The Grille

2003-06-10T08:39:00.000-07:00

As you've probably noticed, the real world has intervened and I'm been unable to find the time to continue posting. Thanks to everyone who has read my work, and maybe we'll meet again some time.

2003-05-23T08:57:00.000-07:00

Tim Blair has moved!

2003-05-22T16:45:00.000-07:00

A reader of the Corner writes:

That is great! It is why our side wins the "flyover country" so solidly. Most of America doesn't have time for such theories or beliefs. That is why as soon as the advocates for the left-wing (not nessacerily the candidates, but the intellectuals and pundits and academics) start talking, most of America stops listening. Oh, if you have too much education for your own good or wish you did, you love this kind of stuff...but most of America with a high school diploma and some college or a degree has no interest in this. Two things to turn off middle America the quickest are making too much of obscure symbolism in trivial things, and trying to sound important by making complex arguments and using big words, and the best thing is that the LIBERALS DON'T KNOW THIS/CAN'T UNDERSTAND IT!

Conservatives love to mock intellectuals with 14 diplomas but not an ounce of common sense. However too often, as this emailer demonstrates, this ridicule turns to scorn of education itself. This perspective is as damaging to the conservative cause as the left's view of middle America is to that side's efforts. While many intellectuals certainly lack the common sense required to be conservative, the relationship is not causal in either direction. Therefore, conservatives should not denigrate an education, just those with one who can't see beyond the university gates.

There's no such thing as too much education.

2003-05-22T08:00:00.000-07:00

The BBC informs us that the Iraqi people should really be thanking the Security Council:

Passage of the new Security Council resolution on Iraq will mean a new era for a country which has suffered from 13 years of sanctions and a generation of oppression by Saddam Hussein.

You know, many of us thought that Iraq’s “new era” began when coalition troops marched into Baghdad and toppled Saddam but the Beeb sets us straight.

It is only now, once the UN passed another resolution, that Iraq’s long national nightmare has finally come to an end.

2003-05-21T12:57:00.000-07:00

Tonight's the Academy of Country Music Awards, and here's my list of predictions:

Female Vocalist:

Should Win - Martina McBride
Will Win - Same

I don't think this year was a particularly strong one for the ladies, so this is going to come down the MM and Faith. Faith defended two years in a row until Martina unseated her last year. Look for Martina to defend, and rightly so.

New Female Vocalist:

Should Win - None
Will Win - Who Cares (alt choice - Rebecca Lynn Howard)

Want to know what's wrong with modern country music? Look at the two female categories. The top two women are amazing, but after that the bench is not deep. Hopefully this year is a minor blip, because "New Female Vocalist" has produced some quality winners over the past decade.

Male Vocalist:

Should Win - Alan Jackson
Will Win - Tim McGraw

Top Vocalist and EotY don't often match up, so this year Tim takes home the Male Vocalist prize, although my vote would go to Jackson. It's a tough call between the two, though.

New Male Vocalist:

Should Win - Blake Shelton
Will Win - Same

Like the ladies, I can't say that anyone here really distinguished himself, but Blake was probably the best of the bunch.

Duo:

Should Win - Brooks and Dunn
Will Win - Same

Category killers B&D win it again.

Group:

Should Win - Diamond Rio
Will Win - Dixie Chicks

Was my vote swayed by politics? You bet, and hope other's were too. That said, the Chicks did have a phenomenal 2002.

New Group:

Should Win - Nickel Creek
Will Win - Nickel Creek

While this isn't the Grammies where voters love giving Blue Grass/Folk performers country awards, Nickel Creek is by far the best of the lot.

Album:

Should Win - No Shoes (Kenny Chesney)
Will Win - Home (Dixie Chicks)

No Shoes really is a great album, but again it was probably personal bias that put me over the edge.

Song:

Should Win - Movin' On (Rascal Flatts)
Will Win - Drive (Alan Jackson)

It won't be the Angry American, and I don't think drive was quite as good as Movin' On, but both would be fine choices.

Vocal Event:

Should Win - Beer For My Horses
Will Win - Mendocino County Line

Willie's up for three in this category! Beer's probably my favorite song out right now, but Mendocino is a bit more voter friendly.

Video:

Should Win - Who's Your Daddy
Will Win - Drive

Miss. Georgia + sweet F-Series pickup = best video. But a lot of the voters are fathers and a lot are women, so Drive gets it.

Entertainer:

Should Win - Toby Keith
Will Win - Toby Keith

This goes to the performer that had the biggest year, and Toby's was simply huge.

2003-05-21T08:28:00.000-07:00

This week's Carnival is up over at Cut on the Bias.

2003-05-20T13:47:00.000-07:00

Now that’s the kind of perceptive staff you want:

Morale in Rep. Karen McCarthy’s (D-Mo.) office has reached an all-time low following her return from an alcohol treatment program.
Staff members, many of whom have been recipients of her abuse, are coming to the conclusion that the situation is impossible and their only option may be to quit.

2003-05-20T13:43:00.000-07:00

With bombings in Saudi Arabia and Morocco and continuing difficulty in the rebuilding of Iraq, Democratic candidates are beginning to ask whether national security could potentially be a source of weakness for Bush in 2004. Howard Kurtz, for one, addresses the subject in today's WaPo:

Whether they can exploit the issue – particularly with the aftermath in Iraq looking far more chaotic and shaky than the war itself – is an open question. What would they do differently? Can they convince the public that they're tough enough on national security? Would they look good in a flight suit?
It's probably better for the '04 candidates to engage the White House on what will inevitably be an overriding issue in the first post-9/11 presidential election, rather than sticking to poll-tested, consultant-driven, interest-group-pleasing spending proposals. Because the threshold question, as Joe Lieberman said in the South Carolina debate, is whether a potential president is strong enough to protect the country.

Kurtz is right that any perspective candidate cannot avoid national security post-9/11, yet it is hard to see any way for Democrats to turn this into a winning issue.

Kurtz asks the most important question of all – “what would they do differently?” Other than Graham, whose message only works if America becomes truly terrified, I find it hard to imagine an anti-terrorism counterproposal that could engineer significantly more support than what Bush’s current path. Therefore in talking about terrorism, the candidates are left merely sniping at Bush without offering any real counterproposals.

Think about it – what message could a Democrat offer that would both maintain the base (thus eliminating Graham’s) and, at the same time, cause the American people to want to replace Bush’s anti-terrorism plan with a new one? I can’t come up with one.

What does this mean for Democrats? How do we reconcile agreeing with Kurtz that the Democrats need to discuss terrorism while also acknowledging that a truly unique and effective counterplan doesn’t exist? Is it hopeless for the Democrats?

Not necessarily.

First off, as Lieberman keeps repeating, the Democratic candidate needs to have a basic level of authority on terrorism and foreign policy. Thus the wimp factor dooms Dean, the irrelevants (Sharpton and company), and perhaps even, due to his waffling on Iraq, Kerry.

Once they pass that test, I think the best chance the Democratic candidate has on terrorism is to agree with Bush. Sure, he can criticize this or that on the margin, but on the big picture he must be very agreeable. But here is the key – unlike Daschle prior to the 2002 election, the candidate can’t look like he’s following Bush’s lead. Instead, by repeatedly agreeing with the measures Bush took following 9/11, the Democrats should make these decisions look like common sense:

“Of course I agree with the invasion of Afghanistan, improvements in homeland security, and working with our allies to break terrorist cells,” the candidate will say, “because it wasn’t leadership - it was logic, nothing more than common sense.”

Kurtz asks the Democrats what they would do differently. I say they should instead argue that they would have done exactly the same thing as Bush because no one would have acted differently.

To regain the White House, Democrats must be strong on security. Therefore avoiding the issue is simply not an option. Neither is an all-out attack on the President – they are then forced to put out an alternative for contrast, and, frankly, I don’t think any Democrat will beat Bush in a street fight over terrorism. Therefore, the only option remaining is to make the choices that Bush made look so obvious that his leadership becomes diminished.

Is this an easy option? Clearly not. Not only does it entail agreeing with your opponent on the fundamental issue of the day, it also runs the risk of enhancing Bush’s already strong hand on this issue. Yet, barring any major change in the war, working to make the decisions faced in the fight seem obvious is the best way for Democrats to remain engaged on this topic.

2003-05-20T09:29:00.000-07:00

Should we call it the Andrew Sullivan award - given for the use of massive hyperbole in attacking the Christian Right's view of homosexuality? Here's Sullivan today on Gary Bauer:

But for Bauer, gay people are the equivalent of the KKK. A central tenet of his political message is not Christianity as represented in the Gospels, but the use of Christianity for purely political ends.

2003-05-20T07:47:00.000-07:00

Woo hoo! The French are sending observers to the Congo! 1,000 years of peace!

2003-05-19T17:49:00.000-07:00

Jay Caruso has a nice defense of Wal-Mart:

However, these places are always crowded, and always ringing up big sales because people get in one package what they want: to conveniently find decent products at a low price. Wal-Mart is one of the few places were somebody can buy a ceiling fan, underwear, a gallon of milk and the a copy of 'Toy Story' on DVD all in one place. Barnes and Noble discounts their titles. Plus they offer big comfortable armchairs to sit and read, and the best part is: you can actually return the books if you don't like them.
People have to understand that we live in a different world than we did so many moons ago. There is one thing that people don't anymore in abundant quantities: time. We're so busy working and doing so many different things that being able to shop at different stores for different items is a luxury these days. We don't want to have to special order items for our yard. That's why we go to Lowe's or Home Depot.

I've always found attacks by liberals - supposedly the champions of the common man - on Wal Mart a bit interesting. Like Jay said, they offer a decent product at a decent price, and what's wrong with that?

2003-05-18T14:52:00.000-07:00

Happy Birthday Your Holiness!

2003-05-16T10:19:00.000-07:00

I think this is interesting:

"Do we need to have more growth?" asked Martin W. Hüfner, chief economist at HypoVereinsbank in Munich. "We already have our refrigerators, we already have our cellular phones, we already have our second cars. We'll be content if we adapt our expectations to the new reality."

Germany has negative growth (their loosing their cell phones, refrigerators, microwave ovens, color TVs) and an acceptable solution is to "adapt to the new reality"? Likewise, growth can enable us to feed starving people in the world, but instead we should let them starve and ban GM foods? Likewise, Saddam kills and tortures thousands of his own citizens, but we should just let him continue?

In my travels to Europe over the years, the biggest difference I noticed between Americans and Europeans is contentment. Europeans are more likely (not "all") to be content with the status quo than Americans. This has advantages and disadvantages. If you are truly content with what you have, you will live a more enjoyable life than a discontented person with more stuff. However, without the discontented, without the people who struggle for change, there is no technological or societal progress. Whether it is an oppressed people revolting for their freedom, a poverty stricken family getting on the boat for a new world of opportunity, victims of discrimination saying "we will overcome", or a greedy nerd trying to come up with more stuff for us to buy in order to fill his wallet, progress comes from those who do not accept the status quo. And unless enough Europeans band together to realize that socio-capitalism (combination of socialism and capitalism) and appeasement are not benign ways out, but rather harmful strategies in the long term (negative growth, war, and all that other good stuff that has led to dark ages in the past), unless enough Europeans become discontent with the status quo and push for change, there's not much hope for their future.

Note: Europe refers to countries whose land once was either partially or entirely part of the Holy Roman Empire. Europeans are the people currently living in those lands, who have ancestors that also lived in those lands.

2003-05-15T18:01:00.000-07:00

DLC head Al From takes on the Dean's wing of the Democratic party in a memo co-written with unofficial Edwards advisor Bruce Reed (via the Note):

"What activists like Dean call the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party is an aberration: the McGovern-Mondale wing, defined principally by weakness abroad and elitist, interest-group liberalism at home. That's the wing that lost 49 states in two elections, and transformed Democrats from a strong national party into a much weaker regional one."

Nice.

Here's the most interesting part:

"The real tradition of the Democratic Party is grounded in expanding opportunity and economic growth, increasing trade, standing up for a strong national defense and for America's interests in the world, and strengthening community at home."

Free trade? Strengthening community? Strong Defense? This isn't the third way - this is the Republican way.

The fight between the two wings for the soul of the Democratic party is going to be to watch develop. Clinton, though his once-in-a-generation political skills, was able to propose moderate policies without the left actually realizing what he was doing. Or maybe he had the middle fooled into thinking that he was enacting moderate policies while all the while, in reality, pandering to the left? But I guess that's the point - no one really knows the truth.

Either way, it took a level of skill not possessed by any of the Forgettable 9.

That means that the eventual winner will likely have run on policies detestable to a large segment of the Democratic party. Don't believe me? Look again at From's note, and try to imagine the ANSWER crowd holding up signs that read " Lieberman for Free Trade and F-18s."

There is one thing that could prevent any serious schism - the shared hatred both sides feel for President Bush. While alone this won't bring victory, as we saw in 2002, it could be the one thing that prevents a major rupture in the party.

2003-05-15T07:31:00.000-07:00

First China refused to admit the disease even existed.

Now they're threatening those who break the SARS curfew with death.

2003-05-14T10:32:00.000-07:00

This week's Carnival is up over at the Inscrutable American - with neat little graphics included at no extra charge.

2003-05-14T08:24:00.000-07:00

Interesting poll (via Drudge):

With still almost a year to go before the primaries, the Democratic candidates for President are not yet well-enough known for most respondents to volunteer any of their names. Only 34 percent of people can offer the name of at least one of those challengers - including only 36 percent of Democrats who say they can.
Of those people who can name one, Joe Lieberman - who ran for Vice-President on the Democratic 2000 ticket - is the name most frequently recalled. John Kerry is next.

Lieberman was named by 9% of respondents.

I don't know who I blame more for this ignorance - the Democrats for fielding such a forgettable group or the American people for just not caring.

I don't know the solution either. Better candidates? (Wait, we have them - they're just called Republicans). It's not an education issues, because knowing a candidate's name involves nothing more than watching Fox News for five minutes. This is more of a cultural issue, with people simply not caring as much about elections as do our contemporaries in other countries.

This is not all-together negative. Certainly it would be nice if all voters were well informed over a year before the general election, but our complacency reflects Americans general ambivalence towards government as a whole. Europeans are better informed, in part, because they see their government as an integral part of their lives. Americans, however, haven't ceded nearly as much power to their leaders and thus don't focus as much energy on picking them. This doesn't seem like a bad trade-off to me.

2003-05-14T08:23:00.000-07:00

What's that other sound?

Silence from the vast majority of Western Liberals over the latest atrocities by third-world thugs.

2003-05-14T08:22:00.000-07:00

What's that sound?

Men everywhere cheering.

2003-05-13T13:46:00.000-07:00

I've avoided giving my thoughts on Annika Sorenstam's entry into the Colonial because, frankly, I've got mixed emotions. Obviously I wish her well, and I think Vijay's comments were, if not wrong, at least incredibly stupid. But I can't help having misgivings.

Supporters are saying that she isn't trying to break down barriers, but that she - as the greatest woman golfer perhaps of all time - just wants to see how she'll do. Yet I think that's the root of my concern.

Like I said, I wish her luck. But her desire to play strikes me as pretty selfish. As the dominant woman golfer in the world, it seem see has at least some obligation to help her own LPGA tour - if for no other reason than her own fiduciary well-being. Yet this event can do her home tour nothing but harm. Yes, fans all know the LPGA doesn't feature as high of a caliber of golf as does the men's PGA, but do they really want this fact slammed back their faces when the finest athlete ever to grace that tour is beaten by the likes of Stewart Cink?

And what if she does well? Again, I really can't see any upside for the other women out there. At best, she'll become a slightly bigger draw for the LPGA. But what happens if now other women decide they need to make the jump to "test themselves?" Are you going to have a generation of young female golfers who decide to join the lower level men's tours instead of the LPGA? Certainly few would make it, but again, do we want the LPGA to be looked upon as a minor league for the Nationwide Tour?

Does this mean Annika shouldn't give the PGA a try? I don't know. At least pre-tournament, she's getting a lot of good press and the Colonial will certainly be helped out, especially now that Tiger is out. Yet I still wonder if the game would be better off with her being content to simply dominate the LPGA.

2003-05-13T11:42:00.000-07:00

BBC: US vows to find Saudi bombers.

Wait - shouldn't it be the Saudi's trying to find the bombers?

Oh, that's right, they're funding the bombers . . .

2003-05-13T08:34:00.000-07:00

Daniel Pipes explains why Syria feels it can push us around now, and what we should do to make it stop feeling that way:

That's when Powell visited Damascus to complain about Syrian purchases of Iraqi oil in violation of U.N. sanctions, winning what the State Department spokesman called a "direct commitment" from Assad to desist. But the illegal imports continued and even grew. In reaction, Washington not only didn't penalize the Syrians, but soon dropped the entire subject.
To compensate for this mistake, the administration now needs to communicate to Syrian leaders its seriousness of purpose. Fortunately, it has a powerful tool at hand: the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act.

He continues:

Should the Assad regime continue these policies, the Engel bill would (among other provisions) ban most U.S. exports to Syria and bar U.S. businesses from operating there. Introduced just a month ago, it already has 85 co-sponsors in the House. Engel tells us he is confident it will pass - unless the administration actively lobbies against it.
Powell has acknowledged using the bill to pressure Syria to make improvements, so logically he should now want to see it enacted into law. It offers him exactly the right mechanism to convince Assad & Co. that they need to make fast, deep, and lasting changes.

In international pissing contests like this, the loser is usually the side who can no longer afford to continue escalating the conflict - who finally does what his opponent can't or won't do. I agree that the threat - and even the implementation - of sanctions is a prudent course. But what happens if Assad decides to re-raise? Are we ready to take the next logical action against Syria once sanctions fail? Honestly, I don't know - and I'm worried that Assad is willing make that bet.

2003-05-12T14:25:00.000-07:00

Very sad:

The Ugandan army is still seeking a group of rebels who abducted more than 40 trainee Catholic priests over the weekend.

But the worst part:

The director of Lacor seminary, Mathew Odong, told the BBC's Network Africa programme that he fears those abducted may be forced to become LRA fighters.

2003-05-12T14:03:00.000-07:00

The real reason Senator Byrd hated President Bush's carrier landing:

Women voters agree: President Bush is a hottie!

2003-05-12T13:42:00.000-07:00

Self-described "centrist" David Adesnik has a brilliant response (link Bloggered) to Michael Totten's OpinionJournal editorial on the deficiencies in modern liberal foreign policy. Totten argues that liberals today have little knowledge of what really goes on in the world due to their desire, as buliders, to solve problems at home first:

The right side of the blogosphere laughed uproariously when antiwar protesters carried placards that said "Peace in Our Time" The left just didn't get the reference. It's not that the left is stupid. Rather, because liberals are builders not defenders, liberal intellectuals focus on internal problems rather than threats from outside.

Adesnik, very correctly, links this to the Democratic party's lack of vision in foreign affairs. But, he notes, liberalism is not inherently - unlike what Totten seems to assert - incompatible with a dynamic and intellectually powerful foreign policy. Indeed it is conservatism that has suffered throughout most of the 20th century with muddled and inconsistent arguments. Looking back at the dawn of modern American power and the foundation of liberal foreign policy, he writes:

Yet Wilson also recognized that most governments at the time were not democratic and would not become so. Thus, he sought to project democracy onto the international stage by creating the League of Nations. Its purpose was to create a forum for "world opinion", which Wilson believed would be an unfailing opponent of war. While this approach has considerable merit, critics point out that the people of the German Reich overwhelmingly supported war when it was declared in 1914, as did the citizens of most other nations.

So what changed? Why is "Wilsonian" today most likely to be a term used in derision describing either weak-kneed multilateralists or overly-optimistic democratic (small-"d") interventionists?

Answer: Vietnam. I am extremely surprised that not a single response to Totten's post recognized Vietnam as the event that has done more than any other to shape modern liberal foreign policy (or lack thereof). In addition, almost no one mentioned the liberal approach developed by Jimmy Carter, who explicitly described his anti-interventionist multilateralism as a response to the lessons of Vietnam.

Adesnik says that to regain its international focus, modern liberalism must return to its Wilsonian roots:

Ultimately, what the Democrats need is a successful president from their own party who can demonstrate the efficacy of a Wilsonian approach to national security. In that sense, Bill Clinton did his party a tremendous service. But his achievements in Bosnia and Kosovo have now been overshadowed.
The road ahead for liberal foreign policy will be long and difficult. But there is a Wilsonian light at the end of the tunnel.

Adesnik, of course, is correct. Unfortunately, I think even he underestimates the significance of Vietnam to the modern liberal. It was not, as he suggests, merely a turning point in strategy for the Democratic party, where multilateralists assumed the helm as to prevent another Vietnam. It caused, instead, a fundamental rejection of the notion of America’s fundamental moral superiority – a rejection that America is John Winthrop’s “City upon a Hill.”

This is not a small distinction I’m attempting to draw here. The isolationist-realist tension that existed for much of the century within conservatism was very real, but simply reflected two solutions to the same underlying premise – the primacy of American interests worldwide. Thus when Reagan moved to bridge the gap between the two factions, it was a relatively simple task.

Post-Vietnam liberalism, however, does not share an underlying paradigm with Wilsonian liberalism. Vietnam, to many on the left, destroyed the notion of the universality of American values. Recent battles over globalization have confirmed this outlook, as liberals fight against the “Americanization” of native cultures.

Yet it is this belief in American culture that lies at the heart of Wilsonian liberalism. The promotion democracy, property rights, and basic human liberties around the world necessitates the removal and rejection of other ways of life. This is antithetical to modern multiculturalism, a staple belief of the post-Vietnam liberal.

What does this mean for the future of liberal foreign policy? Well, there are a couple of ways of looking at it. First, if you ignore the partisan implications, Wilsonian liberals should be very happy. Bush and the neocons have largely accepted his vision and, at least for the next several years, American foreign policy will look more like Wilson’s vision than Nixon’s. Once your adversary accepts the superiority of your argument, as Bush has done with Wilsonian internationalism, haven’t you won?

But what about Democrats? Are they relegated to a forced silence on international affairs due to their lack of vision? Not necessarily, but it will require strong leadership. Adesnik sites Clinton as an example of a party leader attempting to return to this Wilsonian ideal. Perhaps this is true in his direct actions, but Clinton never attempted to fundamentally reform post-Vietnam liberalism, to explain to his constituents why the freedoms we enjoy here in America are universal. He never explained that, while no nation is perfect, the United States is far closer to that ideal than any other country. It is only once liberals address that issue that they’ll be able to return to their Wilsonian roots – or reject them for an entirely new ideology. Unfortunately, most seem content to simply ignore the question.

2003-05-12T09:49:00.001-07:00

Comically absurd:

High school senior Blair Hornstine bagged a 4.689 GPA while classmate Kenneth Mirkin clocked in right behind with 4.634. But their school’s attempt to give both students—who will be entering Harvard as members of the Class of 2007 this fall—the title of valedictorian has prompted Hornstine to sue, claiming the school was discriminating against her as a disabled person.

Total amount sought: $2.7 million!

2003-05-12T09:49:00.000-07:00

Amy Amatangelo, writing on MSN's entertainment page, says that before the end of the current season, "Kate and Jack need to make out on '24.' People, I don't care if we're in the midst of an international crisis. I was promised a romance. I want a romance."

Regardless of whether or not Jack is able to save the world, we do know that Ms. Amatangelo is going to be pissed if Kate doesn't find true love.

What a lovely perspective on the nature of sacrifice and emotional satisfaction.

2003-05-12T09:48:00.000-07:00

Very interesting:

African and Caribbean immigrants experience greater rates of educational, professional, and economic success than native-born blacks. African-born blacks are among the most successful immigrant groups in the United States in terms of education and per-capita income. With more success, perhaps these immigrant groups have less to blame on "white America" – or in another panelist’s phrase, "white supremacy." Alternatively, perhaps the refusal of immigrant groups to embrace victim status explains part of their success.

Why haven't we heard more about it? Because it advances no one's political agenda. Black leaders and other liberals have no incentives to actually improve the lives of minorities, while conservatives are terrified of any arguments that could be used to paint them as racists. So statistics like this just sit, collecting dust.

2003-05-12T08:19:00.000-07:00

Just saw in this morning's Journal that John Larroquette is starring in a new comedy on NBC this fall. Good to hear. His self-titled show, which ran for a couple of seasons after Night Court ended, was a truly underrated production.

2003-05-11T09:57:00.000-07:00

Okay, here's my post for the week...

Read Day by Day.

2003-05-11T09:56:00.000-07:00

Kris Murray has a great little piece on anti-Americanism:

Oh sure, I understand that some people have perfectly reasonable reasons to dislike America. We are not a perfect country, individually or as a whole. But I've also come to suspect that many of the most avowed anti-American folk share the exact same ideals that Americans do. We believe in freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc., etc. We believe that everyone should have a basic chance to work hard and do good. We go to church regularly. We give to charities more than most people on the planet. Our system of government is of, by, and for us - meaning our politicians answer to their constituency first, their party second. Our society is high-trust. Private property rights are very secure. And contrary to most Europeans cherished belief, all Americans have access to healthcare here (just not insurance and the government covers that gap with medicaid - as it is doing right now for my sister).

In short, America is a good place. These anti-Americans sneer and use McDonald's as an example of our culture. Such shallow intellect only makes the anti-Americans look both snide and ignorant at the same time. It's sad in a way. America, as well as other Anglosphere countries, holds itself to a high ideal of behavior. When she doesn't perform to that ideal, her own citizens will beat themselves up over it (the main source of native anti-Americans). The truly awful countries on this planet, the ones everyone should be anti- about, have no ideals of behavior, no moral compass to guide them And yet, these (non-native) anti-Americans blithely hate us and embrace them. In my opinion, that's really just lame.

There is a lot in common between the criticisms of America, the Catholic Church at the height of the sex scandal, and Bill Bennett’s gambling issues. All three (well, at least the first two) have legitimate flaws and some criticism of them is certainly justified. Yet all three face a barrage of attacks far beyond critiques of specific errors. Why? Because anti-Americanism, like attacks on the Church and Bennett, are about taking down an institution that dares to set itself up as an example to the rest of humanity – a “city on a hill,” the “holy” Church, and the author of the Book of Virtues.

Notice that critiques of America never address the specific glories raised by Ms. Murray or that attacks on the Church never discuss the works of charity it does. Similarly, Michael Kinsley writes that Bennett’s troubles “has lit a lamp of happiness in even the darkest hearts.” Yet other than disliking him for being Drug Czar, a position where he was charged with only enforcing policies made by elected officials, Bennett’s critics have largely avoiding attacking specific claims made in his books. Why? Because like the other two groups, even Bennett’s critics realize he is basically right.

What does this say about their critics? If the Church, America, and Bennett are not wrong in their views on morality and society, the only explanation for the critiques can be that they don’t want anyone even attempting to set an example for the rest of humanity. Is that really the world we want to live in?

2003-05-09T14:16:00.000-07:00

Wow, this is something I didn't realize (from The Note):

On the national level, about 3 percent of voters — roughly 4 million — identified themselves as gay or lesbian in exit polls taken during the 2000 election. And of those, about 30 percent voted for the Republican nominee, George W. Bush.

That's roughly the same percentage as Bush received from the heavily-courted Hispanic community (32%) and obviously far better than he did with Black voters.

Furthermore - although I have zero evidence to back up this assertion - I'd suspect that this understates slightly Bush's total gay vote as it would seem likely that homosexuals open enough to admit their orientation on a survey would be on the whole more liberal than those still in the closet.

2003-05-09T13:56:00.000-07:00

Beautiful piece in JoongAng Daily on Korean and Polish attitudes towards America:

Then, is there a natural dovetailing of Korea and Poland? The answer is no. Poland and Korea have taken different paths. Unlike the swell of anti-Americanism in Korea, Poland has deliberately moved closer to the United States.
The world was shocked by the news that Poland promised to send 200 troops to join forces from the United States and the United Kingdom against Iraq. But it was not surprising considering the attitude Poland has shown toward the United States. Warsaw, which decided to buy 48 F16 combat planes from the United States, took side with the United States, as European countries were divided between pro-American and anti-American. Poland welcomes the idea of being home to U.S. military bases. The Polish love independence. That is why they are allied with the United States so as not to repeat history.
President Roh Moo-hyun, who will soon visit the United States, should keep the Polish peole’s choice in mind.

The bottom line is that many Koreans have forgotten what America did - and continues to do - for her. Memories of liberation are still fresh in Polish minds.

2003-05-09T13:35:00.000-07:00

The Economist has an interesting, and very unflattering, look at Silvio Berlusconi as he readies Italy to take the helm of the European Union's rotating presidency:

Instead, parliament might usefully be turning its attention to Mr Berlusconi's conflicts of interest. These have been a real or potential embarrassment since before his first prime ministership nine years ago, and it seemed incredible that simple decency had not ensured a resolution by the 2001 election. But Mr Berlusconi seems to find it hard to distinguish between propriety and proprietor. Nearly two years after taking office for the second time, a promised law to tackle his conflicts of interest has yet to be enacted. In the meantime, though Mr Berlusconi exercises huge influence over the state broadcaster, RAI, his family has yet to divest itself of Italy's three largest private television channels.

I really do find Berlusconi's leadership a tragically missed opportunity. While I don't pretend to be an expert in Italian politics, he does seem to have the right vision for that country, both domestically and internationally. It's a shame that corruption charges - real though they may be - are hampering the changes that both Italy and Europe as a whole desperately need.

2003-05-09T09:28:00.000-07:00

This could be one hell of a good idea (via Blogs of War):

President Bush is expected to call Friday for the creation of a free-trade area linking the United States and several Middle East nations over the next decade.
Bush administration officials say the president will make the announcement during a speech at the University of South Carolina.
Officials say Mr. Bush is not prepared to say which Middle Eastern countries would join the free trade area. But the president is expected to extend the offer to Middle East states that agree to fight terrorism, and to carry out governmental reforms.

2003-05-09T09:00:00.000-07:00

I wasn't sure how I felt about GOP threats to sue over Democratic filibusters of judicial nominees, but I suspected it's a pretty stupid idea.

Juan Non-Volokh says it is stupid, and I'm convinced.

2003-05-09T08:31:00.000-07:00

I hadn't noticed these comments by London Mayor and resident loon Ken Livingstone until today:

The controversial left-wing leader made his attack on Thursday. He told a forum of 200 schoolchildren: "I think George Bush is the most corrupt president since Harding in the twenties. He is not the legitimate president."
He added: "This (The U.S. administration) really is a completely unsupportable government and I look forward to it being overthrown as much as I looked forward to Saddam Hussein being overthrown."

I love hearing this kind of thing - once your adversary resorts to desperate, nonsensical attacks, you know you've won.

UPDATE: Want to know more about Ken? Check out England's Sword.

2003-05-08T15:33:00.000-07:00

Don't know what to make of this:

Two Romanian astronomers say their research shows Christ died at 3:00 pm on a Friday, and rose again at 4:00 am on a Sunday.
Liviu Mircea and Tiberiu Oproiu claim to have pinpointed the exact time and date of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection.
The pair, from the Astronomic Observatory Institute in Cluj, Romania, say Jesus died at 3:00 pm on Friday, 3 April, 33 AD, and rose again at 4:00 am on Sunday, 5 April.

2003-05-08T12:54:00.000-07:00

Tim Blair found this Guardian editorial on Fox News' conservative bias. It includes such great lines as:

We don't want biased news over here.

and

Britain has a tradition of objectivity in broadcasting, which Mr Murdoch probably finds irksome.

Are the writers of the Guardian completely oblivious or brilliantly ironic?

As they say - we report, you decide.

2003-05-08T12:35:00.000-07:00

Jeff Jarvis thinks Graham's support of the Patriot Act, and his general support of restrictions to civil liberties during the war on terror, will significantly hurt him in the Democratic primary.

Maybe, but I wonder if he hasn't already written off those voters given his decision to run as an "electable centrist."

2003-05-08T12:25:00.000-07:00

And so it begins again.

Fred Barnes has the honor (as best I know) of being the first columnist of the current college football season to raise the cry for a playoff. With the ACC's raid of the no longer so Big East, Barnes says we finally have an opportunity to make a playoff work.

His plan:

The five big conference winners would get automatic berths: Big Ten (which has 11 teams), Southeastern Conference (12), Big 12, PAC 10, and the ACC (12). The other three would be wild cards. Football independents like Notre Dame would thus be able to get into the playoffs. Strong teams that didn't win their conference championship game would still have a chance to compete for the national title. In fact, one conference might have three or even four teams in the playoffs.

While the ACC expansion does make construction of an eight-team playoff a bit easier, it is not the "missing link in the creation of postseason playoffs" as Barnes would have you believe. I therefore give you:

The Indisputable Reasons Why College Football Should Never Have a Playoff

Where Will it be Played? - The most basic question that no one backing playoffs, in my opinion, has ever satisfactorily answered is where these games will be played. An eight-team playoff requires 3 rounds. Where are the preliminary rounds going to be played? One theory thrown around is to make the non-championship major bowls (rotating like the BCS does) host the 6 prelim games. Unfortunately, this simply won't draw fans. I was at the Florida-Miami Sugar Bowl a couple of years ago and it was nowhere near a sellout despite it being the final game of the season for 2 teams from a nearby state. Do you really think University of Washington fans are going to travel to, say, Miami for a first round game the weekend before Christmas? And please don’t compare it to the NCAA tournament – in that case 4 teams have to fill up a stadium 1/5th the size through significantly lower-priced seats.

OK, so what about playing them at the higher ranked team's home stadium? Won't that solve the problem of attendance? Maybe, but there are a couple of problems this plan, not the least of which is that Southern schools would never agree to it. You want to talk about a home field advantage, how about Florida State playing in South Bend not on November 1st like this year but at the end of December? Have you been to South Bend in December? Not fun. Bowden would never put his team in that position - and why should he? SEC, ACC, and other Southern teams are, generally speaking, built for speed, an advantage totally negated by a blizzard.

And the second problem with playing it at a host college? Money.

Money - The bowl season, as much as anything else, is about making money. Changing to a playoff, despite a potentially more lucrative TV deal, could have very negative, financial ramifications. If the prelims are played at neutral sites, as explained above, attendance would likely be lower than it is for that site's current bowl. To fill these seats, would the NCAA require participating teams to guarantee, say, 20,000 ticket purchases for each round as current bowls do? Schools could never afford this.

Moreover, community and corporate involvement will be dramatically reduced. Locals would no longer be supporting "The Orange Bowl" but instead "The Quarterfinal Game." Not quite as good for community pride, is it?

So what if we play the games on one of the participant’s campus? Forgetting about the fact that many of the potential teams simply don’t have significantly large stadiums, it would destroy the highly lucrative first tier bowls. Not only would this cause howling from those cities, it would negate much of the financial advantage from a playoff.

Looking further, who would control ticket distribution for these games - the host team or the NCAA? If the host runs ticketing, not only does it reduce the game's revenue potential (lower ticket prices, guaranteed tickets for students), but also raises the question of profit distribution - I'm sure the NCAA and the visiting team aren't going to allow the host to keep all of the money. Therefore it is logical that the NCAA would collect all profits from these games and institute a guaranteed payoff to participating teams, much like what the BCS does today. But the difference would that the $13mm BCS teams get today is not from the NCAA but from the bowl committees. This is important because it is the bowls themselves that have the task of running the operation and take the lion’s share of the game’s fiduciary risk. Does the NCAA now assume the risk and responsibility involved with actually running these games? How would this work? The NCAA, I suppose, could subcontract operations to the locals who run the regular season games at that stadium. But in taking over operations and ticket distribution, many of the same problems would arise as do from neutral sites. Do you really think 20,000 Gainesville residents will travel to Madison, WI for a first round game in December? Of course not, which means that to attract fans the NCAA will have to attract a fan base similar to who would attend a regular season game. Thus ticket prices would have to be far lower than they are for a current first-tier bowl, further reducing any financial incentive for a playoff.

It Won't Stop the Bitching - But what about all the good that will come from a playoff? Barnes says “No one would doubt that team's claim to the title. There would be no conflict in polls. There would be nothing for Tony Kornheiser and Michael Wilbon to disagree about on ‘PTI.’”

Not a chance.

Look at the NCAA basketball tournament. Fans bitch about their team not getting the 65th slot, and you don’t think we’re going to complain when our team doesn’t get one of three at large bids? And, if home field goes to the higher ranked school, imagine the fights over the fourth and fifth seeds, especially if that means the difference between playing in, say, Miami or Ann Arbor.

Will a playoff eliminate some of the post-season fighting? Sure – but we shouldn’t fool ourselves into thinking an eight-team playoff is some sort of meritocracy panacea.

Why? - So what if we do solve all the problems above? What if they do find a way to solve the financial hurdles and the NCAA does convince Mark Richt to play in the snow? I say – so what? What is so bad about the current system? Yes, teams get screwed. The Irish beat Florida State in 1993, both teams finished with one loss, and yet the Noles got the national title. ND fans had a right to be pissed, and a playoff would have given them a chance to win the title. But so what? The arguing is fun. One of the things that makes college football so much fun is that, in the regular season unlike with basketball, every game matters. Why do we want to change that? If an eight-team playoff is a success, how long do you think it will take them to add one more round? Pretty soon, the regular season becomes meaningless.

Critics say the current system is broken. No way. The bowls are one of the true highlights of the sports year. The BCS has already taken away some of their glory - why do we want to eliminate them completely? So until someone can not only answer these objections, but also present a better affirmative case for a playoff than “Miami got screwed in 2000,” I say we keep the current, and fundamentally unbroken, bowl system.

2003-05-08T09:11:00.000-07:00

One issue where anti-war fears were certainly justified is, post-conflict, that America may retreat from its newfound global responsibilities. Victory in Iraq has given us a golden opportunity to fundamentally change the global order, and it's imperative that we not miss this chance. One of the most crucial tests for American engagement will be Poland, now under intense pressure from Germany and France due to its support of efforts to overthrow Chirac's buddy Saddam:

Washington has offered Poland leadership of a 7,000-strong multinational force to keep the peace in a quarter of Iraq to reward Warsaw for its strong backing for the toppling of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.
That has further strained ties between Poland and the European Union's anti-war heavyweights France and Germany, and may overshadow a three-way summit in Wroclaw on Friday meant to set the stage for Poland's EU entry referendum next month.
Undaunted, National Security Adviser Marek Siwiec said the controversy would at last add ''beef'' to the so-called ''Weimar Triangle,'' a decade-old format more noted for talk than action.
The Weimar Triangle was set up in 1991 to help anchor newly-democratic Poland in western Europe, and involves meetings with Germany and France.

2003-05-08T08:50:00.000-07:00

LGF found this cool site celebrating Israeli achievements.

2003-05-08T08:36:00.000-07:00

Using the Bennett debate as a springboard to larger issues, Andrew Sullivan writes:

But my major disappointment is that I haven't found anywhere in Bennett's enormous oeuvre any articulated defense of this crucial distinction between the societal effects of gambling and those of other private, consensual behaviors, like living with another man, or smoking weed, or watching porn. (Don't give me the lame "weed's illegal" argument. So is gambling in many states. I want to see an argument about why it should be illegal in the first place.) I see nothing wrong with any of these activities, and indeed would defend anyone's right to seek such pleasures (and, boy, are they pleasures) in their own time and their own homes.

But it's not a "lame" argument to say that the crucial distinction between Bennett's gambling and smoking pot is indeed their respective legalities. Regardless of one's views on weed, the fact remains that Catholic (and other faiths') teachings place great emphasis on obedience to (moral) secular laws. Sullivan says gambling is legal in many states and, thus, is seen by society as an equal vice. Yet the fact that he did not gamble anywhere other than Las Vegas and Atlantic City proves the importance of the legal distinction within Bennett's morality. If he would have been going to a bookie, then any weed-gambling distinction would have been blurred as his great error would have been in simply breaking the law. But the fact that he gambled only where the law allowed means he saw the legal question as also an ethical concern.

2003-05-07T15:54:00.000-07:00

Occam found an interesting article noting that it seems to be Jews themselves who are having the hardest time believing that America is ready for a non-Christian President:

In the most flabbergasting wrinkle of the early campaign season, Lieberman's fund raising has been hampered by the reluctance of some Jews to donate to a Jewish candidate. "This is so illogical," says a close Lieberman friend. "How is it possible that Jews are the biggest problem? It is hurting Lieberman financially."
The paradox is a testament to a paranoid streak in part of the Jewish community still traumatized by the Holocaust. No other segment of the population appears to hold Lieberman's Jewishness against him, and he is running strong among Southern Christians.
The hesitance of Jewish donors was discussed at a meeting of Lieberman's national finance committee last Wednesday in Washington, D.C. "There's no doubt there has been an initial concern among some Jewish givers over whether America is ready for a Jewish president," says Lieberman fund-raiser and former Rep. Mel Levine. "The irony is you don't hear that outside the Jewish community at all."

Like Kennedy's Catholicism in 1960 (which the article briefly discusses), I don't think America is troubled by the thought of a Jewish President. Indeed, I'd say that a professed atheist would have a far harder time winning - and leading - than an Orthodox Jew.

That said, I think it's worth considering that Lieberman will be faced with a great challenge internationally on matters relating to Israel. Consider this excerpt from Jeffery L. Sheler's piece in the March 10 issue of US News and World Report:

Still, some wonder if the president might be influenced by evangelical teachings that envision an end-of-the-world battle between Israel and its enemies. "It would be dangerous for a president to take a particular theology like that and apply it to world events," says Charles Colson, an evangelical commentator and former Nixon aide. "I have no reason to believe President Bush has done that." White House spokesman Ari Fleischer has emphasized that Bush makes his judgments on Iraq and other issues as a "secular leader." Even so, Bush's religious allies say they're comforted knowing he seeks divine wisdom. "I sleep more peacefully at night," says Cizik, "knowing that the president is a man who trusts in the Lord."

This has certainly become a refrain we've heard over and over again - Bush and other evangelicals back Israel because of their kooky apocalyptic vision for the world. It couldn't be simply that Israel is a freedom-loving democracy in a sea of fascist thugs.

Now if Bush has these accusations thrown at him due to his support of Israel, one can only imagine what the French will say when it's a Jewish President backing Israel.

This is certainly not to say that this concern should harm Lieberman's chances at the Presidency. As they say, if worries about French and Arab reaction prevent a Jew from being elected, the terrorists most certainly win. Nevertheless, it is worth at least recognizing the very real trouble Lieberman might face in attempting to implement his very correct foreign policy vision.

2003-05-07T13:17:00.000-07:00

Geoffrey Wawro has a fascinating look at the creation of a new Italy, and the path that got it here.

2003-05-07T13:00:00.000-07:00

Tacitus:

I'm glad we've signed a free trade pact with Singapore, but I'm pretty uncomfortable with the idea that they got theirs ahead of Chile based on Iraq war politics. Free trade with Chile has been a long time coming, and to get elbowed out at the last minute over an unrelated issue strikes me as poor form. Linkage has its place in international relations, but Santiago isn't Paris: the Chilean failure over Iraq wasn't one of vehement opposition so much as lukewarm apathy toward our drive for war. One might assert, as Instapundit does, that crossing the United States ought to be expensive, but vengeance as national policy is best left to states more suited for it -- pre-1914 France, interwar Germany, the Arab nations. This is America.

I'm not fully decided to what extent we should make countries pay for backing, but we must never forget that America's greatness is built on our ability to set - and live up to - higher standards for ourselves than the world expects from an ordinary nation.

2003-05-07T10:19:00.000-07:00

This week's Carnival is up over at Common Sense and Wonder.

2003-05-07T10:08:00.000-07:00

Great point made by Iain Murray on the ICC:

It's funny that some of the people who declaim about international sovereignty the most in relation to Iraq are also great fans of the ICC idea. If you believe in legitimate sovereignty, you should also believe in the idea that nations that pass certain tests possess the right to self-determination. That includes, I have to say, the right to wage war on countries that the nations consider threats. It is, as Blackstone might put it, an auxiliary right of legitimate nationhood. We need to get beyond the ideas that nations in and of themselves are equal. A legitimate nation draws its legitimacy from the uncoerced consent of the governed. Anyone else forfeits the rights of a sovereign state in my book. This is probably a bit simplistic, but it's the gist of my belief, and what else are you gonna do at 1:12 in the morning?

Certainly throughout most of history, the primacy of international sovereignty was a conservative, not liberal ideal (yes - forgetting about those terms' changing definitions - but you know what I mean). Yet Murray correctly notes that even liberal internationalists now believe that "nations in and of themselves are equal." Does that mean we're all realists now?

Yes, but only because modern multilateralists see this aspect of realism as a necessary evil. Multilateralism - the belief in the inherent good of international institutions - requires sovereign egalitarianism. Set one nation above another, as Murray notes is eminently logical when comparing, say, democratic America to fascist Syria, is, unfortunately for multilateralists, wholly incompatible with their dreams for supranational institutions. Therefore, these internationalists are forced to reject the logical distinctions Murray draws between legitimate and illegitimate government because such acceptance would draw into question the validity of the UN and the ICC.

2003-05-07T08:39:00.000-07:00

I don't really know why exactly, but I find this pretty cool:

The first ever non-white was sworn in on Tuesday to the Swiss Guard, which has protected popes for almost five hundred years, in a move apparently aimed at mending the corps' tarnished image.
Indian-born Dhani Bachmann, who was adopted as a baby by a Swiss couple, pledged allegiance to the corps along with 31 other new recruits, all clad in the stripy blue, yellow and red uniform that is little changed since the Renaissance.

2003-05-07T07:58:00.000-07:00

Boston Globe:

But after a year and a half of strong statements from President Bush about fighting terrorism, along with his equally strong backing of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel, some prominent analysts in both parties say they detect a shift in the Jewish community. For the first time in more than 20 years, one Democratic pollster said he sensed an erosion of support from Jewish activists that could affect the presidential race. And according to researchers at B'nai Brith, younger Jewish Americans seem more likely to lean Republican than their parents.
Younger Jews do not have the attachment to defining moments in Democratic history like the New Deal that their parents and grandparents do, making them more open to consider voting for a Republican candidate, the researchers said.

Let's hope so.

2003-05-06T16:39:00.000-07:00

Very Interesting:

Emissions of greenhouse gases from the European Union increased in 2001 for the second year running.
The European Environment Agency (EEA) estimates they were 1% greater than in 2000.
The EU as a whole is committed to reducing emissions by 8% on their 1990 levels by between 2008 and 2012.
On present trends, it appears to stand almost no chance of keeping its promise.
The 8% cut is the commitment made by the EU under the terms of the Kyoto Protocol, the international agreement on tackling climate change.

And then there's this:

There are now doubts about the willingness of Russia to do so, because some of its prominent scientists apparently believe climate change could be beneficial to the country.
It is organising a world climate conference in Moscow in late September, to re-examine the science of climate change.

But I thought global warming was proven, and anyone who doesn't believe in it may as well be a member of the Flat-Earth Society?

UK global warming sceptic Professor Philip Stott had the best response:

"While lecturing everybody else, especially America, on the morality of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it has been abundantly clear from the start that most European countries didn't have a snowflake in hell's chance of meeting their own Kyoto targets."

2003-05-06T15:51:00.001-07:00

Well, we may suspected this reason, but now it's confirmed:

The Vatican’s Congregation for Eastern Churches head, Syrian Cardinal Ignace Moussa Daoud I, has said the Pope's statements helped to prevent an anti-Christian reaction in the Muslim world.
He said Arab Christians were grateful to the Holy Father for the part he played.
"There was a big danger that Christians would be considered allies of the Americans, but thanks be to God all this was avoided because of the positions taken by the Pope and the Vatican”, he said.
The Pope’s statements against the concept of a "preventive war” had won new friends among Muslims, he added.

I fully understand this justification, but should moral doctrine really be based on appeasement of murderers?

2003-05-06T15:51:00.000-07:00

Interesting quote today from the always interesting Lileks:

This is my favorite line from the news story:

“McCarthy flourished during Cold War anxieties, with some parallels to today's fear of terrorism.”

You remember when the Soviets drove a 707 into the Empire State Building.

My first reaction was "heh, that's funny." He's right that we need to fight hard against a group of people who genuinely desire our destruction.
Unfortunately, in doing so, he downplays the very real threat posed by the Soviets during the Cold War. While they may not have succeeded in killing thousands of New Yorkers, it wasn't for lack of desire. The Soviets also desired our destruction, and they most certainly did have operatives working in America, trying to undermine our system just as Islamic fundamentalists are today. Did McCarthy go to far and, thus, are comparisons between the two eras basically ridiculous? Absolutely. But we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking Communism wasn't a very real menace, as dangerous then as Islamo-fascism is today.

2003-05-06T11:33:00.000-07:00

Today's Note is also touting Graham's strengths:

We cannot figure out to save our lives why Graham is not being taken more seriously as a formidable candidate by the Gang of 500.
He is from the ultimate mega-state of presidential politics; he's been an overwhelmingly popular governor and senator; he can tout his electability, without anyone challenging it or giggling; he has a record on national security, health care, and the economy; he is unflappable; he has attracted a top-level staff in a hurry; he is well-liked in Washington and in his homestate; he has a strong fundraising record; he's a genuinely nice guy with fewer airs about him than anyone running; he has a loyal staff; etc.

While the buzz immediately following South Carolina was the return of Lieberman's momentum, I wouldn't be surprised if the next hot meme is the growing strength of the Graham campaign.

2003-05-06T11:25:00.000-07:00

Mark Byron (link bloggered) also thinks Graham would be the Democrat who'd give the GOP the biggest headache.

2003-05-06T11:12:00.000-07:00

The BBC is reporting:

A row has erupted over the control of a shrine devoted to one of Roman Catholicism's most popular and controversial saints, Padre Pio.
The Vatican has angered Capuchin monks in the southern Italian town of San Giovanni Rotondo by removing the sanctuary from their control.

But yesterday it was reported independently from Rome:

Responding to media reports, the Vatican denied it has removed the Capuchins from pastoral care at St. Padre Pio's shrine.
Vatican spokesman Joaquín Navarro-Valls said in a statement today that "the Capuchin Fathers will continue to run the shrine."

Might be just a case of miscommunication, but I can't help but think that there's more to this story than is out.

2003-05-06T10:08:00.000-07:00

Hilarious (link bloggered):

NOSTRADAMUS predicted this, you know. Here's the relevant quatrain:

The great power and the weaker one
Shall in conflict create a grander being;
His words of unshaken faith
Then appear on garments of the beasteater

BBQ aprons bearing Mo Sahhaf's undying line "God will roast their stomachs in hell" are possibly the coolest Mo-related gimmick thus far, along with this t-shirt: "We will kill all of them ... most of them."

2003-05-06T09:37:00.000-07:00

I disagree with Andrew Sullivan's "Republican Hubris Watch" today:

A reader emails:

"I was visiting relatives in Des Moines, Iowa, this past weekend. I noticed in several different neighborhoods the following yard sign: 'I stand with President George W. Bush and our Troops.' This is, as far as I can tell, an official GOP yard sign. I saw it in many different yards, and I saw it plastered to the front window of the GOP headquarters downtown. The coloring and lettering are identical to the official 'President Bush' bumperstickers I've seen. If that's not hubris and an attempt to politicize the military, I don't know what is. The implication is clear: those who support Bush support the troops, and those who don't support Bush don't support the troops. If that is the GOP message for 2004, hubris is truly ascendant."

Is this an official sign? If it is, it does strike me as pushing the limits.

Both Sullivan and the reader are reading a bit too much into this, I think. Yeah, it's a bit ridiculous to say "pro-Bush=pro-troops," but honestly, aren't most slogans that absurd? What about Democratic signs that say voting for its candidate is "pro-woman?" Or when supporting a Democrat is "pro-teacher?" Are we Republicans really anti-woman and anti-education?

I don't really have a problem with this sort of campaigning - it's not hubris, just hyperbole.

2003-05-06T08:41:00.000-07:00

The bullpen does it again. These guys are gonna kill me.

2003-05-05T15:58:00.000-07:00

Terry M. Neal writes of Dean's anti-war stance:

His stance on the war was a gamble he appears to have lost. But even some pro-war Democrats might appreciate his principled opposition and refusal to fudge his position when the polls made it clear most Americans feel differently.

Wait a second. We're not talking about simply a principled stand in the face of hostile public opinion - Eisenhower sending in the troops to enforce school integration, for example. Instead Dean is sticking by his previous position in the face of overwhelming evidence that he was wrong. Why should this be a positive? Shouldn't we want a president who can reevaluate a situation based on new facts?

2003-05-05T13:44:00.000-07:00

I always knew country music caused drinking, but violence too?

Listening to the melancholic country singer Johnny Cash can trigger violent thoughts and feelings, according to a study.
Psychologists have shown that A Boy Named Sue - the 1969 top 10 hit which tells of a young man seeking bloody revenge on his father for giving him a girl's name - increases negative and aggressive emotions in the listener.

2003-05-05T12:50:00.000-07:00

Slate has an excellent analysis of what Clinton should - and should not - get credit for in Iraq II:

In other words, the military generally goes about its business, and it is often a mere coincidence which president pays for researching, developing, or deploying a particular weapon. It is doubtful that Clinton knew what a Predator was, nor is it likely that Bush could have passed an exam on the topic before the war in Afghanistan made it famous. Contrary to many Republicans' claims, Bill Clinton did not weaken the U.S. military—far from it. On the other hand, as defense analyst William Arkin put it, "If Jesse Jackson had been president, we would still have JDAM."

Kaplan focuses on the munitions used in and the planning of the war. One topic he really doesn't discuss is the overall moral of the military, an area in which Republican claims that Clinton weakened the military does have some validity. I have enough faith in our troops' professionalism, however, that should they have been asked to move into Iraq under Clinton, they would have performed just as skillfully as they did under Bush, regardless of their personal feelings for the Commander in Chief.

2003-05-05T12:29:00.000-07:00

So now the problem with Bill Bennett is that liberals don’t believe he’s as lucky of a gambler as he says he is.

Weak.

2003-05-05T12:28:00.001-07:00

Listening to the Democrats attack the Bush's tax cuts, both past and proposed, I've been doing some thinking about the optimal level of taxation.

I started with two basic assumptions. The first is that, at a given state of the economy, there is an optimal level of taxation, a state where revenues are maximized with minimal harm done to the economy as a whole. While certainly this is a variable of one's view on government spending, even the most liberal democrats would never call for 100% taxation while no libertarian would argue that no taxation was needed. Therefore, within the context of a set level of government spending, we should, theoretically, be able to come up with an agreed upon level of taxation.

My second assumption, however, is that this figure is fundamentally unknowable.

With these in mind, I turn to the current debate. Recognizing that the optimal level of taxation is indeed unknowable, in supporting tax cuts Republicans argue simply that we do know that this level is below current figures.

The Democratic candidates, I’m afraid, are being far less intellectually honest. To a man (and woman), they’ve argued against any future cuts and many have come out in favor of repealing those implemented in 2001. Yet none are calling for more than minimal additional hikes. Why?

There really can be only two answers. One is that Reagan, with help by the small increases under Bush I and Clinton, brilliantly established the optimal level of taxation. Are Democrats really ready to argue that they were wrong to fight against those cuts back in the early 80s since those reductions have now produced the perfect tax level? I doubt it, especially considering John Edwards’ use of “Reaganomics” as a slur in South Carolina over the weekend.

What, then, is the only other possible answer? That Democrats, despite their protestations to the contrary, actually believe the optimal tax level is far higher than it is today. If so, why are they afraid to say this? Obviously because it doesn’t sell politically. Yet shouldn’t we, when deciding whom to vote for in 2004, consider the fact that any Democratic candidate would raise our taxes significantly if they could get away with it? After all, they do philosophically believe our taxes are too low, they’re just afraid to say so publicly.

2003-05-05T12:28:00.000-07:00

I’ve made my post-debate adjustments to the Grille’s odds on the Democratic primary. I’ve bumped Kerry down a bit as I now think he’ll need a significant victory in NH to keep any frontrunner momentum. I’ve also taken Edwards down and moved Lieberman up, as it looks like the Senator from Connecticut has taken the moderate Democrat banner. I’ve also moved Dean up slightly, not because I really think he’ll win, but given the uncertainty that exists between now and next spring, 20-1 odds are just hard to justify.

As always, let me know what you think of my assessment!

2003-05-05T09:26:00.001-07:00

Iain Murray has the final word on the Bill Bennett "scandal."

2003-05-05T09:26:00.000-07:00

Jeff Jarvis delves into an interesting political "what-if:"

"If, God forbid, we suffer another terrible attack, the entire game called the presidential race will change again. The Demo doves will fade away. The hawks will fly."

I'm not so sure. Certainly - assuming that gross negligence by the Bush administration is not to blame for the new attack - a majority of Americans will once again rally around the hawks. As with 9/11, the government will be given great latitude to pursue the guilty parties both domestically and internationally. Additionally, just as after 9/11, Jarvis is correct that Hawks will get a political boost nationally as more moderates see the need to hunt down the perpetrators.

But that's not what's going to decide the Democratic nomination. Right now, looking at postwar popular support for the Iraqi conflict, I'd say that roughly 50% of likely Democratic primary voters are "peace-at-any-cost," with the remainder of the party more moderate. Therefore, the real question is whether a new attack would cause a significant number of Dean's "Democratic Wing" to morph into hawks. That seems unlikely. This group, despite the discovery of mass graves as well as egregious French duplicity, still insists that war in Iraq was unjustified. A second attack, therefore, would be seen as proof of the foolishness of the war in Iraq, and their claim that Bush caused the terrorism by enflaming the Arab Street would resonate with this extreme wing. Therefore, since I don't believe that a large number of these doves will suddenly switch views, even a second horrendous attack on America won't have a seismic impact on the Democratic nomination.

2003-05-05T08:41:00.000-07:00

Happy Cinco De Mayo - celebrating yet another ass-kicking of the French!

2003-05-04T10:45:00.000-07:00

Yeah, party of the common man.

2003-05-04T10:43:00.000-07:00

Great article in today's WaPo - required reading for those of you (everyone outside Florida) who doesn't know much about Bob Graham.

The Republican partisan in me certainly wants to see Graham remain obscure - he's one of the Democrats who scares me most. Largely moderate and able to carry Florida, but still ideologically pure enough for the Democratic base, Graham would definitely give Bush a race in 04.

That said, a strong Graham showing in the primaries would be good for America. Democrats need another strong, intelligent voice on foreign affairs to counteract John "Served in Vietnam" Kerry and Al "Slap the Donkey" Sharpton. And, frankly, it terrifies me to think that men like Dean have views that actually reflext a large swath of America. I'd like to think that Graham's foreign affairs based candidacy could inject some needed sense into the Democratic soul-searching on the subject.

And, despite my fears expressed above, a Bush-Graham battle in the general would also be positive. America needs a real debate on the future of American foreign policy, and Graham is the only candidate positioned to accept this challenge. Lieberman, internationally, really is Bush-light, while the other candidates - even those with intelligent positions like Edwards - desperately want to shift the debate to domestic policy. Graham, with his emphasis on Hezbollah over Iraq, actually has a well thought out, differentiated policy position. Most importantly, he has a desire to talk about it.

As a Republican, I'm pulling for Dean - but as an American, I'm rooting for Graham.

2003-05-04T10:06:00.000-07:00

Yes, I know he tied the game last night and, yes, I know this slump won't continue no matter how much Yankee fans boo, but I'm still enjoying spelling Mendoza:

G.I.A.M.B.I.

2003-05-02T18:09:00.000-07:00

Capitalism - Church of Rome style:

The Church is offering several types of tickets for pilgrims.
Those including meals cost up to 40 euros ($45) for adults, and 30 euros ($33) for those under 16.
On Saturday meals can be taken at any McDonald's outlet in Madrid.
They consist of hamburgers, medium fries, and medium-sized drink and desert - either ice cream Sundae or apple pie.
All tickets also include an official "pilgrim's bag", containing a copy of St Mark's gospel, a baseball cap, a rosary, a map of Madrid's public transport system, and information about the new saints.

Yeah, this won't piss off the anti-globalization nuts.

I love it.

2003-05-02T17:07:00.000-07:00

Back before Everything Changed, one of the hot international topics was Bush's renunciation of the ABM treaty in order to build a missle defense system. One of the chief opponents of that was Russia. They saw our ability to defend ourselves as a threat to their security and national pride. Another major issue and sticking point between the U.S. and Russia was the expansion of NATO. Russia was nervous about the military alliance spreading eastward to its borders. At the time, I thought a great compromise on these issues would be U.S. withdrawl from NATO in return for Russian support of dissolving the ABM treaty. As I saw it, there was no real benefit to us to continue to expand NATO. With a switch to coalitions of the willing and the tremendous American military advances, there wasn't a need for a NATO. Why have that as a sticking point when we could use it as a tool for compromise? Instead we went ahead with this devotion to a soon-to-be outdated international institution and lost the opportunity for potential points with Russia, especially considering the good terms that Putin and Bush were on. Instead, it is the French that have made the first real step for cooperation, including them in their anti-U.S. club and blasting the former satalites. I can't help but think what it would be like if we had made the first step. Perhaps Russia wouldn't have shared intelligence with a dictator or supported Chirac. Maybe we would be further along to isolating France from the rest of the world.

2003-05-02T13:57:00.000-07:00

Mickey Kaus writes:

"Vouchers, of course, are the rare domestic issue where Democrats are highly vulnerable."

Although he goes on to explain why Dems are weak on vouchers, I was struck by a different part of this quote. Why is it - and I don't think he's wrong - that there are so few domestic issues where the GOP (except in very unique times - the late 70s and during Clinton's failed takeover of America's health care system) can sell its agenda?

It seems to me there are three potential answers:

1) They're right on domestic policy
2) They sell their domestic policy better
3) The two sides' constituencies have differing views of government

I think we must eliminate the first possibility, not because it's facially wrong, but because it's a non-starter. There have been many instances where domestic issues - socialism, Jim Crow laws - have been proven so wrong that the party backing them was forced to abandon the issue or face extinction. It's certainly possible that deregulation, lower taxes, and other conservative positions will one day be proven erroneous, but if we don't believe this to be the case today, we logically can't argue that this is why these positions don't have more popular support.

The second I definitely believe is a part of the GOP’s problem. Our solutions, while perhaps better for Americans as a whole, are easily spun as heartless or good for the rich. The left wants to feed children, the right want to starve them; the left wants more money for education, the right wants less. Certainly these are gross distortions of the reality of the situation and, as welfare reform proved, real solutions to serious problems often don’t involve throwing more money at a problem. Nevertheless, the right is still left with a much harder sell than the left on virtually its entire domestic agenda.

The central answer, however, lies in the beliefs of the two sides’ core voters. As I’ve argued before, one of the central differences between the right and the left is their diverging views on the limit of a government’s ability to affect the shape of America - for better or for worse. Liberals, generally speaking, see the government as a potential solution to most problems, and likewise believe bad policies will have serious repercussions. Conservatives in general don’t share either this optimism or this pessimism. Therefore it is not in our nature to fight as hard for (or against) a particular piece of legislation, as exemplified by the Bush tax cut. I support the cut, but do I really believe it will be a great stimulus for the economy? No, not really. But opponents of the cut, as liberals who believe in the government’s power to change the world, believe that this cut could cause great harm. Therefore the anger I’d feel for it not passing will be significantly less than that of liberals for it passing. Thus elected Democrats are far more incentivized to advance the liberal domestic agenda than Republicans are to advance the conservative one, creating this unfortunate vulnerability of Republicans on virtually all domestic issues.

2003-05-02T12:29:00.000-07:00

Liberal Comedy:

Discussing the Democrats' filibuster of Conservative judges, Kos writes:

Clinton generally avoided ideologically controversial nominees."

As funny as this statement is, it's indicative of the left-wing mindset that allows them to believe that any-abortion-any-time is actually a mainstream viewpoint. It also prevents them from seeing any liberal bias in the media while simultaneously attacking Fox's conservative slant. Many liberals, as so aptly demonstrated by Kos, actually believe that their positions, no matter how far removed from mainstream thought, are not ideological in nature. Their positions, unlike those of conservatives, are arrived at by logic and their genuine compassion for the common person (who would all vote Democrat if they weren't so damn stupid). Thus it is only conservative judges and conservative news outlets who can be "ideologically controversial."

2003-05-02T10:22:00.000-07:00

A nice bit of common sense on the Abu Mazen appointment:

The approval and appointment prove nothing. He calls for concrete concessions from Israel while we still only have words and promises from the Palestinians. That is not the way this is to work. Abu Mazen must prove he is more than a title and that his cabinet is loyal to him and not to Arafat. On paper Arafat's power has been diminished but I will believe it when we see evidence of it. When terrorists are arrested and tried and truly jailed, when terrorist groups are disarmed, the PA Charter amended and the language in the media in schools begins to change we will know that the Palestinians have chosen the path of peace. Just making some gestures in an unelected Parliament mean very little at this point.
Al Aqsa and Hamas claimed responsibility for the recent attacks. Let's see Abu Mazen act and we will know that reform is possible. To call for Israel to start making concrete concessions before that is very premature.

2003-05-02T10:07:00.000-07:00

Victor Davis Hanson's articles are always very good. Often they are superb. Like today:

Nor are fits of continental craziness, both real and abstract, even new. Napoleon was willing to risk the lives of millions for the idea of a pan-European dream, its scary, pretentious adages not unlike those now emanating from Brussels or from the mad M. Villepin. The rise of German Nazism, Italian fascism, and continental Marxism at times turned Europeans away from the liberal tradition and drew them to darker and more authoritarian promises, with roots from Plato’s Laws to Oswald Spengler. Too many Europeans still cherish the belief that they are close to an end to war, hunger, want, and meanness — ideals inseparable from a light work week, cradle-to-grave care, protection by an uncouth American military, and a steady stream of fertile, darker, unassimilated peoples to take out their trash and clean their toilets.
The fact is that the absence of Russian divisions has meant an end to both a common threat and unity with the United States. It is not just that Europeans have forgotten two World Wars, the Berlin Airlift, America’s willingness to expose its cities to Soviet nuclear attack to protect the continent, or our support for German reunification. They resent even the mention of past beneficence and, if history is to be contemplated, prefer to bring up Hamburg and Dresden rather than Auschwitz.

2003-05-02T09:56:00.000-07:00

Looks like a pretty good day for the Tories.

UPDATE: Although Chris Bertram disagrees.

2003-05-02T09:29:00.000-07:00

Interesting poll found by Iain Murray:

The research, carried out at the tail-end of the conflict in Iraq, shows three quarters of Britons (73%) consider America to be Britain's most reliable ally - with Australia getting the second highest poll position with one in 20 (four per cent) naming it. European countries do not fair so well, with France, Germany and Ireland considered Britain's most reliable ally by just one per cent each.
When asked to name Britain's least reliable ally, France is named by 55%, with America named by one in 17 (six per cent) and Germany and Russia each named by three per cent.

When over 55% of people call France your "least reliable ally," doesn't it almost by definition cease to be an ally? I'd be interested to see a similar study here in the states. Anyone want to bet which country would win?

2003-05-02T09:22:00.000-07:00

One follow-up thought on communists and creationists:

Why are the people who insist that we listen to anti-War or pro-Castro factions simply because they have "good intentions" the very same folks first in line to kill creationists on the alter of logic and science?

2003-05-02T09:12:00.000-07:00

Andrew Sullivan has an interesting story about a gay San Franciscan's attempt to get his fellow leftists to acknowledge that there's something wrong with how Comrade Castro runs his little island.

The left's refusal to recognize the fact that Ho Chi Minh, Castro, and Mao were, in fact, psychopathic monster's is their version of right wing creationism. While I'll grant that many on either side may have good intentions, their refusal to even consider evidence is simply comical. Both groups even have a similar style of argumentation, shifting the debate back to an attack on the moderate's theories while never willing to actually address their own principles.

A response from one of the women in Sullivan's story nicely demonstrates this method of debate:

"Are you a Republican, or something? Bush is also killing innocent civilians. We're more concerned about his crimes."

There is one difference between supporting creationism and communism, however: creationists have never sent anyone to Siberia.

2003-05-01T17:51:00.000-07:00

Brilliant:

"Are Democrats really not only the 'Glass is half full' party, but the 'Glass is half full, too small to begin with, held by the wrong person, and I don't like what is in it' party?"

2003-05-01T14:42:00.000-07:00

James Taranto points us to this story about Governor Dean's explanation of his recent prediction for America's imminent decline:

He said that in arguing against what he regarded as Mr. Bush's emphasis on military action rather than diplomacy, he had been discussing historic trends in which powers that resorted to unilateral military action rather than diplomacy--including the British and Roman empires--had inevitably been overtaken by other nations.
"Of course we're going to have the strongest military as long as I'm alive, and probably as long as my children are alive," he said today. "But at some point, if we continue to push only military options, we're not going to have the strongest military because other countries will overtake us."

Taranto makes some interesting points about this statement, but two other things struck me as odd:

1) OK, so the Roman and British Empires eventually fell because of their reliance on military might over diplomacy. Can the good governor name an example of a historic power who, through diplomacy, maintained global preeminence yet lasted longer than these two civilizations? Let's not forget that the former's dominance over the Mediterranean World lasted for over 200 years more than America has even existed. Does Dean really believe that if Rome had played nicely with the Germanic tribes that we'd still be speaking Latin today?

2) Dean says that if we "push only military options, we're not going to have the strongest military" at some point in the future. Isn't the corollary to this point that if we do pursue other, diplomatic, options on foreign policy, that we will have the strongest military in perpetuity? How exactly will this happen? The most reasonable argument why America will loose her military edge at some point is a simple demographic one - once China is able to spend even a quarter as much as America on defense per capita, its military outlays will indeed be larger. But how does giving Beijing diplomatic love in the present day counter this trend? Does Dean really believe, once he's able to convince Chinese leaders America poses no threat to them, that Beijing will suddenly realize that they have no need for a large military and be happy to allow America to remain the supreme power throughout the world. Seems to fly in the face of both history and, well, logic, doesn't it?

I sure hope this guy gets the Democratic nom.

2003-05-01T13:48:00.000-07:00

Domenico Bettinelli, on the Vatican's choice not to break off relations with Cuba due to the hope that Fidel "will lead his people toward democracy:"

On what basis do they have that hope? What has Castro done in the past 40 years to lead you to believe that he will lead people to democracy? What progress has been made? The few freedoms thrown to the Church before the Pope’s visit in 1998? Many of those have been revoked and the others are held over the Church’s head as a warning not to rock the boat.
The Cuban people have been kept as slaves and poverty-stricken serfs for decades by Castro’s regime. They have been imprisoned and executed for the “crime” of trying to escape the country. They have been imprisoned for wanting to practice their faith freely. You can’t open a business in the country except under the most extreme regulations and that business will exist at the whim of the government. People tout free health care and 100% literacy, but what good is free health care when the system is so corrupt there is nothing for your free doctor to prescribe you? What is the point of free education when there is not opportunity for a decent job of your choosing?
But the real point is that the Vatican seems to think that despite massive evidence to the contrary, Castro is going to suddenly wake up some day and declare free elections. I don’t discount the power of a miracle and I don’t fault the Vatican for continuing dialogue with Castro, but why pander to this false hope rather than continue with the hard line of condemning the Communists’ actions.

To be fair it's not just Cuba - this statement universally applies to left's entire head-in-the-sand view of foreign policy.

2003-05-01T12:32:00.000-07:00

A hopeful sign that Mugabe may be stepping down?

Mr Mbeki's spokesman denied it, telling Reuters, a news agency, that “It is not for the president of South Africa to go to another sovereign country and tell the leader to step down.” But many Zimbabweans think that something is afoot. Mr Mugabe encouraged such speculation this week with a cryptic remark on state television. He seemed to say that now that he had redistributed white-owned farm land to blacks, his work was done. His exact words were: “It was mainly the land issue actually that needed to be addressed before getting to a stage where we say fine, we have settled this matter and people can retire.” His information minister insisted, however, that Mr Mugabe had every intention of staying in office until his term expires in 2008.

2003-05-01T11:49:00.000-07:00

SARS Paranoia:

Last night I had my first real experience with a SARSaphobe. Waiting in a very long line at the refreshment stand at last night's Cubs-Giants game, I found myself coughing a bit. Not a major hacking cough - more of a throat clear because I had no beer yet. Every time I would do this, though, the young lady in front of me would turn around and stare at me with an absolutely terrified expression.

2003-05-01T10:27:00.000-07:00

Did you realize that John Kerry and Tony Blair's positions on Iraq were one and the same? Neither did I, but Will Marshall tells us so. My favorite part:

The emergence of the Blair Democrats should be no great surprise. Historically, they are lineal descendants of the party's great internationalists: Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy. Recognizing that U.S. global leadership requires strong military forces and the will to use them, they reject the left's attempts to cast Democrats as a reflexively antiwar party. Indeed, the Iraq debate revealed a party that is moving away from McGovernism and back to its internationalist roots.

2003-05-01T10:05:00.000-07:00

Tacitus, in response to Prof. Reynolds' call for a Gary Hart fisking of Mickey Kaus, writes:

"So no, Gary, don't respond by Fisking Kaus. Respond by improving your blog."

Instead of attacking, a liberal should take personal responsibility for his shortcomings? Asking a bit much, aren't we Tacitus . . .

2003-05-01T09:59:00.000-07:00

The second part of this comment just made me smile:

Happy May Day to all you murderous Communists bastards, power-grubbing socialists, soft-headed lefties, and decent, hard-working American union guys.
It's a shame, blue collar folks, that your supposed political allies are all such shitheads.

2003-05-01T07:04:00.000-07:00

Field of Dreams was on the other night, and I have two questions about the movie.

First, all Moonlight Graham wanted was an at-bat in the big leagues. In his one chance (assuming playing with the greats is the "big leagues"), though, he hits a sac fly, which does not count as an at-bat. Therefore, he never got an at-bat in the big leagues.

Second, in the first scene with Shoeless Joe, Joe complains about the lights on the field and makes a snarky comment about the greedy owners forcing worse playing conditions (losing the ball in the lights) in order to make an extra buck. Yet, throughout most of the movie, they play under the lights. It's not like the baseball players have anything else to do, so why are they choosing to play at night instead of during the day?

2003-04-30T16:33:00.000-07:00

Tim Blair, on what New York smoker should do about Mayor Bloomberg:

"All of them should march down to the Mayor's house and, as the saying goes, smoke him out. Then, as another saying goes, beat him up. And, to quote yet another, less well-known saying, attach him to a medievel catapult and fling him into Jersey."

2003-04-30T16:30:00.000-07:00

Fighting against evil? Like Bush?

2003-04-30T16:14:00.000-07:00

Does this mean I have to stop bitching about the Rox Sox pen costing them games?

2003-04-30T16:08:00.000-07:00

Stephen Green, with whom I usually agree, writes:

“That same "moral consensus" would have denied women the vote, kept blacks under Jim Crowe, and -- here's that naughty m-word again -- kept married women as virtual slaves to their husbands.
Not every change is progress; I'll grant the conservatives that. But when it comes to human liberty -- whether to vote, enjoy equal protection under the law, or marry the loving partner of their choice -- tradition can impeed freedom just as often as it protects it.”

There is a fundamental difference between the state-sanctioning of homosexual marriage and the historical restrictions of freedom he compares it to. The right to vote is a cornerstone for a well-functioning democracy that should only be usurped when those people, such as is the case with minors or convicted felons, prove incapable of exercising that right responsibly. Other rights, such as those usurped to keep blacks down during segregation, are natural rights that simply not subject to governmental jurisdiction. Therefore sodomy, I would certainly agree, should not be regulated by the government (irrespective of its unconstitutionality under a supposed right to privacy, which I don’t believe exists anyway). Not granting marriage, however, is not the same thing as outlawing homosexuality. State sanctioning of marriage is not a right but a societal blessing upon a union that the community deems desirable to encourage. If you believe that homosexual loving partnerships are desirable to encourage, then you should certainly be in favor of granting such approval. But being against such licensing is not the same as being for other forms of discrimination as this is not a limitation of anyone’s fundamental freedoms. It simply means that you don’t want your community’s stamp of approval on the union.

2003-04-30T15:22:00.000-07:00

Michael Ledeen has an interesting piece on NRO about the need to actively move against Syria and Iran if we’re to take advantage of the window of opportunity the liberating of Iraq opens to actually win our war on terror. The key section:

As in 1991, if we fail to pursue our maximum interests we risk defeat and humiliation. If the Iranians succeed in creating a rabid Islamic Republic in Iraq, we may be even worse off than we were with Saddam, and the various leaders of the terror network, from bin Laden to Mughniyah, from Zarkawi to Zawahiri, will gain new followers and resume their jihad with new fervor.
It is therefore disconcerting and discouraging to see the National Security Council's top man in Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, sneaking off to secret meetings with representatives of the Iranian regime, and to see Secretary of State Powell enthusiastically contemplating a trip to Damascus. There is nothing to be gained from talking to the mullahs. They are declared enemies of everything we hold precious, and they are only trying to buy time, believing that once they have the atomic bomb we will be forever blocked from challenging them. And if the State Department is so desperate to talk to Assad, then make him swim the Atlantic and crawl to Washington to beg for survival. A Powell trip to Damascus will send a dangerous message to the region. By going there instead of summoning them, we will show weakness. And all will remember that, on the verge of a glorious victory in 1991, the same man called upon this president's father to stop short, turn around, and leave the forces of freedom at the mercy of the tyrants.

Now he’s absolutely right on this point, but I want to address his comparison of the opportunity that he says exists today and the failure to take out Hussein during the first Gulf War:

Instead, we stopped on a dime, settled for an inconclusive ceasefire, brought our troops home, and abandoned the Kurds and Shiites to Saddam's butchers. I called it "Desert Shame" and it laid the groundwork for the disastrous decade that followed. Having pressured the Saudis to cut off their traditional funding of the PLO, we soon implored them to resume it. The message spread throughout the region. Arafat regained his strength, those Palestinians who wanted real peace were enfeebled, and terrorism was revived. Having granted Saddam a stay of execution, we stood by as he reestablished his tyranny, crushed any remnants of the opposition, resumed support of the terror network, and reinstituted his weapons programs. We soon betrayed the Iraqi opposition forces in the north (the first of many betrayals of the several groups that compose the Iraqi National Congress), sending an unmistakable message to the region: The United States was not prepared to assert its values and its will in the Middle East.
Desert Shame was a pyrrhic triumph of legalistic technicality and diplomatic guile over the relentless pursuit of our national goals. The legalism was real enough, albeit only to those who wished to be prevented from achieving total victory: we had assembled a coalition to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait, and we felt obliged to stop at the borders of Iraq, even though many of our coalition partners encouraged us to continue.

As strange as this may sound, I don’t think a failed outcome necessarily indicates that the wrong choice was made historically. Stopping after GWI is a perfect example of this paradox. Ledeen laughs at the elder Bush’s lack of “the vision thing” but in this case, Bush really did see a profoundly different world: through the democracies of the world working for a greater good through the UN, the old balance of power metric for international affairs could be replaced. International order would not be established through military strength but by this international rejection of the pariah – as happened when Saddam was ejected from Kuwait.

Today, with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight, we see that France and the leadership of the UN had no desire to take the opportunity presented by the fall of the Soviet Union to enact Bush 41’s “New World Order.” They did not see an end to history, but instead merely an opportunity to advance their own power and wealth by filling the void left by the Soviet Empire. Yet, as only the most cynical - although, as it turns out, correct – observers would have predicted this series of events, wasn’t it worth taking this chance in 1991 to fundamentally reshape the global order?

Neocons, in fact, are urging that a very similar risk be taken today in the War on Terror. There is much that can go wrong in America’s efforts to build a free Middle East, yet we realize that it is only through such a transformation that the Fundamentalist hatred for America can be defeated. But if we fail in this effort, does that mean those who argued for inaction and the status quo were correct?

2003-04-30T13:18:00.000-07:00

Interesting:

A public corruption task force searched the offices of Miami-Dade County's teacher's union, scouring computers and documents and leaving with boxes of records, officials said.
FBI agents and Miami-Dade County police officers went to the United Teachers of Dade offices to serve a sealed search warrant Tuesday morning and remained there well into the afternoon, FBI spokeswoman Judy Orihuela said.

Obviously in the name of constancy the left will be just as outraged over union corruption as they were over Enron's issues.

Anyway want to bet whether that will happen?

2003-04-30T10:09:00.000-07:00

Radley Balko, in his new TCS article on sweat shops, has a brilliantly clear summary of the superiority of free trade to feel-good protests in the effort to better the lives of the world's poor:

[B]oycotts, "fair trade" regulations and public pressure do nothing to punish the corporations who benefit from sweatshops. They punish only third world laborers and, to a lesser extent, western consumers.

The best way to lessen the plight of sweatshop workers is more free trade, not less. If workers make 75 cents per day in factory A - the only plant in town - the best thing that could happen to them would be for a second factory to open up. If Factory B pays less than 75 cents, it won't attract any workers. If it offers exactly 75 cents, it might attract a few workers who couldn't get jobs at factory A. If it pays more than 75 cents, however, it might attract the best and brightest from factory A. Factory A then must decide whether to up its wages, or look for new labor - which means more jobs.

The alternative: force factory A to pay artificially high wages. That negates the advantage factory A had by investing in a developing country in the first place. Factory A packs up and returns to the U.S. Factory B never happens, because factory B's parent company sees no advantage (see: cheap labor) in investing in the developing country. Factory A's workers' wages go from 75 cents per day to nothing.

Instead of two factories paying twice as many workers higher wages, enabling them to inch their way out of poverty, a community is left with no factories, no jobs, and no hope.

It's beyond me how anyone fails to understand this logic. Is it a willful rejection of common sense? Are they thinking in an alternate paradigm that I don't understand? Whatever the answer is, the fact that the left produces no alternatives to free trade proves just how intellectually vapid their anti-Globalization arguments really are.

2003-04-30T08:54:00.000-07:00

Bitter Bitch noticed this study of the most and least charitable cities in America.

As she points out, it's the heartland - home to selfish conservatives - that's home to the most generous citizens while the supposedly good liberals of New England are the most stingy with their charity.

Of the 11 most generous cities, 9 are in states that went for Bush in 2000, while 6 of the 10 least generous are in states that went for Gore.

Just more evidence that it is the right who now carries the mantle for "liberal" values.

2003-04-29T22:29:00.000-07:00

You know something, I just don't take Chirac's attempt at creating a European military force to compete with the U.S. credibly because in order to do so, he needs money. Where will the money come from, though? Either they will have to cut social programs (yeah, like France will ever do that) or raise taxes. Raising taxes (the most likely option for France) will only slow down even more their already beleaguered economy, reducing tax receipts, forcing them to cut something. The only way to compete with the U.S. is to have a thriving economy that can afford a large military. To get that, France will have to end its socialist tendencies, which I don't they will ever be able to bring themselves to do.