Jun 27, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From BBC News [26 June, 2003]:Within two hours, Sergeant Tim and the five other members of the Royal Military Police would be dead...
...attempts by troops to seize weapons in house searches in the two months since the dictator was toppled had started to incur the wrath of locals, many of whom see the possession of weapons as a fundamental right, particularly amid the insecurity that has plagued Iraq since the war ended.
Which makes sense given the instability in post-war Iraq, at a bare mininmum Iraqis need weapons of sufficient power to fend off those who would attack them. To be weaponless in Iraq is equivalent to being a surgeon with your hands chopped off.
The army's use of sniffer dogs, an animal regarded by the Shia as unclean and therefore offensive, is thought to have exacerbated the tensions, as is the fact that troops would have seen unveiled wives and daughters as they carried out their raids - breaking a taboo among the Islamic faithful....
Observe that if Saddam did this they would not have reacted in the same manner--this is not because they liked Saddam, but they "respected" or rather feared him. If sniffer dogs are necessary to keeping the peace, then silly religious dogma has no say in the matter.
...When British troops initially entered this town, a Shia stronghold which had suffered greatly under the rule of Saddam Hussein, they were treated as liberators.
Apparently a mob of stone throwers had confronted a British patrol, which led to shots being fired and four people being killed. The British patrol "extricated" themselves from the mob, but left "six colleagues were training Iraqi police nearby" whom they apparently forgot about; unfortunately the mob did not:
According to the 25-year-old Mr Bairphy, who spoke to several British newspapers, two of the British policemen went up on to the roof to try to fend off the attackers, while the others took up positions on the ground floor. He said that after he told Sergeant Tim that there was no radio, he begged the British men to flee with them through the back of the building.
But they refused him. Sergeant Tim, he said, told him it was the duty of the British policeman to hold their ground.
It appears they did just that for two hours but by 1pm, all six were dead, "executed", according to one army spokesman. The exact nature of their deaths may never be clarified, but the burnt, bullet-ridden and bloody shell of the building where they died is testimony to the post-war carnage which could be unleashed in a town which did not see a single bullet fired during the conflict.
The proper response to this is that until law is established the British must use enormous and "overwhelming" force and martial law until a stable Iraq society can be created. The idea that Iraqis can gather together as a mob and attack the British troops should not be considered even a remote possibility in the minds of Iraqis. However, British leaders must not try to disarm Iraqi citizens leaving them without the proper means of defending themselves.
Jun 27, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
Comments Allen Forkum:
Fox News reports: Bush: We 'Will Not Tolerate' Nukes in Iran. Excerpt: As for recent demonstrations by students against the Islamic government, Bush offered protesters a warm embrace. "I appreciate those courageous souls who speak out for freedom in Iran. They need to know America stands squarely by their side," [Bush] said. Violent clashes that began last week against clerical rule in Iran have for the most part died down in the last few days. [June 19, 2003]
Jun 27, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Who would have guessed that the Taliban run New York? From the NY Sun:In the early evening of Friday, March 14, 2003, two inspectors from the city's Department of Consumer Affairs entered Swing 46, a small restaurant featuring live bands on Manhattan''s Restaurant Row. They immediately spotted the illegal activity they had been sent to snuff out: dancing. After witnessing this "unlicensed activity," the inspectors ordered everyone to leave at 7:00 p.m. and padlocked the doors. Knowing this would cost the restaurant both a $5,000 fine and its crucial weekend receipts, one inspector shrugged and said, "We told you before to stop dancing." Yesterday, the Department of Consumer Affairs held a hearing to consider whether it will continue making such busts, which are carried out under New York's cabaret laws. In 1960, the city had some 12,000 bars and restaurants that allowed dancing; today, there are fewer than 300, at least in part because of the indiscriminate enforcement of laws passed in the 1920s to suppress jazz. ["Clubbing the Economy"]
Hat Tip: Paul Blair.
Jun 27, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Writes Yaron Brook Executive Director of the Ayn Rand Institute:A new poll from the Washington Post reveals that a majority of Americans want to use military force against Iran to stop its nuclear program. I agree. The U.S. government should do everything to encourage and actively assist the pro-freedom fighters in Iran to launch a revolution to expel every terrorist-supporting official from their government. But if those freedom fighters are unable to do this, the United States must use its military power to destroy Iran's nuclear weapons program. The threat from a nuclear-armed, insanely hate-driven Iranian theocracy is too horrific to contemplate.
Jun 26, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Worth thinking about, if you feel powerless:It's not just that members of the two parties disagree. It's that the disagreements have recently grown so deep that liberals and conservatives don't seem to perceive the same reality. Whether it is across the ocean or across the aisle, powerlessness corrupts just as certainly as power does. Those on top become overly self-assured, emotionally calloused, dishonest with themselves, and complacent. Those on the bottom become vicious. Sensing that their dignity is perpetually insulted, they begin to see their plight in lurid terms. They exaggerate the power of their foes. They invent malevolent conspiracy theories to explain their unfortunate position. They develop a gloomy and panicked view of the world. Republicans are suffering from many of the maladies that afflict the powerful, but they have not been driven into their own emotional ghetto because in their hearts Republicans don't feel that powerful. Democrats, on the other hand, do feel powerless. And that is why so many Democratic statements about Republicans resemble European and Middle Eastern statements about America. [Weekly Standard]
Jun 26, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Robert Tracinski, senior editor of the Ayn Rand Institute, is scheduled to appear on Fox News Channel's "The O'Reilly Factor" this Friday, June 27, 2003. The program airs at 8 P.M. Eastern and replays 3 hours later. Mr. Tracinski will discuss the Martha Stewart story. Check your local listing for times in your area. Don't miss it.
Related Articles: Martha and the Tall Poppies by Robert TracinskiJun 26, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Skip Oliva, a contributing writer to Capitalism Magazine, and president of Citizens for Voluntary Trade, has filed a motion to intervene in the federal antitrust case against Village Voice Media and NT Media, two publishing companies that allegedly engaged in "market allocation" in violation of U.S. antitrust laws. Oliva's 15-page brief to the U.S. District Court in Cleveland, Ohio, details numerous allegations of misconduct and unconstitutional abuse of prosecutorial power by the Justice Department. Writes Oliva:"Last Thursday, a U.S. district judge in Cleveland approved an antitrust settlement in the case of United States v. Village Voice Media, LLC and NT Media, LLC. In this settlement, the defendant companies--successful newspaper publishers--were forced to divest assets of two newspapers previously closed by the companies for financial reasons. The United States acted to override the business judgment of both companies because Justice Department lawyers believe there is a market for ‘alternative newsweekly' publications which was being monopolized in Cleveland and Los Angeles by the companies actions.
"Despite the fact the government presented no evidence which demonstrated the existence of an independent market for ‘alternative newsweeklies," the district judge presiding over this case approved the settlement without comment. In doing so, the judge abused his discretion by ignoring the comments offered by CVT and two amicus briefs filed by me outlining numerous objections to the settlement on constitutional and statutory grounds.
"As a result of the judge's decision, today I have filed a motion for leave to intervene in this case for the sole purpose of appealing last Thursday's final judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which has jurisdiction over district courts in Ohio. My intent is to seek appellate review of both the government's conduct in this case as well as the unprecedented legal theory they've sought to advance here--namely that the government can violate the First Amendment rights of Americans in order to ensure ‘competition' and ‘diversity' in the so-called ‘alternative newsweekly' market.
"The government's misconduct in this case is also an issue for appeal. Under the law governing antitrust settlements, the United States must wait at least 60 days from the date the public is officially notified of a settlement before a final judgment is entered. Congress designed this requirement to ensure the public would have a meaningful opportunity to review and analyze a settlement as part of the court's function of ensuring all settlements were in the ‘public interest.' In this case, the Justice Department ignored the 60 day rule, and proceeded to complete the divestiture of assets more than one month before the comment period expired. This violated the statutory requirements of the Tunney Act, and to date the government has offered no justification for its actions.
"I look forward to presenting my case to the Sixth Circuit, and I fully expect the district court to grant me the opportunity to do so."
Way to go Skip!
Jun 26, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Andrew Bernstein argues for the full privatization of education in America on the Thom Hartmann Radio Program. Link.Jun 25, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Writes CM reader S. Irizarry:General Wesley Clark (a potential presidential candidate) was interviewed on Meet the Press earlier this month. Responding to the interviewer's question as to whether the General supported the Bush tax cut, he had this to say:
Secondly, the tax cuts weren't fair. I mean, the people that need the money and deserve the money are the people who are paying less, not the people who are paying more. I thought this country was founded on a principle of progressive taxation. [MSNBC, June 15, 2003]
The US didn't have a progressive tax initially because it was deemed unconstitutional. That didn't change until 1913. Point 2 of the Communist Manifesto is: "A heavy progressive or graduated income tax."
Jun 25, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Writes Edwin A. Locke at the Ayn Rand Institute:Monday's Supreme Court pro-affirmative-action decision represents one of the lowest points in American judicial history.
Although the Court's rulings were somewhat convoluted--basically they said race can be used but not too flagrantly--the bottom line is that they affirmed the legitimacy of making race a factor in admission to public universities and by implication to other institutions. This decision represents an enormous betrayal of America's founding principles. We are a nation founded on the concept of individualism, the doctrine that each person is a sovereign entity, an end in himself, possessing the same rights as every other citizen.
The affirmative action ruling undermines the principle of individualism. It asserts that people have special rights because they are members of a racial minority, thus elevating primitive tribalism over individualism. The claim that racial "diversity" is a proper goal of an institution is wrong. The principle should be that the most qualified individuals--without regard to race, ethnicity or any other non-essential characteristic--are selected, whether the institution involved is in the field of education, business or the military. Selecting for diversity means endorsing racism--an ugly doctrine no matter what its purpose. Racism in any form should be abhorred by every American.
Jun 24, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Writes David Holcberg at the Ayn Rand Institute:According to the Nation's Report Card released on June 20, average reading scores dropped "in virtually every level of expertise among 12th graders since the last exam in 1998 and in 1992." The report also revealed that "among fourth graders, 25 percent of whites, 56 percent of Latinos and 60 percent of blacks lack a rudimentary mastery of skills."
The dismal results are a direct consequence of government attempts to improve elementary and secondary education in America. Such attempts have failed and will continue to fail for a simple reason: the way to improve education is not more government involvement but less--much less.
In fact, education in America will substantially improve only when the government's virtual monopoly on education is replaced by a free market, where bad schools go out of business, incompetent teachers are fired, and worthless curriculums are dumped.
As long as schools and teachers are not accountable to parents but to the government, students will be trapped in our current educational system, with little hope of getting the knowledge and thinking skills they need to succeed in life.
Jun 24, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
As only Mark Steyn can put it:The former Soviet republic of Georgia has had its scientists beavering away on Iraq's nuclear program for several months. Yes, folks, it's WMD all over again! And maybe they don't exist any more than the Iraqi ones do, according to the Dems and the Europeans. But I'm happy to take Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani at his word. He's Iran's former president and now head of the Expediency Council, which sounds like an EU foreign policy agency or a State Department think-tank but is, in fact, Iran's highest religious body. Rafsanjani said last year that on the day the Muslim world gets nuclear weapons the Israeli question will be settled forever ''since a single atomic bomb has the power to completely destroy Israel, while an Israeli counter-strike can only cause partial damage to the Islamic world.''
Oh, my. But what about the Palestinian right of return? [Chicago Times, "May the Ayatollah go the way of Saddam", June 22, 2003]
Jun 23, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From yesterday's Sun:For six weeks as a delegate to the 59th session of the U.N. Human Rights Commission, I experienced evil and intolerance face to face every day. I am now more convinced than ever that the United Nations and its related entities are fatally damaged and cannot be reformed in the traditional sense. Most organizations go through a restructuring and re-evaluation in order to become more effective and efficient. This will and cannot happen at the United Nations, whether it be the General Assembly, the Security Council, or the Human Rights Commission. Reform at the United Nations is neither workable nor possible because of the principle of sovereign equality that prevails throughout the U.N. structure. Put simply, the current dictatorships that are members are not going to agree to reforms that might exclude their countries from membership in U.N. bodies. [NY Sun, Jun 20, 2003]
Jun 22, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Actor Kelsey Grammer, star of NBC's Frasier, is "a pro-Bush guy," he declared on June 18 edition of Fox & Friends on FNC:Steve Doocey: "You know, Kelsey our country has been through so much over the last year, in particular the war in Iraq. A lot of Hollywood celebrities anti-war, anti-Bush, but where do you come down?"
Grammer: "I'm a supporter. I've been a pro-Bush guy for some time now. I think he's got a clear message; I think he's got a conscientious message, and I think he has some real courage. So it's just nice to see in a President and I'm actually a fan."
Doocey: "What about, you know the hearings up on Capitol Hill right now looking into whether or not the CIA shaded the intelligence or if the Bush Administration ginned up the crowd just to go to war. What do you think of that?"
Grammer: "I think it's a nice political ploy actually at this point. I mean I think everybody else saw the same information; they all said 'Yeah, we gotta take this guy out.' And frankly I think it was important to deal with him now so that whoever is the next president doesn't have this guy to deal with as well. It's been what, three administrations now? You know." [Hat Tip: MRC]
