newcity

2003-12-22T16:34:00.000-08:00

The newspapers have been abuzz recently with polls citing a small majority of Americans against gay marriage (something like 55%). I'm amazed that, with the relentless persecution and pillorying of gays that many Christian churches engage it that it's not higher. The Catholic Church regards it as an unfortunate occurrence that the people of Iraq are free. But, God FORBID that gays should marry. That's 'evil' you understand.

Protestants are little better. Some of the most vile vituperation is directed at gays. Some Episcopal church's' assertion that homophobia is biblical sends one scrambling to remind the august church fathers that so is slavery. Amazing how they forgot their scriptures sanctioned the most evil practice in history, and now use those same scriptures against another group. You can almost hear the church fathers screaming "BRING US BARRABAS!"

2003-12-22T16:27:00.000-08:00

I love the resolute hard headedness of the far left to be wrong. Day after day, year after year, nothing phases the far left. Collapse of the USSR? A minor detail. Stalin's purges? Gee...what's on TV tonite.

And so it is with today's editorial in the British "Guardian". Here we read, regarding the recent Libyan decision to renounce WMD's(http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/comment/0,11538,1111575,00.html):

"This was not achieved by military power, by invasion, by shredding inter national law, by enforced regime change or by large-scale bloodshed. Nor, in fact, despite Mr Bush's eagerness for plaudits, was it primarily achieved by his administration at all. It was achieved by discussion - by endless talk, mostly in London, latterly in Libya, and finally in a London gentlemen's club.

It could yet produce results in Syria, another low-grade WMD state, and in North Korea, if only senior US officials would stop threatening them."

One wonders if the beknighted boffins at the "Guardian" have forgotten who was president when N. Korea decided to cheat on its programs. It was Bill Clinton. Clinton DID try diplomacy, DID try talking to the N. Koreans, DID try incentives, and didn't threaten. The N. Koreans, amazingly enough, took the money and ran.

But, I guess if you're a "Guardian" editorial writer, it's more fun to be fashionable than it is to be right.

2003-12-17T05:50:00.000-08:00

France's attitude on reconstruction contracts reminds me of an old joke. It's the one, and I'll paraphrase, about a guy who goes up to a woman in a bar and asks for her phone number. She says no. He asks again. She says no. He asks a third time. She says no.

He then takes out a wad of money to buy a drink. She sees the money and starts talking to him. He makes an advance, but she says 'what kind of girl do you think I am?". He says "We already know that, now we're just haggling about price."

And so it is with France. They said no to Iraqi liberation at every opportunity. They stonewalled us and stymied our efforts. Now that the money is out, they're making cooing noises.

And now we now what kind of nation France is. It's become a matter of haggling about price.

2003-12-16T13:26:00.000-08:00

Boy, conservatives are really letting the Vatican have it over its stance on the liberation of Iraq. The Vatican, always ready to protect its ass at the expense of the weak and defenseless, opposed the liberation.

After Reuters reported that Cardinal Renato Martino, head of the Vatican's Justice and Peace department, expressed 'pity' for Hussein,

(http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=423385§ion=news),

and that "The news conference was called for Martino to present the World Day of Peace message, in which Pope John Paul took a swipe at the United States for invading Iraq without the backing of the United Nations."

National Review's K-J Lopez said (http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/corner.asp):

"Sounds like the Vatican's Cardinal Martino could use another just-war talk."

Funny, she ignored the Pope's comments....

Instapundit weighed in with (http://www.instapundit.com/):

"MORE LACK OF MORAL SERIOUSNESS FROM THE VATICAN: Robert Tagorda is more respectful of this stuff than I would be. I'll just note that they're showing more concern for Saddam Hussein than they probably would for Joanne Webb."

and:

"I thought that Lauryn Hill's remarks were grandstanding when she made them. But now I think she can claim a bit of vindication.

MORE: Damian Penny: "I should apologize to my Catholic readers for saying this, but compared to the way the Vatican has coddled the criminals within its ranks, then yes, I must admit Saddam is being treated pretty roughly.""

Funny how right wingers think the Vatican can do no wrong when it speaks on sex, but they get a wedgie when it spews forth pro-fascist nonsense.

I hope they remember this when the Vatican comes out with its next solemn pronouncement on the evils of being gay, or how womens' bodies should be state property.

2003-12-16T12:01:00.000-08:00

One argument anti-liberation demagogues use against the US is that we should hold 'free' elections immediately. They complain the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) is an American puppet, and that elections should be hosted by the UN. There is only one problem with that: the UN is against elections being held immediately in Iraq.

According to a report in Reuters (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20031216/wl_nm/iraq_un_dc):

"Annan appeared to have turned down a suggestion by Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the top Shi'ite Muslim cleric for direct elections instead of caucuses to choose the provisional assembly next spring. The ayatollah has said the United Nations should rule on which process was feasible.

"While there may not be time to organize free, fair and credible elections for this purpose, it is essential that the process leading to the formation of a provisional government is fully inclusive and transparent," Annan said in the council."

This was after Iraq's Foreign Minister, Hoshyar Zebari, blasted the UN for its inaction when Hussein was murdering his people for 35 years.

And, he issued an appeal:

Appealing for unity, Zebari said, "Settling scores with the United States should not be at the cost of helping to bring stability to the Iraqi people."

2003-12-16T07:33:00.000-08:00

It is a structural problem with the primary/general election nature of the American electoral process that it tends to promote extremism. To get elected through the primary, a candidate has to appeal to the most extreme positions in the party, then moderate that position during the general election.

And so it is with Dr. Dean. I'm a liberal Democrat. I can't stand the religious right. They are a bunch of unprincipled thugs who would have no problem turning America into a latter day Afghanistan.

BUT...Dean seems to be unaware of the penalty we would pay if we instituted his foreign policy. Giving up Iraq to the UN, his complaining about the capture of Hussein, really makes me question if he's Presidential material.

The choice to be made in next November's election is forcing me into a position I don't want to be in. I never voted Republican for President. But if Dean is elected, the choice is too awful to contemplate. Dean may be a threat to national security. That trumps all other issues; health care, abortion, etc.

At this point I'm hoping the Party will see Dean for the danger he is. But, again, pandering to the extremes in both parties is what primaries are for. Maybe, just maybe, he'll moderate his position. Here's hoping for the best.

2003-12-15T11:35:00.000-08:00

Capturing Hussein was a blow to fascist terror across the world. Its effects are, for many, more personal, from the spontaneous outburst of the Iraqi journalists when Bremer announced "We GOT him!", to this post on the 4th Infantry Division's website (http://pub20.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=1709173813&msgid=258823&mode=):

"from a 9-11 Survivor/Firefighter Widow I am a 9-11 survivor and a firefighter widow so the news of Saddam's capture brings tears of joy to my heart as the final piece of the puzzle is in place.
THank you thank you thank you!
YOu got the *******!
-Becca Bullock"

Those of us who were in NY after the start of the war know that sentiment very well.

It is the mark of a civilized society that it looks forward to the end of war. And it is the mark of a savage culture that it looks forward to the start of war. This capture may, in some way, hasten the end of the pathological culture that Hussein lived in.

2003-12-14T06:00:00.000-08:00

From Al Jazeera website:

Saddam Hussein captured

Sunday 14 December 2003, 15:19 Makka Time, 12:19 GMT

Saddam Hussein has been captured alive near his home town of Tikrit in a major coup for the beleaguered US-led occupation forces in Iraq

2003-12-14T04:26:00.000-08:00

GREAT NEWS! The supreme killer of Iraq, the man who gave hope to psychopaths, fascists, islamists, and die hard marxists throughout the world, is in US CUSTODY!!!

GOOD JOB GUYS!! BRAVO ZULU!

2003-12-11T11:16:00.000-08:00

Regarding the construction contracts that the US is paying for in Iraq, and excluding opponents of Iraqi liberation....

There is a lot of screaming going on. Some Europeans are shouting that it's UNFAIR that they don't have access to contracts paid for by American taxpayers. After all, they scream, they opposed us, but now that we're talking MONEY, that's a different situation.

The solution was given to me by the Russians. Their Foreign Minister said it was unfair to exclude any country from participating in rebuilding Iraq. My answer to that is: We're not. The Russians are free to bring their money, and their construction firms. If they want to PAY to rebuild, by all means, let them help.

But what they're REALLY saying is that they, those who opposed us at every turn, and would have enslaved the Iraqi people, now have a RIGHT to American money, even though they're not sharing American RISK. And that is plainly wrong. If they though Iraq was a bad deal, they should put their money, so to speak, where their mouth is. Let them pass on these contracts. They DON'T want to get their pure, pacifist hands sullied by 'blood money' paid by US imperialists.

But, just as it was BEFORE liberation, the Russians and French are willing to put aside their deep moral convictions where the almighty dollar is concerned. When Iraq was a gulag under Hussein, the Russians and French were all OVER Iraq, signing contracts. That's a shame...for them.

2003-12-10T10:44:00.000-08:00

The "loyal opposition". A rather elegant phrase that doesn't get much use nowadays. Politics has degenerated into a 'my shark can eat your shark' mentality that crushes all voices of moderation. And so it is with Presidential politics.

Reading the far left, one gets visions of the US collapsing under the jackboot. Everyone who dares utter a phrase not approved by the VRWC (vast right wing conspiracy) is immediately tossed, without due process, into one of the thousands of (invisible) prison camps Bush has established throughout the country. And law itself has been replaced, according to the left, by a rapacious globalization effort, led by Halliburton and Bechtel, solely to enrich Dick Cheney. Wow. Life sure is simple when you've got it figured out.

The right, on the other hand, doesn't need to do anything. They've won. America is fairly right wing, there's no doubt about it. Conservatives control both houses of Congress, the Presidency and most governorships. Democrats are reduced to having their machine crank out clones of drab, grey politicians who argue over drug benefits while the US goes to war. So the right doesn't have to do a damn thing right, they just have to avoid doing anything wrong.

And that's where the 'loyal opposition' comes in. I'm a liberal. Other than the war, Bush and I agree on nothing. Religion, science, feminism....he and I are opposites.

The day after Reagan was elected, I put an 'impeach Reagan' bumpersticker on my car. Reagan was (and is), in my mind, more of a demagogue than either Bush was. The Bushes wanted to be President. Reagan wanted to be Pope.

But there is more. We are at war. This is a dangerous time for the US, and for the west in general. Bush may not be the best man for the job (at this point I will not vote for him next year). But, when the country is in peril, as it is at this moment, it is honorable to commit oneself to the spirit of the country, and not create vindictive dissension. Saying that Bush is wrong on abortion is fine, but saying that he wants to enslave women as part of the VRWC is another.

We in the loyal opposition have a duty to make ourselves heard and to continue striving to make the country a better place. We have the right to try and defeat far right politicians like PA's own Senator Santorum. But it only gives aid and comfort to the enemy to deny the nature of the US itself; to imply that the US is corrupt or for sale to the highest bidder.

And that's a lesson those on the far left have yet to learn.

2003-12-10T09:39:00.000-08:00

Well the Bush administration has decided to stick it to the French, Russians and Germans by excluding them from Iraqi re-construction projects financed by American taxpayers. This is the latest in a memo from Paul Wolfowitz to the Pentagon. Gee. What a surprise.

The French were especially egregious in their efforts to block liberation of Iraq. They refused to countenance the use of force, or to threaten its use, under any circumstances. They refused to set deadlines for compliance. In short, if the French had their way, US troops would still be on the border in Saudi Arabia, and Hussein would be thumbing his nose at the international community...all the while French oil companies were raking in the cash from Iraq. Some gambit.

But, they lost. They gambled like the shady poker players they are, and they lost. So now it's time to ask "what's in it for us?". If the French, inter alia, want to be players, what are they offering? Reconstruction aid? Troops? What's in it for the American taxpayer to allow the French govt. to play both sides of the fence?

There's a good argument for allowing these countries to play. We do, at some point, have to start mending fences, and rebuilding the alliance. But no one said it had to be FREE. It's got to cost them something; something substantial. Otherwise the French and their dachshunds, the Germans, will always find it easier to play the spoiler.

2003-12-10T08:05:00.000-08:00

Every once in awhile....not very often, but occasionally and with great pain, conservatives discover a principle that liberals have known all along. The most recent example is the cost of being 'tough on crime'. Remember that? Dukakis lost the Presidency on that when Bush Sr. brought out the Willy Horton race baiting ad. A black guy rapes a white woman after being released on parole. Red meat because Bush rode that to the White House. And no politician ever lost a race by being 'tough' on crime. Death penalty? War on drugs...longer sentences, no treatment, etc etc.

Well, the chickens that have come home to roost are now presenting their bills, so to speak, and, MIRABILE DICTU, conservatives are discovering that! For example, the right wing goon, Cal Thomas, writes (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/thomas111303.asp):

"After two decades of being "tough on crime" by "locking them up and throwing away the key" - to recall two of the effective political slogans of the past - the bill has come due. Many states have become incapable or unwilling to pay the cost of housing record numbers of inmates. Twenty-five states have already passed laws easing or eliminating the minimum sentencing requirements that were politically popular in the 1980s and '90s. They are also considering early parole for nonviolent, non-dangerous offenders to ease overcrowding and the cost of warehousing so many convicts....

If locking up everyone now committing crimes would eliminate crime, I'd be all for it, but new criminals are born, or made, every day. Something is wrong with the system.

If the objective of criminal laws is to reduce crime, the laws currently on the books are clearly not achieving it"

He recognizes an immutable fact conservatives ignore: it costs precisely nothing to create a criminal. But they're damn expensive to maintain.

Conservatives always like the most inefficient way of getting things done. Crime? Instead of drug treatment, conservatives love punishment. Health insurance? Well, the unemployed have no one to blame but themselves, so they get nothing. The unemployed, refusing to play the game, head for the most expensive health care imaginable: the hospital emergency room.

And, as Cal Thomas is recognizing, the conservative 'solution' neither works, nor is cost effective. The 'war on crime' has been going on for 20 years. Skyrocketing prison rates, prison after prison being built, while schools go lacking, that's the result of conservative politics and 'moral values'. But conservatives, generally, won't admit that they caused the problem, and forced the taxpayer to fund it.

2003-12-09T18:45:00.000-08:00

I was actually up at 4 AM Sunday morning. I'm a ham radio operator, and I tuned into the Coast Guard air operations frequency to listen in. There was a rescue operation underway off the west coast, and a helicopter was en route.

I realized that I was safe and warm in my bedroom, with the heat on, and the world quiet. I was hearing, from 3000 miles, a small group of intrepid men and women in a tiny aircraft on their way to help people they'd never met. It made me realize how fortunate we are here in the west to have built the type of society where so many people consider it second nature to do this.

Pericles had it right when he wrote, in his 'Funeral Oration', how democracies instill in their citizens the values that make such sacrifices such a part of their being. A few weeks ago one of the news magazines had a story about a Special Operations Forces soldier who raided a Taliban base in Afghanistan. In the dark, he was involved in hand to hand combat, fighting for his life; he won.

So many of our citizens, and those of our coalition partners, have died in this struggle against fascist tyranny. And so many deluded people think we are the aggressors.

But, in this Holiday season, I give thanks to those men and women who fly in aircraft in remote regions of the world; who engage in combat in the dark of night; who, each day, leave their families to do jobs and face challenges that guard the safety and the values the west has enshrined in law and in freedom.

It's become all to easy to applaud these troops. But when you think about the sacrifices they're making, and how hard it was for human beings to achieve what the west has accomplished, it must, if you have any sensibilities, instill a sense of awe, and a profound, deep sense of thanks.

2003-12-08T09:31:00.000-08:00

Hmmm....the deep freeze may be starting to thaw...and I don't mean the obscenely cold weather here in the northeast (in Allentown, PA it's 30 F). The NY Times today is reporting that the Administration, and Europe, are starting to see the wisdom of rebuilding a tattered relationship. (See the article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/08/international/europe/08NATO.html?pagewanted=2).

Never let it be said this is a time for romanticism. We have no illusions about the objectives of France, and its dachshund, Gerhard Schroeder. But the fact is, economically, socially and militarily, we have more in common than divides us. You don't have to LIKE all the members of your family to get along with them.

Part of the article dealt with European integrated defense plans apart from NATO. It looks like that idea has pretty well been scrapped. One observation I've always had is that Europeans are generally not willing to pay the kinds of taxes necessary to have a world class military.

Rummy says he's under orders to hold his tongue, so it's apparent there's a debate going on within the Administration about Europe's future, especially on defense, and the US response. But, again, according to the article, there seems to be a willingness to put together what the humpty-dumpty wall did to the trans-Atlantic relationship. Maybe all the king's horse and all the king's men CAN put him back together. And that will be healthy for us, the Europeans, and the world.

2003-12-06T05:23:00.000-08:00

We need an ambassador. It would be a low presence position, but one that's essential for the future. We need an ambassador to Islam.

The US, the greatest marketing power on earth, has had a largely ineffective campaign to get our message out to moderate Muslims. We tried a few ways to do this, such as hiring Madison Avenue types to make up magazines, etc. These efforts failed largely, it seems, because the gap between our view of ourselves, and the view of those we are trying to reach is too large. Decades of hate speech from Saudi Arabian Wahabists, government hacks in Egypt, etc. have definitely poisoned the well.

The crux of their universe is Palestine. The fact that, if Israel disappeared tomorrow, it would not affect 99.99% of Muslims is irrelevant to them.

But, in a larger sense, the confrontation, a la Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations", is one that can only be resolved within Islam itself. This is an Islamic problem, a battle between fundamentalists and normal Muslims. What we need to do is crystallize the ability of moderates to confront and destroy the ideological foundations of fundamentalism from within.

We need to provide the ability of moderates to do this. We need to establish a non-partisan dialog between us and moderate Muslim leaders worldwide. Obviously this is not as simple as it seems. We can't fool ourselves into believing that, once they know us they will love us. After all, Sayyid Qutb, the father of Islamic fascism, lived in the US for several years. Mohammed Atta, the perfect fascist killer who planned 9/11, lived here as well.

But if there is, within moderate Islam, respect for pluralism and democracy, we need to build an atmosphere of mutual respect. We don't have to agree on every issue, or even eliminate strong passions on various topics (like Israel). But we DO have to reach an agreement on the illegitimacy of a culture of violence as a solution to Islam's problems.

We have to strengthen that concept within Islam. As the Saudis have funded their Salafi empire worldwide, leading to xenophobic hatred, we have to communicate the values of pluralistic tolerance and get agreement from Muslim leaders that this is the future of Islam.

They, then, have to develop this as a value within Islam itself. They have to communicate this. We can not. We do not have the presence or credibility to reach to the Masjid level and re-focus Islam on culture rather than violence.

Daniel Pipes estimates that 10-15% of Muslims are fundamentalists. That's over 120 million people who are dedicated to establishing medievalism in the world. That's completely unacceptable. The future of Islam rests on the ability of moderate Muslims to re-center Islam on a progressive path. The US has the resources to help. And, we have the attitude; one of respect for diversity.

But we have to take the first step. We have to reach out because, it seems, many Muslim leaders are unable to confront the demon in their midst.

2003-12-05T07:31:00.000-08:00

More terrorism in Russia. Now there are 37 dead at the hands of a homicide bomber. A tragedy for the Russian people, who have my sympathies. I wonder if Putin will follow his own advice, and open a dialog with the Chechen rebels, as he urged us to do with Hussein when he, and the oleaginous member of the demimonde, Chirac, opposed our liberation of Iraq.

2003-12-05T07:29:00.000-08:00

I can't help but think, when reading Islamist fascist literature, about the difference between what they want, and what normal people want. We want the world...freedom, peace, literature, arts, science, communication. They want 'God'. And ONLY God. Nothing BUT God...whatever they perceive him to be.

As I've stated before, religion is one of the most powerful concepts ever invented by humans. And the Islamists have a burst of genius: they've coupled sex with God. It's ironic that they hate one of "God's creations", women. They loathe women. Despise them. Wish to completely expel them from life. Journalist Robert Kagan, and columnist Andrew Sullivan have, on occasion, both described reports of homosexual advances from men in Muslim countries. Sullivan's take on it was that, since fundamentalist Islam has eliminated women from public life, teenage boys have no one left to turn to but other boys, and men.

Fundamentalist Christians and Jews have pretty much the same view of women. Fundamentalists of all religions attack women first. The difference is that, in the west, women have rights. If they choose to enslave themselves to religious fanaticism, it's their choice. In Saudi Arabia, however, they have the murderous "Mutaween", the religious police, who kill girls rather than let them be seen in public.

Women, in a sense, are like the canaries in the mineshaft. When religious beliefs get powerful enough to start repressing them, we know society is in danger. Women are first, but they're followed by Jews and gays.

In Europe, however, it seems Jews are the first to go. European appeasers of Islamist thuggery are, after that, quite content to see women fall victim to that brand of fascism. They never say a word about it.

2003-12-03T06:54:00.000-08:00

So the Iraqi Governing Council is defying Ayatollah Sistani in his call for elections? Interesting. Apparently many Sunnis and the SCIRI (the largest Shi'ite council in Iraq) also feel it's premature to hold elections. I think we Americans always feel elections will solve everything.

And that's not necessarily so. We've seen, in Algeria, how the Islamist's rule of 'one man, one vote, once' is used to empower fascists and destroy a country. A recent poll found that less than 1% of Iraqis want a theocracy. But religion is about the most powerful idea humans have invented, and, in the case of elections, without a democratic heritage, there's a danger the Islamists could capture the process.

That would be a disaster for Iraq and for us. Iran would have a free hand to extend its unpopular ideology into Iraq. It would polarize Iraqi society. And it would provide an opportunity for Al Qaida. Iran has already given extensive support to terrorists, providing shelter to Ayman al Zawahari, Bin Laden's right hand man.

There's no question the proper path for Iraq is freedom. The path to get there is tortuous. No one, including the French or the Russians, has any better idea than we do how to do it. The French, with their extensive business interests in supporting fascists and communists worldwide (they are Cuba's largest lender), would rejoice in the establishing of a theocratic state in Iraq.

For the mental health of the middle east, as well as our own protection, we can not let that happen.

2003-12-03T05:53:00.000-08:00

Man, it's COLD here today. Was 19 F when I got up. Much, much too cold. I'm not a winter person. One must, as a poet said, have a mind of winter to appreciate this cold. I don't. Point me to California!

2003-12-01T11:38:00.000-08:00

Modernism...I am still coming to grips with how radical a break with history contemporary modernism is. Nowhere is this more evident than in the history of life on earth-evolution. In today's "NY Times", there is a book review written by Eric Sober of Simon Conway Morris's "Life's Solution". (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/30/books/review/30SOBERT.html)

The basic gist, according to the review, is to recast some of Lamarck's ideas in an evolutionary framework.

What is striking about Morris's book is how traditional it is, if the review is correct. (I have not read the book, but the review brings up fairly common themes about life's origins). Sober writes, regarding Morris's outlook:

"He also makes bitter remarks about the self-congratulatory atheism of many popularizers of evolutionary theory. He thinks the large-scale features of the history of evolution ''are congruent with a Creation,'' though they do not ''prove'' that God exists. He finds it significant that our universe ''seems strangely well suited for us,'' without pausing to consider that a hospitable universe is the only kind we could possibly observe. His recommended ''path to recovery'' from the corrosive naturalism that he deplores involves facing up to the fact that ''it is reasonable to take the claims of theology seriously.''

Again and again, when it comes to origins, we keep finding authors who want to insert teleology. Is this so bred into our culture that we can not escape it? Atheism, which Morris objects to, is, ironically enough, a NATURAL response to the incessant theologizing of science, and of culture. The subject of origins reeks, drips, with teleology. No one, it seems, really cared about HOW we got here until Darwin. It was merely accepted that, because of the purpose of a supreme being, we DID get here. Is there anything more corrosive to the human spirit than saying 'god did it', and walking away?

I am a scientist. Most scientists are religious, despite what Mike Behe, Phillip Johnson, and other nativists assert. I am an atheist not because of evolution, but, in part, because of CREATIONISM. This insistence that we are here for a 'purpose' stifles free thought and investigation into the world around us.

Steven Weinberg, one of the men who won a Nobel Prize in Physics for his work in quantum electrodynamics (he helped unite the weak nuclear force with electromagnetism), once said 'the more we learn about the universe, the more it seems pointless'. While that may seem to be an overstatement, it is a refreshing breath of fresh intellectual air versus the exhausted theme of 'purpose' human beings are so reluctant to release.

2003-12-01T08:18:00.000-08:00

A picture is worth a thousand words. And nothing is more telling than this picture of a little girl watching US troops preparing for a raid in Iraq:

http://iraq.sgtstryker.com/

If Iraqis were in a popular uprising against US troops, or if our troops were killers, like the far left says, would a child be watching this formidable force getting ready to go into action?

2003-12-01T06:55:00.000-08:00

One point I have a small disagreement with Yoshida on is the destruction of fascist Baath forces in Iraq. I think we're dealing with an enemy who learns quickly. I remember reading an article about Taliban fighters which said they were capable 'soldiers' but didn't learn. They'd mass for an attack, then get slaughtered by US liberation forces. They massed because that's how they'd fight their former enemies. They didn't adapt.

But the Baathists have adapted and have learned. The problem for them is, so do we. The US Armed Forces are the most capable on earth. The fascists, entranced by the 'Black Hawk Down' episode (Hussein gave copies of this tape to his generals), thought we'd run when confronted by a ruthless enemy.

But we're not. We're bastards. And we will kill them, make no mistake about it. Norville de Atkine's article about why Arabs lose wars (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/716583/posts) is a classic study that, in a sense, encapsulates the difference between a murderous tribal culture of fascist narcissism and the capabilities of a free, democratic capitalist state. There is no contest.

We can, in sense, understand the fascist. In a way, we've all been there. Greed, corruption, nihilism, are forces which are rampant on the planet. But defending this institution called 'democracy', and internalizing the value of pluralistic secularism is what differentiates modern western culture from the failed societies that came before.

It is not a matter of 'race'. There is no difference between an Arab and myself. None. They are as smart as I am, as conscientious, and have every ability I do. It is a matter of culture. As Bernard Lewis has pointed out, Arab culture never developed the idea we gained from Roman law: the notion of the individual as an institution, with rights.

I've said before the idea of the nation-state is a western one, formulated in 1648 in the first modern nation-state, France. There may or may not be advantages of this type of societal organization vs. others, like tribal societies. And who knows what the future will bring. Is there a form of organization superior to the nation-state?

But it seems the world is in danger from tribal societies seeking to acquire technologies which can only be developed by nation-states. Bin Laden, for all his delusions about the "Umma" (international Islam), still is a tribalist. There is no freedom in his view; no individual. There is only the tribe, and the individual is a creation of it, especially women.

Democratic secularism can handle the idea of tribalism. What it can't survive is the war that tribalism seeks to wage against democracy. If individuals are the property of the tribe, and this value must be enforced through violence, then democracy must act. Democratic secularism is the greatest concept for the advancement of humanity ever invented. But it seems fundamentalists, of all stripes, will never accept this.

2003-12-01T06:28:00.000-08:00

Andrew Sullivan, even if you disagree with him on many issues (and I am more liberal than he is), is always a font of information. He links to a conservative Canadian commentator (http://www.adamyoshida.com/) who states that US forces have, since the inception of Operation Iron Hammer, killed over 1000 enemy fascists in Iraq. Bravo!

Yoshida also is correct in that this was not reported in the 'Media' here in the US. So much for the idea that the 'media' is 'controlled' by the administration.

Yoshida has a perceptive analysis of commenting on the war as well. He's right about the phases commentators go through. At first, there's the bandwagon...everyone is for the war. Then it becomes a 'quagmire'. Hell, I remember Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Medicins Sans Frontieres, etc. wetting their collective diapers over the MILLIONS who would die if the US invaded Afghanistan. They were, of course, wrong. And they've never admitted it.

But, they repeat their mistakes ad nauseum. That's why I, who used to be a member of AI, no longer am. They have no credibility. I simply can't trust them. The head of AI in London actually was involved in organizing the anti-Bush protests. As I've stated many times, I did not vote for either Bush, and won't next year. But AI is supposed to be neutral. They aren't. Beyond the 'human rights' agenda these organizations have is a subtle agenda to oppose capitalism, globalization, etc. Except, of course, globalization of Islamist fascism.

2003-12-01T06:14:00.000-08:00

Our allies continue, along with US forces, to die in defense of Iraqi freedom. The Spanish are the latest to suffer. According to reports I've heard, 4 Spanish intelligence officers due to rotate out of Iraq were killed, along with several who were just coming into the country. One escaped.

Spain has experience with domestic fascism, so is, probably uniquely among western European countries, familiar with what the Iraqis have faced. My condolences to the families of the Spanish agents, and to the people of Spain.

2003-12-01T06:08:00.000-08:00

I guess blogging with blogger isn't perfect. There's supposed to be a utility to allow you to publish links so you can click on it and go to the site. My note below was supposed to contain this NY Times reference:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/01/international/middleeast/01MISS.html?ex=1070859600&en=cf6c578ab69d1f8b&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

Sorry about that!

2003-12-01T06:06:00.000-08:00

Gee...what a surprise. Hussein was actively involved in acquiring missile technology from N. Korea in violation of UN sanctions. (See the NY Times story here:

What's funny is how there is no honor among thieves, even those who hate the US. Tells you a lot about their character, doesn't it? Apparently Kim Jong Il, the psychopath who runs N. Korea, stole $10M from the psychopath who used to run Iraq. Lovely.

And, it looks as if Syria was involved. No surprise there. Bashir Al Assad, the psychopath who runs Syria (notice a theme here?), thought he'd get away with supplying distribution for the missiles...for a bit of vigorish, I suppose.

Our work is not yet done. When Iraq is democratized, we have to, one way or another, start with Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria. The world is not safe while these regimes exist.

2003-12-01T05:40:00.000-08:00

The number of people killed by US forces when they attacked a US convoy headed for a bank is gratifying. Good to see the fascists finally take one on the chin. We need to kill more of these guys, as well as find their leaders.

The staff sergeant who headed the convoy was interviewed on CNN this morning. He mentioned how he was thinking of his 10 month old child, and his wife, during the fight. The courage of these people astounds me. At Coast Guard Station Sandy Hook (New York City), the young people I work with there are so dedicated to doing their jobs well that I am astonished at how mature they are. Of course, they have their foibles just like anyone else. But, given the nature and character of our enemies, we're in pretty good hands.

2003-11-28T04:11:00.000-08:00

What a stunning show of support, this trip by Pres. Bush to Iraq. It certainly boosted morale, and showed he's sticking by his decision to liberate Iraq. I didn't vote for Pres. Bush, or his father. But there's no getting around the fact he does, on occasion, have a flare for the dramatic. Bravo Zulu, Mr. President!

2003-11-26T18:36:00.000-08:00

Happy Thanksgiving to all...eat well and enjoy being with your family and friends.

2003-11-26T18:35:00.000-08:00

Islamist fascists are killing fellow Muslims while pursuing a war of genocide against Jews. Perfect logic for a genocidal ideology. To them, the important factor is not life, but death. They would rather kill a thousand Muslims rather than let one 'kufr' escape.

Saudi Arabia is finally starting to see some of the light. This purveyor of Islamic fascism is starting to change its school textbooks so they no longer say that "Muslims who live among non-Muslims should hate them". A small, but important step for the creators of Frankenstein Islam.

2003-11-24T06:05:00.000-08:00

In the good old days, before the invention of human rights and science, Christians used to think everything revolved around Christianity. The universe was geocentric. Jews rejected Christ out of hatred for him, etc. etc.

In much of today's Muslim world, the same attitude is present. The rampant conspiracy theories, like those of the leader of Malaysia, Mahathir Mohammed, are rooted in Islamocentrism-the idea that the non-Muslim world's primary objective is to destroy Islam.

The fact is, religion just isn't that important. In the proposed monstrous European constitution, written by Valerie Giscaird d'Estaing, religion isn't even mentioned, though the Vatican insists it should be.

Those who insist 'kufrs' (non-believers) have nothing better to do than to plot to destroy Islam are medievalists without imagination. They can't see the world in its glorious splendor, and are challenged by its beauty. They ban music, art, literature, science, all in the name of 'God'. And, as the world relentlessly opens, these barbarians insist that every challenge, including democracy, is a plot to eliminate the only thing they know-Islam.

2003-11-24T04:29:00.000-08:00

CNN is going on this morning about Iran's nuclear capabilities, and the fact they've admitted they lied about their nuclear weapons program. The case is being used to whip Germany, France and the UK about their support for a UN program of inspection that is slightly weaker than one wanted by the US, and, ironically enough, by the head of the IAEA.

At this point, I think the Europeans are right. I understand the need to keep pressure on both the UN and Iran, which is a major feature of US policy. But let's not get ahead of ourselves on the issue. We've seen that our intelligence in Iraq was faulty.

There's no doubt the Iranians will play the international community if they get a chance. But we know that game, too. "Good cop, bad cop" isn't a bad idea right now.

2003-11-24T04:25:00.000-08:00

David Kopel, in "National Review" (http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/corner.asp), writes:

GUNS & ZIMBABWE [Dave Kopel]

The Strategy Page (Nov. 19) reports that, "President Mugabe and his cronies must be scared, since the police have been ordered to embark on a nationwide firearms audit starting on the 21st. They want the public to take their firearms and firearm certificates to their nearest police station, so the number of guns and types can be verified." As is typical in such situations, "The authorities are using the excuse of rising crime for this exercise."

As Paul Gallant, Joanne Eisen and I have detailed, "gun control" is the sine qua non of Mugabe's vicious regime.

The failure of the United Nations to act is one more instance of the UN's pathetic favoritism of tyrants, and one more reason why all freedom-loving people should resist the UN's gun prohibition programs.

What Kopel and others think, of course, is that guns give freedom. NRA types love that cliche. Proof? Well, there is none. None at all. The people of Iraq, under Hussein, had guns in every home, including AK-47's.

The fact is, a 'well armed populace' is no match for modern police and armed forces. A 'well armed populace' is not organized like an army is.

It's a myth, one much beloved of the right wing, that guns make you free. They don't. The Iraqis had guns and it did nothing for them at all.

2003-11-21T07:54:00.000-08:00

Powerful words from an Iraqi, at: http://messopotamian.blogspot.com/

As long as America and her allies choose the side of the oppressed and downtrodden, as long as they remain on the side of the people, they will be invincible. When Might is coupled with Right, then expect great historical transformations.

Iraqi's know what the story is. They will be free.

2003-11-21T05:57:00.000-08:00

Imperialism. A word that can stir millions to take to the streets in anger and hatred. Except, of course, if it's Islamo-fascist imperialism (a word coined by Andrew Sullivan).

I have yet to figure out why so many self righteous pompous buffoons on the far left shriek at Bush about US imperialism, yet have nothing to say about the genocidal imperialist war Islamists are waging. They are killing Muslims, Jews, Christians, women, and anyone they can get their hands on. Bin Laden's mentor, Abdullah Azzam explicitly stated that people must convert or die. Nice medieval mentality, that.

Yet protestors, exercising selective morality. are outraged when capitalist democracies liberate people, but sleep like children when Islamist imperialists practice sexual apartheid. If it weren't so sad, it would be hysterical, this form of play acting.

Islamist imperialist aggression against nations such as Indonesia, the Philippines, etc., is totally ignored in the west. I can't help but think this is a form of racism. Many on the left view the Muslim victims of imperialism as not worthy of democracy. As I've stated before, it's the 'white man's burden' in their view. They want these 'ignorant savages' to remain dependent on them so they can use them as a whip to chastise the west as it seeks to liberate the victims of Islamism.

Although Islam is not a race, the view that Muslims can not handle democracy is a view the left holds to with religious devotion. Nowhere does the left advocate democracy for Muslims. The head of Amnesty International in London is an organizer of the anti-Bush demonstrations, yet says nothing about the victims of Hussein's war against his own people, nor the liberation of Afghanistan.

A poll published yesterday found that 85% of Afghans approve of their liberation by the US and its allies. Yet the left ignores this. Again, the left views Muslims as children.

Opposing imperialism is not the same as opposing globalization or capitalism. Those who oppose efforts at free trade are opposing the right of individuals to choose their own lifestyles. It's no wonder the leading opponents of free trade are allying themselves with religious fanatics. Both are against the rights of individuals to make their own decisions about freedom.

2003-11-20T05:45:00.000-08:00

Are we at war, or aren't we? It seems to me that those who oppose actions against terrorists, or states which are developing WMD's (Iraq) and have aided terrorists (Abu Abbas), think we're not. Their argument appears to be 'prove that Iraq was a threat', or something along those lines.

But the fact is, we don't have to prove anything at all. We know there are people who want to destroy us because they HAVE attacked us already. When we put an Iran or a Syria or a Saudi Arabia in our sights, it's because we KNOW they are our enemy and we KNOW they've sponsored, aided and abetted those who HAVE attacked us. It's nonsense to pretend we have to have a smoking gun in each and every case.

This is not an argument for unlimited war. But the fact is, these states have already declared war against us. When the head of the IAEA expresses concern that the UN's resolution on Iranian nuclear activities isn't strong enough, we know there's a problem.

Those who oppose US actions against the murderous thugs in Iraq, Iran, Syria or Saudi Arabia are locked in a 19th century mindset. They still think war should be fought with declarations, then a phalanx of troops marching across a field firing muskets. They are trapped in a box where nationalism determines everything. Only nations go to war. Only nations are subject to international law.

It's a profoundly western way of thinking. Is there anything more western than the modern nation-state? How many of us can think of ourselves as anything but "American"?

Yet there are those who are sharp enough to use the nature of the nation against itself. Preaching the superiority of "God's law" they think of themselves as members of a trans-national identity. It's globalization written in a religious context. They seek to destroy everything in the name of their god. The far left which hates capitalism because it destroys cultures, ironically enough supports the globalization efforts of the Islamic fascists.

The far left is unable to see anything but the idea that the 'nation' should play victim to the globalizing influence of Islamic fascism. It's certainly a form of racism, this idea that Islamic fascists aren't as dangerous as western capitalists. But one wonders if, and when, the leftists will ever learn from history.

2003-11-19T05:33:00.000-08:00

Bush is in London, and all seems well. Tomorrow is the big day of protests, so the protestors say. I guess they've got to have something to worry about. As I've said previously, anti-Americanism is a fundamentalism no less than creationism. It helps build a framework for those who can't think. All problems are defined by their relationship to the US. Globalization, capitalism, whatever their benefits, are evil, and the US is evil for pushing them.

Fundamentalism is the belief that a very simple concept can explain a whole world. Creationists have their view that the bible is literally true. Anti-americanists have their view that murder, evil, greed, imperialism, etc., did not exist until July 4, 1776.

A pox upon both their houses.

2003-11-18T10:36:00.000-08:00

According to the "Guardian", 62% of Brits think the US is a positive force in the world...that's a surprise, and I'm sure spoiled Dominique de Villepin's breakfast...

2003-11-18T10:33:00.000-08:00

I'm not sure what 'weblogs.com' will do for me, but I changed my settings to notify them when I publish...I guess I'll find out soon enough.

2003-11-18T10:20:00.000-08:00

My sympathies to the friends and families of the courageous Italian Carabinieri and soldiers who lost their lives at the hands of murderous fanatics in Iraq. I remember reading about Italian soldiers in WW2 Yugoslavia putting a stop to German persecution of Jews. And, when one reads about Mussolini, you get the impression Italians didn't consider his fascism all that seriously. Italian culture, sophisticated and worldly, has always been a buffer against extremism.

It is the mark of a great nation, like Italy, that its people are willing to sacrifice themselves for their fellow human beings.

2003-11-18T10:11:00.000-08:00

The Supreme Court of MA just handed down a decision saying there is no constitutional obstruction to gay marriage. What a smart decision! Conservative reaction has, to put it mildly, been predictable from the "National Review"
(http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/corner.asp):

"BORK SAW THIS ONE COMING [Peter Robinson]
In the episode of Uncommon Knowledge that he taped last summer, Judge Robert Bork predicted today's decision in Massachusetts"

Bork goes on, in his most pompous manner, to tell us why persecution of gays would be a good thing. It's perfectly in line with his article a number of years ago in the "Indiana Law Review" stating that the right to privacy for Americans doesn't exist. In spite of all the vomiting the right does about 'limited government', the one thing it hates is....limited government. The Borkies and their cronies would be ecstatic to have government officers certifying that each of us is in bed with only our heterosexual spouses.

The war the right is making on gays is done in the name of 'protecting the family'. But, as any of the millions who've lost their jobs during Bush's tenure can tell you, economics has much more influence on family life than the idea that the guys down the block are married to each other. Yet the right wants govt action against gays, but no support for families. No health care, etc. Typical right wing hypocrisy.

At the same website above, Kathryn Jean Lopez documents a Pew Poll stating that religious bigotry against gays is correlated with Evangelical Christianity (gee, there's a surprise!) Just as these folks led the fight against women's suffrage, and equal rights for blacks and Jews, they're now in the forefront of the war to discriminate against gays. What a noble legacy. Lopez seems to actually be proud of this latter day blood libel.

The right is cute. I like reading "National Review"; Jonah Goldberg is clever and witty. But they have their dark side. Their willingness to scapegoat gays, while ignoring the fact that millions have lost their jobs, and health care, is typical of the American religious right.

2003-11-17T11:14:00.000-08:00

Gee. I suppose great minds think alike. I wasn't aware, however, that the 'great mind' in this case is Natan Sharanksy writing in the "Wall Street Journal" (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004310), where he writes:

"anti-Americanism in the Islamic world and anti-Americanism in Europe are in fact linked, and both bear an uncanny resemblance to anti-Semitism." However, back in December of last year, I wrote:

Mon Dec 23, 06:01:01 AM | robert puharic | edit ]
Are Americans becoming the new Jews? Every country in medieval Europe did, at one time or another, expel the Jews. Xenophobia, opportunism, irrational fear, and religious bigotry all contributed to Jews being seen as overly influential, and having values that undermined “Christian” culture. They became targets of opportunity for failed leadership.

Gee. Maybe I should be on the WSJ masthead...nah...me on the WSJ? They'd kill me!

2003-11-17T10:02:00.000-08:00

Ah, it gets more and more difficult to post, it seems. I don't know how the big boys do it all the time. Personal life is so demanding that it really does constrict the amount of time one has to develop an analysis worth posting.

Speaking of blogging, though, have you noticed how incestuous blogging is? The best sites all have links referencing....each other. It's kind of like an interlocking board of directors.

In any case, as I look at the European view of the US currently, and its position in the world, I can't help feeling Europe is going through a strange type of neo-colonialism. The world's greatest threats to peace, apparently, are George Bush and Ariel Sharon. I kid thee not.

It appears to me that many Europeans are willing to completely disregard the medieval ideology espoused by the nihilistic Islamic-fascists (thanks to Andrew Sullivan for THAT terminology), in favor of focusing their hatred on the US, especially on Bush. I am no fan of Bush. I didn't vote for him, or his dad, and will not do so next year.

But, the hard core determination to ignore the brain deadening effect of Islamic fundamentalism reeks of a racist/colonialist view of the middle east that used to be so prevalent among Europeans. They don't have to pay attention to a 'fatwa' from bin Laden because he's just an Arab and Arabs have never been known to think...at least so THEY think. Thus, it's the US that's a danger.

Part of it is the collapse of Europe's ability to project power. As was said in "The Day the Earth Stood Still", the test of any law is the police force that enforces it. Western civilization is quite good at developing laws. Unfortunately, today it's only the US which retains the ability to enforce it. This split means that Europe no longer believes in enforcement, and, perhaps, the US may be coming no longer to believe in law.

But Europeans have to get their act together. Do they REALLY think Arabs are sub-human, and can be ignored? If not, why are they so persistent in doing so? Why is there no challenge to the fundamentalist Islamic hatred that pours out of Saudi Arabia, but a real revulsion to the Christian fundamentalism that Bush is supposed to believe?

I'm an atheist, and truly despise Christian fundamentalism. But the obsession in Europe with Bush's religious views while blindly ignoring the sexual apartheid so characteristic of bin Laden, al Turabi, and other fanatics, when coupled with Europe's past leads to only one conclusion: Europeans want to have the '3rd world' depend on them for protection. If they tell the thugs, like Arafat, to act responsibly, they lose the parent/child relationship.

So they'd rather shriek at the US than set expectations on middle east leaders. White man's burden, you know. We've seen it in the anti-globalization protection racket they're running. They're protecting poverty stricken 3rd worlders from all the horrors of a middle class life. A good example of this is at the "Nation" which, predictably, is STUNNED to think that Iraqis may actually WORK for a living!! (See
http://thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031110&s=shorrock).

Europe's never going to grow up, it seems. If they're not aiding and abetting slaughter, like they did in Kosovo, they're complaining that their children...Iraqis...are being liberated.

What a shame...for both Iraq and Europe.

2003-10-06T11:45:00.000-07:00

God, has it been this long since my last post? Feb. 10? Much has changed in that time, personally, which accounts for the empty cyberspace.

Of course, my last invective was, justifiably, aimed at the French. Is there any govt. on earth more cynical or self serving than that of Chirac? Their efforts in the Ivory Coast have brought nothing but misery to its people (http://www.nationalreview.com/europress/boyles200310030830.asp), and they want us to turn Iraq into their playground?

Nice little article on the Nobel Prize at CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/10/06/nobel.prizes.reut/index.html). George Smoot would be a natural. His book 'Wrinkles in Time' detailed the exquisite work his team did on COBE. Of course, Hawking would be an excellent choice, especially since his condition means time is of the essence.

Anyhow, it's good to be back. Hope life is more quiet from hereon out....

2003-02-10T06:24:00.000-08:00

It's no surprise that the nation which spawned Jacques Derrida is now trying to deconstruct UN resolution 1441. What the hell could be more cynical, more Orwellian, than having Dominique de Villepin call for Iraq to 'pass legislation' to allow more open inspections?

The French are trying to gut the UN. When future psychopaths note the Vichy ideology emanating from Paris, can there be any doubt that they, given a license to obfuscate by Mr. Chirac, will do precisely that? This is not just a crisis NOW, it's a crisis for the future as well. And what is the US supposed to do about UN credibility? When we know that dictators who agree to yield when threatened by the use of UN force will, instead, be given a free pass, why would we even try to work with such a body?

The only thing worse than fighting an unnecessary war is not fighting a necessary one.

2003-02-02T14:56:00.000-08:00

The loss of the shuttle is a tragedy beyond words. It is a testimony to the success of western civilization that such projects can be achieved, even at great risk. It is a hallmark of the nature of this civilization that men and women willingly risk their lives in this endeavor.

To tell the truth, however, I’ve never liked either the shuttle or the ISS. They consume all the resources of the manned space program, and produce marginal return. As an engineer in the semiconductor industry, I can say almost nothing of the research done on crystallography on the ISS has been used in industry. Neither the shuttle, nor the ISS produce anything of benefit in terms of exploration, or pushing back the frontiers of knowledge, which justify either their expense, or their risk. We’ve lost 13 brave men and women. It’s time to seriously reconsider the objectives of the space program.

To me, there’s only one goal worth pursuing now: a manned mission to Mars. This would be of far greater risk to astronauts than the shuttle, but it would answer a question that is definitely having answered: is there life in the universe beyond ours?

As a chemist, I find the experiments previously done, which gave inconclusive answers very frustrating. Surely, with a manned mission, scientists and equipment could be sent which would have the flexibility to design experiments to finalize the issue.

Such a mission would also recapture the nature of NASA in the early 60’s when it really WAS at the frontier of knowledge. Today NASA’s manned program yields little. It’s time to junk the shuttle, and the ISS, and have the US lead an international program, with the world’s best researchers, for a mission to Mars.

2003-01-27T20:07:00.001-08:00

Well, it's slow here in Corvallis. I'm sitting in my hotel room actually watching CSPAN. Yeah, it's that slow.

CSPAN carried France 2, a network TV program with English subtitles. It was a very well balanced presentation of the day's events, focusing on Blix's report, and the shortcomings of Iraq's compliance. The network also had a good report on US and UK efforts to protect the Kurds.

CSPAN now is carrying a debate in the Canadian House of Commons (CSPAN and the Canadian House....yeah I know it's boring!). Anyhow, PM Jean Chretien is getting a grilling from Stephen Harper, the leader of the Opposition, on what actions Canada is taking to work with the US and UK to prepare for war, now that Blix states Iraq is in noncompliance. Chretien does a good job of not answering questions. One member slammed Chretien on the condition of the Canadian military. I'm certainly no expert, but have seen reports that the Canadian Navy is in pretty sorry shape.

Chretien has finally said that Canada will not commit troops unless the UN authorizes it. A straight answer....who would have guessed!

2003-01-27T20:07:00.000-08:00

Still in Corvallis. Went to see the Eugene Vocal Arts Ensemble on Saturday. Very good presentation of baroque and renaissance music. It's also quite a change from a place like the San Francisco Orchestra. In SF, the streets are filled with limos, the women wear furs, the men expensive suits. To a blue-jean wearing engineer like me, it's some show. In Eugene, the audience is much more low key. Makes for a pleasant evening.

2003-01-27T19:35:00.000-08:00

Will we go to war? And on what basis? It seems legalities, and traditional justifications have parted company.

As Blix made clear today, in the flowery language of diplomacy, there are many 'unanswered' questions about Iraqi WMD's. The British newspaper, the "Independent" has an excellent summary of Blix's charges at:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/01/28/wirq28.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/01/28/ixnewstop.html

The BBC World service (referred to by a few wags as the "Baghdad Broadcasting Corporation") was surprisingly aggressive within minutes after the conclusion of Blix's speech. They claimed Blix had said Iraq was not cooperating, and was hiding its efforts to make WMD's. (The tinny speakers on my laptop truly suck).

There seems little doubt Iraq is violating UN resolution 1441. Iraq is lying, and those who believe the charade is a picture of reality are willing to excuse any lie as long as it postpones war. Blix contrasted Iraq's actions with those of the South Africans; a big difference. Resolution 1441 did not say the inspectors had to find WMD's (i.e. find a smoking gun); it said Iraq had to prove it destroyed weapons it was known to possess from previous UNSCOM inspections in 1994, and later. It hasn't done so. When the Iraqi Ambassador was asked what happened to 8200 liters of anthrax it had been known to have which wasn't mentioned in Iraq's 12,000 page report, he said Iraq 'would' tell UNMOVIC what had happened to it. Of course, they were already supposed to have done that. They didn't. Nor did the Iraqi report mention rocket motors imported last month.

But is this enough for war? War is generally either a defense against attack, or a pre-emptive action designed to forestall an imminent attack (yes, that is legal under international law). There is little sign of this from Iraq. So in evaluating US actions, it appears the world has jettisoned the legality of Iraqi non-compliance, and substituted the more common notion of what is needed to fight a 'just war'.

But the victim in this will be the UN and an international consensus. This is an issue the US administration takes very seriously indeed. If the confusion is not resolved, and UN resolution 1441 is transformed into a whitewash, the US may very well start to ignore the UN (more than it has in the past). Neither the US, nor the UN can afford this. It is in our mutual best interest to decide what resolution 1441 says, agree on it, and enforce it, whether or not that means war. The Germans will just have to live with it.

2003-01-27T18:54:00.000-08:00

"National Review" online has Peggy Noonan quoting a 'high administration source' as saying Bush literally is sleepless over concern that Iraq may someday initiate a terrorist attack using WMD's on US soil. That, I think, explains a lot.

It's obvious, the lies of idiots notwithstanding, the coming war is not for oil. The "Economist" (subscription required) had an article about how much it's going to cost to improve Iraq production capabilities over the next 10 years. The cost is very high indeed. In addition, as I've pointed out previously, if we wanted control over oil, Bush Sr. could have had it in '91 when we had troops in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq. So this war is not for oil.

Bush is the point man here. If the US is attacked, again, it will be his fault. Regardless of the situation or the cause, he will be blamed. It takes no great imagination to see that this President, with a strong unilateralist/isolationist right wing behind him, would rather risk war now than be blamed for an unimaginable event in the future. Bush would rather lump Hussein in with other crazed Middle Eastern psychopaths (there are so many), and act now rather than later.

And that's one primary difference between our European allies and us. We were attacked, they weren't. We are at war; they aren't. There is a world of difference in these perspectives.

I've quoted Naipul before on his travels through Middle Eastern countries. He said Islamic fundamentalists believe that if the west were destroyed, the TV's, the cars, the movies, etc., would continue to come. They don't make the link between the west and products of western culture. Europe, it seems, thinks that if the US stops defending the west, everyone will make nice. There won't be any hostility anywhere in the world. It's a nice dream. But that's exactly what it is.

2003-01-25T17:46:00.000-08:00

Is there such a thing as News addiction? I'm sitting in my hotel room watching CNN on TV, reading the "Guardian" on the net, while listening to the BBC World Service on RealAudio. Help!!

2003-01-25T17:31:00.000-08:00

There's an interesting article on American anti-Europeanism in the latest New York Review of Books (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16059). It seems some Europeans are finally noticing that rancor can flow both ways.

Unfortunately, the article, written by a European, tends to gloss over salient points that generally lead Americans to wonder about European sensibilities. For example, the author, Tim Ash, writes:

Robert Kagan argues that Europe has moved into a Kantian world of "laws and rules and transnational negotiation and cooperation," while the United States remains in a Hobbesian world where military power is still the key to achieving international goals (even liberal ones). The first and obvious question must be: Is this true? I think that Kagan, in what he admits is a "caricature," is actually too kind to Europe, in the sense that he elevates to a deliberate, coherent approach what is, in fact, a story of muddled seeking and national differences. But a second, less obvious question is: Do Europeans and Americans wish this to be true? The answer seems to be yes.

But he also says:

Atlanticist Europeans should not take too much comfort here, for even among lifelong liberal State Department Europeanists there is an acerbic edge of disillusionment with the Europeans. A key episode in their disillusionment was Europe's appalling failure to prevent the genocide of a quarter of a million Bosnian Muslims in Europe's own backyard.[10] Since then, there has been Europe's continued inability to "get its act together" in foreign and security policy, so that even a dispute between Spain and Morocco over a tiny, uninhabited island off the Moroccan coast has to be resolved by Colin Powell.

The immediate question Europeans seem unable to answer is, 'how do you have laws-areas where war is ruled out-without the ability to enforce those laws? Europeans often seem to be against the use of force, except when they're not. The use of force by the US is wrong, but when France involves itself in the Ivory Coast without international approval, that's fine. The fpolicy failure stares them in the face, yet there is a profound reluctance to see it.

How do you deal with those who wish to grab power rather than earn it? It seems this ultimate question of 'realpolitik' has fallen off the European radar screen.

As I've said before, I'm against a war in Iraq, at least today. UNMOVIC needs more time to work. But the Germans have categorically removed the force option, regardless of UNMOVIC's conclusions. So what is the use of the UN if there's no ability to enforce its decisions? Is the UN just a talking shop? That certainly seems to be the German decision. If that's the case, war is inevitable, since someone, at some point, will find war easier than the use of law.

2003-01-23T23:45:00.000-08:00

A prediction: if we go to war, the French will support us. And, ironically enough, it will be for oil. They've really pissed us off, so if they don't participate, they'll be out in the cold. To protect TOTAL's contracts, they'll join us.

2003-01-23T23:39:00.000-08:00

Corvallis, OR

A few pieces picked up from the media. The "Nation" does a good job of exposing the effects of the far right's war on women in an article by Jennifer Block at:

http://thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030203&s=block. My favorite part was the speech by a State Dept. representative about how her own experiences in natural family planning should be a guide for the rest of the world. Her view was promptly refuted by a woman from, of all places, Iran. What's discouraging here is how the Bush administration has turned the rights of women over to religious and other fanatics. The Bush Administration has no problem allying itself with Iraq when the victims are women.

Andrew Sullivan, a practicing Roman Catholic (perhaps he'll drop out over the war against gays that's coming in that Church), rants against those who persecute gays, but whole heartedly endorses persecution of women for their sexuality. He rejoices that Jerry Thacker, the homophobic bigot, won't be joining the Administration's committee on AIDS, but complains that the Democrats have a 'love in' with NARAL. He doesn't (to use his phrase) 'get it'. The anti-choice fanatics are the flip side of the coin for the homophobic bigots. It's all tied together by a perverted view of the place of sex in human life. To these religious fundamentalists, sex, especially by women, and gays, should be under strict government control. Sullivan thinks that's an abomination for gays, but just fine for broads. See his blog at Andrewsullivan.com

2003-01-23T20:38:00.000-08:00

Corvallis, OR

Well, the 30th anniversary of "Roe v Wade" has come and gone. The marchers have returned home, and the buses are parked, awaiting the next group.

In 1973, after the decision, I became Catholic since they seemed to be the only ones who were fighting abortion. I had been a member of the Christian and Missionary Alliance, a small fundamentalist Protestant sect, but fundamentalism is a dead end; a conclusion it didn't take me long to reach. Catholics were, Protestant protestations notwithstanding, the only ones fighting abortion until the election of Reagan energized the radical Christian right.

John Cardinal Newman was once asked at a dinner why he was Catholic. His answer was that 'it is not a question one answers between the soup and the fish'. Catholicism has an immense structure that those of us who lived it, and reject it, still respect. So the story behind the transitions in the above paragraph is for another day.

Over the years, it's become apparent to me that the first victims of religious fundamentalism are women. A San Diego roommate of one of the 9/11 hijackers said the murderer used to complain about the way American women dressed. Sayyid Qutb, a father of the genocidal Islamist movement, who lived in the US, used to do the same. And Mohammed Atta, the leader of the monsters who killed so many on that day, requested no women attend his funeral.

When I was in college, I had an Orthodox Jewish friend, who happened to be a woman. She used to enjoy holding my hand because, she said, she knew it offended her friends. Orthodox Jewish men don't hold hand with women for 'purity' reasons.

America, of course, has its Southern Baptists, who insist women must be subservient to men, echoing that degenerate, St. Paul, in Ephesians, chapter 6. (The S. Baptists used to read a lot further into that chapter when they used Paul's admonitions to slaves to obey their masters. But they gloss over that point today).

I'm not sure why religious conservatives despise and fear women. Surely it has to do with sexual desire, and the wish to punish women for the sins of men. Regardless, it's one of the great evils of religion. If men could get pregnant, Flo Kennedy once said, abortion would be a sacrament. But women have always paid the price for the religious beliefs of men.

2003-01-23T20:17:00.000-08:00

Corvallis, OR

I typically post from Whitehall, PA (near Philadelphia/New York City), but this week am in Corvallis, OR. This is actually a very nice place; a small college town, home of Oregon State University. (Those of us who are chemists revere the place as the shrine of Linus Pauling).

It's 50 degrees here, as opposed to 10 degrees back home. For that I am grateful. Of course, the penalty you pay for traveling is the incessant hotel TV programs featuring 'Reality TV' (there's a contradiction), the endless loop of repeating news stories on CNN, Fox, etc., and the other boring things that substitute for the background noise one has at home.

But it also gives one time to let the news sink in in a way that's not possible when one is at home. With the possibility of war becoming real, you get to begin to understand the points of view from those on opposing sides.

The US, UK, Australia, and several other countries (Denmark, the Netherlands, etc), seem to be standing with the US in its view of Iraq. On the other side is Germany and France.

Although I'm against war at this point, the character assassination emanating from Germany and France is putrescent. The French Foreign Minister is literally a straight man, with his mantra that war is 'always a failure'. I wonder if his parents would have felt that way on June 6, 1944. As to the Germans, well, they have their own ghosts haunting their past that makes them useless as guides to morality.

This issue is larger than war over Iraq. For the Germans, French and British, it's a debate over who will lead Europe. Apparently the Germans and French have decided to split the leadership of the EU between them, with a long term for the EU presidency. The British, never enamored of either German or French continental leadership, have chosen to cast their lots with the Americans.

It's also a debate over the future of the UN. It's ironic that a US President, with a significant isolationist bloc in his party, is using UN resolution 1441 as a lance to skewer those who wish to see pretty words, and little else, flow from the UN.

I have little doubt that Iraq is in violation of resolution 1441. I also have no doubt that's very little threat to the US. Technically, the Germans and French may be right; maybe we should, in this case, dump the UN's previous resolutions on Iraq and pretend they don't exist. That would eliminate the justification for war.

But for Germany and France to portray themselves (along with may other US opponents) as upholders of international law, when only by jettisoning it can their case be made, is remarkable.

2003-01-23T19:59:00.000-08:00

Portland, OR

On September 11, 2001, 27 NYPD officers died at the hands of terrorists. In the UK the other day, a 28th courageous police officer was murdered. A British police officer was stabbed to death by one of these monsters who wish to destroy civilization. How tragic for him, his family, and for all of us who depend on these brave men and women to protect us.

2003-01-07T15:56:00.000-08:00

The one failure worse than fighting an unnecessary war is not fighting a necessary one. While it is premature to say we are going to war against Iraq (and there is hope it may yet be avoided), the fact is, at some point, another Afghanistan may happen.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair continues to demonstrate the moral integrity that shows why, when the history of the human race is composed, the British will occupy a great portion of the writing about the progress of humanity. His speech, detailed at (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1-535498,00.html) shows the continuing prescience of British leaders since Churchill who’ve shown the unflinching courage to look the future square in the face, and stare it down.

Blair is no patsy for US foreign policy. He’s aware that one major influence Britain has in the world today is its relationship with the United States. Churchill knew, after the 2nd WW, that Britain was finished as a world power. Rationally, he faced a choice: to become a follower of the French/German power bloc on the continent, or to build a unique union with the US. He, of course, chose the latter.

Blair, likewise recognizes the value of this relationship. If there’s any world leader who could be said to have a veto over US actions, it’s Blair.

But he, again like Churchill, sees the threat to the west from genocidal fanatics like Hussein. While war is neither imminent, nor indicated as this is written, Britain is readying its troops. Blair sees clearly that the unity of the west must be preserved if it is to survive. The Germans have the luxury of being pretenders to the throne, as it were. They’ve had 50 years of British and American troops providing them with security.

But the British helped create western civilization. Whatever its detractors may say about it, the west has progressed farther in protecting human rights than any civilization in the history of humanity. And Britain has played no small part in this.

I have referred several times to the Funeral Oration of Pericles. That speech, so dramatically foresighted, found an echo in the Gettysburg Address. And it finds, today, an embodiment in a man who leads 55 million people living on an island.

Truly remarkable.

2003-01-03T15:31:00.000-08:00

Much ink is being spilled over the question of why the world hates the US. The real question should be, ‘why are people so surprised they DO?’

Which powerful nation in history has been loved? The Roman Empire? The Spanish empire? Perhaps the British, or Japanese? The fact is, powerful nations, by definition, cause change around the world. Those who are experiencing it generally oppose change. People tend to be conservative. Thus, globalization, the spread of capitalism, the ubiquitous presence of American culture (such as it is) cause change. And people oppose it, and oppose its source.

The universal presence of American business, American culture causes every nation to see itself as under attack. It also causes the source of these changes…Americans…to see these values as natural. Thus, there is a natural conflict between the US and areas of the world where long time values are changing in response to globalization.

The situation would be identical if the French, or British ‘ruled the world’ (so to speak). America is not an imperial power, but it is a dominating force that causes change. Hostility is inevitable.

And, there are basically 3 types of countries; Bad ones (e. g. the US and UK). These are nations which have done great evil, but have also done some good. Then, there are evil ones. Iraq, N. Korea, Germany….all have histories so vile that, no matter what contributions they’ve made to civilization, their crimes will follow them always. (Germany has, virtually alone in history, faced its past courageously. The Japanese, on the other hand, still have a problem in doing this). The 3rd type of nation is the majority; those who’ve never had power, and have generally sat on the sidelines during history.

Often the 3rd type are the victims when the first 2 type clash. They are used as pawns in the fray.

Nations are very poor at defining their own identities when faced with challenges. The West, in general, has a large radical left component that believes democracy flows from some inexhaustible source, some wellspring, and never needs defending. V. S. Naipul in his book “Among the Believers” wrote of traveling among Muslims who wanted to destroy the West, but believed the cars, VCR’s, movies, etc. would keep coming. Until each nation can define itself and decide how to change when faced with a challenge, hostility will always happen.

2003-01-01T16:04:00.000-08:00

Happened to see today that an anti-American rally in S. Korea expected to draw 1 million actually got about 12,000. Maybe some Koreans are starting to see the light.

2003-01-01T16:00:00.000-08:00

Republicans and conservatives (I repeat myself here) generally favor tax cuts even more than bathing regularly. This is standard policy for them, even in the face of massive budget deficits, and reduction in programs favored by middle class taxpayers.

Several recent articles have reviewed GOP tax policies, and conclude it favors, surprisingly enough, the rich. Shocked? The Republicans keep telling us that they are giving us our own money back, and that opinions to the contrary are ‘class warfare’. I guess killing the messenger is part of the tax cut.

Jeffery Sachs, formerly professor of Economics at Harvard, and now at Columbia, writes in the “Korea Herald” (registration required, koreaherald.co.kr/SITE/data/html_dir/2003/01/01/200301010025.asp):

“In view of these changed economic conditions, and the shadow of war in Iraq, you might expect the Bush administration and the Republican-led Congress to be cautious in advocating new tax cuts. But no, their highest priority is to enact more tax cuts that will mainly benefit the rich. “

E. J. Dionne, writing in the “WaPo” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A39211-2002Nov25¬Found=true)

“Prepare yourself for the latest cause of the political right: You are about to hear a great deal about how working Americans at the bottom of the economy are not paying enough in taxes.

And the truth is, low- and middle-income people do pay a lot in taxes. They just don't happen to pay the taxes that supply-side conservatives want to cut.”

GOP economists believe that since middle class folks will only spend tax cuts on wasteful things like food and clothing, while the rich invest, the rich should be the beneficiaries of any cuts. (Dionne’s article is exceptionally good at pointing out who pays what taxes).

What’s really offensive is the tendency of the GOP to fill the pockets of the rich, then pretend that even discussing the matter is an attempt to sow class division. GOP policies benefit the rich, but they’re so embarrassed about them, they don’t want anyone to know. The ‘death tax’ repeal, for example, will benefit about 3000 families, with almost all the money going to the top 2% of taxpayers. How does this benefit working people? The Republicans don’t say.

Conservatives in general have changed over the years. It’s no longer appropriate, for example, to be a racist. But the jaundiced view GOP economists have of those of us who actually work for a living has to make you wonder why anyone who doesn’t earn $200K votes Republican.

2002-12-30T18:48:00.001-08:00

Part I

Is the world trying to accomplish a ‘balance of power’ trick on the cheap? Traditionally, most countries have felt most secure when there was a balance of power. The English went to war against both Napoleon and Hitler to preserve it in Europe. The status quo for the cold war was a balance between the US and USSR. One of the byproducts of this balance was integrating Germany into NATO, thus giving Germany protection from Soviet imperialism, and protecting Germany’s neighbors from Germany!

Today, the US is, in the words of French foreign minister Hubert Vedrin, a ‘hyperpower’. There is no military power, which can challenge the US, and few economic ones. Perhaps the EU will, in time come to match the US, but in military prowess, Europe will never spend what it takes to be a world class military power. (Whether or not that’s a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ thing is another matter).

However, it seems that much of the world is trying to accomplish a balance of power by refusing to confront murderous psychopathic dictators acquiring WMD’s, while insisting the US follow, in excruciating all the applicable rules of international law. This indecision is, itself, a decision, a de facto establishment of a policy which puts the only country capable of defending democracy face to face against the world’s most ruthless murderers.

By treating these rogue states as full fledged members of the international community, and insisting that national sovereignty be respected in each and every case, the international community is permitting these countries to develop a power base which can challenge US military power. A country like the US can afford an expensive military with nominal effects on its population. Our lack of national health insurance, for example, is a symptom of irrationality, not of poverty.

2002-12-30T18:48:00.000-08:00

Part II

However, countries like North Korea, and Iraq, can maintain such expenditures only by literally starving their own people. In N. Korea, for example, up to 2M people may have starved to death while it spends about 30% of its GDP on the military. Iraq faces the same situation, with the added blessing of having much of the international community blame the US for the deaths of 500K Iraqi children. (This number, by the way, is demonstrably false; see both the article in the ‘Nation’, and the study by Dr. Richard Garfield of Columbia University).

The world is quite content to have millions die while it does nothing, allowing these nations to establish an ideology of disfunctionalism to challenge US power. It’s cheap for most nations; they don’t particularly care if millions die in Korea, or Iraq. And it forces the US to contain its military power within the context of international law.

Of course, such a system is inherently unstable. At some point, either these disfunctional countries will attack an India, or the US, unleashing nuclear war, or they will collapse, forcing the international community to confront countries ruled by warlords in possession of nuclear weapons.

Most countries seem content to go this way. Many feel that the US represents the greater threat since North Korea doesn’t threaten France, for example. It’s certainly true the US has behaved abominably in many cases over the years; so has every country which possessed great power. The US, in this respect, is not uniquely evil.

But forcing the US to lead the confrontation in every case, while screaming that the US that it itself is a rogue state, is useless. Proliferation of WMD’s will be the result, with every rogue state seeking to acquire them since there is no cost to do so. The international community will be content to feed their people (witness Iraq), while they are free to pursue whatever murderous policies they choose.

Until, of course, this house of cards collapses. Then there will be, literally, hell to pay.

Dante wrote in the “Inferno” that the deepest pit of hell is reserved for those who, when faced with a moral challenge, refuse to take sides. The US is not exercising leadership in attempting to place this issue before the international community. And the community itself seems happy to watch the US lumber along, a giant in the land of the Lilliputians, entrapped by killer states.

The US, for better or worse, is the only power on earth which can deter, for now, many of these countries. If and when a nuke goes off in Tokyo, Paris, or Moscow, it will be US troops who destroy those who planted it. Unless the international community is willing to confront rogue states, at the same time it insists the US remain under law, the future looks bleak.

2002-12-30T14:24:00.000-08:00

I spent the weekend at the US Coast Guard Station in New York City (station Sandy Hook, NJ). As a member of the Coast Guard Auxiliary, I am a civilian volunteer radio operator, handling military, and search and rescue traffic for the Coast Guard station.

It’s a very strange experience, being at a military base. In civilian life, one has an unlimited set of choices. If you want to go to Florida, you go. If you want to get married, you do. If you want to train for a job, that’s your right.

But the military, even to those of us who are outsiders looking in, is much different. I’ve spent almost every weekend at the Station, perhaps 300 hours over the past year or so. The unrelenting focus on war, preparation for war, and attention to duty is quite different than the experiences in civilian life.

This war is not of our making. I was in New York as part of the Red Cross right after 9/11 and saw what the enemies of civilization were capable of. There is no question they must be destroyed.

But we pay a price. Our young people, admirable in service and dedication to their country, are learning the horrible, but necessary arts of war. Immersed in it, and with an older person’s view of life, the contrast was stark. As Pericles pointed out, democracies create in their citizens the desire to defend democracy. We are fortunate to have men and women who make this sacrifice. But it remains a tragedy that such sacrifice is needed.

2002-12-25T08:49:00.000-08:00

Merry Christmas to Christians everywhere....though Christmas today here in Allentown, PA is a disaster (winter storm warnings, etc.), I hope yours is filled with family, friends, and the spirit of the season.

2002-12-25T08:35:00.000-08:00

The world is caught up in confronting crazed dictators and terrorist groups in various areas of the world. Historically, while these may have been inconvenient, they generally did not represent a threat to the peace of the world unless they invaded their neighbors.

Today we face a different situation. The challenge now is in dealing with countries and groups possessing weapons of mass destruction. Even a small group of terrorists can have a significant effect on large developed countries. While the international community has been largely successful at dealing with this after 9/11, the future remains uncertain.

One of the major issues facing the international community is its failure, so far, to develop a comprehensive set of guidelines for dealing with rogue states and terrorist groups. Though these are distinct problems (not all rogue states support terrorism), in the challenges they present to the international community there is little difference in their effects.

Nationalism, the great organizing principle of the modern world, has shown itself to be a very effective mask enabling the international community to avoid dealing with problems. Rather than facing the Kim Jong Il’s and Saddam Hussein’s, the world community believes war is a greater danger than dealing with intractable threats. These aren’t going away, and they’re only going to get worse. As more countries and terrorist groups gain access to WMD’s, this issue will present itself again and again.

Shocked by incessant destructive wars in the 20th century, Europe shows little stomach for dealing with the problem. In fact, the atrophy of European defensive capabilities reveals there’s little evidence Europeans have the ability to think strategically about the use of force. Some of the opposition to US actions reflects an attitude that force can’t be tolerated under any circumstances. European inaction over Kosovo reflected that. Even in its own backyard, Europe was unable to agree on using force and ultimately relied on US troops.

No doubt part of European opposition is due to racism. Many Europeans can’t conceive of anyone but western intellectuals having the ability to invent ideologies of genocide. Thus they believe all violent actions are reactions to western actions. It’s the “white man’s burden” redux.

But the fact is the international community will, at some point, have to have to develop a comprehensive policy for dealing with rogue states and terrorist groups acquiring WMD’s. Such a policy may, for example, legitimize the use of force in countries where local government does not exist. In the border regions of Pakistan, the outlying regions of Yemen, in some areas of Indonesia, such a re-think of the principles of nationalism may make the world more secure by ensuring there is no sanctuary either for terrorist groups, or for national governments which maintain ‘plausible deniability’ while sheltering terrorists.

It may also involve international aid to provide schooling, peacekeeping among tribes, healthcare, and other activities designed to reduce the ability of terrorist groups to function in lawless areas. Such policies may involve host governments, or they may be bypassed if corrupt, or non-existent, as in Somalia.

States like North Korea would be faced with a united opposition threatening them with sanctions, or worse. In addition, guidelines could assure the international community that the United States, which alone has the capability to project military power worldwide, would use this only in accord with law.

The ad hoc approach now employed is fraught with danger. By ignoring a recurring problem, and with acrimonious debates among democracies, it only promotes the very problem it tries to confront.

The United States, or the UK, is well prepared to bring the UN around to such policies. By agreeing to act in accord with law, and by defining principles and concepts that enable it to defend civilization, the US can be the leader in ensuring the world is a more secure place.

2002-12-25T06:00:00.000-08:00

I happened to get an email today from the pastor of a fundamentalist church. He was responding to my email about a series of advertising articles he wrote on creationism.

Of course, he’s wrong. Creationism is latter day astrology, a superstition for those who are too lazy to think. He says, for example that the ‘big bang is dogma’. But the big bang has nothing to do with evolution at all. It’s obvious he, like so many creationists, hasn’t a clue about how evolution works, or, indeed, how the different facets of science fit together.

His biggest mistake is one typical of creationists; he says evolution offers ‘no hope’. I wonder where creationists get the idea science is supposed to offer hope? When I go into the lab, and study acid/base chemistry, am I supposed to look at a chemical reaction and say ‘golly, that gives me a reason to live’? The idea is absurd. Yet creationists insist that biology alone should introduce the idea of purpose into its field of study. That is, in and of itself, proof that creationism isn’t science, but magic.

He objects when I compare creationism to other ideologies that want to destroy civilization. That may seem, to some, to be an overreaction. But science in general, and evolution in particular, are some of the greatest achievements of the human intellect. It’s no mystery people don’t know much about science. But knowing particular details about a particular science pales in comparison to knowing how radical science truly is. Science makes NO claims about purpose at all. To people used to having teleology present in all aspects of their lives, this must be incomprehensible. Here, after all, is a human invention…science…which has nothing to do with the purpose of life. It has no religious significance apart from that which you seek to give it.

No wonder fundamentalists object. To Muslim fanatics, this is anathema. Sharia governs all, so science must exclude evolution. To Christian fanatics, evolution contradicts their view of the Bible, so science must be re-written to exclude evolution. It’s a threatening idea, this inability to find purpose in nature; to see that nature has rules that function apart from our desires.

But it is how nature works. The radical limits of science offend many. And that is, in a way, proof of the validity of science.

2002-12-23T17:54:00.000-08:00

One thing I've noticed about the far left in their analysis of foreign policy; it's blatantly racist. They believe no poor country has people smart enough to develop genocidal ideologies. Therefore, every slaughter must be because of something the west did.

They believe no 3rd worlder commits an atrocity worthy of condemnation. And no western country, including the US, commits an act of mercy worthy of praise.

2002-12-23T06:01:00.000-08:00

Are Americans becoming the new Jews? Every country in medieval Europe did, at one time or another, expel the Jews. Xenophobia, opportunism, irrational fear, and religious bigotry all contributed to Jews being seen as overly influential, and having values that undermined “Christian” culture. They became targets of opportunity for failed leadership.

It seems Americans are in the same position worldwide today. The clueless parrot the cliché a war in Iraq will be for cheap oil. Though this is demonstrably false (oil company profits rise with increasing prices, not decreasing ones), it’s a very easy concept to wrap a limited intellect around.

Quite a few folks believe the ‘immiseration hypothesis’ of Paul Baran and Immanuel Wallerstein. This idea states that the US grew rich by ruthless exploitation of the 3rd world. There’s no question that, in the cold war, the US played ruthlessly with many countries. In countries like Guatemala, this led to hundreds of thousands of deaths. But the US acted like the UK, France, or any other country ‘protecting its interests’. (France, as you read this, is involved in military action in the Ivory Coast. Is this imperialism? When Spain kicked Morocco off Leila earlier this year, was that imperialism?).

But every powerful country has committed evil acts. Not every country has done great good. The UK and the US are among a select few which have also done great service to humanity. While the UK’s occupation of India was unfortunate, India today is the world’s largest democracy. When it created Bangladesh, it created another democracy.

The US occupied Germany and Japan, both of which are stable democratic countries. Korea, in the midst of anti-American fervor, is also a democracy.

Anti-American sentiments are a reflection of fundamentalism; the concept that a very simple idea can explain complex situations. It’s very east to blame the US for every hangnail; to deny that murderers could fly planes into buildings because ‘only the US could organize this’. While these neo-fundamentalists declare their solidarity with Al Qaida, they somehow forget that what they support-religious fanaticism-has a record much worse than anything the US has ever done.

But to these fundamentalists, that doesn’t matter. When Europeans ghettoized the Jews, they did so for reasons that are inexplicable. Some Europeans today, running from their past, and attempting a revisionist re-write, try to blame the US for what they themselves created. But it’s so easy to do. And you portray yourself as courageous…fighting this colossus. It’s good for the ego. And, of course, it requires no thought. Fundamentalism never does.

2002-12-19T07:11:00.000-08:00

Well let's try this

This is a test

2002-12-19T07:06:00.000-08:00

My apologies to those who read this blog; I typically write in "Word" then cut and paste to the blog. Apparently the formats don't match, so paragraph separations, etc. don't come over. I'll work on that!

2002-12-19T07:04:00.000-08:00

Jonah Goldberg has an excellent piece in "National Review Online" (http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg.asp) which does a great job of showing why conservatives just don’t get it. His article deals with the relative (de)merits of racism vs. sexism, and it’s built on the typical conservative view of history as a snapshot of what’s happening TODAY.

Jonah’s a very nice guy. I’ve written him on occasion, and he’s even sent me greetings from Cosmo, the wonderdog. I have it on good authority he’s married to a woman.

But he’s hopelessly confused (as are conservatives in general) about the liberal view on racism and sexism. He quotes NOW President Terry O’Neill as saying that racism and sexism are the same thing; but his own quote doesn’t have her as saying that. He had to erect a strawman to make it APPEAR feminists think sexism is identical to racism. It’s not.

Sexism, and racism are forms of fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is the absurd notion that some simple idea can be used to explain very complex facts. “Blacks are inferior”; “women should stay at home”; “God did it in 6 days” are all examples. Shelby Steele recently wrote in the “WSJ” that racists have a profound lack of imagination; they can’t see themselves in someone else’s shoes. Fundamentalism is lack of imagination writ large. (Yes I know my idea might appear to some to be fundamentalist itself. But that dog won’t hunt).

Women can serve in combat, as fighter pilots. They make great physicists, engineers, and chemists. They’ve been astronauts, and in my own service, the Coast Guard, coxswain boats with the best of ‘em. Blacks do the same. Trent Lott, and earlier conservatives preached for so long this was impossible that it became national policy. Conservatives have been so wrong for so long about so many things, it’s difficult to take them seriously when they DO have a point; if they ever have one.

And they’ve been wrong on deep and profound issues. When Trent Lott supported a Governor who didn’t want to ban lynching, how can conservatives BEGIN to explain that? Conservatives kept women out of America’s best colleges until the 70’s. How can they explain THAT?

I’m no feminist prude. I think women are sexy as hell, and would never want to banish the discussion of sex from public life. But conservatives think women are ONLY about sex. They didn’t want women to have the right to vote. They didn’t want them given equal rights to work. They didn’t want them to be given protection from sexual harassment. Now they complain about marginalia. They simply can’t accept women as equals. It’s ironic some of the loudest complainers (Phyllis Schlafly, that female Uncle Tom is a prime example) are women. As someone once wrote, it’s strange to see women taking public positions that women shouldn’t be taking public positions.

The ‘human person’ called woman is FIRST a human being, THEN a woman. That’s why they have HUMAN rights. While we can’t forget sex (nor should we), it shouldn’t be the telescope that society sees women through. Since conservatives have focused on race and sex so often, legislation to banish discrimination has had to do likewise. It’s conservatism that forced law to relinquish being color and sex blind, not liberalism.

Conservatives have lost all the important battles. Blacks can vote. Women can be fighter pilots. And the reason they lost them was because they were wrong. The great genius of conservatives is that they’re better at marketing than liberals are. Many young women would be appalled at Jeremiah Denton’s view of women (as a senator, he opposed marital rape legislation because ‘husbands deserve a little piece of ass every now and again’). They often forget how difficult it was to get the rights they now take for granted. While Jessica Gavora, Jonah’s wife, writes for conservative magazines, she forgets that 30 years ago, she wouldn’t even have gone to college.

But conservatives have won the war. Most Americans are conservative (or center right). Conservatives have been very successful at creating selective amnesia in the U. S. They’ve elected both houses of Congress, and the President. The Supreme Court will soon be theirs. By convincing Americans that the battle for individual rights is for ‘minorities’, they’ve convinced working Americans that individual rights are not worth fighting for.

Liberals have achieved great things. But there are battles to be fought. America is a more just place because of liberalism; even conservatives take for granted the rights liberals won for everyone.

2002-12-17T09:37:00.000-08:00

So the creationists are on the warpath against science again, I see. The "National Review", which in conservative circles passes for a peer reviewed science journal, weighs in with an editorial by John West, Jr. at:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-west121702.asp

He crows about the recent creationist victory in Ohio where creationists managed to get ‘criticism’ of Darwin’s theory legitimized. He also cites the ‘tremendous’ number of scientists (150) in the past few years who’ve signed statements saying the origins of life are too complex to have happed by chance. Of course, “Time” magazine a few years ago in an issue addressing creationism, pointed out that, of the 480,000 life and earth scientists, about 5% are creationists. Big deal.

West and other religious fanatics (like Osama Bin Laden who also opposes evolution) ignore the fact their view of reality isn’t science. While West pretends the shoddy way evolution is taught undermines its credibility (as if this subject is different than any other taught in schools), this hardly is a way to evaluate whether a theory is good science.

His fascination with ‘scientists’ like Dembski, Behe, etc, also ignores the fact none of these guys have told us HOW creationism/intelligent design works. As Michael Turner points out in a recent issue of “Scientific American” about the idea that there are an infinite number of universes, ‘if it can’t be tested, it isn’t science’.

The role of science is to develop mechanisms. Mechanisms…theories…are ideas about HOW things happen. Intelligent design is a failure. Even its most ardent supporters have NO idea about how intelligence does anything. My dog is intelligent, but can’t build a universe. While creationists say intelligence is involved in complexity, they ignore the fact that the most intelligent carpenter uses hammer and nails, i.e., the forces of nature. Einstein couldn’t build a dollhouse using magic. But creationists think, somehow, we all got here without evolution, or any other NATURAL force.

It’s no accident that bin Laden doesn’t like evolution. He’s an enemy of civilization and prefers medieval explanations for events in the world. It’s very disappointing to see conservatives also pushing a regressive view of the world. Science works. Science is successful because it’s limited. It does not explain why we are here. It does not determine morals. If your theology teaches grass is pink, so all those who think it’s green are atheists, that’s a problem for your religion. If you believe the earth is ‘created’ by god, according to some mythical incantation from the bible, that’s your problem, too.

2002-12-17T09:21:00.000-08:00

South Korea seems to be all abuzz with anti-Americanism due to the acquittal of 2 American servicemen who hit and killed 2 Korean children. It’s unfortunate these accidents happen. Apparently, pedestrian vs. auto accidents are fairly common in Korea, and these poor kids just happen to be the latest victims.

In the last few days, 300,000 S. Koreans marched in a candlelight procession (described by the “Korea Times” as an ‘anti-American’ march) to protest the “SOFA” (status of forces agreement) between the US and Korea. This agreement, like one we have with Japan, isolates US service personnel from local courts.

Whether or not this is a good thing (I don’t think I’d be too happy if British or German soldiers couldn’t be tried in US courts for their actions here), the fact is, South Koreans seem to have a very short, and selective memory about US activities in their country. We are the only buffer they have against the murderous North. North Korea has 1.2 million troops who are fed on the backs of 2 million corpses of those who’ve starved in N. Korea to feed the military. I’m an engineer in the semiconductor industry. I can’t see how agitating against the presence of US troops is going to encourage investors to take a chance on Korean IC manufacturers. If the US leaves, so will the money.

But, it’s up to the Koreans. I’d be happy to bring back the 37,000 US troops in Korea. I’d be happy to have the Korean IC manufacturing industry collapse for the foolishness of arrogant Korean demagogues. All the Koreans have to do is ask us to leave. We will.

Then the party can start.

2002-12-17T09:10:00.000-08:00

While the President has not yet, according to polls, made a convincing case for war against Iraq, one point should be clarified: this war, if and when it starts, is not about oil. In fact, the economics make it almost impossible for the US to attack Iraq on that basis.

There are 2 possibilities if this war is for oil; the price goes up, or the price goes down. Bush is an oil man; of that there is no question. What the bleaters of the ‘blood for oil’ mantra forget is that oil company profits INCREASE with increasing oil prices. If they think the war is for ‘cheap oil’, they ignore the fact that if the US ‘controls’ Iraqi oil, and guts the market, the first folks to feel it will be Bush’s friends.

But the mantra chanters also ignore the fact that LUKOIL of Russia, and several French oil companies have signed contracts to develop Iraqi oil fields. And the US has promised them these contracts will be honored if there’s a ‘regime change’ in Iraq. So the US does not get cheap oil; it does not get expensive oil. It gets no oil at all from war against Iraq. While the Iraqis recently cancelled LUKOIL’s contracts, that’s their fault, not ours.

I did not vote for Bush, and have serious reservations about his domestic social agenda. But the ‘oil for blood’ crowd has no credibility. If we stay away from war, let’s do it on the basis of a critical analysis of the situation, not on bumpersticker ideology.

2002-12-13T04:35:00.000-08:00

France is being accused by the Turkish Prime Minister of blocking Turkey's admission to the EU. That comes as no surprise....apparently the prospect of a modern, secular but Muslim state is too much for the nativists at Elysee Palace to handle. That's also very unfortunate. Turkey has been a stalwart member of the western alliance, and has shown how much progress can be made when the principles of secular democracy are permitted to work their magic.

It's also ironic that Turkey is adhering to these principles when so many conservatives in America, notably John Podhoretz, Irving Kristol, and others, argue that only by being religious can America retain its freedom. As the NYU historian (and Rabbi) Arthur Hertzberg wrote in the "Nation", no country in which a church was dominant ever emancipated the Jews. There's a lesson in that which conservatives seem all too eager to forget.

2002-12-11T15:01:00.000-08:00

Gun control. Ah, there's a topic to get the conservative blood boiling. Here in Pennsylvania, guns are a religion, worshipped like any other idol, and politicians think of gun control like the rest of us think of colonoscopic exams.

But gun advocates have never explained to me why we need guns. What are they good for? Many tell me they keep the government from taking our liberties away. But our military is so powerful no force on earth, much less the NRA, can defeat it. If the army gets nasty, gun owners aren't going to stop anything. Those who believe this nonsense generally break Godwin's law by invoking the spectre of Nazi Germany. But as the citizens of Lidice, Czechoslovakia found out, armed citizens who kill soldiers of a well armed and trained army generally suffer, to put it mildly, much more than anticipated. The French resistance...armed citizens...was so ineffective it was considered a joke by the allies.

Gun advocates also say that guns stop or deter crime. If this is true, why does the US have the highest murder rate in the western world? While they appeal to 'cultural' differences, if the US is so violent, advocating gun possession is like asking whether one should use a match or lighter to see in the darkness when one is standing in gasoline.

Gun advocates do have one argument in their favor: gun CONTROL is a waste of time. It's completely ineffective, given the tens of millions of guns in society.

But with 10,000 people murdered each year by gunfire, why do we place our lives, and the lives of our children, in the hands of gun owners? Cars have a use; banning them would be suicide. Guns CAN be banned, since many societies have done so with little repercussion. Since gun control is ineffective, it's time to think about a complete gun ban. If necessary, this may included repealing the 2nd amendment.

While difficult, this is not as impossible as it seems. Several years ago, Daniel Patrick Moynihan came up with the idea of a gun ban to include shutting down gunsmiths, banning bullet and reloader equipment sales, and stopping the production of brass. With the destruction of the gun infrastructure, it may take a generation, but guns would wither away.

And that would be to the benefit of us all.

2002-12-11T09:51:00.000-08:00

One of the things I've noted about politics is that liberals talk about ideas (which is why there are so few liberals), while conservatives talk about liberals.

Andrew Sullivan, one of my favorite conservative pundits (andrewsullivan.com), is one who brings out the wonderful contradictions in modern day conservativism. While he believes in privacy for consenting adults for sexual practices, he does not believe in privacy for women where their bodies are concerned.

In recent months, as the Catholic Church furor has intensified, gays have been subjected to baiting by the right, and Sullivan is starting to see that for many conservatives, being gay is a fundamentally disordered state of affairs. He's taking alot of heat from other conservatives (notably Stan Kurtz at the "National Review") who wish to see marriage enshrined in the constitution as being between man and woman.

I've never figured out how conservatives say they're for 'limited government', except, of course, for sex and religion. To conservatives, hell bent for prayer in public schools, creationism, outlawing homosexuality, etc., the best government is limited government, except when it isn't.

2002-12-11T08:55:00.000-08:00

Hello, and welcome to another of the myriad blogs on the net. This will be a bit different from most political blogs since I'm a secular (atheist) liberal, neither of which is common in the US today. Actually I find myself more in-line with Christopher Hitchens than anyone else. The rabid religious fanatics in the world today (of whatever religion) seem to be on the warpath, so that's one area I have an interest in.

Those who've read Hitchens know of his excellent shredding of Noam Chomsky's fundamentalist anti-Americanism, as well as his support for individual rights, especially for those of us who are middle class, and actually work for a living. It seems the right has taken over social policy in the US, while the far left renders itself more obsolete day by day with its nihilist opposition to just about damn near everything.

This is very much a work in progress, so I welcome all points of view, including conservatives (regardless of what you guys say about the close-mindedness of liberals). If you'd like to read a rather focused autobiographical sketch, go to 'qrz.com', and type 'wf3h' into the field.