AND THE EU’ for 10 minutes. Had I been free to attend I told them one minute would have been ample time. EU Commission: unelected. EU Court of Justice: unelected. EU Court of Auditors: unelected. EU Investment Bank: unelected. EU Economic Committee: unelected. EU Committee of the Regions: unelected. European Bank: unelected. EU Council of Ministers: we have 10 votes out of 87. EU Parliament: we have just 13.9% of the votes. Democracy? My mistake - it took only 26 seconds. Out of those 1189 people we can DE-ELECT just 88 Britons - one Minister and 87 MEPs. Just how many of the other 1101 does the Leader of the Conservative Party think have the “interests and values of the British people” on their agendas?
Quote of the day
This is short enough to post in full. It's from the Boston Herald and available here. If you actually like the Redsux, I hear the Herald follows them.
How dare Al Gore disgrace this nation
By Boston Herald editorial staff
Friday, May 28, 2004
He never mentioned Nicholas Berg. Or Daniel Pearl. Or a single person killed in the World Trade Center. Nor did former Vice President Al Gore talk of any soldier by name who has given his life in Iraq. And he has the audacity to condemn the Bush administration for having ``twisted values?''
Gore spent the bulk of a speech before the liberal group MoveOn.org Wednesday bemoaning Abu Ghraib and denouncing President Bush's departure from the ``long successful strategy of containment.''
Yes, the very same strategy that, under Gore's leadership, allowed al-Qaeda operatives to plan the horror of Sept. 11 for years, while moving freely within our borders.
Gore even had the audacity to defend the perpetrators of the prison abuse - by name - while denouncing President Bush [related, bio] for ``humiliating'' our nation.
How dare he. How dare a former vice president of the United States go beyond disagreeing with the current president's policies - a right of anyone in this free country - and denounce Bush as ``incompetent.''
How dare Gore say that Americans have an ``innate vulnerability to temptation... to use power to abuse others.'' And that our own ``internal system of checks and balances cannot be relied upon'' to curb such abuse.
And this man - who apparently has so much disdain for the nature of the American people - wanted to be elected to lead it?
It is Gore who has brought dishonor to his party and to his party's nominee. The real disgrace is that this repugnant human being once held the second highest office in this great land.
How dare Al Gore disgrace this nation
By Boston Herald editorial staff
Friday, May 28, 2004
He never mentioned Nicholas Berg. Or Daniel Pearl. Or a single person killed in the World Trade Center. Nor did former Vice President Al Gore talk of any soldier by name who has given his life in Iraq. And he has the audacity to condemn the Bush administration for having ``twisted values?''
Gore spent the bulk of a speech before the liberal group MoveOn.org Wednesday bemoaning Abu Ghraib and denouncing President Bush's departure from the ``long successful strategy of containment.''
Yes, the very same strategy that, under Gore's leadership, allowed al-Qaeda operatives to plan the horror of Sept. 11 for years, while moving freely within our borders.
Gore even had the audacity to defend the perpetrators of the prison abuse - by name - while denouncing President Bush [related, bio] for ``humiliating'' our nation.
How dare he. How dare a former vice president of the United States go beyond disagreeing with the current president's policies - a right of anyone in this free country - and denounce Bush as ``incompetent.''
How dare Gore say that Americans have an ``innate vulnerability to temptation... to use power to abuse others.'' And that our own ``internal system of checks and balances cannot be relied upon'' to curb such abuse.
And this man - who apparently has so much disdain for the nature of the American people - wanted to be elected to lead it?
It is Gore who has brought dishonor to his party and to his party's nominee. The real disgrace is that this repugnant human being once held the second highest office in this great land.
Shibboleth
The Geneva Convention is now a shibboleth for the Left. Its terms and requirements are not examined; its application and exemptions are irrelevant. All that matters to Al Gore, Ramsey Clarke, International ANSWER, the Euro-left is that there is a Geneva Convention that mandates humane treatment. But the Geneva Convention (actually, there are two that may apply right now) does not apply to terrorists, who can be shot on sight, or any other unlawful combatants. Instead, the Bush Administration has gone above and beyond the Convention requirements by granting humane treatment to the Gitmo Bay detainees and by granting the same to Iraqi terrorists. Once such treatment is established, however, humane treatment must be continual, not episodic or terminated -- thus, the Abu Ghraib scandal.
The Wall Street Journal discussed the Conventions earlier this month (the Monk linked to it earlier but saves you the effort of digging through Monk Archives; Monk lives to serve).
Today, Rich Lowry explains and expands on Al Gore and Geneva's requirements, in this piece.
The Wall Street Journal discussed the Conventions earlier this month (the Monk linked to it earlier but saves you the effort of digging through Monk Archives; Monk lives to serve).
Today, Rich Lowry explains and expands on Al Gore and Geneva's requirements, in this piece.
That's what we expected
The Yankees' whomping of the Orioles this week, 11-3, 12-9, 18-5, is more in line with what pundits, fans, enemies, etc. expected from the Yanks this season -- lots of hits. Next step, better pitching, especially that lefty relief. Gabe White is thisclose to being designated for assignment -- his 90 mph belt-high fastballs are the pro ballplayer's equivalent of Tee-ball.
Thursday, May 27, 2004
Why bother?
There's no reason for me to perform a Fisking of Al Gore's insane rant from yesterday. Gore jumped the shark when he wrote Earth in the Balance and exalted saving the environment by taking the world into a socialistic green dark ages over the technological and economic development that have done more to help people throughout the world than his neo-Luddite streak ever did (see here at its FAQ for explanation of jumping the shark).
For others, it happened in the 2000 Presidential Campaign (see here) and for still others, it was when he declared that Clinton would be remembered among the best presidents in history.
Ultimately, Andy McCarthy said it best (scroll down to 2:12 pm, 5-26-04):
Even if he believes half of what he says, this has to be one of the basest tirades from a former VP ever. For all his talk about dignity, he has no sense of it -- no sense of how inappropriate it is for someone of his rank to stoop to this sort of thing, no sense that, in caves someplace, bin Laden and Zarqawi are smiling ear-to-ear.
. . . I know they say politics ain't beanbag, but this is really low-brow stuff. It's especially sad for what it says about the Dems: only 20 years ago, a speech like this would have embarrassed them; now, Gore probably gets a prime-time convention slot.
For others, it happened in the 2000 Presidential Campaign (see here) and for still others, it was when he declared that Clinton would be remembered among the best presidents in history.
Ultimately, Andy McCarthy said it best (scroll down to 2:12 pm, 5-26-04):
Even if he believes half of what he says, this has to be one of the basest tirades from a former VP ever. For all his talk about dignity, he has no sense of it -- no sense of how inappropriate it is for someone of his rank to stoop to this sort of thing, no sense that, in caves someplace, bin Laden and Zarqawi are smiling ear-to-ear.
. . . I know they say politics ain't beanbag, but this is really low-brow stuff. It's especially sad for what it says about the Dems: only 20 years ago, a speech like this would have embarrassed them; now, Gore probably gets a prime-time convention slot.
And your must-read of the day is . . .
This WSJ article proving, yet again (just check out some of the work the Weekly Standard has done on this), the ties between Saddam, his minions, al-Qaeda and the WTC bombing.
Line of the day
Courtesy Neal Boortz's site, regarding John Kerry's suggestion that he not accept the Democratic nomination until after the Boston convention, then reversing course:
As a Bush spokesman said, "Only John Kerry could be for the nominating convention, but against the nomination - before he was for the nomination."
As a Bush spokesman said, "Only John Kerry could be for the nominating convention, but against the nomination - before he was for the nomination."
Middle East primer
A guide to perception, reality, idiocy and anti-Israel insanity from a Jerusalem Post columnist.
About bloody time
The UK arrested radical rabble-rousing cleric Abu Hamza, imam of the infamous Finnsbury Mosque in northwest London and a supporter of Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hizb'Allah and their ilk. He's been living semi-legally in the UK for years, sucking on the government teat and peddling his anti-UK, anti-US, anti-Jew rubbish. Here's a profile and report on his arrest.
Yankees update
They're 45 games into the season, their #1 pitcher has a 5.00 ERA, their leader is hitting barely over .200, Bernie Williams is in the .230 range, Gary Sheffield is on a 15-homer pace, Contreras has an ERA over 7 and who knows how Giambi will be when he's off the DL. Moreover, they've played nearly 1/2 their games against the best division in baseball, the AL West.
The Yanks are 27-18, a 97-win pace. How good will they be if they ever start playing well consistently?
The Yanks are 27-18, a 97-win pace. How good will they be if they ever start playing well consistently?
Wednesday, May 26, 2004
Nice interview
Hat tip to Andrew Sullivan for this interview between some Canadian dope music critic from Brave Words and Bloody Knuckles (a heavy metal magazine) and the front man of Iced Earth, a metal band. The Iced Earth singer is John Schaffer (no relation to the old Penn State QB). The full interview is available here.
Schaffer's obviously a good interviewee because he listens to the interviewers bias and is not afraid to call him on it. He's being interviewed about Iced Earth's new CD, which is inspired in large part by Schaffer's interest in history.
Excerpt #1:
BW&BK: "This next question is controversial so I'm letting you know before we proceed. Some political analysts have articulated the view that what happened on September 11 was justified due to America's presence in the Middle East, specifically Saudi Arabia. Some political analysts view it as retaliation for what the US has done in the Middle East in the past. As a Canadian, I'm interested in hearing what you have to say about this view that's been put forth by analysts."
JS: "No, it wasn't justified. Not at all. And anybody who says so needs to have their f[***]in' head examined."
BW&BK: "Do you think 9/11 will be viewed as the first event in the US empire's decline and fall?"
JS: "No. This is not an empire, first of all. If the United States was an empire, your country would be our 51st state."
And where's our friend John coming from? Read the end of this exchange:
BW&BK: "Well, sometimes Americans believe they're very free, when they're sometimes not. There are a lot of authors, especially a guy like Noam Chomsky, who believes a lot of consent in the US is manufactured by politicians and corporations --"
JS: "Talk about one of the f[***]in' ultra leftist spin doctors of the world, Noam Chomsky. You buy into that crap?"
BW&BK: "Well, I read a lot of his stuff."
JS: "But do you believe it all?"
BW&BK: "I have a degree in political science, so I believe some of it."
JS: "Hmm. Yeah. Well. And how old are you?"
BW&BK: "I'm 22."
JS: "22 years old? That's a lot of wisdom there! Come on, man. You know where I live? In the real world. When I was 16 years old I was living in abandoned houses and making my way into a career. Building things up from nothing without any kind of... well... socialist system to help me. That made me a very strong, independent person. I'm an independent thinker. Just because I get certain things shoved down my throat, I don't follow. I lead. Y'know what I'm saying? I look at the facts, and I base my opinions on the facts. Not the political rantings of someone like Noam Chomsky. I've got some of his books in my library. I think they're unbelievably over-the-top, like dangerously so. But that's you've got out there."
.
Schaffer's obviously a good interviewee because he listens to the interviewers bias and is not afraid to call him on it. He's being interviewed about Iced Earth's new CD, which is inspired in large part by Schaffer's interest in history.
Excerpt #1:
BW&BK: "This next question is controversial so I'm letting you know before we proceed. Some political analysts have articulated the view that what happened on September 11 was justified due to America's presence in the Middle East, specifically Saudi Arabia. Some political analysts view it as retaliation for what the US has done in the Middle East in the past. As a Canadian, I'm interested in hearing what you have to say about this view that's been put forth by analysts."
JS: "No, it wasn't justified. Not at all. And anybody who says so needs to have their f[***]in' head examined."
BW&BK: "Do you think 9/11 will be viewed as the first event in the US empire's decline and fall?"
JS: "No. This is not an empire, first of all. If the United States was an empire, your country would be our 51st state."
And where's our friend John coming from? Read the end of this exchange:
BW&BK: "Well, sometimes Americans believe they're very free, when they're sometimes not. There are a lot of authors, especially a guy like Noam Chomsky, who believes a lot of consent in the US is manufactured by politicians and corporations --"
JS: "Talk about one of the f[***]in' ultra leftist spin doctors of the world, Noam Chomsky. You buy into that crap?"
BW&BK: "Well, I read a lot of his stuff."
JS: "But do you believe it all?"
BW&BK: "I have a degree in political science, so I believe some of it."
JS: "Hmm. Yeah. Well. And how old are you?"
BW&BK: "I'm 22."
JS: "22 years old? That's a lot of wisdom there! Come on, man. You know where I live? In the real world. When I was 16 years old I was living in abandoned houses and making my way into a career. Building things up from nothing without any kind of... well... socialist system to help me. That made me a very strong, independent person. I'm an independent thinker. Just because I get certain things shoved down my throat, I don't follow. I lead. Y'know what I'm saying? I look at the facts, and I base my opinions on the facts. Not the political rantings of someone like Noam Chomsky. I've got some of his books in my library. I think they're unbelievably over-the-top, like dangerously so. But that's you've got out there."
.
Big crime in Big D
The latest FBI report lists Dallas as the most crime-ridden large city in the US. Details are here. Biggest problem, enormous numbers of burglaries. Why? In Texas, car burglary is merely a misdemeanor (see here and scroll to section 30.04) and Dallas is the car burglary capital of Texas.
Another reason: incompetence. The horrible and disgraceful Terrell Bolton FINALLY was sacked last year as police chief. But he never should have been hired in the first place. Hopefully the "proven crime fighter" (see FBI report article above) Kunkle will reverse Dallas' terrible trend.
Another reason: incompetence. The horrible and disgraceful Terrell Bolton FINALLY was sacked last year as police chief. But he never should have been hired in the first place. Hopefully the "proven crime fighter" (see FBI report article above) Kunkle will reverse Dallas' terrible trend.
Just negotiating price
Jessica Cutler is a prostitute. She was a staffer for Sen. Mike DeWine of Ohio, who fired her when he found out she is the author of the Washingtonienne blog -- a diary chronicling her trysts with several Federal officials, who paid her for sex acts.
Her admission is here. An excerpt:
One diary entry described a "married man who pays me for sex" as "chief of staff at one of the gov agencies, appointed by Bush." That man, she claimed, paid her $400 on Tuesday for sex, but she declined to provide his name to The Post, saying, "I'm not trying to ruin his life." (On her blog she identified all the men by initials.)
In the interview, she described the $400 payment as "more like a gift than it was paying for a service" and wouldn't say how much money she has made for sex. "I don't want the IRS banging down my door."
The WaPo article says "She's setting her sights on the book publishing industry: 'They'll totally hire me if I say I got fired from my job on the Hill because of a sex scandal.'" The really sick thing? She's probably right.
A real critical take is here from married and ostensibly moral Michelle Malkin, who did not use her good looks to be published.
Her admission is here. An excerpt:
One diary entry described a "married man who pays me for sex" as "chief of staff at one of the gov agencies, appointed by Bush." That man, she claimed, paid her $400 on Tuesday for sex, but she declined to provide his name to The Post, saying, "I'm not trying to ruin his life." (On her blog she identified all the men by initials.)
In the interview, she described the $400 payment as "more like a gift than it was paying for a service" and wouldn't say how much money she has made for sex. "I don't want the IRS banging down my door."
The WaPo article says "She's setting her sights on the book publishing industry: 'They'll totally hire me if I say I got fired from my job on the Hill because of a sex scandal.'" The really sick thing? She's probably right.
A real critical take is here from married and ostensibly moral Michelle Malkin, who did not use her good looks to be published.
Will Jennings carry this?
News from the front: one of Moqtada al-Sadr's top lackeys captured in the latest arse-whipping applied by US forces.
The Closing of the European Mind
Unfortunately, British (and European) conservatives have learned nothing from the lessons of Churchill and Thatcher. Today, British Conservatives are pseudo-aristocratic, statist, pan-European, anti-American and more likely to agree with Michael Moore than George Bush. Details in this interesting article. It's a sign of the conservative apocalypse when the Tory leader in the UK pens an op-ed critical of Tony Blair for the rabidly anti-American fishwrap, The Independent.
Who to trust, pt. 2
Here's the Wall Street Journal analysis of the Chalabi mess. The Journal's insight: "We think Mr. Chalabi is a pawn in a much larger battle that is strategic, ideological and personal." Most disturbing is this observation:
The ideological battle concerns Iraq's future governance. As a secular Shiite, Mr. Chalabi has sought to make an alliance with Grand Ayatollah Sistani and other moderate Shiite leaders. This puts him at odds with Lakhdar Brahimi, the U.N. special envoy to Iraq, as well as with the neighboring Arab leaders who are wary of control by the Shiite majority.
Jordan's King Abdullah, a longtime Chalabi enemy who is close to Mr. Brahimi, has already called for another Sunni strongman to run Iraq. Mr. Bremer and the Bush Administration have handed control over the June 30 transition to Iraqi sovereignty to Mr. Brahimi, and one of his demands is that Mr. Chalabi be frozen out.
The Bush Administration is doing entirely too much kowtowing to the UN and other Arab states. If it did not have reelection considerations, my hope is that the administration would have less UN and Jordanian input (King Abdullah has previously said that Iraq needs a Saddamesque strong man and Jordan was on the wrong side of Gulf War I). The UN is NOT fundamentally pro-democracy and no Arab or Muslim state other than Turkey has a functioning democratic government. Nonetheless, I think Pres. Bush is STILL trying to appease Arab rulers, Europeans and UN-philes -- a completely hopeless task.
The ideological battle concerns Iraq's future governance. As a secular Shiite, Mr. Chalabi has sought to make an alliance with Grand Ayatollah Sistani and other moderate Shiite leaders. This puts him at odds with Lakhdar Brahimi, the U.N. special envoy to Iraq, as well as with the neighboring Arab leaders who are wary of control by the Shiite majority.
Jordan's King Abdullah, a longtime Chalabi enemy who is close to Mr. Brahimi, has already called for another Sunni strongman to run Iraq. Mr. Bremer and the Bush Administration have handed control over the June 30 transition to Iraqi sovereignty to Mr. Brahimi, and one of his demands is that Mr. Chalabi be frozen out.
The Bush Administration is doing entirely too much kowtowing to the UN and other Arab states. If it did not have reelection considerations, my hope is that the administration would have less UN and Jordanian input (King Abdullah has previously said that Iraq needs a Saddamesque strong man and Jordan was on the wrong side of Gulf War I). The UN is NOT fundamentally pro-democracy and no Arab or Muslim state other than Turkey has a functioning democratic government. Nonetheless, I think Pres. Bush is STILL trying to appease Arab rulers, Europeans and UN-philes -- a completely hopeless task.
Off the rails
The latest ACLU nuttiness -- change the seal of Los Angeles. See Volokh for link and commentary.
Tuesday, May 25, 2004
Sports bias
There's media bias in sports journalism, and lots of it. Just watch ESPN or read Sports Illustrated regularly and it becomes pretty obvious. Most recently, the huge attention given to the ruling by Judge Shira Scheindlin that Maurice Clarett could enter the NFL Draft and the NFL eligibility rules violated antitrust. ESPN loved it -- the corporate moneybags getting challenged and defeated by a black kid from a rust-belt town.
Problem was, Scheindlin's ruling lacked both legal grounding and common sense. Thus, the Second Circuit initially stayed her decision and prevented Clarett from entering the draft, then reversed her decision on Monday. The decision is theoretically available on the Second Circuit's website here but I could not pull it up when I tried earlier.
Did the reversal lead the news stories like Scheindlin's decision? No, it barely rated a mention and ESPN did not have wall-to-wall commentary, just this wire service article on its website.
Problem was, Scheindlin's ruling lacked both legal grounding and common sense. Thus, the Second Circuit initially stayed her decision and prevented Clarett from entering the draft, then reversed her decision on Monday. The decision is theoretically available on the Second Circuit's website here but I could not pull it up when I tried earlier.
Did the reversal lead the news stories like Scheindlin's decision? No, it barely rated a mention and ESPN did not have wall-to-wall commentary, just this wire service article on its website.
Class act
I knew I liked Tony Clark as a person when he was quoted in the NY Post or Daily News saying that he arrives early for batting and fielding practice because he is a backup and therefore has to work extra hard to ensure that he's ready to play. Today, the Daily News has this profile of Clark, which only reinforces my impressions of the man.
Presidential qualities
Charles Johnson, of Little Green Footballs, says what I, and any semi-honest American, thought about Bush and Kerry and their respective athletic mishaps:
John Kerry made a snarky comment about “training wheels,” after taking a fall himself a couple of weeks ago. George Bush said nothing about Kerry’s fall.
Which reaction seems more presidential to you?
John Kerry made a snarky comment about “training wheels,” after taking a fall himself a couple of weeks ago. George Bush said nothing about Kerry’s fall.
Which reaction seems more presidential to you?
UN rapists
In the Congo, female victims of the civil war living in UN refugee camps can only get food by sleeping with UN troops. This is the organization that we would allow to administer Iraq?
The newest trick
How to enshrine obviously illegal racial preferences -- localities are enacting legislation incorporating the 1965 United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which has this dicey language: "special measures taken for the sole purpose of adequate advancement of certain racial or ethnic groups or individuals requiring such protection as may be necessary in order to ensure such groups or individuals equal enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms shall not be deemed racial discrimination." This language clearly violates the Fourteenth Amendment, but the Senate enacted the treaty anyway. Now a judge in California has used it to uphold Berkeley's race-based admissions programs for public schools. This is the product of mixing two horribles: race-conscious decisionmaking and the new judiciary's love of UN conventions to subvert US law with which the judges disagree. Read about it here.
[Note: I originally stated that the challenged program was for UC-Berkeley, that statement is corrected above].
[Note: I originally stated that the challenged program was for UC-Berkeley, that statement is corrected above].
disturbing trend
Here's Safire's column on the strategy in Iraq and the competing factions within the US government. Very disturbing. The biggest problem Bush has is that he STILL has not de-Clintonized the State Department or the CIA 3.5 years into his presidency. Thus, his plans and directions are stalled and curtailed by the same bureaucracy that is supposed to effectuate his orders.
Coming attractions
All you ever wanted to know about movie trailers is here. I didn't know that the studios and/or directors did not cut them themselves.
Go Dutchmen
E.L. Doctorow was booed at Hofstra's commencement for peddling a crock of Michael Moore theories in a commencement speech. Peggy Noonan shows why the Hofstra grads are right to protest some self-important ninny using their graduation ceremony to aggrandize himself.
Monday, May 24, 2004
Gonzo goes bonkers again
Hunter S. Thompson is always described as a gonzo journalist. What that essentially means is that he's an acid-dropping hippie-era retread who made his money and fame while under the influence of synthetically enhanced substances. For some unknown reason, ESPN hired him as a "sports" columnist -- probably because the idiots at ESPN are so drunk off their own sense of ESPN as a cultural phenomenon that they believe sports now needs the deranged rantings from a man perpetually suffering LSD flashbacks.
How else do you explain this statement that initially passed muster before Drudge picked up on it:
Hunter S. Thompson's ESPN column was scrubbed of controversy late Monday afternoon when online editors worried the famed gonzo journalist had gone too far.
In a column entitled, "Let's Go to the Olympics," Thompson went off on the Abu Ghraib prison picture scandal, exclaiming: "Not even the foulest atrocities of Adolf Hitler ever shocked me so badly as these [Abu Ghraib] photographs did."
But after being linked to the DRUDGE REPORT, a top editor demanded the sentence be immediately edited --without Thompson's okay, according to an ESPN.com staffer.
Thompson, Susan Sontag, Barbara Kingsolver, Alice Walker, E.L. Doctorow, Noam Chomsky, John Pilger, Ted Rall and Robert Scheer (to name but a few) are so far gone that it is amazing that (1) people think the way that they do; (2) they are not publicly derided for their views; (3) they are not viewed as evil. But all these folks are objectively evil, because if you exalt abuse of tens of prisoners as more horrible than the Nazi regime, if you excuse the depradations of Ho Chi Minh (Sontag/Chomsky), Pol Pot (Chomsky), Stalin, Saddam (Pilger, Scheer, Rall, Kingsolver), Osama (Chomsky, Sontag, Kingsolver, Walker, Doctorow) and if you believe that Israel's treatment of Palestinians is equivalent on any scale and in any manner to the treatment of Jews under the Nazi regime, you are objectively evil.
How else do you explain this statement that initially passed muster before Drudge picked up on it:
Hunter S. Thompson's ESPN column was scrubbed of controversy late Monday afternoon when online editors worried the famed gonzo journalist had gone too far.
In a column entitled, "Let's Go to the Olympics," Thompson went off on the Abu Ghraib prison picture scandal, exclaiming: "Not even the foulest atrocities of Adolf Hitler ever shocked me so badly as these [Abu Ghraib] photographs did."
But after being linked to the DRUDGE REPORT, a top editor demanded the sentence be immediately edited --without Thompson's okay, according to an ESPN.com staffer.
Thompson, Susan Sontag, Barbara Kingsolver, Alice Walker, E.L. Doctorow, Noam Chomsky, John Pilger, Ted Rall and Robert Scheer (to name but a few) are so far gone that it is amazing that (1) people think the way that they do; (2) they are not publicly derided for their views; (3) they are not viewed as evil. But all these folks are objectively evil, because if you exalt abuse of tens of prisoners as more horrible than the Nazi regime, if you excuse the depradations of Ho Chi Minh (Sontag/Chomsky), Pol Pot (Chomsky), Stalin, Saddam (Pilger, Scheer, Rall, Kingsolver), Osama (Chomsky, Sontag, Kingsolver, Walker, Doctorow) and if you believe that Israel's treatment of Palestinians is equivalent on any scale and in any manner to the treatment of Jews under the Nazi regime, you are objectively evil.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)