Apr 30, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Negotiations have apparently resulted in an offer from North Korea to end its nuclear program in exchange for "something considerable." How can we trust these people--and how can we verify anything in a country like that?! The Pentagon is apparently skeptical as well:
Mr. Rumsfeld acknowledged that for now "the president's on a diplomatic path." But the Department of Defense did not deny two news reports last week that must have sent shivers into Mr. Kim's circle. [An] Australian newspaper cited Pentagon plans to bomb the nuclear site at Yongbyon if Mr. Kim reprocessed spent fuel rods to make bombs. One Pentagon official responded that there are many contingency plans. He told The New York Sun, "That's what we do, we plan."
Another report, in the New York Times, quoted a Defense Department memo which recommended that together with China, America should topple the regime in North Korea. The Pentagon official tried to play it down as just one more of Mr.Rumsfeld's ideas. "His style is to throw things out and inspire debate," the official said.
According to a Reuters report, administration hard liners were upset they were not informed back in March that North Korean diplomats told their American counterparts Korea had begun reprocessing the fuel rods. [New York Sun, 4/29/03]
Apr 30, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
This was sent to CM:Dear Editor:
Newt Gingrich's harsh criticism of Colin Powell's policy of "appeasing dictators and propping up corrupt regimes" is entirely justified--and long overdue.
However, the State Department's misguided policy precedes Powell's leadership, and is caused by the bankrupt doctrines of moral relativism and appeasement.
Moral relativism is the belief that there is no absolute right and wrong, no absolute good and evil, and leads to the belief that free countries are morally equivalent to dictatorships. Thus the sad spectacle of the United States, the greatest force for good on earth, befriending and enriching Saudi Arabia and China, two of the greatest forces for evil today.
Appeasement is the strategy of dealing with enemies not by confronting them but by sacrificing to them. Thus the United States' shameful handouts of goods and money to North Korea, the Palestinian Authority, and the former Taliban.
In order to fix the State Department's self-destructive foreign policy nothing less than a change of its underlying philosophy will do. Moral relativism and appeasement must be rejected and replaced by a willingness to differentiate between good and evil, between friends and enemies--and to act accordingly. Thus the United States must confront its enemies, condemn them morally, isolate them diplomatically, sanction them economically, and if necessary, destroy them militarily.
Only then will the United States gain the respect of its friends and command the fear of its enemies. Only then will the United States be safe.
Sincerely,
David Holcberg
Ayn Rand Institute
For the record Capitalism Magazine is not affiliated with the Ayn Rand Institute.
Apr 30, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Here's from James Taranto's column today--comments that Andrew Sullivan has called "sane":
Echoing Santorum, Kurtz raises the possibility of a "slippery slope" leading from same-sex marriage to polygamy. But one can easily draw a distinction. The widespread practice of polygamy would have great social costs. It would distort the sexual marketplace by creating an undersupply of marriageable women. (Polyandry, the practice of women having multiple husbands, is too rare to be worth discussing.) The result is the creation of what Jonathan Rauch calls a "sexual underclass" of "low-status men" whose prospects for marriage are virtually nil... By contrast, it's hard to imagine any great social harm arising from official recognition of same-sex unions. Just about anyone who would consider "marrying" someone of the same sex is outside the ordinary marriage pool anyway... [James Taranto, "Best of the Web Today," 4/29/03]
Is Taranto completely oblivious to the philosophical implications of his argument? What business is it of the government whether or not someone "reduces the marriage pool"? Suppose Catholicism differentially encouraged women to become nuns--would that mean society should proscribe women from doing so? If it became fashionable for women to refrain from marrying, would that justify society's forcing them into marriage?
The premise from which Taranto is arguing sounds like a feminist caricature: People are breeding animals for society, who, if they can't find a mate, deserve to have one provided by the state. This is completely antithetical to any notion of individual rights, let alone human decency. This is yet another example of conservatives' willingness to dispense with rational principles.Apr 30, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From Rachel Lucas:To all the people who've e-mailed me to say that I'm wrong for criticizing Janeane Garofalo and other celebrities: let me try to explain it to you like you're four years old, mmkay?
The Dixie Chicks have every right to say they're ashamed of President Bush.
Tim Robbins has every right to say he's against the war.
Susan Sarandon has every right to say Bush is an idiot.
Michael Moore has every right to say guns are bad.
Janeane Garofalo has every right to say some Americans are Nazis.
And I have every right to say that all of those celebrities are ignorant.
That simple.
Apr 29, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
The Daily Telegraph finds that Labour MP George Galloway's Mariam Appeal for three months hasn't even given the leukemia patient it was founded to support her monthly £65 allowance for food and travel expenses--while the charity spent more than £800,000 on political campaigns and expenses, including £18,000 to Galloway's Palestinian wife.Apr 29, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
The New York Sun has an even better than normal editorial today defending Ahmad Chalabi in the context of CNN's lack of objectivity with respect to Arab leaders. CNN interviewed King Abdullah of Jordan, who as much as accused Ahmad Chalabi of being a crook. Writes the Sun, "one can only wonder what were the reasons that the network yesterday failed to challenge the Hashemite ruler with the obvious follow-up questions." Here are a few--but I very much recommend reading the whole editorial:
2. About that alleged embezzlement. The Jordanian charges against Petra Bank, which you refer to, were made in a special "security court" established under martial law--an emergency measure adopted following the war in 1967. If the charges were so strong, why weren't they made in an ordinary Jordanian court?
3. This special Jordanian security court was established on April 1, 1992. It had its first hearing on April 8, 1992. The following day, April 9, 1992, the court handed down a 223-page decision against Mr. Chalabi. How was it possible for this court to thoroughly and fairly examine matters involving a complex international banking empire and issue a 223-page ruling all in the space of 24 hours? Is this the way the rule of law works in Jordan?
4. Did the timing of the Jordanian security court's attack on Mr. Chalabi and his bank have anything to do with Mr. Chalabi's appearance in a "60 Minutes" segment in early 1992, in which he showed documents detailing the links of your father, King Hussein, to arms purchases by Saddam Hussein's Iraq?
5. After Mr. Chalabi was convicted, he apparently met twice with your father. If these Jordanian banking abuses of which Mr. Chalabi was supposedly guilty of were so severe, why did the king not arrest him? [New York Sun, 4/28/03]
The one I like best, though, is where the reporter would demand if the King is a stooge of the CIA.