February 2009

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty.

-Thomas Jefferson

January 12, 2009

Obligatory Gaza

Through the Gaza war, Israel has accused Hamas of endangering civilians
by establishing military installations in populated areas. It has been
a central justification by the army for the killing of Palestinian
civilians. The shoppers at the Azrieli mall see no contradiction
between that claim and Israel building its defence headquarters next
door to a shopping centre. "They might have a point if they attacked
it," said Yoni Ahren, a computer engineer sipping coffee. "But they
don't. Instead they send suicide bombers to blow us up in the mall.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

November 1, 2008

Why does the world hate us?

Because they don't know us. Anecdote #28:

Dmitry Chesnokov of Puck Daddy blog: What has surprised you the most about American culture, and about playing hockey in Washington DC?

NHL star Alexander Semin: It's about the overall culture: On the roads, in stores, basically everywhere everyone is very considerate and nice. There is virtually no "I don't care" attitude.

Haters and apologists alike can ponder that.

The interview is here, and it's good if you like hockey. If you don't, then I imagine it's not very interesting.

And as for you, Alex Semin, I'll see you on December 26 at 7:00.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

September 16, 2008

A new kind of surge

So by now everybody is aware that last week a SEAL team crossed the Afghanistan-Pakistan border to conduct a raid against Islamic militants, and that Pakistani officials are really angry about this.

What I am not hearing much about (and I would like to make note of) is this:

President Bush has approved a plan that has brought a "surge" of CIA personnel from around the world into the fight along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border,

The LA Times story makes reference to an NPR story that I've had sitting on my desktop for the last week, waiting for me to figure out what I want to say about it. But what is there to say?
- 'Of course we've had some good idea where Osama bin Laden is, but for political reasons we've refrained from killing him'?
- 'Blatently violating Pakistan's sovereignty was a bad idea when Obama said it a year ago, and it was bad when Bush authorized it last week'?
- 'These theatrics won't sway independent voters to support McCain'?
- Or like the source quoted in the NPR story, 'Why wasn't this done a year ago?'

Yeah, any of those would do for now.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

August 4, 2008

Olympic reporters in China

Some things speak for themselves:

In 2001, when the International Olympic Committee (IOC) awarded the 2008 games to China, Wang Wei, the leader of China's bid told reporters: "We will give the media complete freedom to report when they come to China."

But for many reporters there now, it’s still unclear how free they will be able to report or not, as the restrictions and red tape seem almost endless, and they never know whether they've covered all their bases. "We already have to tell the Chinese everywhere we want to be in August, and what time," one TV broadcaster, who preferred to remain anonymous, recently told the Associated Press. "We have to provide a list of the guests who will be interviewed and the content of the interview."

That is, some things speak for themselves where permitted. Which is to say, if you are reading the article I linked, you are probably not doing so in China.

That the Chinese government will frustrate and limit the international press during the Beijing Olympics is a given. What remains to be seen is whether the international press will show itself to be a greater force than the Chinese government in the long run.

It is possible that the Chinese government will make the situation so untenable and intolerable that reporters will never forgive the transgressions, and will draw ever greater worldwide attention to the oppression that the Chinese people have undergone for years.

Or it is possible that the international press will complain a lot during the games and immediately afterward, but then fail to provide any sustained or cohesive effort to bring freedom to the Chinese people, who--unlike the international athletes and press--will still be living in China after the games.

A.J. Liebling once said "People everywhere confuse what they read in newspapers with news." That's still true today, though television news has dethroned the newspaper. Blogs are still reactionary, focusing mostly on the "news" that is published by papers or broadcast on TV... by reporters. While they do not decide what is news and what is not to the extent that they once did, the traditional media still has the power to shape narratives and focus the world's attention. I can't think of a cause that should be a greater motivation to them than worldwide freedom of the press.

Let the games begin...

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

May 7, 2007

For our Amusement

I just can't imagine what it must be like to live in the area where this happened:

Residents of the Indian city of Mumbai (Bombay) are wondering how long it will take to remove a disused Boeing 737 that has been abandoned in a busy road.

How long would it take? Only a week. What a clusterf*** this would have been where I come from.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

April 26, 2007

Barbarism and Beheadings

I’m not sure whether you have seen the reports of the Taliban kidnapping and beheading a Pakistani man they accuse of being a US spy. Video of the beheading was posted online this week, and the knife-wielder is, reportedly, a boy of approximately 12 years of age.

The good news is that this action is being condemned by Afghan tribal leaders and (as far as I can tell) average guys on the Muslim street. Pundits sometimes ask why the millions of peaceful Muslims around the world have allowed their religion to be hijacked by extremists and terrorists, so I hope they note this sort of statement:

"It's very wrong for the Taliban to use a small boy to behead a man," religious teacher Mullah Attullah told Reuters on Thursday.

"I appeal to the Taliban to please stop this because non-Muslims will think Islam is a cruel and terrorist religion.

"The Taliban do not follow the laws of Islam. They are taking advice from foreigners."

The situation over there is complicated. Of course, it’s easier for many people to think otherwise and paint all of Islam as a faith of hatred and murder. Some even go so far as to have a binary view of the Muslim world – “our Muslims” vs. the terrorists. Well, on some issues, maybe it really should be that cut-and-dry. This is one of them. It’s important to remember the true nature of this conflict, this “Global War on Terror”. It is not about Christianity vs Islam, or religion vs secularism. Before anything else, it’s about civility vs barbarism. Let’s not lose sight of that.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

April 19, 2007

Great Horny Toads!

Some stories are too bizzarre not to share. For example, this one.

Amorous toads have caused the deaths of scores of fish at a lake near Scarborough. In one incident around 70 carp, worth about £3,000, were lost after male toads tried to mate with them on the Wykeham Estate.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

March 7, 2007

Steyn on Freeing Tibet

Whenever I read a new book, I'm quick to dog-ear the bottom of the pages that I'd like to go back and read someday. The selected pages are usually filled with memorable insights, phrases, cleverly constructed points and so forth. The problem with Mark Steyn's America Alone is that I found myself dog-earing practically every page, which really defeats the whole purpose of calling attention to particular sections in the first place.

Nonetheless, if you'll forgive yet another Steyn quote, I will reprint one of my many favorites below the break, at least until I get that cease-and-desist letter from Steyn's lawyer:

Every so often, I find myself, for the umpteenth time, driving behind a Vermont granolamobile whose bumper not only proclaims the driver's enduring post-2004 support for Kerry/Edwards but also bears the slogan "FREE TIBET."

It must be great to be the guy with the printing contract for the "FREE TIBET" stickers. Not so good to be the guy back in Tibet wondering when the freeing thereof will actually get under way. Are you in favor of a Free Tibet? It's hard to find anyone who isn't. Every college in America is. There's the Indiana University Students for a Free Tibet, and the University of Wisconsin—Madison Students for a Free Tibet, and the Students for a Free Tibet University of Michigan chapter, and the University of Montana Students for a Free Tibet in Missoula, which is where they might as well relocate the last three Tibetans by the time it is freed.

Everyone's for a free Tibet, but no one's freeing Tibet. So Tibet will stay unfree--as unfree now as it was when the first Free Tibet campaigner slapped the very first "FREE TIBET" sticker onto the back of his Edsel. Idealism as inertia is the hallmark of the movement. Well, not entirely inert: it must be a pain in the neck when you trade in the Volvo for a Subaru and have to bend down and paste on a new "FREE TIBET" sticker. For a while, my otherwise not terribly political wife got extremely irritated by the Free Tibet shtick, demanding to know at a pancake breakfast at the local church what precisely some harmless hippy-dippy old neighbor of ours meant by the sticker he'd been proudly displaying decade in, decade out: "But what exactly are you doing to free Tibet?" she insisted. "You're not doing anything, are you?"

"Give the guy a break," I said when we got back home. "He's advertising his moral superiority, not calling for action. If Rumsfeld were to say, 'Free Tibet? Jiminy, what a swell idea! The Third Infantry Division goes in on Thursday,' the bumper-sticker crowd would be aghast. They'd have to bend down and peel off the 'FREE TIBET' stickers and replace them with 'WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.'"

But there'll never be a Free Tibet--because, through all the decades Americans were driving around with the bumper stickers, the Chinese were moving populations, torturing Tibetans, imposing inter-marriage until Tibet was altered beyond recognition. By the time the guys with the Free Tibet stickers get around to freeing Tibet there'll be no Tibet left to free.

Freeing Tibet is so Eighties. Why hasn't the granola-Left moved on to Freeing Taiwan?

Posted by Rammage | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

February 28, 2007

Setting "Eternal Hope" Straight

The poor, misguided blogger who goes by the name “Eternal Hope” has sparked an interesting conversation over at DailyKos. It all starts with Amy Ridenour of the National Center for Public Policy Research noting on her excellent blog (see also our blogroll) the story about Al Gore’s mansion allegedly consuming more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year. Says Eternal Hope:

…it turns out that the NCPPR is a 501(c)3 organization, meaning that they can't advocate for or against the election of a candidate. Since they have done so, they have violated the law.
… First of all, I submit that the NCPPR is guilty under the "working against a candidate" clause. The fact that they are promoting a smear against Al Gore means that they are working against his potential candidacy, in violation of 501(c)3.

I find this argument interesting on two grounds.

First, Al Gore is not a candidate for any office. I know you guys have got that big fat “Draft Gore” button up on the screen at Kos, but the law applies to people who are candidates under… the law. Not people who are candidates in your head. I can’t consider Ridenour’s piece to be any kind of advocacy against Gore even if he were running, but we can’t even ask that question because Gore really, really, is not a candidate in the really real world.

Second, as I shared with the Atlantico email list just this morning;

The issue then becomes one of haves and have-nots, and the Left doesn't seem to mind. Gore can jet-set and have his inefficient mansion, because he is wealthy enough and popular enough to get contributions to help pay for carbon offsetting. You got the financial ability to cover yourself, Rammage? No? Wealthy donors to bail you out? No? Then you'd better watch yourself. We're wanted men. I have the death sentence on twelve systems. Buy a Prius and shut your pie hole, while Gore enjoys the benefits of privilege - because he's EARNED IT.

I don’t know whether Al Gore actually has zero carbon footprint – I’ll grant him the benefit of the doubt that he does, because that isn’t where my complaint lies. My complaint is that the Left’s argument in defense of Gore (dutifully trumpeted by Eternal Hope) is one of environmental inequality – in fact, environmental elitism. The logic is no different from saying that it’s okay to drive one’s Hummer through wetlands and over tortoise eggs, if one is wealthy enough to purchase extinction offsets. It becomes an issue of money-makes-right. Is that what the Left stands for?

I apologize to Amy Ridenour, but I couldn’t bring myself to cast a vote in the Kos poll – or even glance at the results. It would sully the reality of the situation to suggest that a vote means anything. Ridenour’s comments are simply not illegal, and Gore’s defenders have some inconsistencies to ponder.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

February 27, 2007

Playing Politics with the Iraq Troop Surge

I really like it when the media frames a debate the way I would do. NPR’s Ron Elving was apparently willing to accommodate me for this piece on the Iraq troop surge.

I, unlike most self-described libertarians, recognize that it would be foolish for the Bush administration or military commanders to announce a pull-out date. But that doesn’t mean I am not looking forward to seeing the troops exit Baghdad. And that’s exactly what the troop surge would lead to if all goes well. As Elving notes:

The question now is not whether more U.S. troops will be committed but whether they will accomplish what most Americans want: an expedited disengagement.

While Democrats jockey to get the credit for the eventual troop withdrawal - Senate Democrats are considering legislation that would revoke the 2002 authorization of force that allowed the Iraq invasion, which would probably be followed by legislation revoking the laws of supply and demand so they can ram through some kind of socialist healthcare and attempt to nationalize Big Oil – the fact is that this has been the culmination of US efforts to get Iraq’s government on its feet all along, as I have noted before. The Bush administration has not been able to effectively convince Americans of the progress, partly because it brings up the obvious questions of when our troops will be done and get to leave Iraq – a question that the administration can answer in terms of benchmarks but not in terms of timetables, as Ron Elving and I have already mentioned to you.

In Elvings’ piece from this week (the one I quoted above), he implies that there are some who wish the American troop presence in Iraq could just go on and on – an indefinite pseudo-occupation that would presumably continue to take the lives of good American soldiers. Except that I don’t know anybody who wishes for that. But that’s my only complaint with Elvings’ view of the troop surge. As he ends;

So the surge will go forward. Those who want U.S. involvement to end as soon as possible must now wish for events in Iraq to render a clear verdict, pro or con. If the surge works well, the phased withdrawal so many Democrats demand (and for which so many Republicans wish) can still begin this year. If the surge fails utterly, withdrawal becomes inevitable.

The next task for Democrats and the media, really, is to write the story so that it looks like the troops only came home because the Democrats had the mandate of the people to shut off Bush/Cheney’s blood spigot. Just tell yourselves that otherwise, it never would have ended.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

February 11, 2007

Communists, Fusion, and the Moon

In reading up on the plans China has to go to the moon and mine He-3 for future nuclear fusion reactors (thanks McQ), I found a lot of what I expected. Quick points,

1) No, silly, they don't have fusion reactors in China... yet. As I noted in the comments section at QandO, I would think any mining plans floated today and enacted around 2020 would be in expectation of viable fusion reactors sometime soon afterwards. Plan ahead.

2) Yes, China is serious about fusion power. They have some excellent research scientists and facilities. This isn't a "cold fusion discovered!" story.

3) Isn't this freaking cool? He-3 is literally just lying around up there. I mean, trips to the moon are prohibitively expensive, but that can change. You aren't thinking fourth dimensionally, Marty!

4) :A quote from Lawrence Taylor, a director of the University of Tennessee's Planetary Geosciences Institute in Knoxville

When you have a communist regime in a capitalist network, you have huge amounts of cash and the ability to direct it.

So... how many Americans view that as a good thing? Something we should strive for?

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

February 7, 2007

On Trial for Publishing the Danish Cartoons

Philippe Val, publisher of the French weekly magazine Charlie Hebdo went on trial this week for publishing the infamous Danish Cartoons.

The charge is “publicly slandering a group of people because of their religion” (I have seen several variants of this, so I guess the translation is a bit open to interpretation.) The charge carries a possible six-month prison sentence and a fine of up to €26,800. Val was quoted as saying, "In a democracy, we're all shocked by what people say and do. We just have to learn to talk about it.”

The shame is that he even needed to say that. As Rammage so eloquently noted last year, this situation puts the American Left in quite a quandary. Which value is more important – freedom of the press, or respect for the cultural and religious beliefs of those in third world countries? Is it okay to print cartoons that criticize Islamists, or is it not?

But even if Americans answer that question correctly, it may not help Mr. Val in his trial over in Europe. After all, Europeans have criminal bans on swastikas, headscarves, and “hate speech” (potentially on line, as well). I have no faith that justice will prevail.

Of course, maybe I will be surprised. After all, Germany recently announced that it will not push for a EU-wide ban on swastikas and Holocaust denial. There may be some pockets of Europe where dialogue is preferred to prison when dealing with those with whom one disagrees. I sincerely hope Mr. Val is in one of those pockets.

While I am on the subject of Holocaust denial, let me share with you an amusing point by the Brussels Journal:

If Turkey joins the EU then we will have the comedy situation that denial of the Armenian Holocaust is a criminal offence in France, whilst mentioning it is a criminal offence in Turkey. The happy result of this could be that the entire population of France could be lifted and placed, Midnight Express like in Turkish prisons. Of course the entire population of Turkey could then find itself extradited to France and imprisoned there.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

February 4, 2007

If We Could Just Redeploy...

I still keep hearing the argument from some that the violence in Iraq is caused by our presence. If we could just redeploy out of Iraq, they'd stop killing each other. I can't think of a more naive assessment of what's going on in Iraq. Just yesterday,

132 people were killed and 305 were wounded in the thunderous explosion that sent a column of smoke into the sky on the east bank of the Tigris River.

'It is a tragedy. The terrorists want to punish the Iraqi people. There was no police or American presence in this market yesterday,'

Of course our soldiers are targeted. Of course an argument can be made that our troops should be withdrawn sooner rather than later. But as has been noted repeatedly over the last couple of years, that will certainly escalate the violence, not end it.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

January 31, 2007

Steyn on WHO?

Last year I wrote about my late realization that the U.S. taxpayer was indirectly footing the bill for many of our Euro-pals' socialism (Bunch of B.S. - Baltic States). In his new book, America Alone, Mark Steyn points out that the U.S. is subsidizing a lot more than just defense:

Euro-Canadian socialized health care is, in essence, subsidized by American taxpayers: since the end of World War Two, Washington has assumed the defense costs of its allies, thereby freeing up those countries to spend their tax revenues on lavish social programs. But if America follows the [author Will] Hutton plan and "joins the world," it will reduce its defense expenditures to Euro-Canadian levels. So the next time a tsunami hits Sri Lanka or Indonesia there will be no carrier groups to divert and save lives. So more people will die, waiting the weeks and weeks it took for the sleepytime gals at the United Nations to arrive. Were America to "join the world," it would have to reduce its funding of the UN and other world bodies to European levels. And it might have to scale back in domestic agencies so that they're no longer able to serve in effect as international ones. Which will be tough when some kid in some village on the other side of the world comes down with some weird illness no one's seen before and they want to FedEx the test tube to the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta to figure out what's going on. Indeed, even relatively advanced societies admired by the likes of Will Hutton take it as routine that the CDC is a kind of Health Ministry of last resort. When SARS leapt from China to infect Toronto's hospitals in 2003, the principal contribution of the WHO (World Health Organization) was to issue a travel advisory warning visitors to steer clear of Ontario, leaving it to the CDC to provide advanced and practical analysis of the problem. Toronto's mayor, Mel Lastman, had a hard time keeping track of all the acronyms, and in one press conference launched into a bitter attack on the damaging effects of the travel advisory issues by the CDC.
  The doctor next to him tried to correct him: "Who," she said.
  "The CDC," he repeated.
  "Who," she said.
  "The CDC," he repeated, wondering why she hadn't heard his answer to the question the first time. This diseased version of the Abbott and Costello routine went on a while longer, before the doc realized she had to spell it out: W-H-O, the World Health Organization..
  "Oh yeah. Them, too," said [Lastman].
  Yet under the who's-on-first shtick lay an important truth: if an infection shows up in an Atlanta hospital, no American doctor looks for guidance from a Canadian government agency. But if it shows up in a Toronto hospital, the Ontario health system takes it for granted that the best minds of the CDC in Atlanta will be staying late at the office trying to work out what's going on.
  The answer to that Canadian doctor's vaudeville feed—"Who's on first?"—is America. When something goes awry, in a Sri Lankan beach resort or a Toronto hospital, it's the hyperpower who shows up. America doesn't need to "join the world": it already provides a lot of the world's infrastructure.

Which raises the question: Who's going to subsidize American health care when our government implements universal coverage?

Posted by Rammage | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

January 30, 2007

On Benchmarks and Timetables

NPR Supervising Senior Washington Editor Ron Elving on Iraq:

This strategic timeframe, consistent back to the administration's earliest statements after the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, does not necessarily require an open-ended military mission in Iraq. In fact, the full picture of administration statements on Iraq this month hints at something quite different: a prelude to disengagement.

Conjecture: President Bush, despite his mistakes, does in fact mean exactly what he says. The Surge is really, seriously, actually supposed to help suppress the insurgency in a vital time and place (now; Baghdad) while the Iraqi government further establishes itself… wait for it… wait for it… after which the US troops will withdraw and go home. They’re starting a withdrawal soon either way, as the Iraqi forces continue to take the lead in security operations and continue to take responsibility for security in the provinces. The exact time and date of the flights home would not be published on line for the same reason that exact troop placements are not posted on line – flexibility and security. That is, they would not be published even if they were inflexible, which would be immensely stupid. But the withdrawal is coming, pending a reasonably stable and capable government in Baghdad.

Call me crazy. Maybe referring to “benchmarks” instead of “timetables” might - just might - be because we are trying to tie our withdrawal to specific security goals (call them “benchmarks”) instead of a specific date.

Why are there people who don’t get this?

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

January 29, 2007

'Anti-Soviet' and 'Intellectuals' Appear in Same Sentence in Washington Post; Devil Buys Snow Shovel

I'm a few days late getting to this Washington Post story (registration required) published on January 27th:

The Plot Thickens
A New Book Promises an Intriguing Twist to the Epic Tale of 'Doctor Zhivago'

Into one of the most sordid episodes in Russian literary history, the Soviets' persecution of Boris Pasternak, author of "Doctor Zhivago," a Russian historian has injected a belated piece of intrigue: the CIA as covert financier of a Russian-language edition of the epic novel.

The piece that caught my eye and elicited an immediate burst of laughter was this snippet:

[...] A CIA role in printing a Russian-language edition [of Doctor Zhivago] has been rumored for years. [Ivan] Tolstoy offers the first detailed account of what would rank as perhaps the crowning episode of a long cultural Cold War, in which the [CIA] secretly financed literary magazines and seminars in Europe in an effort to cultivate anti-Soviet sentiment among intellectuals.

Ha! Thank goodness for the CIA and their secretly financed literary magazines! Lord knows that the tens of millions of deaths at the hands of Stalin's Communist regime are insufficient to rouse the 'anti-Soviet sentiment among intellectuals.' One has to wonder if this isn't the Washington Post's worldview: irrational hate mongering by the U.S. government against a Soviet Union that went through some 'ups and downs' but was overall just swell.

A question answerable only by an intellectual.

Posted by Rammage | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

January 17, 2007

That's What I Said!

Zalmay Khalilzad (the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq), on The Surge:

We can be very patient, and we demonstrated that during the Cold War. But for patience to be sustained domestically, the American people have to believe that we have a strategy for success. I believe the American people know that Iraq is important. They have serious doubts with regard to our strategy.

(From an interview on NPR that aired today.)

Clearly, Khalilzad reads Atlas Blogged, because I think he said what I said.

Update 1/18 at 21:38: While I'll still claim Khalilzad has to be reading Atlas Blogged, I am crushed to learn that lawmakers are not. Of course, that might explain some of the achingly stupid things that roll off of Capitol Hill.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

January 15, 2007

The Surge - Continuing Bush's Inability to Spell Anything Out for the Public

Does the American public have any idea what progress has been made by the Iraqi government in the last year? As the map above shows, progress has been made in training the Iraqi forces and in turning over some authority to the Iraqi government - clearly positive steps and a prelude to the eventual American withdrawl. Iraq might yet more closely resemble post-war Germany or Korea than Vietnam. (We can't really hope for another Japan, of course.)

But how aware is the American public whose opinion is solicited so carefully and frequently? Do they see more than the body count on TV? Is the message getting through?

By now we all know that President Bush has ordered a "surge" of 20,000 more troops to Iraq, and Congress is debating exactly how impotent it will be in protest. Polls show the American people are unhappy. But it matters whether this is an unhappiness borne of ignorance, or an informed decision that they disapprove of Bush's new strategery and the surge of troops to Baghdad.

I just read an instructive editorial in the Yakima-Herald:

Ever since America invaded Iraq nearly four years ago, the public has heard about the lack of exit strategies, insufficient military strength to fulfill an occupation role and misjudging the depth of the sectarian violence that would follow the departure of Saddam Hussein's brutal regime.

We've heard about the need to allow time for Iraqi security forces and the fledgling new government to get up to speed. We heard it again Wednesday evening from Bush.

Now it rings hollow.

Of course it does. This administration has made several big mistakes in foreign policy, especially in Iraq. They are not unforgivable, unfixable mistakes - except that the president has never attempted to really come clean about making them. This editorial is instructive because it highlights that the administration has never explained itself very well – it’s been a PR nightmare even when good is accomplished. Conservatives seem willing to chalk up the problem to a liberal media, but the buck has to stop on Mr. Bush’s desk, and the fact is that he’s been a terrible salesman all along.

Salesman?!? Oh, Wulf, you demean the War on Terror if you say that the president has to sell it like a can of beans.

Come on. This is politics. You can eradicate disease and still look like a villain if you are incapable of controlling your own image. As the editorial noted, the public has heard about the lack of exit strategies over and over and over again. Rather than have an exit strategy or even a clearly articulated goal, this administration has relied on platitudes and bromides. But Americans want more than appeals to patience and patriotism. They want to know when we leave Iraq, even if it isn’t right now. By refusing to talk about timelines, the administration has ceded the debate to those who invoke Vietnam. By refusing to focus on the progress of the fledgling new government – for example, the map above - the administration has ceded the debate to those who simply count casualties.

It's not that America doesn't have the stomach for a war. It's that America doesn't have the stomach for a war that appears open-ended and whose worth is uncertain.

Back to Yakima (I can’t believe I just said that):

What will come of this new effort? Do we go in with more troops, beat up on the insurgents, declare victory and then leave the country -- expecting things to level out and for the Iraqis to find peace as we define it?

Or do additional troops just make us more of an occupier -- a role history shows is not a good one for any superpower -- while we wait for the situation to improve?

How long must we wait?

Exactly the problem. Most people I’ve talked to just have no idea what the surge will do, or what it is supposed to do. Most of them think it’s pissing down the well to send 20,000 more troops to an area we want to be done with and withdraw from – an area that only ever seems to be on the news when Americans are shot at or blown up. The president has neglected the bully pulpit over the course of our time in Iraq. That he would do so seems unfathomably stupid, given how much the president has at stake here. Military success is very uncertain, and Bush also has a lot of domestic chips riding on this hand. That's a ballsy move for a lame duck whose party just lost both houses.

I don’t agree with the editorial that we should be looking for the U.N. to get involved. And I don’t agree with the main thesis - that it is "too late". But our troops will someday, somehow leave Iraq, and the question since day one has been how that will go down. There is only one person who should be able to give a definitive answer to that question. I consider it his biggest failure that he has not recognized the importance of that question and answered it to an acceptable degree.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

January 5, 2007

Presently Batman has a high unemployment level

I'm not sure if any of you are aware of this, but Batman has Turkey's oldest refinery. There is also a regional airport near Batman. And yet, Batman has unemployment problems.

Seriously. Check it out.

And last week, Batman was paralyzed by heavy snowfall.

I know, I'm easily amused. It's actually a blessing.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

January 1, 2007

Quiet and Dignified

There's a bit of complaint from some regarding the manner in which Saddam Hussein was executed. For just one example, BBC World Affairs Editor John Simpson:

Far from being a quiet and dignified business, the new video shows that several of the witnesses taunted Saddam during the last seconds of his life, chanted the name of one of his many enemies, and told him he was going to hell.

An incredible complaint, in my view. A quiet and dignified death is usually earned through a quiet and dignified life - not through the dictatorial genocide practiced by this deposed tyrant.

And if I believed in hell, it is exactly where I would want Saddam to go. He hasn't done anything to earn the peace of not having to hear that sort of opinion. That anybody would think otherwise absolutely boggles my mind. Come on, say it with me: To hell with Saddam Hussein!

Mr. Simpson continues:

Altogether, the execution as we now see it is shown to be an ugly, degrading business, which is more reminiscent of a public hanging in the 18th Century than a considered act of 21st Century official justice.

Mr. Simpson could not sound more out of touch. Neither could he sound much more sympathetic of the Butcher of Baghdad:

Saddam is not intimidated by any of this, and repeats Moqtada Sadr's name disdainfully, as if to say he doesn't count for very much.

Then his gruff, rasping voice can be heard saying to the onlookers "Is this manly behaviour?"...

Saddam Hussein scarcely has an instant to collect his thoughts. He starts to mutter a prayer, but just as he speaks the name Muhammad, the chief hangman pulls the lever and the trapdoor opens.

With terrible, shocking force, Saddam's body plunges into the drop.

He deserved a terrible and shocking force. He deserved to be cut off in mid-prayer. Mr. Simpson seem not to understand the principle that how a man lives is more important than how a man dies. Rather than focus on the people being rude as they string up one of the worst mass murderers on Earth, we could focus on how much better it is for Iraq that he has been executed. Rather than fret that Sunni Arabs might be offended at the treatment Saddam received, we might ask ourselves whether those Sunnis who would defend Saddam are worth working with.

There was no behavior that was too rude for Saddam, Mr. Simpson. Again, to hell with Saddam Hussein.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

December 17, 2006

Turkey, the Kurds, and the E.U.

So I was reading the Economist last night, and two articles in particular caught my attention. They describe the likely coming military conflict between Turkey and Iraqi Kurdistan - a situation the U.S.A. does not want to see turning more violent. It turns out that my fellow Inactivist Alex wrote about those same two Economist articles yesterday. He summed up the situation thus:

A group of Kurdish militants/terrorists/freedom fighters/(insert preferred term here) called the PKK (Kurdish abbreviation for Kurdistan Workers' Party) is fighting the Turks but hiding in Iraq. The Iraqi Kurds have, at times, helped the Turks crack down on the PKK. Lately, however, the Iraqi Kurds have decided not to fight the PKK. The attacks continue, and Turkey now talks of invading northern Iraq to go after PKK strongholds.

So how can we encourage Turkey not to invade Iraq to strike the PKK strongholds? It's hard to argue that they shouldn't do it - though Inactivist regular Sam Franklin tries, in the comment section. (I couldn't resist poking him.) What we can argue is that there might be something Turkey wants more than it wants to invade Iraqi Kurdistan - especially if we can influence Iraqi Kurdistan to stop incursions into Turkey in the first place. In fact, I feel that the best answer to the situation is as clear as adding two and two - except that it doesn't hinge on the U.S.A. It hinges on the E.U.

As I said at Inactivist:

If only there were something Turkey really wanted, that might be used as leverage in negotiations. Something even Turkey's historical enemies might support. Something that would actually benefit the West in the perceived global culture war - secularism and materialism over religious and ethnic considerations.

The problem, of course, is that the E.U. doesn't seem to particularly want to admit Turkey. From the Economist article I linked above:

This week things went much as expected. The European Commission proposed suspending part of Turkey's membership talks, to punish it for failing to open its ports and airports to Cyprus... Yet the mood has turned unusually bad. The Turks are angry, the Europeans unbending, and it is hard to see how the talks can ever be unfrozen. For the row is not really over Cyprus but over growing doubts about whether Europe really wants Turkey to join the club.

Why wouldn't the E.U. want Turkey? People point to a lot of reasons, including poverty and a record of human rights abuses. But it seems like an obvious strategic move to admit Turkey anyway. Again from the Economist:

Its strategic significance is obvious. It abuts Iraq, Syria, Iran and the Caucasus; it has a big army (the second-biggest in NATO); in an era of energy insecurity its network of oil and gas pipelines is increasingly important. Above all, it is a rare example of a mainly Muslim country with a thriving, secular democracy and a liberal, free-market economy. The West's failure to promote liberal democracy in the Middle East makes it all the more pressing to support the only democratic Muslim country in the neighbourhood.

So what's the problem? I don't want to believe that it is as simple as some suggest - ethnic prejudice, or perhaps religious. Could it really be that Europe (much like America) seems to be comfortable with secularism only when it is Christian secularism? I'd like to think not, but couldn't it come across that way to 1.4 billion Muslims worldwide who have a lot of input on how peaceful our future will be? When people add two and two, the U.S.A. does have some influence on the math. The Turks will be adding two of what, and two of what?

Unfortunately, noting that smart moves on the part of the E.U. can keep this situation from blowing up is a far cry from expecting it.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

November 3, 2006

Marytrdom for Thee

Not all Palestinians are so keen on martyrdom. Some prefer to be rescued by hiding behind women and counting on the chivalry of the Israeli army. And I can’t fault them for wanting to live – except that they’ve been feeding that martyrdom line to the kids for so long. We see it time and time again – “martyrdom for thee, but not for me”.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Stern Language

I like Sir Nicholas Stern. He’s got a name that lends itself quite nicely to the type of cheap wordplay that is so popular with newspapers and blogs. It really doesn’t go beyond that – I was not at all familiar with the man until last week. The head of Britain's government economic service and the former World Bank chief economist, Stern recently published a report on the economics of climate change (some highlights here and some reactions here). It’s causing quite a stir.

The Economist:

Gordon Brown, the chancellor of the exchequer, asked Sir Nicholas to look into the economics of climate change because he wanted some solid material to counter the argument of those who accept that global warming is happening but believe mitigating it is too expensive to be worthwhile. That view is rare these days in Europe, but common in America, where it is often infused with the belief that attempts to control greenhouse-gas emissions are part of a European socialist conspiracy to undermine the American way of life.

Sir Nicholas has tried to assess the future costs of climate change—drought in Africa, floods in Europe, hurricanes in America, rising sea levels around the world—and has set them against the costs of cutting fossil-fuel usage enough to stabilise carbon-dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. His answer to the second part of this calculation is fairly uncontroversial. The costs of switching away from carbon should not be huge because of the rise in fossil-fuel prices and the fall in alternative energy prices. Sir Nicholas reckons that the world could stabilise concentrations at a reasonable level at a cost of 1% of GDP by 2050. Many other economists have looked at the matter, and most agree with Sir Nicholas.

But Sir Nicholas dissents from the general view on the costs of climate change itself. Most economists who have looked at the matter up to now reckon that, if greenhouse-gas emissions continue on their current path, the costs of climate change would be between zero (where the benefits of warming to cold countries balances out the costs) and 3% of global output over the next 100 years. Sir Nicholas thinks they would be a massive 5-20% over the next century or two: in other words, world output could be up to a fifth lower, as a result of climate change, than it otherwise would have been.

…Sir Nicholas has received plenty of support from economists (four Nobel prize-winners have endorsed the report) and a certain amount of criticism…One complaint is that he has selected the most pessimistic research and ignored more conservative work… Another criticism is that figures on the economic costs of climate change are bound to be nonsense because they are based on a cascade of uncertainties.

But neither point invalidates Sir Nicholas's central perception—that governments should act not on the basis of the likeliest outcome from climate change but on the risk of something really catastrophic (such as the melting of Greenland's ice sheet, which would raise sea levels by six to seven metres). Just as people spend a small slice of their incomes on buying insurance on the off-chance that their house might burn down, and nations use a slice of taxpayers' money to pay for standing armies just in case a rival power might try to invade them, so the world should invest a small proportion of its resources in trying to avert the risk of boiling the planet

Is this a fair point?

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

October 30, 2006

Copyright Issues

Perhaps the technology industry will tire of the constant whinging that comes from the music and movie and publishing industries and decide instead to build fully functional systems that do not accept the arbitrary limitations put on them by a content industry that fears for its own future.

Commentator Bill Thompson on the inevitable changes in store for the music, movie and publishing industries.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

October 23, 2006

He’ll use his weapon more effectively than you anyway.

Brussels Journal quotes the frontrunner for the 2007 French presidential race, Conservative Nicolas Sarkozy on RTL radio, 22 September 2006:

I would like to say one thing, in what is my conception of the Republic, security is the responsibility of the State, I am against militias, I am against the private ownership of firearms, and I’m trying to make you think about that. If you are assaulted by an armed burglar, he’ll use his weapon more effectively than you anyway so you’re risking your life. If the criminal is not armed and you are and you shoot, your life will be ruined, because killing someone over a theft is not in line with the republican values that are mine. The private ownership of firearms is dangerous. I understand your exasperation for having been burglarized two times, I understand the fear that your wife and daughter may have but the answer is in the efficiency of the police and the efficiency of the judiciary process, the answer is not in having guns at home.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

October 9, 2006

Flags of our Fathers / Letters from Iwo Jima

Have you ever seen one trailer for two movies?

I saw a commercial today for the movie Flags of our Fathers, which is due to be released on Oct 20. Seeing that it is directed by Clint Eastwood, I was intrigued and looked it up on line. According to Wikipedia,

Eastwood is also directing a complementary film on the battle from the Japanese viewpoint. Titled Letters from Iwo Jima, it is currently in post-production and is set to be released sometime in December, approximately two months after the release of Flags of Our Fathers.

Now this sounds excellent. Looking at the cast of Letters from Iwo Jima, I note Ken Watanabe is General Tadamichi Kuribayashi in both films. Several minor parts also appear in both films. Released only a couple months apart, eh?

Cleverly, there is a trailer that advertises for both movies simultaneously. Unfortunately, most of it is in Japanese. I’d like to see a version of it released in English, but until then, here is the Japanese version.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

October 8, 2006

Smokin’ in any Jacket

We at AtlasBlogged have discussed smoking bans before (see here, here, here, here, here, and here - cripes, it’s almost like we are smokers or something. For the record, I enjoy a nice cigar on occasion but have never had a cigarette).

Well, put another log on the fire. France is going to ban public smoking.

France is to ban smoking in all public places from next February, the prime minister has announced.

Cafes, nightclubs and restaurants are to be given until January 2008 to adapt, said Dominique de Villepin.

Smoking has always been popular in France. Putting aside all jokes about cheese and military misfortune, the French used to believe in personal liberties like smoking unfiltered fags anywhere, any time. Bans are getting more and more popular – I get 13 pages of BBC audio and video archives when doing a search for “smoking ban” (don’t take my word for it, look for yourself… Welsh, Germans, Scotland, Italy, etc, etc…). The videos offer conflicting reports on whether pub business is “booming” or taking a hit. But there is no denying that the times and the European image are changing.

Since I am not directly affected, I have the luxury of noting the special irony that it is the “Man” on the Left who is keeping smokers down. Let the college kids downtown with the bumper stickers equating Bush to Hitler stick that in their pipe and not be allowed to smoke it.

Of course, I understand why some non-smokers would support these bans. They think that they have the right to enter any place of employment, entertainment, commerce, etc, and not breathe secondhand smoke. The problem is that more and more people labor under this delusion, and individual rights have no real legal meaning in a truly democratic society.

I haven’t heard much lately from the entrepreneur who was making plans to launch the world’s first airline for smokers. But he was taking things in a direction I like:

Alexander Schoppmann, a former stockbroker, is seeking the start-up cash for Smintair - Smoker's International Airways…

The plan is to fly two leased Boeing 747s on the Duesseldorf-Tokyo route…

"Allergics against tobacco smoke or militant anti-smokers are asked to not apply," Smintair says on its jobs page.

(See the BBC News article on Smintair here, and some conversation about Smintair at The Age, here.)

Wouldn’t it be grand if we could someday open a bar (Jib: a “pub”) called “Atlas Drank”? And, you know, decide for ourselves whether or not to allow smoking on our property? Man, that’d be great. Allergics against tobacco smoke or militant anti-smokers are asked to not apply. If you have any complaints, contact our management - John Galt.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

September 19, 2006

Afghanistan’s Booming Economy

While Boon wrote the Top Ten Headlines You Won't Read Today, I'll offer you one story that you won't read today in the NYTimes or the Washington Post:

"Psst, No One Will Believe This — Afghanistan Has a Booming Economy"

Bizzyblog's Tom Blumer asks:

Would it be fair to blame the 527 Media if Western companies lose out on the business opportunities in Afghanistan (just reading that phrase must seem bizarre to many)?

I will go one further and ask if Afghanistanis are losing out in Western investments courtesy of one-sided and bleak Western media reporting. If so, this would be yet another example of the Left-based media inadvertently hurting those who they claim to want to help. Ann Marlowe asked in the original Wall Street Journal op-ed, "If only American and other Western investors could see past the doomsayers, they too could play a part in the Afghan economic success story."

Hrm. Yeah, that's interesting. And who exactly are the doomsayers, again?

Posted by Rammage | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

August 28, 2006

North Korean Counterfeiting

Okay, let me get this straight...

For those who have handled them, North Korean "supernotes" are virtually indistinguishable from the $100 bills they mimic - near-perfect forgeries of the most widely circulated American bank note outside the United States.

But the fakes are more than just beautiful examples of criminal craftsmanship. They may also be the biggest hurdle to the resumption of six-nation talks meant to persuade the North to abandon its self-described nuclear weapons production program.

(Albuquerque Tribune, also see here)

So one of the main issues that is stopping our negotiations about North Korea's development of nuclear weapons and intercontinental delivery systems is the fact that they are printing millions of dollars of fake US currency. For nearly two decades.

Sigh. If only we could get them to the negotiating table, surely they would promise not to make any bad, bad weapons. And not to use the ones they do make. A good, hard promise from Pyongyang - that's what we need.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

August 18, 2006

Damn the Torpedoes - Updated 8/20/06

This graphic comes from an article at the Economist on the “painful political debate in rich countries” over asylum-seekers.

What the article does not discuss, and what I would like answered, is why the number of refugees worldwide is now at the lowest since 1980. Anyone?

I'll start it off by suggesting that it has little or nothing to do with the policies of the rich countries.

Updated below the fold...

Updated at 22:45 on August 20: I am sharing some of what I have looked up on this subject since it was originally posted.

I have taken the liberty of arranging specific parts of some of the pdfs from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) into jpgs. I apologize if it looks sloppy. This table shows the nation of origin for refugees in 1993 and 1994.

Today, roughly 40% of the refugees today are in Asia, while Africa accounts for roughly a quarter. See the pie chart.

In 1993, by my reckoning, the numbers were about 35% for Asia, 37% for Africa. The UNHCR archives are available here in pdf if you are interested. Without doing any more math than that, it’s clear that a huge difference is the number of refugees in Africa.

I want to understand why that is.

Possibly more instructive is this table that shows the new arrivals of asylum seekers between 1993 and 1994. Note the combined million refugees arriving in Tanzania and Burundi… from Rwanda. Remember Rwanda?

This may be a much more significant factor than the collapse of the USSR. That collapse caused a lot of migration, but doesn’t seem to have created many refugees.

If you look at the graphic at the top of this article, the number of refugees worldwide looks to decrease by ~2 million between 1996 and 1997. According to the FAO, ~2 million Rwandans returned home during that time.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

August 10, 2006

Email Exchange on Islamic Fundamentalism

I wanted to share the following email exchange with the world (or at least our readers):

Rammage:

You honestly don't believe that Islamic Fundamentalists would have had to eventually deal with an isolationist United States?

Wulf:

I honestly believe that Capitalism and Classic Liberalism would undermine the base for Islamic Fundamentalism if our nation had any damned confidence in our own ideologies and didn't feel the need to try to force democracy into Iraq. Post Cold War, we have no reason to play with the politics of the ME except
1) Manifest Destiny, which has no place in Classic Liberalism
2) Concerns about a ME dictator or theocracy gaining an oil monopoly - which wouldn't be a concern if we really believed in Capitalism anyway.

In other words, our every action over there is contrary to what we claim is the basis of the United States of America.

The conversation is open to comments.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0)

August 4, 2006

2006 is Year of the Dog

A few months ago I wrote

China is well on the way to being, if not already, the most egregious environmentally harming country in the world. How can the Left, with their chosen religion of Environmentalism, reconcile that their beloved China is "desecrating" the earth?

So when I came upon this story about how China is beating more than 50,000 dogs to death, I immediately wondered how this was being received by PETA.

Dogs being walked were seized from their owners and beaten to death on the spot, the Shanghai Daily newspaper reported. Led by the county police chief, killing teams entered villages at night creating noise to get dogs barking, then beat the animals to death, the reports said.

To their credit, PETA resoundingly condemn it with a link off of their main page:

China’s long history of animal abuse is back in the spotlight as one Chinese county indiscriminately massacres every dog in sight—more than 50,000 in total-some right in front of their families. This and other appalling atrocities—such as feeding live sheep and chickens to tigers in zoos and skinning conscious animals, including dogs and cats, for their fur, which is then exported to the West—take place because China has no animal protection laws.

What's this? A PETA statement without a broad-sweeping condemnation of the United States and her associated evils? Never fear, PETA does not disappoint:

China supplies more than half the monkeys imported to the U.S. for experiments, and that number has increased sevenfold in the last 10 years.

Ah, there it is. Because indiscriminately and savagely beating dogs to death with wooden canes is morally equivalent to performing controlled medical experiments on monkeys for the sole purpose of saving human lives. It's too bad that the same beloved Communist countries that Leftist organizations like PETA yearn for are not prosperous enough, economically, to be able to afford a more humane way of putting down dogs suspected of rabies.

Update: Wulf says "Most of the news articles I have seen on it were focusing on the word rabies and the number 50,000 more than any photos of dogs being beaten. For some reason.

H/T: JunkyardBlog

Posted by Rammage | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

July 25, 2006

What, Exactly, in Proportion?

This AP article on the current situation in Lebanon spells out very clearly what the biggest problem will be in trying to secure a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah. And it has nothing to do with a lack of effort on the part of the United States or the U.N.

Mideast observers say Hezbollah only has to remain standing — not beat Israel — to emerge victorious in Arab eyes.

Exactly so. The terrorist organization has been using more advanced technology than ever before in this recent round of violence, striking with Syrian-made and Iranian-made rockets that have the range to hit the port city of Haifa and possibly as far as Tel-Aviv. They also struck an Israeli warship off the coast of Beirut – a surprising capability. This means that the question of proportional response is not a simple matter of comparing body counts. Neither is it as simple as comparing body counts as a percentage of total population, as Newt Gingrich has. Not only is Gingrich getting flamed by the left for the comparison (“Does one Israeli really equal 47 Americans?”), but it simply isn’t the way the Israeli military or politicians will look at the situation, because the number of dead civilians is not the best metric by which to determine when Israel has gone far enough. With nearly 400 dead in Lebanon and over 100 dead in Gaza, it would be easy to say that Israel’s response has been disproportionate – they’ve only suffered a few dozen casualties. But the Israeli military will measure their casualties against the number of Hezbollah guerillas, and that number is very low, possibly still under 100. Between that and the inability thus far of Israeli strikes to lessen the frequency of rocket attacks, the current offensive must be measured as not yet effective by Israeli generals. So long as that is the case, Israel cannot pull back without being seen as losing this conflict.

More importantly, the Israeli response to the July 12th cross-border raid will be measured by Israeli politicians against only one thing: the threat of future attacks from Hezbollah. Having engaged the enemy, Israel cannot now afford to back out of Lebanon prior to severely weakening Hezbollah. The total destruction or even disarming of the organization is an unrealistic goal, but for some time Hezbollah has felt free to antagonize and attack without fear of reprisal. How could Israel retaliate? While no state agent would risk starting a war with Israel (because the danger of losing territory and civilian lives), Hezbollah is not a state, and it has neither territory nor civilians to lose. Thus, Israel cannot measure their success or failure in terms of square miles conquered or civilians killed. It is a false metric.

Back to the AP story:

Israel might want to use a cease-fire to achieve its strategic goals. But a cease-fire that leaves Hezbollah's fighting ability intact could, in the eyes of many Israelis, cause irreparable damage to Israel's deterrent posture and hand a major victory to archenemy Iran, Hezbollah's prime supporter.

Again, exactly so. If Israel withdraws from this conflict while Hezbollah still has the capability to launch cross-border raids or lob rockets into Haifa, they become extremely vulnerable not only to future attacks from Hezbollah but from other terrorist groups as well. And for Hezbollah’s part, they cannot afford to back down without losing political influence in Lebanon and making sponsor-state Iran lose face.

We all know that a long-term peace between the two sides is impossible, but how do we go back to the way it was a few months ago? We cannot - ever. That’s the whole point that Hezbollah is making with each rocket, and it is important that the world recognize this when judging the situation.

Update 18:30 EST - I wish I had thought to mention this earlier, but the terrorist groups will, of course, pick now as the best time to ask for peace. After all, Israel looks bad with the average television viewer who sees the bombed out buildings and hears about the civilians who have been displaced or killed, but Hezbollah has not yet suffered much. Offer a truce, knowing that Israel cannot accept it for reasons outlined above. The media will carry the offer, and its rejection. Of course, that's exactly what has been happening over the last couple of days. Jay at StopTheACLU says that the terrorists are only making such an offer because they are losing. On the contrary. The offer is pure show, because they aren't really losing yet. Now, with the offer rejected, Hezbollah is saying that Israel is overreacting to the capture of just two soldiers, and the terrorists vow to fire rockets even farther into Israeli territory.
All the terrorists have to do now is keep their heads down, lob a few rockets now and again, and let the Israelis continue to kill Lebanese civilians and UN observers. So far, they couldn't have scripted this better themselves.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

July 15, 2006

Can You Tell Me How to Get...

Kofi%26friends.jpg
I don't know if you realize this, but Sesame Street is worldwide. It runs in over 120 different countries - including those in the Middle East. And it might be doing us some good over there. Amid all of the fighting and the killing, little Semitic children are being exposed to a message that may slip into their homes somewhat innocuously – like Jewish and Arab muppets who like each other.

Chorus: That’s stupid.

You think?

The show has always been about reaching children with some kind of Message; the most obvious is not to judge others by their outward appearance – this pops up in nearly every episode. Some of the decisions and rumors have been rather controversial, because of the Message the kids would get from the show. Think back; the death of Mr. Hooper, perpetual rumors of Ernie being gay, or terminally ill, and of course the introduction of a character with HIV. Hell, even the fact that adults on the show can see Snuffleupagus ever since 1985 is enough to get some people hot under the collar.

Well, the State Department takes it seriously. Officials feel that the show helps teach American values to children who otherwise might never know what the USA stands for. This is why the US government (and to some extent the EU) subsidizes Sesame Street productions around the globe

Says Charlotte Beers, undersecretary of State for public diplomacy, "people we need to talk to do not even know the basics about us. They are taught to distrust our every motive. Such distortions, married to a lack of knowledge, is a deadly cocktail. Engaging, teaching common values are preventive medicine". So, the answer is Sesame Street. "The children are glued to the set. They are learning English, they are learning about American values."

And they are learning how to count. Don’t forget that.

Now, before you accuse me of being just like the New York Times in giving away our secret propaganda tactics, keep in mind that the people who actually make the show are not necessarily on board with this.

However, the Children's Television Workshop has told BBC News Online that it does not accept that it is an exporter of so-called American values. Even a policy for foreign licensing decided back in 1969 stipulated that non-US versions of the show reflect the morals and traditions of the host nation.

"We don't set out in any way to push American or western values. That's not our mission at all," says Beatrice Chow, spokeswoman for Sesame Street's foreign co-productions.

"There are universal values that we encourage, such as sharing, co-operation, respect and understanding. But we see what the needs are of the specific country where the show is being broadcast - such as in South Africa where we introduced an HIV-positive character because of the Aids problem there."

It all sounds so collectivist when you put it that way. But there is nothing wrong with sharing and cooperation, respect and understanding. These are not the values of my enemies and opponents. Right?

As the head of Sesame Street’s foreign projects told the BBC back in 2003;

…we also wanted to build into the Israeli version the diversity that exists within Israel - in fact the two human hosts on the show, one is an Israel Jew, one is an Israeli Arab.

There are places where there are different stages of conflict, and you can be in a stage where there is armed conflict, where social lessons can be done in a certain way.

Then there are times of reconciliation, when you can be more overt about connecting people or concepts.

If you have rolled your eyes through this entire post, then you have missed the point. Sesame Street is not a panacea. The feel-good fiction does not protect from rockets or take back bullets. But consider what else the boys and girls of Jerusalem and Beirut could be watching. It is an attempt to plant something other than hatred into the minds of the next generation. Bravo.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

June 29, 2006

Supreme Court to visit EPA Rules on CO2

The United States Supreme Court today agreed to hear a case involving the federal regulation of greenhouse gas pollutants.

In 1999, various environmental groups filed an administrative petition requesting that EPA set motor vehicle emission standards for greenhouse gases. The EPA denied that petition in August 2003, saying that it had no statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. At that time, EPA also said it would not regulate greenhouse gas emissions even if it had the authority to do so under the Clean Air Act.

In October 2003, [Massachusetts] and 29 other parties challenged that ruling in the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit [and lost].

This March, Massachusetts and 28 other parties filed a petition for certiorari requesting Supreme Court review. Today, the Supreme Court agreed to review the federal appeals court case.

(story here)

As the Tacoma Tribune notes, the decision could determine how the nation addresses global warming.

I expect many on the right to stick with arguments that the Earth is not warming (false) or that it is only warming because of non-human activities (false) like the fact that the sun is shining brighter (true) and that this ruling could make it illegal to exhale (false and only mildy humorous even the first time, after which the comment has no humor value unless followed by a blast of secondhand cigarette smoke), but that doesn't help the debate. The question is, Has Congress already mandated that the EPA regulate the emissions of CO2? If so, then the EPA seems to be in the wrong in deciding not to do so.

And that does appear to be the case, says the National Resources Defense Council. As reported here, they note the wording of the Clean Air Act:

As evidence, the council cites Section 103, subsection (g) of the act, which states, in part, that federal officials should develop nonregulatory strategies and technologies for preventing or reducing "multiple air pollutants, including sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, heavy metals, PM-10 (particulate matter), carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, from stationary sources, including fossil fuel power plants."

But the EPA says that the word "nonregulatory" in the above passage is the key to the whole issue. If Congress has not given them the power to regulate these emissions, it doesn't matter how detrimental anybody believes them to be. That seems pretty clear to me, but the split decisions in the lower courts make me wonder how exactly this will play out, both when this case is heard in October and over the next several years. I'll be holding my breath. [rimshot]

The other states involved in the case are California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (2) | TrackBack (1)

June 27, 2006

There's No Such Thing as a Free Market Economy

When a pollster asks if you think that the free enterprise system and free market economy is the best system on which to base the future of the world, you might want to ponder what the word "free" means. It shows up twice in the question, so it's important.

In a recent international poll, most respondants...

agreed that “The free enterprise system and free market economy work best in society's interests when accompanied by strong government regulations.” This view was endorsed by two out of three overall (65%).

So people want free enterprise, free market economies, plus a lot of regulation. Hrm. Now, I'm not saying that strong government regulations are inherently bad - I think it depends a lot on what government we are talking about, and what it is regulating - but I find the results of this poll interesting primarily because of that tricky word, "free". Just how "free" is that market economy when there is strong government regulation?

Despite this quibble, I take the results of this poll as a pretty positive sign. Sometimes, it seems that socialism is winning. And that's because people want the best of both worlds - "the electorate takes both a 'leave me alone' and a 'gimme a hand' approach to government," to quote Jon Henke.

Another interesting aspect of the poll is the first chart. As the article says,

In all but one country polled, a majority or plurality agreed with the statement that “the free enterprise system and free market economy is the best system on which to base the future of the world.”

And who is that one country? France. You can't make this stuff up.

But on a more seriously intriguing note, the nation with the highest percentage agreeing with the statement was China. That's right, they scored higher than the U.S.A. So much for the Red Threat... we really did win the Cold War.

GlobeScan President Doug Miller had some interesting advice;

[C]ompanies will need to increasingly demonstrate that they are operating in society’s best interest rather than just their own. The social contract needs to be re-built around the free market.

I have re-read this several times. It's not such a revolutionary idea, but that last sentence in particular bears repeating in all company.

Also, the article does not make particular note of it, but I found it interesting which countries had the least number disagreeing: India, Poland, South Korea, and China. In general, Southeast Asian respondants seem much more "free" market than Europeans or Americans. Consider the relation between that point and the following:

In aggregate, agreement that the free market system is best was higher among those with high education (64%) than low education (56%), as well as those with very high income (66%) as compared to those with very low income (59%), but the differences were slight.

The view that large companies have too much influence over national governments follows the same pattern. Those with high education were more likely to agree (79%) than those with low education (69%). Contrary to the stereotype that very-high-income people perceive the influence of large companies as serving their interests, those with very high incomes were more likely to agree that such companies have too much influence (77%) than those with very low income (66%).

Majority support for greater regulation to protect the rights of workers was a bit higher among those with low education (78%) than with high education (68%), and by those with very low income (80%) over those with very high income (71%), but the differences were strikingly slight. The same pattern obtained for greater regulation to protect the rights of consumers, but the variation was even smaller.

Interestingly, the same pattern obtained for greater protection of the rights of investors, with 56% of those with low education favoring more regulation as compared to 50% among those with high education, and 59% of those with very low income as compared to 50% among those with very high income. Though those with higher education and income are more likely to be investors, those with low education and income are more likely to think that investors need government protection.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Redeployments and Drawdowns

Redeployment has become a hot word lately. It’s a Democrat euphemism for troop withdrawals from Iraq… which seems pretty silly, since the left is convinced that Americans want an immediate troop withdrawal. So why the euphemism? I would rather see our troops brought home if possible, not “redeployed”, which means sent on a different deployment. I’m happy to say we should bring them home as soon as they are not absolutely needed overseas. While the exact moment is clearly debatable, especially with regard to Iraq, the silliness of the euphemism is not.

Do you realize that a quarter of U.S. active duty military personnel are deployed outside of the U.S.A.? One in four.

Now, it is easy to say that this is a good thing – after all, we’re in a time of war. It’s the job of the military to go Over There and fight the war. And that’s a fair argument for some of the deployments.

For example, there are about 20,000 troops in Afghanistan for the War on Terror. Let’s call that a good use of our troops. And there are another 170,000 troops in Iraq, ostensibly in the War on Terror. Whatever you might think was the “real” reason for the war in Iraq, for the sake of argument agree with me that this is a good use of our troops. I’m not interested in arguing that point, so if you don’t agree, please play along.

Let’s also grant that it is good to deploy approximately 120,000 members of the United States Navy – they are forward-deployed to Asia, or cruising the Mediterranean, or hanging out in the Arctic Ocean making jokes about how global warming will irreversibly change submariner hazing rituals. That’s fine. That’s what they’re for.

But what about the 120,000 soldiers and airmen in Europe? What are they doing in the War on Terror that requires them to be in Europe? I grant that we do have a mission that is served by these men and women, but that mission does not require 120,000 deployed. And the Department of Defense agrees:

Changes in the global strategic picture, in addition to revolutions in military technology, transportation and logistics, mean that U.S. forces no longer need to maintain the numerous large bases and supply hubs across Western Europe and northeast Asia.

It is now possible for U.S. forces to do more with less, the officials said, by maintaining fewer, smaller military bases overseas, minimally staffed "forward operating sites," and "cooperative security locations," sites operated by allied countries that could be activated for use by deployed American forces should the need arise.

(story here)

It is arguable that the mission in Europe does not require any American troops – both Americans and Europeans tell pollsters that Europeans should have a greater voice and role in resolving world conflicts. As a good start, the mission in Europe should be carried out to a larger extent by European NATO forces. But for now, these 120,000 are not all coming back to the US – some really are being redeployed in the overall restructuring of the military to a rapid-response force. The ~~redeployment~~ drawdown will begin in earnest next year, and as the Army Times notes, it's not just the troops:

Most of the soldier positions will be transferred to the U.S., along with more than 100,000 family members.

Nearly two thirds of American troops in Europe are stationed in Germany. In the wake of this restructuring of U.S. forces, Alec at Prose Before Hos is making the case for letting Germany expand its own military and stand their own NATO posts now that we are 20 years past reunification and more than half a century past WWII.

Currently, the German economy is the fifth richest in the world per capita and third largest in the world by nominal GDP. Conversely, Germany is the 36th biggest provider of military and police contributions to UN efforts (in-between Rwanda at 35 and Slovakia at 37). Combined with NATO figures, Germany contributes approximately 6700 troops worldwide, including two thousand in Afghanistan. The invasion of Afghanistan, a multilateral operation agreed upon by NATO, serves as an excellent example. German assistance is done at considerable smaller percentages than other NATO nations, with 20 thousand originating from the United States, 2500 from Canada, and 1000 from Spain. Further, Romania, a country with an average income of $3000, contributed over 800 troops.

(I first found Alec’s article cross-posted at Publius Pundit)

Should we go so far as to advocate bringing home the 80,000 troops in South Korea and Japan? Like Germany, these are two nations who we trust, and who are economically capable of funding sizable militaries of their own. But that’s not currently part of the plan – it would be borderline isolationist to advocate that.

For now, a ~~pullout~~ ~~drawdown~~ redeployment from Iraq also appears to be a different story. But the situation in Iraq and the developing situation in Iran are looking more and more like conventual international disputes, and less like our original vision for the War on Terror. It's past time to think of them that way - and that's a different topic entirely.

By the way, visit the BRAC website for a full rundown on base realignments and closures, both domestic and overseas.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

June 21, 2006

Islamocapitalism

At TCS Daily, Turkish Writer Mustafa Akyol asks; "Is Islam compatible with modernity?"

He notes that most Islamists would say it is not. But he argues that this is primarily because they don't know much about capitalism, science, and other aspects of modernity.

When you look at anti-capitalist rhetoric in Muslim circles, you will see that it is focused on sexual laxity, prostitution, drugs, crime, or the general selfishness in Western societies. Yet these are not the inherent elements of capitalism, they would be better explained by the term "cultural materialism" -- the idea that material things are the only things that matter. Most Muslims who abhor capitalism simply confuse it with materialism.

Such worried Muslims would be quite surprised to discover that some of the most outspoken advocates of the free market in the West are also staunch defenders of religious faith, family values and the healthy role of both in public life. Unfortunately, the synthesis of democratic capitalism with Judeo-Christian values -- which is basically an American, not a European phenomenon -- is not well known in the Islamic world. The America of churches and charities is poorly represented in the global mass media. Quite the contrary, what most Muslims see as standard Americans are the unabashed hedonists of MTV and Hollywood.

I am a former unabashed hedonist myself, but I agree with Mr. Akyol. However, I would like to point out that most Westerners, too, would say that Islam is not compatible with modernity. But again, most Westerners don't know much about Islam - or capitalism, science, and other aspects of modernity, for that matter.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

The Red Threat

The North Koreans were in the news again this week. This time, they were planning to test launch an ICBM. Keep in mind what the I and the C stand for in ICBM. Keep in mind also that North Korea has nuclear aspirations, though it would likely be a little while before they have a warhead small enough to fit on an ICBM.

Those crazy North Koreans. Most of their missile arsenal is of such short range that they could only hit South Korea and China - both of whom are probably more concerned by the fact that the North Korean army is the fourth largest in the world at about a million hungry soldiers. Their longer range missiles are time consuming to launch, and we know right where they are - as evidenced by the fact that we knew for several days about the plan to test an ICBM. If you would like more details on their missiles, check this Factbox article.

It is legitimate and necessary to be concerned about North Korea, but their bark is worse than their bite for anybody more than marching distance away.

But while reading about North Korea, I was reminded of China.

The Pentagon has recently expressed concern about China's military. You may have missed that in all of the noise about Iraq and Guantanamo. From SecDef's 2006 Annual Report on Military Power of the People’s Republic of China (found here):

The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is in the process of long-term transformation from a mass army designed for protracted wars of attrition on its territory to a more modern force capable of fighting short duration, high intensity conflicts against high-tech adversaries...

In the near term, China’s military build-up appears focused on preparing for Taiwan Strait contingencies, including the possibility of U.S. intervention. However, analysis of China’s military acquisitions suggest it is also generating capabilities that could apply to other regional contingencies, such as conflicts over resources or territory.

Several aspects of China’s military development have surprised U.S. analysts, including the pace and scope of its strategic forces modernization. China’s military expansion is already such as to alter regional military balances. Long-term trends in China’s strategic nuclear forces modernization, land- and sea-based access denial capabilities, and emerging precision-strike weapons have the potential to pose credible threats to modern militaries operating in the region.
China’s leaders have yet to adequately explain the purposes or desired end-states of their military expansion. Estimates place Chinese defense expenditure at two to three times officially disclosed figures [officially $35 billion ~Wulf]. The outside world has little knowledge of Chinese motivations and decision-making or of key capabilities supporting PLA modernization.

Notes from The Economist:

IF THE Pentagon is right, China's nuclear arsenal is on the verge of a big upgrade. As a deterrent against American nuclear attack, the Chinese have long relied mainly on a handful of intercontinental missiles that are slow to fuel and highly vulnerable. Now China is shifting to new types of missiles that are harder to detect and can be launched much more quickly.

The Pentagon says China has only 20 missiles capable of reaching the American mainland. These are DF-5s (also called CSS-4s), based in silos. They use liquid fuel, which is stored separately for safety and needs to be time-consumingly transferred to a missile before launch. Some analysts believe the warheads are stored separately too. It could take up to two hours to prepare them for use. China has another 20 or so liquid-fuelled DF-4s (also called CSS-3s) and as many as 50 DF-21s (CSS-5s) that can reach targets in Asia and Russia (click to see map)...

This year could see the first deployments of DF-31s (CSS-9s). These would be mounted on trucks or railcars, making them much harder to find. They would also use solid fuel, which would considerably reduce preparation time. A longer-range version, the DF-31A, could be in operation next year. The JL-2, a submarine-launched missile, could be deployed between 2007 and 2010. These would bring all of America within reach.

There are a lot of reasons to believe that these are deterrent moves, not plans to become aggressive. Either way, what should America do about a Chinese military buildup? Engage in another Cold War? Imagine trying to spend the next half century watching the American economy outperform China the way it did the USSR. No, seriously, imagine trying to do that. Heh.

So, how do we handle the new Red Threat? Well, we could try greater military transparency and cooperation. That's not something most people would expect from the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld administration, but as Stars and Stripes reports today;

Three aircraft carrier groups — carrying a combined 20,000 personnel, 28 ships and 290 aircraft — took part [in] the largest carrier exercise since the Vietnam conflict...

The exercise’s size, [Rear Adm. Michael Miller] said, is a function of all of the carrier groups being in the vicinity at the right time. He said mustering the massive Valiant Shield forces — and expanding the former JASEX exercise from two to three carriers — is not being done to show U.S. military might in the Pacific.

Rather, he said, the Navy is reaching out to the region through military “transparency.” For instance, China — called a potential threat in a recent Pentagon report — was invited to attend; on Sunday, Chinese representatives came aboard the Ronald Reagan.

“They wanted to come out here because they are interested in the same things we are — the peace and stability of this region,” Miller said.

What? The Chinese want peace and stability in the Pacific? We share the same biology, regardless of ideology? This isn't a crazy idea, but it's not one we often hear expressed so clearly. Work with the Chinese. Hrm.

But this isn't just an opportunity for everybody to say that war is undesireable. This line from the story blew me away (and I've added emphasis to make that really clear):

The Chinese were “interested in the carrier from the bottom up,” said Ronald Reagan commanding officer Capt. Terry B. Kraft.
“We showed them everything,” Kraft said.

Okay, it's time for more imagining.

1) Imagine doing that for some Soviet admirals or shipyard administrators back in 1945, or 1965, or 1985. You know, to demonstrate our commitment to avoiding conflict. My, how times have changed.

2) Imagine doing that in 1995. Remember how upset the American Right was with Clinton over the sale of supercomputers, missile engines, etc? Remember the Cox Report? Dirty Communists! I'm curious to know how upset the American Right would be with "We showed them everything" if it had happened during a Gore or Kerry presidency.

By the way, some great photos of Valiant Shield here and here, found via an article at Bubblehead's The Stupid Shall be Punished blog.

The fact of the matter is that we have fewer secrets than we would like to. For one thing, our military has been much more on display than has China's since the end of the Cold War. Every time we use our military, the world learns what it can do. That is great if we are looking to display power, but it would be ridiculous to assume that other nations don't then emulate our successful weapons systems and Special Operations capabilities. According to the Pentagon;

Following observations of U.S. Special Forces in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the PLA began to place greater emphasis on expanding China’s own SOF capability, particularly as a force multiplier in a Taiwan Strait scenario. PLA researchers continue to study SOF involved in U.S. and Coalition operations. In 2002, the PLA reportedly set up a dedicated unit to monitor U.S. Special Operations activities, including target acquisition and use of UAVs, in Afghanistan. The PLA also studied the role of special operations forces in Operation IRAQI FREEDOM.

(here)

As transparent as our military has to be, and as transparent as our R&D is, it seems like good policy to see if we really can work with China, and not just pretend to. We can't ignore the fundamental differences we do have with China, and the horrible human rights record (try as we do). But the existance of fundamental differences in governance and respect for human rights does not stop us from cooperating with several other nations out there, and it shouldn't stop us here. All we need have to justify greater cooperation with China is a sense of national security and a common goal... like, say, peace and stability in the Pacific. So bravo to Valiant Shield and the observers from Australia, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia and the Russian Federation. Let's hope it does some good.

Side note on North Korea: Bill Gates has a net worth of about the North Korean GDP. Who would win?

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (1)

June 4, 2006

Animal Husbandry

I have made the argument several times (though I can find little reference to it on the Atlas Blogged archives - I must have been arguing in email) that despite what so many believe, gay marriage does not necessitate polygamy or bestiality. I did take a little convincing about the polygamy part - see Kip, Esquire for a great argument that helped me figure it out.

But the bestiality part in particular I have always though was a pretty ridiculous, reactionary, Chicken Little argument. I mean, seriously... If two men have lived together and loved one another for years and years, the legalization and legitimization of that relationship is not a compelling bestiality argument in any way. It's not a slippery slope.

Having said all of that, this story is a little disturbing. Thank you, Lawyers, Gun$ and Money for the laugh.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

May 21, 2006

Red vs Green

A few weeks ago, Rammage asked whether the American Left would value communism over environmentalism. He specifically asked about the industrialization of China:

How can the Left, with their chosen religion of Environmentalism, reconcile that their beloved China is "desecrating" the earth?

(see here)

As I pointed out to him at the time, the environment wins. This is because the Chinese aren't really communist - if they were, they wouldn't be at odds with the environment, because true communism is so lovey peaceful happy fun. But clearly China has taken a dark path in the last couple of decades, making widgets in sweatshops for nasty tree-hating Americans.

Modernization has brought with it a host of problems for the country's farmers -- among them, the loss of farmland to industry and the onset of industrial pollution.

Of course, under Kelo the Chinese government is able to take land from these farmers and give it to an evil corporation for a pittance.

Song Lingui is one of those farmers. Four years ago, the local government took his land and sold it to the chemical plant. He was given some compensation, but he says it was not enough.

The town and factory in this particular story (link) are not unique in their disagreement over safety and pollution. And obviously, I have no firsthand means of knowing whether the factory is actually at fault for anything. I just wanted to remind Rammage that industry is, in general, evil and ugly. Don't focus on any possible benefits of industrialization, or any personal culpability on the part of factory management or government bureaucrats. Think big picture. Green is the new Red.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

May 3, 2006

Mexico, a Narco-Tourism Destination.

From the South Florida Sun-Sentinel:

Mexican President Vicente Fox will sign a bill that would legalize the use of nearly every drug and narcotic sold by the same Mexican cartels he's vowed to fight during his five years in office, a spokesman said Tuesday.

The list of illegal drugs approved for personal consumption by Mexico's Congress last week is enough to make one dizzy — or worse.

Cocaine. Heroin. LSD. Marijuana. PCP. Opium. Synthetic opiates. Mescaline. Peyote. Psilocybin mushrooms. Amphetamines. Methamphetamines...

Selling drugs or using them in public still would be a crime in Mexico. Anyone possessing drugs still could be held for questioning by police, and each state could impose fines even on the permitted quantities, the bill stipulates. But it includes no imprisonment penalties.

Presidential spokesman Ruben Aguilar said Tuesday that Fox would sign the measure, calling it an important tool in the fight against drug trafficking.

What? Is he crazy? Yes, he is... crazy like a Fox!

Critics, including U.S. drug policy officials, already are worrying that it will spur a domestic addiction problem and make Mexico a narco-tourism destination.

Lawmakers who voted for decriminalization, some of whom have expressed surprise over the details of the bill, said it would for the first time empower local police to make drug arrests and allow law enforcement in general to focus on intercepting large drug shipments and major traffickers. The bill also would stiffen penalties for selling drugs near schools and authorize state and local police to detain users to check whether amounts were over the legal limit.

This should be nice and controversial. Do we expect them to go through with it?

Said Tom Riley, a spokesman for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy:

Many countries, including the U.S. and Mexico, see the drug problem as a trafficking problem. But the real problem isn't trafficking, it's drug use. The costs of drug addiction are staggering.

The costs of the War on Drugs are staggering, Mr. Riley.

So, what will this do for the staggering amount of violence that Mexico sees due to drug smuggling? Chris at Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of... argues that it will get worse, because the decriminalization only takes attention off of the end users, not the suppliers - and that's where the violence is. Don at Cafe Hayek seems to think otherwise. I often agree with his take on things, but doesn't flesh out the argument other than to say in the comments section:

The Mexican government, for example, has already agreed to be less violent towards people with only small amounts of drugs.

Fair enough. But overall? I expect and hope that this will help to decrease the violence, but it strikes me as more than a little wishful, especially given which drugs have been legalized. Have you ever seen a narco-tourist on PCP? I know where you may soon be able to find one.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

April 29, 2006

Let the Market Work

From The Economist:

Alternative fuels will not become common overnight, as one veteran oilman acknowledges: “Given the capital-intensity of manufacturing alternatives, it's now a race between hydrocarbon depletion and making fuel.” But the recent rise in oil prices has given investors confidence. As Peter Robertson, vice-chairman of Chevron, puts it, “Price is our friend here, because it has encouraged investment in new hydrocarbons and also the alternatives.” Unless the world sees another OPEC-engineered price collapse as it did in 1985 and 1998, GTL, tar sands, ethanol and other alternatives will become more economic by the day (see chart 2).

Sure, it hurts to pay $3.00 per gallon when we remember gas being less than a dollar. The average 2-driver American household now spends well over $4,000 per year on gasoline, driving an average of over 40 miles per day. We have placed ourselves in a very vulnerable position over the last couple of generations, with inefficient vehicles and long commutes. It is our right to choose this lifestyle, and it is our right to have to afford it. The anger at Big Oil is ridiculous. The call for government intervention is dangerous.

Americans are honestly ignorant of how the market works. The obvious solution to higher gasoline prices is to use less gas or adjust your household budget. Alternative fuels will be made available just as soon as businesses can afford to do so - this works without government investigation or interference. It's too bad that our nation's collective ignorance might prevent things from developing of their own accord.

April 28, 2006

Leftist Guilt: Made in China

China Flag.gif

There was a good comment over at Mark Steyn (reprinted in entirety below) that got me thinking. The commenter pointed out that increased CO2 emissions will “accompany the use of coal from the 200 new coal mines China is opening in the next 5 years." This is another one of those extremely tricky areas for the Left and their love of Communism, and I'm wondering how they're going to handle the hypocrisy. Communism is great; China's got it right; Can 1.5 billion Chinese be wrong?; U.S.A is evil; etc. College students will soon be hanging up their hammer and sickle tees in favor of the more fashionable yellow star. [Ed. note: not a racial epithet, the star is actually yellow.]

And yet, China is well on the way to being, if not already, the most egregious environmentally harming country in the world. How can the Left, with their chosen religion of Environmentalism, reconcile that their beloved China is "desecrating" the earth?

Wulf responded:

Rammage, this is an easy one. China is polluting more because they are turning to corporatism. They used to lub the environment, until wasteful Americans shipped them Cokes and Nikes and corrupted their leaders.

He’s right of course. When the People’s Republic of China began their economic reform in 1978 towards a market-oriented economy, they abandoned the Left’s love of a centrally-planned economy. In effect, becoming less Soviet-esque and becoming more [ptooey] Americanized.

No where is this attitude more obvious in the currently airing Sundance movie "Mardi gras: Made in China."

It's typical for one of their documentaries: juxtapositioning white-guilt American indulgence with the poverty-laden Chinese sweatshop workers making the beads. It's so wonderful. It really gets you into the mind of a Leftist. The Left has seemingly already found an answer to the hypocrisy: It's not China's fault for polluting, it's American Consumerism that is to blame. If not for the evil American capitalist pigs, the Chinese would have no need for massive, polluting factories churning out plastic crap like Mardi gras beads. The Chinese are doing nothing wrong; it’s American excesses that are to blame.

I have been postponing writing about this anti-globalization documentary because there were just so many directions to take with it:

The fact that the left is so fractioned, i.e. the social personal freedoms of Mardi gras versus the labor that makes them possible.
Or maybe just comment about what the Chinese workers would be doing now if not for working in the bead factory.
Or maybe just the fact that someone like me watches these documentaries and says to himself, "Wow, this is great, unfolding exactly as things should." It's horrific for the anti-capitalists who ~~are making money on the~~ made the film, but all I can see are people working for the betterment of their lives and hopefully, someday, their country and standard of living.
Or maybe just question why they are attacking the consumers, instead of the Communist government that flirts with the free market but will not commit.
Or, I don’t know, ask about how many pieces of the filmmaker’s camera parts were made in China, and did the filmmaker’s spend more money on camera equipment that was made in America, or choose the lowest priced equipment regardless of where it was manufactured.

So many directions to take, so little time. So, I’ll leave it to the reader to view the film and judge for him/herself. That is, of course, if you can guarantee that no part of your television was made in China.

I am not sure if Mark Steyn saves his comments for an extended period, so I wanted to reproduce it here:

NEW FATAL TRENDS As a keen climatology student in the early 1970's I dutifully quoted the peer-reviewed journals in their conclusions that the planet was doomed unless industry could be stopped from emitting all those particulates and aerosols which were blocking the sun's saving warmth from penetrating the atmosphere. One scientist took pains to demonstrate that no foreseeable amount of increased CO2 would be enough to offset the fatal trend that we were on.

A generation later, that same scientist and thousands like him have embraced the opposite "consensus", and I suppose if I looked long and hard enough I could find someone claiming in a peer-reviewed paper that no amount of emission of particulates and aerosols would be enough to offset the new, opposite fatal trend.

Adapt, move or perish. Those have been mankind's choices as the world's climate has cycled between cooling and warming, as it always has. The self-righteous ecochondriacs fantasize that if others would only embrace their prescribed brand of self-denial the planet would reach climatic equilibrium for the first time ever. Self-abasing guilt-ridden consumers and opportunistic politicians seem willing to substitute this new religion for the inconvenient old one of being good stewards mindful of the ten commandments. And why not? A little sacrifice on my part, perhaps nothing more than spending an extra $5000 on a hybrid SUV which will never recoup in fuel savings the extra money that I spent, and I can feel more holy than my neighbors, and do so publicly.

The futility of our little gestures is never calculated against the sheer volume of CO2 in the carbon cycle, the uncertainty in the climate models of everyday forcings such as cloud cover, changes in vegetation and water vapour, or the increased CO2 emissions that will accompany the use of coal from the 200 new coal mines China is opening in the next 5 years. The fact that the rate of temperature change in the last 30 years matches the rate of change that preceded the mid-century cooling anomaly is ignored.

Worshipping at the altar of climate change seems to require earnestness and genuine sacrifice, but the fruits of this religion will amount to nothing more than the satisfaction of having done something purely symbolic. Requiring genuine sacrifice for merely symbolic ends isn't much of a basis for public policy.

A couple of more cold winters in Europe and eastern North America will cool the global warming zealotry. I predict it will be replaced by fears of "extreme weather", fueled by clashes between warmer air over here caused by CO2, and colder air over there caused by particulates and aerosols. All bad weather can be blamed on this phenomenon, and so it will be.

Sadly, due to other societal changes we are running out of virgins to throw into the volcano.

Stuart Elliot, Edmonton, Canada

Posted by Rammage | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

April 15, 2006

Iran Seeks Nukes Nikes

From an email sent to our list by Rammage:

Wow. Wulfman's been singing this tune (see below) for at least five (5) years now. He and I could have had this conversation today. In fact, I think we did have this conversation today...

Wulf - Glad you enjoy these "Day in History" finds. I found this post to be particularly apropos, considering the talk today...

So, what were we talking about five (5) years ago? An article by John Derbyshire, titled Hesperophobia. It appeared in the National Review Online on September 14, 2001.

And I did my best to pick that article apart for my friends on the email list. And now I'm posting it here at AtlasBlogged for further discussion.

I disagree!!!!

The fundamental reason America is under attack by Arab terrorists, several dozen people want me to know, is that the U.S. supports Israel.

This is true - it's not the only reason, but it is the major fundamental reason.

And the only reason we do that, several of them have said, or hinted, is because of the political power of the Jewish lobby here in the U.S.A.

Okay, that's at least party wrong. They walk, talk, and dress like we do. They are the "good guys" as we grow up. They're even the "good guys" in the Bible - well, for most of it. There is a cultural allegiance that guides our democratic decisions to engage in supporting them in their religious war. And that same allegiance (plus memories of Hitler) will get one called "Anti-Semite" faster than one can down a matzo ball, if ever one should mention that it might be better for our own national security if we did not overtly involve ourselves in their fights.

...at the risk of yet more ill-tempered or abusive emails, I am going to declare that I don't think these recent outrages can be blamed on the Jews, nor even on pro-Israel American politicians.

Okay, I buy that it's not to be blamed on Jews or on Israel, but it's ridiculous to discount the role of our alliance in all of this. The Jew-hating Muslim terrorists want to destroy Israel, so why is the jihad against Israel and the USA? Because we dress alike? No! It's because we send money and weapons to these people! As the author himself says later on, Israel is severely outnumbered over there, and they know that they would get overrun without us. Bin-Laden knows that too - that's why we are targeted. We are the ones who facilitate their survival and control of Muslim holy ground. That's what the acts of war are all about.

The root phenomenon is not American involvement in Middle Eastern affairs: the root phenomenon is hesperophobia.

I disagree to some extent - the article is very interesting and very well written, and I appreciate exposure to the new word, but I cannot accept his conclusions.

I can't see any strong reason for believing that if the state of Israel were to disappear from the face of the earth tomorrow, hesperophobia would disappear with it.

Red Herring! He has tricked the reader into assuming that the hesperophobia (independent of financial and military backing) is the basis for the terrorist actions themselves - thus making it easy for the reader to agree that killing the Israelis wouldn't stop the terrorism. Check your premises.

They hate us because we humiliated them, showed up the gross inferiority of their culture. To them, and similarly humiliated peoples, we are the other; detested and feared in a way we can barely understand.

An excellent and insightful note. Imagine - really try to imagine - if China announced tomorrow that they had developed cold fusion, transhumanism, and FTL travel. And they won't sell - they'll only assimilate those who want in. How would we feel? Imagine if we resisted, how would we feel in 50 years? Holy shit.

However, imagine if they didn't demand assimilation. Imagine if we could have those things just by throwing away parts of our culture - say, the internal combustion engine and other fossil-fuel engines are outdated, and all of our medicine is antiquated, and every form of transportation is slow.

Would we resent them still? Well, we would if we couldn't meet their price. The hesperophobia comes from the fraction of the population who is more focused on clinging to the old ways, and they are of course among the most vocal (as is often true here, too). The way to win them over is not to carpet-bomb Kabul and beautiful Baghdad, but rather to offer free trade.

Aren't you hungry for Burger King now? Most of them are - and Nikes and Nokias and Nordstrom's, too. They would love westernization - at their own pace. And it would not have to be violent. Let them buy what they like and refuse what they don't. That certainly works, or we would not have the distinction that the author himself makes between their Arabs and our Arabs - the Kuwaitis and Saudis, cowering in their plush-lined air-conditioned bunkers being waited on by their Filipino servants while we did their fighting for them. (btw, far from accusing him of anti-Semitism, I would note that the author seems to have a very strong prejudice against Arabs, whose culture is referred to as "squalid, hopeless, irredeemably inferior", and who he divides into two categories "the mad phobics and the cowering, pampered, Westernized Arabs.)

The mall in Dubai is more culturally diverse, classically liberal, and "Westernized" than any mall I have seen in the USA. And they make better coffee. But if there is a sense that they've lost control to us, of course they will resist and pull away! It has to be at their own pace - the same way each of us keeps up (or doesn't) with the latest technologies. It's no different.

If the present state of Israel were inhabited by Christian Lithuanians or Frenchmen, the hatred would be nearly as intense.

I agree - it's about the land!! Why do people fail to recognize that? The irrational belief that Jews should live in that strip of land because God gave it to them, and that it is our duty to protect them because that's our God too and he's for whatever reason not available to rain fire on their enemies like he used to so we should show some religious solidarity and kick Arab ass for our beloved Jewish friends who have been there since way back in the 1940s, IS ABSOLUTELY INDEFENSIBLE AND STUPID!

A Western state on "Arab land," is an outrage, an illegitimate creation, a crusader state. The fact that the Jews had a wealthy and powerful nation on that land three thousand years ago counts for nothing. Israel is, from the point of view of most Arabs, an alien graft that must not be allowed to "take."

This is meant to be facetious, but I agree with it. In this country we are outraged by the number of Arabs who own prime real estate in our best cities, and there is great resentment toward the fairly new Arab parts of town. How would we feel if we had lost WWII and Hitler gave New England and the Mid-Atlantic States to some new pals from Persia and Palestine? An Arab state controlling the birthplace of American democracy? We would fight - throwing rocks at tanks if necessary, and we don't even have the cultural cohesion that Palestinians have. Why is their point of view so difficult to understand?

So, so, so, is this any of America's business? What are we doing, meddling in the Middle East? Where is our interest? Well, U.S. politicians must speak for themselves, but if I had any position of authority in any Western nation, I would be urging full support for Israel, and I am not Jewish. It's a matter of cultural solidarity.

"Cultural solidarity"? We were pretty culturally similar to, say, King George's England. Should we have stood by them? How about the Civil War - should the North have refused to fight based on the fact that the Southerners looked and talked pretty similar to Northerners? How about the Germans? Or, was that because they weren't as much like us as the UK was?

How did they start fighting in the first place? What a crock - look at what he's saying. The Arabs aren't like us and the Jews are, so that's why we should support Israel fully. It's complete and total racist, cultural elitism - and that's the real reason people hate Westerners. JFC!

What, after all, does the Buchananite program offer us, if carried through?

Using Buchanan's name is an emotional appeal, and not even an appropriate one. Most people who don't feel we are justified in supporting Israel in their struggle against Arabs do not have old Pat's extremist's attitudes. I for one say we throw open the doors to all Israelis - hey, it's not a police state over here, so if you can be peaceful and lawful, we'll let you live in our country, where there are not car bombings by people who feel that you're living in their ancestral homeland! But if you feel it's more important to stick to your religious guns, I can't help you - ask your God.

But if we don't arm the Israelis, who will?

Allow me to take a moment to say that I am not advocating any actions that would prevent private companies from selling arms or sending money to Israel; nor do I feel we should try to prevent our citizens from forming a Foreign Legion that operates sans tax dollars and outside the government's sanction - hey, if you want to risk your life freeing the Israelis or Bosnians or Chinese, that's your right. But when you use my tax dollar to fund a war in which you send my brother or son in a draft over to fight a war, in which they and I do not believe, that is unjustifiable and wrong.

Don't tell me it can't happen - the draft was in effect less than 30 years ago, in support of a war that was not on our soil and was controversial in justification (to put it mildly).

You just have to think straight. You just have to understand that the war between civilization and barbarism is being fought today just as it was fought at Chalons and Tours, at the gates of Kiev and Vienna, by the hoplites at Marathon and the legions on the Rhine.

And so the civilized, non-barbarous thing to do would be to escalate the situation and continue the practices that have incurred so much hatred and violence in the first place? I think the author is off base.

Well, it's been a long five (5) years. A lot has happened. And it is taken as a given that we are, in fact, in the middle of a war between civilization and barbarism, as John Derbyshire said. But I still say that free trade would have had a much better long term impact on the Middle East than war did. And I have always felt that would be the case for Cuba, as well. How has anybody benefited from the forty year grudge match embargo we have against that island?

For Iraqis, there was a better option than living under Saddam Hussein, and it remains to be seen how many of them will be able to enjoy that in peace as a result of US military action. Iraq has been since its inception an artificial state with hateful rival ethnic groups, and it is still possible for their situation to deteriorate into civil war. On top of that, we are looking at possible armed or nuclear conflict with Iran - well, I don't believe shots will be fired, but everybody else seems to.

This changes the heart and mind of the average guy on the streets in the Middle East how, exactly?

Ironically, this point was also made the other day by Rimjob at DailyKos, who asks
Will Mickey Mouse & Coca-Cola Destroy Radical Islam? The folks in the comment section don't seem to be getting the point at all, but Rimjob seems to be singing my tune:

Could the American culture be a greater weapon against the terrorists & the radical Islam they represent, than any Nuclear Bomb could ever be?

Answer: Yes. If you don't think so, then I really feel sorry for you, and I would like to try to help you see the light. Amid all the fear of the dhimma that awaits us if we don't "take out" Iran, some people seem to have lost sight of the fact that freedom and capitalism are good - in fact, they are better. I have absolute confidence in our way of life triumphing over any other - and I am not talking about the English language, Christianity, a two-party system, and warrantless wiretaps. I am not even talking about the internal combustion engine and bottled beer. I am talking about the personal freedoms that come with economic options. Free trade makes for free people. Free people make for poor extremists - which is why the downtrodden American libertarians have never managed to have a rally for their freedoms.

Rimjob may sound like a cultural elitist (i.e. ugly American) when he says,

I believe in my heart of hearts that most people (maybe not all but most), whether here or in Iran, China, Cuba, or anywhere, want to come home at night & sit in front of a 60 inch television, eat hamburgers, and drive a nice car if given the chance.

But I agree with him - except to clarify that most people want that option, even if they wouldn't partake of it. After all, I have not elected to get a 60 inch television. But you can bet your ass I would resent being told I couldn't have it.

Rimjob refers readers to Thomas Friedman's famous Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention. I am familiar with the theory, but I have to admit that I have never read The Lexus & The Olive Branch, nor Friedman's other tomes. But I intend to, even if they are only going to support beliefs I already have about globalization and economic freedom.

It is refreshing to see this diary entry by Rimjob. DailyKos is held up as an example of what is wrong with lefty bloggers, to the point that the site has become a punchline. But Mickey Mouse and Coca-Cola will destroy radical Islam, and socialism, and any other extremist political and economic movement in the world, if we will only get our politicians out of the way of the forces of the American economy. This is a really important point that most Americans don't seem to grasp - at least become familiar with Friedman's point, please.

I have never suggested that Americans shrug off the rhetoric of the Iranian regime, or the al-Qaeda terrorists, or the socialist dictators in Latin America. But for the long term vision of the world, Americans need to recognize that our most powerful weapon is capitalism.

It is (to coin a phrase) the Unknown Ideal.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

April 13, 2006

Nuclear Iran, Revisited

On March 9th, 2006 in an entry called Nuclear Iran, Wulf said:

Face it, we aren't going to do anything that will stop [Iran] from getting the bomb. The only thing that can stop Iran now is a catastrophic earthquake or a large meteor that destroys the sites where the technology is being developed.

I hadn't thought about it at the time, but Major Mike over at My Sandmen offers a few man-made alternatives in his recent article Responding to Hugh Hewitt's "Arguments Against Striking Iran" Post. While his ideas may not prevent Iran from getting the bomb, it may at least slow them down. Here is a sampling:

Destruction, denial of use, barricade, harassment and interdiction…are all ways to preclude the use of a facility or an operational site. Destruction is not the only way to preclude the Iranians from continuing their development of nuclear material.

Access to and from known sites can be denied through direct air interdiction, air-delivered scatterable mines, continuous harassment, site blockading, and supply vehicle targeting. Eventually a combination of these activities will result in the “virtual” denial of use of the facility; stymieing or halting production of nuclear material. Targeting entrances, ventilation systems, electrical service systems and power generation systems would all have the same…denial of use, result.

Then all we'd have to worry about is the Straits of Hormuz.

Posted by Rammage | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

April 9, 2006

Investing in Alternative Energies

Update below

The world runs on petroleum. The stuff fuels industry and economy. It dominates geopolitics. It is arguably the most important natural resource in the world. And it is a great big headache looming in America's future, for each of these reasons.

As a matter of science and engineering, I find alternatives to petroleum to be very exciting. I would feel this way even if alternative energies were not a pressing issue in politics and economics. It seems to me that this topic that should have very broad appeal for conversation, research, and investment. Consider:

For environmentalists, alternative sources of energy would reduce oil drilling and shipping, and would ~~eliminate~~ reduce pollutants, including greenhouse gases.

For ~~diners at the trough of socialist pork~~ farmers, biofuels would cut back on subsidies by providing a steady market for crops.

For national security, a reduced dependance on oil has obvious benefits.

For scientists and engineers, alternative energies are an absolute field day - a cornucopia of exciting ideas and employment.

And for investors? Well, for investors it's... um... for investors.......

Okay, for investors, alternative energy is a little more hit-or-miss. It seems like a pretty rosy long-term outlook, if you can guess correctly which alternative energy sources will take off, and when. You don't want to put money into windmills and find Don Quixote took out your investment for personal spite. You don't want to buy stocks in nuclear power and then see a repeat of TMI or Chernobyl. The politics, patents, and polls are surely more difficult to divine than some other, safer investments. Petroleum alternatives are exciting for some people, but in all honesty, investors may be better off with commoditites - even petroleum! Unless, of course, they are investing with taxpayer money instead of their own (see Rediff India Abroad article):

In a bid to reduce American dependence on oil "that feeds Middle east terrorism," prominent Indian-American venture capitalist Vinod Khosla is financing a state-wide ballot initiative to get Californians to tax oil producers and endorse clean energy.

The initiative would bar oil companies from passing the tax on to consumers in the form of higher pump prices...

The planned economy - the only reason it didn't work for the Soviets is because they didn't have the right people planning, I guess. Khosla is a Republican, keep in mind. You know what that party stands for - smaller government, right? It's a good thing the Democrats aren't running things. (/sarcasm)

If passed, it could raise as much as $380 million a year to develop alternative fuels and reduce the state dependence on oil by 25 per cent within a decade.

$380 million a year. This money will be slushed over to other causes, squandered in bureaucracy, and invested unwisely, as always happens to government money. If Khosla wants to see real development in alternative energies, he should be rallying up private organizations to do the investing and the research.

I think Mr. Khosla's goals are fantastic - something that should have broad appeal, as stated above. From a recent article in The Economist:

His plan is to use technology and entrepreneurship to tackle big social and environmental problems: "In venture capital, we fail far more often than we succeed," he says. "I've decided that I'd better focus on taking on problems that really matter, so that when I win it makes a difference to the world." He likens his need to get involved with worthy causes to a drug addiction.

Again, the aim is laudable. But the means to this end are not good. Back to the Rediff article:

"We have an energy crisis on our hands. We have our oil feeding Middle East terrorism, and we need to do something about it. Besides, consumers are paying too much."

Khosla says the measure, which he's already spent more than $1 million to back, is not about him, but about "doing the right thing."

Consumers are paying too much - to the government, that is. Well over $380 million per year is already taken in by the California state government from the sale of petroleum products, and consumers do not need to be made into the unwilling investors in any new schemes, no matter how noble. If it is about doing the right thing, then I say again that Mr. Khosla should stick to forming private investment groups in the field of alternative energies.

Count me a part of what this article calls "a coalition of oil companies and anti-tax activists is opposing the alternative energy initiative".

"This is not about alternative energy development," said John Martini, chief executive of the California Independent Petroleum Association.

"This is about getting the taxpayers to pay a dedicated revenue stream into the preferred projects the proponents have investments in."

The Road to Serfdom is paved with good intentions. Invest your own time, energy, money and enthusiasm in alternative energies. Do not dictate these investments to others. Such behavior has no place in a free society.

Update: Jon Henke, blogging on the topic at QandO, links to some articles on ethanol, which is a reasonably efficient alternative energy source for automobiles. One of the links is to the American Enterprise, where Dr. Robert Zubrin argues ethanol over hydrogen fuel cells, for reasons of efficiency. As is noted in the Q and O comments section, and in the Economist article I mentioned in my post (found here), ethanol requires infrastructure investment. Gallon to gallon, ethanol comes out pretty well - in the laboratory. Bringing it to the BP on my corner puts it at a huge cost disadvantage to gasoline.

For this reason, as I said at Q and O, Because of the infrastructure issue, the only alternative energy source that seems likely for automobiles in the near future is electricity. We can’t pipe ethanol very well, but we can set up local electrolyzing stations all around the country, without any new infrastructure. And it’s a snap to develop home battery charging devices for electric cars or for "pure" hybrids - cars that run pure electric under 30 mph or so.

For the record, my personal interest in alternative energies is not limited to automobiles. But that's a separate topic, for another day.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

March 18, 2006

Piracy

File this under Stupid.

Two U.S. Navy ships exchanged gunfire with suspected pirates Saturday off the coast of Somalia, and one suspect was killed and five others were wounded, the navy said.

The early morning gunbattle ensued after sailors spotted 30-foot fishing boat towing smaller skiffs and prepared for a routine boarding, said Lt. Cmdr. Charlie Brown, spokesman for the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet.

Passengers on the fishing boat then began shooting, and U.S. naval gunners returned fire with mounted machine guns.

Okay, tip for people of all nationalities and intentions: Don't shoot at an American warship. You will lose.

The USS Cape St George is a 570 foot long Ticonderoga class cruiser. Aside from its impressive armament and a pair of SH-60 Sea Hawk helicopters, U.S. ships in general are fairly impervious to small arms fire. Shooting at it with your AK-47 is little better than putting rocks in your pockets and jumping overboard.

View image of USS Cape St George.

The USS Gonzalez is a 500 foot long Arleigh Burke-class destroyer. Aside from its impressive armament, it is another one of those crazy modern U.S. ships made out of steel, meaning it is also pretty impervious to the weapon you are likely toting.

View image of USS Gonzalez.

So, what was the plan? Sink the two USN ships? I guess that's why these guys are pirates in the Indian Ocean instead of brain surgeons. Of course, I am sure there are a lot of Americans who don't realize piracy still exists. It definitely does, and the Somali coast is only one hotbed of modern piracy - Indonesia and the Malacca Strait are in the news quite a bit. I'm glad to see it getting some attention courtesy of the business end of some U.S. guns - it's like the Barbary Wars all over again!

Posted by Wulf | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

March 13, 2006

Moussaoui Sentencing Trial

A federal judge on Monday put on hold the death penalty case against September 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui, declaring angrily she found it "very difficult" to proceed since a government lawyer improperly shared information with witnesses.
"In all the years I've been on the bench, I've never seen such an egregious violation of the court's rule on witnesses," U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema said.

Apparently this government lawyer (works for TSA) read the transcript of the first day of the trial and discussed the case via e-mail with several witnesses who were due to be called. Hey, I'm no lawyer, but don't they cover that kind of thing in law school? Or on Law and Order?

This isn't a trivial technicality. What the hell is going on? I don't think it's asking too much to have ~~our very best people~~ somebody competent working for the government on a terrorism case. I mean, I don't want to make too much out of a minor matter, but if the government can't prosecute a guy like this without mucking it up royally, what can we expect the government to do well?

Get this straight in your head: He pled guilty, and the government still might have screwed up enough to have the death penalty taken off the table. Also, this is not the first time they have jeopardized the outcome of the trial. Judge Brinkema had previously taken the death penalty off the table in 2003...

...in reply to government defiance of her order to provide access to Moussaoui's witnesses. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the Brinkema ruling, holding that the U.S. government could use summaries of interviews/interrogations of these witnesses. On March 21, 2005, the United States Supreme Court denied, without comment, Moussaoui's pre-trial appeal of the Fourth Circuit's decision, returning the case to Judge Brinkema.

(from Wikipedia)

Part of me says it doesn't really matter. The execution of Zacarias Moussaoui will not return the life of a single person killed in 9/11, nor prevent any future attack. He rots in prison instead of getting a lethal injection - so what?

But what is the reason for seeking the death penalty in the first place? What message of competency does it send if our government is able to botch this prosecution?

That terrorists had better watch out?

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

March 11, 2006

Milosevic Found Dead in Cell

For four years, the U.N. war crimes trial of Slobodan Milosevic has been dragging on. For four years, he has been on trial in The Hague for genocide in Bosnia and war crimes in Croatia. For at least the last two years, he has been very ill - blood pressure and heart problems. This illness is part of the reason the trial had dragged on so long.

Today, that trial ended without a verdict.

Slobodan Milosevic was found dead in his prison cell Saturday, abruptly ending his four-year U.N. war crimes trial for orchestrating a decade of conflict that killed 250,000 people and tore the Yugoslav federation asunder. He was 64.

[His death] meant there would be no judicial verdict for the leader accused of ethnic massacres and other atrocities in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo and was sure to increase criticism of the tribunal for what has been a long, expensive and ultimately wasted proceeding.

An autopsy and toxicological examination will be conducted Sunday by Dutch officials. For political reasons, a pathologist from Serbia-Montenegro will be in attendance.

Milosevic's trial and Saddam Hussein's war crimes proceeding in Iraq were widely seen as together constituting the most important legal test for the international community since German and Japanese leaders were tried after World War II.

Both trials drew stiff criticism over frequent interruptions and the ability of the defendants to use the courtroom as a stage to launch vitriolic anti-Western diatribes. Reveling in the spotlight, Milosevic insisted on being his own defense lawyer.

Of course, there was also a significant difference between the two. Milosevic was not on trial in his own country, where he still has some popularity. The historical significance of an international war crimes tribunal is still debated, with many believing that it is best for example to have Saddam Hussein on trial in Iraq, by Iraqis. As a general question, this view does not seem to address the question of who has been wronged by Hussein. But with Milosevic, since his actions exceeded the borders of his own nation, his prosecution could not be brought without an international court, even if he had left the presidency and had been unpopular enough for some Serbian official to try to bring charges. His extradition for trial was the first against a sitting head of state, and it was expected at that time to set a precedent, as had the Nuremberg Trials after WWII.

Walter Cronkite ran a story on NPR a few weeks ago about the significance of having German war criminals tried in a court that was (politically) outside of Germany. I found it interesting and I recommend it.

Speaking of NPR, they also ran a story last fall about the trial of Milosevic and its lack of media coverage, which is a little ironic considering that one of the popular criticisms leveled against the trial has been Milosevic's attempt to use it as a stage to denounce the west. But when was the last time the trial was in the news? It is just as well that he died in prison, because the most severe sentence he could have received would have been to spend the rest of his life behind bars. The lack of political closure for his war crimes may be an issue for many in the Balkans and the Middle East, where any conflict between Muslims with non-Muslims is followed closely. But the fact that the trial was given a serious attempt should be statement enough.

It is possible that the international community will develop a knack for bringing world leaders to trial for genocide and other war crimes. Perhaps, one day, the international community will also consider something more proactive about men like Slobodan Milosevic.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

March 9, 2006

Nuclear Iran

You know those times when you are watching a football game on TV and the halfback takes the hand off and cuts through the defenders and is gone? And you know how, sometimes, the safeties are not in a position to have any chance of catching him, but the cornerback chases him all the way down the field anyway? Just running after the guy, knowing they can't catch him but also knowing that if they just stop, they are giving that halfback an extra moral victory?

Well, we're that cornerback.

The west's confrontation with Iran over its nuclear activities intensified yesterday after Britain claimed that Tehran could acquire the technological capability to build a bomb by the end of the year.
A day after the International Atomic Energy Agency referred the dispute to the United Nations security council, British officials also indicated that London would back Washington's efforts to impose a UN deadline of about 30 days for Iran's compliance with international demands.

Or else we will do what? Face it, we aren't going to do anything that will stop them from getting the bomb. The only thing that can stop Iran now is a catastrophic earthquake or a large meteor that destroys the sites where the technology is being developed.

A senior Foreign Office official said that while it could take Iran several years to build a serviceable nuclear weapon, it might gain the technical knowhow within months. "By the end of the year is a ... realistic period," said the official. "It would be really damaging to regional security if Iran even acquired the technology to enable it to develop a nuclear weapon."
Until now, European diplomats have referred to a period of five to 10 years during which Iran might potentially build a bomb, while conceding that hard evidence is lacking. By publicly focusing on the level of Iran's technical capabilities, Britain may have shortened the timeframe for a peaceful resolution of the crisis.

Face it! Iran has the technology to build nukes. They may not actually have it today, but there will be no stopping them. They are at the 10-years, the 5, the couple-of-months yard line...

So now what? Are we at all prepared to deal with a nuclear Iran? This is the country we call the most active state sponsor of terrorism - how should we be looking at this, exactly?

Diplomats say that the west is prepared to enact sanctions that will hurt the regime in Tehran, but not the Iranian people. Considering the track record with other nations, I don't believe that for one moment. This is only going to get uglier.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0)

Make the Issue Go Away

"DP World will transfer fully the U.S. operations ... to a United States entity," the firm's top executive, H. Edward Bilkey, said in an announcement that capped weeks of controversy.
"This should make the issue go away," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist.

Good. All I have wanted is for this issue to go away. Who wants to talk about port security, anyway? Isn't there something on TV? And who wants to figure out the good Arabs from the bad Arabs? They all boycott Israel, so it's much easier to write them all off as terrorists - we just won't do any business with any of them.

(I just had a great idea for a T-shirt: Boycott 'em all, let God sort them out. If it can't fit on a T-shirt, it's not a position worth taking.)

Just so long as the port thingy is run by Americans, I can sleep well. Thank you, Senator Frist, for making this whole issue just go away.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (1)

February 28, 2006

Calling out Kip

I was reading Kip's take on all of this fuss over Dubai and our port security, and it got me thinking.

I'm on record as saying the flap over DP World acquiring P&O is not something we should take seriously. In a previous article on the topic, I asked that if any readers have a really good argument against the purchase of P&O by a frim from Dubai, to please let me know. Nobody has taken me up on it, and in fact the only comment is one that highlights the hypocritical nature of the whole controversy. I don't find this surprising, since we are a relatively small blog. That and the fact that there really is no security issue.

So, what are the real issues?

First of all, a lawyer for Eller and Company (the Miami firm that sued to have the deal blocked) says that even if the sale is not a security threat, there's a widespread perception that it could be. And that could scare away customers and hurt business. (see here) In other words, for Eller and Company, this is all about PR. They don't want the public to hold it against them that they are doing business with Arabs. Is that a legitimate reason for all of the fuss? This is what sends Senators running to the cameras? Because this doesn't look good for Eller and Company?

The second issue would be comments like Kip's:

Put the "national security" concerns aside for a moment -- what about the human rights concerns?

Fair enough. Kip has some legitimate concerns about how free the Emirates are. The fact that they are "emirates" (princedoms) says a lot. Kip lists a litany of offenses that I do in fact find egregious. And it would be worthwhile for us to try to infuse the ideals of liberty and justice in Dubai and in every other place on this planet where they are not held in the highest regard. But the US government does not have an embargo against the UAE, and we engage in other trade with Dubai. It is good to be concerned about the issues Kip discusses, but this is not a legitimate reason to block the P&O deal. In the absence of issues of national security, there is no difference between this deal and any other exchange.

Kip is part of a Pundit Roundtable over at Willisms;

I oppose the transaction for a very simple reason. We should not be doing port business with the UAE government because we shouldn't be doing any business with the UAE government.

The best way to advance human rights is not to isolate ourselves from nations who do not live up to our standards, and we would not want to see other nations enact that sort of policy toward the USA. This is simple nationalism and high isolationism, and it stands in the way of the free exchange of ideas and goods that Americans are supposed to believe in. Human rights are not brought about by trade embargoes (Cuba?), and I feel that Kip's argument would lead logically to a refusal to do trade with the UAE.

That would not be a good thing.

Our government is neither obligated nor justified in stopping business deals because of the human rights record of the nation that is home to one of the parties. Among other reasons, there is no obvious place to draw the line. For example, Kip notes that homosexuality is punishable by death in UAE. This is clearly the opposite end of the spectrum from my own libertarian view of how the government should treat homosexuality. But what level of human rights would the UAE need to attain before Kip's objections were withdrawn? If homosexuality were punishable only by prison? Flogging? Would homosexuality have to be completely unpunishable? That certainly brings up a question of whether the United States itself would be acceptable, since same-sex couples are punished by our government financially, and gay servicemembers are punished for nothing more than being gay.

The decision of whether to participate in trade with a company from UAE or owned by the UAE is one that should be made by each of us according to our own conscience. Let the Cokes and Nikes flow to the far corners of the Earth. Let our dollars go there as well, in exchange for Persian rugs and Cuban cigars* that are currently not permitted to me, because you (or Kip) object to some country's policies and you think you know how best to change those policies.

I like Kip's blog, A Stitch in Haste, and I usually agree with his analysis of a situation. And I am flattered that he likes our blog. But the libertarian in me will not let me agree with the take that he and many others have taken on the Dubai ports. (Among the others is Michelle Malkin, who is upset that the UAE boycotts Israel and apparently has blocked her site. Again, not admirable but where is the security issue?) The collectivist commentary from the left does not surprise me, but that coming from the right does. So I am calling Kip out on this, in hopes of changing his mind.

For the record, the human rights cause demands action, but not an authoritarian, isolationist blocking of business deals.

There are a few other issues being discussed on the port deal. For example, The MSM harped today on an unclassified internal memo by the Coast Guard that didn't actually say much of anything. Headlines read "Coast Guard warned of port deal intel gaps", but of course the actual story is a bit less exciting.

There are many intelligence gaps concerning the potential [for assets owned by DP World or P&O] to support terrorist operations,

(see here)

That sounds serious. Except, the USCG says it isn't. (Malkin is among those who lept before looking on this one) Taking a few lines from an unclassified document and reading them out of context is a bad way to evaluate security threats. It would be wise to point to the gaps in port security that exist whether the DP World deal goes through or not. But that is a totally separate issue, and it should have nothing to do with allowing this deal to go forward.

One more thing to note; A good point from Media Matters:

An article in The New York Times misrepresented the reasons cited by "Democrats and some Republicans" for criticizing the recent agreement to transfer control of terminals at ports in six U.S. cities to Dubai Ports World. In fact, members of Congress from both parties have accused the administration of flouting the law, which requires a 45-day investigation when the acquiring company is owned by a foreign government and the deal could affect national security.

Media Matters then goes on to paint Bush domestic security adviser Frances Townsend and NYT reporter David E. Sanger as trying to mislead the public on the whole affair. It seems ridiculous to suggest that the Bush Administration would try to hide a disagreement in interpretation of the law, by asking the American people if they agree with decisions that are racist against Arabs. After all, the average American probably thinks even less of Arabs than they do of government lawyers. But the point still stands; Lawmakers have demanded an investigation, not a blocking of the deal. I'll give them credit for that much. I suspect they will get their 45 days. The deal will probably go through in the end, but the flail surrounding it will probably not project an image of America that is very pro-liberty and pro-justice.

* "Don't think of it as supporting their economy. Think of it as burning their crops." - Kinky Friedman to Bill Clinton

Update: Kip is also taking heat from Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of..., who says:

So Kip is right in pointing out the weakness in human rights in UAE, but I’m not sure that punishing them economically is the right course of action. I would also like to point out that if all Middle East countries raised their standards to those of the UAE it would be a vast improvement; so holding them up as an example for their neighbors is not necessarily a bad thing.

Reasonable people can disagree whether or not the lease of several piers at US ports is in the national security interests or not but I think it is a mistake to overlook the incentives that such a deal would create. I don’t believe that having an Arab country with a financial stake in US security is a terrible thing to encourage.

Kip addresses a couple of the arguments in the post (see the comments section), but does not seem to be swayed on the general principle. Hopefully he will expand on this at some point.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

February 9, 2006

Alan Dershowitz and Michelle Malkin Don't Get It

After reading an article found on www.michellemalkin.com that features a transcript of an interview with Alan Dershowitz, I find myself realizing that I don't agree with either of them.

Michelle says

"I don't agree with much of what Dershowitz espouses, but on many crucial
War on Terror-related issues he is dead-on--as he is here on the Cartoon Jihad and the
craven media."

So you read that line and you think that Dershowitz is going to have some great points about the whole cartoon controversy. I read the transcript that Michelle provided from his interview on Danish television, and I wish to counter some points that he made in that transcript.

[Responding to a question about his reaction to the Danish embassy torchings:]

"It's great hypocrisy on the part of those doing the burning, because these are some of the same people who read voraciously much worse cartoons directed at Christians and Jews and Americans and Israel. Deeply, deeply, offensive anti-Christian and anti-Semitic cartoons are a staple out of Gaza every week, and suddenly, when Mohammed is offended, they're prepared to burn down embassies and create this kind of havoc. It is extraordinary hypocrisy."

Let me start out by saying that Alan is making a lot of generalizations here, and a touch of hyperbole to make his point. He makes it sound like there are a lot of cartoons produced weekly that would offend us Westerners, and that everyone reads these papers like they are holy gospel. Would this be like someone from Islam saying that every Westerner has seen the Mohammed cartoons and believes that is how Islam works? My issue with his statement is that he is generalizing all the papers that come from Gaza, and how people respond to those cartoons that come from those papers. Sounds like hypocrisy to me.

Let's look at his next entry:

"...You can't have a story about a cartoon without seeing the cartoon. In fact, when you
see the cartoons published by the Danish newspapers, they are mild in comparison with
what's published every day in Islamic fundamentalists newspapers and in Syrian
newspapers, in Egyptian newspapers, in Saudi Arabian newspapers. So you have to see the
cartoon to get a sense of how outrageous these attacks on the Danish embassy [are] and
the hypocrisy across the Middle East is."

To me, this is where Alan is really missing the point. Understanding that, fundamentally, Christianity and Judaism are very different from that of Islamic religion. I am not even going to pretend to know what would offend other religions and what would not. I do know this though, I don't need to see an offending cartoon if people are
protesting it. To me, the cartoons were very mild, and I saw no reason to burn embassies based on those drawings. Then again, that is just me. I am not a follower of Islam, therefore I cannot speak for how this affects them. I certainly would not be able to justify publishing it even further to continue this cycle of anger. If Newspaper X were to publish a cartoon that thousands of people become incensed over and violence ensues, why on earth would Newspaper Y then print the cartoon again with the story "This cartoon pisses people off to the point of violence so we are going to show you what is causing the trouble." Does that make any sense at all? I don't think that by saying that newspapers publish much worse cartoons daily thus we have the right to publish this cartoon is even close to being right. I can honestly say I have never heard about a protest from Catholics about a cartoon printed in Syria. Ever. Why is this? Do Catholics not care? Are the cartoons secret so we can't see them? Or do we view such things with a much different eye? We as Westerners like to say "We don't protest those cartoons because we respect their right for free speech." Well guess what, not everyone in the world has adopted such a noble ideal. These cartoons have angered these people on such a deep level, they feel that they need to destroy property and for people to die to make their voices heard. And you do hear them, don't you?

As far as the people doing the damage, we need to talk about them, because Alan sure does. We will get to that in a moment, as Alan next wants to take some cheap shots at CNN:

"CNN has shown no courage. It claims it won't publish the cartoons because they're
offensive. But they have published previous cartoons that are offensive. The fact is,
they're frightened. The fact is, that this kind of religious and intellectual terrorism
is working. It is persuading journalists who would otherwise cover this story with the
cartoons to back away--not on ideological reasons or not for reasons of protecting or
preserving integrity or anything of that kind, but out of physical and economic fear.
This is economic, physical terrorism directed at journalists and it is working. They have succeeded in the United States. They have failed in parts of Europe, but they have
succeeded in the United States."

First of all, saying that CNN has the right to publish these cartoons now because they have published other offensive cartoons in the past is beyond absurd. Does Alan not understand how different these situations are? Did CNN publish cartoons of Mohammed in the past that have offended people? I am willing to bet not. Comparing previous cartoons to these cartoons is truly apples to oranges. I find it amusing that Alan calls these protests a form of "economic, physical terrorism". No Alan, these are people whose very core of religion has been violated (in their views) and they are not happy about it. Do you truly think that CNN feels that if they publish these cartoons that all of their offices will be blown up or burnt down? I think that is a bit excessive in those hopes. How about the simple fact that CNN understands that reprinting these cartoons is asinine, and serves no good purpose. The funny thing about Freedom of Speech is that one can automatically assume it to mean you have the freedom to say whatever you want, whenever you want. How about the freedom to not say anything at all? By reporting on CNN that there are cartoons about Mohammed that are causing riots, they are doing their jobs, they are reporting the news. When asked "why aren't you showing us the offensive cartoons?" CNN replies: "Uh, because they are offensive?" Suppose, during the Super Bowl, a group of college students decide to go streaking across midfield. The next day CNN reports "Group of students from local college go streaking at Super Bowl." And then they are asked "Well why aren't you showing us pictures of streakers? How can you possibly report a story without showing us pictures of what happened?" It is possible to understand a story without adding fuel to the fire, so to speak. Don't worry though, the beauty of this country is that if you *truly* want to see the Mohammed cartoons, or you just had to see pictures of the streakers, there are plenty of websites that will provide you access. Don't believe me? Just talk to my friend Google, he will tell you.

Finally, Alan goes to talk about the people who are protesting and burning down embassies.

"...When the burning down of embassies and the fear of fatwas and physical and economic
retaliation are what determines the policy, it means that the terrorists have won."

Whoa whoa whoa. I have to interrupt Alan at this point. The terrorists have won? Is he saying that every single person who is protesting this cartoon is a terrorist? All across the Middle East protests are being waged against these cartoons. Did all of these people go to terrorist camps? Do they go grocery shopping with AK-47s strapped to their backs and belts with explosives around their waists? This is such a horrible generalization
that it is really sad. Alan would have you believe that every protest over this cartoon involves violence. Granted, within the general population there are terrorists. Of any population, that is. Doesn't matter what country or race you are talking about. But what about the rest of the protestors? Normal, average, every-day citizens that get up, go to work, come home, eat, pray, and then go to bed. These people are suddenly "terrorists" because they are expressing their deep anger at what is going on? How many cities in America have had issues with torching when an important sports team wins a national championship? When the University of Maryland won its national title in 2002 the campus was a literal war zone that night. Cars overturned and on fire, vandalism galore, and police in riot gear on campus. So by Alan's definition, all the students that partook in the celebration are terrorists. Please. Thank goodness that was just a celebration and not a protest. You should have seen what happened on Indiana University's campus, the team that lost the national championship to Maryland. It wasn't pretty, I can assure of that. They must have imported people from Gaza to help burn down buildings.

Could you imagine what would happen if the New York Times published on it's front page a cartoon of Jesus having relations of a personal nature with Hitler? What kind of uproar would that cause? Then do you think any other main media outlet would then re-print that cartoon just so people could see how terrible it was? Of course while the controversy over this cartoon is tearing America apart, someone on the West Bank would see the cartoon and shrug. "Doesn't look that bad to me."

Let's get back to what Alan is saying:

"And the United States and other European countries have a policy: Never give in to
terrorism. Well, they're now giving in to terrorism by not publishing these cartoons--not because they're offensive, they publish plenty of offensive cartoons, but because they
are frightened and because they lack the courage to confront this kind of terrorist
threat."

Wow. I mean, wow. Did he really say that? What truly annoys me about this whole situation is how America, yet again, gets dragged through the mud for something we had no control over. Did we create the religion that was offended? We did not. Did we create and publish the cartoons that offended that religion? We did not. In case Alan hasn't been paying attention, but America has got its hands full in the Middle East, and we have been trying to actually make progress in public relations over there. Does he think that by us standing up and saying "Why yes, newspapers over the world should print offensive material to Islam, it is their god-given rights" is going to endear us to those we have been trying to make not hate us so much? As I stated earlier, it is a choice to not publish these cartoons, and this is a choice that, as Americans, we are allowed to have. Some are scared to publish them, others feel that it is wrong, and others realize that if they do publish them they will actually lose business because of doing so. Does it make sense that cartoons are having such an affect? No, to us, it does not. But the reality of the situation is that they are having a huge effect, and to ignore this effect truly makes us no better than those who make offensive cartoons of any nature. To say that we are giving in to terrorism because we are not going to publish these cartoons is wrong. Plain and simple. We do things every day that will invoke retaliations from terrorists (have you been to Baghdad lately?) so saying that we are scared because of cartoons just
doesn't make sense. Last time I looked, here in America there are plenty of places that have printed or electronically published the cartoons. You can't swing a dead metaphor at a blog without having one of the Mohammed cartoons pop up. I am sure there have been newspapers here that have printed them as well. So you can't say that all of America is giving into his "terrorism". Far from it, I would gather.

Please understand, I myself am a huge fan of America, and of Freedom of Speech. I am also a fan of understanding and reason, and these two ideals need to be applied in this situation. These cartoons are angering not one, not five, not one hundred people. Thousands are angered at this. Can you literally tell that many people that they are
wrong and to sit down and shut up? I always thought that the policy of America was to be tolerant of religion, no matter who worships who and where. If you publish the cartoons of Mohammed, even just to tell the story of how they are wrong, you are offending people's religions, pure and simple.

So to Alan Dershowitz and Michelle Malkin, I kindly ask that you take a look at this situation from both sides, and while I strongly agree that burning down anything in a form of protest is not the way to go, perhaps they should be asking why things are being burned down. Please don't lay the blame at America's doorstep, and please don't ask us to make things worse.

Posted by Boon | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

February 7, 2006

The So-Called Holocaust

According to The Guardian:

Muslim protesters infuriated by cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad raised the diplomatic stakes last night as Iran's best-selling newspaper announced it would retaliate by running images satirizing the Holocaust.

The Holocaust? I thought that never happened?

Posted by Rammage | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

February 3, 2006

Cultural Relativism Ends Now

The Muhammad Cartoons.

The time has come for the American Left to make a gut-check to determine which side of this they are on. Because one cannot have it both ways. If we're going to openly mock Christianity and the Judeo-Christian god, then we have to allow for the prophet Muhammad as well. Cultural relativism will only get the Left so far.

Many thanks go out to Michelle Malkin, LGF, and especially Brussels Journal for aggressively responding to and reporting this issue.

Previous: The Brussels Journal

Update by Wulf: Crossroads Arabia on the fact that "there is no room for compromise on either side".
Also, Window on the Arab World discusses whether it requires an extremist to demand the deaths of the journalists... or is that just Islam? Was Muhammed a terrorist? Do Muslims have to be?

Posted by Rammage | Comments (3) | TrackBack (1)

January 29, 2006

Let Them Build Their Fences

On December 16th, the United States House of Representatives passed a bill that would upgrade illegal immigration to a felony. It would also make it a crime to employ or aid undocumented migrants. And it would authorize “physical infrastructure enhancements” - a fence hundreds of miles long, separating Mexico from the United States of America.

The fence has been a hot issue. Immigration itself is a hot issue, but there really is no getting around the facts of it (there is a supply in Mexico and a demand in the USA - it will happen one way or another).

However, there are ways of getting around a fence. Or over one, or under one. Hasn't Congress seen Shawshank Redemption? Or Hogan's Heroes?

MEXICAN officials have discovered the deepest tunnel ever gouged under the US border, equipped with electricity and ventilation and concealing two tonnes of cannabis. The scale of the tunnel — the 21st discovered in more than four years — stunned authorities, who said that the passageway revealed the lengths to which smugglers would go to evade detection. The underground smuggling route began near the airport in Tijuana, Mexico, and ended 2,400ft (720m) away in a warehouse in San Diego in the US...

Full story here. So, how much would this fence cost, anyway? How high would it be? And, um, how DEEP would the fence be? That's what I need to know.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

January 21, 2006

Iraqi Election Results

Shiites fall 10 short of a majority

As predicted, the Iraq election results followed along ethnic lines, with the Shiite majority gaining the most seats in results released late yesterday. (That's okay, we're kinda racist here in the USA, too. It's like a plantation, really.)

Some Sunni Arab and secular parties have complained of vote-rigging in the poll, but international monitors brought in to address the complaints gave the election process a mostly clean bill of health in a report on Thursday, clearing the way for the results to be released.

I'll keep that in mind when cruising the lefty sites I frequent.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

January 20, 2006

Hurricanes Hate Black People

From BET news: Global Warming Could Spell Disaster For Blacks.

Is this implying that white people would be okay? Seriously? Hurricanes are racist? Well, I was once asked by a black student why hurricanes all have white-sounding names. I guess I now know.

Citing Katrina as a case-in-point, some environmentalists say global warming impacts minorities and the disadvantaged harder than other groups.

That's right - stand by for a Cat4 in Chicago and Detroit, because those cities have a lot of black residents. It isn't about geography - that people on the coast, regardless of color, will be disadvantaged in the event of a catastrphic storm. Nope. It's about skin color.

Says Ansje Miller, director of the Environmental Justice and Climate Change Initiative:

Warmer seas mean more intense hurricanes…. You’re going to have intense flooding like we have never seen before. Katrina is really the hurricane of the future.

Putting aside the fact that she is wrong, she is a cheap sensationalist. The whole article is. That's a shame, because the vulnerable (including the poor) of all skin colors and hair colors and eye colors actually do need to be aware of their geography. If you live within a few hours drive near the US coast anywhere on the Gulf of Mexico or the Atlantic Ocean, from Brownsville TX to Maine, you should be prepared for hurricanes. If you cannot prepare for them, try to move. If you cannot, then have an evacuation plan. The possibility exists.

Oh, and check out your vulnerability to blizzards, earthquakes, mudslides, crime, alligator attacks, tornadoes, and other bad stuff. If you think the ocean levels might rise, then don't live near them. I mean heck, if you think Lake Erie might rise, don't live near it, either.

Even if you are white.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

January 19, 2006

Osama bin Negotiating?

From the Economist:

Osama bin Laden allegedly warned of fresh terrorist attacks in America in an audiotape broadcast by al-Jazeera, and also announced a surprising truce in Iraq and Afghanistan to assist reconstruction efforts there.

I am picturing the insurgents asking each other, What? Do we want to honor this truce? Maybe it's a CIA attempt to trick us! Cheney says it's a ploy, but he doesn't want to jump to conclusions - probably because it just sounds so wacky.

Bin Laden warned that (al Qaeda) was preparing new attacks inside the United States. But he said al Qaeda was willing to "respond" to U.S. public opinion in favor of withdrawing troops from Iraq.

At least there is some semblance of normalcy here.

UPDATE: The full text of the audiotape is printed in our extended entry, and is available at thousands of media outlets, since translation and release by the AP. I will pluck the text from Forbes.com.

Bin Laden appears to be addressing the American people:

My message to you is about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and how to end them. I did not intend to speak to you about this because this issue has already been decided. Only metal breaks metal, and our situation, thank God, is only getting better and better, while your situation is the opposite of that.
But I plan to speak about the repeated errors your President Bush has committed in comments on the results of your polls that show an overwhelming majority of you want the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. But he (Bush) has opposed this wish and said that withdrawing troops sends the wrong message to opponents, that it is better to fight them (bin Laden's followers) on their land than their fighting us (Americans) on our land.

I can reply to these errors by saying that war in Iraq is raging with no let-up, and operations in Afghanistan are escalating in our favor, thank God, and Pentagon figures show the number of your dead and wounded is increasing not to mention the massive material losses, the destruction of the soldiers' morale there and the rise in cases of suicide among them. So you can imagine the state of psychological breakdown that afflicts a soldier as he gathers the remains of his colleagues after they stepped on land mines that tore them apart. After this situation the soldier is caught between two hard options. He either refuses to leave his military camp on patrols and is therefore dogged by ruthless punishments enacted by the Vietnam Butcher (U.S. army) or he gets destroyed by the mines. This puts him under psychological pressure, fear and humiliation while his nation is ignorant of that (what is going on). The soldier has no solution except to commit suicide. That is a strong message to you, written by his soul, blood and pain, to save what can be saved from this hell. The solution is in your hands if you care about them (the soldiers).

The news of our brother mujahideen (holy warriors) is different from what the Pentagon publishes. They (the news of mujahideen) and what the media report is the truth of what is happening on the ground. And what deepens the doubt over the White House's information is the fact that it targets the media reporting the truth from the ground. And it has appeared lately, supported by documents, that the butcher of freedom in the world (Bush) had decided to bomb the headquarters of the Al-Jazeera in Qatar after bombing its offices in Kabul and Baghdad.

On another issue, jihad (holy war) is ongoing, thank God, despite all the oppressive measures adopted by the U.S Army and its agents (which is) to a point where there is no difference between this criminality and Saddam's criminality, as it has reached the degree of raping women and taking them as hostages instead of their husbands.

As for torturing men, they have used burning chemical acids and drills on their joints. And when they give up on (interrogating) them, they sometimes use the drills on their heads until they die. Read, if you will, the reports of the horrors in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo prisons.

And I say that, despite all the barbaric methods, they have not broken the fierceness of the resistance. The mujahideen, thank God, are increasing in number and strength - so much so that reports point to the ultimate failure and defeat of the unlucky quartet of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Declaring this defeat is just a matter of time, depending partly on how much the American people know of the size of this tragedy. The sensible people realize that Bush does not have a plan to make his alleged victory in Iraq come true.

And if you compare the small number of dead on the day that Bush announced the end of major operations in that fake, ridiculous show aboard the aircraft carrier with the tenfold number of dead and wounded who were killed in the smaller operations, you would know the truth of what I say. This is that Bush and his administration do not have the will or the ability to get out of Iraq for their own private, suspect reasons.

And so to return to the issue, I say that results of polls please those who are sensible, and Bush's opposition to them is a mistake. The reality shows that the war against America and its allies has not been limited to Iraq as he (Bush) claims. Iraq has become a point of attraction and restorer of (our) energies. At the same time, the mujahideen (holy warriors), with God's grace, have managed repeatedly to penetrate all security measures adopted by the unjust allied countries. The proof of that is the explosions you have seen in the capitals of the European nations who are in this aggressive coalition. The delay in similar operations happening in America has not been because of failure to break through your security measures. The operations are under preparation and you will see them in your homes the minute they are through (with preparations), with God's permission.

Based on what has been said, this shows the errors of Bush's statement - the one that slipped from him - which is at the heart of polls calling for withdrawing the troops. It is better that we (Americans) don't fight Muslims on their lands and that they don't fight us on ours.

We don't mind offering you a long-term truce on fair conditions that we adhere to. We are a nation that God has forbidden to lie and cheat. So both sides can enjoy security and stability under this truce so we can build Iraq and Afghanistan, which have been destroyed in this war. There is no shame in this solution, which prevents the wasting of billions of dollars that have gone to those with influence and merchants of war in America who have supported Bush's election campaign with billions of dollars - which lets us understand the insistence by Bush and his gang to carry on with war.

If you (Americans) are sincere in your desire for peace and security, we have answered you. And if Bush decides to carry on with his lies and oppression, then it would be useful for you to read the book "Rogue State," which states in its introduction: "If I were president, I would stop the attacks on the United States: First I would give an apology to all the widows and orphans and those who were tortured. Then I would announce that American interference in the nations of the world has ended once and for all."

Finally, I say that war will go either in our favor or yours. If it is the former, it means your loss and your shame forever, and it is headed in this course. If it is the latter, read history! We are people who do not stand for injustice and we will seek revenge all our lives. The nights and days will not pass without us taking vengeance like on Sept. 11, God permitting. Your minds will be troubled and your lives embittered. As for us, we have nothing to lose. A swimmer in the ocean does not fear the rain. You have occupied our lands, offended our honor and dignity and let out our blood and stolen our money and destroyed our houses and played with our security and we will give you the same treatment.

You have tried to prevent us from leading a dignified life, but you will not be able to prevent us from a dignified death. Failing to carry out jihad, which is called for in our religion, is a sin. The best death to us is under the shadows of swords. Don't let your strength and modern arms fool you. They win a few battles but lose the war. Patience and steadfastness are much better. We were patient in fighting the Soviet Union with simple weapons for 10 years and we bled their economy and now they are nothing.

In that there is a lesson for you.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

January 18, 2006

Notes on Iran

So Iran is trying to get nuclear weapons again. If you believe our intelligence community, of course... and doesn't it seem like everybody does? Where are all of the naysayers who think that with a little scrutiny, the intelligence on Iraq's WMD programs would have fallen apart? Hrm.

I find it does not help me to get stressed out. I try to find something humorous in every situation. For example, the story at Scrappleface the other day: Iran Gives $8 Million to Save ANWR Caribou. That's hysterical!
Or this one from a month ago (I've been saving it): Iran Invites U.S. to Bid on Nuclear Plant. And you thought they didn't have a sense of irony?

"America can take part in international bidding for the construction of Iran's nuclear power plant if they observe the basic standards and quality," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said at a news conference.

I am trying to picture the look on the face of Secretary of State Condi Rice when she first heard this. I say, take them up on it. Call that bluff! What's the worst that can happen - they let us build it? Look at the reactors in the USA - this is at least a 30 year ordeal to build a nuclear power plant. I call it "buying time". Surely there will be a revolution by then, and the theocracy ousted.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

January 16, 2006

Women's Lib(eria)

As of yesterday, in Chile, Michelle Bachelet is the first elected female president in Latin America’s history (and has promised to make half of her cabinet women).

As of today, in Liberia, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf was sworn in as Africa's first female elected head of state.

These two women may not have much in common, and their paths ahead are very different. Sirleaf will be rebuilding a state that has been ruined by more than a decade of civil wars, and that currently has more than 15,000 UN peacekeepers. Chile's security, politics, and economy are in much better shape, though Bachelet has work to do as well.

But they are examples for men and women everywhere. Women are half the planet, and it is unbelievable that it is 2006 before we saw the first ever elected female president in Latin America’s history, and Africa's first female elected head of state sworn in. I am curious to know how long before the United States becomes so progressive. I am also hopeful that it will not be done for the sake of equality, but rather because we recognize the value of the woman, whomever she may be.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

January 13, 2006

Moocher Mistake

Reuters gets a little too enthusiastic with the spellchecker...

The United States and the European Union's three biggest powers said on Thursday that talks with Iran to curb its nuclear program were at an impasse and Tehran should be brought before the Security Council. Iranian Foreign Minister Moocher Mistake warned that a referral would have "consequences" for the West.

(special thanks to R***, a good friend of Atlas Blogged, who explains: His name is really Manouchehr Mottaki. The story makes it much funnier than that. See the Reuters story here.)

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

January 4, 2006

Gaza in Chaos, Sharon Replaced due to Stroke

The Isralei pullout from Gaza this past August and September has not ushered in any semblance of law and order for the Palestinians, just as we all knew it wouldn't.

Armed Palestinian militants used huge [stolen - ed] tractors to break through the border wall with Egypt on Wednesday, then shot and killed two Egyptian security troops and wounded 30 others in a riot at the Gaza crossing point, security officials said.

(story here)

On Monday, around 200 Palestinian police stormed government buildings in Rafah. Last Thursday, police caused the border crossing to be closed after they stormed it - UN monitors fled in the chaos. What might the police storm next? Gangs have engaged the police and each other in street shootouts, and armed kidnappings have been on the rise.

~~Optimists~~ Fools saw Gaza as a testing-ground for Palestinian statehood. It was also hoped that Gaza's economy would gain its feet, or at least get up on all fours from its long-prone situation. But investments are not likely with this atmosphere - neither political nor economic. Many Palestinians blame the violence on the upcoming elections, as factions jockey for position. Many also blame Israel’s prime minister Ariel Sharon - why not?

Speaking of Sharon:

Ariel Sharon suffered a massive, life-threatening stroke Wednesday and underwent lengthy surgery to drain blood from his brain after falling ill at his ranch. Powers were transferred to his deputy, Ehud Olmert.
Doctors placed Sharon on a respirator and were trying to save his life...

(emphasis mine, story here)

It is just a matter of time. Sharon is despised by most Arabs, of course, but his death will not help the drive for peace between Israel and the Palestinians. As Israelis reshuffle for the upcoming March 28 vote, there are no successors in his own party who look able to defeat the other top candidates, Benjamin Netanyahu (the conservative former prime minister who recently won the Likud primaries) and Amir Peretz (Chairman of both the Labour Party and the Histadrut trade union federation).

Just what they need in that part of the world - a little more chaos.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

January 1, 2006

First Launch for Galileo Satellite Network

The public has become much more familiar with GPS over the past 10 years or so. Many of my students have it in their cars (spoiled!) though they don't know much about how it works. I am hoping to educate them on this topic in the coming month, so it is very timely that the European space project Galileo was kicked off this week.

From the Economist:

On Wednesday December 28th, the Giove-A satellite was launched into space from Kazakhstan, kicking off the biggest-ever European space project. The Galileo In-Orbit Validation Element (the acronym is also Italian for Jove, the king of the Roman gods) is a crucial first step in the roll-out of Galileo, a satellite-based navigation system. Giove-A will test several key technologies for Galileo. If all goes well, the system will be operational in 2008.

European boosters are celebrating a technological leap forward that they say will give them economic and strategic independence from America’s Global Positioning System. GPS, a project of the American military begun in the 1970s, is provided as a free service worldwide, causing some to say that the €3.6 billion ($4.3 billion) Galileo project is unnecessary... Projects like this tend to run over their estimated costs, and once the system is in place, Europe will feel bound to maintain it, whatever the cost...

Galileo is a joint project of the European Union and the European Space Agency, with backing also from China, Ukraine, Israel and India...

Though user fees will not, by themselves, pay for the project, it is hoped that Galileo will create jobs and economic growth (including tax revenues) as industries develop new services based around the satellite system. A study by PricewaterhouseCoopers in 2001 estimated that Galileo could produce a benefit-to-cost ratio of 4.6 to one...

France’s president, Jacques Chirac has said that European companies could be American “vassals” without their own navigation system. For him, a grand project like Galileo accomplishes several treasured goals: creating jobs in France, reducing its reliance on America, and bringing glory to European (including French) technology.

I think it is interesting the political angle that many news reports are taking on this, with regard to the motivation of the project. An example from the Drudge Retort (the name says it all) is fairly typical of news reports I have seen:

If successful, Galileo will end Europe's reliance on the GPS system, which is ultimately controlled by the US military...

Last year, US President George Bush ordered plans for temporarily disabling GPS satellites during national crises to prevent terrorists from using the technology...

Galileo is under civilian control. The European Space Agency says it will guarantee operation at all times, except in case of "the direst emergency". It also says users would be notified of any potential satellite problems within seconds.

To me, this makes it sound like Galileo was dreamt up last year as a way to retaliate against the Americans for turning off GPS. But the fact is that a project like this is not clumped together in a few months, from concept to launch. Galileo has been in the works for years, and for several reasons. During the Clinton administration, there were already questions of why Europeans were considering a duplicate system, but the fact is that Galileo can be used in ways GPS cannot. GPS is accurate to within about 10 meters for civilians, and about 3 meters for the US government. Galileo will give accuracy to about one meter for those with free access to the system, and down to centimetres for paying commercial users. Also, GPS would need to be upgraded before it can be used for some of the applications the private sector has in mind. Boeing and Airbus have been angling for years to see the system handle “free flight” in which each aircraft finds its own route clear of other aircraft, without the middleman of radioing controllers on the ground.
As a 2003 Economist article on Galileo noted, GPS needs more spending to upgrade it to handle applications in which lives could be put at risk, such as in air traffic control. Who's going to pay for that? The same article also notes a suggestion by David Braunschvig of Foreign Affairs magazine:

the Pentagon hives off the military version and develops a separate commercial system to compete with Galileo. In an emergency, they could act as back-up for each other. At the moment, the commercial services based on free access to GPS have revenues estimated at around $12 billion, with no return to the American government.

And although it will be owned and controlled by the EU (not China, you conspiracy theorists!),

Galileo will be in part a commercial system. A concessionaire will get the right to operate the system for a fixed period in return for plunking down two-thirds of the deployment costs—around €2.2 billion.

(quoted from the Economist, 2004)

Bring on the satellites! Bring on the market!

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

December 30, 2005

CAFTA to launch

From the BBC:

The US has admitted it will miss its 1 January target date to implement the controversial Cafta free trade pact with six Central American nations...The US is now looking to write Cafta into law for 1 February or 1 March.

Wait, don't panic. It's okay. Publius Pundit explains what's up, and has a bunch of back articles on the topic if you are interested in digging through their archives (you should be visiting that site daily anyway!)

Also see our previous here for practical reasons why CAFTA is not bad for the USA (in case you don't subscribe to our ideological belief that free trade is good in and of itself).

Posted by Wulf | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

December 29, 2005

O Canadian Utopia!

"Canada blames U.S. for exporting gun violence"

Well, what else is new? Everyone already knows that the U.S. is the root of all evils in the world. Why not blame it for gun violence, too.

Of course, Michael Moore may have to alter the premise of his Bowling for Columbine movie. Here is a great story on the Canadian utopia from Bowling for Truth.

Jennifer at Garfield Ridge to Canada: "Eat me."

Posted by Rammage | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

December 23, 2005

Zero Sum

On Thursday of this week, Professor Boudreaux of George Mason University had an opinion piece on the Pittsburg Live website (associated with the Pittsburg Tribune). In the piece, he lays out an explanation of how wealthy the average American actually is by more objective standards than just in comparison with the Joneses down the street.

My students think me mad. "I'm not rich; I'm middle-class,"... Fortunately, though, to be middle-class in America today means to be superrich by historical standards.

He is not apologetic, and does not bemoan our wealth and try to make the reader (or his students) feel guilty for our wealth (like my economics prof did), and he explains the cause for this great wealth we enjoy. It is refreshing, frankly, to read a piece describing our luxury and comfort from a non-primitivist standpoint. But neither does Prof. Boudreaux's piece argue for more technological progress. The focus of this piece is the reason why we are so wealthy.

What caused this great wealth explosion? The most common answer is technology. This answer is wrong.

What Prof. Boudreaux does not sufficiently explain is that it is a misunderstanding of technology that causes people to give the wrong answer. Technology is not the cause of wealth; Technology is wealth.

An excellent example of how people misunderstand technology's place in the discussion of wealth can be seen in the comment section that follow the blog article Twelve Myths at Cafe Hayek (Yes, Prof. Boudreaux writes for Cafe Hayek... you thought you recognized that name, didn't you?) But the most important post in that comment section is the one made by Coyote:

Gotta add a big one, the one that is close to number one on my list (of economics myths):
Economics and wealth are zero-sum. If someone gets rich, someone of necesity must be getting poorer.

(Coyote gets into more detai about this on his own blog, where he takes abuse from readers who don't like his economics.)

The zero-sum concept is an easy one, but a wrong one. It is easy because it is how the world seems to work when we first look at it on the surface. Momma has some cookies for the kids. Johnny takes too many and now the rest of us have fewer. Johnny is cookie-wealthy and the rest of us hate him. He tells us to shut up and be happy we have any cookies at all - starving kids in China don't.

Johnny is like Bill Gates, right?

The thing is, that's not how the world really works. Look at all of the material wealth in the world - the cars, the plumbing, the computers, the shoes, the medicine, the Robogrips (Christmas hint), etc. If Johnny's greater wealth means the rest of us are more poor, ask yourself this question: Who had all of this incredible wealth 2,000 years ago? The Egyptians? The Aztecs? The Chinese?

Nobody did. The wealth had to be created over the years, not distributed. The reason I have indoor plumbing and hopefully a Robogrip is not because we have redistributed the wealth of the Pharohs. It is because people want technological advances to make their work easier, and to make their lives safer, and to make their families healthier, and to make their leisure last longer. Technology begets technology, but it doesn't make anybody wealthy without the ability to use a free market to distribute it in fair trade (a point missed by those at Cafe Hayek's comments page who cite the printing press example).

Basic economics teaches that free and fair trade is mutually advantageous. But how can both parties be advanced in a zero-sum game? They cannot - throw out your Oreo way of thinking.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

December 7, 2005

A Day that will Live in Infamy

So, what did you do today? Was it worth the sacrifice?

I have an uncle who enlisted in the navy on December 8, 1941. He spent the next few years risking life and limb in order to serve the righteous cause. He, like many others, fought for the freedoms that are enjoyed by this nation, that so many in history have been deprived of. He, like many others, had moments when he nearly died.

He just recently celebrated his 80th birthday. He never spoke with anyone about what he went through, until 1993 when I asked to interview him for a college history course I took on World War II. It was a difficult experience for us both, and I am extremely glad I had the chance to hear his story. Millions of people died in that war, and cannot tell their stories. Thousands of our servicemembers died on this Day of Infamy, and cannot tell their stories to their children, grandchildren, or nephews who are taking college courses.

My uncle told me that every day, he asks himself whether he had done anything more with the day than they would have. Was it worth the sacrifice? I find the question too difficult for daily contemplation, but today I will think about it, and the freedoms we enjoy because of those sacrifices.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

October 31, 2005

Plans for Wiping the Map

Iran's President Ahmadinejad made international news at the "World Without Zionism" conference last week, due to his comments about wiping "Israel off the map." The media has made much of the comments, and speculation about what it could mean for Israeli-Iranian relations has been a hot topic. But the hottest topic is the parts of Ahmadinejad's speech that are not being reported... so check out the blog Regime Change Iran for a better view of the conference logo, and a peek at what was said. Highlights:

Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism? But you had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and surely can be achieved... [Ahmadinejad]

We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization... we must make use of everything we have at hand to strike at this front by means of our suicide operations or by means of our missiles. There are 29 sensitive sites in the U.S. and in the West. We have already spied on these sites and we know how we are going to attack them. [Hassan Abbassi, Agmadinejad's strategy advisor]

If you are looking for agitators who want to see the Bush adminstration move out of Iraq and Afghanistan and into Iran for a head-on war in an attempt to head off terrorist attacks, you will not find that at Atlas Blogged. But if you are looking for a little more attention paid to the attitude and plans of the Iranian theocracy, or if you are looking for a secular democracy to replace the current Iranian regime, well... so are we.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

October 27, 2005

Perspective on 2000 soldiers killed

This week, U.S. forces passed 2000 servicemembers killed in Iraq. Is this a big deal? Well, yes, it certainly is. We mourn every one of these deaths, and it is important not to allow our military forces to be used lightly - 2000 of our servicemembers should never die for unjust causes. But aside from the question of whether our forces should have gone into Iraq, or whether they should still be there, 2000 killed is a remarkable figure. It is an amazingly small number of casualties, which is a credit to the advances in weaponry, tactics, communications, and medical care on the battlefield. It is also a testament to the degree to which normal Iraqis have welcomed U.S. forces - what would the death toll be if we were seen as occupiers by the citizens there?

It is important to keep a proper perspective on the number of deaths sustained in this conflict. I thought it would be educational to compare these 2000 deaths with the number of deaths from past conflicts. Kirk H. Sowell beat me to the punch, so check him out at Publius Pundit.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

October 20, 2005

A Radical Islam Gene?

Here is a question you're not likely to see asked in the mainstream media.

[Thomas Bouchard, professor of psychology at the University of Minnesota,] found that tendencies towards fundamentalism were also rather more likely to be inherited.

Hat tip: Jib Halyard

Posted by Rammage | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

October 15, 2005

Iraqis Voting

This AP Photo shows a 70 year old Iraqi woman who is quite proud of her ink-covered finger confirming that she voted in the constitutional referendum in Baghdad's Sadr City neighbourhood. The photo links to an news article, but I will primarily be checking the coverage at Publius Pundit, including this article that links to previous discussion of the draft constitution and to several other blogs who are providing good coverage. Check the right column for the "Middle East" section, especially iraq pundit and iraq the model.

JT at Basic Training has recently deployed to Baghdad ("From August 2005 to August 2006") and notes;

the place I work is atop a hill which overlooks most of the city of Baghdad. On a normal day we hear numerous explosions, both large and small, as well as plenty of small arms fire. I think it is a testament to the ability of the new Iraqi forces to report that as of 5:00 pm today, I have heard zero explosions or weapons fire today.

Hopefully the process will remain peaceful, and the voice of the Iraqi people will be heard.

Click below for an UPDATE:

UPDATE: Polling is over and the counting has begun. According to Farid Ayar, one of seven commissioners on the Electoral Commission;

Turnout in Iraq's constitutional referendum may have reached 10 million voters, or nearly two thirds of those registered... "I think it could be more than 10 million, I think, I hope," If 10 million of the eligible 15.5 million voters cast ballots, that would give a turnout of around 65 percent, higher than the 58 percent recorded in January's election, the first held after after Saddam Hussein's overthrow.

Ayar said voting had gone well, despite hiccups in some areas, particularly Anbar province, west of Baghdad, where gunmen exchanged fire with U.S. and Iraqi troops in the city of Ramadi. Anbar is the heart of the Sunni Arab insurgency. "In Anbar, we couldn't open all the centres. There were 207 centres that were supposed to open there and I think we opened 144," Ayar said. Later he said around 5,850 of the planned 6,230 polling sites nationwide had opened. "But the problems were not very big and we are very happy that we finished the process without hearing that anybody was killed in the streets."

At a news conference, the Electoral Commission officials said eight of Iraq's 18 provinces saw turnout above 66 percent. In seven provinces, turnout was between 33 and 66 percent.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

October 14, 2005

Now Voting on the Iraqi Constitution

Iraqis vote on Saturday for the second time since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Shiites and Kurds are mobilizing in support of the draft constitution, while the Sunnis remain split. Baathists and other groups opposed to the draft constitution have threatened violence against those who would vote, but many Sunni clerics and organizations have come out in support of the draft just this week, after some last-minute amendments were made.

Here is a great quote from a Sunni leader, reported in the LA Times:

Sunni clerics tempered their strident calls for "no" votes with appeals for dialogue and nonviolence.

"Our opinion is to reject the constitution, but in spite of that we must understand the points of view of others," Sheikh Mahmoud Sumaidaii told Friday prayer attendees at the Um Qura mosque, a Sunni place of worship. "But those threatening bloodshed shouldn't do that. We should not consider others infidels just for their opinions and not kill others for their opinions."

If this charter fails, the next election in December will elect another interim assembly, which would have to write another draft, from scratch. The upside to that is the liklihood that the Sunnis would actually participate, which they did not do in the elections this past January.

Keep an eye on the results, as it will spell out the future of American troops in the region.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

September 30, 2005

"Going Dutch" Gets a Whole New Meaning

Who couldn't see this one coming?

[The Netherlands has legalized polygamy] in all but name. Last Friday the first civil union of three partners was registered. Victor de Bruijn (46) from Roosendaal “married” both Bianca (31) and Mirjam (35) in a ceremony before a notary who duly registered their civil union.

I'm looking forward to seeing Gay America support polygamous marriages with the same zeal and verve to which they pursued same-sex marriages. Anything less would be—dare I say it?—hypocritical.

Lost in all of the hoopla is why so many still feel the need for a government to sanction and validate their personal commitments to one another.

Posted by Rammage | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

September 17, 2005

Palestinian Authority vs Palestinians

Palestinians throwing rocks at riot police... Troops firing weapons over the heads of the crowd in an attempt to disperse the crowd... nothing new about this, it's just the good old conflict in the Gaza Strip.

The only difference was that today, the troops were from the Palestinian Authority and Egypt, not Israel.

Today's unrest is due to the fact that Palestinian forces sealed off five major breaches along the border between the Gaza Strip and Egypt today - their first real attempt to stem the flood of people, drugs, and weapons across that border since Israel withdrew from Gaza last week.

Plus there were shootouts over the best parking spaces. Seriously. (Hat tip to Patrick at Clarity & Resolve)

American Jihad shares a story that ran in the Jerusalem Post about the Palestinian Religious Scholars 1 Society decision to issue a fatwa forbidding normalization with Israel.;

Criticizing Egypt's agreement to deploy border guards along the border with the Gaza Strip, the Palestinian "scholars" said they were expecting the head of al-Azhar to issue a fatwa "calling for the mobilization of Muslim armies to expel the Jews from the rest of the lands of Palestine instead of deploying troops to defend the enemy's borders."

What a great way to respond to Israel's decision to leave the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians. We at Atlas Blogged have discussed the bad attitude of the Palestinians before, here.

The PA does not have the juice to maintain control in its own territory, as discussed here previously. It is being suggested that the Palestinians may find themselves in the unusual position of having a civil war before they have an independent nation.

They say a watched pot never boils. But the whole world is watching the situation in Gaza, and it just keeps heating up day after day.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

September 10, 2005

An Ocean Between Us

Sometimes it seems like people who live in Europe come from another world - they just don't understand Americans. And we definitely don't understand what they are thinking sometimes - who can deny that?

When they criticize or question the United States, instead of just assuming they are right or assuming they are wrong, it is helpful to check the premises. Jane Galt does a great job of that here, in an article that investigates the ocean of misunderstanding that lies between us on the following topics: Hurricane Katrina, energy consumption, public transportation, racism, and more.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

September 7, 2005

Moussa Arafat Slain

The TimesOnLine reports the murder of Palestinian politician Moussa Arafat, the cousin of the late Yassir Arafat (story here).

A group of 100 masked militants stormed the home of Gaza's former security chief before dawn today, dragged him out in his pyjamas and killed him in the street in a burst of gunfire.

The TimesOnLine is calling this "the most brazen challenge yet to the authority of Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian President,".

In the wake of Israel's pullout from Gaza, chaos has erupted.

Arafat, 65, was killed after a 30-minute gunbattle between the assailants and dozens of his bodyguards. The fighting with rocket-propelled grenades and assault rifles raged just a block from the headquarters of the Palestinian security service... The killing heightened concerns that Mr Abbas and his weak security forces will not be able to restore order in the increasing lawless coastal strip where armed gangs control the streets.

No kidding. See our previous on this topic.

According to another article at the TimesOnLine, Arafat's dead body lay in the street for two hours before the police responded. In other words, do not expect peace to blossom in Gaza any time soon.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)