Jul 25, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From David Holcberg at the Ayn Rand Institute:The U.S. government has committed a monstrous act: it sent back to Cuba the twelve escapees who managed, last week, to get within 40 miles of Florida's coast in a boat fashioned out of a 1951 Chevy pickup truck.
These courageous escapees, who risked their lives to be free in America, will no doubt be thrown in prison and tortured--if not executed like the three men who hijacked a ferryboat to flee Cuba in April--by the murderous Castro regime.
It is highly hypocritical for President Bush--and other American politicians--to talk about bringing freedom to the world while sending freedom-seeking refugees back to a totalitarian dictatorship.
Suggested reading:
Cuba's Cruel Joke
The once-muscular Cuban economy is in tatters and its much lauded social safety net a cruel joke. In Cuba, the poor are bled to support the lifestyles of the government elite, which lives in luxury - the driveways of the Havana honchos sport Mercedes - while its populace goes hungry.
Fidel Batista! Fidel Castro Out-Thugs Fulgencio Batista
Forty-four years into the Revolution, Fidel Castro will have achieved all the failings, real and perceived, that Cuba had under Batista, and it will have retained few of the virtues.
Torture in Castro's Cuba
Surprise! Surprise! Wolves are once again slaughtering ranchers' cattle, but this time it's the overtaxed Canadian who is forced to compensate the rancher (albeit at 80% of the value).
An America President in Communist Cuba
Carter's historic visit to Cuba, the first by an American president, current or past, since totalitarian rule was first instituted in 1959, will never provide Cubans -- including Elian Gonzalez -- with what they need most: Freedom.
Jul 24, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From the folks at the Media Research Center:...In reporting on the killing of Uday and Qusay Hussein, on Wednesday's NBC Nightly News Jim Miklaszewski griped about how "there are questions today why the U.S. military used such heavy firepower to take down a few lightly armed men." But his complaint about overkill in firepower came after he recounted how the U.S. forces escalated their weaponry to overcome the resistance as the four men in the house opened fire and injured three soldiers, prompting the U.S. servicemen to "pound the house with rockets, grenades and heavy machine gun fire while helicopter gun ships fire rockets through the roof." Yet, in Miklaszweski's own term, "unbelievably" those inside continued to shoot back.
Every heard of the term "overwhelming force"?
...At the White House press briefing on Wednesday, ABC's Terry Moran wanted to know if President Bush felt "bound" by the Geneva Convention rule that the dead are "honorably interred...according to the rites of the religion to which they belong." A few hours earlier in Iraq, international reporters grilled U.S. Army General Ricardo Sanchez about why the lightly armed Uday and Qusay were not waited out so they could be taken alive and questioned. One reporter insisted the operation represented "a failure" because "you didn't use commandos to come and surprise them both." CNN's Aaron Brown also wanted to know: "Why not wait 'em out, starve 'em out? Try and take 'em alive?"
In other words why not spend an extra few months in Iraq, or risk a few more American troops?
...Odai and Qusai Hussein, as the AP spells their first names, are the lucky beneficiaries of the fact "that the Bush administration has not bothered to enforce the prohibition" on "political assassinations," AP reporter George Gedda asserted in the lead of a July 23 story. "Odai, Qusai Deaths Go Against U.S. Ban," announced the AP's headline.
Another war crime against that President Bush? Perhaps this is why CNN's Aaron Brown wanted them taken alive. Oh, another lost interview--"Tell our CNN audience, Odai, is it true as some commentators and editorialists have stated, that the American embargo forced you and your brother to the dark side."
...The best news in weeks, if not since the taking of Baghdad three months ago, came out of Iraq on Tuesday with the announcement of the killing of Saddam Hussein's two henchmen sons, second only to Saddam himself in brutality and instilling fear, but Katie Couric led Wednesday's Today by pairing the news with how the good news was "tempered" by how "two more American soldiers have been ambushed and killed today." In contrast, ABC's Good Morning America led by trumpeting the good news of the killings ("a triumphant day for President Bush") as well as Jessica Lynch's return to her hometown.
This is sad news. It is also the reason why the U.S. should use "overwhelming" force more often to prevent such ambushes.
...Of the gunfire in Baghdad after the killing of Uday and Qusay, "some of it was most certainly" in "anger," insisted CBS's Byron Pitts in the capital city. His assertion on the Wednesday Early Show followed a Tuesday Evening News contribution in which he expressed confusion over whether the gunfire was prompted by "anger or jubilation."
Obviously Bryon Pitts is still angry. He probably voted for Al Gore.
Related: Saddam Hussein's Real Ministers of Disinformation Come Out of the Closet
Jul 24, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
Jul 24, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From the Globe and Mail:Tehran stepped up the war of words with Ottawa on Thursday, accusing Canadian police of killing an Iranian man in Vancouver and demanding that the Canadian government bring those responsible to justice.
...The accusation appears to be escalating a heated dispute sparked by the death of Montreal photojournalist Zahra Kazemi, who was beaten and died while in Iranian custody. [Related item: Canadian Journalist 'Beaten to Death' Iran.] She was buried in Iran this week against the wishes of her son, leading Ottawa to recall its ambassador to Tehran and threaten further action.
Wire services cited Iranian state radio accusations that police in Vancouver had "attacked" three young Iranians on Tuesday, and killed one of them identified as Keyvan Tabesh. A young Iranian émigré was, indeed, killed in Vancouver -- although it occurred several weeks ago. Port Moody police say that a young man identified as Mr. Tabesh was shot dead by an out-of-uniform police officer as he ran at the officer waving a machete.
...A Foreign Ministry spokesman in Tehran suggested that there is a lack of freedom in the Canadian media, saying that controls are imposed by the Canadian government and that "the strong censorship of this story creates more ambiguities."
The spokesman called for "an explicit and transparent and satisfactory explanation" and the punishment of those responsible, a near-echo of Ottawa's demands in the Kazemi case. ["Iran accuses Canadian police of killing Iranian", Globe and Mail, Jul. 24, 2003]
Considering the irrational standards many Canadians use to label the U.S., the label is appropriate. Rationally, there is no story here. Iran is just trying to play the same moral equivalentalism with Canada, that American intellectuals play against the Bush administration. Truth is, with its "hate crimes" legislation Canada does impose strong censorship on its own people.
Jul 23, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
Oh, those 'patriotic' maggots in the media. Related item.
Jul 23, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From Salon:At 10 p.m., Camilla rings the doorbell as I'm touching up the dark on my lashes. We're bound for a trendy salsa club packed with rich tourist men. I look at myself in the mirror, a strange confidence reflecting back at me. I've made up my mind. With my bank account dwindling, and employment here impossible, I've reluctantly joined the ranks of the Cuban demimonde. Educated. Professional. Hopeful. And part-time hookers. With Camilla as my mentor, I'm going dancing.
The jockey has an outfit. A whip. Riding boots. Jodhpurs, the breeches with reinforced patches at the knee and thigh where the rider's legs grip the beast. "Jinetera," the Spanish word for a female jockey, means much more in Cuba. It's a fitting metaphor for what many educated and beautiful Cuban women do after hours to feed their families as well as their dreams. I'm American, but I'm also Cuban. And to live on my island home, the place I was born, the land where my family surely resides, I've little choice if I want to stay. So I jockey. I ride the beast. I control the beast.
Is this why NBC's Couric praises the Cuban 'education system' so much?
Jul 23, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Opps! California Democrats Caught in the Act! From the SF Gate:Unaware that a live microphone was broadcasting their words around the Capitol, Assembly Democrats meeting behind closed doors debated prolonging California's budget crisis for political gain.
Members of the coalition of liberal Democrats talked about slowing progress on the budget as a means of increasing pressure on Republicans.
A microphone had been left on during the closed meeting Monday, and the conversation was transmitted to about 500 "squawk boxes" that enable staff members, lobbyists and reporters to listen in on legislative meetings.
Some members of the group, including Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg, said if the budget crisis were extended, it could improve chances for a ballot initiative that would make it easier for the Democrats to raise taxes by lowering the threshold for passage from two-thirds to 55 percent. ["Open microphone catches California Democrats talking about prolonging budget crisis", July 22, 2003]
[Tip: J. Imhoff]
Jul 23, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Another gem from Hitchens:I notice that, in covering the continuing violence and sabotage in Iraq, the New York Times has begun to use the descriptive term "the Iraqi resistance" to characterize those responsible. This makes me queasy for two reasons. First, it is too broad. Many of those fighting are either part of the former secret police of the regime or imported from jihad groups outside the country. The term "resistance" suggests, for most people, in addition to its honorable historic associations, the idea of a civilian insurgency. Second, it is too narrow. There have been many Iraqis and Kurds over the past decades who have, at great risk to themselves, fought against Saddam's dictatorship. Do they not deserve the "resistance" title at least as much? Or do they have to fight against coalition forces in order to earn that distinction? The Times is more precise when it comes to the al-Qaida and Taliban elements in Afghanistan. Now might not be the ideal moment to give credit in advance to Saddamist "irregulars"--the most euphemistic or neutral term that seems permissible.
On CNBC, Hitchen's also mentioned that newspapers like the Times have identified to the American forces who are busy routing out Saddam's thugs as "occupiers." What are these journalistic thugs thinking?
Jul 23, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Good stuff from Christopher Hitchens' (author of The Long Short War: The Postponed Liberation of Iraq) at Slate:The overwhelming consensus among inspectors and monitors, including Hans Blix's sidekick Mohammed ElBaradei, is now to the effect that Iran's mullahs have indeed been concealing an enriched-uranium program. For good measure, it is a sure thing that they are harboring al-Qaida activists on their territory. Will the "peace" camp ever admit that Bush was right about this? Or about the "evil" of North Korea: a demented starvation regime now threatening to export ready-to-use nuclear weapons (which Saddam Hussein, say, might have been interested in buying)? Don't make me laugh: The furthest the peaceniks will go is to say that Bush's rhetoric made these people turn nasty. I am not teasing here: The best of the anti-war polemicists is Jonathan Schell, who advanced this very claim in a debate with me earlier this month. Meanwhile, the overwhelming moral case for regime change in both countries is once again being left to the forces of neoconservatism, with the liberals pulling a long face while they wait to be reluctantly "persuaded."
Here is another gem from Hitchens published in Slate:
The report of June 25 was followed by an article of extraordinary importance by Rolf Ekeus ("Iraq's Real Weapons Threat," Washington Post, June 29). Ambassador Ekeus was the chairman of the U.N. inspectors in Iraq between 1991 and 1997. He pointed out that Saddam's chemical and nerve agents had a tendency to decay in storage and that the regime's nuclear projects "lacked access to fissile material but were advanced with regard to weapon design." His conclusion, written just before the unearthing of the centrifuge but published just after it, was:
This combination of researchers, engineers, know-how, precursors, batch production techniques and testing is what constituted Iraq's chemical threat--its chemical weapon. The rather bizarre political focus on the search for rusting drums and pieces of munitions containing low-quality chemicals has tended to distort the important question of WMD in Iraq and exposed the American and British administrations to unjustified criticism.
Jul 22, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
In his book Time and Money, (a book on "Austiran macroecomics") economist Roger Garrison, takes the Von Mises approach to analyzing economic issues, and argues that deficits are more damaging to the economy than taxes because of the uncertainty they create which distorts the process of economic planning:In effect, the government is putting the private sector on notice: "We're taking $1.25 trillion in accordance with the established tax codes. And we're taking another $250 billion as well, but we're not saying just how, just when, or just whose." Taxes, complex and distasteful as they are to both the business community and the consuming public, are a known quantity. We make plans around them, we pay our accountants to minimize them, and we brace ourselves for them. But the deficit is a different story...
...No matter how certain a large deficit may be, there is no effective way for either business people or the rest of us to minimize it, plan around it, or hedge against it. It could hit us with high interest rates [if financed out of domestic savings], with inflation [if monetized by the Fed], with weak export markets [if financed by foreigners], with increased taxes, or with some combination...
...But until the government's fiscal strategy takes some definite form, the $250 billion of intent to appropriate funds in some yet-to-be-specified way looms large as a cloud of uncertainty over the private sector."
Hat Tip: Rob Tarr.
Jul 22, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
So just suppose Saddam Hussein didn't have weapons of mass destruction. Then why wouldn't he have proved it to the world so that sanctions against Iraq would have been lifted? Here's what Saddam's former diplomats are saying:Nobody at the [Iraqi mission to the United Nations] said they had any knowledge about the whereabouts of the weapons of mass destruction. It was from here that they had been telling the world so emphatically no such weapons existed. But their instructions, it seems, were also to make sure that no respectable weapons inspector could believe those denials. It was all a big ruse, said Mr. Ahmad, who now gets his salary from the American-led administration of occupied Iraq. More than anything, he said, Saddam was interested in leaving intact the international sanctions imposed on the country since the end of the 1991 Gulf War. "He wanted Iraqis to be poor so they can work all day to feed their families," rather than thinking about rebellion, Mr. Said said. Poverty and constant wars were the regime's way of keeping Iraqis down and the regime in power. [NY Sun]
[What empowered Saddam was that no one with power, until George W. Bush, opposed him.--Editor]
Jul 22, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From today's New York Sun:When a group of Saudi women appeared on a TV discussion program to voice their grievances recently they got a mixed reception from viewers. Many applauded their boldness. Others complained that the participants in Saudi Women Speak Out had not gone far enough....
The application of an ultra-strict interpretation of Islam, historically alien to much of the country, technically prevents women from driving, traveling without being accompanied by a guardian, working alongside men or showing their faces in public. These rules are now starting to crumble as more women go out to work....
The religious police who not so long ago would have relished breaking up the fun are a demoralized bunch. Recently they turned up to remonstrate with some youths holding a party on the beach. As they trudged away after delivering their lecture the sound was turned back up....
The stifling conservatism of women's lives is a comparatively recent phenomenon. Women were the first to suffer the consequences of the failed uprising of Juhaiman al-Utaibi, a Muslim zealot and enemy of the al-Saud monarchy who with his followers took over the Holy Mosque in Mecca in November 1979. The rebels were crushed, and the 63 survivors publicly beheaded. The ruling family, though, was rattled and the religious police given free rein in an attempt to restore the government's Islamic credentials. "This sowed the seeds of a new religion," said Mrs.Fitaihi. "It had nothing to do with Islam. It was to do with power, using religion to control." ["An Opening for Saudi Women: Activists Seek Informal Loosening of Rules", The Daily Telegraph]
Jul 22, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
How's this for nerve?While [U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman William] Donaldson said he supports the increased regulation and stepped-up enforcement that came from the Sarbanes-Oxley law, he said he was concerned that fear of the law was making companies less will to take risks and weighing down the U.S. economy. "Insofar as corporate managers are hesitant or reluctant to move ahead with business decisions because of a fear of conforming with Sarbanes-Oxley, I hope they will conform but I hope they will move on,'' Donaldson said in an interview in New York....
A year after the law's passage, it's time for companies to recognize its requirements are here to stay, Donaldson said. The law, signed by President George W. Bush last July, is not intended to "tie up American business in a regulatory regime that is counterproductive and expensive,'' Donaldson said.
"This isn't to say that to conform to Sarbanes isn't going to cost more money -- it is,'' Donaldson said. "There are going to have to be procedures put in to conform but that's a cost of doing business, a cost of what has happened, but I think people have to move on now.'' [Bloomberg]
Jul 22, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From David Holcberg of the Ayn Rand Institute:How did the "warmongers" at the White House react to North Korea's declaration that it had reprocessed enough nuclear fuel to make about six nuclear bombs? By insisting on a diplomatic solution through negotiations!
But it is precisely this wrongheaded approach that failed to prevent the current crisis-- and will ensure that North Korea becomes a nuclear power in the coming months.
Negotiations are moral--and practical--only between individuals who are open to reason, who respect each other's rights, and whose purpose is to exchange values for mutual benefit, without coercion. But the North Korean leadership is wildly irrational, has no respect for individual rights, and seeks, by threatening a nuclear attack, to blackmail the United States into surrendering its wealth.
The proper approach to eliminate this threat against the United States is not to negotiate with North Korea's thugs--but to kill them.
This classic cartoon from Cox and Forkum: summarizes the case against "Duplomacy":
Recommended Reading: Baby Kim Jong's Secret Weapon Against America
So why is it Baby Kim who is making the threats, and Uncle Sam who is doing the conceding? What does the baby have up his sleeve?
Jul 22, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
Further reading:
Bush's Compassionate Conservatism Will Undermine the Republicans and Capitalism
What once distinguished Republicans was their commitment to limited government. The politics of "compassion," however, is the politics of liberalism and statism. If Republicans want to secure both their future and the future of freedom in America, they must learn to stop being afraid to take a firm stand for capitalism and individual rights.
A Leap Toward Socialized Medicine -- By One Vote
The President's latest compromise makes Bush the nation's foremost advocate of state-run health care -- which, for every American, means less choice, higher costs and one huge step toward socialized medicine.
Bush Abdicates Leadership on Prescription Drugs
Bush isn't just hurting his campaign -- he's hurting all of us by failing to take a stand against a growing government takeover of our health care.
Penny-Wise/Pound-Foolish: Bush Sanctions Democrat Spending Principles
What is the point, Republicans ask, of having control of the White House and Congress if it is just to enact Democrat big spending programs?
Jul 21, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From MSNBC:Thousands of angry Liberians stood outside the embassy asking when U.S. troops would come to protect them. Refugees hurled rocks at an NBC News crew that approached the scene, demanding to know whether reporter Michael Davie was American. Davie, who is in Monrovia on assignment for MSNBC's "National Geographic Explorer," is Australian.
"People are dying!" a refugee yelled. "They can't come in to rescue us?" Relief workers made similar pleas. "We need international peacekeepers here now, not in one or two months' time," said Sam Nagbe of Oxfam. "People here are really suffering but as long as the fighting continues we are unable to help them. The U.S. must commit troops now and end this waiting game that is costing lives."
Why doesn't the U.N. do it? Or even better how about having the thousand or so peaceniks form a wall in Liberia. After all, those peacemongers were more than willing to attack U.S. policemen who are much better armed than a bunch of Liberian bandits.
[...] One man held up a hastily scrawled sign: "Today G. Bush kill Liberia people."
Liberians are killing the Liberia people--and the reason is failure to adopt the hallmark of American culture-- individualism--in favor of tribalism, a species of collectivism.
Bush has said any deployment of U.S. troops is conditional on the departure of Taylor, a former warlord indicted for war crimes in Sierra Leone, where he supported a brutal rebel movement. Taylor launched Liberia's last civil war in 1989, emerging in 1996 as the strongest warlord. He was elected president the following year, and now faces rebels who include former rivals from the earlier war. Taylor's enemies hold about two-thirds of Liberia. The fighting has its roots in tribal hatreds inflamed by a civil war in the 1990s in which at least 200,000 people died.
Suggested Reading:
Foreign Policy and Self-Interest: Liberia Campaign Would Be a Moral Crime
A foreign policy based solely on America's self-interest is not simply practical, but *moral*--which is why any "humanitarian" mission, such as the proposed campaign in Liberia, is a moral crime.
Jul 18, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
An actor whose work I enjoy, Mel Gibson, a devout Catholic, has produced a movie on the biblical Jesus' last 12 hours--The Passion. Reports the Miami Herald:The film, which Gibson directs, stars James Caviezel as Christ during the last 12 hours of his life and Monica Bellucci as Mary Magdalene. The $25 million production was shot in the Aramaic language of the time, but there were subtitles for Thursday's showing.
...Gibson said the film "was a strange mixture of the most difficult thing I've ever done, along with this incredible ease. Everyone who worked on this movie was changed. There were agnostics and Muslims on set converting to Christianity." ["Faith Guided Mel Gibson Through 'Passion'", Jun. 29, 2003]
The Muslims won't like that--and neither does it appear do crusading, anti-Passion groups:
This quest for fidelity has made some people nervous. Even without seeing the film, some Jewish and Catholic leaders have accused Gibson's film of fomenting "religious animosity" and even anti-Semitism. They worried that the film might blame "the Jews" for the death of Jesus. And they requested that a panel of scholars be allowed to review the script before the film's release.
Gibson's defenders include Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver. He wrote that he found it "puzzling and disturbing that anyone would feel licensed to attack a film of sincere faith before it has even been released." He reminded Gibson's liberal critics that when The Last Temptation of Christ--an attack on the historic Jesus--came out, "movie critics piously lectured Catholics to be open-minded and tolerant. Surely that advice should apply equally for everyone."
Writes editorialist David Reagan:
...Gibson doesn't want this to be like other "sterilized religious epic(s). I'm trying to access the story on a very personal level and trying to be very real about it." So committed to realistically portraying what many would consider the most important half-day in the history of the universe, Gibson even shot the film in the Aramaic language of the period. In response to objections that viewers will not be able to understand that language, Gibson said, "Hopefully, I'll be able to transcend the language barriers with my visual storytelling; if I fail, I fail, but at least it'll be a monumental failure."
I for one think the movie will be monumental success, in part for its graphic depiction of the death of Christ. It should also be a timeless demonstration of the most disgusting thing about Christianity: the idea of that the best of all men--according to Christian lore the "Son of God" Jesus--dying painfully on the cross for the sins of the evil. Or, to quote philosopher Ayn Rand (from a Playboy interview):
Now you want me to speak about the cross. What is correct is that I do regard the cross as the symbol of the sacrifice of the ideal to the nonideal. Isn't that what it does mean? Christ, in terms of the Christian philosophy, is the human ideal. He personifies that which men should strive to emulate. Yet, according to the Christian mythology, he died on the cross not for his own sins but for the sins of the nonideal people. In other words, a man of perfect virtue was sacrificed for men who are vicious and who are expected or supposed to accept that sacrifice. If I were a Christian, nothing could make me more indignant than that: the notion of sacrificing the ideal to the non-ideal, or virtue to vice. And it is in the name of that symbol that men are asked to sacrifice themselves for their inferiors. That is precisely how the symbolism is used. That is torture.
For a concrete demonstration of how the good should be treated see Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged.
Jul 17, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
Related website: Death to Theocracy
Suggestion: Bush should take out the theocrats of Iran after he wins the next election. At least the Iranian students will be on his side--as for the ones at Harvard and Berekely...
