Jan 16, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
This Guardian article is typical of the major media's take on this issue Reformists scent victory in Iranian parliament row:Reformists in Iran's parliament said yesterday that they were encouraged by "positive" signs from the theocracy's supreme leader [Ali Khamenei], but would continue their daily sit-ins in the parliament building until a sweeping ban on moderate electoral candidates was lifted. [...] Adopting a more subdued tone after several days of angry speeches, the [reformist Members of Parliament] are waiting to see how the conservative Guardian Council carries out the supreme leader's orders.
But is it really some kind of epic battle of democracy between moderate "reformists" and extremist "conservatives"? Amir Taheri, writing in the National Post, says that it isn't: Iran: A "Sort" of Democracy.[W]hat are the key points of difference between the two sides? The short answer is: not much. For purposes of simplification, the Western media refer to the two sides in Iran as "reformists," supposedly led by President Mohammad Khatami, and "conservatives" whose leader is identified as another mullah, Ali Khamenei, the Islamic Republic's "Supreme Guide." The terms "reformist" and "conservative," however, mean little, if anything, in the current context of Iranian politics.
The supposedly "reformist" bloc has controlled the presidency for the past six years and the parliament for the past four years. And yet, it has implemented absolutely no reforms of any significance. Nor has it even proposed such reform. For its part the "conservative" faction bases its ideology not on the need to conserve anything, but on the necessity of exporting the Khomeinist revolution first to other Muslim countries, and then to the entire world. [...]
What is happening in Iran today is a power struggle between two factions within the same Khomeinist establishment. The so-called "reformist" faction is not objecting to the principle of vetoing candidacies by the "guardian angels" [i.e., the Council of the Guardians of the Constitution, which is a 12-man, mullah-dominated organ appointed by the "Supreme Guide" and answerable to him.] It is objecting to the fact that its own members are vetoed.
A Wall Street Journal editorial identified Iran's Real Reformers:Beyond this scrum between competing factions, it's worth noting that the ground under the feet of Iran's ruling mullahs appears increasingly unstable. In June they faced student demonstrations demanding reforms to separate mosque and state, and in November the world discovered the mullahs had been lying about their nuclear program for 18 years. Last month the Bam earthquake took thousands of lives, and left the country's backwardness and the slowness of relief exposed for all to see. Iran's under-30-year-olds -- who comprise a majority of the population -- have been leading the calls for a more liberal Muslim society. These are Iran's real reformers. But there is as yet no sign that their voices are being heard.
If we want to protect ourselves from futre 9/11s, the U.S. should at least help the dissidents render harmless the world's worst sponsor of terrorism.Jan 16, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
FoxNews reports: Dems Debate Minority Issues as Race Tightens."You keep talking about race," the former street activist [Al Sharpton] chided Dean when he had a turn to ask a question. He said that not one "black or brown held a senior position, not one...It seems as though you've discovered blacks and browns in this campaign," he said. Dean bristled at that and said it was untrue. He said he had had "senior members" of his staff who were minorities, but Sharpton cut him off and said he was asking about his Cabinet, which has fewer members. "No, we did not," conceded Dean, whose state has a population that is nearly 98 percent white.
Jan 16, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses
Comments Yaron Brook, Executive Director, Ayn Rand Institute:
Is President Bush's proposal to expand the space program a good idea?
A major reason why Americans value the space program is that the sight of human achievement--especially as embodied in the technological prowess of space exploration--inspires them to realize their own dreams here on earth. But by proposing a massive new government program that threatens increased taxes, greater deficits and inflation, Bush is robbing American taxpayers of their ability to realize their earthly ambitions. If Bush wants to encourage achievement, he should concentrate on eliminating the plethora of government regulations, taxes and bureaucracies that are strangling American producers.
If Americans were once again free to keep more of what is rightfully theirs and to invest more in their own ambitions, there is no telling how many would be inspired to achieve their dreams here on earth.
Recommended Reading:Jan 15, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
FoxNews reported yesterday: Homicide Bomber-Mom Kills Four at Gaza Border:A Palestinian homicide bomber -- and mother of two -- blew herself up Wednesday at the main crossing between Israel and the Gaza Strip, killing four people and injuring seven, emergency officials said.
Authorities believe this was the first mother to act as a homicide or suicide bomber. She was identified as Hamas member Reem Al-Reyashi, 22, of Gaza. Family members said she had a 3-year-old boy and 1-year-old girl. [...]
The Islamic militant group Hamas and the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, linked to Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement, issued a joint claim of responsibility, according to Lebanon's Al-Manar satellite television station.
The two groups said they worked together to carry out this attack.
Hamas said it sent a woman for the first time because of growing Israeli security "obstacles" facing its male bombers, Reuters reported. Hamas spiritual leader Sheik Ahmed Yassin said the use of a female bomber was unique, but added that holy war "is an obligation of all Muslims, men and women."
UPDATE: I forgot to pull these two quotes from the story above:Smiling at times in a videotape that showed her cradling a rifle, Al-Reyashi said she had dreamed since she was 13 of "becoming a martyr" and dying for her people.
"It was always my wish to turn my body into deadly shrapnel against the Zionists and to knock on the doors of heaven with the skulls of Zionists," said Reyashi, wearing combat fatigues with a Hamas sash across her chest.
This quote and the woman's actions illustrate the ultimate ends of altruism. As Ayn Rand explained in Philosophy: Who Needs It:What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.
Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice -- which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction -- which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of good.
Then there's this quote from the Palestinian Authority leadership:Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia declined to condemn the bombing, saying continued Israeli attacks and restrictions on the Palestinians are leading "to more escalation on both sides."
Qureia, Arafat and their ilk need the self-sacrifice of Palestinians to achieve their political ends. That's why they do not condemn such terrorism. That's why they systematically preach self-sacrifice to children, so that as 13-year-olds they dream of becoming human shrapnel for the Palestinian people. In For The New Intellectual, Ayn Rand wrote:It stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there's someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master.
Jan 13, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses
Affirmative action is illegal in Washington State due to a citizen's initiative, I-200, which was passed in 1998. It is the only state besides California that has explicitly outlawed affirmative action. Unfortunately...
...Gov. Gary Locke hopes to see race as a factor in Washington's state university admissions process. "I support modifying I-200 to allow for consideration of race without set-asides or quotas," Locke said at his first news conference of the planned 60-day legislative session that started Monday. Washington state voters passed I-200 in 1998, prohibiting government entities from discriminating or granting preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin.
...Locke wants to change the law to make it consistent with the high court ruling and because he believes diversity is important to education. [Daily Herald]
Intellectual diversity is important. So-called mandatory racial diversity is racism. Comments Capitalism Magazine reader B. Harburg-Thomson:
Governor Locke said he's against quotas, and wants a more 'qualitative' approach. Apparantly 'qualitative' apartheid is OK with Democrats like Locke.
But, it sure isn't good for America.Jan 12, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses
Bruce Bartlett makes some excellent points at TrendMacro.com:
Mr. O'Neill would have us believe that he was the only honest man in an administration of sycophants. Another interpretation would be that he was simply ill-suited to the job he had been given, too used to being the boss and incapable of taking direction, too interested in doing things his own way instead of the way his boss wanted them done, and too easily led to believe that outspokenness is the same thing as honesty. Even without the details made public in this book, we know that Paul O'Neill was not a very effective Treasury secretary. Looking through my files I find headlines like these from his tenure:
"All Thumbs at Treasury," Washington Post (5-20-01)
"Mr. O'Neill's Gaffes," Washington Post (8-1-02)
"Treasury Secretary Gets Into Hot Water On U.S. Cuba Policy," Wall Street Journal (3-15-02)
"O'Neill Solidifies Maverick Status With Public Jabs at Bush Policies," Wall Street Journal (3-18-02)
On Oct. 2, 2001, the New York Times had this to say: "Mr. O'Neill's erratic statements have sometimes rattled investors and "marginalized him as a policymaker and spokesman." You get the idea. Yet O'Neill never improved. He continued to go out of his way to be out of step with the Bush Administration, both substantively and stylistically, right up until the end. The only question is why he wasn't fired sooner. Mr. O'Neill may think he is getting revenge on a president he believes treated him shabbily. But I think that all he has really done is remind people of why he never should have been named Treasury secretary in the first place.
