Mask Hysteria
From Cox and Forkum:
Recommended: If you have enjoyed Cox and Forkum's work displayed at Capitalism Magazine don't forget to get their paperback collection of their cartoons available at the Cox and Forkum website.
Free Speech Primer
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.
North Korea: Rumsfeld’s Pentagon is Not Very Diplomatic
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]
BBC: The Bagdahd Bob Corporation?
Saudi Arabia is home to some of Islam's holiest sites and the deployment of US forces there was seen as a historic betrayal by many Islamists, notably Osama Bin Laden. It is one of the main reasons given by the Saudi-born dissident --blamed by Washington for the 11 September attacks--to justify violence against the United States and its allies. [BBC News, 4/29/03]
"Dissident"?
Bear in mind those US forces were deployed in the Middle East to stop this:
A 31-year-old Kuwaiti woman, Asrar Qabandi, was captured by Iraqi secret police occupying her country in 1990 for "crimes," one of which included speaking with CNN on the phone. They beat her daily for two months, forcing her father to watch. In January 1991, on the eve of the American-led offensive, they smashed her skull and tore her body apart limb by limb. A plastic bag containing her body parts was left on the doorstep of her family's home. [New York Times]
So the "justification" is the the U.S. should have allowed Saddam to stay in Kuwait.
***
Tony Blair contrasts BBC objectivity to the "Iraqi information Minister":
"Tony Blair blitzed the BBC on Friday over its twisted coverage of the Iraq war. The PM was furious after a newsman claimed terror in Baghdad is worse than under Saddam. War reporter Andrew Gilligan said on Radio 4's Today programme: 'Baghdad's people are passing their first days of liberty in a greater fear than they've ever before known. The old fear of the regime was habitual, low-level. This fear is sharp and immediate.' Mr Blair was furious at a War Cabinet meeting on Friday. He gave his official spokesman his blessing to say: 'Try telling that to people whose relatives have been dropped head-first into shredders. I doubt if the Iraqi information minister would try to justify this report.' " [Sun]
OK, maybe Bagdahd Bob isn't dishonest enough to work for the BBC. My apologies to the "Iraqi information Minister."
Conservatives’ Tyrannical Premises
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.
State Department’s Destructive Foreign Policy
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.
Labour MP George Galloway’s Charity
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.North Korea and Nukes
From Cox and Forkum:
Related Reading: Baby Kim Jong's Secret Weapon Against America
CNN: Nonobjective Nonjudgmentalism at Work
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?The one I like best, though, is where the reporter would demand if the King is a stooge of the CIA.
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]
Right Thing, Wrong Reason
William Tucker argues for the abolition of rent control in New York City--but what would otherwise be a strong case is undercut by its reliance on the argument that abolishing these controls would increase the tax base. The fact that politicians may choose to do something for their own bad reasons is no reason to go encouraging them in those reasons.Generous with Other People’s Paycheck
I had this letter published in today's New York Sun:J. P. Avlon, in his column "How Giuliani Cut Government," [Opinion, April 24, 2003] writes that "had Mr. Giuliani proposed deeper personnel cuts at a time of historic surpluses during the late 1990s, he would have been accused of racism and hardheartedness." But this is hardly an excuse--Mr. Giuliani was accused of racism and hard-heartedness anyway.
While I doubt Mr. Giuliani is the coward that he could be taken to be from Mr. Avlon's characterization, an elected official who gives away the store when faced with such cheap attempts at moral intimidation isn't fit to be in office. It's easy to be generous when you're helping yourself to other people's money. We need less of such irresponsible "kindness" in City Hall.
Growth = Sprawl?
Thomas Bray exhibits the rare virtue of requiring that terms be defined--in this case, "sprawl": "At what point does development cease being growth and become sprawl? And what is the aim of growth/sprawl restrictions: preserving farms, protecting the environment, saving existing cities and older suburbs, creating more efficient patterns of growth?"Madonna: Material Girl Blasts Materialism
Take it from Madonna:"We as Americans are completely obsessed and wrapped up in a lot of the wrong values--looking good, having cash in the bank, being perceived as rich, famous and successful or just being famous... It's the most superficial part of the American dream and who would know better than me? The only thing that's going to bring you happiness is love and how you treat your fellow man and having compassion for one another." [Reuters, 4/24/03]
So why should anyone think she's any less shallow now that she's "sincere" than she was when she was cynical?
“Social Conscience” for Terrorism
The New York Times reports that the CUNY Law School, after decades of trying "to produce lawyers with a social conscience and a left-wing sense of the public interest," is now dismayed that its students are "seeking to honor the only American lawyer ever charged with providing material support to a terrorist organization." [New York Times, 4/26/03]It must be really egregious if even the Times can't whitewash it.
France and Saddam
Dump Colin Powell
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, while far from endorsing an Iranian-style theocracy, has avoided ruling out an Islamic government. "Why cannot an Islamic form of government that has as its basis the faith of Islam not also be democratic?" he asked in an interview with the Dubai-based station al-Arabiya on Thursday. "Just because one is in an Arab country or one is practicing the Muslim faith, to suggest that, therefore, you are denied the benefits of democracy, I think is a false choice. Democracy can coexist with any faith," Mr. Powell said in a separate interview with the U.S.-funded Radio Sawa. [Washington Times, 4/26/03]Separation of church and state? "That's just our culture; other cultures can make other choices."
But why then insist on democracy? That's just our culture too; why not let other cultures make other choices?
But not having democracy is tyrannical, Powell might say. Well, not having a separation of church and state is tyrannical too. If you're not willing to pass moral judgments on other people's cultures, then don't--but then you have nothing to say. If we're going to insist on democracy in the name of preventing tyranny, then we should at least be honest about the fact that we are passing a moral judgment on what kind of government we're willing to tolerate in that society--and then we should be consistent in doing so.
Freedom cannot coexist with any faith--most faiths to one extent or another oppose essential elements of freedom, and all faiths oppose the basis of freedom: the absolutism of reason. Powell seems to think that as long as there is "democracy" then the government can choose to do whatever it wants. But this is not freedom; it is the tyranny of the majority. If he believes that, he is not fit to be serving as a government official in a free country.
Rumsfeld is much better on this:
"This much is certain," Mr. Rumsfeld told reporters at the Pentagon. "A vocal minority clamoring to transform Iraq in Iran's image will not be permitted to do so. We will not allow the Iraqi people's democratic transition to be hijacked by those who might wish to install another form of dictatorship."Let's remember, too, that George Bush the elder is the one who first brought us Colin Powell--and both of them are the ones who stopped short of taking out Saddam Hussein the first time. I completely agree with Chip Joyce on this:
What the first George Bush did in 1991--stop short of taking out the Iraqi government and inciting a Shi'ite revolution and then betraying it--was hideous. His foreign policy was as bad as, and I think arguably worse than, President Clinton's. He made Saddam Hussein a hero who inspired jihad against the West. ... [He] had the CIA tell these terrified people: revolt and we'll back you up. They revolted and no one backed them up. Thousands were massacred and thousands more were tortured and imprisoned as a direct result of this betrayal. [About the War, 4/23/03]
And for the sake of what? In order to preserve an international coalition for the purpose of contriving "peace" between the Israelis and the Palestinians. And we know how well that worked out.
For further reading: Bush Should Fire Colin Powell
“Humanitarian” Aid from Turkey
In the days after U.S. forces captured Saddam's powerbase in Tikrit, a dozen Turkish Special Forces troops were dispatched south from Turkey. Their target: the northern oil city of Kirkuk, now controlled by the U.S. 173rd Airborne Division's 3rd Brigade. Using the pretext of accompanying humanitarian aid the elite soldiers passed through the northern city of Arbil on Tuesday. They wore civilian clothes, their vehicles lagging behind a legitimate aid convoy. They'd hoped to pass unnoticed. But at a checkpoint on the outskirts of Kirkuk they ran into trouble. "We were waiting for them," says a U.S. paratroop officer. The Turkish Special Forces team put up no resistance though a mean arsenal was discovered in their cars, including a variety of AK-47s, M4s, grenades, body armor and night vision goggles. "They did not come here with a pure heart," says U.S. brigade commander Col. Bill Mayville. "Their objective is to create an environment that can be used by Turkey to send a large peacekeeping force into Kirkuk." [Time, 4/24/03]
Kinsley vs. Road Congestion
Michael Kinsley, in his typically vacillating fashion, comes out (or seems to come out) in favor of charging for the use of roads:When I worked for the Economist magazine 14 years ago, congestion charges were a hobbyhorse of that free-market publication. They were considered the epitome of hard-nosed business thinking about public problems. But the London plan was put in place by Mayor Ken Livingstone, a hate-figure known as "Red Ken" among British conservatives. As a consequence, the congestion charge is often attacked by conservative politicians and publications as Big Government at its worst....The main objection is that charging for something that used to be free is unfair to those who can't afford it or who find it a burden. [Michael Kinsley, Slate.com, 4/24/03]You call this an argument? Who gives anybody the right to demand that their wants be fulfilled free of charge?
This is the government charging money for the very purpose of making an activity cost more than most people are willing to spend. You can see it as making people buy something--the right to drive in the middle of town--that used to be free. Or you can see it as allowing citizens to buy something--an easy commute--that formerly was unobtainable at any price....You can decide for yourself if you'd rather have $8 or an easy commute. You cannot decide that you'd rather give up your share of the congestion charge revenue and have your old crowded commute back. That option has been closed off. Democracy is good for decisions that must be made collectively. But it is not as good as letting each of us decide for ourselves, where possible....This deal is collective or not at all. It still strikes most citizens as a bad deal. But with a bit of marketing, that could change.The absurdity of the discussion results from the premise that roads are and should be public property and subject to collective decision-making. In a proper society, roads would belong to private owners, who would have the right to set the terms for the use of their property, and society as a whole would have no say.
(Incidentally, Kinsley in the same article also favors--or seems to favor--allowing for compensation of transplant donors: "We think it's terrible that he has to make that choice, but we're not offering a third alternative. We're just forcing him to take what he thinks is the worst of the current two." Hey, Michael, isn't there a principle under here?)