Apr 6, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses
Yvonne Conde writes in the New York Sun about the other prisoners in the Island that contains Guantanamo, the ones you conveniently don't hear about:
The 41-year-old man sits in a filthy 18-by-24-foot cell that he shares with 10 other prisoners. He knows he is fortunate because up to 18 men are routinely squeezed in cells of that size.... The water is rationed and the little that is available is contaminated. His food rations are meager and substandard. He suffers from chronic gastrointestinal conditions, which have worsened since his imprisonment. He now suffers from parasites, high cholesterol, hypertension, and has lost 20 pounds.
Jorge Olivera Castillo is one of the 300 political prisoners inside Cuba's jails, yet the world seems blind to their plight.
There is no international outcry about his living conditions.
No visits from the International Red Cross since 1989.
No congressional delegations or pop-ins from Greek Orthodox patriarchs or Robert Redford, Sean Penn,
Danny Glover, Oliver Stone, or Harry Belafonte.
Nor--even though he is black--any support from the NAACP, whose leader Kweise Mfume visited Cuba in 2002 on a "goodwill mission."
There is no outcry from the National Writer's Union, whose pet prisoner is Mumia Abul Jamal.
Mr. Olivera was arrested on March 18, 2003, during Cuba's greatest crackdown on independent journalists and dissidents, when 75 persons were arrested. This occurred the day after the 59th Session of the United Nations Commission for Human Rights convened in Geneva....
Cuba denies that it holds any prisoners of conscience and says that all inmates described as political prisoners are merely common criminals.
For more on Cuba see www.LibertyforCuba.comApr 4, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses
Writes David Holcberg of the Ayn Rand Institute:
Once again Microsoft is being attacked for its success. This time the perpetrator is not the U.S. government but the European Union, which is demanding that Microsoft remove Media Player from Windows and pay a fine of $600 million. This is another unjustifiable assault on Microsoft's property rights. Microsoft, like any other company, should have the right to decide what features should or should not be included in its products.
The alleged justification for the European Union's assault on Microsoft is that it "has abused its virtual monopoly power" and engaged in "unfair" competition by making its Media Player an integral part of its operating system. But there is nothing abusive or unfair in taking advantage of one's earned market share to offer customers a better deal than the competition. In fact, the only thing that is abusive and unfair in this case is the government's use of force to penalize one company in order to help its less efficient competitors.
Apr 3, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses
Friday the New York Sun gave me the opportunity to say "I told you so" before 40,000 New Yorkers.
A recent lawsuit by the "Campaign for Fiscal Equity" demanded that New York state guarantee a "sound basic education" to all public school students. The courts agreed, and now the argument is over how much money the state will have to spend to achieve this goal. The initial estimate--an additional $6 billion--would have required one of the largest state tax increases in history. But then the CFE issued a study that put the figure at $9.6 billion, prompting a letter from me, which wasn't published.
Last week, however, the Sun reported on a new study from Syracuse University that would put the cost even higher. I recycled and amplified my letter, and the Sun printed it with minor changes:
Syracuse University now says we need to spend $26,000 per pupil to ensure an "adequate" education ["$10B May Not Be Enough To Fix Schools," William F. Hammond Jr., New York, March 26, 2004]. This would mean an extra $16.5 billion or so for New York City's 1.1 million pupils.
Back on March 2, 2004, we were told it would cost us only an extra $9.6 billion, and before that, merely an extra $6 billion. But as Assemblyman Steven Sanders said, "It's not a matter of what the state can afford...it's a matter of finding how much money is required to achieve a level of adequacy."
If we entitle people to something no matter the cost, we shouldn't be surprised when costs increase without limit. As I wrote to you then, if we have the option of arbitrarily proposing ends with total disregard for means, why stop at $9.6 billion? Why not $20 billion? $200 billion?
Why not just wish adequate education into existence and save the trouble and expense of having schools? The bankrupt idea that a need creates a right always leads to failure, for it places wishes above facts. And isn't that the very essence of dishonesty?
And then there's Eva Moskowitz. She is a somewhat left-leaning New York city council member, so you can see how bad our schools must be if they leave her saying something like this:
Public schools, Ms. Moskowitz says, cannot expect to receive a large cash infusion if state legislators and the public do not trust the city to spend the money wisely. She says that when [Joel] Klein came aboard as schools chancellor, she told him: "You need to think of yourself as having inherited the former Soviet Union. No matter how good you are, and no matter how smart and committed, it's not capitalism."
Apr 3, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses
A few weeks ago John Kerry was saying foreign leaders supported him, but he wouldn't say who. Small wonder:
U.S. Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has attacked Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez as a dubious democrat hostile to U.S. interests, delivering a slap in the face to the leftist leader who had portrayed Kerry as a potential friend. The Kerry statement on his Web site made front-page news in Venezuela on Monday, nearly two weeks after Chavez had publicly praised the Democrat contender, hailing his health care plans and likening him to assassinated U.S. President John Kennedy.
And if that wasn't enough, what about this one:
Former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad endorsed Democratic contender John Kerry in the U.S. presidential race Thursday, saying he would keep the world safer than President Bush. "I think Kerry would be much more willing to listen to the voices of people and of the rest of the world," Mahathir, who retired in October after 22 years in power, told The Associated Press in an interview. "But in the U.S., the Jewish lobby is very strong, and any American who wants to become president cannot change the policy toward Palestine radically," he said.
The Kerry campaign rejected this endorsement too:
"John Kerry rejects any association with former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, an avowed anti-Semite whose views are totally deplorable. The world needs leaders who seek to bring people together, not drive them apart with hateful and divisive rhetoric. "This election will be decided by the American people, and the American people alone. It is simply not appropriate for any foreign leader to endorse a candidate in America's presidential election. John Kerry does not seek, and will not accept, any such endorsements."
One thing, though: If it's not appropriate for any foreign leader to endorse a candidate, then why was Kerry vaunting such endorsements?Apr 2, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses
Writes Jay Nordlinger in National Review:
A friend of mine from Arkansas writes the following: "Thought you'd appreciate this little anecdote. A co-worker of mine has a daughter in public elementary school, here in Pine Bluff. They're still doing Black History Month stuff, apparently, because the kids were told to come to class dressed as a famous (and presumably accomplished) African-American. My co-worker's kid was told to come as Tina Turner. My co-worker informed the teacher that her child would come as Condoleezza Rice instead. The teacher refused to allow it, on grounds that Rice 'is for white people.' Nice, huh?"
Apparently, in Arkansas, so is an education.Apr 2, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses
The New York Sun has compiled a collection of quotes from Dr. Abdel Aziz Rantisi, the new head of Hamas, among which are:
From his hospital bed on June 10, 2003, after suffering light shrapnel wounds following an Israeli missile strike on his car in
Gaza City: "By God, we will not leave one Jew in Palestine. We will fight them with all the strength we have. This is our land, not the Jews."
On suicide bombers:
"I congratulate them. They will teach the Jewish mothers in Haifa, Tel Aviv, and everywhere that our blood is not cheap."
On the borders of Palestine:
"There is no difference between Akko, Haifa, Gaza, Jaffa, or Nablus. The Palestinian Intifada will continue until the last Zionist is banished."
According to the AP, the Hamas website recently posted a letter from the deceased Sheik Yassin in which he wrote:
The land of Palestine is an Arab, Islamic land which was occupied with the force of weapons by the Jewish Zionists and we will not get it back except with the force of weapons.
And here's the Sun's David Twersky on the bogus distinction between Hamas' political and military sides:
Much rests on the assertion that Yassin was on the spiritual, not military or operational-side of Hamas. Perhaps [New York] Times editors should read their own copy.
In the April 4, 2002 issue, the paper ran a front-page interview in which Hamas "political" leaders argued, in their own words, that they ran the "military" side of the operation.
In "Mideast Turmoil: Gaza; Arabs' Grief in Bethlehem,Bombers' Gloating in Gaza," by Joel Brinkley, Hamas political leaders boasted that they decide "when their followers should attack and when they should back off."
One "political" leader,Dr.Abdel Aziz Rantisi--yesterday named as the new Hamas leader in Gaza--told the Times that he generates attacks by making public statements that are followed by the group's military wing, "because we are the political leaders."
According to the Times, "analysts here suggest that the leaders' roles are actually more direct. During the 45-minute interview in Sheik Yassin's compound, for example, aides twice brought him urgent news about developments in Ramallah, and he issued clear, direct orders."
The false distinction implied by designating Yassin a "spiritual" leader was not lost on the European Union foreign ministers meeting in Brussels, who denounced the Israeli action as contravening international law. The EU foreign ministers said the assassination was an "extrajudicial killing," a charge that is based on the assumption that Yassin was a noncombatant and therefore entitled to a trial rather than a summary execution.
Apr 1, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses, Dollars & Crosses 2
Here's Madeleine Albright joining the chorus of those who, apparently, think it's better for us just to roll over and die:The Bush administration's decision to detain hundreds of people in Guantanamo, Cuba, may be helping the al-Qaeda network recruit terrorists, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said today. "It is possible and perhaps probable that anger over these detentions has helped (Osama) bin Laden succeed in recruiting more new operatives," Albright, secretary of state in the Clinton administration, said in prepared testimony.
James Taranto comments: "Just about any antiterror measure can be expected to make terrorists or terrorist wannabes angry. Albright's appeasement approach would lead to complete paralysis and, no doubt, to more terrorist attacks."Here's Hillel Halkin on the same argument, applied to Palestinian terrorists:The fear that Israel is now in for a worse wave of terrorist attacks than ever rests on the assumption that Hamas and other Palestinian terror organizations have so far been showing restraint and will henceforth begin to get serious. This assumption is highly dubious, both because these organizations have already given every indication of doing their utmost to kill Israelis, and because it is unclear what possible motive they might have had for holding back until now.
Mar 31, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
CNN reported yesterday: Rice to testify in public, under oath.After days of intense pressure, the White House on Tuesday agreed to allow national security adviser Condoleezza Rice to testify publicly and under oath before the commission investigating the September 11, 2001, attacks.
Mar 31, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses, Dollars & Crosses 2
James Taranto notices a double-standard, though he doesn't go so far as to explain the reason for it:
How come no one ever points out that the terrorists are fueling our hate by attacking us...? How often did we hear last week that Israel had merely "fueled the hate" of Palestinians by killing Ahmed Yassin, who had already directed the murders of hundreds of Israelis...? How come no one ever points out that such belligerence--and the barbarity it incites--only prolongs the cycle of violence and leads to more dead Arabs?
James Taranto also found this one:
The Seattle Times has a Sunday section for kids called "Next," and the current edition features an online poll that asks "Who do you blame for 9/11?" Three choices are offered: "Bush," "Clinton" and "CIA." There isn't even a write-in category for those who blame the actual culprits, Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. And people say it's crazy to think Saddam Hussein might have been involved?
The following day, Taranto noted:
The Seattle Times has canceled its online poll.... A notice on the page now says: "Because too few options were presented, this week's pulse question has been changed." The new question is completely unrelated.
Mar 30, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses
From "Psychic tip grounds Florida flight" (March 27, 2004):
A self-described psychic's tip that a bomb might be on a plane prompted a search with bomb-sniffing dogs that turned up nothing suspicious, but forced the cancellation of the flight. American Airlines Flight 1304 at Southwest Florida International Airport was canceled Friday because some crew members had exceeded their work hours by the time the search was finished, officials said.
Comments CM reader Chris Weed:
We have the most sophisticated weapon/bomb screening devices ever created, but I doubt they are much good when controlled by new-age mystics.
Mar 30, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses
According to the NYSun's editorial ["One Nation, Under God," March 24, 2004], in 1954 Congress added the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance in order to distinguish America from the godless Soviet Union. But today America's main foes are theocracies, so what if we update the pledge once again, replacing the words "under God" with "under no God"?
By NYSun's argument, parents of religious children would have no right to complain, since "no school can compel students to say the pledge. Students may be quiet, remain seated, or even say the whole pledge without the words 'under [no] God.' It's hard for us to see how this amounts to an unconstitutional establishment of [atheism]."
Is that really so difficult to grasp?
Mar 30, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
From CNN last Friday: Iraqi cleric calls 9/11 'miracle from God'Al-Sadr railed against the United States' occupation of Iraq. "I seek the spread of freedom and democracy in the way that satisfies God," he said. "They have planned and paved the ways for a long time, but it is God who is the real planner -- and the proof of this is the fall of the American twin towers." He then referred to the September 11 attacks as "a miracle from God."
"As we say, 'The rain starts with a drop,' " he said. [Emphasis added]
From yesterday's Washington Post: Shiites Organize to Block U.S. Plan.Sheik Sahib Abdullah Warwar Qureishi is a wakil, or religious representative. He is one of about 200 in Baghdad who answer to Sistani, many of them providing the organizational power behind the campaign's momentum. [...]
Some of the youngest of the sheik's followers pleaded for more direct action. "The shortest distance between two points is a straight line," said Jawad Rumi, 33. "The shortest distance from Earth to Heaven is jihad." [...]
Jassim Jazairi, a 35-year-old cleric in a black turban, runs the branch of the Murtada Foundation on Baghdad's Palestine Street, one of two in the capital.[...]
"Even now, when we hold forums and we talk about [Sistani's] reservations, the people almost respond with violence," Jazairi said. "They're emotional, and they're ready to act."
Jazairi predicted that protests would come next, to force amendments to the constitution. He insisted they would stay nonviolent -- "peaceful resistance," as he put it. To him, they were another step in the politicization of the Shiite community, led by the clergy. [Emphasis added]
On the possibility that an Islamist government might be formed in Iraq, The Ayn Rand Institute's David Holcberg recently commented at Capitalism Magazine:The United States should demand that the new Iraqi constitution include an explicit separation of state and Islam. The threat posed by a new regime in which Islamic fundamentalism has political power is unacceptable. It makes no sense to have gone to war to overthrow a secular tyranny only to replace it with a religious one that is potentially far more dangerous to America. But to make such a demand would require the current administration to identify Islamic fundamentalism as our ideological enemy and to recognize that the separation of state and religion is a crucial requirement of freedom not only in Iraq, but here in America as well.
On the former point, at least one administration official seems to have moved in the right direction. Daniel Pipes recently noted this exchange at the 9/11 commission: Who Is the Enemy in the War on Terror?.JAMIE S. GORELICK, commission member: And would you agree that our principal adversary right now is Islamic extremists and jihadists?
COLIN L. POWELL, U.S. secretary of state: I would say that they are the source of most of the terrorist threats that we are facing.
Pipes recalls that just after 9/11, Powel insisted that the attacks "should not be seen as something done by Arabs or Islamics; it is something that was done by terrorists."Mar 29, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses
The deliberate ambiguity of America's "one China" policy can't last, as Ellen Bork makes clear from a recent example:
[L]ast Saturday, China was working hard to keep Washington from allowing the freely expressed sentiments of the Taiwanese to influence American policy. China's foreign minister,Li Zhaoxing,called Secretary of State Powell on the telephone, pressing him "to stick to the one-China policy." According to a Chinese government spokesman, Mr. Powell "reiterated U.S. support for Beijing's insistence that Taiwan is a part of one China, governed by the mainland," deliberately misstating American policy.
A rebuttal from Washington would be helpful. The "one China" policy America adheres to does not accept that Beijing governs Taiwan. American policy seeks the peaceful resolution of the conflict and neither supports nor opposes Taiwan's independence.
Wasn't it George W. Bush who's been saying we're going to support free nations across the globe? So much for that idea.Mar 29, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses
Harry Binswanger had an letter in the Sun on Mayor Bloomberg's holding back third graders who haven't passed their courses:
In "Mayor Forces End of Social Promotion," an unidentified "student representative" announces, "People shouldn't be fired for what they believe in." Oh, really? So then the Pope shouldn't be fired if he decided that Catholicism was wrong? And Democrats shouldn't vote for Kerry, because then we'd be firing Bush because of what he believes in?
A person should be judged by what he believes in. Unless he is a hypocrite, he acts on his convictions. When someone's beliefs and actions place him in irreconcilable conflict with the institution that has hired or appointed him, he should be summarily dismissed. That was the case with those on the education panel who would have voted to continue the nefarious practice of "social promotion." Mayor Bloomberg showed courage and integrity in firing those panelists.
Social promotion? How can someone call himself an educator when he believes that ignorance doesn't exist as long as we don't call it ignorance?
Mar 28, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
This cartoon was inspired by a comment by Instapundit reader Jon Henke:I've noticed the Democrats are calling the Administration's response to Clarke "character assassination". Odd, considering the response has largely consisted of pointing out Clarke's own words. Wouldn't that more accurately be called "character suicide"?
As CNN reports, the Democrat making that accusation was none other than John Kerry.On Clarke, Kerry said: "Every time somebody comes up and says something that this White House doesn't like, they don't answer the questions about it or show you the truth about it. They go into character assassination mode."
Leave it to Democrats to cry foul when their own words used against them.
A good op-ed about Dick Clarke by Mark Steyn, Bush has nothing to fear from this hilarious work of fiction:I don't know how good Clarke was at counter-terrorism, but as a media performer he is a total dummy. He seemed to think that he could claim the lucrative star role of Lead Bush Basher without anybody noticing the huge paper trail of statements he has left contradicting the argument in his book.
Mar 27, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses
Writes Emma Ritch (AP) "USC receives $1 million capitalism ethics grant from BB&T:
The University of South Carolina announced Wednesday a $1 million grant from North Carolina-based BB&T to promote the study of capitalism...
...USC will get the funds over the next couple years, said business school dean Joel Smith III, and will use the money to create a capitalism ethics class, a capitalism-focused professorship, a lecture series and a room in the business library dedicated to the works of authors that support free enterprise such as Ayn Rand.
John Allison, chairman and CEO of BB&T, said USC and the bank jointly developed the focus of the endowment. "If you look at a lot of business education programs, they do a good job of teaching people the technical part of business," Allison said. "But they don't often explain the philosophical foundations for capitalism, and anybody can make better decisions if they understand the context."
Recommended Reading:
Book Review of The Prime Movers: Traits of The Great Wealth Creators by John Allison
Over the last 250 years, the quality of life throughout the world has been transformed. Life expectancy has increased from nineteen years in 1750 to seventy years today, and practically everyone today lives better than a king in the 1700s. There has been more progress during this period than in the preceding 25,000 years. What kind of environment has made this incredible progress possible?Mar 26, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
CNN reports: Dems rally for Kerry.Kerry, who hit the campaign trail after almost a week on vacation, was the star of a Democratic "unity" dinner in Washington where party leaders, including former Presidents Clinton and Carter, rallied the party faithful. [...] Earlier, at a rally at George Washington University, Kerry and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean pledged to put their sometimes-bitter primary fight behind them. [...] "In the end, it is Generation Dean voting for John Kerry for president of the United States that is going to send George Bush back to Texas where he belongs," Dean said
Mar 24, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses
Today, the European Union's Directorate-General for Competition (DGC) imposed a €497.2 Euro ($613 million) fine against Microsoft for integrating its Windows Media Player technology into its Windows computer operating systems. According to the Center for the Advancement of Capitalism (CAC), the DCG's decision represents yet another assault on success and the rights of businessmen to their property.
"As with the United States, the European Union now claims that Microsoft's integration of new technology into its operating systems represents a coercive threat against other businessmen and the public. As different from the United States, the European Union is now demanding Microsoft disintegrate Windows and pay heavy fines," says Nicholas Provenzo, CAC chairman.
"Both the United States and the European Union are wrong," says Provenzo.
"It is not Microsoft, but the antitrust laws themselves that are the coercive threat. The antitrust laws give regulators the right to define what a product is, how it may be improved, and who may improve it," says Provenzo. "Yet a product belongs to those who create it and it is theirs to sell on the market as they see fit. EU Competition Commissioner Mario Monti could never build Microsoft Windows or successfully sell it, yet he and his antitrust regulators get to decide if a great American corporation may or may not improve its products."
"Many in the US will criticize the seeming divergence between American and European Union antitrust enforcement," says Provenzo. "Yet fundamentally, both sides of the Atlantic share the same view: businessmen are serfs who must place the success of their competitors ahead of their own success. In antitrust, the European Union and United States differ only in terms of degree."
"The EU's case against Microsoft underscores the need for a fundamental reexamination and ultimate abolition of antitrust," says Provenzo. "Rather than insinuate that Microsoft's "ongoing behavior" is "illegal", Mario Monti would be better served rethinking the morality of his own agency's actions."
"Yet until businessmen themselves choose to wake up to the defects of the antitrust laws, we will continue to have great corporations like Microsoft placed under shackles for the crime of improving its own products," says Provenzo.
