Written by: Dave

Listening to your debates on free trade, it strikes me that regardless of who is theoretically correct, it's all kind of irrelevent now. The world economy, including America's, is built on and now totally dependent on free trade. I know Answerman hates analogies, and I also know this is an oversimplification, but if you looked at the world as a big manufacturing company, the U.S. would be its Headquarters and the IT department while countries like South Korea would be the industrial plants.

So let's say we reverted to protectionism. What good are a headquarters and IT department if you don't have anyone making anything? And how well would the disparate plants function without a headquarters?

My point is that our economy and the world economy are completely tied to free trade. Take away free trade, or American hegemony for that matter, and it will all go down the tube in a very unpleasant fashion.


Of course, that is what I think is going to happen. Which is why I think we are doomed, and why I think Answerman might be theoretically correct that we should have stuck with protectionism rather than make ourselves this dependent on the rest of the world. But it's too late now.

Hopefully I will get a chance to elaborate on all this later.

P.S. - I know this isn't exactly what you were arguing about, but I think it's the essential issue at this point.

Written by: Answerman

Beck and Speculator, do you think we should allow Mexican truckers, with their crappy driving skills and pollution (oral credit to Roach), to trapse around our interstate roadways?

Written by: Answerman

I've been holding this one in my quiver for some time, but now seems like the appropriate time to let it fly.

Modern governments have tended to finance themselves primarily by one of two means -- tariffs and taxes. Most recently, because governments have gotten so big in size, taxes has specifically meant income taxes. Prior to the income tax in the United States, when other types of taxes were rather low and inconsequential, the American government financed itself through the tariff. When we became rabid free traders, we were forced to turn to the income tax. It is no coincidence that the platform of early-century Progressives such as Wilson called for repeal of the tariff and amendment of the Constitution to permit an income tax. We forget the broader context of the old free trade debate these days; the debate was about HOW best to finance the government.

Now, I know that Beck and Speculator believe in free trade and incredibly low taxes. And that's just fantastic. But in case you haven't noticed, no one in power, oh, anywhere, has every advocated such a combination, much less actually achieved it. It has never happened, certainly not in a country of this size with a government of this size. Reduce the size of government, you say? Again, fantastic. Again, has never come close to happening. Anywhere. Ever.

Given this reality, an interesting economic question arises -- which would have hurt economic growth more, the old tariff at whatever rate we could reasonably expect it to have been set at over the years, or the income tax at the rate it has averaged over the years? I don't know the answer to this question, but I suspect neither does Beck or Speculator. I recognize it is a complicated one in light of indirect effects of both policies, etc. But if it has no clear answer, or if we don't know the answer, then we can't even say that free trade, AS IT EXISTS IN THE REAL WORLD, provides for greater economic growth, can we?

Again, political context and reality can really fuck up the musings of Adam Smith.

Written by: Speculator

Answerman, I would counter that the current international environment is defined by a heretofore unseen phenomenon: a uni-polar dynamic. You detail that a great power is defined by a country that can affect the international scene via military and political power. We will all agree that one guarantees the other; France has arrived at political impotence not only because of its espousal of ideas that achieve incongruousness with common sense, but because its navy operates with a singular aircraft carrier, with an almost 40-year heritage, that spends 20 days in dry-dock for every day of ocean patrol.

Simply put, I completely disagree with the aggregate you labeled "great powers". There is little historical precedence, and I would argue none, for the dominance that the United States currently enjoys, both politically and militarily. Some say Rome. I say: Rome couldn't affect imperialistic plans across the globe in 36 hours with two men, a plane, and a refuel mechanism. Officials within the skeleton that remains the Russian military were in utter shock when they witnessed our ordinance-party last March. Yes Slakov - we can launch a single aircraft, which will go arguably wholly undetected from the middle of our land to your doorstep, non-stop, and deliver a bomb within inches of its intended target.

This creates a disparity in military ability that the world has never before seen. There is no other power in the world today that can come within, lets try to quantify this, lets say 60 cents, of what we can, were we to find cause, unleash.

There is only one great power.

Written by: Beck

First of all, you're absolutely wrong when you say that no nation has ever risen to a great power while pursuing a policy of free trade. The "Asian Tigers" of Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Korea all had very open trade policies. While you could say that they don't qualify as "great powers," Korea, at least, is the 11th largest economy in the world. Furthermore, the other three are all vastly more powerful economically than most nations relative to their size and population. And if you mean to stick to a much stricter definition of "great powers" to mean only such nations as those who are currently permanent UN Security Council members, my response is that the sample size is unfortunately too small to draw really meaningful conclusions about how things would have been with less protectionism.

The reason I say that America could have turned out similarly without early industrial protectionism is because the real advantage of America has always been a hard working, well educated, and relatively crime free population. So while we might have been more agrarian for a while, any time something in the world took off as the latest hot industry, Americans would have been entering those same industries. It's in our blood.

Written by: Answerman

Beck says it's inconclusive whether free trade helps or harms developing nations. But does he mean economically, or politically? I accept that free trade helps developing nations as a matter of economic growth.

How can one not assume that the United States' comparative advantage would have developed differently in some key areas? There were obviously HUGE distortions caused by protection, and it seems reasonable to assume that the things we're "good at" today are the results of those distortions. This does not seem particularly controversial to me. My guess (as I've said, I obviously haven't researched these issues, though I would like to find a book addressing this particular theme) is that the broader success of free trade (as it impacts relative political power, and not just economic growth) is strongly correlated to a country's great-power status as of the time it begins trading freely as a policy. For those of us (including Beck) who care about more than the economic implications of industrial policy, this could be a critical corollary to free trade theory.

Can anyone point to ONE example in history of a country developing from a non-great power into a great power while pursuing anything close to free trade as an industrial policy? Hasn't happened. Ever. Not with us, not with Britain, not with China now. When I make assumptions, I try to make them conform to the past, rather than to some book a Scotsman wrote in the 1700s, in order to increase the likelihood of their accuracy.

Written by: Beck

When the 17 year cicadas emerge on the East coast this year, your dogs and cats will voluntarily be eating them.

The insects are protein-rich but their hard outer shells can cause vomiting and constipation in cats and dogs, said Randall Lockwood, vice president for the Humane Society of the United States.

"Imagine a yard full of chicken nuggets, that's sort of what it's going to be like" for dogs and cats, Lockwood said Tuesday.

You read that right, cicada = chicken nugget. Money quote for you:

The approximately 11/2-inch-long bugs "combine all the stuff that particularly dogs like to chase," Lockwood said. "They're kind of flying pet toys: They are loud, slow-moving, often low-flying."

Written by: Beck

Checking my site stats, I can't help but notice visitors coming from a whole host of energy companies. Can't possibly imagine how that could have happened. But anyway, hellos to PSEG, CPS, Coral, Conoco, Choice Energy, and Duke. If your particular company wasn't listed, it's because the domain name is only showing up as an IP address.

Written by: Beck

How on earth? Maybe it's just because I really hate taxes. And I'm not saying it shouldn't be a priority for public policy, it's just that it's a priority about which I personally am not especially interested.

Written by: Answerman

How on earth can you not care (I don't mean emotionally, I mean as a matter of political policy) about the fact that our government sanctions the murder of millions of unborn babies, but get all worked up if our government charges people five bucks to look at strippers?

Written by: Answerman

What the hell is up with neocons and their love affair with JFK? Ooooh, Kennedy cut taxes and didn't surrender to the Soviets; there's a Democrat we can fall in love with!

The guy was a drugged up, irresponsible, lying louse. No better than Clinton, he just didn't get caught, was dumber, and his personal life probably compromised his presidency more. Kennedy had a crappy Vietnam policy, a crappy so-called "civil rights" policy, and a bunch of crappy nancy-boy intellectuals running the government according to their asinine little utopian schemes dreamed up in a university somewhere. Yeah, definitely someone a conservative could admire.

Written by: Answerman

As I think back and match in my mind various presidents with their contemporanaous English monarchs, it really is unclear which system is producing better leaders. I mean, Elizabeth II easily beats Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Clinton. She gets beaten by Reagan and this Bush, and barely by the first Bush. And I'd take Edward VIII and George VI over Hoover, FDR, and Truman any day. George V clearly had a leg up on Wilson.

Written by: Answerman

Yesterday I asked people to comment on Kerry vs. Buchanan. Today I'm doing one better. But allow me to recap first.

Several weeks ago I posted in response to a comment a flip observation along the lines that I didn't think the United States could do any worse under a king or queen than it's doing right now with hundreds of millions of idiots getting to select a president every four years. The more I think about my observation, the more comfortable I am thinking it's true.

So along those lines I ask all of you the following question -- If you had a choice between John Kerry being elected president of this country for the next four years, or Queen Elizabeth II (presumably the "proper" heir to any American throne) running the show between next January and her death, which option would you choose?

In all honesty, I'd go with the latter, because I think QE2 has bigger balls than Kerry.

Written by: Answerman

Rich Lowry on National Review Online is always carping about the problem he has with the term "exit strategy." That's because Rich Lowry is a fairy.

Lowry seems to think that an intervention premised on a particular plan for an exit is a misguided intervention, because the important part of the strategy should be accomplishing the goals of the intervention, rather than simply getting out. Well, I suppose that's true as far as it goes, but it has nothing to do with whether it's prudent to have mapped out a plan for ending the intervention based on certain conditions. Without an exit strategy, there's no strategy at all, because there's no set of defined goals and conditions that can be achieved and therefore no longer necessitate the presence of the American military in a particular country. Without an exit strategy, the intervention becomes bureaucratized and all about process, rather than about achieving specific things that caused the United States to intervene in the first place.

But that's what Lowry and his fellow neocons want. They want to premise an intervention on a defined set of goals and interests they can successfully sell to other conservatives and the American public at large. But then they want to stick around. Forever. Presumably slapping themselves silly and singing songs about Abraham Lincoln while hordes of barbarian morons participate in Kabuki-theater-like "elections" every couple of months. Isn't this basically what's going on in Bosnia and Kosovo right now? I have to admit I long ago lost interest in the daily goings-on in the Balkans, but I know two things for sure -- (1) we aren't leaving anytime soon, and (2) we aren't making things better over there. Talk about failed states.

Anyway, my point is that the neocons like intervening for intervening's sake, and they like sticking around to engage in their quixotic attempts to find the Somali John Adams and print ballots for the Mogadishu School Board. It's idiocy on a grand scale. But it's important because (1) these guys have a pretty big say in the Bush administration, and (2) it's instructive of the true differences between a conservative supporter of the Iraq war and a neocon. We all think it made sense to fight the war, but our perspectives on what to do now differ tremendously.

I want a smart and flexible exit strategy. Rich Lowry wants to participate in a junior high civics project.

Written by: Beck

Do you remember how during the 2000 presidential campaign, Gore made Bush's environmental record a major issue? Their one bit of irrefutable evidence that Bush was the environmental anti-Christ: during Bush's term as Gov. of TX, Houston moved into first place in the American city air-pollution rankings. Am I the only one who noticed you haven't been hearing any of that this year? Granted, the fact that it was during Bush's governorship makes it largely irrelevant, but you'd still expect to see jackasses like Al Franken to bring it up as a dig every day or two. Instead they just bitch and moan about things most Americans either don't care about, or actually think is a good thing (like drilling for oil in the Alaskan wilderness). I think I have an idea why.

By pure chance, I stumbled on this article at CNN this morning. It would seem California in general and L.A. in particular has retaken the lead in the pollution territory. I love that the nation's biggest hotbed of lefty looney enviro-Nazis is also the most polluted place in the nation.

For the worst smog category, Houston now comes in 5th. 1st through 4th are all taken by CA cities, with L.A. leading the way. Dallas-Fort Worth gets 10th place, with the only other non CA or TX city being Knoxville, TN in 9th place. For the Most Particle Pollution category, L.A. retains its grip on first place, with cities in CA taking up fully half of the top 10. Houston? Not even in the top ten. It dropped completely out of the rankings. Ditto for Dallas.

So to anyone reading who's inclined to sympathize with the fruits, nuts, and flakes in that giant cereal bowl California, I would simply invite you to suck on a car's tail pipe. Except that would be redundant.

Written by: Beck

Alert reader Phil pointed me to a story today that I feel the need to shine some light on (Jonah Goldberg has already blogged on this here, here, and here). The long and the short of it is that a student from UMass (an institution for which I bear great hatred) wrote an op-ed in some liberal rag saying that dead war hero Pat Tillman was an idiot.

Gonzalez writes that Tillman was a "Rambo" who probably acted out of "nationalist patriotic fantasies." In his own neighborhood in Puerto Rico, according to Gonzalez, Tillman would not have been considered a hero, but a "pendejo," or idiot.

Phil, in his email, put it best I believe:

My Spanish may be a little rusty, however I'm pretty sure the definition of a pendejo is a person who thinks they can infer a person's character from a couple of pictures on CNN and a 20 year old B movie. Of course, it is true the only way to truly show your patriotism in a just manner is to strap a flag to the hood of your Datsun as you drive around giving people the finger as you point to your Jesus fish.

I don't really get that last part, but it seems really angry, so it's right up my alley. The worst bit is that they've defended their decision to publish such inane drivel on First Amendment grounds. You always know that any time a member of the press starts shouting about their rights, it's a raging fucktard trying to defend a bit of bad journalism. The First Amendment guarantees the right to a free press. No one is saying that the Daily Collegian shouldn't be allowed to publish moronic tripe, people are saying that the Daily Collegian should get their heads out of their asses and not publish moronic tripe in the first place. You're called editors for a reason.

Update: Jeff G has a few words for Mr. Gonzalez.

Written by: Dave

When I was in Iraq, I saw piles of electronic gear being sold on the streets of Baghdad. One of the biggest selling items seemed to be satellite dishes. The people I talked to all seemed to think this was a good thing . I wondered though, how it could be a good thing when these dishes would all pick up Al Jazeera. The last thing we needed was for Al Jazeera and other Arab media to start shaping Iraqi public opinion.

A telling sign that this is indeed happening is the latest CNN opinion poll in the country. On an individual level, 51% say their families are better off than before the war, while 25% say they are worse off. But when asked whether the country as a whole is better off, the split is 42% to 39%. This dramatic disparity suggests that Iraqis' perceptions are being influenced by something other than their own personal experiences, and I am afraid Al Jazeera is that something.

I don't have time to comment too much more on this, but to sum it up, if I am right, this is a huge fucking problem.

Written by: Answerman

Given the step I've finally taken in renouncing my identity as a Republican, I have been thinking about the associational options for disillusioned conservatives such as myself. Third parties are unrealistic barring some sort of cataclysm so random that it's not worth planning for. Those conservatives who dream of some "true" conservative party are being silly and fanciful, and I have no time for them.

But what does that leave? Republicans, Democrats, and independence? Republican usefulness to the conservative movement has long since peaked, and independence is very unsatisfying, because an independent is one who is part of no movement whatsoever. Democrats? I could never be one myself. Even if that party evolved in the next generation or so (against all reasonable projections of current trends, I hasten to add) into something entirely different and less loathsome that its current manifestation, I could never join up. Quite simply, too much hatred for the Democrat Party has shot through my veins for so long that I know the mere word "Democrat," whatever its substantive connotation, will always make me (1) recoil in horror and contempt and (2) want to kill someone.

But I must say that I think it imperative for conservatives to regain a say, however small and however long it takes, in Democrat Party politics. Until the late 1980s, there were flourishing conservative movements (different in outlook and type, for sure) in both political parties. But in the last decade plus, the Loony Left took full control of the Democrat Party and booted conservative Democrats like Zell Miller into either the Republican Party or the political wilderness (where their voices, like those of independents of all stripes, are quite meaningless in any long-term, philosophical sense). While most of you are likely to agree that this purge has been harmful to Democrats and helpful to Republicans, what it has most emphatically NOT been is helpful to conservatives.

Conservatism cannot be too closely linked to a single party, because then it becomes more bureaucratic in nature and less, well, conservative. Witness conservatism under the Republican big tent today as compare to 20 or 25 years ago. Conservatism is a state of mind and a political approach rather than a political ideology. Except in rare political contexts (the current context may be one of these), conservatism cannot exist as a political program. It's political power, then, comes from its ability as a movement to influence MULTIPLE political institutions, so that in the up-and-down nature of partisan politics, while Democrats may win one year and Republicans the next, conservatism can thrive continuously. The current situation, where almost any victory in any political race anywhere in the country by any member of one of just two major political parties spells a marginal defeat for the conservative cause, is untenable. Conservatism cannot thrive in such an environment. That's why, just as the Democrats need conservatives for their political well-being, conservatives need to have some of their own be Democrats for their philosophical well-being.

Look at the social rather than the political context, and you'll see how uncontroversial a premise the one I just outlined should be. No one believes that conservatism can thrive as a social force by channeling itself through one type of institution, such as the church. Rather, there must be conservatives in the church, in academia, and in all sorts of civic institutions in order for a healthy conservatism to have its say in our social lives and interactions. In my view, the same holds true in politics. If conservatives merely congregate in the Republican Party and hope to win every race on the ballot, they will fail. If conservatives can find their voice in the Democrat Party as well (and as they have throughout most of that party's history), they will have the opportunity to flourish.

For myself, I am consigned by my personal circumstances and prejudices to the political wilderness.

Written by: Answerman

I just remembered one question I wanted to discuss several weeks ago. I guess we never got around to it.

Beck, would you have supported the Alexander Hamilton/Henry Clay industrial policy of heavy protectionism, which the United States employed throughout most of the nineteenth century before it became a great power?

Written by: Answerman

"Always vote for Republicans, but always make sure they know you hate them."

Written by: Answerman

I am curious about Captain Dave's, Speculator's, Beck's, and our readers' opinions on the following question:

If forced to vote either for John Kerry or Pat Buchanan for president this fall, for whom would you vote?

HINT: There is a correct answer to this question.

Written by: Answerman

I would like today to mark my declaration of independence from the Republican Party. I have been considering this move for some time, but the White House and establishment conservative supported victory of evil incumbent Senator Arlen Specter over true conservative Representative Pat Toomey in yesterday's Pennsylvania Republican senatorial primary put me over the edge. This is not a party I want in any way to be associated with anymore. I will not give it money. I will not use its name. I will not run for office. And I will rarely say nice things about it. The Republican Party is a party of power-hungry hacks, opportunists, corporate lobbyists, effete suburban hypocrites, nut-ball Protestant fundamentalists, and most importantly, cowards. It wants to flood the America I love with hordes of legal and illegal aliens hostile to my values and way of life. It wants to brand as racist and evil anyone who speaks forthrightly about loving and defending those values and way of life. Oh sure, it waxes poetic about ITS view of American values and the American way of life, but that is largely a false view based on inside-the-beltway propositional notions of fairness and colorblindness and the like. The Republican Party long ago failed in its most important task -- the defense of American culture from those within this country who wish to change or destroy it. Now, the Republican Party fails even to make superficial gestures in this regard.

Pennsylvania Republicans had the choice yesterday between a liberal abortionist tax and spend liberal with a foul personality, and a true conservative legislator. Exit polls show that left alone, they would have chosen the latter as their candidate for the United States Senate. But the White House and alleged "conservative" Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum campaigned heavily for Specter, and he won a narrow victory. Well, the White House, Republican senators, and anyone still willing to march in an army behind these types of people can go to hell. They may be able to rationalize when Chairman Specter of the Senate Judiciary Committee has a large role in determining who the next three Supreme Court justices are, but I refuse to do so. The Republican Party has betrayed the conservative movement one too many times for me, and I'm through with it. Let the neocons and the so-called "moderates" have the whole rotten institution and duke it out with each other; I'm too disgusted to take part anymore.

Written by: Beck

It occurred to me, upon reading this article, that my several posts about the great strides Libya is making towards rejoining the commonwealth of nations could be misconstrued as somehow pro-Gadhafi. That would be flat out wrong. My positive comments about Libya are intended to highlight the positive yield from the War on Terror. The correct inference from this is that I think Gadhafi is little better than a terrorist. So while the man definitely is making progress, he's still a complete fuckwad. Some highlights from his recent trip to Europe from the Washington Times:

Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, once considered one of the world's most dangerous men, came to Europe for the first time in 15 years Tuesday, offering business deals and an olive branch - along with a veiled threat to return to the "days of explosive belts" if provoked by "evil" from the West.

That's the long and the short of it. Now for the weird:

The one-time pariah swept through the headquarters of the European Union like a movie star in brown Bedouin robes, flanked by female bodyguards in blue camouflage.

Naturally, only Europeans could treat Gadhafi like a movie star (Americans reserve such treatment for Castro). And all-female body guards? That's just bizarre in too many ways to count.

After three hours of talks, [European Commission President "Ray" Romano] Prodi declared himself "very happy" about the visit, which he said he worked five years to arrange.

Five years? Well haven't we been a busy little bee?

"It goes without saying this is a very historic meeting," Gadhafi began, speaking through a translator as three of his female bodyguards stood at attention behind him.

There are those female body guards again. There simply MUST be some sort of interesting story behind this that I just haven't heard yet.

"I hope we shall not be prompted or obliged by any evil to go back or look backward," he said.

"Hopefully nothing would force us to go back to the days when we use our cars and explosive belts, to put explosive belts around ourselves or on our women so we will not be searched and harassed in our bedrooms and in our homes as is happening in Iraq and Palestine.

"The victims are women and children, the battlefield in the kitchen and the bedroom. We don't want to be forced to go back to the days when we had do that," he said.

Ah yes, there's that North African fuckwad we know from ever so long ago. We were wondering what you'd done with the real Gadhafi. Nice to see they still let him out of his cage now and again.

Link credit to Ace-o-Spades.

Written by: Beck

Ever imagine what it would be like if Santa Claus were replaced by a guy who looked like an Italian 70's porn star?

Of course you have.

Written by: Beck

I'm not sure just how common or how hard it is to get beta accounts for the testing of Google's vaunted new free email called "Gmail." It may be damn near anyone can get them. Regardless, I now have one. And it's neato.

First, the bits everyone knows. It offers up to 1gb of storage, and will send/receive attachments up to 10mb in size. Furthermore, Google scans all the emails in your account and uses the data gleaned from that for a few tastefully discreet targeted ads Google is so rightly famous for. The 1gb of storage space has the computer wonks/geeks/illuminati drooling in anticipation. The targeted ads have privacy wonks/geeks/activists up in arms. Inasmuch as I fit in the former category, I ever so hope those in the second category fail. It isn't that I don't regard privacy as being an essential right--I do. It's that I don't think Google's scanning of mail is an invasion of privacy at all. You are of course invited to disagree with me, but you will be wrong.

Now, for a review of the bits not everyone knows about. Pretty much every email program in the world has been homogenized and standardized to where they're all pretty interchangeable. You have an inbox, a composer, and myriad folders. And the extraordinarily creative people at Google are having none of that. There are three folders. Inbox, Send, and All Mail. When you're done with an email, if you don't decide to delete it, you just "Archive" it, and it gets sent to the All Mail department. Instead of filing away emails in separate folders, they have labels. As such, you can label emails under one or more categories you've made up for easy sorting and retrieving later. It works like a card catalog rather than a file cabinet. The All Mail folder simply contains all emails from all labels (and unlabeled as well). You can sort by libels, like I said, or by any of a number of other systems. Furthermore, you can search your emails using the Google engine and they'll be ranked by search relevance.

Another very cool feature is that it lumps emails into "Conversations" for easier reading. Thus if you're having an email exchange with one or more people, they'll show up neatly in line chronologically for more straightforward following of the thread. It's sort of like a series of back-and-forth emails where the writers keep including the entire previous email's text but without all the >>>> signs, better organized, and capable of handling numerous people at once. Also, though web based, Gmail supports a slew of "hotkeys" for one-key command execution. For someone willing to spend the time to learn the various tricks and tools, the sorting and handling options are fantastic. Perfect for someone running a blog who gets hundreds of emails a day.

So what I'm trying to say, here, is that I really love Gmail. It's a huge step forward in a field where incremental tinkering and stagnation are the norm. That, and I'm frigging sick of hotmail.

Written by: Beck

Go vote in the Republican primary for Pat Toomey.

Written by: Beck

Amish Tech Support links an article which, frankly, blows my mind. Here's the story: a movie in the works about cloning humans set up a fake website offering human cloning services. People immediately reacted with anger and rage, inasmuch as they actually concluded that an American company was offering full bore human cloning services. Once confronted with the knowledge that the website was merely a movie promo, they reacted as all humans exposed to the truth do: they rationalized. Some of them so much so that a Reuters article could, in all seriousness, publish the following:

But some Web surfers have begun petitions to close the site because, they claim, it is insensitive to people who have lost a loved one or family member and might actually be seeking to have that person cloned, which is the topic of the film.

That's right folks, you heard it hear first. It's illegal to behave in a manner which is "insensitive." Or at least some people wish it were. New addition to the liberal lexicon: insensitive - anything which is both valid and unpleasant.

Written by: Beck

The fair city of Houston is known for many things. While we may have some of the worst pollution in the country, we also have the most restaurants per capita. Furthermore, we have both the most and the best strip clubs in North America. Or so I hear anyway. Wouldn't know myself. So, when it comes time for state legislators to pick a target for things to fuck up, to what do they turn? That's right folks, you guessed it: Governor Rick Perry (R-Ass) wants to pay for public schooling with a special strip club tax.

You knew it all had to tie together in the end, right?

His plan would reduce property taxes and increase reliance on so-called "sin taxes" by charging a $5 tax to enter "adult entertainment" venues and adding a dollar to the price of cigarettes.

Perry said his proposal would maintain school funding while reducing the tax burden on homeowners.

Because everyone knows that tax shifting schemes like this A) make any kind of logical sense, or B) ever actually result in a net decrease in taxes. Anyone who rates themselves any kind of a politics watcher knows that those property taxes will be right back where they started before you can say, "Bloated bureaucracy." And it makes perfect sense for those seeking adult entertainment to be paying for others' school bills.

What's worse, Perry's strongest opponent of the plan, Carole Keeton Strayhorn (R-Bitch), opposes the plan not on any kind of tax grounds, but on the grounds that what the legislature SHOULD be doing re: school funding is putting the strip clubs out of business completely. And I'm not exaggerating. That is her stated goal.

On Wednesday, she attacked Perry for the strip club proposal and called for banning alcohol sales at such places to force them out of business.

"Today, this state says you can't drink and drive and you cannot walk into a convenience store with an alcoholic drink in your hand. Certainly we can say you can't get drunk while watching people take off their clothes in public to pay for education," Strayhorn said.

Now comes the scary part:

She said her office was working on proposed legislation to stop alcohol sales at strip joints and warned she would have the final say in any dispute because, by state law, she must certify the worthiness of all budget-linked bills.

There you have it. One woman who hates strip clubs will wield her power to completely override the wishes, desires, and preferences of state citizens, completely circumventing the democratic system in the process.

Written by: Answerman

Feel free to comment:

Lawyer says client's rooster owned drugs

A lawyer has told a court in the Philippines that drugs found in a rooster's cage belonged to the bird and not his client.

Manuel Urbina said defendant Francisco Armando Rivera didn't own the 67kg of cocaine or the gun that was found in the cage.

Urbina argued in the court in Managua that the rooster and two hens owned the drugs and the weapon. Rivera was arrested and charged with cocaine possession.

Prosecutors however have dismissed the claim as "absurd and impertinent," reports Australia's Herald Sun.

Urbina said: "The drugs were in the possession of a rooster and two hens and the law is very clear that whoever is in possession of the drugs is the one who should be accused."

Urbina said the prosecution must prove that the drugs actually belonged to his client.

Attorney General Julio Centeno called the defence case "an absurd joke."

Written by: Answerman

Today's piece in the New York Times by Bob Herbert really pisses me off. I'm intentionally not linking to it, because I don't want to be responsible for it being read by anybody.

Now, to be fair, it's quite possible that Bob Herbert is mentally retarded, given how supremely ill-written and just plain stupid all of his columns tend to be. And I know it's mean to lambaste retarded people, but hell, if the Times is going to run his columns, then he's going to have to take the heat.

In today's column, Bob waxes poetic about desegregation, which is fine. Then he goes on to complain that we are now in a period of "resegregation" as a result of all the "reactionaries" being put on the federal bench. As an initial matter, it should be noted that NO ONE, least of all a reactionary of any sort, is being put on the federal bench these days, given what Senate Democrats and their feckless, power-hungry Republican cohorts are doing to the judicial confirmation process. But Bob never lets pesky facts get in the way of his racially-charged rants. Hell, he has enough trouble writing complete sentences. Plus, lest we all forget, John Kerry served in Vietnam.

Anyway, Bob ignores the most obvious reason explaining the phenomenon he, in his race-warrior mentality, chooses to label "resegregation" -- busing. That's right, busing. The courts stepped in and required schools to do it, schools did it, and it resulted in worse schools. Affluent white parents took their kids out of those worse schools and moved them to private schools and, lo and behold, we have "resegregation."

Shocking that the government's attempt to quickly socially engineer a solution to a complex social problem failed so miserably, and in fact produced the opposite effect from that intended. Geez, I bet that's never happened before! But no matter. Bob and his similarly-intellectually-challenged liberal friends won't figure it out, and they'll continue advocating such nonsense in the future. Will conservatives fight back, or will they cave in?

Written by: Answerman

But they failed. On Friday, I had the poor sense to travel to Austin to attend a banquet honoring United States District Court Judge William Wayne Justice, liberal icon. The keynote speaker was Molly Ivins. I hope I need not say more.

In any event, I sat civilly through the function, unlike your typical liberal would if in reluctant attendance at an event honoring a conservative icon. About six hours later I began vomiting (& etc.), which I did not cease doing until Sunday morning. I vomited at least 60 times, more than I believe I had vomited my entire life combined prior to this ill-fated Friday. It was certainly the worst case of food poisoning I have ever had. And it ruined my weekend.

As any intelligent reader will surmise, the liberals are to blame for this near-death experience. I should never have let my guard down and dined in hostile territory. And I never will again. Let this serve as a warning to the rest of you.

In other news, I hear John Kerry served in Vietnam.

Written by: Beck

Have you heard the one about the radio station DJs who prank called Castro and then put it on the air? They're being fined $4,000 by the FCC for the prank. Why? Because they didn't obtain permission from the person on the other end.

The hosts of the show on WXDJ-FM, Joe Ferrero and Enrique Santos, fed pleasantries to Castro before breaking in and calling him an assassin. The conversation ended after Castro denounced the callers with a stream of vulgarities.

The FCC concluded Friday that the station should be fined for the broadcast. It rejected the station's claim that a rule requiring people to be notified before their voices are used does not apply to people in Cuba.

Didn't Castro used to be an enemy or something? I thought it was a Good Thing to make him look bad. The question then arises, should the FCC then be making exceptions to the letter of the law? I ask you rather, is the law instead being arbitrarily enforced for reasons of pure bureaucracy politics? Were the prank call victim, say, Donald Rumsfeld, I'll wager that not only would there be no FCC censure, but Rummy would have to not press charges and down play it lest he come off as some sort of villain. Castro, of course, could never be a villain.

Written by: Beck

One of the smartest things to come out of Jonah Goldberg's mouth pen keyboard in a while, for your reading entertainment:

But just as millions of Americans were flat-out wrong about the urgency and necessity of fighting the Cold War, today there are millions of good and decent Americans who do not want to look the current enemy in the eye. They cling to polysyllabic professors who find clever ways to say the same dumb things over and over again. They look to America-detesting Europeans, mistaking cynicism for sagacity. And they look to politicians like John Kerry who proudly shift their opinions based upon the most convenient way of avoiding tough decisions, calling their zigs "nuance" and their zags "sophistication," promising to "stay the course" only if it's plotted as a U-turn.

I'll have to add "sophistication" to my ever growing liberal lexicon.

Written by: Beck

My email inbox has been overflowing with requests for a picture of a nun bowling. Ever eager to please readers, I present you with:



Because I am all about customer service.

Written by: Beck

I'm going to have to start keeping all of my grapefruit spoons locked up, as I'm going through sets of eyeballs way too fast. Yet another cool memory from the 80's has been irreparably shattered for me. Gouging out my eyes is really just collateral damage. Rambling's Journal linked to a web page that can't truly be described--it must be experienced to be understood. Jay Maynard went and made himself a costume inspired by the movie TRON. Did he take lots of pictures of himself to illustrate the process, you ask? Of course he did. Every step of the process comes complete with front, rear, and two profile shots. So it doesn't help that he's wearing a unitard--a garment whose entendres have never been more fitting (HAW!). Or that he's a good fifty pounds overweight. Or that he... no, words are failing me. Just go and look for yourself.

Written by: Beck

Ronald Reagan dropped bombs on Gadhafi's house. Gadhafi's angry anti-Americanism and overt, unashamed support of terrorists--along with all that line-of-death nonsense--catapulted Libya to the Club of Nations that America Really Fuckin Hates, previously occupied by only North Korea, Cuba, and Iran. I mean, sure, we weren't exactly big fans of the USSR or the Chi-coms, but that was largely just geo-politics. And while we definitely had no love for Vietnam, the fact that they'd sent us packing meant we at least had to grant them some measure of grudging respect. No, our dislike for those three four nations is personal. In the case of North Korea, it was over a war that technically never even ended (why exactly Vietnam isn't hated in the same fashion or to the same degree would make for an interesting topic on its own. Some other time perhaps). Iran overthrew the regime we'd set up, sacked our embassy, held a bunch of our citizens hostage for several years, set up a theocracy, supported terrorists, and took to referring to America as "The Great Satan." Cuba had the temerity to be a communist nation in the Western Hemisphere, not 70 miles from the Sunny State.

Well, Libya has now further distinguished themselves. They're the first of the four countries in the CoNtARFH to leave that august association. The writing has been on the wall ever since the fall of Baghdad when Gadhafi showed up at our doorsteps with several ship loads of machinery designed for the manufacture of WMDs. Still, Gadhafi is enough of a megalomaniacal America hating nutcase to screw it all up for himself somehow. Then Tony Blair made an historic visit to Libya which seems to have gone well. This Friday, however, will stand out as perhaps the biggest landmark in improving America-Libya relations yet. The Bush administration has lifted most of the sanctions against Libya. Fun facts for our fans:

The lifting of the sanctions does not detract from Libya's obligation to pay $2.7 billion, or $10 million per family, in compensation for the 270 victims.

The United States imposed travel and other restrictions on Libya in the early 1980s and added broad sanctions in 1986 after Libya was blamed for the bombing of a disco in Berlin, Germany, that killed two U.S. servicemen and a Turkish woman, and wounded 229, including 79 Americans.

The sanctions were expanded by the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996, which cited Libya's failure to comply with U.N. resolutions, support of terrorism and efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction.

At this point I'd put up a long explanation of how the War on Terror is yielding dividends. But since our readers are only of the highest quality, I'll just go ahead and assume you've already figured that out on your own.

Written by: Beck

Another update on the disaster in North Korea: the official DPRK news agency has come forward and admitted that there was an accident and even going so far as to state the cause. Long time DPRK watchers seem surprised by the speed with which the North Korean regime has come forward with facts. It would seem that power arcing from overhead wires (i.e. a major short circuit) caused an explosion in train cars carrying ammonium nitrate and oil. In other words, think of the Oklahoma City bombing, then scale it from a U-Haul up to train car(s) proportions.

CNN is reporting that at least 154 are dead and 1300 are wounded. Furthermore, at least 76 of the dead are said to have been students. And in case you didn't think the situation was bad enough already, an email being sent out by Norbert Vollertsen German doctor/activist who evidently worked in the DPRK makes it sound even worse (link credit to North Korea Zone blog:

"-Out of my own experience in the disaster area I know that the nearby hospitals in Sinuiju and Ryongchon are in a desperate situation : there is no medicine, no bandage material, sometimes even no soap and running water

- The North Korean doctors cannot give any sophisticated medical assistance for burnt victims - so what they are usually doing, sometimes even without disinfection, narcotics and with a simply razor-blade is donating their own skin like I did when I got my friendship medal [Emphasis mine].

Update: Some new statistics: the blast damaged structures as far away as 2.5 miles; between 1800 and 2000 homes were destroyed. And how can you not like pictures of railroad tracks which have buckled like paper-clips?

Written by: Beck

The latest numbers on the economy illustrate yet again why the Kerry campaign has completely dropped the economy as an issue. Considering the number of negatives working against the economy (fighting two wars, massive expansion of the bureaucracy, 9/11, waves of bankruptcies and corporate scandals), it's frankly astonishing that things keep bumping along so well. The big news:

The Commerce Department said Friday that US orders for big-ticket "durable goods" jumped by a surprisingly strong 3.4 percent in March after an upwardly revised 3.8 percent gain in February.

The reported orders for long-lasting items such as airplanes, cars and washing machines shattered Wall Street estimates for a 0.7 percent rise and suggested the US factory sector is stronger than believed.

These numbers are so huge (and, more importantly, unexpected) that talking heads all over Wall Street have had to put on their Emergency Back-up Pants.

"The economy is now firing on all cylinders. Consumers are spending, business investment is ramping up, exports are rising and inventories are being rebuilt," said Sung Won Sohn, chief economist at Wells Fargo Bank, pegging first-quarter economic growth at five percent.

Citigroup currency strategist TJ Marta called the report "explosive" and said it "could put upward pressure on US interest rates," thus supporting the dollar.

Better get those houses refinanced now. Last chance 'til 2009.

Written by: Beck

"Political 'moderate' is a liberal code word for a slower walk to tyranny."
--Dan Belcher

Some other helpful liberal code words and their definitions:

Choice: the right to impose one's beliefs on others
Fascist: catch-all phrase for anyone to the right of the person using the word
Multicultural: political blackmail usable by any aggrieved group supportive of liberal causes
Nuanced: Oh, wait, I already defined this one earlier
Special Interest: applies only to groups giving money to conservative politicians. Groups donating to liberal politicians are known variously under such umbrellas as "minority," "union," "concerned citizens," etc.

Written by: Beck

During my daily jaunt through the blogosphere, I came across this on Allah's web site. I now require eye transplants, as I have gouged out my original eyes via grapefruit spoon. You were warned.

In case anyone needs something amusing to bring them back to sanity (in other words, for those who clicked that link), have a look at the latest campaign offering from the Kerry camp (link credit, again, to Allah). That's right folks. John Kerry rocks. Also heard in the news: Huey Lewis wants you to know that it's hip to be square.

Update: According to MSNBC, Ralph Nader rocks too.

Written by: Beck

More news is coming out of North Korea now about the train disaster near the Chinese border. The picture has taken on a much more realistic appearance, as there were numerous aspects of initial reports from yesterday that didn't quite add up.

First, the number of dead is "hundreds," with the thousands listed initially being more mundane injuries. North Korean medical infrastructure, however, will be quite overwhelmed by the number of injured. Not only do they lack the facilities and personnel to treat so many people, they lack the ability to transport or even sufficiently shelter the injured. The International Red Cross and the World Health Organization are both rushing experts and aid to the scene. By the time it gets there, I fear, many further lives which could have been saved without difficulty will be lost.

Second, the accident was not the result of a collision, but rather, from a single train which was carrying explosives blowing up from sparks when a car touched a live power line. While I'm no expert, most explosives wont go up just by catching a few sparks. Still, it's a more likely explanation than a two-train collision. Finally, the fact that it was a single train accident makes it clear that there was no assassination attempt intended in all of this.

Kim only travels by train and all rail traffic would have been shut down in the area for several hours before and after he passed through the station.

"Because the blast occurred long after Kim passed we just think it is purely an accident," a source from South Korea's National Intelligence Service told Reuters.

Considering the magnitude of this disaster, I'm surprised it isn't getting much coverage, relatively speaking. North Korean hyper-secrecy is going to work against them in this case, as the publicity generated from an event like this would likely engender some measure of international sympathy. Regardless, North Korea Zone has a ton of info for the interested (link credit to Instapundit).

Written by: Beck

You know what's interesting about this story? I knew all three of those guys. Had drinks with them. Exchanged quips. Worked with them. To some extent anyway.

I'm just glad I no longer work at that company.

Written by: Beck

Yeah, we care. No really. We care so much it hurts.

Written by: Beck

As most people probably know, two trains collided in North Korea killing or injuring an estimated 3000 people. While this is an amazingly horrific tragedy, there are some odd questions that immediately come to mind. The first thing I wonder is how on earth 3000 people managed to be involved in a train collision. Both trains appear to have been carrying flammable materials, so if the trains were going fast enough, it's not hard to imagine that everyone aboard could well have been killed, or at least seriously hurt. But 3000 people? I guess it's possible. It's not that I doubt the reports, it's just that it's a flabbergasting number.

The bigger question, though, is whether or not this was actually an assassination attempt on North Korean leader Kim Jong Il. The CNN article I linked above mentions that Kim had passed through on a train of his own just a few hours earlier, but doesn't suggest anything beyond that. Reporters on Fox News, however, are openly speculating that this could have been an attempt on Kim's life. If so, one must wonder if there isn't some significant faction of disaffected leaders in North Korea actively seeking to topple the regime. Speculation along these lines, unfortunately, will simply remain speculation, as no official reports are leaving North Korea, and likely never will. This article mentions that immediately after the accident, North Korea cut all international phone lines to keep word of the incident from leaking. The only news agency reporting primary information on this is South Korean, and their sources are from the Chinese side of the Yalu. Still, one can only hope that the Kim dynasty will come to an end sooner rather than later, finally freeing from some measure of tyranny the millions of people living under the poorest, most backward, and most oppressive regime in the world. For some reason, I always think of the world as portrayed in Ayn Rand's novella Anthem whenever I imagine life inside North Korea.

Written by: Beck

I'm not sure which to be more surprised by--that Texas Governor Rick Perry's head of Texas-Mexico relations turned out to be a Mexican citizen, or that the state is now trying to crush the whistle blower who has brought it to the peoples' attention. Actually I take it back--I'm not genuinely surprised by either fact. Perhaps I should in fact be surprised that the issue has generated so little interest. I only found out about it because Reason Online brought up the story as published by the Houston Chronicle in their Daily Brickbats section.

Essentially, this is what has happened. A conservative activist by the name of Mary Williams received confidential documents demonstrating that the Gov's head of Mexican relations, Helena Colyandro, is a Mexican citizen. The conflict of interest here proclaims itself so loudly it scarcely deserves mention. Afterwards, a slew of anonymous letters went out to influential Texans with some rather exact copies of said documents. Then the state demanded she hand them back, saying they should not have been released. Williams denies sending the anonymous letters, and states further that she hasn't even read a copy. Somewhere around this point, a slew of heretofore non-disillusioned Texans' heads exploded. At least I'm assuming that's what happened. Nearly happened to me, and I'm disillusioned in spades.

Written by: Answerman

Libertarian Reluctantly Calls Fire Department

CHEYENNE, WY--After attempting to contain a living-room blaze started by a cigarette, card-carrying Libertarian Trent Jacobs reluctantly called the Cheyenne Fire Department Monday. "Although the community would do better to rely on an efficient, free-market fire-fighting service, the fact is that expensive, unnecessary public fire departments do exist," Jacobs said. "Also, my house was burning down." Jacobs did not offer to pay firefighters for their service.

Written by: Beck

Lew Rockwell has a new article up at the Mises Institute's website worthy of consideration. He asks the important question, "What should freedom lovers do?" His answer is three-fold. First of all, he advocates the traditional values that conservatives in the first half of the twentieth century knew seemingly instinctively. In short: work hard, better yourself, and raise strong families.

In the first half of the 20th century, libertarians knew how to oppose statism. They went into business and journalism. They wrote books. They agitated within the cultural arena. They developed fortunes to help fund newspapers, schools, foundations, and public education organizations. They expanded their commercial ventures to serve as a bulwark against central planning. They became teachers and, when possible, professors. They cultivated wonderful families and focused on the education of their children.

His second point is for those who seek to take an active roll in changing government. The message, as spelled out long ago by Misesian patron saint Murray Rothbard: never compromise.

The Rothbardian approach to a pro-freedom strategy comes down to the following four affirmations: 1) the victory of liberty is the highest political end; 2) the proper groundwork for this goal is a moral passion for justice; 3) the end should be pursued by the speediest and most efficacious possible means; and 4) the means taken must never contradict the goal--"whether by advocating gradualism, by employing or advocating any aggression against liberty, by advocating planned programs, by failing to seize any opportunities to reduce State power, or by ever increasing it in any area."

The bulk of the article, however, touches on something which I realized long ago without ever formulating any of the detailed arguments behind it. One cannot reform the state by becoming an employee of the state. I've been asked by many people why I never sought a government job. When I was younger, everyone thought (for surprisingly logical reasons) that I would find ultimate happiness as an employee at NASA. Once older, with a degree in international economics under my belt, people assumed that any number of government jobs would be towards the top of my list of suitable professions. I recoiled from the thought. As I have oft ranted about (though perhaps not in this particular forum), there is less difference between working for the government and working for the mafia than one might think. In fact, working for the mafia is in many ways preferable. They at least are honest about what they do, and the pay is better. Rockwell goes to great pains to spell out the reasons why working for the government is never the solution to successful reduction of government power or successful increase in liberty. Some samples for you:

If often happens that an ideological movement will make great strides through education and organization and cultural influence, only to take the illogical leap of believing that politics and political influence, which usually means taking jobs within the bureaucracy, is the next rung on the ladder to success. This is like trying to fight a fire with matches and gasoline. This is what happened to the Christian right in the 1980s. They got involved in politics in order to throw off the yoke of the state. Twenty years later, many of these people are working in the Department of Education or for the White House, doing the prep work to amend the Constitution or invade some foreign country. This is a disastrous waste of intellectual capital.

It is particularly important that believers in liberty not take this course. Government work has been the chosen career path of socialists, social reformers, and Keynesians for at least a century. It is the natural home to them because their ambition is to control society through government. It works for them but it does not work for us.

...

It is a long struggle but it is the way the struggle for liberty has always taken place. But somewhere along the way, some people, enticed by the prospect of a fast track to reform, rethought this idea. Perhaps we should try the same technique that the left did. We should get our people in power and displace their people, and then we can bring about change toward liberty. In fact, isn't this the most important goal of all? So long as the left controls the state, it will expand in ways that are incompatible with freedom. We need to take back the state.

So goes the logic. What is wrong with it? The state's only function is as an apparatus of coercion and compulsion. That is its distinguishing mark. It is what makes the state the state. To the same extent that the state responds well to arguments that it should be larger and more powerful, it is institutionally hostile to anyone who says that it should be less powerful and less coercive. That is not to say that some work from the "inside" cannot do some good, some of the time. But it is far more likely that the state will convert the libertarian than for the libertarian to convert the state.

And then the massive apparatus of the state lives up to its juggernaut status, chewing up and spitting out such fighters for liberty.

We've all seen this a thousand times. It rarely takes more than a few months for a libertarian intellectual headed for the Beltway to "mature" and realize that his or her old ideals were rather childish and insufficiently real world. A politician promising to defang Washington later becomes the leading expert in applying tooth enamel.

He concludes the argument with this:

We can learn from this. The thousands of young people who are discovering the ideas of liberty for the first time ought to stay away from the Beltway and all its allures. Instead, they should pursue their love and passion through arts, commerce, education, and even the ministry. These are fields that offer genuine promise with a high return.

Written by: Beck

Corporate naming rights--they're not just for stadiums anymore. While school choice vouchers are still a long way from becoming a reality in most places, and completely privatized schooling still seems purely like a pipe-dream, schools in New Jersey have nonetheless found a way to allow a little free enterprise to shine in through the murk of state-funded mandatory schooling. Of course, considering the loathing with which most school-age children regard their daily visits to classes, I wonder if companies really want to associate themselves with... ah, who am I kidding? It's a great marketing opportunity.

"Anything a school can do to be entrepreneurial, so much the better," said Dana Egreczky, a vice president of the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Written by: Beck

Another busy day today, so I can't promise much content. So, for lack of the intelligent, I present you with a sample of the baffling. Money quote:

Pat Skinner, 69, had part of her colon removed at Sydney's St. George Hospital in May 2001. But she said that she continued to suffer intense pain in her abdomen for months after the operation.

Eventually, she demanded doctors x-ray her abdomen. They did and discovered the 6.7-inch pair of scissors, which were removed in October 2002.

Written by: Dave

I live in the city of L.A. An excellent sign of our culture's imminent doom is the public service bumper stickers you see on public vehicles in this city. One of my favorites says "Stop abusing Seniors!".

I am not sure which is more telling - that we have reached the point where people have to be reminded that this is wrong, or that someone in the city government thinks that some young hoodlum on his way to beat up Grandpa will think better of it because of what he reads on a bumper sticker.

Written by: Beck

It was neat when they built those Predator drones. Unmanned spy planes are cool. It was neat when they retrofitted them to carry weapons as well. They weren't originally designed for it, however, and they were far from the ideal delivery vehicle for munitions. But now, Boeing has built an unmanned plane specifically designed to fly itself to target locations & drop precision guided munitions. The plane flies itself 100% of the way, from the look of the article, including take-off and landing.

Written by: Beck

Don't Poop On Me!

And Christopher Gadsden wept.

Written by: Beck

OK, so maybe Saudi Arabia didn't say they were going to crush oil prices prior to the election to benefit Bush. Essentially, it seems, some of the content of Woodward's new book Plan of Attack came out rather skewed during his 60 Minutes interview. Here's what he has to say now:

"I don't say there's a secret deal or any collaboration on this," Woodward told CNN's "Larry King Live" Monday. "What I say in the book is that the Saudis ... hoped to keep oil prices low during the period before the election, because of its impact on the economy. That's what I say."

And yes, the Saudi's have been saying all along that they wouldn't let the price of oil skyrocket. They've been saying it publicly since before the war in Iraq. It took 60 Minutes to make it sound like this was some sort of secret deal between the White House and the Sauds. Quoth Bandar bin Sultan,

"We hoped that the oil prices will stay low, because that's good for America's economy, but more important, it's good for our economy and the international economy," he said. "This is nothing unusual. President Clinton asked us to keep the prices down in the year 2000. In fact, I can go back to 1979, President Carter asked us to keep the prices down to avoid the malaise."

Then he added, "Saudi Arabia does not live on the moon. When the world economy gets hurt, we get hurt also," Bandar said.

Written by: Dave

Hi, sorry for not contributing lately, I have been very busy. In my few spare moments, however, I have been outlining what will be a tremendously long essay on why we are all doomed. It may still be a while before I publish it, so try not to get too excited.

In the meantime, here's the next really, really (not) important debate of the week. We'll stick with the States theme. We didn't get much debate on the Texas-California question, so I will try to make the answer to this one less obvious.

OK, the U.S. has to grant full statehood to one of the countries below (assume that all of the countries have voted in favor of annexation). Which one should it be?

a) France

b) Mexico

c) The Democratic Republic of Congo


I know Beck hasn't put up the survey on the page yet, but that's all right, we're supposed to discuss first.

Written by: Answerman

I used to be a libertarian, and I'm not proud of it.

Let me explain. I grew up a typical conservative and moved toward libertarianism during my late high school and early college days. My beliefs in low taxes, deregulation, and a drastic reduction in the size of the bloated collection of morons, criminals, and reprobates many of you refer to as the U.S. government hardened into a nonchalant dislike of any law that addressed concerns beyond the protection of people from physical interference by others. Libertarianism was attractive because it was simple; it offered a global explanation for everything wrong with politics. If the principles of freedom and individualism were simply applied consistently, we would be so much better off.

Well, that's a bunch of crap. Libertarianism is an adolescent philosophy rife with problems. First, it refuses to look at any issue from any perspective other than a political, or perhaps merely economic, one. Troublesome little details like culture and history and morality are ignored out of deference to overly-simplified notions of Natural Rights and the Rational Man.

Second, libertarianism is a metaphysical disaster. What exactly constitutes a "direct" violation of another's rights? A libertarian would make it illegal for me to punch you in the face, but what about me waving my hand two inches from your face but never touching it? It's certainly not legitimate for the government to regulate handguns, but how about the private possession of nuclear weapons? Can the law prevent that, or can it only prevent their use? These inane hypotheticals can go on and on, and they prove how bereft libertarianism is of the texture and layers that necessarily prop up most other political philosophies.

Finally, libertarianism is woefully utopian. It seeks to throw away all cultural and religious, and most legal, restraints on human behavior out of a blind sense of faith in man's inherent rationality and goodness. Are you kidding me? Libertarianism would eliminate the rich differences among societies, legal systems, and the like in favor of a dreary sameness that has a zero percent chance of resulting ultimately in anything other than chaos and death.

Roach has provided dead-on commentary on the problems with libertarianism: "Libertarians often go far beyond what government should and should not do; a culture of indifference to the choices of others arises. The flaws of others become proof of the impossibility of moral greatness; everyone is a hypocrite and thus we should all just do whatever we want. Any concern whatsoever for the effects of others' choices is labeled as creeping statism and puritanical nosiness. This is unfortunate; it is a skeletonized account of what a philosophy needs to tell us about what we do, how we spend our money and free time, and what types of activities should be hidden behind closed doors or openly flaunted as morally neutral 'choices.' "

In my view, there is a huge conceptual difference (in other words, something quite different from a mere difference in degree) between a conservative skepticism toward government and libertarianism. A conservative knows that when a government uses the blunt instruments at its disposal in an attempt to tackle a big, complex social issue, it tends to fail miserably, worsen the problem, and create new problems to boot. A conservative is therefore skeptical of social engineering and tends to favor more organic tools from within existing social institutions and civil society in his attempts to "fix" problems.

A libertarian rejects the notion that there is a problem that needs worrying about, much less "fixing." The libertarian does not discuss how to address an issue; rather, he considers the very discussion of said issue politically illegitimate. This is a huge distinction.

Even in the last few years, far removed from my libertarian days, I have referred to myself as a libertarian-leaning conservative. No longer. I may often agree on ends with certain libertarians, but for widely divergent philosophical reasons. Libertarians are not conservatives, and we insult ourselves and them by pretending they are.

Written by: Beck

Two quick items for you, and then I return to "work."

First, I'm not sure what to make of this yet, but Bob Woodward, in his newest book, claims that the Saudi's have said they'll crush the crude market towards November to help Bush's re-election chances.

Coincidentally, I'm also not sure what to make of this, but laughed my ass off anyway (not as fun as it sounds, believe me). Try not to think about the title of the Minister's Quartet album too much.

Written by: Beck

I couldn't go the whole weekend without putting up at least one hot-topic post. It would seem, as most of you likely already know, that Abdel Aziz Rantisi, the new head of Hammas since the detonation of Ahmed Yassin a month ago, has himself been taken out by the Israelis. They've really got this whole "surgical helicopter strike" thing down to a science.

For a whole ton of links and updates, see Allahpundit.

Written by: Beck

No comments about Cyndi Lauper's use of the subjunctive please.

In the news: Astros 6 Brewers 1. The Rocket is 3-0 now. He also managed to get on base during an at bat where the Astros already had two outs, ultimately creating several runs. The weather was perfect too, in case you were wondering.

In other news: I saw Kill Bill Vol. 2 a couple days ago. I'll follow with a review, at some point, but until then allow me to simply say that it was excellent.

Finally, for lack of anything in the current events department to share with you (I'm sure there's plenty going on out there, I just haven't had the time or inclination to investigate), allow me to quote for you a brief excerpt from the book I'm currently (re)reading:

That socialism so long as it remains theoretical is internationalist, while as soon as it is put into practice, whether in Russia or in Germany, it becomes violently nationalist, is one of the reasons why "liberal socialism" as most people in the Western world imagine it is purely theoretical, while the practice of socialism is everywhere totalitarian...

If the "community" or the state are prior to the individual, if they have ends of their own independent of and superior to those of the individuals, only those individuals who work for the same ends can be regarded as members of the community. It is a necessary consequence of this view that a person is respected only as a member of the group, that is, only if and in so far as he works for the recognized common ends, and that he derives his whole dignity only from this membership and not merely from being man. Indeed, the very concepts of humanity and therefore of any form of internationalism are entirely products of the individualist view of man, and there can be no place for them in a collectivist system of thought.

Gotta love Hayek.

Written by: Beck

I don't have much for you today, oh faithful readers, and I believe that at least three of the four writers here are currently nursing hangovers. So rather than inundate you with a wave of brilliant analysis and social critique, I instead present you with a brief little ponderable.

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism", they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened".
--Norman Thomas, former US Socialist Party presidential candidate

So sit and chew on that one for a while.

Written by: Beck

Everyone is familiar by now with the saga on reality show The Apprentice wherein fired applicant Omarosa accused fellow contestant Ereka of calling her a nigger (I refuse to euphemize by saying "the N-word." It's so childish. Why are people so afraid of the word?) Tonight, I happened to watch Howard Stern's show on E!. His guests were three of the ex-apprentices, including Ereka. While Ereka naturally seemed to have anticipated that the issue would come up, what she couldn't have anticipated was Howard sending her off into a separate room with a lie detector test and an administrator.

She was asked a lengthy battery of questions. The first half were what you would expect as a consequence of the controversy. "Are you a racist? Have you ever called anyone a nigger? Did you call Omarosa a nigger?" Then followed more stereotypically Stern style questions. "Have you ever had a lesbian encounter? Have you ever had a lesbian fantasy? Have you ever had a sexual fantasy about Howard Stern?" She answered "no" to everyone one of those questions. She was found to have lied on one of them. Which one you ask? You guessed it.

It turns out, she actually HAS had lesbian fantasies about other women. But she never called Omarosa a nigger. Meanwhile, on the final episode of The Apprentice, Omarosa was cornered on several overt lies that she made, which they had the tape to prove were lies. Unfortunately, I don't expect this controversy to be put to bed now, nor do I expect Omarosa to drop from the spotlight as she should.

Written by: Beck

The sudden rash of kidnappings in Iraq makes one wonder why the Iraqi insurgents took so long to think up the idea. Regardless, they've used the recent unrest for cover and shelter and abducted (and in some cases released) a whole slew of people. This article has some updates.

Of note, the three Japanese who were to be burned alive should the Japanese SDF troops not be pulled out were set free (and the Japanese troops did NOT pull out, more power to them). Further, French journalist Alexandre Jordanov managed to secure his own freedom by convincing his captors he was from one of the countries not participating in the occupation. "He proved he was French by drawing a map of France." Most significantly, and also most disheartening, four Italians have been taken captive, and one of them has already been executed. I think pretty much everyone else in the blogosphere has already quoted this one, but it bears repeating again.

"This boy, as the assassins were pointing the gun at him, tried to take off his hood and shouted: 'Now I'll show you how an Italian dies,'" Frattini said. "He died as a hero."

It is reassuring to see how Italy has responded to this. They are outraged, and they are united. Their behavior should serve as a lesson not only to Spaniards, but to all of us. The Italian left, which greatly opposed Italian participation in the occupation, now stands behind their troops.

The national trauma has at least temporarily unified Italy, which has been bitterly divided by his support for the war. "We must not recall our troops because a band of assassins have demanded it," Francesco Rutelli, leader of a center-left opposition party, said.

"The vile blackmail by a band of criminal kidnappers must not be given the dignity of a political response. Italy is and must remain unified and together."

Written by: Beck

So I'm watching TV with a friend, and an ad for Pentax digital cameras comes on. I wasn't paying any attention until I saw their tag-line: "The Official Digital Camera of the Internet." It was at this point that I flew into a rant, the long and tedious point of which was that you can trademark any phrase you want, but trademarking a statement doesn't make it true. "Hell," I spat out, "I could get a trademark for 'Official Straight Male Porn Star of the Internet,' but that wouldn't--" and then the light bulb went on.

And so, it is with great pleasure that I announce to you that not only am I a frenetic blogger of the right wing fringe, a co-conspirator of the VRWC, and a dashingly clever man, but I'm also the Official Straight Male Porn Star of the Internet(tm). Ladies, better get in line now before I'm all booked up. Why waste time with amateurs when you can be with the professional?

Written by: Beck

The Daily Show's Ed Helms did the likes of Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman a disservice by reading out loud from the stage notes of the world's media organizations. To paraphrase, "Remember, the first rule of journalism is: fact checking is for pussies."

Written by: Beck

...did I have to go to a school that had no Greeks? A link from Fark led me to this little author interview of a new book about the debauched behavior that goes on at sororities. Here is the indisputable money quote of the interview:

What kinds of things did you witness?
I really hadn't expected to find the level of "Animal House" campiness that I did in some groups. They had a tradition called boob ranking where pledges had just a lim­ited amount of time to strip off their shirt and bras to examine each other topless so that by the time the clock was up, they were basically lined up in order of chest size in order of the sisters to inspect. Some sorori­ties hold what they call "naked parties," during which after a few drinks sisters and pledges strip off their clothes and basically run around the house naked, some of them hooking up with each other before they let the boys in.

Are you reading this Dudley? Methinks you might have a few pointed questions that need asking.

Written by: Beck

Am I the only one who finds it strangely encouraging that in Iraq there's currently a black Marine Corp soldier from Detroit playing the bagpipes in a kilt for his fellow soldiers? He was inspired to take up the bagpipes by, naturally, a "small Hispanic" man. Here's the money quote:

"Kilts are something that fighting men wore many years ago, and we know that the Marines are fighting men. So real men wear kilts. And they are pretty comfortable too," he said.

Note to Scotland: look out, we're coming.

Written by: Beck

Well I'll be damned (no comments from the peanut gallery, please). Europe has soundly told Osama to get bent. Some highlights:
From Italy:

"It is completely unthinkable that we could start negotiations with bin Laden. Everyone understands that," Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini told reporters.

From the EU:

European Commission President Romano Prodi said there could be no negotiating under a "terrorist threat."

From Britain:

"One has to treat such claims by al Qaeda with contempt, which they deserve," Britain's Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said.

From Spain:

"There is no sense to terrorism. There is no policy in terrorism. There is just terror, death, blackmail," said incoming Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero.

I suppose there weren't any good public statements coming out of France or Germany, as this was all the CNN article had to say about them:

Leaders in France and Germany also rejected any such offer.

Which is still promising, considering the source. Hell, even 89% of CNN readers are opposed to negotiation. Does this qualify as "bipartisan" then? How about multilateral? Nuanced? Sorry, I went too far with that one.

Written by: Speculator

Reading through some notes the other evening, I came across a few lines that I thought particularly fine. They were penned by a young John Adams in the fall of 1755, a newly minted Harvard graduate employed as a school proctor...

"All that part of Creation that lies within our observation is liable to change. Even mighty states and kingdoms are not exempted. If we look into history, we shall find some nations rising from contemptible beginnings and spreading their influence, until the whole globe is subjected to their ways. When they have reached the summit of grandeur, some minute and unsuspected cause commonly affects their ruin, and the empire of the world is transferred to some other place."

I wonder: did Adams ever foresee a unipolar world similar to the one of today? (Both my immediate and then more considerate suspicions are no) If it should ever come to pass that this empire expires, would there be residual capacity for transfer? Or has the world quite simply evolved to the point of owning our fortune? It seems interesting to me that the world has found it prudent to place upon us such incredible amounts of trust, and far less obvious, hope. But perhaps prudent is not the right word, as this level of requirement, that is, their requirement of our sustenance, has been built in effect, but not formally recognized. This is to say that this requirement was built by way of individually and in their time strategic motives, but in aggregate waxes towards dependence.

Furthermore, the ever increasing hostile environment of the international space towards the United States must only serve suffering to the marginal beneficiaries of our benevolence. If our country should happen to fall victim again, and then again, we ain't gonna be as willing to host Favorite-Hawaiian-Shirt day down at UN Headquarters - and it may come to pass that that parcel of Manhattan Island has found greater economic utility, and a lease falls un-renewed.

Written by: Answerman

Query: If Justice Scalia is unfit to hear a case involving the vice president in his official capacity because he and Cheney were once part of a large hunting party in Louisiana, then why is Jamie Gorelick fit to determine the "causes" of 9/11 when her memo creating a wall between law enforcement and counter-terrorism officials was likely a huge contributing factor to our nation's lack of preparedness?

Answer: Because Democrats are unserious hypocrites interested in defaming the administration, not discovering what went wrong before 9/11 and how we can do better.

Unless Maureen Dowd can take a break from her Hooked-on-Phonics tape long enough to give a different answer?

Written by: Answerman

Let's give Andrew props for his analysis of bin Laden's latest foray into international diplomacy:

MEMO TO OSAMA: Re: the "truce." Go fuck yourself.
- 2:02:57 PM

Written by: Dave

The Al Qaeda offer of truce to Europe brings to mind three things that I have been reflecting upon lately.

One, it proves that the Spanish retreat has had a huge effect on the terrorists' appraisal of Europe and its place in the war. Many are now convinced that Europe can be scared off, enabling them to focus on America and then come back to mop up Europe later.

Second, I wonder whether the terrorists realize that France is their de-facto ally in the short term, in so far as France is undermining our efforts in Iraq and France is trying to push Europe away from America.

Third, are the terrorists truly able to coordinate a strategy, and are they able to deal with issues such as those raised by points one and two? There are obviously a lot of disparate groups within the Islamic terrorist movement that are hard to control, but at the same time, they can see the value of a common approach and share many of the same motivations.

I am fairly confident that if the three month deadline passes without European compliance, there will be more significant terrorist attacks in Europe. I wonder where they will be and what the European reaction will be (the latter will be largely dependent on the former).

Written by: Beck

English libertarian Sean Gabb wrote a little ditty titled "The Enemy Class and How to Destroy It: A Manifesto for the Right" that is absolutely worth reading. Inasmuch as it's seven pages long, I have to imagine that few people will actually have the patience to get through the whole thing. So for the benefit of the lazy and the time constrained, I present you with a few highlights.

Essentially, he provides a roadmap for how conservatives and libertarians (who in England seem to have more in common with each other than in America) could reshape the political order in their country. The problems facing England (and America, and the entire world) are largely the result of an elite class of vested interests whose primary goal is to propagate themselves at the expense of the working masses. Gabb labels these people the Enemy Class. His definition:

What I will call the Enemy Class exists in and around the public sector. It comprises the great majority of those administrators, lawyers, experts, educators and media people whose living is connected with the State... They articulate and advance the interests of perhaps a million other people--from television producers and heads of executive agencies, down through the university lecturers and social workers and white collar bureaucrats, to the lowest grades of civil servant and local government officer. Add to the list all the racism awareness and anti-aids consultants and the workers in those non-government organizations that receive money and status from or via the State. These are the people who really govern the country. They are the ones who decide what statistics to gather and how and when to publish them. They decide what problems can be identified and what solutions can be discussed. They advise on policy and implement policy. Because of their numbers and education and beliefs, and the formal and informal bonds that hold them to each other, and because of their ability and willingness to give and withhold benefits, they set the tone of society. They can require not only external conformity to their will, but can even to some extent shape the public mind so that conformity seems right and natural. They provide the boundaries and language of debate. They define the heretics and schismatics, and arrange for them to be persecuted. They are the modern equivalent of an established church. More precisely, they are what Coleridge called the Clerisy.

He then goes on to define how it is that the Enemy Class has gone about gaining and maintaining control of society, and how they're consistently working to steer it towards a world of their liking.

They are the Enemy Class by virtue of their legitimizing ideologies. While many of these contradict each other, and while some may overlap at their fringes with positions accepted on some parts of the right, they all have in common that they are essentially ideologies of state activism. It is belief in an active, interfering state that justifies the collective power, money and status of the Enemy Class. And though some conservatives still romanticise state power, the activism we have faced for at least the past hundred years has been directed almost wholly to the destruction of both freedom and tradition. Using various justifications--national efficiency, racial hygiene, socialism, the war on drugs, environmentalism, "modernization", to name only a few--the Enemy Class has taxed and watched and controlled us. It has abolished organic, voluntary forms of association, and replaced them with bureaucratic centralism. It has obliterated old boundaries and jurisdictions. It has remodeled the currency, and is now fanatically trying to impose the metric system. At the same time, it is merging what remains of our Constitution into the unaccountable power structures of the European Union and the New World Order.

He further elaborates on how educational institutions generally and the media specifically are used as tools of control by the Enemy Class. They alone shape the dialogue, control what language can and cannot be used, and manipulate political outcomes (a long rant about the evils of the BBC follows, you can read it yourself if you're interested--it's quite entertaining).

His plan for destroying the Enemy and restoring the nation to its free and rightful ways?

I suggest that within days of coming into power [this is a hypothetical in which the Conservatives win a decisive national election], we ought to shut down large parts of the public sector. We should abolish the Foreign Office, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, the Department of Education and Training, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, plus whole divisions of other ministries. We should shut down most of local government--especially anything to do with child welfare, consumer protection, racial equality, and town and country planning. At the same time, we should abolish all the statutory agencies. This includes English Heritage, the Arts Council, the Commission for Racial Equality, the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Health and Safety Executive, whatever has replaced the Health Education Authority, the Serious Fraud Office, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, all the regional development councils, and all the "self-financing regulatory agencies" without exception. The fact that I have mentioned some organizations and not others does not indicate that these others are to be saved: the schedule to our Act of Abolition and Repeal should run to hundreds of pages. We should abolish functions, destroy records, sell off physical assets, and sack people by the tens of thousand. Pension rights could be respected according to law, but at least a third of government should no longer exist after our first month in power. [Emphasis mine]

He elaborates at much greater detail, all of it worth reading. One final extremely perceptive observation he makes is that the use of statistics and information, while never beneficial to the cause of freedom, consistently undermines conservative positions.

Following from this, I suggest that our government of the right should stop gathering and publishing official information. We should want no more censuses, or balance of payments statistics, or epidemiological surveys--no more government reports or future projections. Though useful to historians, none of this is essential to the sort of government we on the right wish to run; and all of it is at least potentially dangerous to that government. Information is the health of the Enemy Class. It provides the factual underpinning of its legitimizing ideologies. Much of this information is unproven or untrue--look at the claims about global warming or the harmful effects of passive smoking. Much of the rest is true in the technical sense, but is so selective and deprived of context that it does not qualify as information. Look at the statistics on drinking and driving. The dangers are exaggerated by including accidents that involve drunken pedestrians and passengers; and no comparative figures are gathered on the possibly worse effects of driving while tired or after drinking large amounts of coffee. What we have here is an example of socially constructed knowledge. It looks like neutral fact, but really exists to support some ideological bias: in this case, it exists to support an attack on the alcohol industry and to make the rest of us feel guilty about enjoying the products of that industry.

I hope this hasn't been too long for you all to digest. It's a big pill to swallow, but some times strong medicine is required for fighting dangerous diseases. On a final note, a bit of advice to Mr. Gabb, and any others thinking of making such documents in the future: Adobe Acrobat documents look pretty, but they're not at all user friendly to those wishing to cut & paste sections of documents into their own material. Very messy formatting. That is all.

Link credit to Samizdata for bringing this to my attention.

Written by: Dave

Our boss Beck has given me permission to start a new feature on the web site which I have tentatively decided to name, "The Really, Really (not) Important Debate of the Week".

Here's the deal. We will post a debate topic, and then give everyone a few days to post arguments supporting one side or the other. We will also have an online survey for readers to vote on (see the right hand side of your screen). Then, after a week or so of debate, we end the survey and declare a winner.

So here's the first really, really (not) important debate topic:

In an all-out no-holds-barred paintball war between Texas and California, who would win? Here are the guidelines;

1. No taking this too seriously.

2. Nothing is against the rules, so long as no one is actually killed. For instance, up until about 11:00 in the morning in California, or during the first day of deer season in Texas, you could propose blowing up the respective state capital buildings, knowing full well that they would be completely empty and no one would be harmed.

3. Arizona and New Mexico are the Belgium of the war. No other states or the federal government may interfere.

4. This is an all out war - the winner dictates surrender terms to the loser.

5. If you feel the urge to make more rules, refer back to rule Number 1.


OK, so there it is - debate open. So who's it going to be, Texas or California??

Written by: Answerman

As many of you know, John Kerry is searching for a running mate. And I have the perfect person in mind: Saddam Hussein.

Yes, I know Hussein was not born in the United States and is therefore, under a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution, unable to serve as vice-president or president. But I'm sure Kerry could find, pay, or blow some liberal judge out there willing to decide that there is no such birth requirement, under a penumbra, an emanation, or something like that. The Constitution is a living and breathing doctrine, after all, as noted constitutional scholar and Harvard C student Al Gore lectured us a few years ago.

Anyway, forget about the law, as Democrats do. Hussein would make a perfect vice-president under Kerry. For one thing, he has much more executive and foreign policy experience than Kerry does, which would shore up one of Kerry's perceived weaknesses. Second, just like Kerry fought in Vietnam and is therefore really neat and special and manly, Hussein has fought in several wars. Moreover, unlike Kerry and the rest of the Democrat party, Hussein is not a wuss; he has repeatedly demonstrated his willingness to take risks and use force in order to act in what he perceives are the national interests of his country.

Let's not forget that Hussein is brown-skinned. This always seems to be an important character trait that Democrats emphasize.

In addition, Hussein's supporters have almost as much of a rational Bush-hatred animating them as Kerry's have an irrational one. Almost.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Hussein has real potential as a vote-getter in postmodern, multicultural America. Given the number of our states populated by hordes of anti-American foreigners, and given the fact that Hussein is anti-American and a foreigner, I am quite certain he could help Kerry carry California, New Mexico, Illinois, Michigan, the District of Columbia, and perhaps even Florida. In short, Saddam could be an electoral gold mine.

Of course, I forgot to mention one important factor that makes this such an attractive idea for Kerry, who once attended a meeting of 60s jackasses discussing which U.S. senators they planned to assassinate -- Hussein agrees with Kerry on damn near every foreign policy issue of importance to this year's presidential election.

It's a match made in heaven. I even have a bumper sticker idea that would establish a subtle link in voters' minds back to the Clinton/Gore era -- "Kerry/Hussein: Still Feelin' Your Pain."

Written by: Answerman

This is a must-read and, in my view, an entirely accurate analysis:

"Ideas Matter and Bush's Ideas Are Wrong

During Bush's press conference yesterday I was struck by two things. One, in his mind the only possible failure is a failure of nerve. He does not countenance the possibility that we are going further and further down the wrong path in Iraq or in general. Two he believes these things because of his belief in the neoconservative shibolleth that democracy is identical with good government and that the whole world wants liberal democracy. Any resistance is by necessity a small clique opposed to progress.

As significant numbers of Iraqis demonstrate resistance to the US and passion for other political systems, such as Islamic Sharia rule by clerics, Bush says more and more that the only solution is democracy. I can't judge whether the resistanced represents a small faction in Iraq or a plurality of the country, but I don't think it takes any great wisdom to recognize that something far more authoritarian will have to exist in an Iraqi government than what prevails in the US and the West. That is, Iraqis need law and order and commerce and a functioning civil society before any form of liberal democracy is even a possibility. Far from being a racist observation, this is the practical notion that culture matters and people around the world have distinct habits, values, goals, ideas, and beliefs that affect politics. The democracy fetish of the neoconservative right, which includes Bush, ignores decades of history in Latin America, Africa, Haiti, and elsewhere.

American constitutilism, far from being a distinct way of life that the US and the West can offer as a model, becomes a militant threat to every distinct culture on Earth. While the US is hated in part because of its strength and wealth, this model of foreign policy needlessly antagonizes everyone that is the least bit different from the US and sets up the US for a gradual weakening as it pursues a utopian goal."

As Roach points out, and as John Derbyshire explains in his most recent National Review Online piece, the choice in Iraq is not a binary one between getting the job done right or retreating. There is a "third way" that unfortunately seems increasingly to be the Bush way -- trying to get the job done right, but failing to do so because of flawed ideological premises. I think the extreme failings of neocon ideology, which I have detailed to death in here, are responsible for this flawed approach. And while I am not certain it will fail, I AM certain it significantly increases our odds of failure in Iraq. If indeed it does fail, the results will be even more catastrophic than retreat, because a retreat followed by a disaster would ultimately validate the arguments of those who say now we should stay the course, whereas a flawed strategy followed by a disaster would likely validate the arguments of those who say we should never have been in Iraq in the first place.

If you're going to "end evil," how about trying to do so in an EFFECTIVE way, and with the necessary number of troops?

Written by: Beck

Iraqi insurgents are shooting themselves in the foot. Their goal is to end an American occupation that America itself would like some day to end. All that they're accomplishing by raising hell in Fallujah and elsewhere is to send their country, one step at a time, closer to that goal of all Islamists: a return to the stone age. Witness their abduction of eight Russians. They kidnapped some Russians. Then they set them free. Then Russia sends seven airplanes to take home the 700 some Russian civilians whose whole purpose for being in Iraq was to help Iraq rebuild its infrastructure. Am I in any way abusing reality to say that all these people are good at is desecrating corpses?

Written by: Beck

The Sierra Club and the Answerman have something in common: they're both opposed to open immigration. Reason Online's blog Hit & Run has the story. Quoth Richard Lamm, aspiring Sierra Club Director:

The present American birthrate will lead to a stable population around 2050, but with today's level of immigration, our population will be approximately 500 million, on its way to a billion. Which makes sense to you? I have yet to meet an American who wants a billion neighbors -- or even 500 million. This is not as issue of immigrants, but of immigration. What possible public policy advantage would there be to an America of 500 million? Do we lack for people? Do we have too much open space, parkland and outdoor recreation spots? What will 500 million Americans mean to our environment? Are our schools unpopulated? Do we not have enough diversity? Will you live better lives if San Francisco and California double in size? These questions answer themselves. Can you imagine an America of a billion people that you would want to leave to your grandchildren?

Update: Answerman has a comment which deserves to be on the front page:

The Sierra Club is NOT opposed to immigration. Lamm and a couple others are, but there is a huge Sierra Club civil war going on between typical Leftist multicultural types and those who take the real implications of their environmental views seriously. Most of the Sierra Club leadership sides with the multiculturalists, and Lamm is likely to lose this one.

Written by: Beck

Were any of you, oh faithful readers, aware that the streets of Rio de Janeiro had lately been turned into a Heat style open war between rival drug gangs? I wasn't. Things seem to have settled down, but the law-abiding part of the population is still scared shitless.

"Today it is calm. What about tomorrow?" wonders Antonio Trajano, a shopowner on a main street. "These days have been a terrible experience, and people will remain afraid for a long time."

Written by: Beck

The army is using robots to take risks in place of humans. The iRobot (Asimov would love the name) corporation was understandably delighted that one of their "PackBots" was blown up by a booby trap. Allow me to put it in terms any TV-watching American can relate to:

One PackBot robot... $50,000
Military contract for further mini-robot R&D... $32 million
The human whose life didn't end because a funny looking robot took the bullet... Priceless.

Be sure to take note of the stylish triangular wheels.

Written by: Beck

Jordanians managed to apprehend three truckloads of explosives intended for civilian targets inside their country. Naturally, these trucks were caught entering from Syria. Jordanian officials state that there were enough explosives, "To kill thousands." Thank goodness someone in the Middle East is paying attention.

Written by: Beck

Self-appointed cleric Muqtada al Sadr has said that he is willing to die. I for one belive that the US military should do everything in their power to help him achieve just that.

Written by: Answerman

Steve Sailer, on vdare.com:

"Walking around downtown Philadelphia a couple of weeks ago, it occurred to me that Ben Franklin started more civic institutions than have all three million people of Mexican descent in Los Angeles County."

Indeed.

Written by: Speculator

Credit Drudgereport

In an add run in the current edition of The Gabber, a local St. Petersburg, Fl newspaper, sunshine-state friends of John Kerry, operating under the moniker "The St. Petersburg Democratic Club" not only urge you to extend your benefaction...

they also advocate the assassination of Don Rumsfeld.

Fourth paragraph - "We should put this S.O.B. up against the wall and say 'this is one of our bad days', and pull the trigger".

In a further act of heresy, these candidates for citizenship revocation likened the insurgents in Iraq to the curators of our nation's formation. The insurgents are simply "Iraqi patriates".

I will leave comment to you, and I will leave you the charge of contacting the members of the SPDC.

Contact KEN STEINKE (President) at 727.343.7921 or EDNA MCALL (VP) at 727.525.4586.

Click here for the SPDC website

Click here for the Gabber website

Get mad. Get on the phone. (I am fuming)

Written by: Beck

Why are we negotiating with these people?

Does this surprise anyone:

But a coalition source close to the situation told CNN that police have successfully negotiated the return of only three of their stations in the south-central Iraqi city.

How about this:

Just before police and an al-Sadr spokesman were announcing their agreement, militia fired mortar rounds at the coalition compound in Najaf, the source said.

I'm sure this doesn't surprise anyone:

The abductor warned he would "be treated worse than the four Americans that were killed in Fallujah" -- a reference to the four civilians whose mutilated bodies were dragged through the city's streets -- if their demand was not met.

Written by: Speculator

Apparently, the NYPD has found cause to fabricate and distribute a story regarding Jeff Skilling. Which makes sense - all you have to do is think, think about it.

The story that the AP published two days ago was a manufacture. Mr. Skilling was simply, simply, a victim of misfortune at the hands of media-derived infamy. While Mr. Skilling was purported to have been a public nuisance early last Friday morning, he was actually the victim of an assault at the hands of "some people in New York", which, not only led to the public embarrassment of Mr. Skilling, via an opportunistic police department, but a concussion for his wife.

The identity of the "some people in New York" remains undetermined. As does the reasoning for a lack of a formal pursuit of these perpetrators by the NYPD. As does the ability of the NYPD to enlist a group to dial 911 from differing locations all reporting a man disturbing patrons at bars and public on the street.

In related news, it turns out that Mr. Skilling's $5MM bond could be revoked were he ever to be found "severely intoxicated". (Which begs all sorts of other questions) If revoked, Jeff would become a guest of the federal government for at least one month and his visit could be extended until his court date.

Written by: Dave

Not knowing the real situation on the ground, I am afraid to do any Monday morning quarterbacking on the decisions commanders are making in Iraq. On the other hand, I am a little perplexed as to why the Marines are holding back in Fallujah. I understand that the Iraqi Governing Council is worried about Arab opinion outside of Iraq, and that Sunni members of the Council are worried about Sunni public opinion inside of Iraq, but honestly, most Iraqis are happy to see Fallujah being dealt with. Let's finish them off while they are disorganized and isolated.

More importantly, it is very likely that a large number of foreign terrorists, perhaps even Al Zarqawi, are hiding out in Fallujah. Stopping now may give them a chance to escape.

Written by: Beck

I noticed this story a long time ago (I think Jonah Goldberg linked it at The Corner at some point), and have had it in the hopper to blog ever since. I find myself now in the midst of a slow news day, so here ya go.

Slave descendents are planning to sue Lloyd's of London for insuring boats used in the slave trade. This is the part where you hear a strange noise that sounds like, "Ow!" and you realize your brain just cramped up. I'll keep this brief, since most of you shouldn't need the flaws with this whole concept spelled out in too much detail. 1) The aggrieved party, slaves in this case, are all dead. 2) Lloyds was insuring ships, not buying up Negroes to sell in Virgin'y. 3) I doubt there are all that many people of pure slave descent, and it's very hard in general to sort out who was and who wasn't born of slave stock. 4) This all happened 150+ years ago. 5) There is no number five! Haven't you people learned anything!?! So what can we conclude from these relatively obvious points boys and girls? If you answered, "These people are really just trying to use the law to defraud a successful company," then you were right! Cookies and back-pats all around.

Written by: Beck

So anyway, about a year ago some friends and I (two of whom write for INCITE) wound up in Napa Valley as part of a side-trip from a bachelor party being held in Lake Tahoe. At the Peju Province vineyard we were so impressed with the cab franc at the tasting that 4 of us split a case of the stuff and had it shipped back to TX. Today, I cracked open my first one.

Now, while I'm certainly not qualified to consider myself any kind of wine-snob, I often like to fantasize that I am one. I've had a very broad variety of wines, have spent far too much money on wine, and really enjoy, well, wine. I've had some fantastic wines (Silver Oak '97 Cabernet comes to mind) and some absolutely craptastic wines (Vendage anyone?).

Now I finally understand why cabernet franc is almost never bottled alone, and instead is typically used for blending with sauvignon grapes. This is the most potent flavored glass of wine I have ever had. The flavor is virtually overpowering. I'm having a hard time adequately describing just how flavorful it is without lapsing into a bunch of silly/trite metaphors. Let's just say that this definitely ranks as one of the top five wines I've ever had. One bit of bad news--the 2000 cab franc is completely sold out from the look of their website.

Final note--it definitely has benefited from the year that its had to age since I first sampled it in Napa.

Written by: Beck

A soldier in the army who went to my high school (years after I was there--I didn't know him) was killed in Iraq recently when his convoy came under attack. He was scheduled to return home in two weeks. RIP Scott Quentin Larson Jr.

Written by: Beck

"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."

--Alexis de Tocqueville

No futher comment necessary.

Written by: Speculator

In today's example of what happens when a six-shooter-lugging monkey marinates himself in absinthe, we find an "emotionally disturbed" Jeffery Skilling enjoying the sights and sounds of our fair land's largest city.

Written by: Answerman

The problem with reading a war post on andrewsullivan.com is that it is usually followed up by a domestic politics post of sheer stupidity. Andrew announced this week that (1) he's for a high gas tax, and (2) he doesn't drive. Well isn't that special! Andy wants to jack up taxes that HE won't be required to pay! This speaks for itself.

Sullivan goes on to quote a fawning reader's email on the subject:

"One of the things that's always surprised me about many supposed conservatives is their refusal to acknowledge what I've always believed in, and what strikes me as the essense of classical liberalism, i.e. personal responsibility, which applies to environmental concerns as well."

Okay people, I'm going to give you a quick political philosophy lesson: CLASSICAL LIBERALISM IS NOT CONSERVATISM. See, a classical liberal is a classical liberal. A conservative is a conservative. As I've said before, just because the Left is no longer dominated by classical liberals and instead has been taken over by radical nihilists does not mean the classical liberals get to take over the Right. They can go fight it our with their former brethren for all I care, but we conservatives are happy to stay conservative and run our own show, thank you very much.

Sorry, I just really hate it when people assume conservatism is or should be classical liberalism. For God's sake, the whole intellectual history of the nineteenth century revolves around the formation and struggle between the conservative and classical liberal movements!

Written by: Answerman

Andrew Sullivan hits the perfect pitch on the necessary reaction to this week's events in Iraq:

"[W]hat I do know is what I learned from Hobbes. The entire enterprise of attempting to bring some kind of normalcy to Iraq can only be accomplished if the coalition forces have a monopoly of violence. Right now, we don't. At this point, establishing that monopoly is far more important than in any way showing reluctance to take the battle to the enemy. The Sadrists must be confronted and as effectively as possible. If that means more troops, send them. If that means more firepower, get it."

When he's not talking social issues, he's usually talking sense.

Written by: Answerman

Below, I called John Kerry a wimp. Which means that if anyone ever read this blog, I would have to listen to rejoinders about how he served in the Army in Vietnam. Who gives a crap?

Listen, I have nothing but respect for people who have served our country in times of war. One of my best friends, who also happens to be a blogger here at Incite, did so, and it would be difficult for me to express fully my admiration at his having done so. I will also admit that I would be unlikely to do so on a voluntary basis myself. I wish it were otherwise, but my best sense of self-knowledge tells me it isn't.

That said, I'm getting sick and tired of people who think that having served in the military gives them some sort of extra-special credibility when it comes to foreign policy. I happen to know a lot about foreign policy, and the closest I ever got to the military was hearing second-hand stories of Captain Dave getting his balls edge-dressed at West Point. I bet those of you who have served in the military know hundreds of dumbasses who don't know a damn thing about foreign policy.

I'm also getting sick and tired of people who think that having served in the military means that no matter what else they have done, are doing, or will do, they forever deserve to be branded as "courageous" or "manly." John Kerry is a wimp. He has spent more than the last 30 years of his life engaged in a series of acts of total cowardice -- from his shameful antiwar propaganda in the 1970s to his unwillingness to be honest and stand up for his own voting record in the 1980s to his feckless and contradictory approach to foreign policy in the 1990s and now. The fact that he trudged around a hostile jungle a few years before that does not and should not insulate him from such statements about his character. The defining image of John Kerry, when his life is viewed in context, is that of him tossing SOMEONE ELSE'S war medals aside at the Capitol, as if they were his own. It is not that of him serving his country in Vietnam. Thousands of others served, and thousands of other have not devoted the rest of their lives to bottom-feeding demagoguery and cowardice.

John Kerry is a coward. End of story.

Written by: Answerman

Many of you may disagree with the policy prescriptions I outlined in my last post, especially those involving racial profiling, immigration, and going to hell. If you do, that's because you're not serious about the threats facing our country and the need to do something about them. I'm sorry, but it's true.

This suicidal postmodern notion in Western society that certain topics -- racial profiling and immigration -- are out of bounds as legitimate subjects of debate simply because people are "sensitive" about them, is worthy of extreme and violent contempt. Which is coincidental, because this notion happens to fill me with extreme and violent contempt.

We are at war with Radical Islam. Get over it -- you may not WANT to be at war with Radical Islam, you may feel that being at war with Radical Islam make make other Muslims sad and all that, but the funny thing about war is that you don't get to decide whom you're at war with unless you do the attacking.

We are a society built -- successfully -- on the foundation of Anglo-Protestant culture. Get over it -- you may not LIKE the fact that American society was built on such a foundation, but the funny thing about culture is that you don't get to decide what ethno-religious groups dominated your country's history and how they did so unless you're God.

To defeat Radical Islam, we have to identify Radical Islamic terrorists who have penetrated our borders. Radical Islamic terrorists are overwhelmingly brown-skinned. Ergo, and try to stay with me here, it is stupid and suicidal to waste finite resources strip-searching Norweigian grandmothers. Now let's stop here for a second folks. We live in a place and time where that sentence -- "it is stupid and suicidal to waste finite resources strip-searching Norweigian grandmothers" -- is controversial. My God! Bill Clinton's America, indeed. Anyway, if you disagree with this because you don't want to hurt brown-skinned people's feelings, then you're a moron. I don't want to blow up.

To maintain the strength of American Anglo-Protestant culture, we need to stop letting hordes of angry Mexicans with no money and strong anti-American sentiments into our country. If you disagree with this because you don't want to hurt angry Mexicans' feelings, then you're a moron. I don't want to live in a Third World country.

So....are you serious about defeating Radical Islam? Are you serious about maintaining a vigorous American society capable of averting decline? I doubt it.

Written by: Answerman

I really hate these people. The notion of a Democrat, much less 3 of them, participating in an inquiry into government policies that may have "allowed" 9/11 to occur is downright asinine. Democrats have no credibility on terrorism, foreign policy, or frankly anything other than oral sex and how to drown a mistress of the coast of Massachusetts. Of course, in New America (I think I'm going to run with this term) credibility is a luxury. All you need is a suit and a jackass with a television show and your "voice" is considered an important part of the "debate."

Well guess what? There doesn't need to be a debate. I can tell you what needs to be fixed about pre-9/11 national security policy. Here's a thumbnail sketch of some of the key initiatives:

1. End the law enforcement approach to fighting terrorism.

2. Racially profile.

3. Deport all illegal immigrants.

4. Institute a short-term moratorium and a long-term drastic reduction in legal immigration.

5. Elect presidents concerned more with national security than with their wankers and midnight basketball leagues.

6. Stop electing nihilistic, dishonest morons (for any foreign readers, in America we call these people "Democrats") to public office.

7. Stop coddling Middle Eastern mafia states like Syria.

8. Stop funding anti-American Middle East studies programs at our country's universities.

9. Go to hell.

See, do we need a commission to come up with these ideas? Of course not. We need a commission to make noise at the president during an election year and increase the odds that some wimpy 60s hippie reject gets elected in November. Fantastic. And through it all, Republicans play along as if they are engaged in some serious policy inquiry in which they have mere "differences of opinion" with the bad guys. When will Republicans learn never to trust Democrats? When will conservatives learn never to trust Republicans?

Written by: Answerman

Sam Francis has a nice column up at vdare.com excoriating neocon Max Boot for his dishonesty in reporting his recent ANC-funded trip to post-apartheid South Africa:

"What he doesn't tell us is the truth about the systematic campaign of murder and torture carried out since 1994 against South Africa's white farmers. Some 1,600 have already been murdered, and while the government claims it's simply uncontrollable crime, the indications are that it's a deliberate effort to exterminate whites and drive them off the land.

But that's only farmers. Some estimates put the number of white Afrikaners killed by blacks since 1994 at 30,000 or more. Mr. Boot mentions none of this. 'The most inspiring thing about South Africa,' he sighs pleasantly, 'is that there seems to be so little rancor.'"

As usual with these characters, Boot ignores the facts on the ground when they don't conform to his simplistic ideological worldview -- democracy and universal suffrage always good, no matter the context or even the results. I have no earthly idea why anyone would expect me to take these jokers seriously. Over to you, Captain Dave?

Written by: Beck

I've added a new feature here at INCITE, which the more observant of you may have already noticed. It's what you've all been clamoring for! That's right: polls! Now you can practice the joys of democracy from the privacy of your own web browser.

The current poll isn't especially exciting, but I wanted to test out the code and the service (free polls = you get what you pay for). In the future I hope to have either more interesting or more amusing polls. Anyway, feel free to email any suggestions about this poll or suggestions for future polls. As always, we love to hear from our readers.

Written by: Beck

A band of Iraqis have taken three Japanese civilians hostage, saying that they will burn the hostages alive if Japanese soldiers don't pull out of Iraq.

Of all the countries to pick on, why oh why did these fools decide to choose the one country engaged only in giving humanitarian aid? The Japanese Self Defense Forces (SDF) are not allowed to engage in military activity outside of Japan. It's in their constitution. Japan decided to send a contingent to Iraq so that their soldiers could at least get some practice at working outside of Japan, but thanks to their constitutional constraints, humanitarian aid is the only thing they CAN do. And the Iraqis want them out.

Not surprisingly, the three who are to be burned to death were also involved in charitable activity. The Japanese government is understandably worried, especially since they're going to have to rely on the US and others for any sort of rescue attempt. Nonetheless, Japan's Prime Minister Koizumi has said on no uncertain terms that the SDF will not pull out of Iraq. At least someone has learned the lesson terrorists taught in Spain about the efficacy of appeasement.

In a tangential discussion, Tech Central Station has an article about appeasement and why it's a fatal mistake.

Written by: Beck

I have a lot of problems with a lot of the things that have issued from the mouth of Senator John McCain in the past six or seven years. He has redeemed all of that, at least in my mind, with a speech he made on the floor of the Senate this Wednesday, which NRO was clever enough to reprint in full. You should read it. Really.

For those lacking the patience to click a link, I provide for you some prime excerpts:

I have also heard a number of observers, including some Senators, who have compared events in Iraq to what we went through in Vietnam. I happen to know something about Vietnam, and I know we do not face another Vietnam. I need not go into the long history of our involvement in that nation, the reasons for our failure, but the realities on the ground in Iraq are clear.

There is no superpower that is backing these minority of Shias and Sunnis who are seeking to gain political power through the use of a gun, and there is no comparison as far as the sanctuary which this enemy has. We grant them no sanctuary.

Some have stated we are on the defensive. I would argue that, as we speak, in Fallajuh and other places, our Marines and Army are on the offensive, dedicated to the proposition that no group, no matter what their ethnic or religious beliefs are, will take control of Iraq.

Also,

Again, in Vietnam there was superpower support. There were arms and political support. We did not have a clear plan for victory, and dare I mention that in Vietnam many times we had more casualties in a week, sometimes less than a week, than we have had in a year in Iraq.

To make these comparisons with the Tet offensive or the entire Vietnam conflict is not only uninformed but I think a bit dangerous because, of course, the specifics of our involvement in that conflict fade, as they should, in the memories of the American people.

Also,

The realities are the Sunni minority will never control Iraq again. We have a small minority of Shias who are trying to grab some political power before the July 1 transition. There is very little doubt that Sadr's followers are in a distinct minority and the majority of Shias still owe allegiance and have allegiance to the Ayatollah Sistani, who has argued, perhaps not forcefully enough, that we do not have the kind of armed conflict that we are seeing today.

Is this a difficult political problem? Yes. Is it the time to panic, to cut and run? Absolutely not. The vast majority of Iraqi people are glad we are there and they state unequivocally that they are better off than they were under the regime of Saddam Hussein. Lest time dim our memory, let us remember the mass graves that we discovered, the 8- and 9-year-old boys coming out of prison in Baghdad, the despotic, incredibly cruel practices of his two sons. The people of Iraq and America and the world are better off with Saddam Hussein gone.

Also,

The fact is, to argue that we should have left Iraq under the rule of this incredibly cruel person who used weapons of mass destruction, who had weapons of mass destruction in 1991, was continuing to attempt to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and if in power would continue to try to acquire those weapons, certainly flies in the face of the facts about Saddam Hussein's regime.

Senator Byrd says we should not have gone into Iraq in the first place and that we should not be there now. I respect the view. I strongly disagree with it, and I think the facts indicate that is not the case. We could argue for days about it, but right now at this moment we need to send a message not only to the Sunnis in Iraq and the minority of Shias in Iraq who are taking up arms and killing Americans that we are there to stay. We are there to stay and we will see it through. If we fail, if we cut and run, the results can be disastrous. Those results would be the fragmentation of Iraq, to start with, on ethnic and religious lines. The second result would be an unchecked hotbed of training ground and birthing of individuals who are committed to the destruction of the United States of America.

And finally,

So there is a lot at stake. I grieve every moment, as every American does, for the loss of these brave young Americans' lives. They have made a supreme sacrifice, and we will honor their memory, but at least their grieving families will know they sacrificed in the cause of freedom.

At this particular moment of crisis--and it is a crisis--I urge all of my colleagues and all Americans to join together in this noble cause. Yes, we are free to criticize; yes, we are free to make recommendations and suggestions; but the awesome responsibility lies with all of us, led by the President of the United States, as we attempt to carry out what is the most noble act that no country in the world has ever done besides the United States of America, and that is to shed our most precious blood and expend our treasure in defense of someone else's freedom in the hope that they may enjoy the fruits of a free and open society in a democracy that is guaranteed to all men and women by our Creator.

Written by: Beck

I'm not sure what to think of this story. A 15 year old girl distributed naked pictures of herself on the internet and is being charged with various crimes, among them "sexual abuse of children."

How does one illegally abuse oneself?

Written by: Beck

As all hell breaks loose in Iraq, people are even less inclined to pay attention to any of the news coming out of Afghanistan. That may have a lot to do with why I got this story from the Baltimore Sun (as opposed to my normal haunts of NRO and CNN).

In a nation as divided as Afghanistan, can you even legitimately call a fight between rival warlords a "civil war?" Those familiar with the history of Afghanistan will be surprised neither by outbreaks of violence between local hegemons, nor by news that the "invasion force" consisted of "some 200 vehicles and 400 horses."

But wait! There's more:

In other news yesterday, the State Department's top counternarcotics official said Afghanistan may be on pace for a world record opium poppy crop this year.

The specter of nearly 300,000 acres of poppy cultivation this year would "empower both traffickers and the terrorists they feed," says Robert Charles. The prospective bumper crop has been aided by unseasonably warm temperatures this year.

According to U.N. estimates, poppy exports were a $2.3 billion business last year, nearly half of the country's gross national product.

Question for Speculator: is there any way I can short heroine futures?

Written by: Beck

CNN reports that this has been the "second deadliest nine-day stretch since the Iraq war began more than a year ago."

What I want to know is, who keeps track of statistics like this? Are "deadliest nine-day stretches" a standard metric for hostile action casualty evaluation or something? I assume I just didn't get the memo.

Written by: Beck

...of The Godfather? The uprising in Iraq has a second, largely unreported element to it. The insurgents are commanded by the photogenic Muqtada al Sadr. He's a Shiite. The leading Shiite cleric (am I the only one getting sick of that word?) in Iraq is the Grand Ayatollah Ali al Sistani, and HE is calling for peace. So where's the problem? The simple fact of the matter is that the situation on the ground in Iraq is much more complicated than the vast majority of Americans realize.

Enter Spencer Ackerman, posting on the blog over at The New Republic Online (link credit to Andrew Sullivan). The fluid ethnic and religious situation in Iraq, apart from being frequently characterized as "fluid" and "volatile" is also much more "complicated" than simply "Kurds, Shiites, and Sunis." Sadr represents a faction within the Shiite movement that firmly believes that all problems, mishaps, misfortunes, and miscreants can be blamed on America (which, naturally, is run by Jews). These are the same people who see no difference between Iraq as ruled by Saddam Hussein and Iraq as ruled by American soldiers.

Sistani is the most important figure in Iraqi Shiism, but that position isn't immutable. As Juan Cole observed to the Los Angeles Times in February, "Shiism has a strong populist component, so [Sistani] could face a stampede to other [religious] figures if he loses the street." Sadr's apparent push into Najaf therefore poses a challenge to Sistani: Even if Sadr is "martyred" by the United States, Shia Iraqis may subsequently ask why their grand ayatollah didn't challenge the U.S. as forcefully. Then there's the fact that Sistani and Sadr are charting two separate courses for the Shia. In addition to the political differences between the two men--Sistani's patient challenges to the occupation versus Sadr's violence--their theological differences are irreconcilable: Sadr and Sistani espouse opposing interpretations of the role of the Islamic clergy in governance, with Sadr pushing Iranian-style "guardianship of the jurisprudent" (vilayat-i faqih) and Sistani rejecting it. Sistani is said to be singularly focused on ensuring that the Shia don't repeat the mistakes of 1920, when a violent and futile revolt against the British occupation paved the way to Sunni domination and Shia subjugation. Sadr appears to be leading the Shia down precisely this path.

Read the whole thing.

Written by: Beck

Notice I say "for" the day, not "of" the day. That's so that none of you have cause to gripe at me when I don't toss a quote out here every day.

That said, here is something for you to ponder:

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. A man who has nothing which he cares about than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance at being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

The man who said that, John Stewart Mill, was one of the first great champions of the Free Market. Let that serve as a reminder to those of the Libertarian persuasion who think that war must always be avoided regardless of the circumstances. Freedom is not free.

Written by: Beck

Condoleezza Rice has testified before the 9/11 commission. How poorly or well that went is largely irrelevant--what matters is how the media interprets and portrays her performance. So, without further delay, I present to you a media wrap-up from Rice's hearings:

CNN treats things pretty even-handedly, leaving you with no real impression of how things went. They mention that it was argumentative, and that a couple of the questioning sessions grew "heated," but that's about it. ABCNews treats it the same way, though they throw in a few more of the direct quotes of Rice getting harassed by Ben-Veniste and Kerrey. Still, their online article would leave no impression on someone who hadn't made up their mind either way.

The liberal blogosphere has surprisingly little to say on the subject. It looks like the entire event will be relatively underwhelming. Kevin Drum at The Washington Monthly (formerly of Calpundit) observes that she looks "nervous and hesitant," but beyond that pretty much admits that he too is waiting to see the broad response to her testimony. Daily Kos addresses a few tangential subjects related to Dr. Rice and to National Review's response to Dr. Rice, but doesn't actually address her testimony. What's far more interesting over at Daily Kos is an open discussion thread which garnered over 300 comments. It gives a pretty good feel for how a broad selection of the left responded to her remarks. Basically, they didn't get too excited over much, they objected to her seeming strategy of talking endlessly to try to "run down the clock," and they cheered any time one of the commissioners gave her a grilling. Dr. Evil: "Pretty standard really." Atrios has a lot to say. He focuses on what he identifies as factual contradictions. I'd be interested in seeing some vetting of his sources, but regardless, you can find what he has to say on it here, here, here, and here, plus an open discussion thread here.

So how about conservative journalism, what do they have to say on the topic? I thought you'd never ask. National Review's blog The Corner doesn't have all that much to say--just what you would expect really--a few comments on the hostility of some of the questioners and a bunch of stuff about Einstein (really). More interesting is an article on NRO by Clifford May bemoaning the course the 9/11 Commission has taken (i.e. looking to lay blame vs. looking to make recommendations for policy improvements going forward). Meanwhile, Reason magazine has virtually zilch to say. They've successfully devoted more copy (by a wide margin) to a revival of the old TV show Dr. Who than to the 9/11 hearings (I'm not entirely sure I blame 'em). The two posts in their blog Hit & Run are tangential, referencing an older AP story and some issues related to Richard Clarke's earlier testimony. Elsewhere, Instapundit has a couple things to say, but they're primarily just excerpts from the hearings which he found amusing.

And there you have it. It seems, for the most part, to have turned out to be a relative non-event. Unless the nightly news crowd jumps on this story in a big way, don't count on hearing much more about it. Definitely don't count on hearing anything near the noise that came out of Richard Clarke. And then of course, you could always hop over to MSNBC and take the poll

Written by: Beck

Things are getting interesting again in Iraq. The long awaited reprisals against the mutilation of American civilians in Fallujah is underway. There's one thing amidst all the news that I'm especially happy to see. Insurgents, using tactics invented by Hussein, are using Mosques as shields, assuming that Americans, in a bid to avoid negative opprobrium from the international press, wouldn't target religious sites. Guess again.

A wall surrounding a mosque in Fallujah was hit by two precision guided 500 pound bombs, followed up by a shot from a hellfire missile. I love the name of the hellfire missile. It leaves absolutely no doubt in your mind as to what its purpose is and what it does. But I digress.

From one CNN article:

Insurgents "firing from the mosque blatantly misused a protected symbol by conducting offensive military operations from a place of worship," the source said.

"As a result, the mosque lost its protected status and therefore became a lawful military target."

Yet the main structure of the mosque itself remained protected and intact, according to one soldier. Gotta love it when your weaponry is so accurate that you can take out surrounding walls without damaging the building. From another CNN article:

Marine 1st Lt. Wade Zirkle said the militants "fight like cowards and fight amongst families," whom the coalition forces try to protect as they target the terrorists.

Surely Iraq's leading Shiite cleric and member of the Interim Governing Coalition (or whatever they're calling it now) has something to say? Taking a page out of Neville Chamberlain's handbook on dealing with madmen, it turns out, he sure does:

Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the most senior Shiite cleric in Iraq, on Wednesday condemned recent coalition attacks and called for a "peaceful road out in order to avoid any further chaos and bloodshed."

Right. 'Cuz that has been shown to work so well in the past. Makes perfect sense to me. Assclown.

Finally some good news. I spotted this quote in the Australian Sydney Morning Herald:

The insurgents claimed in a communique to have shot down three US helicopters, destroyed two jeeps and two armoured vehicles.

They also claimed they were still in control of the city and had put US forces to flight.

Why, you ask, is this GOOD news? Because it's evidence that Baghdad Bob has found a new employer!

But I would hate to leave you with such an upbeat note. Wonder what the American public is thinking re: the war? Well, not that it's the best indicator in the world, but there's a CNN poll asking "What should the US military do?" Options are 1) Send reinforcements, 2) Keep current troop numbers, or 3) Withdraw. Of 51630 votes cast (as of now), a frightening 42% chose "withdraw." Can you people even begin to imagine what would happen if, tomorrow, the entire US military presence in Iraq just up and pulled out? Hmm... that gives me an idea for a potential future post. Stay tuned loyal readers!

Written by: Beck

Brian Micklethwait over at European Libertarian blog Samizdata has an excellent point to make which dovetails nicely into Captain Dave's earlier post about how American resolve in Iraq must not waver. He also throws in a dig at Woodrow Wilson--always a good sign.

Essentially, he likens anti-American sentiment abroad to children in a classroom "testing" a new teacher. Will the tough-talking teacher crater as soon as destructive elements within the classroom start exerting pressure, or will he stand firm, establishing once and for all that HE and not THEY are going to set the tone? Likewise, after 9/11, America started talking tough for the first time since the Cold War. Everyone was duly impressed when we invaded Afghanistan and ousted the Taliban it faster than you can say Rambo III. Somehow, though, that was "easy." The real test was Iraq. Saddam continued to defy us, virtually laughing in our faces at continued threats of "heightened inspection regimes," and resolutions before the UN Security Council. Then we surprised pretty much everyone, invaded, and conquered Iraq before the French could even figure out who to surrender to.

Now comes the real test.

A policy of American isolation may not be perfect, but it makes sense. (This is the equivalent of simply not being a "teacher" at all, or trying to become one and then giving up in despair.) A policy of turning the world, or at least certain clearly defined parts of it, into something like an American empire, with clear rules, backed by overwhelming force and the willingness to use it in certainly quite clearly defined circumstances, also makes sense. (This is like being a firm but fair teacher, who sets boundaries, and sticks to them.) What does not make sense is a cloudy, (President Woodrow) Wilsonian dream of universal niceness, unsupported by serious power as soon as such vapidities are seriously challenged...

Since 9/11, America has strode back onto the world stage, chucking all kinds of Big Words around. America is going to hunt down terrorism not just in America itself and at the borders of America, but everywhere. America is not just going to sit tight and wait for the explosions; it is going to get out there and hunt the bastards down, and topple any or all despotisms that now back terrorism and will not back down and turn them into something far nicer and far less likely to churn out terrorists. Personally, I can entirely see the rationality of this new foreign policy, and I think I support it, provided it is pursued consistently and until it has worked. But, do they mean it? What are the Americans really made of?

Now that the President Bush version of the USA is facing (I would say) its most serious test since 9/11, in the form of an insurgent challenge in Iraq clearly timed to coincide with the forthcoming Presidential election, we are about to find out. Will Bush himself blink? Will the Democrats offer a cut-and-run alternative to the American voters, and if they do, will the American voters grab it or spurn it?

We are, I think, about to find out. And if it turns out that America does not have the stomach for the fight it now faces to impose its new foreign policy on the world, the sooner the rest of us find out, the better.

Read the entire thing (be sure to click the Read More button).

Written by: Beck

Reason Online Editor-in-Chief Nick Gillespie has a lot of intelligent things to say. Buuuut I guess they can't all be winners. Today he offers up "One for the Team," an article in which he 1) rambles for an unfortunately long time about Lee Majors and 2) draws some conclusions about Bush administration tactics drawn from what can only accurately be described as "the inside of his colon."

The first two paragraphs of his article are by far the strongest. Why? Because he spends the entire time talking about 80's show The Fall Guy. From that point it's all down hill. His basic thesis is that everything he's observed so far about White House strategy towards the 9/11 commissions demands for testimony points to an elaborate scheme to turn Condoleezza Rice into the person who takes the fall for our failure to prevent the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In a nut shell, he observes:

But this much is likely: At some point, rightly or wrongly, the public is going to want an American scalp for letting 9/11 happen. On Meet the Press this past Sunday, Tim Russert asked the head of the panel, former New Jersey Gov. Tom Kean, whether anyone at any level had been fired or dismissed as a result of the 9/11 attacks. Kean answered that, to his knowledge, no one had. If the commission hearings incite the demand that someone in the current administration pay--and that's one of the functions such hearings serve, especially in election years--it will almost certainly be Rice who takes the fall.

His arguments are twofold.

1) Bush will only testify if he and Cheney testify together. Gillespie sees this as a grand conspiracy against Condi:

Given that President Bush first refused to let her testify--executive privilege and all that was at stake, you know--and then decided not only that she could testify but that he and Vice President Dick Cheney bizarrely would appear together before the commission, like some sort of cheap Sandler and Young imitation--well, it all sounds sort of like a setup to me: Condi as fall guy.

First, does this mean that every other White House aid not testifying at the same time as Bush and Cheney is also being set up as a fall guy? Of course not--to suggest that would be ridiculous. More importantly, though is the fact that it's just not accurate that Bush refused to let her testify--she already has testified behind closed doors. The only policy change has been allowing her to testify publicly and under oath. Furthermore, pretty much everyone on the right has interpreted this as some sort of master stroke of strategy. Deny the left Rice (in public anyway), get them to start howling for her testimony... and then give it to them. Rice is widely regarded as one of the most poised and articulate staff member of the White House (Chris Rock: "She's so well spoken."). It's the Democrats who have been set up, not Rice.

2) No one from the White House has been fired for 9/11. Someone, therefore, must ultimately take the blame. Right now, best guess is Rice.

OK, first of all, even Richard Clarke acknowledges that even if ALL of his recommendations for dealing with terror had been taken, nothing could have been done, based on what was known at the time, to prevent 9/11. So why the need to fire someone? Second, 9/11 happened two and a half years ago. If the White House were going to fire someone, don't you think they would have done it by now? Third, Rice is a very popular person in America. She's black, female, and gifted in too many ways to count (I just read over in The Corner that she's read War & Peace, twice, in the original Russian. For Bush & co. to sack her now, right as the campaign for the 2004 election starts to heat up, would be monumentally stuperific. Don't expect it to happen.

So here's my guess: today has been a relatively slow news day, especially after a week of increasingly interesting news from Iraq. He didn't have anything to write about, but needed to get something down in print, and, having just seen or heard some reference to the Fall Guy, his head naturally wandered around to politics and landed squarely... up his ass.

Written by: Answerman

Why can't pro-abortion activists and voters admit what the crux of the whole abortion debate is about? Either a fetus is to be defined as a human life, or it is not. If it is, then abortion is murder and must be outlawed. If it is not, then abortion is likely none of the government's business. It's that simple.

But I still have to listen to all sorts of claptrap about someone who is "personally opposed to abortion" but wants to "keep the government out of the bedroom" and blah blah blah blah blah. Look people, WHY are you personally opposed to abortion? Because you think a fetus, or at least a fetus at a certain point in the pregnancy, is a human being? Yet despite this conclusion, you feel the government should not attempt to outlaw what is by definition a murder, simply because it occurs in the bedroom? Shit, in that case, I'd like to find a bedroom somewhere and go in there with John Kerry and a blowtorch.

I have no problem intellectually with people who are pro-abortion because they think a fetus is not a life. They're wrong, but they're intellectually honest. The fact is that most pro-abortion wackos recognize the loads of scientific and philosophical evidence out there that proves a fetus is a life, so they deflect the issue by babbling about women and bodies and privacy. And a nonsensically reasoned Supreme Court case that none of them has likely ever read. None of these issues is relevant to the central question, because if a fetus is a life the rest doesn't matter. Unless you believe the government should not outlaw murder, in which case please help me fire up that blowtorch.

Written by: Answerman

This belongs on the main page rather than in the comments section:

"I'll concede IQ tests whatever it is they test. That is to say, whatever it is they test is not completely coincident with Intelligence with a capital "I." But whatever it is they test is quite important because it predicts for a variety of phenomena that human beings are concerned about like (1) ability to succeed in education (2) ability to suceed in business (3) criminal tendencies (4) accident tendencies (4) ability to solve problems in general and (5) socialization.

Smart parents raise smart kids, no doubt. But kids of "smart" parents raised in foster homes, adoptive homes, etc. also tend to be smart as we know from twin and adoption studies. Or dumb as the case may be, as in the case of dumb kids from antisocial low IQ parents rasised in high socioeconomic status pro-education homes.

But I suppose we could bury our heads in the sand, not read any of the relevant literature, and pretend that IQ is not highly heritable based on genetics. Your arguing is like Ptolemaic astronomy. Even though the best and simplest explanation is genetics, our PC culture compels you to come up with less likely, less plausible, and less predictive explanations. Meanwhile, surprise surprise, low IQ toddlers become low IQ HS students become low IQ adults who have low IQ kids and we have intergenerational poverty which is quite puzzling to the everything-is-envrionement crowd."


In my view, the tests accounting for adoption and twins separated from one another in significantly different environments are compelling.

Also, for those of you who get it and accept that a good degree of hereditable intelligence has been proved, you may find it interesting to note that a son's intelligence tends to be determined by his mother's genes.

Written by: Beck

So I finally forced myself to listen to Air America Radio. Inasmuch as they only broadcast in three markets (memory fails, but I think the three are Los Angeles, Paris, and Havana--feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). This stuff is terrible. I listened in to arch-moron Janeane Garofalo's show. She was interviewing some gentleman who wrote a book about how terrible the Bush inner circle is. Round about the point where she started talking likening the Bushs' fondness for extra-constitutional war (her words) to followers of Ayn Rand, I had to turn it off. I mean... these people have no idea what they're talking about. Ayn Rand? Yeah, objectivists are all about initiating acts of aggression against foreign states.

I've tried to stay away from the topic of Air America Radio. Not because it isn't relevant, but because EVERYONE else has already had a lengthy say on the matter. Having listened to some of it though, I just have to unleash. I remember watching Garofalo do stand up on tv once. She was actually pretty funny, but I remember being shocked when, at one point, she pulled out a crib-sheet with some notes on it and started making sure she'd gone through all her bits and hadn't forgotten any. Any funiness she may have had went out the window when Gen X grew up and got white collar jobs. In the 20 tortuous minutes I listened to her, she had not one humorous, amusing, witty, or clever remark to make. All that's left is some bitter bile left over from when she did the anti-war talk show circuit at the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom and received for her troubles some of the most thorough (and much deserved) derision in history from pretty much every pundit to the right of Chomsky (she rates Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky as two of her intellectual guiding lights).

Even the liberal media has caught on to what a joke this entire foray into manufacturing a phenomenon. Take this article from the Alternative Press Review (apt headline: Air America Radio is a Joke). You don't have to surf much further on the Alternative Press Review website than the article titled "Global Warming as a Weapon of Mass Destruction" to see what side of the political spectrum they call home. Their strikingly honest impression? Air America Radio: NOT GOOD. A quote for you:

Sadly, it seems that nothing will be there to balance the utter whiteness of the network's format. Considering that the Democratic Party would be a political nonentity without the support of black voters, the fact that they are shut out and marginalized at every turn is beyond insulting. Air America Radio is just another episode in a long history of callous indifference and clueless misunderstanding the Democratic Party and white liberals in general have shown toward the black community. White liberals need to wake up and realize that this sort of business isn't going to cut it any longer, and black liberals need to speak up loudly and let them know it. Refusing to tune in to Air America Radio would be a good place to start. I know I won't be.

My favorite bit of the article is when the author details a screaming match between Randi Rhodes and guest caller Ralph Nader. See for yourself.

Update: Byron York deconstructs the pathetic showing of Air America.

Written by: Beck

Quoth Jonah Goldberg in his most recent G-File posting on NRO, commention on some recent words from old-school Liberal Alan Wolfe:

So here's my theory about Wolfe (for more on my views about him, click here): He's an old, crotchety, and brilliant liberal who has to walk among academics and journalists who call themselves liberals but really aren't. Much like Clinton Rossiter was in his day, Alan Wolfe is a real liberal — the good kind — but he's been left behind by the times. He should have switched to neoconservatism along with the Huntingtons, Thernstroms, Kristols, and Lipsets, years ago. Instead he decided to stick around his old haunts. Perhaps it is because he loathes the label "conservative" so much he just couldn't put it on. Maybe it's because he wants to fight the good fight for the word "liberal" from behind enemy lines. Whatever. The fact remains that he hangs with the insane-clown posse of the academic Left every day. He writes for partisan-liberal journals (though his book reviews in The New Republic are still among my favorite things to read). So, every now and then he needs to wallop the "other side" — i.e., conservatives — to maintain his bona fides.

Have at it Answerman.

Written by: Beck

From last Wednesday's edition, I present you with, If Elected, I Will be Extremely Surprised. Containing such gems as,

For, as with my previous campaigns, this one will be characterized by poor organization, ill-defined purpose, and confusing rhetoric. From my opposition to "ideology" in the public-education system to my bizarre municipal-bond-burning stunt in front of City Hall, I will do nothing to convince you, the voters, that I am qualified to hold office.

And,

Citizens, if you choose to let me represent you in our senate, I will eliminate public sewers.

And,

Also, I pledge to introduce the ovenbird to our district's ecosystem. The ovenbird is a magnificent bird.

And,

Right now, I am lagging in the polls, but I will mask my fear by adopting a blustery mien and peppering my conversation with grandiose, and usually misapplied, political terms. Few will be fooled, if the public's response to me at a recent debate on city cable channel 17 is a reliable indicator. When I wasn't making long-winded, irrelevant, disconnected remarks or staring into space, I burst into loud and inappropriate laughter. This performance earned me the ridicule of the local alternative weekly newspaper, which referred to me as a "drool case."

So take heart, John Kerry. You're not the only one. And so, as I head off to bed, I leave you with this:

Before I go, let me remind you that, unlike the other candidates who hide behind lies and half-truths, I offer only the facts. The first of these facts: I don't stand a chance. The second: If, by some freak occurrence, I am voted into office, I will suck as your senator. Seriously, if elected, I will absolutely blow balls. In return for your support, you will receive nothing.

Written by: Beck

One of the best, if understated (and underrated) conservative writers is John O'Sullivan. He belongs to a different era--a time when people stated their opinions baldly, yet civilly (is that a word?), and took more offense at dishonesty than candor. Or maybe I'm just making stuff up because the picture of him on NRO invokes impressions of a be-wigged British Magistrate from a century ago. Regardless, his most recent article is a masterstroke of stating the obvious in ways people are too scared to see, and it bears reprinting anywhere that anti-idiotarians gather.

Voluminous excerpts follow:

When the late shah of Iran was asked why he did not imitate the Swedish monarchy, he responded: "I will act like the king of Sweden when my subjects behave like Swedes." In the end the shah was persuaded by President Jimmy Carter to act like the king of Sweden--whereupon he ceased to be a king of any kind.

Ah, something so uncommon to American punditry today--knowledge and appreciation of history. But I digress.

Yet the main explanation of these continuing atrocities may be that since its victory in the Iraq war a year ago, the U.S. has been so paralyzed by the fear of "over-reacting" that it has actually invited resistance. In a word, the problem in Iraq is that our Iraqi enemies are not sufficiently afraid of us.

I love it any time someone is willing to say that which people are afraid of admitting to, no matter how self-evident. Be honest with yourself. Do you not agree that Iraqis aren't as intimidated of the potential for American reprisal as they should be? This lack of fear inspired Hussein's defiance in the first place. We showed our fortitude in the initial invasion of Iraq--frankly shocking a world which had come to assume that America was all talk and no walk. Upon our arrival in Baghdad, however, we promptly reverted to our previous role of imitating Lenny from Of Mice and Men--a gentle giant who didn't want to hurt the bunny but occasionally squeezed too hard. But pardon me for rambling (and for beginning a sentence with a conjunction). O'Sullivan has better things to say:

1. In the days immediately after the fall of Baghdad, the U.S. failed to shoot looters. Maybe the military authorities thought such a heavy-handed response would alienate Iraqis. Yet the prestige of U.S. troops was so high in the aftermath of their lightning victory that two or three shootings would probably have quelled almost all challenges to law and order...

2. No enemies of the U.S.--or of ordinary Iraqis--have been tried, convicted, and executed. When captured, they simply vanish into detention...

3. Until this week, when the "uprising" of extreme Shiite followers of Moqtada Sadr forced action, the U.S. has failed to disarm and disband private armies in Iraq...

It was challenging for me to chop O'Sullivan's points down to such brief excerpts. I didn't especially want to, but in the interest of being concise, I felt I had to. Go read the article to get the entire feel for this especially clear-minded consideration of how an occupational army SHOULD behave.

Written by: Dave

Go read this CNN article. After you read it, reflect on just how suicidal our culture has become.

It is absolutely incredible that this is presented as some sort of news, and is indicative of the sinister quest CNN is on to ruin Iraq's prospects for freedom. This Sarah-fuckin-Lawrence professor doesn't know shit. He obviously hasn't stepped foot in Iraq since the liberation. His allegations that these attacks represent some sort of broad based, nationwide movement against the Coalition are a reflection of either total ignorance or total dishonesty.

Yes, all hell is breaking loose in Iraq. But I got news for everyone. It's been coming for a while. The Iranians have had a significant presence in Iraq since day one and have methodically built up Sadr's forces. They have spent millions and millions on setting the groundwork for armed resistance to the Coalition. The Sunni attackers on the other hand have much of the world's terrorist network pouring support into their operations.

This shit is going down because the stakes are high. American success in Iraq means catastrophe for all these assholes. You can't expect them to lie down and let it happen easily. They realize what is at stake. Unfortunately, it seems many in this country don't.


We have two choices. We can listen to pieces of worthless shit like this professor and retreat, and leave Iraq and the region in chaos. We can then start watching American prestige and credibility evaporate into nothing as the world begins an accelerated descent into barbarity (a world where Sarah Lawrence professors won't survive for long).

Or we can realize that we are going to continue to face resistance in Iraq because of the magnitude of what we are trying to accomplish. We can put the resources and support into the job necessary to do it right. We can remind ourselves that the large majority of Iraqis support the Coalition, and mourn for the lost lives of our servicemen while accepting the fact that more lives will be lost in the years ahead as we face a wide spread fanatic movement aimed at the destruction of Western culture.

Written by: Answerman

I think the differences between the games of baseball and basketball (both of which I enjoy playing and watching), as well as the differences inthe public's conceptions of them, are indicative of a few of the zillions upon zillions of problems I have with modern American society and, generally, the world around me.

Baseball is a slow-paced game of individual versus individual, of well-manicured grass, of complicated statistics, and of no time limits. Basketball is a high-paced game of one-on-one action, loud hip-hop music, and the shot clock. Baseball games (although this is unfortunately starting to change) are about the action on the field; usually a simple organ suffices for the non-sports-related entertainment. Basketball games are filled with off-the-court stimuli, from the thumping music to the dancing cheerleaders to the lazer-show player introductions. In short, baseball is Old America, and basketball is New America.

I hate New America, and yet I enjoy basketball. But at least I rightly enjoy baseball a heck of a lot more.

Written by: Answerman

Discuss.

Written by: Answerman

Discuss.

Written by: Answerman

Discuss.

Written by: Answerman

Discuss.

Written by: Beck

Someone finally figured out what Ted Kennedy means (and that's no easy feat) by all his talk about Iraq being Bush's Vietnam.

So, let me see if I've got this straight...

Bush got us into Iraq. Iraq equals Vietnam. So I guess that would make Bush... John F. Kennedy!

But then, Ted also compares Bush to Richard Nixon, the President who got us out of Vietnam, due in part, at least, to political pressure caused by activists like... John Kerry.

So Ted says Bush is like Ted's brother, JFK, which is bad, because he got us into Vietnam. But he's also like Richard Nixon, which is also bad, even though he got us out of Vietnam. So Ted says we should vote for JFK 2.0, who by the way served in Vietnam, which is good, because he will get us out of Bush's Vietnam, which is also good.

My head hurts.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Written by: Answerman

You know who I think should be gassed? Anyone who has ever said anything nice to or about Ted Kennedy.

Yes, that includes the president, who watched a movie with him in February 2001, presumably because he didn't want Kennedy to, oh, I don't know, call him a Nixonian liar in 2004. But hey, Republicans tend to be stupid and try futilely to get along with the bad guys, so that's that. Dave, have you ever been nice to a Democrat? Shame on you.

No, that most certainly does NOT include Beck. I once witnessed him yell "Tax and spend, asshole!" at Kennedy and Chris Dodd. Then he told Dodd to "Go back to Connecticut you communist bastard!" In a sold-out basketball arena, no less. The senators looked pissed and kind of sad. That's what I call "changing the tone in Washington."

So now we have the asshole, or the communist bastard, or whatever you want to call him, talking about the "lies" of the Bush administration. Other than the "conservative" bit of "compassionate conservative," which I doubt has Kennedy all atwitter, what exactly has Bush "lied" about? Weapons of mass destruction? Ah, yes, the Democrats' Exhibit A in the "You're another Richard Nixon, nanny-nanny-boo-boo" line of "political debate" (Andrew Sullivan is likely creaming all over himself at the elevation of this particular debate. Alternately, he may be creaming all over himself at the "Gore with a boner" picture in Rolling Stone from 2000. Another great example of the elevation of political debate in this asinine-but-not-nearly-as-asinine-as-everywhere-else country.).

Oh hell, I digressed again!

Anyway, the Dems say Bush lied about WMDs. Never mind that the French, the UN, the Dems themselves, Hans Blix, the Chinese, the Guyanans, the Spanish opposition, the Heavens Gate cult, and damn near everyone else said the same things about WMDs before the war. Never mind that even most pre-pubescent cretins can tell the difference between incorrect intelligence (maybe!) and a "lie." Not surprisingly, John Kerry and Terry McAuliffe can't.

I hear Kennedy came up with a good idea for a Kerry 2004 bumpersticker: "Kerry: I suck, and We're All Going to Die."

I wish the opposition party in this country could be better distinguished from a bunch of angry three year-olds on a sugar rush, so that I could devote more time to ranting against the neocons. Oh well.

Written by: Beck

When a whole bunch of people in Africa kill a whole bunch of other people in Africa, who's fault is it? The Africans doing the killing? Of course not! It's the fault of America, Britain, and France.

KIGALI, Rwanda -- Western powers bear "criminal responsibility" for Rwanda's 1994 genocide because they did not attempt to stop it, the commander of the U.N. peacekeeping force in the country at the time has said...

"It's up to Rwanda not to let others forget they are criminally responsible for the genocide," he said, singling out France, Britain and the United States.

In case you're wondering, the guy making these statements is a Canadian.

For some reason I find myself quietly humming the lyrics to this (Oscar nominated) tune. And just remember, the next time you decide to go on a killing spree, it's not your fault! It's the fault of Western nations' indifference to your plight!

Written by: Beck

The insurgency in Iraq is well and fully underway now. And it's all because of this guy. The most interesting thing to watch will be how the American public reacts to the situation. When Iraqis were dancing in the streets and pulling down Saddam statues, it was quite easy for the general public to stomach the liberation. Now that quite a few Iraqis seem rather less than happy to have us there, opinions could swing dramatically. My hope is that, with insurgents out in the open now, it'll be easier to crush resistance quickly, rather than trying to fight a protracted urban geurrila war. The toughest thing about operating in Iraq will always be that enemy fighters can simply put their guns down and melt back into the population.

For a thorough breakdown see either CNN's article on the subject. For an exhaustive breakdown from yesterday, see instapundit's voluminous links and quotes.

Finally, eight employees of Blackwater Security, the firm employing the four Americans who were killed and mutilated in Falluja, held off an assault on the CPA headquarters on Sunday. According to the story on MSNBC, eight guys and one injured marine fought off "hundreds" of Iraqis. These guys are basically modern-day mercenaries. And it's cool as hell. My favorite part is where they sent in their own helicopters to resupply with ammo and airlift out their wounded.

A little something you probably didn't realize:

The role of Blackwater's commandos in Sunday's fighting in Najaf illuminates the gray zone between their formal role as bodyguards and the realities of operating in an active war zone. Thousands of armed private security contractors [thousands?] are operating in Iraq in a wide variety of missions and exchanging fire with Iraqis every day, according to informal after-action reports from several companies.

Written by: Speculator

The greatest trick the devil ever played was convincing the world that he didn't exist.


It has taken me some time to get back and discuss the hazards of the proliferation of derivatives. I apologize.

I had an interesting conversation today with a professor of finance here at bravo-school that prompted me to sit down and hammer out what I wanted to discuss.

First, a fact: the figure that enjoys the greatest level of acceptance in the financial community for notional value of derivatives outstanding is $71.1 trillion - a little less than 7X our GDP.

The pricing of these instruments, i.e. options, is predicated upon option pricing models, of which there are numerous varieties. A majority of these models are modifications of two types: the Black-Scholes-Merton Model and the Binomial Model. We will not spend anytime on the intricacies of these models, but discuss a singular certain assumption that all of the existing models, be it a version of one of the two listed or something all together different, share.

And that is the idea of price continuity.

Price continuity assumes 1) that there will always be a price and 2) that the next price will not deviate materially from the preceding price.

In the world in which we live, i.e., in the deep fat of the normally distributed curve where 95% of *all* possibilities occur, in the world of two-sigma, price continuity is not an assumption, but by and large, a fact. Option-pricing models and their extensions, i.e. hedging models, work. (I will not discuss here the menacing assumption of constant volatility or that historical volatility is an adequate proxy for future vol.)

But lets talk about things three-sigma. Like a hurricane in far southern-Atlantic that makes landfall in Brazil, or, for that matter, 9/11.

As an asset prices over time, moves are reasonable, and easy to hedge. But if an asset prices outside two-sigma, e.g. the Rubble in 1998, there may simply be no price. (On 9/14/01, when trading at the NYSE resumed, thirty minutes after the exchange opened, the specialists at the American Express booth still could not open the stock, a Dow 30 issue. The bid, i.e. the highest willing price to be paid for the stock, was some 10% below its previous close and current offer. There was no price continuity for one of the exchange's most liquid issues)

When there is no price, there is no ability to trade out of a position. Furthermore, hedging 'directives' from models, which come at you in spades as assets price "rapidly", are unable to be executed.

Terminally, any model is only as good as its assumptions. Deep within the $71,000,000,000,000 worth of derivative contracts is the assumption of price continuity. Faith in the efficiency of markets is the crutch upon which all the actors who require the perseverance of price continuity reside. Markets are efficient within two-sigma. Markets become multi-modal mobocracies outside of two-sigma - and price continuity is the daily yield of a unicorn hunter. And the market inefficiency that is a result of the assumption of price continuity will beg resolution by radical means.

Written by: Answerman

Captain Dave made a point in a comment to my Rwanda post that got me thinking. He basically put forth the argument that the neocons aren't worth getting worked up about because there are so many worse groups out there. A valid point, but one that I still rejected after giving it a bit of thought:

1. Under such logic, the leftists and the nihilists and their ilk get to define the baseline, and conservatives simply get to react. Rather than be a believer in a certain philosophy or program, I am expected to align myself with anyone to the right of where the bulk of the left is. Fine. But the bulk of the left keeps moving leftward, which would require me to do so likewise. I don't want to. Being a conservative means believing in and valuing certain things, and I'm not about to compromise those beliefs and values in a meaningful sense just because those on the other side get loopier and loopier.

2. Unlike Dave (I presume, since it's hard to get a straight answer out of him that goes beyond a general sarcastic comment about how I might die at the hands of terrorists soon), I don't just disagree with the neocons on "a few issues." I disagree with their entire philosophical approach to politics and culture. The racial issues show the importance of these disagreements regardless of who is right. It is one thing to put them aside for a bit in formulating policy to defeat terrorists. It is quite another to ignore them on some blog site when you have absolutely no say in policy.

3. THE NEOCONSERVATIVES STIFLE DEBATE IN CONSERVATIVE CIRCLES. Part of the reason I increasingly hate these people is not about issue differences, but rather about the fact that they brand anyone who disagrees with them a racist and try to read said person out of the conservative movement. Dave, is this constructive? If you disagreed more often with them, would this piss you off? Do you believe in purging paleoconservatives from the movement?

Written by: Answerman

Now, for my comments. First of all, I would love to see what our friends over in neoconservative-land would have to say about this article. My guess is they would have a thoughtful response along the lines of, "Steve Sailer's a racist."

Of course, any uncomfortable fact -- like the overwhelmingly obvious and uncontroversial difference among IQs of different populations -- that upsets the simplistic neoconservative ideological worldview will be branded as racist or, more often, simply ignored. Apparently these guys are too busy ending evil in the Central African Republic or something like that, and they don't have time to end their own ignorance on a whole host of issues.

I should say that Captain Dave and I had a discussion several months ago about potential differences among races and nationalities in IQ. My argument was that although I did not have any knowledge one way or another, I considered it ridiculous and entirely ideological to have some sort of presumption that such differences don't exist. In the intervening months, I have read a lot of the work of Sailer and others, and I can now confidently say not only that I am convinced that such differences exist and are significant, but I am also convinced that any honest person who looks into the issue will quickly agree unless cowed by political correctness and/or ideological blinders.

The facts are the facts. What to do about them is, of course, another question.

Written by: Answerman

The following is an interesting article by Steve Sailer at vdare.com. I would simply link to it, but I don't know how, and I don't care to learn:



IQ: The Truth Can Set Us (And Africa) Free
By Steve Sailer

One of the most frequently emailed articles ever published by VDARE.com is my review two years ago of IQ and the Wealth of Nations. This book by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen summarizes 168 IQ studies to provide estimated average national IQs for 81 different countries. They found that the correlation between national IQ and national income is very high: 0.73. [See also another much-emailed review by Phil Rushton].

The popularity of my review is hardly surprising, because the subject matter of the book is irresistible: everybody wants to know how smart the people of different countries are.

The rest of the U.S. media, however, have proven remarkably resistant to even mentioning the existence of the Lynn-Vanhanen book. (A similar blockade existed for about 18 months in Britain before breaking down recently.)

Here in the U.S., even mentioning IQ is in bad taste. The concept of "national IQ" is completely beyond the pale. To say aloud that African-Americans average 85, and Africans 70, is insensitive beyond words.

I'm regularly asked why, when practically no other pundit will touch the subject, I risk hurting my career by mentioning IQ.

Answer: Because it's important. Because the more people understand, the more they can help other people. Because, if you ignore problems, they don't go away, but if you allow smart people to think about them, they can come up with at least partial solutions.

For example, I pointed out in my review of IQ and the Wealth of Nations that the very low IQs found in Africa, which do so much to undermine that unfortunate continent, appear amenable to improvement.

I noted that the 15-point gap between African-Americans and Africans is

"a clear example of how a bad environment can hurt IQ… African-Americans' white genes probably couldn't account for more than 3 points of the gap … This suggests that the harshness of life in Africa might be cutting ten points or more off African IQ scores."

Of course, if, like most American opinion-leaders, you never allowed yourself to think about IQ, then you wouldn't know that the sad state of Africa stems in part from IQ deficiencies.

Nor would you know that it's likely that Africa's average IQ could be raised.

Indeed, the heavyweight psychometricians backed by the much-denounced Pioneer Fund, such as Lynn, the late Hans Eysenck, and Arthur Jensen, have long pointed to vitamin and mineral deficiencies in Third World diets as a likely contributor to low average IQs.

The Pioneer Fund website says specifically:

"Some research has demonstrated that food supplements have the potential to enhance cognitive ability. Most non-genetic explanations for IQ deficits in non-developed countries have focused entirely on cultural factors such as prejudice, poor education, and poverty. The biological, but not genetic contribution to cognitive ability has largely been ignored. However, we do know that minute daily additions of essential amino acids, minerals, vitamins, and other trace elements can be critical. (Malnutrition in childhood is a different phenomenon.) There may even be group differences in the optimal daily requirements of these substances. Research of this kind carried out in developing countries such as South Africa could pay great dividends. "

Now, in a stunning vindication for IQ realists, the Associated Press has reported (March 25):

The brainpower of entire nations has diminished because of a shortage of the right vitamins, and slipping nutrients into people's food seems to be the only solution, a new U.N. survey says."

This survey, co-produced by UNICEF and the Micronutrient Initiative, begins:

"Few outside specialist circles are aware of the scale and severity of vitamin and mineral deficiency, or of what it means for individuals and for nations. It means the impairment of hundreds of millions of growing minds and the lowering of national IQs… And it means the large-scale loss of national energies, intellects, productivity, and growth."

There's a simple reason that only specialists are aware of this:

BECAUSE THE ESTABLISHMENT MEDIA CENSORS DISCUSSION OF IQ.
Got that?

The survey notes, for example, that iron shortages are driving down national GNPs by lowering national IQs:

"In most developing countries today, iron deficiency is now estimated to be preventing 40% to 60% of children from growing to their mental potential… In the last 10 to 15 years, iron deficiency has assumed even greater importance as evidence accumulates linking iron deficiency with mental impairment. In various tests of cognitive and psycho-motor skills, for example, lack of iron has been found to be associated with significant levels of disadvantage—affecting IQ scores by as much as 5 to 7 IQ points.

Similarly, iodine shortages cause the swelling of the thyroid gland called goiter, which can lead to what the U.N. report calls "cretinism."

In the U.S., these two problems were almost completely solved decades ago—by fortifying salt with iodine and flour with iron and other micronutrients. Similar methods should work in the Third World.

Of course, the expense and organizational challenges are greater. In Pakistan, for example, there are 600 commercial salt producers. Getting each to iodize is a sizable undertaking.

Yet it can and must be done.

Even if we all have to start mentioning the dread letters "IQ."

Written by: Beck

Having listened to (well, ok, read) a great deal of things that have issued forth from John Kerry's mouth, it has come to my attention that the prevailing definition of the word "nuance" is in complete disagreement with what the poor, behind the times folks at Merriam-Webster seem to think. Their definition has some nonsense about subtle distinctions. What silly people! So, in the same spirit of generosity I engage in daily when shipping, free of charge, a fresh new "nugget of wisdom" to the municipal public works (via the expedient of flushing), I offer the folks at the dictionary printers a more modern, updated, current, dare I say it? I dare! A more nuanced definition.

Main Entry: nu-ance
Pronunciation: You should know this. I mean, come on.
Function: noun
Etymology: (2004) Democratic candidate John Kerry in various speeches, interviews, &c.
1 : the opposite of what any person you are in conflict with believes
2 : not moronic in the sense of implying that non-nuanced (even if otherwise identical) versions of a thing ARE moronic
3 : a reflection of one's ability to emote with anyone and everyone.

Joking aside, I absolutely love this defensive ranting from Kerry, quoted in Time Magazine. I guess being mocked over use of the word "nuanced" for the hundredth time finally got to him:

I don't think war is nuanced at all. I think how you take a nation to war is the most fundamental decision a President makes," Kerry says, "and there's nothing nuanced at all about keeping your promises. There is nothing nuanced about exhausting remedies that give you legitimacy and consent to go to war.

A moment of silence ensued, during which Kerry, sitting on his hands, looked like he was about to explode. Finally, able to restrain himself no longer, he burst out, "Nuanced nuanced nuanced nuanced nuanced nuanced nuanced!!!" after which he was able to emit a thankful sigh of relief. "Sorry, had to get that out of my system," he appologized.

Written by: Dave

Our six or seven loyal readers probably know that I served in Operation Iraqi Freedom. My experience in Iraq reinforced my support for the war, and I am proud that I served there. I realize that if my experience there had been slightly different, my opinions on the war might differ. I am certain, however, that I would still be very unhappy with how the media is reporting the war. There are many in the media, motivated by their dislike of Bush and their belief that bad news sells better than good, doing their best to distort a difficult and trying situation in Iraq into something worse than it is.

It also doesn't help that the Bush administration is doing a lousy job of arguing the case for our involvement. It makes for an ugly combination - a media establishment deliberately undermining our efforts, and an administration incapable of articulately defending them. That's why those of us who believe in the war should remind ourselves and others of the reasons that justify it.

In addition to the many humanitarian reasons that justified taking out Saddam, I believe there are four main reasons why the U.S. was right to invade and occupy Iraq.

--------

1. Saddam was a danger to the U.S. and to the world.

Saddam hated America, supported terrorists, and wanted to be the next Saladin. The greatest source of his prestige and standing in the region was his opposition to the United States.

He demonstrated time after time that he wasn't simply interested in self preservation -- but had much bigger and more nefarious plans. If you have ever been to one of his palaces, you know that he isn't what you would a "rational actor".

Saddam also had the means (terrorists and long-range missiles) and the demonstrated will to use WMD. As I explained in an earlier post, some WMD are actually quite easy to produce, and the critical limitation is not their production, but their delivery.

Even disregarding the WMD, Saddam's active support for terrorists made him dangerous to the United States. Those who argue that his links to Al Qaeda were weak ignore the fact that we are threatened not only by Al Qaeda, but by a global network of loosely affiliated terrorist organizations. Saddam's sheltering of al-Zarqawi is an all too clear case in point.


2. Defeating Saddam and occupying Iraq has provided the U.S. with strategic leverage against terrorism's supporters.

Now that we have defeated Saddam, our enemies in the region's governments know two things: (a) we take out bad guys when we say we will, and (b) we are not too far away. This is the best tool we have to influence the region in the very near future, and to prevent countries from sheltering terrorist networks.

The only motivation the despotic regimes in the region have to cooperate with us is fear. Contrast the behavior of Saudi Arabia and Libya during the Clinton years with their behavior now. Their increased cooperation is not a sudden burst of goodwill, but a response to the fact that this administration carries through on its word.

Some will argue that Iran and Syria's attempts to undermine our efforts in Iraq are evidence that the opposite effect has been achieved. On the contrary, this is actually evidence of Iran and Syria's realization that when we achieve stability in Iraq, they will be in an untenable position. They are desperate for our failure.


3. Fighting terrorists in Iraq is better than fighting them in Iowa.

What do you think al-Zarqawi would be doing if he wasn't busy trying to murder American troops and Iraqi women and children? Do you really think that if we had stopped at the borders of Afghanistan, that all the terrorists in the world would have declared game over and gone home?

Many of the terrorists we are now fighting in Iraq would instead be hiding out in other countries planning attacks on American civilians. I'll admit that our invasion of Iraq probably has helped their recruiting efforts in the short run, but there wasn't a shortage of terrorists before the invasion. At the same time, we are also killing and capturing a lot of those terrorists in Iraq. Many don't realize that foreign Jihadists were in Iraq even before the war started, and have been getting routinely schwacked since we invaded. More importantly, as I will soon explain, success in Iraq will be the best damper on recruitment in the long run.

Still, every time another Coalition member dies in Iraq, I feel as if someone I know had died. Having served in the military, it's not just another statistic, but a person to whom I can easily attach a face and a personality. It makes it really hard to read the news.

At the same time I remind myself that our troops are much better prepared to confront terrorists than American schoolchildren are. If you don't think that's who the terrorists in Iraq would be going after otherwise, you really have forgotten 9/11.


4. Our long-term success in Iraq would be a disaster for the terrorists.

As long as we continue to live in a world economy, we will be vulnerable to terrorism. To defeat terrorism we must defeat the twisted hope that feeds it, and replace it with a different kind of hope.

Imagine what type of person becomes a terrorist. He's probably someone frustrated by the repression and hopelessness of his home country, looking for something exciting in his life, something that gives him an identity, a sense of mission, and an enemy to defeat. For the Jihadist, that enemy is the West, because its success is a constant reminder of his home country's failure.

The terrorist's self-esteem is bound to his identity as a Jihadist, and so it is essential that he perceives his mission as winnable. In the Arab mind this is especially true, as strength is respected more than justice.

When we defeated Saddam, a message was sent, America is strong, and your despots are weak. As we defeat the terrorists in Iraq, an even more important message is sent, America is strong, and terrorism is a hopeless effort. That was the implicit fear exposed in al-Zarqawi's intercepted message to Al Qaeda -- that if the terrorists lost in Iraq, it would be a moral defeat that they could not recover from.

Unfortunately, this pyschological battle has become a stalemate, as Spain's retreat is perceived by terrorists as proof not only that terrorism pays, but that they can defeat a Western country. At the same time, they would interpret a victory for Kerry as another great victory over the West won by their attacks in Iraq.

So we cannot relent. We must finish the job right in Iraq.

I am not one of those people who expect a McDonald's on every Iraqi street corner any time soon. But I do think that Iraq can become a significantly better place than its neighboring countries. When Iraqis can safely speak their mind, choose a real occupation, and have hope for the future, Arabs throughout the region will know that there is something else to provide meaning besides Jihad, and that instead of trying to tear down other nations, they can build up their own.

Many don't believe that Iraq will ever embrace this change. Those people have probably never been to Iraq. If they had, they would know that for every blood thirsty Fallujan or raving Sadr, there are five Iraqis who don't want the Coalition to leave, and who believe that things are getting better and will continue to get better. In the end, these Iraqis are going to matter more than the terrorists.

------


I believe in the arguments I just outlined. Nonetheless, I still lose sleep debating the merits of the war. Every time I hear of another Coalition member or innocent Iraqi killed, I understand why so many people oppose the war.

But what I don't understand is how so many people in the media and the Democratic Party can want us to fail in Iraq, but still consider themselves Patriots. Opposition to Bush and his policy in Iraq is not an excuse for distorting the situation on the ground and ignoring the successes our servicemen and others are achieving in Iraq.

So please, everytime you hear another discouraging report from Iraq, remember, there is another story you aren't hearing, a story of hope and progress.

Written by: Beck

Hypothesis: speed limits on freeways are set artificially low, and their enforcement is really all about revenue generation as opposed to safety.

In support I provide you with two articles, one from Long Island and one from Kentucky.

From Kentucky, we get a thorough analysis of people's driving behavior, making the observation many of you may have shared that speeding is a more and more common phenomenon. Observes Robert McCool (what a name!) of the University of Kentucky,

"I don't necessarily think we're seeing more classic speeders, people who keep their foot in the carburetor," he said. "I do believe we're seeing more housewives and others who used to drive at or near the speed limit, but now run 5, 10, 15 mph over the limit and think it's perfectly normal."

McCool thinks many factors are responsible: Overcrowded roads; modern automobiles and SUVs that feel more secure at high speeds and might falsely empower drivers to get on the gas; lifestyles so overscheduled with long commutes, work, soccer practices and children's extracurricular activities that drivers are tempted to save time any way they can.

But people still wouldn't be so flagrantly flaunting the law if they genuinely felt they were committing a crime or that speed limits accurately and fairly defined the boundaries of safe driving. I'd be very curious to see a statistic of how much revenue various municipalities generate from speeding citations every year. But wait, there's more:

Indeed, Eric Skrum, a spokesman for the National Motorists' Association, argues that the problem isn't so much a matter of people driving too fast, but of speed limits that are too low.

"The majority of speed limits are posted under what they should be," Skrum said. There are many reasons for that, he said, but a big one is that many jurisdictions set speed limits low in order to collect speeding fines.

"Too many cities are dependent on that revenue, so they need to keep speed limits arbitrarily low," he said.

Raising speed limits to levels more in line for what roads were designed for actually could make for safer driving, Skrum argues.

"If the speed limit is lower than it should be, you have a good portion of the people going at what they feel is a comfortable speed somewhere above the limit, while the people who stick to the limit become obstructions for everybody else. But if you have a reasonable speed limit, you're going to have better compliance, less tailgating and weaving in and out because more people will be driving at roughly the same speed. It's speed variance that causes accidents."

So there you have it. Speed limits should be raised. Still, how about those policemen relentlessly enforcing the law on the roads. Certainly they must believe in the laws they're enforcing. Why is it, then, that the story out of Long Island doesn't surprise me at all?

In Long Island, the president of the Policeman's Benevolent Association announced, evidently with neither irony nor shame, that police officers shouldn't ticket other police officers, or their family members. Gotta love those double standards.

"Police officers have discretion whenever they stop anyone, but they should particularly extend that courtesy in the case of other police officers and their families," Frayler said in a brief telephone interview Thursday. "It is a professional courtesy.

As a professional citizen of the United States, allow me to extend YOU some professional courtesy by thinking that you're full of shit. I lack sufficient eloquence to express what a slap in the face this is to tax paying motorists. Republican lawmaker Angie Carpenter has some further asinine blather to add to the noise:

"It's the same way they would offer a professional courtesy to a doctor pulled over on the way to the hospital to deliver a baby," she said.

Beautiful analogy there Angie. You moron. A doctor rushing to an emergency room is just like not ticketing some police deputy's wife who's driving 85, no matter the fact that you just wrote me a ticket for going 80.

So what's the solution to all this? I'm not suggesting policemen should enforce speed limit laws MORE strictly. Rather, I suggest they look to one of the few things a European nation has managed to get right. I've driven on Germany's autobahns, and I have to say it was one of the most pleasant experiences in my life. I was driving in a wimpy rental car and spent a lot of my time in the right lane, getting out of the way of motorists in Saabs, so it's not like I was enjoying the speed aspect of it. I enjoyed the fact that slow people got the hell out of the way and drivers who wanted to go faster got the hell out of the way. Montana almost managed to get it right, but they cratered in the end. Will any of this ever change? Don't bet on it. But I can dream.

Credit for the original links to Fark.

Written by: Beck

...we can all move to Switzerland. Adam Young published an article over at the Mises Institute's web site detailing the history of the origins of Switzerland from the stand point of the legendary William Tell. It's worth the read if for no other reason than that the history is quite interesting. More importantly, however, it presents a picture of the potential possessed by a nation which actually represents individual freedom and protects property rights. Young's conclusion rings loud and true:

"Did William Tell exist? Maybe not. But the principle his legend embodies--the resistance of freemen to tyranny--will always exist."

Written by: Beck

The earth is actually flat. That link will take you to a FAQ demonstrating Earth's flatness irrefutably. One choice excerpt:

11. Does this fit in with the Hollow Earth theory?
Yes. Beneath the Earth, or hanging off the edges, is a land populated by either green-skinned women or Nazis. All those claiming to have seen this have misinterpreted it to fit in with the spurious and false Spherical Earth theory.

The FAQ gets progressively more interesting the further down you go, making it worth a thorough read.

Money quote (question?):

20. Does Idaho exist?
No. The existence of Idaho is a lie, fabricated by a conspiracy of cartographers, as is England (see question 10).
21. What about North Dakota?
That doesn't exist either.

Either this is amazingly funny, or I just have a very weird sense of humor. Regardless, you're entitled to your opinion--of course, should that opinion differ from my own, you're clearly wrong.

Written by: Beck

When a ten year old sticks his fingers in his ears and shouts, "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-I can't hear you!" over and over again, it doesn't make that which he avoids hearing untrue. The same applies to aging Senators from Massachusetts.

Bush, naturally, is shouting the new March jobs numbers from the rooftops. According to CNN,

President Bush during his Saturday radio address credited his tax relief efforts for what he said was "powerful confirmation" of a growing economy.

Kerry's response is to keep repeating the same old nonsense he picked up from Howard Dean back in September.

"I guess we just see things differently," [Kerry] said. "I believe America is stronger when we create jobs at home. I believe we need a new direction. That's why I have a detailed economic plan to put jobs first and create 10 million new jobs in the next four years."

He then goes on to tell some pithy story about Radio Flyer little red wagons straight out of Citizen Kane. Should Kerry lose in November, I wonder if his concession speech will involve inexplicable references to "Rosebud." (Though, in the case of Kerry, Rosebud would likely be some thoroughbred pony from his fifth birthday party rather than a sled).

Written by: Beck

...this time of a slightly different flavor. Spanish police had isolated a terrorist cell. They had surrounded and sealed off a 40 unit apartment complex in which some Islamic terrorists attached to the Morrocan Islamic Combatant Group (GICM) had holed themselves up. There are reports that there was a firefight. Regardless, as police closed in, they heard chanting in Arabic. And then the terrorists blew themselves up, taking one police officer with them.

Inasmuch as the terrorist attacks on the Spanish trains weren't suicide attacks, it's nice to know that at least this time, some of the enemy died along with the innocent.

Read all about it on CNN.

Written by: Beck

I have a hunch that most people aren't all that interested in the goings on in Burma (Myanmar if you prefer--I don't), but for those who are, there's a brief article over on CNN that might interest you. Basically, thing aren't getting any better for Democracy activist Aung San Suu Kyi.

Let's just say that being a Democracy activist in a state ruled by a military dictatorship isn't the safest of professions. Were it not for the publicity she's received on the international stage (including the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991), she'd quite likely be fertilizing the rice paddies in a shallow grave somewhere.

In more news from nations you either never heard of or don't care about, Sri Lanka held the most peaceful elections--for them anyway--in, well, ever. I love the names of the two primary contenders for Primer Minister: Ranil Wickremesinghe and (my favorite) Chandrika Kumaratunga.

And finally, people in Brazil have something new to worry about. It sounds like a bad B-grade movie, but it's true. People there are dying from attacks by Rabid Vampire Bats. To paraphrase Dave Berry, "Rabid Vampire Bats" would make an excellent name for a rock band.

Update: Aung San Suu Kyi's political party, the National League for Democracy continues to agitate for her freedom prior to a constitutional convention the ruling military junta announced last week. They also want the release of three of their other leaders, Aung Shwe, Tin Oo, and U Lwin. Is it just me, or do Burmese names all come off looking vaguely like abbreviations used in some 13 year old's cell phone text message? I'm sorry, was that insensitive? Damnit, I'm always doing that.

Written by: Beck

Today, during one of my usual lengthy forays into the World Wide Web, I stumbled upon a quote. It is an old quote, but it is an extraordinarily good one. I immediately thought to myself, "Self, you should put that quote you've stumbled upon in a place where lots of people will see it." Inasmuch as I'm too chicken-shit to sneak down to the airport and deface every airplane I can find with graffiti, I've decided to plaster it here, on this little corner of the web I share with three other nut-cases.

At first I thought to title my post "Quote of the Day," but that would imply a daily quote output I'm not anywhere near prepared to maintain. I'd already been toying with a quote of the week concept (perhaps still to come), but frankly, I didn't want to debase the importance and relevance of what I've got in store for you (the tension--can you feel it?!) through comparison with any future quotes. So, instead, I settled on the really long, rambling, nonsensical introduction you've just finished reading (assuming you made it this far). So here it goes:

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

--George Washington

Anyone who questions why I find this little line of Washington's so important, or worthy of such an overblown overture, need no longer read this web site. No wait, I take that back. Anyone who doesn't understand the importance of that quote is in greater need of reading this website than anyone else. Otherwise, I'm just preaching to the converted.

Written by: Beck

It's not new news--Wired published this article back in September--but it's new to me, and I wanted to comment on it. Basically, a pair of companies operating independently in the US have come up with new methods of creating artificial diamonds affordably. While small, low grade artificial diamonds have been manufactured for decades for use in various industrial applications, affordable artificial jewelry grade diamonds are a relatively new thing.

This could be HUGE on two completely different fronts. First, and most obviously, it could bring about the final destruction of the de Beers diamond cartel. The impact that would have in the luxury jewelry market could be quite far reaching. Perhaps even more significant, however, is the potential for semiconductors made not of silicon, but of diamond.

But the greatest potential for CVD diamond lies in computing. If diamond is ever to be a practical material for semiconducting, it will need to be affordably grown in large wafers. (The silicon wafers Intel uses, for example, are 1 foot in diameter.) CVD growth is limited only by the size of the seed placed in the Apollo machine. Starting with a square, waferlike fragment, the Linares process will grow the diamond into a prismatic shape, with the top slightly wider than the base. For the past seven years - since Robert Linares first discovered the sweet spot - Apollo has been growing increasingly larger seeds by chopping off the top layer of growth and using that as the starting point for the next batch. At the moment, the company is producing 10-millimeter wafers but predicts it will reach an inch square by year's end and 4 inches in five years. The price per carat: about $5.

It's a long article (6 pages) but very interesting. A good read if you've nothing more productive to do.

Written by: Beck

First, witness a test of the new army balistics testing mechanism.

Next, if you don't laugh at this, you take life too seriously.

Finally, the Viking Cats want to take the Answerman to a gay bar.

Written by: Beck

Allah has fun with photoshop.

Go read it. NOW!

Written by: Beck

While the Spanish citizens who cravenly voted the conservative government out of office in favor of socialists in the wake of the 3/11 bombings may have thought the socialist's plan to withdraw troops from Iraq would bring them some sort of immunity from future terrorist attacks, it would appear that they're not quite out of the woods yet. That sentence was far too long. An unexploded bomb was discovered under the rails of a Spanish bullet train today. Authorities were able to defuse the bomb before anything bad happened. An excerpt:

State radio quoted officials as saying the Civil Guard defused the bomb -- and that it was made of the same type explosive used in the March 11 terrorist attacks on Madrid trains.

The bomb was found Friday near the town of Villaseca de la Sagra, in Toledo province south of Madrid, a Civil Guard spokesman told CNN.

The bomb contained 10-12 kilograms (22-24 pounds) of dynamite connected to a detonator by a 131-meter (430-foot) cable, Spain's Interior Minister Angel Acebes said.

I wonder if the Spanish electorate is having any second thoughts about the March elections. It's also worth noting that while the new government plans to pull troops out of Iraq, they've also offered to double their contingent in Afghanistan. These people need to stop playing politics and trying to please everyone and open their eyes. The terrorist threat is real, immediate, and will not go away with appeasment.

Written by: Answerman

Discuss.

Written by: Beck

I can't even begin to say how happy it made me when I turned on my computer this morning, headed over to CNN.com, and saw the lead headline there:

U.S. JOB GROWTH SOARS

Inasmuch as the Dems realized early on that they wouldn't be able to attack Bush strictly on the economy--for one thing, 9/11 did more damage to the economy than any presidential policy could have, and for another thing, the economy had been in steady recovery mode for over a year--they made the brilliant tactical maneuver of announcing that the present economic boom was "a jobless recovery." I knew they'd hit their mark when I heard my mother, during a visit home last month, using the phrase "jobless recovery" at the dinner table.

First of all, the whole jobless recovery bit was nonsense. Non-farm payrolls have been growing since September 2003. But now, they've had a talking point they were extremely fond of yanked out from under them. Jobless recovery what?

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - U.S. payrolls grew at the fastest pace in nearly four years in March, the government said Friday, in a report that soared past Wall Street forecasts and could play a pivotal role in Fed policy and the presidential election... Payrolls outside the farm sector grew by 308,000 jobs in March, the Labor Department reported, compared with a revised gain of 46,000 in February.

Written by: Beck

At least I'm assuming that's what happened to this guy. Any other explanation is just too pathetic to believe possible.

Written by: Answerman

I was looking through the various posts on NRO's Corner this afternoon and noticed Rich Lowry's screed on Clinton's refusal to intervene in Rwanda in 1994. According to Lowry, "[t]he Clinton administration's conduct during the Rwandan genocide was one of the more shameful episodes in recent American history." How so, Rich? I hate to defend Bill Clinton against National Review, but if the administration -- whether it knew of the genocide or not -- determined a Rwandan intervention was not in the national interests of the United States, then its refusal to intervene should be celebrated rather than condemned in apocalyptic language. Even if one disagrees with the substance of that conclusion, it seems to me that the process of wieghing an intervention in terms of our country's national interests is the appropriate one, and Clinton deserves credit for engaging in it.

Of course, several of the neocons at National Review prefer global crusades to narrowly-focused interventions. God forbid American foreign policy should reflect American interests. No, instead, a foreign policy geared toward such a standard must be defined as a "shameful episode." It's this sort of logic that makes it difficult for those of us who support the Iraq War out of a sense of strategic purpose -- and not out of a desire to "transform the Middle East" or go on some sort of quixotic global democratic crusade -- to get our point across to the liberals and the Buchananite right. We're hampered by the silly arguments of the neocons.

Of course, all this probably makes me an anti-Semite or something like that, so what do I know?

Written by: Answerman

Written by: Beck

In the year 1939, a company that did a very silly thing--covering the nation in a network of copper wire hooked to funny looking boxes--joined the Dow Jones Industrial Average of 30 blue chip companies. Today, AT&T leaves the index, replaced by, of all things, Verizon. Also leaving the index are Eastman Kodak (member since 1930), and International Paper (member since 1956), the two being replaced by AIG and Pfizer. That's right, the maker of hard-on inducing drug Viagra is one of the nation's top 30 blue chips.

In lighter news, read this article over at the Motley Fool. Money quote:

Authorities initially cuffed Cooper and stunned him with a Taser until they realized he wasn't a terrorist. "I just want to apologize to the NYSE, everyone at Farmland, and all the people back home. Seriously, I thought it was a strange ritual, but what did I know? In France, on your wedding day, it's customary to pass gas on your in-laws."

Written by: Speculator

I haphazardly forgot to mention that yesterday also marked the fiscal year end for the Japanese government. There is wide speculation in the financial press that as the BOJ rethinks things, China will now be fitted for the 'buyer of last resort' sombrero as the Fed continues its unabashed accommodative stance.

How much can Beijing absorb? How much are they willing to? What happens if they unpeg the yuan? Whoa, what happens if they don't? China has doubled their foreign exchange reserves in the past 2 years, from $150 to $300bb, but what are they going to continue to do? Anybody want a 10-year?

Uh oh... did we cough up our fiscal autonomy to the boys out East? Have Greenspan and his gofer Franklin Raines (CEO of the hydrogen bomb that is Fannie Mae) done something rash? Is tulip-mania right around the corner?

Can we have a do-over?