As I Was Saying... (Iranian Duplicity)

We have been fighting Iran for some time now. It is utter lunacy to imagine that they are now honest brokers, much less partners, for peace in Iraq.

...coalition forces have recently seized Iranian-made weapons and munitions [from Shiia militias in Iraq] that bear manufacturing dates in 2006... Evidence is mounting, too, that the most powerful militia in Iraq, Moktada al-Sadr's Mahdi army, is receiving training support from the Iranian-backed terrorists of Hezbollah.

Iran's game is that of the protection racket. Ours is starting to look more and more like that of the dupe wishing to save face even if it means the abandonment of innocents to pure evil.

UPDATE: Tellingly, Ahmadinejad's letter to the American people (hosted not unexpectedly on the UN's website) starts with a plea that, because it is in the future tense, makes him a liar before he even gets going: "O, Almighty God, bestow upon humanity the perfect human being promised to all by You..." Check "...and make us among his followers." Excellent. We'd be happy to... if you'd allow Christian missionaries to operate freely in Iran.

Failing to Learn From History: Oil-For-Kickbacks

It's been popular among the anti-war crowd to claim that a sustainable if imperfect peace had been achieved vis a vis Saddam prior to the 2003 invasion. We had him hemmed in, they like to say. He was under so much scrutiny as to be effectively neutered as a military force, they will often assert. The Oil-For-Food program was a just, reasonable compromise run by a valid body representing world consensus, they will argue. It was humanitarian, they will insist, trailing off into a rant about the military industrial complex and its close ties with the president's malign financial motives and megalomaniacal lust for world conquest and American empire.

These are often the same individuals who feel no sense of irony at reaching back half a millennium in their quest for justice, telling us that action is required today for crimes against humanity committed by Christopher Columbus and other dead white male Europeans. Yet massive, globe-spanning corruption right under their noses in the continuing investigation of the UN's Oil-For-Food program in Iraq is somehow off limits... because it is international... because it lays claim to peaceful methods and motives. Bull$&!#.

The MSM--to its credit--is giving at least some ink to the just-released findings in the 2,000+ page Cole Commission report which details yet more of the corruption at the heart of a body that by all measures of common sense should be abolished. (The most recent Cole Commission, chaired by Australian Sir Terence Cole is not to be confused with the USS Cole Commission (incident) Report, released by the DoD in 2001. As a further interesting side note, Terence Cole is referred to as 'Sir' only in the WSJ article I cite below, plus one other Australian website.)

In the greater scheme of things the coverage given to the most recent Cole Report, isn't very much 'ink' at all (just 90 sources, according to Google News). To put that in perspective, the random liberal rant-phrase "war for oil"--hardly current and by no stretch of the imagination news--still nets 52 sources on Google News. The New York Times isn't exactly devoting its staff to helping its readers understand the increasingly damning implications at the intersection of the Cole and Volcker reports. To do that would be to imply that the scrutiny of the world ought to be on the UN--and not on the Bush administration... and that would be bad.

Fortunately, the Wall Street Journal has the goods in a subscriber-only editorial today:

...[other] countries have done little or nothing to come clean. France, which was given preferential oil allocations, has only a lone prosecutor moving ahead, with little support from the Elysée Palace. Russia, which facilitated the oil allocations and blocked moves on the Security Council to investigate kickbacks, refused to assist Mr. Volcker, much less prosecute anyone. Ditto for China, which received huge oil allocations...

Regarding the U.N., Mr. Cole notes that "The United Nations knew that Iraq was breaching sanctions by requiring payment of inland transport fees and surcharges or after-sales-service fees. It knew this between 1999 and 2003. . . It took no steps to publicize or warn member states of the Iraqi practices, and it took no steps to stop the practices." Mark it down as another coda to Kofi Annan's disastrous legacy as Secretary General. [emphasis added]

Note the definitive statement: no steps. Not "insufficient" or "inadequate" or "questionable" or "ineffective". No steps. Period. The UN knew. It did nothing. That pair of institutional behaviors comes a whole lot closer to the original meaning of words like "deceive" and "lie" and "corrupt" than the way many liberals have used those terms in referring to the Bush administration. One must know something is untrue and act accordingly--i.e., against the known truth. Bush did neither. Kofi did both.

I suspect that a reason the Cole Commission's findings are garnering even as much MSM ink as they are is that they're inseparable from corporate scandal. Within the Marxist framework in which many MSM newsrooms unconsciously swim, a juicy corporate scandal is as or more important than a continuing story about Western complicity and duplicity in supporting a despot who gassed women and children by the thousands. Why? Because it's expected. We know that tyrants massacre ethnic populations on purpose and in a gruesome manner. What's new about that? Dog-bites-man doesn't sell.

What I find most significant about today's WSJ editorial however is this:

In 2,065 pages, Sir Terence Cole and his team unmask the vast corruption in AWB Ltd., Australia's former wheat board and supplier for a time of 16% of the world's wheat. That alone is a huge public service. AWB was the single largest payer of kickbacks to Saddam. From 1999 to 2003, the company paid $221.7 million to Iraq through "transportation" fees and "after-sales-service" fees designed to evade U.N. sanctions and Australian law. Given such compliant partners, it is little wonder Saddam thought the world would never act against him. [emphasis added]

Read that last line again. Given [support]... it is little wonder Saddam thought the world would never act... The reason one ought to sift history is because its lessons signal rational actors shaping the future. (Notably, reparations for European imperialism and/or slavery's obvious injustices would provide no such incentives or signals since consensus on the reprehensibility of such things has already become well developed by other means.) Searching for culpability and justice from past events (not frivolously, but where the evidence is clear--as in this case) delivers incentives to the dictators and despots of tomorrow.

Sadly, even this visionary administration seems to have already forgotten that truth.

Seriously Addictive Game

Ten seconds to learn. Ten seconds to try once (more if you're good). Totally addictive. H/T: TF Stern's Rantings, who writes: "...the US Air Force uses this for fighter pilots. They are expected to go for at least 2 minutes." I can't verify if that's true, but if it is, I'll sleep better at night knowing that our military is truly made up of the best... and that they're open to innovation and fun.

A Foot in The Door: The Real Keith Ellison

As a follow-up to my think-piece earlier this week on standards for oath-taking by public officials, it's worth noting this absolutely devasting piece which Minnesota native Scott Johnson penned over at Powerline back in September documenting Ellison's lies about his background, his longstanding and deep-seated anti-Semitism and his support for cop killers.

Ellison's involvement with the Nation of Islam includes his support of "the truth" of Joanne Jackson's condemnation of Jews in 1997 as "the most racist white people." ...Ellison's involvement with the Nation of Islam is not the most offensive of his public associations and commitments. That distinction must belong to Ellison's work with Minneapolis gang leader and murderer Sharif Willis following the 1992 murder of Minneapolis Police Officer Jerry Haaf... Ellison's February 2000 speech on behalf of domestic terrorist Kathleen Soliah/Sara Jane Olson picked up this reprehensible aspect of Ellison's career and united it with his missionary work on behalf of the Nation of Islam.

This man is now a U.S. Congressman. Sadly, he'll be in good company. Values such as those espoused in the Koran are not abstractions. They have concrete implications for how one lives one's life. Such implications are magnified in and by those we elect. (H/T: One Country Voice)

History Echoes

It's much easier than I would have hoped to create a fictional 1939 news article out of this:

BERLIN -- Fuhrer Adolf Hitler said Germany would do whatever it could to help provide security to France amid warnings the country was on the brink of civil war.

Mr. Hitler made the pledge at the start of a visit to Germany by French President Albert Lebrun, whose trip was delayed for two days because of a curfew imposed after bombings Thursday that killed 202 persons in a Vichy stronghold near Paris. The curfew was lifted yesterday.

The United States is facing calls to engage Berlin in direct talks to help end the bloodshed, which League of Nations Secretariat Joseph Avenol said had pushed France closer to civil war.

"The German nation and government will definitely stand beside their brother, France, and any help the government and nation of Germany can give to strengthen security in France will be given," Mr. Hitler said... "We have no limitation for cooperation in any field," he said. [links added; names changed; text untouched]

The actual article is about Iran offering to 'help' with security in Iraq--after financing, supporting and organizing the very violence that is ripping it apart. Can you say "geopolitical protection racket"?

The Hypocrisy of Religious Expression

If I had just emerged from a 19th century time machine, I'd be confused as to why the feelings of those supposedly offended by this kind of religious expression (utterly benign and associated with a legal national holiday) are more important than the feelings of those doing the expressing, while in this other case, the loudest sympathies seem to be for the feelings of those making the 'religious expression' (closely identified with prior, well-documented terrorist activity) with virtually no regard for those on the receiving end.

Officials have asked organizers of a downtown Christmas festival, the German Christkindlmarket, to reconsider using a movie studio as a sponsor because it is worried ads for its film "The Nativity Story" might offend non-Christians.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passengers and flight attendants told law-enforcement officials the imams switched from their assigned seats to a pattern associated with the September 11 terrorist attacks and also found in probes of U.S. security since the attacks... But the imams who were escorted off the flight in handcuffs say they were merely praying... "Understandably, the imams felt profiled, humiliated, and discriminated against by their treatment"... [emphases added]

In both cases, feelings are a bad basis for making or enforcing law and/or public policy.

Culture of Death as Casual Joke

Three days ago, I visited a friend in a nursing home. Let's call her 'S'. She is 73 years old, mentally sharp and in acceptable health (diabetes, high blood pressure and obesity being her only persistent complaints--though she never complains about any of those things to anyone). The reason she is in a nursing home even temporarily is because of an ankle broken badly enough earlier this month that it required surgery to fix.

'S' is a remarkable individual--a survivor of Nazi occupation of Hungary during WWII (which nearly resulted in her family's starvation), she was active as a student leader in Budapest in 1956 in battling Soviet tanks in the streets. After some close calls with Communist forces looking for her in the months that followed, she fled on foot in an epic all-night ultramarathon through minefields along the Austrian border to reach safety in Vienna and ultimately the U.S. Through it all, she has been a devoted Christian believer--her faith so strong it is palpable.

Living by herself, 'S' has no family in the area. It is difficult if not impossible for her to get around on crutches not only due to the severity of the break but because of a missing opposing foot (the amputation, some time ago, a result of her diabetes). She is unable to care for herself while the break heals--a matter of two months or so, we are told. Once the bones set and she gets through physical therapy however, there is every reason to expect she will return to living on her own, being active in her church and community, warming the lives of many.

What has stuck in my mind like a broken record since Friday is what one of the nurses caring for her said during my visit. Breezing in to check on her, he appeared perfectly friendly and competent in the minute or so he spent in the room. He acknowledged me briefly (tried to flirt with me actually, but that's another story altogether). Then, with a joking demeanor while turning to go he remarked:

"If she doesn't get better soon, we'll have to put her down."

I was so focused on the casual way in which he said it that the actual words didn't fully sink in... we'll have to put her down. I'm not even sure how to process such a remark. I almost said something to him later but decided it might be counterproductive to my friend's continued health. I'm not entirely sure that that was the correct decision. I'd welcome any further perspective readers may have on the matter.

If the remark had been made to a totally healthy young person outside of the nursing home setting by someone without any power and authority over the person in question, it might be easier to brush off as a joke--though at best, it would still be in questionable taste.

Given the circumstances, it is utterly horrifying. Here is a woman in a vulnerable but hardly terminal situation--the survivor of two regimes that believed and put into practice on an industrial scale philosophies this man now felt at liberty to joke about. And she is confronting exactly the same views in a place (a nursing home in the U.S.) one would like to think safe from such evil.

The experience has left me questioning again how far we have already slid as a culture in accepting what millions have died to oppose--philosophies that hold human life sacred only to the degree that it fits some narrow model of what a productive, deserving person looks like.

I am shaken to the core.

UPDATE: On the theme of evil much closer than we'd like to imagine, Miss Kelly writes of a local mosque (Boston area) taken over by radical Islamists. As I remarked to a friend over breakfast this morning, this war is not confined to Iraq, to the Middle East, to Islam, or even the world. It is of truly cosmic proportions. The ultimate battleground lies within each of us.

The Untied States of America

Given the extreme paucity of MSM coverage of the subject (just six articles, according to Google News), I suspect I am not the only one unaware until recently that newly elected Congressman Keith Ellison (D, MN) will likely take his oath of office not on the Bible but the Koran.

It's a matter that may at first seem small (even worthy of celebration, perhaps) in a cultural context so thoroughly conditioned to tolerance and relativism as the highest possible ideals that anything challenging them as eternal absolutes (relish the irony) is seen as requiring the sternest possible moral censure (e.g., intolerant close-minded reactionary bigot).

But before any readers tune out, I would urge two things: 1) be thoughtful and clear-minded about why you are doing so, and 2) understand that I have attempted to frame my deepest concern in this matter narrowly, with as much care and precision as I've found it possible to muster.

That said, you'd be in good company in dismissing this post as having been authored by what the New York Times terms "upset Muslim-bashers in the blogosphere" (painting with the broadest of slandering, McCarthy-like brushes). If it has become true that all sober criticism of selected groups can be called 'bashing', then I readily plead guilty--since that word too can now be twisted to mean whatever I decide that it should and nobody can say different.

My concern is this:

How long can we continue to exist as a nation when the fundamental basis on which public officials agree to uphold the responsibilities of office is allowed to vary based on each person's point of view? This is entirely separate from the issue of expressing whatever point of view a public official may wish to express once in office (subject to the checks and balances of the law and the more subjective desire to be re-elected by their constituents). It is about the very nature of the obligations of the office itself.

Is it important that such obligations be a cornerstone of national unity--the same for Official A as for Official B? Or is it OK if they differ? And if the answer is to slice the question, arguing that a little difference is acceptable but a lot is not, then an even more fundamental question arises: Who gets to decide what constitutes significant versus insignificant variation? The courts? The country at large? The elected official himself? His constituents? The World Court in the Hague?

Framed in that way, it should be clear that the issue is not about the content of the Koran per se, though longtime readers know that that too is an issue--a major one. As I wrote last August: "we in the West... routinely assume into Islam things that simply aren't there" (And, I would add, assume out of Islam things we would wish were not there... but are. It's a habit of selective, salad-bar thinking common to the more liberal members of pretty much every religion.)

Rather, it is sufficient to ponder the question in the abstract and still conclude that it is utterly foundational to our existence as a nation: Is it OK that our most important common bonds are not common at all, but highly individualistic matters of self-expression and personal conscience? Can we allow our obligations to one another in the public square to become balkanized into a thousand different flavors? Let's examine a not-so-difficult-to-imagine future:

It is 2012...
...and only a few are surprised that super-popular President Romney has chosen to burn some political capital in making a statement on behalf of his faith by being sworn in for his second term on the Book of Mormon. ("What's the big deal?" he quips to one reporter "Have you never stayed at a Marriott?")

Joe Lieberman follows suit by being sworn in on the Torah to the objection of nobody except a few rabid Klansmen far away from his district. Raising a few more eyebrows is Congressman Makepeace of California who's sworn in on the Sesame Street Bible of Being Nice to Fuzzy Creatues and Children--all to make a point about inadequate federal spending on education.

Not to be outdone in garnering precious media attention for his agenda, Congressman Smith is sworn in on the Jim Jones Kook-Aid Bible (...something about getting the right to die as an amendment to the Constitution). Everyone knows it's a mostly a joke (the book was ginned up by a ghost writer at the last minute) but after the Ellison Koranic precedent of 2006, there was no basis on which to deny Congressman Smith's request. When Congressman Travolta is sworn in on a copy of L. Ron Hubbard's book 'Dianetics', the press is merely bemused.

To great applause in his home state of Vermont, Socialist Senator Moonbat is sworn in on a copy of the Montpelier telephone directory ("my highest obligation is to my constituents!" he proudly announces). Another prominent national official with socialist leanings has asked to be sworn in on a copy of Das Kapital ("it was misunderstood and misapplied in the 20th century" he notes, "working people deserve to see it implemented more intelligently".)

Not to be outdone, his perennial rival in state politics has had to endure stiff but not politically fatal criticism for his use of Mein Kampf in his own swearing in ceremony--a stunt designed to point out the ridiculousness of the entire charade. Sadly, the MSM doesn't get the joke, rushing to the man's defense so as to show its tolerance of all points of view. Earnest editorials waste no time in pointing out that "it's just a book... nobody actually opens it or reads it during the swearing-in ceremony... the state should not interfere in or seek to impose upon what are deeply personal, private decisions of faith."

Farfetched? Perhaps. To be fair, there is historical precedent for some degree of reasonable variation, though the scene raises more questions than it answers:

[Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl] Warren raised his right hand and placed his left hand on the Fitzgerald family Bible, originally purchased by Thomas Fitzgerald, Rose Kennedy’s paternal grandfather. The book was a nineteenth-century Douay version, the leading American Catholic Bible since 1825 [link added]. Sorensen later recalled that Kennedy “sought a family Bible on which he could take the oath of office without arousing the POAU [the anti-Catholic group Protestants and Other Americans United for the Separation of Church and State].” Thomas Fitzgerald’s volume seemed to fit the bill... The Bible was held by Supreme Court clerk James Browning. Kennedy raised his right hand but kept his left at his side [emphasis added] as he repeated after the chief justice the oath prescribed by the eighth clause of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution... Following a tradition begun by George Washington, and prompted by Warren, Kennedy concluded with words not required by the Constitution: “So help me, God.”

LBJ too may also have taken the oath on a Catholic Bible, though out of convenience rather than conviction; the evidence there is hardly definitive:

FORTAS REVIEWS QUESTION OF BOOK USED BY LBJ IN TAKING OATH OF OFFICE AS RAISED IN WILLIAM MANCHESTER'S BOOK, LARRY O'BRIEN'S RECOLLECTIONS; HUGHES DESCRIBES "CATHOLIC BIBLE"; FORTAS SAYS BOOK IS IN [White House] CUSTODY, IS NOT KENNEDY FAMILY BIBLE

In either case, it could be argued, the Catholic Bible is not so terribly different from the Protestant one, nor could Catholicism be considered a minor faith in the U.S. Yet neither is germane to the main question, which is what degree of variation is acceptable and for that matter, what was the norm to begin with?

So where does this leave us? On the brink of a crucial question I suspect most will not even think to address until it is past and answered--until precedent is set in such a way as to create even more massive rifts than are already apparent in how we view our state of being united. My deepest concern does not solely stem from, or depend upon the content of what we agree to point to together as sacred, (yes, those two ideas can go together in a pluralistic nation).

Instead, my concern hinges on the question of whether allowing unfettered pluralism into the very DNA of our nation--at an even more basic level than the Constitution itself--does not obviate the concept of our very existence as a nation. If we cannot agree to swear to a common basis for our obligations (i.e., one that lies outside of ourselves). If we are continually arguing about the meaning of the word 'is', or seeing the rhetorical, deconstructionist question "what is truth?" as honorable and interesting, then what obligations do we have at all beyond being 'citizens' of a world on the verge of anarchy--a world in which every man is an island of self-defined morality.

Entirely separate from the abstract argument above, readers would do well to study what Congressman Ellison is going to be agreeing to as the basis for upholding the Constitution. For example, Qur'an Surah 3:28 reads:

Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.

In other words, pretend to be friends with non-Muslims but keep in mind that such false friendship is merely a deception in service of fighting and subduing them. I.e., lie, recognizing that your loyalties are not to your fellow citizens... in direct contradiction to the verbal part of the oath (preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America). They might also wish to study the passages on permissible wife-beating (and polygamy).

All books are not the same. All religions are not the same. As Ravi Zacharias likes to point out, we suffer from the pervasive misconception that religions have superficial differences which paper over fundamental commonalities. He asserts (correctly) that the reverse is true. Religions are superficially similar and fundamentally different.

UPDATE: A different view, plus some interesting comment dialogue featuring yours truly can be found over at Rhymes With Right. (fight? fright? blight? might? insight? hmm...)

Winter of Love

Given the age of the oranizers, one wonders if this isn't simply a goofy tactic recycled from this.

The Global Orgasm for Peace was conceived [pun intended?] by Donna Sheehan, 76, and Paul Reffell, 55, whose immodest goal is for everyone in the world to have an orgasm Dec. 22 while focusing on world peace. [link added]

Hey, it got us out of Vietnam, man. (Well OK, maybe not. But it was fun... for some... or would have been... if I hadn't been three at the time.) They note:

"The orgasm gives out an incredible feeling of peace during it and after it," Reffell said Sunday. "Your mind is like a blank. It's like a meditative state. And mass meditations have been shown to make a change."

'Meditative' wouldn't be the word I'd use. Of course they could also try prayer... or not:

The combination of high-energy orgasmic energy combined with mindful intention may have a much greater effect than previous mass meditations and prayers.

Well, that sounds scientific. (But no worries... only religious people are anti-science, right?) The website says all are invited to participate, "especially those in countries with WMD"... which conveniently excludes some who no longer have the option to participate (warning: graphic).

My Sarcasm Can Beat Your Cynicism

Embedded in Rep. Charlie Rangell's proposal for re-instating the draft (yes, you heard that right--from a Democrat) is the logic of the nihilist slacker: make yourself utterly useless so that nobody will ever think to rely on you to do anything useful.

[Rangell] said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars and to bolster U.S. troop levels insufficient to cover potential future action in Iran, North Korea and Iraq.

Unbelievable. By that logic we should re-instate other policies known absolutely to have failed (e.g., punishingly progressive taxes) so as to avoid other social ills... like enterprise, choice, freedom and personal responsibility. Oh wait... we just might. Blatant, America-hating cynicism apparently knows no bounds on the Democratic side of the aisle. (I prefer to engage in over-the-top sarcasm.)

The Left Wakes Up to Islamism--And Promptly Implodes

This post began as an update to the previous one, focusing on an article I'd linked by Martin Amis. Me bad in breaking rules number one and two of good blogging: 1) read the article in its entirety and 2) consider the source--in this case the ultra-left Guardian/Observer.

On reading the third part of the Amis piece to the end (I read only the first two parts before posting) I'm left with the same impression I walked away with after listening to a podcast by Salman Rushdie: on the right track (though five years late) in recognizing the threat of radical Islam... but plagued by a stunningly massive flaw. What is that flaw? To paraphrase Ravi Zacharias it is to assume that morality without God is self-evident, and perhaps more importantly, that it is self-evident in common.

In short, it is not. Atheists, agnostics and secularists should try this exercise some time: 1) State a commonly held moral virtue. 2) Ask yourself why it is a moral virtue. 3) Repeat until you can no longer answer the question. 4) With the distilled nub of virtue that remains, ask where that moral idea came from. God-fearing folk can take the test too. Done honestly, it leads only one place.

Amis' mistake is to deride all religion as not only illusionary but also antithetical to reason, blithely conflating them all together: "All religions are violent". (That of course begs questions of when, how much, and most importantly whether their highest ideals support it.) Amis doesn't stop there. I had to read this one twice but he asserts that the Islamic world would benefit from a cultural revolution that used as its model the Cultural Revolution(!) Amis acknowledges that Mao's folly killed over 70 million people in scarcely a decade... but thinks it would be worthwhile anyway.

Without a trace of irony, he then goes on to sound a rallying cry for anti-faith (ill defined, it seems, smart people like him) holding it up as the savior of all messes that plague the world: "...the time has come for a measure of impatience in our dealings with those who would take an innocent personal pronoun, which was just minding its own business, and exalt it with a capital letter. Opposition to religion already occupies the high ground, intellectually and morally. People of independent mind should now start to claim the spiritual high ground, too."

...begging the question of how a Godless world view can have a "spiritual high ground". (How would you know when you were there? Who would decide? And what does Godless spirituality look like if not militant secularism--i.e., one of several corrosive tumors to grow out of the 1960s counter-culture?)

I also sense in Amis' carefully worded, oblique admonition to have "a measure of impatience" with religious folk something dark and deeply threatening. When secularist intellectuals "lose patience" with the rest of us, what is it that they are proposing, exactly?

And if, as Amis correctly notes, anti-religion is already a dominant force in Western society then wouldn't this translate quite simply into intolerance of and ultimately violence against a peaceful minority? And if his premise is true (that religious folk are in a minority) then isn't it illogical for his brethren on the left to claim that religious folk are hijacking our democratic political system?

In sum, it's possible to applaud Amis' late-to-the-party recognition--on behalf of the left--of the dangers of radical Islam and at the same time watch his larger argument (all religion is bad; all morality is relative) implode by its own foundationless logic and according to its own stated ideals (e.g., tolerance, pacifism, unity etc.)

It's great to find allies on the left waking up to their moral inconsistency and isolationism in ignoring or dismissing the dangers of malignant Islamism. We should be clear-eyed however in their prescriptions for a solution to the problem we face. When the solution elevates Mao and threatens a minority (i.e., devout believers) it may be no more or less of a 'Solution' than the one Hitler once called "Final".

Weekend Round-up

After pouring myself into this massive, spaghetti-linked rant on Wednesday, I'm re-charging the creative batteries. I'll be adding to this post over the weekend (with minimal commentary) on the nominal theme of lists and numbers. Newly noted items will be pasted in at the top.

1949--the year Islamist Sayyid Qutb came to America. A long but eye-opening piece by writer Martin Amis in the Sept. 10th (2006) UK Observer. "...Sayyid Qutb is now a part of our daily reality. We should understand that the Islamists' hatred of America is as much abstract as historical, and irrationally abstract, too; none of the usual things can be expected to appease it... Suicide-mass murder is astonishingly alien, so alien, in fact, that Western opinion has been unable to formulate a rational response to it... We are not dealing in reasons because we are not dealing in reason." [emphasis added] Part two here. Part three here. H/T: S. Important update here.

Seven factors that make Rudy Giuliani a non-factor in the 2008 presidential race according to Joe Carter, who makes a compelling case. ("Giuliani has 'The Look', the surface appearances of a national leader that the country can rally around in a time of (perpetual) crisis... [It] will turn into the Perot Effect ('Who thought this clown was electable...?').")

Ten things to think about with regards to new Congress, including the blogosphere's relationship with it ("[conservative blogs] opine... in an annoyingly independent way... the Republican establishment [thinks] of us... more as a pain in the neck than an asset... [whereas Kos] brings volunteers and money and buzz [to the Dems]."), how it will deal with the war ("A plane could crash into the Pentagon and [the Democrats in Congress] still wouldn’t get it.") and what else it might do. ("...it should be two years of stasis in Congress, which incidentally will beat the hell out of the last four...")

Four* years of daily discipline (+ or -) that few will follow... but many** should.
(*Depending on how fast one reads, how motivated one is, and how much free time one has. The four year figure is roughly how long it would take to read the Bible through twenty times if one kept to the pace of one Bible book per day, i.e., 1320 days. It seems an aggressive figure... until one honestly compares it to time spent reading say, People or Newsweek or Robert Ludlum or National Review... or blogs. **'Many' here should be taken to mean those who: 1) claim to be seeking personally relevant spiritual growth and insight, 2) claim to be seeking eternal spiritual truth, and/or 3) have ever offered--or plan to ever offer in the future--critiques or criticisms or interpretations or dismissals of what the Christian Bible is, what it says, how consistently it says it, the authority and attention it merits, or how its various parts should be taken.)
I like this bit of advice: "After the eighth or ninth reading you’ll hit a wall that is similar to what runners face in marathons... Stick with it." I'm familiar with marathon 'walls'... thank goodness for podcasts, e.g., this, this, this, this and this. I also like this rebuke: "If you have time to waste reading this blog then you have time to start this program." Hmm... if I count time spent blogging (never mind reading), I might well be done by Christmas. Hmm indeed...

Vietnam Parallels That *Do* Ring True

With so many on the left insisting on parallels between Iraq and Vietnam that simply do not exist, it is after some initial skepticism that I note one that does ($ub$cription). Michael Oren, a senior fellow at the Shalem Center in Jerusalem, and author of the soon-to-be published "Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present," opines in this morning's WSJ on the limited options available to a president otherwise aware of and highly sympathetic to an impending military crisis likely to hit one of America's staunchest allies:

"Israel will not be alone unless it decides to go it alone." With these words, Lyndon B. Johnson greeted Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban at the White House on May 26, 1967. The Middle East was in the throes of an escalating crisis. Gamal Abdul Nasser had evicted U.N. peacekeepers from Egypt's border with Israel, blockaded the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, and called on the Arab world to "throw the Jews into the sea." Israel had no intention of waiting to see if Nasser would carry out his pledge, or of keeping its troops on the permanent state of alert that was bankrupting the country. And so the Israeli government sent its foreign minister to seek Johnson's approval for mounting a pre-emptive strike. But LBJ only disappointed Eban. Though hostile to Nasser and firmly supportive of Israel, the president was hamstrung by America's imbroglio in Vietnam and by the drop in his domestic support. The most he offered the Israelis was Washington's help in mobilizing international action against Egypt. Beyond that, there was only that repeated, cryptic phrase, "Israel will not be alone unless it decides to go it alone."

Oren concludes with an insight not unlike the oft-repeated but seldom understood koan about Islamofascism (they hate us because of who we are, not what we do), noting that:

Israel may indeed act alone, but in the minds of a great many people in the Middle East, the U.S. acts with it.

Oren is of course talking about Iran. In other words, if Israel makes a first-strike against Iran (or even a wholly justified retaliatory one for that matter), we (the U.S.) will be blamed regardless--most assuredly by the Islamic world, and very probably by most of the non-Islamic world as well. Which feels like friendly blackmail (e.g., neighbor invites you to co-host a loud, expensive party he's going to throw anyway, with or without your consent).

That all said, my read of Iran is that--while it is likely to strike Israel with nuclear weapons at some point--it would much prefer to be struck by Israel before then. Such an attack, without U.S. help would by definition be incomplete due to Iran's long preparation for just such an eventuality, e.g., dispersing and burying its military assets. Yet however incomplete it ended up being (and whether or not the U.S. participated) one thing is sure: it would whip the Islamic world into a fury Iran could channel to its own ends.

In saying that "the Islamic world" would rise up, I do not mean merely Islamic countries or even Islamic radicals and/or believers. In addition to those obvious constituencies (refrain: where are the moderate Muslims willing to speak and act?), an attack by Israel or the U.S. would embolden a wide swath of latent Islamist sympathizers in the West (drawn from though not synonymous with the left) to rally to Iran's defense. Given the hypocritical after-the-fact criticism of our invasion of Iraq in the presence of domestic and international consensus about the threat Saddam posed, the yammering we would endure about the immorality of pre-emption would be nearly unprecedented in scope and ferocity.

Forget what was being pre-empted or how imminent it was perceived to be. It is the pacifist impulse not only to be struck, but to allow other innocents to be struck and struck and struck again. It is the pacifist impulse to equate all force with evil regardless of its justification, motivation, restraint or outcome.

Again, Iraq provides the example. The felt need for logic and consistency and the capacity for playing out in the mind the long-term consequences of various alternatives for action (and inaction) has been shown to have already dissolved in our culture, our media and our public and political fora. It's worth remembering that, as awful as Hitler is now recognized to have been (except by Ahmadinejad), neither Churchill nor FDR could rally their nations to pre-emption when it would have been effective... a sobering thought as we face into similar circumstances.

After an attack on Iran, we would see Western (never mind Islamic) airwaves blanketed with images of bombed-out Iranian hospitals and day-care centers under which the mullahs have cynically dug their military bunkers. (I'm not making that last bit up. One lecture by an Iranian defense consultant I attended at the Intelligence Summit last February documented that fact with detailed aerial photos and city maps.)

In other words, whatever role the U.S. might play (including tacit acceptance), a strike would backfire... which--I cannot emphasize enough--is different from saying that such a strike might not be necessary anyway. Which puts us right back in the same pickle. I wish I had a more upbeat scenario to spin for you this morning. For those who didn't see yesterday's post, it was intended as such, albeit well beyond our usual here-and-now frame of reference. Have a nice day.

Disturbing News Roundup & Color Commentary

Is it just me or does it feel as though disturbing news has started to cascade? Last week Bush caves, firing the wise and principled Rumsfeld (H/T: RFTR) with timing so bad one can only conclude that he sees himself and his administration as the dog that must submit--the dog rolling on its back in hopes that the stronger (yellow) dogs will not eviscerate him. All of which leads the perennially ungrateful Euros to pounce without any trace of irony concerning previous high-handed pronouncements about American 'unilateralism'.

Meanwhile, stalwart ally Tony Blair seems to lose his nerve, his mind and his arguably Churchillian instincts even as Ahmadinejad continues to strut. (I sense creeping, unstated--and deeply frightening--credibility for the idea that not only could we appease Iran but that the West could stand to lose the Sudetenland, err... I mean Israel, if it ever came to that. If it was 1938 before, the calendar may be turning to 1939.) But really, says the back-from-the-dead realpolitik conventional wisdom, is this Mahmoud guy really so bad? Can't we all just get along? Can't we see things from his perspective? Can't we work with him?

Well no, actually. No we can't. Iran is not a member of the Axis of Evil because it seemed like the thing to do at the time and now we can't remember why we said that. (Some can't. Others claim their president doesn't speak for them. Those of us who remember what we had for breakfast this morning can remember and give credence to it--and to him. We all should.)

Iran is a member of the Axis of Evil because of--among other things--its declared intention to commit genocide and destroy another UN member nation and its clear and dedicated actions in pursuing that aim. That and its harboring and financing of terrorists, its bloody proxy war against us and Iraqis in Iraq, and a laundry list of violent, expansionist, dictatorial, repressive, tyrannical things that used to bother 'liberals' but don't seem to anymore because many of said liberals have morphed into reactionaries bearing that title only to deceive themselves into warm fuzzy self-involved assurance while disarming their critics.

At the same time, the church advocates for what amounts to post-birth abortion (sadly not a misprint), putting them in league with a certain North Korean dictator. And South Africa decides that because institutionalized white racism was indeed vile and evil, then any judgment of anyone for any reason must be also. And speaking of judgment, why is it that an unrepentant murderer wealthy enough to buy his own justice should just happen at this particular moment in history to feel confident enough to waltz back into the limelight of anything-goes celebrity tabloid fascination to perpetuate a heinous lie, while another perennial celebrity who 'just got lucky' doing some commodities trading back in the '80s is signaling that she'll once again attempt to impose socialist medicine on the rest of us? Just asking...

And yet... am I the only one to feel strangely peaceful about it all? ...the only one to feel as though the fight--against foes both foreign and domestic--has shifted into an entirely different realm? A realm in which the answer is already determined... the victory already won but for a few years of unadulterated awfulness and apparent defeat? I'm outraged on one level yes, but not in my soul.

It's just an intuitive sense, but it seems as if something has been unleashed in the world in recent weeks--a flood-tide of forces previously held back. Most are congruent with the election in the sense (for example) of it having made even clearer the unholy dangerous philosophical alliance between radical Islamists and liberals as relativism excuses the former and empowers the latter.

Yet only a few of the examples I've mentioned can be said to have been directly caused by it (the election, that is). I refuse to go down the road of crying in my soup and demonizing Democrats. Many are lost, yes. The republic isn't... yet. I am not angry, only disappointed--resigned to something that feels more and more inevitable and in which the republic will be lost (along with many other things) but in the service of gaining eternity. The election is merely another aspect of a much much larger phenomenon.

Despite what some pundits are spinning about conservatism triumphant in a Democratic victory, I sense a weariness with the essence of conservatism itself, which as William F. Buckley famously put it over half a century ago is all about "standing athwart history yelling 'stop!'"

That stance gets tiring after awhile for both the metaphorical traffic cop ('stop'... no really, I mean 'stop'... trust me, I said 'stop' so you wouldn't get run over by that truck over there) and for those who would listen. It's exhausting to be constantly on the defensive, called to explain (as a remedial patch on a lack of historical education and perspective) why some hare-brained idea like socialized medicine or negotiating with Satan will not work.

In recent headlines I detect a weariness with war and with ideals formerly held dear that would set war in context, illustrating vividly that not all peaces are righteous and not wars are evil. (Ponder, for example, that both cops and criminals possess and use guns... that both Hitler and FDR fielded armies.)

I sense a weariness with truth and growing confusion about whether it is fixed (much less knowable)--an unmooring from anything but ourselves. (For a glimpse of faulty, self-referential assertion posing as reason in that vein, check out "Letter to a Christian Nation" whose author, Sam Harris, in a recent podcast I endured with morbid fascination, glibly echoes Elton's John's wish that religion--as Harris, John and others choose to define it for us--be put in a very small box indeed because it and its adherents are 'stupid' and dangerous. Encouragingly, we ought to recall that this is not a new impulse out of the world of the entertainment community--merely a blunter expression of a very old one.) As Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias notes, paraphrasing GK Chesterton: "meaninglessness ultimately comes not from being weary of pain but from being weary of pleasure".

(Zacharias' podcasts are now on my absolute must-listen list. Additional side note and subject for another post: for a fascinating and on-the-right-track--but still flawed--view into how the secular left views Islam, see this podcast talk by Salman Rushdie with an intro by Ibn Warraq).

And finally, I intuit in recent headlines a weariness with life itself. Sure, Michael J. Fox wishes to cling to his own life (including its quality). On one level that is totally understandable. It would be the rare individual who could say with honesty that they did not care if they lived or died or got sick or stayed well and that--given the opportunity--they would not switch sides on some moral questions that seem abundantly clear when one is not facing them. And yet the impulse to preserve one's own life at any costs comes with a much larger cost. We should not be surprised to discover this wisdom.

Anchoress has a wonderful post in a similar vein, noting:

There is a perfect storm brewing, and it is no accident that we are in a shifting time warp (time is an illusion, after all). Unsettled issues have a way of bobbing up to the surface over and over again like so many unweighted corpses.

UPDATE: Continuing on the theme of evil having a greater voice, a new Al Jazeera English service "hopes to steal viewers from CNN and the British Broadcasting Corp. by giving the world's 1 billion English speakers news from a non-Western perspective." 'Non-Western' indeed. First thought: it may have trouble stealing viewers from CNN and the BBC because it will be perceived as too Western compared to those outlets. With the ground prepared by the cultural relativists, it is just another perspective, with no moral compass to say whether it's better or worse--more moral or less moral--than any of the others out there to choose from.

Why Not to Vacation in Libya

The always fascinating Victor Davis Hanson has the tale:

...the general poverty of the country seems the logical manifestation of Qaddafi’s zealous vows to eliminate most private property, end a market economy and its “parasitical” middle class, shrink the professional elite, and ensure cradle-to-grave subsidies for everyone else—all the while supporting “liberation” movements from South Africa to Northern Ireland...

When I went over the old litany—the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, Libya’s vast weapons-of-mass-destruction program, the efforts to cause havoc in Chad, the trumped-up capital convictions of Bulgarian nurses falsely charged with deliberately injecting Libyan children with HIV, the recent plan to assassinate Saudi crown prince Abdullah after he traded slurs with Qaddafi at an Arab League summit in 2003, and on and on—Libyans looked away as if the rude stranger had ruined a long-planned reunion celebration.

...perhaps it is true—at least that is what Qaddafi supposedly told Italian prime minister Berlusconi in a phone conversation: “I will do whatever the Americans want, because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid.”

There is also real Libyan disgust over the billions squandered on revolutionary -- mostly terrorist -- movements the world over, especially the largesse given to the African insurrectionists. As one minor Libyan official put it to me, “They all cut deals with you in the West—the African National Congress, the IRA, Sandinistas, Liberians, and the Palestinians. Now you think these former killers are okay again, but not us...”

...A few hours after the lecture, I woke up, delirious... a perforated appendix... no Westerner to her knowledge... had recently experienced surgery in the state-run hospitals. Prior to departure, I had done some research on Libya and remembered coming across an old Wall Street Journal piece that referred in passing to Libya’s hospitals as “dirty death traps.” And I remembered the stories of the Bulgarian nurses and their clinic’s contaminated needles, as well as an offhand remark by one of my newfound Libyan friends that he had just returned from Tunis for “minor” surgery...

I had to be operated on immediately at the clinic—no time for the hospital—and that would require a mandatory government blood test and finding a surgeon at 2 am... I had a few memories in delirium of leaving a final phone message for my family back in California that things were not going well in Tripoli. When the nurse readied my mask, she said in English, “Put your trust in Allah.” For some reason -- I am not a church attendee -- I whispered back, “I prefer the redemptive power of Jesus Christ.”

Obviously he survived. I won't spoil the rest of unique and harrowing story.

He Can't Be Corrupt... He's a Democrat!

John Murtha, that is. It took less than a week for Democrats to begin tearing one another apart. In a similar vein, Alician Colon draws a bead on the rampant hypocrisy [links added]:

If President Clinton had done everything Mr. Bush has done since he's been in office, he would be hailed as a hero and given credit for the booming economy, the low unemployment, and overseeing our nation's security and the liberation of two countries. But Mr. Bush is an evangelical Christian... Would a moral country have reelected so many times Senator Kennedy, who left Mary Jo Kopechne to drown in Chappaquiddick while he sought a cover story before reporting the accident? ...Look at our culture, which revels in the profane and the licentious, and then you'll understand why a political party that adopts an overtly religious façade will be targeted so viciously by the hedonists who rule our society.

H/T: Anchoress, who notes: "...while I am not happy about the election outcome, I do think it’s unseemly for Christians, at least, to be depressed... our God is not politics or the GOP... God has his hand in everything." Amen, sister!

Instinctive Valor; Instinctive Cowardice

I've been spending more time listening to podcasts lately. It's a great way to enrich time otherwise spent in intellectual 'neutral', e.g., walking the dog, cooking, shopping, etc.--which is not to say that contemplative silence is a bad thing from time to time. Over the weekend, I went browsing for new ones (podcasts, that is) choosing among other things, to try a presidential address on the theory that much of what this particular president says and does is filtered through a media lens slanted invariably left when it is not made deliberately opaque and obfuscatory to certain types of messages.

It didn't take long to prove the theory correct with remarks that moved me to tears (podcast; text; video). They were tears of gratitude for sacrifices made on my behalf. They were tears of heartache for one particular pair of parents who lost a son (more on that toward the end of this post). They were tears of frustration in that, with the turning political tides, what our soldiers have died for the past three years may be rendered utterly moot by a political climate and a culture no longer understanding of true sacrifice, much less the ideals that are worth sacrificing for.

Mr. Bush was speaking last Friday, November 10th (Veterans' Day observed) at the dedication of the National Museum of the Marine Corps. Excerpt (emphases added):

The history of the Corps is now preserved within these walls. Many of you here today do not need a museum to tell you this history because you wrote it yourselves with your sweat and your sacrifice in places like Tarawa, Chosin, and Khe Sahn. These walls pay tribute to your contributions to American freedom. These walls remind all who visit here that honor, courage, and commitment are not just words. They are core values for a way of life that puts service above self...

The Japanese who defended [Iwo Jima] had learned from costly battles that they could not defeat American forces. Yet, they believed that by inflicting maximum casualties on our forces, they would demoralize our nation and make America tire of war.

In that battle, the Japanese succeeded in taking the lives of more than 6,000 men. They did not succeed in stopping the Marines from achieving their mission. And that flag that was raised on Mount Suribachi would become an enduring symbol of American resolve, and a lasting icon of a democracy at war.

Six thousand U.S. soldiers dead in a single battle. Six thousand... It is a dreadful number, scarcely conceivable to this generation--or even the last. And yet, it was widely acknowledged (and rightly so) as having been worth it. Oh so worth it... The few who lived through the Rape of Nanking or the Bataan Death March (and there were precious few) have testified to what was at stake.

Without the sacrifices of Marines at Iwo Jima, the expansion of tyranny and oppression and suffering under Imperial Japan to places such as Hawaii and Alaska and Australia was virtually inevitable--not to mention the mestastasization of that evil in time. There is nothing inevitable about history. But for the courage of individual soldiers, the ingenuity of scientists and the resolve of a president (Truman), there was nothing that required World War II to evolve in such a way that Tojo would find himself standing on a U.S. aircraft carrier, hanging his head in shame and surrender in 1945.

There was nothing inevitable (e.g., in some impersonally broad sweep of historical forces) that said the war might not still have been going on in 1946... or '48... or 1960... or 1980 for that matter. Nothing, that is, but the ultimate sacrifice of individuals who knew what was worth fighting and dying for.

By contrast, scenarios spun prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 (spun disingenuously in part to prevent it from taking place at all) anticipated the possibility of U.S. military deaths in the first few days and weeks of fighting cresting into five figures. And the consensus among both political parties at the time was that despite that risk, there was no other choice. Saddam had to be stopped. The uncertainty about WMD had to be made certain. The potency of UN mandates had to be upheld and not trodden down into utter ridicule--as it turns out they are anyway in Iran.

How quickly times change. As a new Congress contemplates cutting and running from Iraq, we forget that across three and a half years, our nation has lost well under half of what was lost in far far less time at Iwo Jima alone. Each loss is terrible, but the greater loss is our loss of perspective and value.

Lest anyone leave in despair at what seems a picture of America in retreat from its willingness to sacrifice when necessary, there is at least one man whose story cannot help but restore faith in America's ideals and that is Corporal Jason Dunham. If you haven't heard his story yet, that's a question to ask Time Magazine and Newsweek, CBS and NBC and the New York Times. Why is there not a five page color spread on Cpl. Dunham in all the major news magazines? (Fortunately, there is an excellent book: "The Gift of Valor" by Wall Street Journal reporter Michael Phillips--highly recommended!) The president continued (again, emphases added):

Like the Marines who have come before them, this new generation has also given some of its finest men in the line of duty. One of these fine men was Jason Dunham. Jason's birthday is November the 10th, so you might say that he was born to be a Marine. And as far back as boot camp, his superiors spotted the quality that would mark this young American as an outstanding Marine: his willingness to put the needs of others before his own.

Corporal Dunham showed that spirit in April 2004, while leading a patrol of his Marines in an Iraqi town near the Syrian border. When a nearby Marine convoy was ambushed, Corporal Dunham led his squad to the site of the attack, where he and his men stopped a convoy of cars that were trying to make an escape. As he moved to search one of the vehicles, an insurgent jumped out and grabbed the Corporal by the throat. The Corporal engaged the enemy in hand-to-hand combat. At one point he shouted to his fellow Marines, "No, no, no, watch his hand." Moments later, an enemy grenade rolled out. Corporal Dunham did not hesitate; he jumped on the grenade to protect his fellow Marines, he used his helmet and his body to absorb the blast.

A friend who was there that terrible day put it this way: "Corporal Dunham had a gift from God. Everyone who came in contact with him wanted to be like him. He was the toughest Marine, but the nicest guy. He would do anything for you. Corporal Dunham was the kind of person everybody wants as their best friend." Despite surviving the initial blast and being given the best of medical care, Corporal Dunham ultimately succumbed to his wounds. And by giving his own life, Corporal Dunham saved the lives of two of his men and showed the world what it means to be a Marine.

Corporal Dunham's mom and dad are with us today on what would have been this brave young man's 25th birthday. We remember that the Marine who so freely gave his life was your beloved son. We ask a loving God to comfort you for a loss that can never be replaced. And on this special birthday, in the company of his fellow Marines, I'm proud to announce that our nation will recognize Corporal Jason Dunham's action with America's highest decoration for valor, the Medal of Honor.

As long as we have Marines like Corporal Dunham, America will never fear for her liberty. And as long as we have this fine museum, America will never forget their sacrifice.

Cpl. Dunham's instinctive ideals--and, at least as important, his courage to act on them--are ultimately rooted in one thing: the universal reverence we have for, and value we place on life.

That reverence is in such sharp contrast to our enemies who would take your life and mine without a second thought simply because of who we are and not what we believe or think or do. The Christians and Jews they supposedly protect in Dhimmitude are 'protected' by meaningless words only. And lest we believe that it all is a purely religious 'thing', and couldn't we all just get along, e.g., by abandoning religion, it's worth remembering that they have no trouble taking the lives of fellow Muslims also. Our enemy takes the lives of soldiers, civilians, men, women and children with no discrimination whatsoever. Which forces a question: why is that?

Why is their hatred and desire for death omnidirectional? Answer: for the same reason that Christ's love is omnidirectional. Larger forces are at work in all of this that are in but not of this world. We see only the physical, proximate manifestations of those battles.

Our increasingly secular, purely scientific mindset makes it difficult to trace or give credence to the threads of those larger conflicts across decades and centuries and millennia, even as our popular culture (Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, etc.) speaks to our deep if inexplicit appreciation of that truth. The Islamofascists' omnidirectional hunger for death today--the hunger that leads misguided individuals to blow themselves up in marketplaces and bus stations and Tube trains and airliners--is the same hunger that characterized Imperial Japan, and Nazi Germany and Stalin's Russia and Mao's China and too many other rulers of this earth. Just as much is at stake now as was true for Marines at Iwo Jima.

Our longest-standing enemy--the prince of darkness himself--has not changed his aims. He has merely changed the individuals and groups and nations through whom he seeks to realize them. The story the president related reminds us that there are those like Cpl. Dunham who will stand up to evil in the only way evil does not understand--the willing sacrifice of one's life to preserve and protect the lives of others. It is not a uniquely American idea by any means. But America is one of only a few places left where it is still given room for expression in our institutional and national ideals.

More on Cpl. Dunham and the incident for which he has been honored can be found here.

Germany Seeks Prosecution...

...of the executives of German, French, Russian and Chinese companies that broke UN sanctions to deal with Saddam and profit from it? No.

...of Islamists killing family members in broad daylight, promoting violence and seeking sanctuary in Germany before flying planes into U.S. office towers? No.

...of "former" Nazis that blended into the woodwork after WWII? No.

...of Bill Clinton or UN top brass for letting Rwandan, Congolese, Sudanese and other African genocides happen? No.

Instead, Germany (merely the first in line of what I expect will be many wolves waiting long for just such an opportunity as Tuesday's election provided) is indicting Don Rumsfeld for war crimes.

They're responding to a clear signal sent by a president whom I otherwise adore. Like a dog that know's its beaten, Mr. Bush (metaphorically speaking) rolled over on his back on Wednesday, bared his belly to the big-dog Democrats and, in ousting the beleaguered Don Rumsfeld, said in essence: I submit. Eviscerate me if you like... but eviscerate him first, please.

I am sickened. This is merely the beginning.

UPDATE (4PM): The Time article notes that "Germany was chosen for the court filing because German law provides 'universal jurisdiction'". Why then couldn't the same logic (and sanction) be applied to the U.S.'s own actions for which Rumsfeld (perhaps with deliberate irony) is being indicted? That is, how is Germany's indictment of Rumsfeld different from our own application of U.S. policies and laws to non-U.S. nationals at (for example), Gitmo?

If every two-bit only recently Nazi-cleansed nation can simply declare that its rules apply universally, the world does not ascend up some progressive stairway to a mystical heaven of "international law" (a concept I've always failed to grasp absent a credible international police force). Rather, it descends into a pit of Babel where morality is whatever anyone declares it to be at the moment--an absolute hell of each nation (then ultimately, each man) possessing a law unto himself that he can apply to anyone and anything outside himself. (The only thing separating the laughable fantasy of six billion jurisdictions from becoming reality is that some of them have more physical force to impose their will on others. The only solution is a universal reference point outside of the world itself, i.e., God's eternal law.)

Say one thing for Rumsfeld: he and other administration officials read the applicable laws (e.g., Geneva Convention), noted that they clearly do not apply to the terrorists we are dealing with (nor did the rights of U.S. residents, much less citizens) and he proceeded with what can be considered extreme restraint. There is nothing that I know of other than our traditions of Judeo-Christian morality (which the Islamists rail against or seek shelter behind depending on which side of a gun they are on) that would have stopped us from doing much worse things to non-uniformed enemy combatants captured on the field of battle.

I have moved from sickened to outraged and sickened.

Waiting for 9-11... Squared

While Republicans spin scenarios about resurgence in '08 (in the wake of Democrats presumably being more beholden to their moonbat leadership than to their expunged truth-seers such as Joe Lieberman), or alternatively some sudden, out-of-nowhere Democratic sense of vision, strategy and responsibility now that they're in power, Melanie Phillips (currently in America) has a different theory: We are going to be hit. Hard.

To vote in a bunch of people who have no stomach at all for fighting for the country’s defence, simply through impatience that the country hasn’t fought for it effectively enough, betrays serious confusion and lack of resolve. And it is precisely that which will now give such heart to our enemies. Have they not said, over and over again, that the west no longer has the determination or staying power to fight for its beliefs?

As I wrote last month in "What Osama Wants" (title stolen from a fine op-ed by seemingly responsible Democrat, Peter Bergen), the Democrats soon to be in power have...

...a diminished sense of history, responsibility, patience and reason [and] think that cutting and running will have no long term repurcussions we can't handle. (How do they know that?)

One need only look at the Arab reaction to understand that the message of Tuesday has been irrevocably sent, heard and digested for what it is: a return to 1979.

"I was really thrilled when I learned that the Democrats won in Congress," said Mohammed Ali, a Cairo auto parts salesman. "They are far better than the Republicans led by Bush, who destroyed everything everywhere. Look at Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon."

Everything. Everywhere. My, my, he must be an awfully evil, omnipotent fellow this president Bush now mustn't he? [sarcasm] Last I checked, the Iraqis were voting, conditions at Abu Ghraib were considerably improved, Palestinians were voting also, and... Lebanon? Did I miss the U.S. invasion or did the MSM just not cover it? Then there's this laugher:

"President Bush is no longer acceptable worldwide," said Suleiman Hadad, a lawmaker in Syria

Well thank you for that, Mr. Hadad. We're really concerned that you feel that way. And what the heck... since we're probably going to be giving a U.S. vote to tens of millions of Mexicans, why not Syrians too? And how about Swedes and Saudis while we're at it? Kumbaya...

Meanwhile in Antarctica...

[scroll down for update/rant]
...where nobody voted yesterday except the data (from CO2 Science):

Wingham, [et al]... [report that] "72% of the Antarctic ice sheet is gaining 27 ± 29 Gt [per] year, a sink of ocean mass sufficient to lower [authors' italics] global sea levels by 0.08 mm [per] year." [emphasis added] This net extraction of water from the global ocean, according to Wingham et al., occurs because "mass gains from accumulating snow, particularly on the Antarctic Peninsula and within East Antarctica, exceed the ice dynamic mass loss from West Antarctica."

In other words, if global warming is happening, its net effects are not nearly so linear (melting ice, rising oceans, submerged cities) as our simplistic notions might anticipate.

H/T: Melanie Phillips, who adds: "The mismatch between what the science actually tells us and what campaigners tell us the science tells us has become so extreme that the climate change lobby itself is starting to crack apart." Mike Hulme, Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and one of those 'cracking' in Phillips' view writes: "Is any amount of climate change catastrophic? Catastrophic for whom, for where, and by when? What index is being used to measure the catastrophe? The language of fear and terror operates as an ever-weakening vehicle for effective communication..."

UPDATE (Thurs. AM): Never mind the evidence. There's a crisis, I tell you! A CRISIS!!

Recent floods attributed to climate change have damaged the 600-year-old ruins of Sukhothai in northern Thailand... and a rising sea level is sending damaging salt into the wetlands of Donana National Park in Spain... the ocean could eventually engulf ancient settlements such as the Old City on Kenya's Lamu island, which dates to the 12th century and has been named a UNESCO World Heritage site.

Let's parse this one piece at a time if only because I really don't want to deal with the implications of Democratic wins on Tuesday.

1) Northern Thailand does not have a seacoast. Floods "attributed to climate change" (note the passive voice, begging the question of who is doing the "attributing") must therefore be from storm activity. And if storm activity is different from the past then it is by definition "climate change" in the new alarmist lexicon. Look, there's a snowflake! Must be global warming! Look at my air conditioning bill! Must be global warming! "Climate change" has become such a sweeping concept that it can and has been used to refer to virtually any weather pattern of any type from any cause that's out of the norm by any amount on any timescale. Look, weather is squirrelly. Change happens. Our perspective on it--even with centuries of direct and indirect (i.e., geological and biological) data and sophisticated instruments--is extremely limited. To insist that we've put it all together and know not only the cause but the perfect solution is hubris in one of its most sweeping, extreme forms.

2) A "rising sea level... sending damaging salt into... wetlands"... Whether sea levels are rising or falling (as the latest Antarctic evidence would suggest), any meaningful (i.e., noticeable) change is thought to occur over many hundreds if not thousands of years. This claim, if true, must therefore be due to wave activity or other local changes, not rising sea levels themselves. Even global warming alarmists will concede this (all but those on the nutty fringe, that is). For an AP article to suggest that sea level is changing over a few years--or at most a few decades--is not only to run in direct contradiction to the evidence from the largest (by several multiples) mass of ice on the planet (again, see above) but to contrive a rate of change that simply isn't contemplated... by any responsible scientist.

3) "eventually engulf ancient settlements... dates to the 12th century" Well, yes. Eventually. And eventually the sun will explode... after it shrinks... and after our great grandchildren are long dead. But when is "eventually", exactly in this case? And what is the preservation of these settlements worth? (Don't even bother saying that they are "priceless" unless a) you also supported invading Afghanistan before 9-11 in order to pre-empt the Taliban from blowing up the Buddhas of Bamiyan and/or b) you are willing to tell some starving, disease-ridden kid on the other side of Kenya that he's going to die because it's more important that we make some island in his country a museum for bored first-world eco-tourists.) And what are the alternatives for preserving these ruins? Not discussed. The only legitimate solution implied is top-down change to the economic and political structure of the entire planet. Hiring some third-world stonemasons to build a seawall isn't an option. (By all accounts, they would have a few centuries to get on it.) No. We must put Al Gore in charge and legislate it all from the UN and Brussels. Do Kenyans get to decide how/whether any of this is worth it? Apparently not.

The Election in Perspective

Sen. Tom Coburn, MD (R, OK) has some wise words:

We do not need to govern from the center as much as we need to govern from conscience. When politicians have the courage to argue their convictions and lose their political lives in an honest battle of ideas the best policies will prevail.

Courage and conviction. Now there's a pair of radical ideas.
H/T: Glenn Reynolds

Tammany Hall is Alive and Well

OpinionJournal takes a closer look at Acorn: "it's up to Acorn to explain why over 1,000 addresses listed on its [voter] registrations don't exist. [in St. Louis alone]"

Congratulations Nancy... Now Let's See You Lead

The W$J's editorial page notes a little problem not mentioned in the Democrats' "New Direction..." document. A simple search of its 31 pages yields not a single instance of the word 'Iran'. Even Dem supporters call that an 'embarassment'. The WSJ editors write:

Iran continues to claim it has a "right" to its uranium-enrichment program. But one clue that the ruling mullahs have something other than peaceful nuclear energy in mind is the huge investment they're making in ballistic-missile technology, which is far from the most efficient means of delivering a non-nuclear explosive payload. Just last week, Iran test-fired dozens of Shahab-2 and Shahab-3 missiles, which have ranges up to about 2,000 kilometers. [emphasis added]

It might be an embarassment for those like Ms. Pelosi--safe in San Francisco. Residents of Israel, India, Egypt and others might characterize it more bluntly. It is dangerously myopic.

So my question to Ms. Pelosi and her fellow majority members in the House (and possibly, perish the thought, the Senate) is this: Having seized a modicum of power, what do you plan to actually do about those forces bent on the destruction of Western Civilization?

UPDATE: Wretchard nails it over at Belmont Club with a comparison to Israel:

There is now a much smaller chance that the terrorist problem can be resolved at a low level of conflict. There is a greater likelihood that it will be allowed by neglect or paralysis to metastize into a canker which will develop into a catastrophic confrontation in five or ten years time.

Young Authoritarians (Posing as 'Progressives')

Great piece in Spiked:

Far from being a site of free thinking and free exchange of ideas, the university seems to have become a laboratory for new forms of censorship and conformism... How have students become these self-righteous ‘young authoritarians’? ...‘it is partly because they have been brought up in today’s victimised, intolerant culture... One of the saddest trends among people who consider themselves liberal or progressive over the past 10 or 15 years has been this increased intolerance of free speech, and this notion that there is some right, some civil right, not to be offended, which trumps somebody else’s right to speak in a way that you find offensive. It is like a disease, an infection, that has taken hold on the left. It is an incredibly regressive notion.’

A little scary as we send my oldest off to college next year. Thankfully, at least one organization is standing resolutely against this trend. The article does raise concerns about where the right as well as the left have sought to quash free speech for their own purposes and with their own justifications, some of which (e.g., Islamofascist incitements to violence) clearly step over a line between feeling violent to their objects (e.g., non-Muslims) and inciting violent acts--whether directly or just slightly less so. It's a thoughtful piece worth reading in full.

This Can't Possibly Be Healthy, Part II

Never mind moving to Canada (the poorly researched, irresponsible, flamboyant rant of some on the left after the 2004 election). Massachusetts has effectively become Canada. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that we've become a liberal enclave within Toronto--itself a liberal corner of a province (Ontario) that's a liberal bastion within liberal EU-wannabe Canada. Reader and friend GED points me to this morning's Boston Globe:

Bay State Democrats in 2007 will enjoy a political monopoly unequalled by either party in any state in the country.

In January, Democrats will hold all six statewide constitutional offices, all 12 seats in Congress, roughly 7-to-1 majorities in both chambers of the state Legislature, and all eight seats on the Governor's Council.

...in the state Senate... the GOP [will fall to] an all-time low of five seats in the 40-member upper chamber... The highest ranking Republican officeholders in the state will be a smattering of district attorneys and county sheriffs.

The party's slide has been so precipitous that Republicans yesterday did not contest 130 of 200 legislative seats, fielded a challenger in only three of 10 congressional districts, and put up fewer candidates for statewide office (three) than the Green-Rainbow Party (four). [emphasis added]

As I noted yesterday in Part I, "it's better... that party control ebb and flow", or as GED frames the argument, "political gridlock... is good for us". Both arguments are fine in the abstract. Neither makes me any happier this morning. Our enemies' resolve is not diminished by such tides.

If anything, our enemies will have been emboldened by yesterday's Democratic wins. That is why democracy is such an explosively powerful and positive idea in the Middle East. Without it, the Islamofascists have far less to worry about than Western leaders (with the possible exception of Ted Kennedy who--if exit polls are to be believed--garnered a full 15% of Massachusetts Republican votes yesterday).

Looking nationally, Michelle Malkin provides some useful perspective:

Unlike Michael Moore in 2004, however, I will not be staying in bed for three days in a catatonic state. I will not need PEST shock therapy. I will not move to Australia... The GOP lost. Conservatism prevailed. [with big wins for various conservative ballot initiatives and defeats for the moonbat ones]

Democrats on Democrats Imitating Nixon

An hour ago Rush Limbaugh read Michael Kinsley's latest WaPo editorial on-air. It didn't take long to understand why. As with the Islamofascists, it doesn't take hyperbolic opponents to make the case--merely the words of the Dems themselves. Kinsley writes:

What would a Democratic House of Representatives under Speaker Nancy Pelosi be like? ...I picked up "A New Direction for America," a 31-page manifesto released to little acclaim by House Democrats in June. [synopsis here; full pdf here]

The paper is eerily subtitled "Six for '06". That's either 1) taunting self-aware parody (doubtful), 2) an inadvertent revelation of something larger, or 3) revelation of the party's utter ignorance of (and disdain for) anything biblical (at least as far as the national party leadership is concerned). Kinsley spends most of the piece lambasting Democrats for various fiscal sleights-of-hand but the real meat comes in the final paragraphs. He writes:

President Bush is right that the Democrats have no "plan for victory." ...For national security in general, the Democrats' plan is so according-to-type that you cringe with embarrassment: It's mostly about new cash benefits for veterans. Regarding Iraq specifically, the Democrats' plan has two parts. First, they want Iraqis to take on "primary responsibility for securing and governing their country." Then they want "responsible redeployment" (great euphemism) of American forces.

Older readers may recognize this formula. It's Vietnamization -- the Nixon-Kissinger plan for extracting us from a previous mistake. But Vietnamization was not a plan for victory. It was a plan for what was called "peace with honor" and is now known as "defeat."

Maybe "A New Direction for America" is just a campaign document -- although it seems to have had no effect at all on the campaign. My fear is that the House Democrats might try to use it as a basis for governing. [emphasis added]

Wouldn't it be ironic if the net result of all the yelling about Iraq being like Vietnam were that the parties had simply reversed roles? In the first case (Vietnam), a Republican administration (Nixon) managed to lose what one Democratic one had started and another expanded (rightly so, and not without provocation)--a war to hold back the tide of the 20th century's biggest force for evil (Communism). In the second case (Iraq), Democrats might yet manage to lose what a Republican administration started and expanded (rightly so, and not without provocation)--a war to turn back the tide of the 21st century's biggest force for evil--Islamofascism.

Living in Fear in a Free-Fire Zone

Saturday evening my wife and I had dinner with friends. One of them transfixed us for nearly half an hour with his tale of recently serving jury duty on a first-degree murder trial. This individual is an absolute straight-talking truth-teller--the last person I would ever imagine would exaggerate for effect. His story curled what little hair I have left.

The case concerned a gangland-style shooting in an infamous Boston ghetto. Our friend recounted learning only after voting to acquit that the suspect had committed murder as a juvenile (inadmissable), that the primary witness (the mother of the suspect's children) had lied under oath in order to protect her children from the suspect--their own father and that several jurors and other witnesses had been intimidated.

The suspect had vowed to kill his own children if the mother testified against him as she had before the grand jury. Several of the suspect's gang buddies stood silently in the courtroom each day staring at the jurors. They followed several of the jurors home, making their menacing presence obvious. (Sadly, the jurors were too intimidated to tell the judge before trial was over.) The visit to the crime scene required no fewer than two dozen police officers--with weapons drawn--to maintain a perimeter around the jurors as they inspected the bullet holes in the siding of the house on the porch where the victim had collapsed and died in a hail of bullets.

And so it was in that context that this article caught my eye this morning.

More fighting goes on in parts of [the] suburban US than Iraq, according to Australian filmmaker George Gittoes who has just finished a documentary set in a Miami "war zone". Gittoes' latest feature, Rampage, contrasts life for a family living in the blue-collar community of Brown Sub, Miami, with ongoing fighting in Iraq. "It is much worse in Miami than it is in Baghdad," Gittoes said in Sydney today. "There is a sense of people with guns, drug dealers lairing at you ... and being there, I knew I was in a war zone."

Which doesn't make Iraq a picnic by any means, but it does illustrate a paradigm discontinuity. Why is it that in the face of entrenched gangland ghetto violence, police officers with guns drawn are seen for the legitimate and necessary peacekeeping, innocent-protecting, rule-of-law-enforcing role they are playing whereas in Iraq the left wishes to paint the same kinds of individuals in the same kinds of roles as complete losers guilty of heinous war crimes? Just asking...

This Can't Possibly Be Healthy

I just got back from voting in a zip code went nearly ten-to-one for John Kerry in 2004. I was presented with only four contested races. In one, a sitting Democrat is opposed only by a Green party candidate. In another, a sitting Democrat is opposed by a a Republican as well as a fringe-left party I'd never heard of before today that thinks John Kerry and Ted Kennedy and Barney Frank have sold out to right-wing fanatics and need to be replaced by more zealous Communists smart enough to call themselves by a different name nowadays. I expect them to do rather well.

Republicans are expected to lose badly in the mere three races they are contesting. In fully nine races for state offices, Democrats are running unopposed. Nine!

And as if that weren't enough, one of the ballot questions here--and in one-third of towns across the state of Massachusetts--fails to recognize that since feudalism ended several centuries ago (and failed to take root on these shores), cities and towns no longer have need of foreign policies. Nonetheless, a loopy pat-ourselves-on-the-back, feel-good question asks:

"Shall the state representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of a resolution calling upon the President and Congress of the United States to end the war in Iraq immediately and bring all United States military forces home from Iraq?"

Which is really kind of silly and self-aggrandizing and wasteful of taxpayers' time and money because the "state representative(s) from this district" are none other than Barney Frank and Teddy Kennedy. The former is running unopposed as usual in a district so insanely gerrymandered that I wouldn't be surprised if I'm the sole conservative left (and if someone blows my cover and neighbor Barney finds out about me I may be gerrymandered out too).

The latter is opposed by a Republican but it's an effort as token and futile for the GOP candidate as is the aforementioned ballot question in a national context. Which I suppose brings some level of cosmic parity to the whole endeavor. Shouting into the wind feels better than doing nothing. Yet when one party becomes so entrenched in power that the other doesn't even bother to contest elections anymore, we are sliding into something other than democracy. Check here and let us bask in the virtuous feeling that you "elected" us while we laugh at your petty, feeble write-in attempts. On a national level, thankfully, that's not true.

Much as Democrats may whine about Republican control and give wild speeches about autocracy, the donkey-party's slide has been largely of their own making (think DNC chair Dean and his sprint off a left-wing cliff). All indications are that nationally, the Dems will contest at a level sufficient to maintain a modicum of health for the republic. I don't agree with where they're headed by any means, but stepping back, it's better for the nation that party control ebb and flow.

In this state, sadly, there is little left of that back-and-forth. The veneer of true democracy is wearing very thin indeed. Governor Mitt Romney may or may not have a chance at the presidency in 2008. (He's an extremely competent and faithfully conservative politician but due to his Mormon faith, he would likely need to form a new GOP coalition not reliant on evangelical Christians--a tall order indeed.) One thing that his departure from Massachusetts politics has done however is to thrust the state squarely back into a 1970s-era socialist hangover from which we'd barely begun to recover. Which is why I'm feeling even more isolated than usual this morning as I contemplate a ballot that barely qualifies as such.

Angels and Demons

No, not the Dan Brown book, but after a weekend of running around in the woods with good friends, an op-ed in the WaPo that seems particularly insightful and relevant:

I resumed my run but felt strangely different. For one thing, I could not, for the life of me, remember what I was previously distressed about. Whatever it was, it obviously wasn't very important anymore. I also had an overwhelming feeling that my chance meeting with the little girl was anything but chance: It felt very purposeful somehow. I asked myself: What is the meaning of this perplexing incident?

In the hours of reflection that followed, I came to this conclusion: At a moment when I least expected it (and most needed it), the transcendent broke through in the form of a little girl to call me out of myself and to reveal the kinship of all people. All of us are, after all, bits of ancient stardust with consciousness and free will.

The morning's events had also given me a fresh perspective on a Bible verse I learned in my youth: "Be not forgetful to entertain strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares." [link added] To me, that little girl was an angel.

And so it was that on a day that began in anxiety and self-centeredness, a mind-set that normally precludes the rest of the day from being anything but a bummer, my usually uneventful morning run became the stuff of reminiscences.

H/T: KMaru's mom

Middle East Shell Game: Whither the WMD?

[Related breaking news update at bottom... scroll down]
I find it demoralizing how--despite knowing better--the administration has bowed to specious MSM reporting on Iraqi WMD. Yes, it's a story that's passed. Regardless of who 'won' that debate, we must look forward. But truth matters. It irks me that conventional wisdom and truth are so at odds in this case. One cannot build a rational forward-looking policy, much less an international consensus on what amounts to a great big lie.

As I reported a year ago, ample volumes of WMD were found in Iraq after 3/03, including:

• 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium
• 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons
• Roadside bomb loaded with sarin gas
• 1,000 radioactive materials--ideal for radioactive dirty bombs
• 17 chemical warheads--some containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin

And as I reported in March, there is solid evidence that Iraqi WMD were moved to Syria with Russia's assistance. That's just one of many problems with a never-ending UN process of talkie-talk that tells the enemy, in effect:

we're going to bust the door down... really... any day now... we're coming... just watch us... here we come... are you ready... wait a minute... hang on... OK we really mean it this time... yes sir, we're a comin'... comin' to getcha... after we pass another resolution... any day now... we mean it... OK, here we go... you ready?

...by which point, as any DEA or ATF or FBI agent knows, the subject has long ago flushed the contraband down the toilet. It's one reason why SWAT teams use surprise raids, battering rams and flash grenades. But I digress.

I just got around to reading a post Jim Gilbert put up ten days ago on yet more time spent with former Iraqi Air Force General Georges Sada--a fascinating man I've blogged about before.

Gilbert's most recent post takes its time coming round to Sada, but when he does it's the kind of stuff that forces a moment of reckoning. One can either believe Sada--a close-in, firsthand Tikriti dialect-speaking observer and trusted confidante of Saddam Hussein himself--or one can believe CNN and the MSM reporting from their hotel rooms in Baghdad. One cannot believe both. Gilbert writes of a recent gathering he attended (emphasis added):

...the crowd sat stunned as General Sada explained in detail how Saddam moved tons of WMDs out of Iraq into Syria... [CNN] had General Sada translate 20 hours of "Saddam tapes," wherein the erstwhile dictator discusses these matters openly (in Tikriti dialect). But the network's loathing of George Bush caused them to completely spike the story... CNN had the exclusive, and their treasonous spirits overruled true patriotism.

Nyah, nyah, I can't hear you! No WMD! Bush lied, people died...
...and there's a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

UPDATE (10:50PM, Thurs.): By complete coincidence (I hadn't looked at Gilbert's blog in weeks), just as I was writing this, Drudge must have been in the process of posting this breaking NYT (Friday edition) material providing a motivation for the administration electing not to play the cards it knew it had with regards to the truth about WMD:

Last March, the federal government set up a Web site to make public a vast archive of Iraqi documents captured during the war. The Bush administration did so under pressure from Congressional Republicans who said they hoped to “leverage the Internet” to find new evidence of the prewar dangers posed by Saddam Hussein.

But in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that weapons experts say are a danger themselves: detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb.

Last night, the government shut down the Web site after The New York Times asked about complaints from weapons experts and arms-control officials.

So if I'm following the bouncing ball properly, the administration is at fault for going to war against a regime that posed no threat and had no WMD... except that the mere availability of information once possessed by that same 'benign' regime we should have left in place is so dangerous that it cannot be published. Therefore the administration is at fault for revealing the entirety of firsthand evidence that it was right all along. How's that again? This at least puts a new spin on accusations of censorship and a lack of openness!

Ignorant Economic Reporting

Yet one more ridiculous item in the full-court MSM press (pun intended) to find bad economic news with which to criticize the president.

Headline: "Productivity Slows to a Standstill"

Text: "The Labor Department reported Thursday that productivity, the amount of output per hour of work, showed no change in the July-September quarter..." [emphasis added]

"Standstill" would refer to places like North Korea.

They Won't Have William F. Buckley to Kick Around Anymore

Because he's just given his last speech on public affairs. Money quote: "The Democrats are dominated by greedy, hypocritical thought."

When All You've Got is a Hammer...

...the world looks like one big nail. Or so the saying goes.

And so it is with the global warming monomaniacs as Bjorn Lomborg points out in today's OJ:

...hurricane damage is increasing predominantly because there are more people with more goods to be damaged, settling in ever more risky habitats. Even if global warming does significantly increase the power of hurricanes, it is estimated that 95% to 98% of the increased damage will be due to demographics... simple initiatives like bracing and securing roof trusses and walls can cheaply reduce damage by more than 80%; yet [the] policy recommendations [of the recent 700-page Nicholas Stern, UK government report] on expensive carbon reductions promise to cut the damages by 1% to 2% at best. That is a bad deal.

The review tells us that we should make significant cuts in carbon emissions to stabilize the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide at 550 ppm (parts per million)... [yet] the stabilization policy would reduce the [predicted] rise in temperature [in 2100] from 2.53 degrees Celsius to just 2.42 degrees Celsius. One can understand the reluctance of the Stern review to advertise such a puny effect.

The piece is full of numbers, logically diced and thoroughly argued but nonetheless a little dry even for someone like me who loves digging into this stuff. It's the kind of non-story the media hates to report fully, much less follow consistently and honestly. Sound bytes just don't do it justice--and this is the highly condensed summary of just one massive report.

Given everything else going on in the world, one can understand the public impulse to say: just send me the bill and let someone take care of it... whether the 'it' actually exists or not. And as the amazingly gifted Mark Steyn noted on a radio show I was listening to yesterday, there are two big "its" people are worried about these days and very few worried about both. As Steyn put it: In 20 years we'll be asked: what were you worried about in 2006--global warming or the threat of Islamofascism? And one of us will be wrong.

Taking the initiative to hire a contractor to add roof trusses to one's hurricane zone house is the kind of thing that neither makes headlines nor captures the public imagination for sweeping, highly visible solutions. Like micro-loans in the third world (often steamrollered by blithely optimistic macro-economic interventions, e.g., by the IMF), such distributed, cost-effective, privately organized work to protect one's own property usually goes unnoticed. It is not the kind of thing for which one can get motivated to pen placards and stand in the rain at WTO rallies. Similarly in Iraq and Afghanistan: while car bombings make the headlines, it is the one-on-one interactions of ordinary Iraqis and Afghanis with our impressive and intelligent soldiers (thank you John Kerry) that probably make the biggest difference in the long run. But I digress.

Another OJ piece this morning sets the Lomborg op-ed in context:

Two scientific events of note occurred this week, but only one got any media coverage. Therein lies a story about modern politics and scientific priorities.

The report that received the headlines was Monday's 700-page jeremiad out of London on fighting climate change. Commissioned by the British government and overseen by former World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern, the report made the intentionally shocking prediction that global warming could eliminate from 5% to 20% of world economic output "forever." Meanwhile, doing the supposedly virtuous thing and trying to forestall this catastrophe would cost merely an estimated 1% of world GDP. Thus we must act urgently and with new taxes and policies that go well beyond anything in the failed Kyoto Protocol.

The other event was a meeting at the United Nations organized by economist Bjørn Lomborg's Copenhagen Consensus Center. Ambassadors from 24 countries -- including Australia, China, India and the U.S.--mulled which problems to address if the world suddenly found an extra $50 billion lying around. Mr. Lomborg's point is that, in a world with scarce resources, you need priorities. The consensus was that communicable diseases, sanitation and water, malnutrition and hunger, and education were all higher priorities than climate change. [emphasis added]

Sadly, such climate change debates and crackpot remedies for imagined problems will continue to compete--and compete preferentially--for the world's limited attention and resources over more mundane but real, immediate and important problems (i.e., in lives, suffering and lost human potential) best solved by cheap, distributed, low-glamour solutions that don't sell newspapers or fit with notions of social virtue through socialism.

[Background context: Bjorn Lomborg is well-informed perennial thorn in the side of the conventional (i.e., world-government-oriented) environmental community.]

Future History Imagined

Stolen Thunder has laid out a spectacularly frightening series of developments that could evolve out of a Democratic victory next Tuesday. Some may be over-the-top but I ask anyone to tell me how they all are. Any one by itself would be frightening enough. H/T: Anchoress

Islamabad, Monday July 23 2007 (AP) – In a stunning move, the government of Pakistan has cut relations with the United States, opened talks with Iran regarding regional issues, and opened a consulate for Al Qaeda. Officials for President Musharraf explained, “we are merely adjusting to the reality of new conditions.”

Washington DC, Monday, July 27 2007 (AP) – The Fairness Doctrine is back, and bigger than ever. Both chambers of Congress passed a measure which will not only require radio stations and cable television networks to provide “equal time and resources” to contrasting points of view, but for the first time also requires that political opinion websites, often called political “blogs”, be registered their financing reported, and agree to abide by “fair and reasonable” standards...

The Mind of John Kerry--Second-Rate Clinton Clone

It should be obvious even to a child watching John Kerry and Bill Clinton on television that they bear only a passing resemblance. In physical appearance, style, mannerisms and tone they could not be more different (within the range of middle aged white men who've made it to a prominent place on the national political stage, that is). To the adult observer of political abstractions, their similarities seem limited to party affiliation and (relative) political success.

Yet in Mr. Kerry's widely reported "...stuck in Iraq" gaffe currently chumming the political waters, I sense a deep, almost clone-like sympatico between the two men. It goes well beyond their generational sensiblities (though those help explain a great deal). They share a philosophy of cynical political triangulation and bitter, responsibility-ducking, power-hungry narcissism poles apart from the president. Hold that thought...

One thing remarkable about the Kerry quote is not that he said it, but that he doesn't say things just like it all the time. As an animalistic, fallen human race we kill, steal, rape, slander, lash out in anger and commit every manner of outwardly observable sin ever conceived. What's remarkable though, is that we manage--much of the time, through social and divine grace--to avoid making our vast internal rivers of sinful, offensive, outrageous thoughts more apparent to others. Tourette's Syndrome is fascinating because it holds a mirror to something most of us manage to keep hidden. But for my inhibitions, there go I... and there go all of us, if we're honest.

And so it is that John Kerry's quote is utterly unremarkable in his world, and in a little blue state that lets murderers out on "furlough", overlooks U.S. Senators committing negligent homicide and prides itself on any number of other patently nutty ideas. John Kerry's quote is not a 'joke' or 'out of context' or 'misunderstood'. It is what he truly believes. It's a reflection of a man doing a good job representing the majority of his constituents. Scary as it sounds, people up here really do think much as he does. It is not at all an aberration or distortion that he and Teddy K and Barney Frank get re-elected... over and over and over. Massachusetts is truly different and, lest anyone think I'm losing it here, not in a good way.

I've watched the video at least half a dozen times. It was not intended as a joke. It may not even have been intended at all. It just came out--an irresistible Tourette's moment of candor.

Whether it was directed at the president or at young people and prospective soldiers in general is immaterial. I can only conclude that the ambiguity was intentional even if the quote was spontaneous. (It briefly crossed my mind that it might be a clever troll but that seems much too sophisticated, risky and bizarre to be true.) In the end, it doesn't really matter. The two targets (President Bush, soldiers and young people in general) are inseparable.

John Kerry, it seems, sees no difference between a 'stupid' president 'stuck' in Iraq and the rest of us dumb enough to elect him and respect his decisions as duly elected judgment-call-maker on really tough questions of national strategy and (more formally and specifically) Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States of America. Like it or not, the President leads a nation trying, really trying (arguably more than any other nation on earth at the moment) to be a shining light on the hill... a force for good and hope and truth in the world... except that we're the exact antithesis of that in John Kerry's sad, backwards world.

No, we don't always succeed in our national aspirations, but career critics like Kerry are like a cheap Greek chorus--always singing of doom but (thankfully) never playing the role of the hero--tragic or otherwise. And it is the fact that John Kerry is not running the show--and that he has only himself to blame for that failure--that I'm guessing makes him bitter and angry and maybe just a little bit less cautious than prudence would dictate in saying in sarcastic, off-hand fashion what's really on his mind: The rest of you are just unbelievably stupid.

Kerry's flailing attempt at defense is even more revealing. Like Clinton (but less adeptly) his primary political instinct is triangulation: float a trial balloon, back-pedal if it gets criticized beyond a certain threshold and obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate. Don't draw any more attention than is necessary to the words or meaning of what was actually said (much less take responsibility for it). Instead, divert attention to the allegedly slanderous behavior, corrupt character and malign motives of your critics themselves. (Rush Limbaugh! Booga, booga!)

It is the politics of cowardice and knee-jerk personal slander. It is the politics of unrooted, principle-free, adulation-seeking meandering, e.g., "I was for the war before I was against it."

Ultimately, this combination of behaviors amounts to omnidirectional contempt, rooted in self-loathing because it is rooted in nothing else enduring or eternal. It is the politics of politics itself, the only aim of which is power. Not power for any particular purpose but power for the purpose of preserving one's self-image as someone smarter than the rest of us.

After venting my anger and incredulity at Senator Kerry's offense, what I'm left with is a sense much like that I have for Bill Clinton: pity for a man of such obvious intellectual and charismatic gifts who, in the waning chapters of his life (even if one imagines that botox or sex with a young intern or new wife will prolong it) finds himself standing for nothing other than whatever he can coax those around him into thinking about him for the moment.