Saturday, February 04, 2006

The Trouble With Boys

Newsweek Society - MSNBC.com: "Boys are biologically, developmentally and psychologically different from girls—and teachers need to learn how to bring out the best in every one. 'Very well-meaning people,' says Dr. Bruce Perry, a Houston neurologist who advocates for troubled kids, 'have created a biologically disrespectful model of education.'"

The trouble with Universities more like. It is very interesting to me that Newsweek would assume something in this article that is rejected with horror at Harvard.

Of course the question is, if the differences between boys and girls demand changing the learning environment, doesn't that imply that the differences between men and women demand the same concessions in the work environment. I'm sure this question would make some at Harvard black out but it's either a valid question or not. I imagine this has implications for industry, society and the military. Trying to ignore this question is foolish.

For example, the Newsweek article points out that classes that are segregated by sex to better than those that are not. I'm willing to bet the same is true for students in college dorms. But I expect it would take quite a bit for college administrators to implement this idea.

It's not just boys who are in trouble but men also:
Washington Post: Statistics show that a young man who doesn't finish school or go to college in 2005 will likely earn less than half what a college graduate earns. He'll be three times more likely to be unemployed and more likely to be homeless. He'll be more likely to get divorced, more likely to engage in violence against women and more likely to engage in crime. He'll be more likely to develop substance abuse problems and to be a greater burden on the economy, statistically, since men who don't attend college pay less in Social Security and other taxes, depend more on government welfare, are more likely to father children out of wedlock and are more likely not to pay child support.
Yet ironically it is school that often creates a hostile environment for men, which is what the Newsweek article is all about. And of course things like Promise Keepers have long been dismissed as archaic and dangerous by the denizens of the University culture.

Wisdom is known by her children.

Friday, February 03, 2006

Teenager Attacks Three Men at Gay Bar in Massachusetts - New York Times

New York Times: "BOSTON, Feb. 2 — A teenager armed with a hatchet and a handgun seriously injured three people early Thursday at a gay bar in New Bedford, Mass., the police said."
Apparently the teen butcher is anti-Semitic and a Nazi.

What other ideology is popular in the world today that commits violence against homosexuals and Jews?

I'll give you three guesses and it's not Christianity.

Here's another hint: The Bush Administration is currently fighting a war against them in Iraq.

Another hint: no one has had the courage to make a major film denouncing this ideology. Except of course for Theo Van Gogh and he ended up like the poor souls in this bar.

Last hint: Kanye West has never portrayed a revered prophet of this ideology on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine.

Give up? Well, the New York Times would never see any similarity between this evil act against homosexuals and the queried ideology. You can bet they would if this were a shooting on an abortion clinic. If this happened in Iraq or Iran or Syria or Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan or Indonesia or Nigeria it wouldn't make the Times either.

I just figure evil is, you know, evil, and should be condemned wherever you find it.

Respect for Religion?

Instapundit.com -: "PIETER DORSMANN compares the controversy over the Mohammed cartoons with that over Andres Serrano's 'Piss Christ.'

The lesson is that if you want your religion not to be mocked, it helps to have a reputation for senseless violence. Is this the incentive structure we want?"

How Wal-Mart Is Like Academia

TCS Daily - How Wal-Mart Is Like Academia: "Because the academic market is so tight, universities have adopted virtually the same attitude toward aspiring professors as Wal-Mart does to prospective stockers. They demand heavy teaching loads, substantial committee work, a rigorous pace of professional publication -- and offer rather paltry salaries. And that's for people who have, on average, twenty-two or more years of schooling.

Not only is there intense competition for jobs -- a nationwide search and the willingness to move, usually at one’s own expense, to whatever school will hire you is a must -- but schools increasingly hire part-timers (called “adjuncts” in the business) who work for peanuts and no benefits rather than full-time professors."

Thursday, February 02, 2006

Boston's Quiet Revival

Christianity Today Magazine: "But inside, Park Street is no museum. Nearly half the congregation is made of university students, often from Harvard and M.I.T., and nearly three-quarters of the church is single. Many attended Park Street's Christmas Eve service where they heard a sermon on the meaning of Christmas in response to the city's decision to rename the evergreen standing in the Common a 'holiday tree.'

Park Street defies the myth that Boston and the rest of New England have shed their religious heritage for a secular society."

Sheehan condemns the President

Cindy Sheehan: "And about Bill Clinton . . . . You know, I really think he should have been impeached, but not for a blow job. His policies are responsible for killing more Iraqis that George Bush. I don't understand why to rise to the level of being president of my country one has to be a monster. I used to say that George Bush was defiling the Oval Office, but it's been held by a long line of monsters."
At least she's an equal opportunity crank. That's more than you can say for the NY Times.

War of the Worlds (2005)

War of the Worlds (2005) was all ethos, much pathos, no logos.

A tale of materialistic evolution this is. Surprising? Well all of us (including marauding tripeds from space) are just competitors in game of survival of the fittest right?

So things like murder, theft, and genocide are only killing, taking and exterminating in a purely materialistic world, whether it's aliens or your next door neighbor.

This movie is a horror movie but not in the familiar sense that we use the term. It is the horror of human life being reduced to rats in a cage fighting for survival.

There is precious little plot or character development in the film which lessens the emotional impact of the horrors visited on the cast.

The film serves as a handy example of the foolishness of ethics without God. As I asked my ethics professor in college, "why should I not steal, rape and kill if I can get away with it and, as is likely the case, a meteor will hit the earth in a thousand or ten thousand years and wipe all of humanity out anyway?" The best my professor could muster was: "I can't imagine why you would ask such a question."

Well, watch War of the Worlds and ask why murder is wrong if there is no God who serves as a transcendent judge of all of humanity. It's not just an important question, it's the most important question of human behavior.

Spielberg portrays an amoral world of evolution where the answer to my question seems to be, "Kill, steal, rape? These are just part of the march of life and death and the evolution of the species, whether human, or alien."

As I mentioned in my review of Munich, the moral universe of Schindler's List is far from this film.

If you enjoy the disturbing horror of a deadly, remorseless biological process then you missed the full effect of this film when it was on the big screen.

Otherwise...

My Rating: Rentable

Wednesday, February 01, 2006

The Passing of Heroes

ScrappleFace » Woman Who Coined ‘ScrappleFace’ Passes Away: "Mrs. McMaster is the grandmother of ScrappleFace.com editor Scott Ott, and served as a mother to him and three brothers since the late 1960s.

Jessica McMaster gave up her career, surrendered much of her pension, and walked away from a comfortable lifestyle in a handsome apartment to move to an old house in the country and take care of four boys. Without her sacrifice, and that of her husband James McMaster, 84, these boys were candidates for foster care or an orphanage. Thanks to their love, these boys are now… an airline pilot, a university professor, a construction worker and a Christian children’s camp director (who happens to write satire).

James McMaster has devoted more than a decade to caring for his wife in their home as she moved through the stages of dementia. He kept his promise.

Both of them serve as inspiring role models to their boys, and to many others."

Monday, January 30, 2006

Munich (2005)

I'll see anything Spielberg makes. Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan are two of the great movies of all time.

That's what makes Munich so disappointing.

What makes List and Ryan compelling films is that they take a moral point of view.

Munich is a swirl of moral confusion.

I knew the film was in trouble when it began with the words, "Inspired by Real Events". I think this is shorthand for: This film bears a vague resemblance to happenings in this plane of reality involving homo sapiens.

What follows is a dreary and morose mission impossible, exciting at times but burdened with layer upon layer of moral conundrums and implied legitimacy on all sides of a bloody conflict.

The problem lies in this movies disconnection with reality. It tries to portray the war between Palestinians and Israelis as a cycle of violence between two peoples simply fighting for their homes. By killing the killers of the Munich Olympics, Israel is simply selling it's moral soul in return for a dehumanizing descent into this cycle of death and futility. By implication, it seems, Spielberg is passing judgment on all such attempts at using violent means to fight terrorism.

The final scene occurs in the early seventies in the shadow of the World Trade Center Towers in New York. Apparently Spielberg is trying to show the failure of fighting terror as it has been fought in the film. Obviously little has changed, after all the fighting that has occurred, that would prevent terrorism.

It is this scene that illustrates Munich's failure as a film and a political statement. Never in the film is there any explicit mention of Islamic Fascism and it's aims. Never is there mention of overt anti-Semitism on part of the Palestinians. They are simply fighting for their home. In the real world, the Twin Towers fell not because of a cycle of violence between peoples fighting for their home, but because of a religious desire to make the world submit to a strict religious code. Spielberg's film is absolutely silent on the question of how to deal with such ideology because it is never mentioned. I'm not sure why he would use the iconography of the Twin Towers without even addressing the stated reasons of the murderers who brought them down.

Also, unlike Spielberg's other films, this war has no real anti-Semites. In the real world Israel and the US have to deal with people who would be happy if every Jew perished. By not mentioning this problem in his film, the whole posture of moral instruction here misses the mark of real life value. It seems that the "Saving Private Ryan" approach of killing those who would kill the Jews has become distasteful to Spielberg or at least no longer to be celebrated but lamented.

I wait to see any big screen depiction of Islamic terrorists that is close to how they talk and act in the real world.

My Rating: Rentable

Pro Life Zealots on PBS

Here's some classic reductio ad absurdum from James Taranto and the Best of the Web:

The Hostess With the Mostess
Last week this appalling exchange occurred between PBS personality Tavis Smiley and actress Rachel Weisz:

Smiley: I should start by saying congratulations.

Weisz: Thank you.

Smiley: On a couple of different things. . . . First the nomination. And then the baby.

Weisz: The baby, yeah. It's--

Smiley: So you just announced the other day you're pregnant.

Weisz: Yeah, I'm five months now, so it's kind of safe to say out loud.

Smiley: Five months now, yeah. It's your first baby?

Weisz: First time.

Smiley: All right, so how's this feeling for you?

Weisz: Feel, right now, I'm in a good phase. The first three months were a little more tricky. You get morning sickness and a little tired, but I'm feeling quite good now. You, in the second trimester, I think you start to feel like anything is possible. Yeah.

Smiley: So this is, you're gonna stop working for a little bit, obviously, to be a mommy for a minute.

Stop right there! Baby? Mommy? What is this, "The 700 Club"?

Earlier this week we attended a debate on abortion, sponsored jointly by the Federalist Society and the left-wing American Constitution Society. From the pro-abortion debater we learned the correct terminology for a pregnant woman and her--um, how do we say this? Her--uh, hmm--well, you know what we mean, that "thing" in her tummy. Anyway, you're not supposed to say she's a "mommy" with a "baby." That is disrespectful to women. You're supposed to say she's a "host" with a "fetus."

Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Study: Men Enjoy Seeing Bad People Suffer

Yahoo! News: "NEW YORK -
Bill Clinton said he felt others' pain. But a new brain-scanning study suggests that when guys see a cheater get a mild electric shock, they don't feel his pain much at all. In fact, they rather enjoy it.

In contrast, women's brains showed they do empathize with the cheater's pain and don't get a kick out it.

It's not clear whether this difference in schadenfreude — enjoyment of another's misfortune — results from basic biology or sex roles learned during life, researchers say. But it could help explain why men have historically taken charge of punishing criminals and others who violate societal rules, said researcher Dr. Klaas Stephan."


Punishing children too, except for Eddie Murphy's mom and her shoe.

Sunday, January 22, 2006

Of logs, specks and eyes.

I post this merely to point out that it is axiomatic in pop culture that hypocrits are only conservative and/or Christian. From Frank Burns of M*A*S*H to the Gay/Homophobic Neighbor next door in "American Beauty" to just about every depiction of priests or pastors.

I think books like the one below and Intellectuals by Paul Johnson prove that hypocrisy is a human problem, afflicting members of all parties, tribes and nations; regardless of what you might see on TV or in the newspaper. Clearly there are hypocrits on the right politically and among the Christian community. It's just that the word hypocrit is almost never used in modern parlance for any of the folks mentioned below. Why is that?

It's worth asking.
Power Line: Buy This Book!: "It's a good point. And yet...when you read Do As I Say, what mostly comes through it the sheer, jaw-dropping hypocrisy of the left. I would have said that my opinion of most leading liberals couldn't get much lower. But that was before I knew that Noam Chomsky has gotten rich on Pentagon contracts; that Nancy Pelosi, recipient of the Cesar Chavez Award for her work on behalf of unions, owns a non-union vineyard and several non-union hotels; that Ralph Nader is not only a union-buster, but a frenetic stock trader who benefits from his own selective attacks on corporate America; and Ted Kennedy squashed an environmentally friendly wind-energy project, not because he would be able to see it from his home, but because it might affect his view when sailing his yacht."

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

God and the Singularity

The Speculist: "All of which leads us, at last, to the Biblical story of the Tower of Babel, found in the book of Genesis. Here's the story:

A fellow named Nimrod establishes what sounds like the world's first empire in the land of Shinar, which includes Babel, where the tower is built. Nimrod is described as a "mighty hunter," a powerful and charismatic leader. People begin to settle in Shinar, which is something of a prototypical silicon valley, with a charismatic entrepreneur at the helm and a booming technology (brick making) driving a whole new culture (based on progress and unhindered communication; this story occurs at a time when all people speak the same language.) The people of Shinar declare that they're going to build a city with a tower reaching to heavens and "make a name for themselves." God looks at what they're doing and comments as follows:

"If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other."

So he confounds their language and scatters them out over the world.

Why does he do it? The traditional interpretation is that God acts primarily out of retribution for the arrogance and blasphemy of the people building the tower. There is no question that their self-aggrandizing behavior would be displeasing to him. So is his action here comparable to that of Zeus smiting the disobedient Prometheus?

Personally, I had always read it that way. But recently, a friend offered me a different interpretation -- drawing attention to what it is that God specifically says before acting. He does not refer to the pride or arrogance of the people of Babel. He expresses concern about allowing their upward spiral of progress to continue unabated.

"Nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them."

So what? Nothing they do represents a threat to him. It is much more likely that their actions may represent a threat to the people themselves. And note that these sinners are not killed as the people were in the story of the Flood. They are merely scattered.

In the story of the Tower of Babel, God does not seem primarily interested in punishing spiritual hubris, but rather in preventing the devastating consequences of practical hubris. He is not Zeus chaining Prometheus to a rock, he is a very forceful Bill Joy protecting people from the unforeseen consequences of their actions.

So the Tower of Babel is, indeed, a cautionary tale for Singularitarians, believers and non-believers alike. We would all be well advised to pay close attention to it. But it is not primarily a story about the consequences of violating the divine order; that's what the story of Adam & Eve is all about. It is about the need to tread lightly when setting out on a path of rapid development of knowledge and power, especially when so many of the consequences of that path must be unforeseen."

This is a discussion of a book that I just bought and plan to read soon: The Singularity is Near

I believe that it is important to be conversant on these issues of humanity, technology, morality and ultimately eschatology.

Monday, January 16, 2006

NY Times Photo Fakery

The American Thinker: "Is a fake staged photo fit to print? What if it staged in a way that makes the US forces fighting the War on Terror look cruel and ineffective? The evidence argues that yes, it can run, and in a prominent position - at least in the case of the New York Times website.

It appears that the Times, once-upon-a-time regarded as the last word in reliability when it comes to checking before publishing (which makes them so much better than blogs, of course), has run a fake photo on the home page of its website. The photo has since been removed from the home page, but still can be seen here. "

Things that worry me more than global warming...

Telegraph | Opinion | The origins of the Great War of 2007 - and how it could have been prevented:

"The first underlying cause of the war was the increase in the region's relative importance as a source of petroleum. On the one hand, the rest of the world's oil reserves were being rapidly exhausted. On the other, the breakneck growth of the Asian economies had caused a huge surge in global demand for energy. It is hard to believe today, but for most of the 1990s the price of oil had averaged less than $20 a barrel.

A second precondition of war was demographic. While European fertility had fallen below the natural replacement rate in the 1970s, the decline in the Islamic world had been much slower. By the late 1990s the fertility rate in the eight Muslim countries to the south and east of the European Union was two and half times higher than the European figure.

This tendency was especially pronounced in Iran, where the social conservatism of the 1979 Revolution - which had lowered the age of marriage and prohibited contraception - combined with the high mortality of the Iran-Iraq War and the subsequent baby boom to produce, by the first decade of the new century, a quite extraordinary surplus of young men. More than two fifths of the population of Iran in 1995 had been aged 14 or younger. This was the generation that was ready to fight in 2007.

This not only gave Islamic societies a youthful energy that contrasted markedly with the slothful senescence of Europe. It also signified a profound shift in the balance of world population. In 1950, there had three times as many people in Britain as in Iran. By 1995, the population of Iran had overtaken that of Britain and was forecast to be 50 per cent higher by 2050.

Yet people in the West struggled to grasp the implications of this shift. Subliminally, they still thought of the Middle East as a region they could lord it over, as they had in the mid-20th century.

The third and perhaps most important precondition for war was cultural. Since 1979, not just Iran but the greater part of the Muslim world had been swept by a wave of religious fervour, the very opposite of the process of secularisation that was emptying Europe's churches.

Although few countries followed Iran down the road to full-blown theocracy, there was a transformation in politics everywhere. From Morocco to Pakistan, the feudal dynasties or military strongmen who had dominated Islamic politics since the 1950s came under intense pressure from religious radicals.

The ideological cocktail that produced 'Islamism' was as potent as either of the extreme ideologies the West had produced in the previous century, communism and fascism. Islamism was anti-Western, anti-capitalist and anti-Semitic. A seminal moment was the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's intemperate attack on Israel in December 2005, when he called the Holocaust a 'myth'. The state of Israel was a 'disgraceful blot', he had previously declared, to be wiped 'off the map'.

Prior to 2007, the Islamists had seen no alternative but to wage war against their enemies by means of terrorism. From the Gaza to Manhattan, the hero of 2001 was the suicide bomber. Yet Ahmadinejad, a veteran of the Iran-Iraq War, craved a more serious weapon than strapped-on explosives. His decision to accelerate Iran's nuclear weapons programme was intended to give Iran the kind of power North Korea already wielded in East Asia: the power to defy the United States; the power to obliterate America's closest regional ally.

Under different circumstances, it would not have been difficult to thwart Ahmadinejad's ambitions. The Israelis had shown themselves capable of pre-emptive air strikes against Iraq's nuclear facilities in 1981. Similar strikes against Iran's were urged on President Bush by neo-conservative commentators throughout 2006. The United States, they argued, was perfectly placed to carry out such strikes. It had the bases in neighbouring Iraq and Afghanistan. It had the intelligence proving Iran's contravention of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

But the President was advised by his Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, to opt instead for diplomacy. Not just European opinion but American opinion was strongly opposed to an attack on Iran. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 had been discredited by the failure to find the weapons of mass destruction Saddam Hussein had supposedly possessed and by the failure of the US-led coalition to quell a bloody insurgency.

Americans did not want to increase their military commitments overseas; they wanted to reduce them. Europeans did not want to hear that Iran was about to build its own WMD. Even if Ahmad-inejad had broadcast a nuclear test live on CNN, liberals would have said it was a CIA con-trick.

So history repeated itself. As in the 1930s, an anti-Semitic demagogue broke his country's treaty obligations and armed for war. Having first tried appeasement, offering the Iranians economic incentives to desist, the West appealed to international agencies - the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations Security Council. Thanks to China's veto, however, the UN produced nothing but empty resolutions and ineffectual sanctions, like the exclusion of Iran from the 2006 World Cup finals.

Only one man might have stiffened President Bush's resolve in the crisis: not Tony Blair, he had wrecked his domestic credibility over Iraq and was in any case on the point of retirement - Ariel Sharon. Yet he had been struck down by a stroke as the Iranian crisis came to a head. With Israel leaderless, Ahmadinejad had a free hand.

As in the 1930s, too, the West fell back on wishful thinking. Perhaps, some said, Ahmadinejad was only sabre-rattling because his domestic position was so weak. Perhaps his political rivals in the Iranian clergy were on the point of getting rid of him. In that case, the last thing the West should do was to take a tough line; that would only bolster Ahmadinejad by inflaming Iranian popular feeling. So in Washington and in London people crossed their fingers, hoping for the deus ex machina of a home-grown regime change in Teheran.

This gave the Iranians all the time they needed to produce weapons-grade enriched uranium at Natanz. The dream of nuclear non-proliferation, already interrupted by Israel, Pakistan and India, was definitively shattered. Now Teheran had a nuclear missile pointed at Tel-Aviv. And the new Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu had a missile pointed right back at Teheran.

The optimists argued that the Cuban Missile Crisis would replay itself in the Middle East. Both sides would threaten war - and then both sides would blink. That was Secretary Rice's hope - indeed, her prayer - as she shuttled between the capitals. But it was not to be.

The devastating nuclear exchange of August 2007 represented not only the failure of diplomacy, it marked the end of the oil age. Some even said it marked the twilight of the West. Certainly, that was one way of interpreting the subsequent spread of the conflict as Iraq's Shi'ite population overran the remaining American bases in their country and the Chinese threatened to intervene on the side of Teheran.

Yet the historian is bound to ask whether or not the true significance of the 2007-2011 war was to vindicate the Bush administration's original principle of pre-emption. For, if that principle had been adhered to in 2006, Iran's nuclear bid might have been thwarted at minimal cost. And the Great Gulf War might never have happened."

James Frey's real crimes? His rich-kid fibs

The Globe and Mail: "It was a peppy week in Literature Land.

First, JT LeRoy, a novelist who claimed to be a transgendered young man suffering from HIV, was revealed to be a fortysomething mother and housewife. This shocked some of his fans, and those who thought they were his friends, but by week's end the scandal was already fading. Novelists sometimes can get away with such things, being licensed liars and all.

A day later, a second kingpin of bestsellerdom was revealed to be even more of a fraud. James Frey, the author of A Million Little Pieces, the rollicking, readable memoir of addiction and recovery, admitted he exaggerated and invented significant parts of his story."

A Natural Majority?

Hugh Hewitt: January 08, 2006 - January 14, 2006 Archives: "If a bloc of four justices does emerge that does begin to speak in its opinions in the language of constitutional majoritariansism and traditional, theist-morality, that will represent the launch of an entirely new class of legal battleship which, with the assistance of new media, will have a range for its 16 inch guns never before seen when it comes to arguing about the course of Constitutional Law. Further, that range will extend far beyond the legal debates before the courts. Persuasive arguments are very potent things.


It isn't just the prospect of the decisions themselves that so alarms the left, I think, but also their fear of being totally and completely routed when it comes to persuasive argument.


The trumped up charge that a new SCOTUS majority will go hunting for occasions on which to impose their natural law driven jurisprudence is absurd.


But the prospect of tightly argued opinions in defense of majoritarian choices within our constituional framework which honor the traditional morality of the vast majority of Americans --well, that is something to look forward to if you are not a member of an elite who is certain that your views, while not widely shared, are nevertheless preferable to those of the unwashed masses."

Saturday, January 14, 2006

The Real Villain

LILEKS (James) Screedblog: "So you have Swedish clothing designers putting a tag on hot jeans with a skull and an inverted cross, with the express intention of pointing out the “evil” of Christianity. 'It is an active statement against Christianity,' Bjorn Atldax told The Associated Press. 'I'm not a Satanist myself, but I have a great dislike for organized religion.'Atldax insists he has a purpose beyond selling denim: to make young people question Christianity, which he called a 'force of evil' that had sparked wars throughout history.

It goes without saying that selling anti-Christian iconography to European fashionistas is a brave an act as reducing the food pellet allotment to your pet hamster; a true act of bravery would be yanking the dead wildebeest out of a lion’s mouth. Or selling jeans that have the international cross-and-bar NO symbol over the crescent of Islam. They don’t dare do that – partly because they are deeply suffused in the very racism they decry, and regard the inhabitants of their tall dead Corbu-inspired concrete ghettos as brown rabble beneath contempt and therefore irrelevant to relevant discussion, and partly because they have a nagging fear of editorials, hate-speech laws, tut-tuts from the thinking class, and the occasional unhinged fellow with a knife. But Christianity? Didn’t that die in a muddy hole in Ypres? "

Chocolat shows how wretched Christianity was. Good Night and Good Luck shows how wretched Republicans were. The Da Vinci Code shows us how wretched Roman Catholics were?

Friday, January 13, 2006

Why NSA Datamining and "Wiretaps" Are Needed

I was going to blog on this but this guy did it for me.

Seldom Wrong, Never in Doubt: Why NSA Datamining and "Wiretaps" Are Needed: "Who recently arrested three Algerians plotting a bigger terrorist attack than 9/11?

The Italians.

Where were the attacks to take place?

The United States.

How did the Italians find the bad guys?

Wiretaps.

How do we know?

The story was covered by European media.

Who hasn't covered the story?

American media.

Why?

Speculation is that the story would support the activities of the NSA over which the President is being so heavily criticized.

Where can you read all about it?

The PowerLine ueberblog, what SWNID wishes we could grow up to become."

Do as I say...

newsalert: Successful Democratic Blogger Can't Afford Blue State: "Markos Moulitsas Zúniga the man that runs the most successful political blog in America can't afford the Blue state of California:

So I'm getting a little frustrated with the Bay Area real estate market, and for the first time in years I'm casting about the rest of the nation to see if there's anywhere else where I could possibly live.

How ironic,a guy who supports a party that promotes Fannie Mae,Freddie Mac,land-use restrictions,zoning,open space laws,and unions is unable to buy a house in the very Blue area of Northern California.All this from a guy who's got a law degree.What is it about Blue America that hates people that aren't rich??? Attention Markos Moulitsas Zúniga :did it ever occur to many in Blue state America that Houston(that doesn't have zoning) is a lot more affordable than let's say Berkeley,California.Also,Houston residents don't have a state income tax that they are paying.It appears Kos can't afford the very values he promotes,which is regulation of markets which leads to artificially high real estate prices."


...not as I do.

Thursday, January 12, 2006

Dead Man Guilty

CBC News: DNA test confirms Virginia man's guilt: "A DNA test done in Toronto has dealt a blow to Americans opposed to the death penalty.

The test by the Centre of Forensic Sciences proves that Roger Coleman was guilty of the 1981 rape and murder of his sister-in-law, Virginia Gov. Mark Warner said Thursday.

Coleman was executed for killing Wanda Fay McCoy in 1992, but insisted he was innocent."
Imagine that, a guilty man on death row.

Global Warming?

WN: Wired News: "Forget planting trees to negate your SUV's contribution to global warming -- according to Stanford University atmospheric scientist Ken Caldeira, forests in the wrong location can actually make the Earth hotter."
Oops. I guess it's harder to be environmentally responsible than once thought.

The Future of the West

Mark Steyn: "There is no "population bomb." There never was. Birthrates are declining all over the world--eventually every couple on the planet may decide to opt for the Western yuppie model of one designer baby at the age of 39. But demographics is a game of last man standing. The groups that succumb to demographic apathy last will have a huge advantage. Even in 1968 Paul Ehrlich and his ilk should have understood that their so-called population explosion was really a massive population adjustment. Of the increase in global population between 1970 and 2000, the developed world accounted for under 9% of it, while the Muslim world accounted for 26%. Between 1970 and 2000, the developed world declined from just under 30% of the world's population to just over 20%, the Muslim nations increased from about 15% to 20%.

Nineteen seventy doesn't seem that long ago. If you're the age many of the chaps running the Western world today are wont to be, your pants are narrower than they were back then and your hair's less groovy, but the landscape of your life--the look of your house, the layout of your car, the shape of your kitchen appliances, the brand names of the stuff in the fridge--isn't significantly different. Aside from the Internet and the cell phone and the CD, everything in your world seems pretty much the same but slightly modified.

And yet the world is utterly altered. Just to recap those bald statistics: In 1970, the developed world had twice as big a share of the global population as the Muslim world: 30% to 15%. By 2000, they were the same: each had about 20%.

And by 2020?

So the world's people are a lot more Islamic than they were back then and a lot less "Western." Europe is significantly more Islamic, having taken in during that period some 20 million Muslims (officially)--or the equivalents of the populations of four European Union countries (Ireland, Belgium, Denmark and Estonia). Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the West: In the U.K., more Muslims than Christians attend religious services each week.

Can these trends continue for another 30 years without having consequences? Europe by the end of this century will be a continent after the neutron bomb: The grand buildings will still be standing, but the people who built them will be gone. We are living through a remarkable period: the self-extinction of the races who, for good or ill, shaped the modern world."


If you don't read the whole article, you'll be stunned by what happens in the next 20 years.

Emerging from my underground lair...

Well, I'm finally starting to emerge from my post conference fog. The Boston Winter Conference went very well and I've been laying low ever since. And, today is my anniversary. My wife and I celebrate 15 years of wedded bliss today. I'm going to start posting some of the interesting things I read on my Treo over the last few weeks.

Everything you knew about Hurricane Katrina was wrong

The Y Files: "Four months after Hurricane Katrina, analyses of data suggest that some widely reported assumptions about the storm's victims were incorrect.

For example, a comparison of locations where 874 bodies were recovered with U.S. census tract data indicates that the victims weren't disproportionately poor. Another database of 486 Katrina victims from Orleans and St. Bernard parishes, compiled by Knight Ridder, suggests they also weren't disproportionately African American."

Read the whole thing. Do you think the truth will be as widely reported as the errors?

Wednesday, January 04, 2006

BWC

If you want to see what I'm doing this week, click here.

Tuesday, January 03, 2006

I won't be back...

Mark Steyn: "They demanded that Arnold's name be removed from the Arnold Schwarzenegger football stadium. They proposed that it should be renamed the Tookie Williams football stadium. They launched moves to strip Arnold of his Austrian citizenship on the grounds that the death penalty is illegal in Europe, which is why a barbaric nation like the United States is ineligible for membership in the EU. ('What a tragedy,' as Americans always say when you point this out to them.)

'People have had enough of him,' Peter Pilz, an MP in the Steiermark regional parliament, told The Guardian. 'For us, he has committed a state crime.'

Personally I have no feelings one way or another on the death penalty. But I'm strongly in favor of sovereign jurisdictions having the right to run their own criminal justice systems. Which is why I rejoice at Arnold's reaction to the 'threat' from Graz.

Writing to the mayor of his old town, Schwarzenegger noted that in the course of his gubernatorial term he'd have to make decisions on other death-row inmates, too - the next one comes up in January. So, wrote the governor, 'in order to spare the responsible politicians of the city of Graz further concern, I withdraw from them as of this day the right to use my name in association with the Liebenauer Stadium... I expect the lettering to be removed by the end of 2005' - and, given that most European municipal workers are on vacation till the second week of January, that means the mayor may have had to sub-contract the job to any obliging Albanian Muslim refugees he could round up.

'The use of my name to advertise or promote the city of Graz in any way is no longer allowed,' continued Arnold. 'Graz will not have any problems in the future with my decisions as governor of California, because officially nothing connects us any more.'

And just for good measure he returned the "Ring of Honor" he was given in 1999 for the "pride and recognition" he brought Graz...

...But mysteriously the governor's severing of ties with his home town seemed to distress them. The mayor, Siegfried Nagl, begged Arnold to reconsider, only to be told that the ring was already in the mail. It seems that, aside from Kurt Waldheim, there haven't been a lot of internationally marketable Austrians in recent years, and somehow the campaign to rename the football stadium has lost its momentum. The former Crip gang leader would certainly look very fetching on a souvenir dirndl or baggy gangsta-style lederhosen, and no doubt you could have a range of commemorative dishes on the cafeteria menu - say, a 7-Eleven schnitzel, to mark Tookie's murder of 26-year old store clerk Albert Lewis Owens, followed by a Brookhaven strudel, to honor the motel at which he murdered an elderly Taiwanese family for a hundred bucks, all washed down with a Muthaf--ka apfelsaft, named for the term he used to threaten the jurors who convicted him. Should do wonders for the Austrian tourism industry."

Friday, December 30, 2005

The New York Times vs. America

Michelle Malkin: "2005 was a banner year for the nation's Idiotarian newspaper of record, The New York Times.

What's 'Idiotarian'? Popular warblogger Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs and Pajamas Media coined the useful term to describe stubborn blame-America ideologues hopelessly stuck in a pre-September 11 mindset. The Times crusaded tirelessly this year for the cut-and-run, troop-undermining, Bush-bashing, reality-denying cause. Let's review:"


and so forth. Read the whole thing and be informed of all the news that's fit to distort.

Hollywood's misunderstood terrorists - The Honolulu Advertiser

Man I love this guy:

VDH: "Take this fall's "Flightplan," in which the U.S. air marshal on board and a flight attendant turn out to be the true terrorists. Meanwhile, four Middle Eastern males are unfairly put under suspicion in the lynch-mob atmosphere on the plane.

The film warns us that the real threat after Sept. 11 is certainly not young Middle Eastern males on planes who might hijack or crash them into iconic American buildings. No, more dangerous in Hollywood's alternate universe are the flight officials themselves — who in reality on Sept. 11 battled terrorists only to have their throats cut before being blown up with all the passengers.

A slickly filmed "Syriana" is the worst of the recent releases. The film's problem is not just that it predictably presents the bad, ugly sheik as a puppet of American oil interests while the handsome and good independent crown price is assassinated for championing his oppressed people against Western hegemony. Or that the conniving corporate potentates have big bellies and Southern accents while the goodhearted, sloppily dressed George Clooney is double-crossed by his stylish, pampered CIA bosses safe in the Washington, D.C., suburbs.

"Syriana" also perverts historical reality. Everything connected with the oil industry is portrayed as corrupt and exploitative, with no hint that petroleum fuels civilization. Hollywood producers might not see many oil rigs off the Malibu coast, but someone finds and delivers them gas each morning for their luxury cars.

And who are the really greedy? Do the simple arithmetic of pumping petroleum in the desert: After expenses of typically under $5 a barrel, rigged cartels in the Middle East — run by Iranian mullahs, Gulf royals or Libyan autocrats — sell it on the world market for between $50 to $60. They don't merely price-gouge Americans in their SUVs, but also Third World struggling economies in places like Africa and Latin America.

Plus, in the real world outside Hollywood, does the United States really assassinate Gulf royalty who wish to liberalize their economies and give women the right to vote?

Contrary to the premise of "Syriana," the gripe against contemporary American foreign policy is just the opposite. Realists, isolationists and leftists alike damn the United States as naive or foolish for obsessing over democratic reform in Afghanistan and Iraq, pressuring Saudi Arabia and Egypt to hold valid elections and insisting that the terrorist patron Syria leave the voters of Lebanon alone.

The price of gas skyrocketed after the American invasion of Iraq. And oil companies, especially French and Russian, were furious when Saddam Hussein's kleptocracy fell — and their sweetheart deals were nullified by a new democratic Iraqi government.

Moral equivalence is perhaps the most troubling of Hollywood's postmodern pathologies — or the notion that each side that resorts to violence is of the same ethical nature. Steven Spielberg best summed up the theme of his recently released film about the 1972 murder of 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics and the subsequent Israeli hunt of the perpetrators: "A response to a response doesn't really solve anything. It just creates a perpetual-motion machine."

Spielberg's "Munich" assumes just such a false symmetry between the killers who murdered the innocent athletes and the Israeli agents who hunted them down — each in their own way victimized and caught in a cycle of "perpetual" violence.

Lost in this pop moralizing is the reality of 1972, when none of Israel's neighbors were willing to accept the existence of the Jewish state within even its original borders. Then there was no chance that Israeli agents would storm an Olympic event and murder athletes — but every probability that the Soviet bloc, Western Europeans and Middle East autocracies would never hunt down international terrorists who had done so to Israelis.

Actors, producers, screenwriters and directors of Southern California live in a bubble, where coast, climate and plentiful capital shield the film industry from the harsh world. In their good intentions, these tanned utopians can afford to dream away fascist killers and instead rail at Western bogeymen — even in the midst of a global war against Middle East jihadists who wish to trump what they wrought at the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

If Hollywood wants to know why attendance is down, it is not just the misdemeanor sin of warping reality, but the artistic felony that it does so in such a predictable manner."

Thursday, December 29, 2005

Here Come the Brides

The Weekly Standard: "ON SEPTEMBER 23, 2005, the 46-year-old Victor de Bruijn and his 31-year-old wife of eight years, Bianca, presented themselves to a notary public in the small Dutch border town of Roosendaal. And they brought a friend. Dressed in wedding clothes, Victor and Bianca de Bruijn were formally united with a bridally bedecked Mirjam Geven, a recently divorced 35-year-old whom they'd met several years previously through an Internet chatroom. As the notary validated a samenlevingscontract, or 'cohabitation contract,' the three exchanged rings, held a wedding feast, and departed for their honeymoon.

When Mirjam Geven first met Victor and Bianca de Bruijn, she was married. Yet after several meetings between Mirjam, her then-husband, and the De Bruijns, Mirjam left her spouse and moved in with Victor and Bianca. The threesome bought a bigger bed, while Mirjam and her husband divorced. Although neither Mirjam nor Bianca had had a prior relationship with a woman, each had believed for years that she was bisexual. Victor, who describes himself as '100 percent heterosexual,' attributes the trio's success to his wives' bisexuality, which he says has the effect of preventing jealousy."

Not that there's anything wrong with that, in some quarters. I guess this is good news for Utah. Apparently the federal government was wrong for pushing it's morality on those polygamist human rights crusaders from The Church of Latter Day Saints. You know, consenting adults and all that. Children are no match for personal freedom.

BTW I subscribed to The Weekly Standard last year after Time and Newsweek renewed their twice annual slander of Christianity and my wife asked for a news weekly to keep up with current events. The Standard is far superior. There's not as many pictures but that's not a bad thing if you are after facts. My wife reads it cover to cover.

Where The Boys Aren't

Melana Zyla Vickers: Here's a thought that's unlikely to occur to twelfth--grade girls as their college acceptances begin to trickle in: After they get to campus in the fall, one in four of them will be mathematically unable to find a male peer to go out with.

At colleges across the country, 58 women will enroll as freshmen for every 42 men. And as the class of 2010 proceeds toward graduation, the male numbers will dwindle. Because more men than women drop out, the ratio after four years will be 60--40, according to projections by the Department of Education.

The problem isn't new-women bachelor's degree--earners first outstripped men in 1982. But the gap, which remained modest for some time, is widening. More and more girls are graduating from high school and following through on their college ambitions, while boys are failing to keep pace and, by some measures, losing ground.

Underperformance in education is no longer a problem confined to black males, Hispanic males, or even poor whites. In 2004, the nation's middle--income, white undergraduate population was 57 percent female. Even among white undergraduates with family incomes of $70,000 and higher, the balance tipped in 2000 to 52 percent female. And white boys are the only demographic group whose high school dropout rate has risen since 2000. Maine, a predominantly white state, is at 60--40 in college enrollment and is quickly reaching beyond it. There are now more female master's degree--earners than male, and in 10 years there will be more new female Ph.D.s, according to government projections. American colleges from Brown to Berkeley face a man shortage, and there's no end in sight.

Hiding the sins of a Founding Father

Mary Katharine Ham:

My point being, 1966 is fairly close to, you know, NOW, to be the origin of a holiday that is supposed to reflect the ancient African roots of our African-American citizens. But no one ever told us about that part in school.

Later, I found out why. Revealing that Kwanzaa was created by Ron Karenga leads to revealing Ron Karenga, and that subject is hardly one that's fit for a second-grade classroom.

Why? Because at various times during his life, Karenga was head of a black nationalist group not known for its non-violent tactics; he was convicted and served time for torturing two women-- members of his own group-- by whipping them with electrical cords and burning their mouths and faces with a hot iron; he invented Kwanzaa as a way to "de-whitize" Christmas, as Al Sharpton once put it, expressly as a way to separate the races.

Here's a great Front Page Magazine article on all of Karenga's exploits.

Today, he is a professor at California State University, Long Beach. Basically, Karenga went Tookie Williams on us. Kwanzaa was his children's book, and it lifted him higher than Williams' was able to lift him (although, Kwanzaa actually came before Karenga's convictions, which makes the case for Kwanzaa-as-redemption weaker). In news coverage of Kwanzaa tonight, Karenga is referred to as an "African-American scholar," "Dr.", "a convicted felon who got out of prison and gave his life to academics," and a man with a commemorative postage stamp to his name. There is very little mention of his checkered past.

I found out about his past only because I was asked to do a story on a local Kwanzaa celebration when I worked at a newspaper a couple years ago. Between second grade and then, I had figured out that Kwanzaa was created about the same time as Nancy Sinatra's career. But I didn't know about Karenga until I started Googling.

Then I found the Front Page Magazine article linked above, written by Paul Mulshine, a columnist for the Newark Star-Ledger. After I clicked on it, I almost wished I hadn't.

I had planned to do the dutiful, fluffy Kwanzaa story. I had planned a sprinkling of history, some winning photos of 6-year-olds, and quotes lauding the act of gourd-painting as a path to cultural awareness. I had it planned.

Paul Mulshine threw off my plan, and I knew I was in trouble. In trouble because I couldn't, in good conscience, leave all the bad stuff about Karenga out of a story about the holiday he created. In trouble because I knew this would cause problems with my editors.

I called Mulshine, who was nice enough to do an interview with me and send me some of his sources, so that I could have some back-up when my editors asked me about it. I called Karenga and left a message on his machine, but never heard back from him.

I interviewed the teachers and students involved with the Kwanzaa celebration. I got all the gourd-painting quotes I needed, but I also asked what they knew about Karenga and his unsavory past. They knew nothing about it. I asked if they knew why Kwanzaa used Swahili terms when most American slaves came from thousands of miles away from anywhere Swahili was spoken. They didn't know. Many of them didn't know the holiday was created in California in 1966, just as I hadn't.

In the end, I compromised. I wrote 10 inches of fluffy holiday story. The childrens' Kwanzaa artwork was beautiful and deserved to be spotlighted, no matter what kind of man Karenga was. But I also wrote 10 inches on Karenga. Nothing too graphic. I didn't get into the specifics of the torture. I didn't list every one of his misdeeds. But I thought a little of that was important to the story, especially since it seemed no one knew anything about it.

The next day, I picked up the paper. My 20-inch story had become 10 inches long overnight. Can you guess which 10 inches they cut?

This paper never cut for space. It rarely edited a word I wrote. As a result, a 10-inch cut was conspicuous, to say the least. And indefensible. And in this case, expected.

My editor and I had a civil conversation about it, the conclusion of which was something along the lines of, "well, you just can't write stuff like that. Just because...you just can't."

Just another mile-marker in my journey out of the newspaper business.

Now, I'm not trying to be the grinch who stole Kwanzaa here, but I think it's a sin that the rather radical, Marxist, black nationalist origins of the holiday are ignored every year-- ignored with the power of a thousand suns.

It is a shame that everyone acts as if Karenga's violent crimes are immaterial, despite the fact that he was convicted and sentenced for them several years after he invented Kwanzaa. It's not as if he reformed, then became the father of Kwanzaa.

These things are not the whole story of Kwanzaa, but they are part of it, and they should be told. They are not pleasant, but I don't ever remember being told about our Founding Fathers' accomplishments in school without also hearing about their failings.

Surely, Ron Karenga should be subject to at least the same scrutiny as George Washington in a public school setting.

I have a feeling that won't happen, though, because a lot of people feel like "you just can't write stuff like that. Just because...you just can't."

At least you can't in newspapers, or public schools.

Wednesday, December 28, 2005

War on Christmas?

Common Grounds Online: John Muether, Closed for Christmas: "D. G. Hart has keenly observed that the culture wars are curiously misaligned with the worship wars. Evangelicals are firmly entrenched on the right in the former. But in the latter, they are far to the left even of mainline Protestants, who have some remnant sensitivity to correct forms and worship propriety (and who will conduct worship on Christmas morning). In other words, conservative Protestants passionately battle relativism for six days of the week only after fervently practicing it on the first day.

This is the real story behind the Christmas closings of 2005. Evangelicals are politically conscious and liturgically indifferent, and so it becomes far more important to protest loudly in the public square to preserve their rights than actually to exercise them quietly in the sanctuary, on the day that the Lord has prescribed in his Word.

We sure don’t want to miss the opportunity to remind every Jew or Muslim or secularist that Jesus is the reason for the season. But when the Lord’s Day dawns on December 25, 2005, we will become the unchurched."
Ouch.

Monday, December 26, 2005

A Christmas Poem

From Eric Swanson:

...In perfect contentment, or so it would seem,So I slumbered, perhaps I started to
dream.
The sound wasn't loud, and it wasn't too near,But I opened my eyes
when it tickled my ear.Perhaps just a cough, I didn't quite know,Then the sure
sound of footsteps outside in the snow.
My soul gave a tremble, I struggled
to hear,And I crept to the door just to see who was near.Standing out in the
cold and the dark of the night,a lone figure stood, his face weary and tight.
A soldier, I puzzled, some twenty years old,Perhaps a Marine, huddled here
in the cold.Alone in the dark, he looked up and smiled,standing watch over me,
and my wife and my child...

Read the whole thing.

Tuesday, December 20, 2005

Sophmore Jinx

Here's a video from ABC news that pretty closely parallels my story during the first two years of college.

Monday, December 19, 2005

Male Terror

Opinion Journal: At my university as at countless others, one of the very first official greeting to students is a rape seminar predicated on the intrinsic danger males carry with them.

Bigotry by any other name smells just as rank.

Saturday, December 17, 2005

Hate, oppression and protest... in the Northeast.

HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE - Conservative News, Views & Books: "In below-freezing temperatures more than 2,500 students packed into UConn’s Jorgenson Auditorium to hear Coulter’s long-awaited speech and have a chance to spar with the conservative movement’s No. 1 woman during the question and answer session. She began talking amid a standing ovation from hundreds of students. Unfortunately, about 15 minutes into her speech, the South Park song, “Kyle’s mom is a big fat b****,” blared over the sound system. Some enterprising young liberals had hijacked the sound equipment. Since this is considered a method of torture and violation of the Geneva Convention, I expect Amnesty International representatives to arrive any day now. I hope UConn students aren’t offended by Tandori chicken.

After guaranteeing their future as the Left’s up-and-coming leaders, Coulter gave liberals in the audience their “two minutes of hate” and announced that she was going straight to the Q&A. “I love to engage in repartee with people that are a lot stupider than I am,” she said to the audience. “We're having a question and answer right now with the little crybabies.”

Yet, the media chose to tell another story. WTIC-TV took huge liberties in its reporting when it claimed the event stopped 11 minutes into the speech. The station then cut to footage of students leaving the auditorium. The event didn't end until much later and most of the 2,500 students in attendance stayed for the entire lecture and Q&A. The FOX station also conducted its "man on the street" interviews with leaders of two liberal campus organizations, the Progressive Student Alliance and Students Against Hate, which protested against the event from the beginning. Their affiliation was only listed by WTIC-TV as "UConn Student." In the Associated Press' coverage, it's not a coincidence that AP chose to use a photo of Ann Coulter signing a book for an older man rather than for a student. The book signing was organized by the College Republicans and most of the 120 in attendance were students."

...and it happened in the Northeast.

Clarity... is such a lonely word.

I love VDH.

Clarity in a nutshell, for FREE!

No wonder newspapers are in trouble.

Victor Davis Hanson on Democrats and Iraq on National Review Online: "For some time, a large number of Americans have lived in an alternate universe where everything is supposedly going to hell. If you get up in the morning to read the New York Times or Washington Post, watch John Murtha or Howard Dean on the morning talk shows, listen to National Public Radio at noon, and go to bed reading Newsweek it surely seems that the administration is incommunicado (cf. “the bubble”), the war is lost (“unwinnable”), the Great Depression is back (“jobless recovery”), and America about as popular as Nazi Germany abroad (“alone and isolated”).

But in the real adult world, the economy is red-hot, not mired in joblessness or relegating millions to poverty. Unemployment is low, so are interest rates. Growth is high, as is consumer spending and confidence. Our Katrina was hardly as lethal as the Tsunami or Pakistani earthquake. Thousands of Arabs are not rioting in Dearborn. American elderly don’t roast and die in the thousands in their apartments as was true in France. Nor do American cities, like some in China, lose their entire water supply to a toxic spill. Americans did not just vote to reject their own Constitution as in some European countries.

The military isn’t broken. Unlike after Vietnam when the Russians, Iranians, Cambodians, and Nicaraguans all soon tried to press their luck at our expense, most of our adversaries don’t believe the U.S. military is losing in Iraq, much less that it is wise now to take it on. Instead, the general impression is that our veteran and battle-hardened forces are even more lethal than was true of the 1990s — and engaging successfully in an almost impossible war.

Nor are we creating new hordes of terrorists in Iraq — as if a young male Middle Eastern fundamentalist first hates the United States only on news that it is in Iraq crafting a new Marshall Plan of $87 billion and offering a long-oppressed people democracy after taking out Saddam Hussein. Even al Jazeera cannot turn truth into untruth forever.

Instead, the apprentice jihadist is trying to win his certification as master terrorist by trying his luck against the U.S. Marines abroad rather than on another World Trade Center at home — and failing quite unlike September 11.

Like it or not, wars are usually won or lost when one side feels its losses are too high to continue. We have suffered terribly in losing 2,100 dead in Iraq; a vastly smaller enemy in contrast may have experienced tens of thousands of terrorists killed, and is finding its safe havens and money drying up. Panic about Iraq abounds in both the American media and the periodic fatwas of Dr. Zawahiri — but not in the U. S. government or armed forces.

The world does not hate the United States. Of course, it envies us. Precisely because it is privately impressed by our unparalleled success, it judges America by a utopian measure in which anything less than perfection is written off as failure. We risk everything, our critics abroad almost nothing. So the hope for our failures naturally gives reinforcement to the bleak reality of their inaction.

The Europeans expect our protection. The Mexicans risk their lives to get here. Indians and Japanese want closer relations. The old commonwealth appreciates our strength in defense of the West. Even the hostile Iranians, North Koreans, Cubans, Venezuelans, Chinese, and radical Islamists — despite the saber-rattling rhetoric — wonder whether we are naïve and idealistic rather than cruel and calculating. All this we rarely consider when we read of anti-Americanism in our major newspapers or hear another angry (and usually well-off) professor or journalist recite our sins.

Al Zarqawi is in a classical paradox: He can’t defeat the American or Iraqi security forces or stop the elections. So he must dream up ever more macabre violence to gain notoriety — from beheading Americans on the television to mass murdering Shiites to blowing up third-party Jordanians. But such lashing out only further weakens his cause and makes the efforts of his enemies on the battlefield easier, as his Sunni base starts to see that this psychopath really can take his supporters all down with him.

The Palestine problem is not even worse off after Iraq. Actually, it is far better with the isolated and disgraced Arafat gone, the fence slowly inching ahead, the worst radical Islamic terrorists on the West Bank in paradise, Israel out of Gaza, and the world gradually accepting its diplomatic presence. The real hopeless mess was 1992-2000 when a well-meaning Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright, and Dennis Ross still deluded themselves that a criminal gang leader like Yasser Arafat was a legitimate head of state or that you could start to end an endless war by giving his thugs thousands of M-16s.

The European way is not the answer, as we see from the farcical negotiations over Iran’s time bomb. Struggling with a small military, unsustainable entitlement promises, little real economic growth, high unemployment, falling birth rates, angry unassimilated minorities, and a suicidal policy of estrangement from its benefactor the United States, Europeans show already an 11th-hour change of heart as we see in the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, and soon in France.

Europe’s policy about Iran’s nuclear program can best be summed up as “Hurry up, sane and Western Israel, and take out this awful thing — so we can damn you Zionist aggressors for doing so in our morning papers.”

The administration did not prove nearly as inept in the Iraqi reconstruction as the rhetoric of its opposition was empty. The government’s chief lapse was not claiming the moral high ground for a necessary war against a fascist mass murderer — an inexplicable silence now largely addressed by George Bush’s new muscular public defense of the war. In contrast, we can sadly recall all the alternative advice of past critics across the spectrum: invade Iraq in 1998, but get out right now; trisect Iraq; attack Syria or Iran; retreat to the Shiite south; put in hundreds of thousands of more troops; or delay the elections.

Donald Rumsfeld’s supposed gaffe of evoking “Old Europe” is trumped tenfold and almost daily by slurs that depict Abu Ghraib as worse than Saddam, Guantanamo as the work of Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot, Bush as the world’s greatest terrorist, the effort to democratize Iraq as unwinnable, and American troops terrorizing Iraqi women and children.

Most Americans may grumble after reading the latest demonization in the press of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld, but they are hardly ready to turn over a complex Middle East to something like a President John Kerry, Vice President Barbara Boxer, Secretary of State Howard Dean, National Security Advisor Nancy Pelosi, and Secretary of Defense John Murtha — with a kitchen cabinet of Jimmy Carter and Sandy Berger.

So at year’s end, what then is happening at home and abroad?

For the last three years we have seen a carbuncle swell as the old Vietnam War opposition rematerialized, with Michael Moore, the Hollywood elite, and Cindy Sheehan scaring the daylights out of the Democratic establishment that either pandered to or triangulated around their crazy rhetoric. The size of the Islamicist/Baathist insurrection caught the United States for a time off guard, as was true also of the sudden vehement slurs from our erstwhile allies in Europe, Canada, and Asia. Few anticipated that the turmoil in Iraq would force the Syrians out of Lebanon, the Libyans to give up their WMDs, and the Egyptians to hold elections — and that all the killing, acrimony, and furor over these developments would begin to engulf the Middle East and threaten the old order."

Heil?

Instapundit.com -: "The McCain Amendment and Patriot Act renewal defeats -- which I'm not convinced are bad things in and of themselves -- are defeats for Bush, but even if you think they're bad on the merits, they're certainly proof that despite claims of impending fascism we actually live in a country where checks and balances work. The Administration (which won far too easily on the Patriot Act the first time around, in my opinion) can't be charged with running roughshod over its opponents, and only an idiot can claim that we live under the iron rule of the Bushitler regime. The system may or may not be producing the right answers, and that's often hard to tell until later anyway, but it's working as designed."

Friday, December 16, 2005

Best of the Web from the other day...

I've started to read BOTWT almost everyday because I figured out how to do gmail on my Treo 600.

This day was particularly juicy.

OpinionJournal - Best of the Web Today:

Ho Hum, an Election
We were up late last night, and just after 1 a.m. EST we tuned in to CNN to see how the Iraqi election was going. Anderson Cooper was on the screen reporting from Iraq, and it looked a little like bad news; there was a caption that promised BREAKING NEWS and said something about a bomb in Ramadi.

But up in the corner of the screen we noted the word RECORDED and also the local Baghdad time was displayed: 7:07 a.m. Baghdad is eight hours ahead of New York, so we were watching "live" coverage that was two hours old. We tried switching to Fox News Channel, which had a rerun of "Your World With Neil Cavuto." We surmised that if news of the bomb in Ramadi was two hours old, it was a safe bet that things were going pretty well. A bloodbath would have merited live coverage for sure.

And, as it turned out, we were right. "Iraqi voters turned out in force countrywide Thursday to elect a parliament to remake their troubled nation, with Sunni-led Iraqi insurgent movements suspending attacks for a day so that Sunni Arabs could vote en masse for the first time," the Washington Post reported late this morning:

Iraqi voters turned out in force countrywide Thursday to elect a parliament to remake their troubled nation, with Sunni-led Iraqi insurgent movements suspending attacks for a day so that Sunni Arabs could vote en masse for the first time.

There were no boycotts this time and insurgents were providing security at some polling places. In Ramadi, for example, guerrillas of the Iraqi Islamic Army movement took up positions in some neighborhoods, promising to protect voters from any attacks by foreign fighters.

Reuters, believe it or not, has an astonishingly upbeat account:

There may not be the same sense of history this time round, but the joy and determination of Iraqi voters emerging from dictatorship is still evident.

Young and old, able-bodied and infirm, they streamed to polls for the third time in 11 months on Thursday, this time to elect a four-year parliament.

While not as novel as the first post-Saddam Hussein election in January, participation was more widespread. Sunni Arabs, who boycotted the earlier poll for an interim assembly, flocked to vote this time, determined not to miss out on power again.

"I'm delighted to be voting for the first time," said 21-year-old driver Jamal Mahmoud in Ramadi, a Sunni Arab city west of Baghdad that has been at the front line of the anti-American insurgency for the past two years.

For much more detailed on-the-ground reporting, see the Pajamas Media site.

There is an interesting disconnect in the U.S. media, and it goes beyond the usual complaints of pessimism or hostility to the American war effort. Go back and look at the transcript of NBC's "Meet the Press" for Nov. 27, which we noted the next day--and in particular the journalist roundtable, which features five senior Washington journalists, all of whom seem to agree that democracy in Iraq is a dead letter. The only mention of Iraq's then-forthcoming election was in a setup quote from the White House press secretary. To hear the journos talk, it was as if they hadn't even heard that Iraqis were going to the polls.

And yet the producers at CNN and Fox appear to have regarded a genuine election in Iraq as such a routine event that it didn't merit continuous live coverage. (Both stations did break into the recorded fare for occasional live updates.) It's quite a striking indication of just how out of touch with the outside world are those within the Beltway media bubble.

'They Can't Do It'
Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania is trash-talking American servicemen again, CNN reports:

"We've got nation building by the U.S. military, and that's not a mission for the U.S. military," Murtha said. "I've said this over and over again: They're not good at nation building. You've given them a mission which they cannot carry out. They do the best they can, but they can't do it."

But he supports the troops!

'God! I Didn't Know What to Say'
New York magazine features a piece on a group called Haven, which organizes volunteers who provide lodging in their homes to women and girls ("including a 10-year-old") who come to New York for late-term abortions:

Most Haven hosts are white, Jewish, well schooled, and political. Some are empty-nesters with beds to spare and memories of the sixties and seventies women's movement; many are young idealists with matchbox apartments and roommates who don't mind an extra body crashing in the living room. Meanwhile, most of the women helped by Haven are black and Latina, with GEDs or less, low literacy skills, and not much civic moxie. . . .

Katha Pollitt, the poet and Nation columnist, buys People magazine when she knows she's about to be called up for Haven duty. "But then I worry: Maybe that's patronizing. Maybe they'd rather read The Nicomachean Ethics." . . .

Late-term abortion is serious, hard-core. At 24 weeks, a fetus is at the same stage of development as those gruesome images shown on pro-lifers' protest placards. "The last woman I hosted showed me her sonogram," says Jennifer, a 26-year-old host who lives in Carroll Gardens. "Then she pointed out that the fetus was a boy. God! I didn't know what to say."

Every once in a while, after hosting a guest, I have bad dreams about sick babies. I have to remind myself that my dreams are just dreams, and that they're less important than my guests' realities.

One Haven hostess tells author Debbie Nathan, "Being pro-choice is a morality that takes you morally out of the picture." This is supposed to be a puff piece rather than an exposé, which makes the Havenites' condescension and depraved moral indifference all the more breathtaking.

This column is moderately pro-abortion--which is to say, we do not think slaying a human embryo is tantamount to murder or that it should be against the law. But after reading this piece, we're a lot more sympathetic to the antiabortion side of the debate.

Pro Choice in Schools

PJM News - More Black Families Home Schooling (6637668/AP): "Home-school advocates say the apparent increase in black families opting to educate their children at home reflects a wider desire among families of all races to guide their children's moral upbringing, along with growing concerns about issues such as sub-par school conditions and preserving cultural heritage."

I guess school choice can't be stopped by "Big Education".

Interesting Stuff