Mar 29, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
At an anti-war "teach-in" this week, a Columbia University professor called for the defeat of American forces in Iraq and said he would like to see "a million Mogadishus" -- a reference to the Somali city where American soldiers were ambushed, with 18 killed, in 1993. "The only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military," Nicholas De Genova, assistant professor of anthropology at Columbia University told the audience at Low Library Wednesday night. "I personally would like to see a million Mogadishus." The crowd was largely silent at the remark. They loudly applauded De Genova later when he said, "If we really believe that this war is criminal ... then we have to believe in the victory of the Iraqi people and the defeat of the U.S. war machine." ... [Teach-in organizer Eric] Foner said that because of the university's tradition of freedom of speech, it was unlikely De Genova would suffer professionally in any way because of what he said. "A person's politics have no impact on their employment status here, whether they are promoted, whether they are fired or whether they get tenure," Foner said. [Newsday, 3/27/03]
Foner's last comment is presumably said as if it were a good thing, but what it actually reveals is that universities today are powerless to put an end to dishonesty and intellectual malpractice within their ranks. True freedom does not require anyone to provide a platform for anyone else; it leaves people free to boycott or withdraw their support from those they disagree with. Freedom of speech means that force cannot be used to stop you from expressing your views, not that you have a right to other people's resources in doing so. The idea of "academic freedom" means that academics should be permitted to be intellectually irresponsible and that no one should be allowed to do anything about it. This is one big reason why our universities are such centers of dishonesty today--and they will remain that way, until the public wakes up and stops supporting them.
Mar 29, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
British military interrogators claim captured Iraqi soldiers have told them that al-Qaeda terrorists are fighting on the side of Saddam Hussein's forces against allied troops near Basra. At least a dozen members of Osama bin Laden's network are in the town of Az Zubayr where they are coordinating grenade and gun attacks on coalition positions, according to the Iraqi prisoners of war....The connection would give credibility to the argument that Tony Blair used to justify war against Saddam - a "nightmare scenario" in which he might eventually pass weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. [Sydney Morning Herald, 3/28/03]
Mar 29, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Saddam Hussein's death squads are executing both deserters and civilians, according to Donald Rumsfeld:"They dress in civilian clothes and operate from private homes confiscated from innocent people and try to blend in with the civilian population. They conduct sadistic executions on sidewalks and public squares, cutting the tongues out of those accused of disloyalty and beheading people with swords. They put on American and British uniforms to try to fool irregular Iraqi soldiers who surrender to them and then execute them as an example for others who might contemplate defection or capitulation....We will take them at their word and if their wish is to die for Saddam Hussein they will be accommodated. As the regime deploys squads to slaughter its own citizens, coalition forces are trying to save Iraqi lives. We do this because, unlike Saddam Hussein's regime, our nations and our people value human life." [Daily Telegraph, 3/28/03]
Question: Now how can any human being living a in a free country equate U.S. forces with Saddam's Regime? Answer: They--the moral relativists--are not human in the moral sense of the term. One can disagree with the war, but to equate the two is absolutely miserable. [Thanks to the heads up on this news item from Paul Blair who comments "I Bet Al-Jazeera Won't Substantiate This."]
Mar 29, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Michael Ledeen in today's New York Sun on the strings that come with UN humanitarian aid:
[H]ere's an excerpt from an e-mail I got today from a reliable source: "There is now $12.5 billion repeat billion in funds held in escrow by the UN in the ‘oil for food' program--the escape clause in the sanctions that let the Iraqis market about three million barrels a day ‘to feed the children, etc. since 1996. The French and the Russians are refusing to let the Security Council turn it over to the U.N. agencies to send in humanitarian relief because that would ‘legitimize the US-British war.' And (expletives deleted) Kofi Annan only makes sanctimonious statements without indicating what the real problem is." [New York Sun, 3/28/03]
Mar 29, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Bicycle champion Lance Armstrong says: ". . . Nobody wants a war. Not me. Not President Bush. Not Tony Blair. No one. But sometimes it may be unavoidable. I absolutely support the President and absolutely support our troops."Mar 29, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From David Frum's column in Thursday's New York Sun yesterday but forgot there were a few things in it I wanted to highlight:
You may know the names of these antiwar conservatives. Some are famous: Patrick Buchanan and Robert Novak. Others are not: Llewellyn Rockwell, Justin Raimondo, Joe Sobran, Charley Reese, Jude Wanniski, Eric Margolis, and Taki Theodoracopulos....The Web sites of the antiwar conservatives approvingly cite and link to the writings of John Pilger, Robert Fisk, Noam Chomsky, Ted Rall, Gore Vidal, Alexander Cockburn, and other anti-Americans of the far left....Justin Raimondo, an Internet journalist who delivered Mr. Buchanan's nominating speech at the Reform party convention in 2000, alleged in December 2001 that Israel was implicated in the terror attacks of September 11: "That the Israelis had some significant foreknowledge and involvement in the events preceding 9/11 seems beyond dispute." ...The writers I quote call themselves "paleoconservatives," implying that they are somehow the inheritors of an older, purer conservatism than that upheld by their impostor rivals. But even Robert Taft and Charles Lindbergh ceased accommodating Axis aggression after Pearl Harbor....The accusations culminated in a March 2003 article by Mr. Buchanan in The American Conservative that fixed responsibility for the entire Iraq war on a "cabal" of neoconservative office-holders and writers: "We charge that a cabal of polemicists and public officials seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America's interests. We charge them with colluding with Israel to ignite those wars and destroy the Oslo Accords. We charge them with deliberately damaging U.S. relations with every state in the Arab world that defies Israel or supports the Palestinian people's right to a homeland of their own." [New York Sun, 3/27/03]
Buchanan's statement by itself is enough to show how these conservatives are in favor of oppression. There is no such thing as a "right to a homeland"--no group has a right to its own government by virtue of its religion or ethnic group: not the Palestinians, and not the Jews either, for that matter. The only kind of state that has a right to exist is a free one. By that standard, Israel has a right to exist; a Palestinian state doesn't.Mar 29, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Columnist Robert Samuelson points out a fascinating polling discrepancy. The Pew Global Attitudes Project polled people in various countries earlier this month on the war against Saddam. Huge majorities opposed it: 87% in France, 85% in Germany, 83% in Russia, 79% in Spain, and 76% in Italy. But at the same time, Pew asked if "the people of Iraq will be better or worse off in the long run" if Saddam is deposed. Again huge margins: 73% said yes in France, 71% in Germany, and 61% in Italy. In other words, Europeans are perfectly happy to consign an entire people to misery and oppression rather than support a war to liberate them. And they claim to be supporting the people of Iraq. The awful historical record will be that most Europeans knowingly put their fear of American power before their hatred of Saddam. Damning. [Andrew Sullivan, New York Sun, 3/28/03]
Or to put it another way, they're willing to oppress Iraqis to spite Uncle Sam.Mar 29, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Syria is granting free passage across its border with Iraq to volunteers who wish to join the fight against the U.S. and British forces. Thus far, dozens of volunteers, primarily Palestinians from the refugee camps in Lebanon, have crossed over into Iraq through Syrian-controlled border posts. The passage of volunteers with Damascus's consent has given rise to the theory that the U.S.-fired missile that struck a Syrian bus traveling in Iraq was an intentional attack on a busload of such volunteers....
[T]he Syrian military analyst, Hitham al-Kilani, said in an interview on Al Jazeera, on 24 March, that "the Syrian border was opened to Syrian, Arab and Muslim volunteers wishing to reach Iraq and participate in the fighting against the American invasion." ... The Syrian mufti, Ahmed Kaftaru--a government official--recently called on Muslims worldwide to employ all means, including suicide operations, to defeat the American-British-Zionist aggression....
Syria's active support for Saddam Hussein has been particularly evident in recent months, with Damascus even purchasing military equipment on behalf of the Iraqi army. ... The purchases were made from a number of East European countries, and the equipment included engines for Russian-made tanks and aircraft. Also purchased were tank carriers, probably from Germany.
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has made extensive preparations to flee Iraq, and he and several of his most senior aides--including Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz - have already smuggled family members out to Syria, the British Daily Telegraph reported on Friday... [Syria allows dozens of volunteers to cross into Iraq to fight coalition, Ha'aretz, 3/28/03]
...Donald Rumsfeld issued a warning to Syria, saying it would be held accountable for shipments of military equipment--including night-vision goggles--that have been moved across the border into Iraq. [CNN, 3/28/03]
Mar 29, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Thousands of people left yesterday. Despite now being in allied territory no one showed any relief or was prepared to say anything about politics. "You wouldn't expect me to answer that, would you," said one man with a smile when I asked if he was pleased that Basra's Ba'athists were on the way out. [Daily Telegraph, 3/28/03]
What's Al-Jazeera going to say about this?
Iraqi paramilitary forces in Basra fired mortars and machine guns Friday on about 1,000 Iraqi civilians [!!!] trying to leave the besieged city, forcing them to retreat, British military officials and witnesses said.Britain's 7th Armored Brigade apparently tried to fire back, but stopped out of fear that civilians would be wounded, said Lt. Cmdr. Emma Thomas....British pool reports described Iraqi forces with mortars mounted in pickup trucks firing on the fleeing civilians, sending some running back into Basra. Panicked women and children scattered on a bridge over a canal and down its embankments to avoid machine-gun fire, the reports said. One Iraqi woman badly wounded by shrapnel was carried into a British vehicle that whisked her off for treatment. [Associated Press, 3/28/03]
Mar 29, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
New York's state government passed a draconian smoking ban:
"Let the individual decide if he wants to kill himself or not," said Assemblyman Anthony Seminerio, a Democrat from Queens. "And let the individual decide if he wants to go into a smoking environment. … You cannot tell the people of this state how to run their lives. You can try, but you'll never do it." But Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, in an impassioned speech in favor of the bill, argued that tobacco users have no right to "poison" the people around them. "We pass laws here every week infringing on people's rights to make their own decisions," said Mr. Bruno, a Republican from Rensselaer County."Every time you stop at a stop sign somebody is infringing on your right to go right through that intersection. Why? Because it's for the public good, that's why." [New York Sun, 3/27/03]
Bruno's analogy is incorrect. The right to put up a stop sign accrues to the government by virtue of the fact that it owns the streets; you don't have a "right to make your own decisions" on someone else's property. But the government is not the owner of eating establishments and hotels.
Bruno's statement reveals his utter contempt for any notion of individual rights--which means that he has no grounds for saying that tobacco users have no right to "poison" people around them, either. The only defensible notion of the "public good" is one that is truly common to all members of society--which means one that doesn't require sacrificing some people's good for the benefit of others--which means social interaction based on voluntary consent. If you enter or work for an establishment that permits smoking, you have consented. The fact that the alternatives might be inconvenient for you is completely irrelevant; you have no right to demand that the universe exist for the sake of your convenience.Mar 29, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Here's another example of how public decision-making is impossible without a notion of individual rights:
On the same day that the Anti-Defamation League reported that the number of anti-Semitic incidents at universities has increased by 24%, the number three Republican in the Senate, Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, and some of his colleagues met with Jewish activists to explore solutions to the trend. By the end of the meeting yesterday, Mr. Santorum was talking about introducing legislation that could cut federal funding to colleges where anti-Semitism and anti-Israel sentiments are prevalent--or more generally, where "ideological diversity" is lacking. [New York Sun, 3/27/03]
Santorum doesn't want the government to stop funding ideas--just to stop funding bad ideas. But that is necessarily to put the government in the position of the arbiter of ideology. The government has no business in the field of ideas at all, but again this is only clear to a person with some notion of individual rights. Having the government encourage "ideological diversity" is just a way of producing more ideological irresponsibility.Mar 28, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
How can Paul Krugman have devoted his entire New York Times column today to proving that the energy crisis in California was caused by market manipulation by greedy corporations -- without even once mentioning the name of the numero uno manipulator: Enron?Krugman claims that Vice President Cheney's energy task force misdiagnosed the California crisis, while "yes, I am patting myself on the back for getting it right." But when, exactly, was Krugman "getting it right"? When he was paid $50 thousand to be a member of the Enron Advisory Board? When he was writing glowing puff-pieces on Enron for Fortune magazine? Or when he was accusing the Bush administration of "crony capitalism" for its involvement with Enron, without admitting his own involvement? Does he really think that by not mentioning the name Enron in a column about energy market manipulation that no one will remember any of that?
And does he think that, just because the Times doesn't fact-check him, that no one else will either when he grossly misrepresents a report released this week by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission? Krugman says,
"...the new report concludes that market manipulation was pervasive, and offers a mountain of direct evidence, including phone conversations, e-mail and memos. There's no longer any doubt: California's power shortages were largely artificial, created by energy companies to drive up prices and profits."
But, in reality, the report says no such thing. The second and third sentences of its executive summary say:
"Staff concludes that supply-demand imbalance, flawed market design and inconsistent rules made possible significant market manipulation as delineated in final investigation report. Without underlying market dysfunction, attempts to manipulate the market would not be successful."
Well, it's going to be tough for Krugman to honestly say what was in that report. The report was written "by order of the Commission, to determine whether Enron Corp. or any other sellers manipulated electricity and natural gas markets in California..." But we can't mention Enron, now can we?
Mar 28, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
In a his latest rant Libertarian writer, Jerome Tuccille equates Bush's assault against Saddam's Regime as a war against the "Iraqi" people:Bush's war against the people of Iraq is nothing less than a continuation of the imperialistic, colonialistic policies that have characterized European countries over the centuries, and U.S. foreign policy... [Stop Bush Now, March 27, 2003]
Pray tell, what the hell has Saddam been doing for the past decade in
Iraq?
Now some may argue that I am painting Libertarians with an overly broad stroke. After all,
some Libertarians support the war. To which I would argue that any "political philosophy" which includes both
pro-war and anti-war views on Iraq is inherently contradictory, and is invalidated for that reason. Yet this is precisely what Libertarianism as a philosophy does--and by doing so it invalidates itself as a political philosophy in particular, and as a philosophy in general (since a given political philosophy necessarily assumes a larger philosophical foundation to be put into practice) as it provides no
guidance on what actions are moral and proper in the political sphere.
What is needed is a political viewpoint based on the absolutism of individual rights (
Objectivism provides this foundation nicely)--a philosophy that claims to support individual rights, but at the same time sanctions opposite "viewpoints," merely muddies the waters leaving the individual rights based arguments diluted under a morass of eclectic statism posing as a defense of liberty.
Mar 28, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
French foreign minister Dominique de Villepin gave a talk at London's International Institute for Strategic Studies in his first visit to Britain since the outbreak of war. During a question and answer session at the end of his speech he refused to answer the question: "Who do you want to win the war?" [SkyNews, March 27, 2003]
Hey, it's better then saying "Saddam" right?
Mar 28, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From Tiger Woods website:I have great respect for the men and women fighting overseas to protect our way of life in Iraq and other parts of the world. As the son of an Army officer, I understand the strength, courage and discipline required to successfully carry out their missions in hostile environments and feel tremendous pride they are representing us.
Obviously, no one likes war. Our Congress and President tried hard to avoid the use of force, but ultimately decided it was the best course of action. I like the assertiveness shown by President Bush and think we owe it to our political and military leaders, along with our brave soldiers to be as supportive as possible during these difficult and trying times. I just wanted to take this opportunity to let our forces know that I am thinking about you and wishing you and your families the best.
100% class. And let's not forget Wayne Greztky:
"All I can say is the president of the United States is a great leader, I happen to think he's a wonderful man and if he believes what he's doing is right I back him 100 per cent," said Gretzky, in Calgary for a news conference for Ronald McDonald Children's Charities. "If the president decides to go to war he must know more than we know, or we hear about. He must have good reason to go and we have to back that." [...]
"A lot of people in the world don't have the answers but we've got to believe in the president of the United States and as I said, I happen to think he's a great leader. God bless him and I hope that everybody gets home safe." [...]
"I guess we get it more in the United States because actors and singers - they all think they know politics. I'm tired of watching people who are not in politics give their opinions. Quite frankly that's what we have governments for and that's why we elect governments." ["The Great One wades into discussion of U.S.-Iraq war, praises Bush", Canadian Press]
Gretzky also made another comment:
"We shouldn't be worrying about what entertainers or athletes or Wayne Gretzky or Don Cherry says (about the war)," he mumbled into the mikes, looking baffled and not a little peeved. "It's immaterial. We're not presidents or prime ministers. We're entertainers and athletes." [Edmonton News, "Asking celebrities about war is silly", March 26, 2003]
Michael Moore and the the Dixie Chicks take note.
Mar 27, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Iraq doesn't follow the rules of "humane" war required by the Geneva conventions ... a chemical weapons facility has been found in Iraq, a facility never noticed by hordes of U.N. inspectors parading around the country for years ... American prisoners of war are brutally tortured ... Every day you hear of Iraq violating some sort of U.N. rule imposed on them over the last decade.
Does this mean that the U.N. didn't do its job competently? No, worse. It means that the U.N. did do its job and is worse than useless. Now the chickens are coming home to roost and American soldiers are the sacrificial victims. The U.N. aids and makes comfortable the violent and the evil, regardless of its stated intentions. How? Is it a conspiracy on the part of the U.N. against the free world? Of course not. It's called moral relativism. The U.N. treats countries like Iraq as morally equal to countries like Britain and the USA. In so doing, the morally superior countries only stand to lose and the morally evil countries gain status and power they would never otherwise enjoy.It's not that the U.N. didn't do its job properly. It's what the job of the U.N. is in the first place: to treat all countries as morally neutral and to treat conflicts between countries as nothing more than sibling spats rather than life-or-death struggles between good and evil, between dictatorship and freedom. I hope we defeat Iraq quickly -- and in the process that we defeat the premise underlying the U.N. forever.
Mar 27, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Colin Powell yesterday vowed that America won't turn over control of Iraq to the United Nations - and a French veto - after Saddam Hussein is ousted.
"We didn't take on this huge burden with our coalition partners not to be able to have a significant dominating control over how it unfolds in the future," Powell told a House subcommittee. "We would not support . . . essentially handing everything over the U.N. for someone designated by the U.N. to suddenly become in charge of the whole operation," Powell added.
Powell's tough talk signaled that the Bush administration is ready to take a hard line with the United Nations after it failed to get tough with Saddam or enforce 17 resolutions demanding he disarm. British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who last night began a quickie summit with President Bush at Camp David, also signaled that he doesn't foresee any quick turnover of Iraq to any kind of U.N. administration.
Mar 27, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
At the state funeral of one of his cabinet ministers, Mr Mugabe said: "I am still the Hitler of the time. This Hitler has only one objective, justice for his own people, sovereignty for his people, recognition of the independence of his people, and their right to their resources.
"If that is Hitler, then let me be a Hitler tenfold. Ten times, that is what we stand for."
Hours later members of the Zimbabwe National Army, including Mr Mugabe's elite force, the Presidential Guard, began a pre-dawn rampage in revenge for the opposition general strike last week.
The attacks left more than 250 people injured, scores of them seriously... [Daily Telegraph, 3/26/03]
Is Mugabe just saying "Let them call me Hitler--I must do what's right, regardless of what they think"? No; he's saying: "Like Hitler, I have no moral compunctions in my choice of tactics."
