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."
Mar 27, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
If you want to know just how lacking in objectivity the BBC is on the war, check out Andrew Sullivan's weblog for continuous reports. Here's some of the latest:
The BBC was last night sensationally condemned for "one-sided" war coverage--by its own front line defence correspondent. Paul Adams attacks the Beeb for misreporting the Allied advance in a blistering memo leaked to The Sun....On Monday, he wrote from US Central Command in Qatar: "I was gobsmacked to hear, in a set of headlines today, that the coalition was suffering ‘significant casualties'. "This is simply NOT TRUE...."
In one blast, he storms: "Who dreamed up the line that the coalition are achieving ‘small victories at a very high price?' "The truth is exactly the opposite. "The gains are huge and the costs still relatively low. This is real warfare, however one-sided, and losses are to be expected."
The BBC has come under attack for describing the loss of two soldiers as the "worst possible news for the armed forces". One listener asked: "How would the BBC have reported the Battle of the Somme in World War I when 25,000 men died on the first day?" [London Sun, 3/26/03]
Sullivan today also points to this letter to the Times of London complaining about the BBC--from former Labour Party officials. And he writes:
Remember one of the key elements, we're finding out, in this battle is the willingness of the Iraqi people to stand up to the Saddamite remnants. That willingness depends, in part, on their confidence that the allies are making progress. What the BBC is able to do, by broadcasting directly to these people, is to keep the Iraqi people's morale as far down as possible, thereby helping to make the war more bloody, thereby helping discredit it in retrospect. If you assume that almost all these reporters and editors are anti-war, this BBC strategy makes sense. They're a military player. And they are objectively pro-Saddam. [AndrewSullivan.com, 3/26/03]
Mar 27, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
The purpose of the streets are for people to get from point A to point B--that is unless you are a "peace" protestor:Scores of protesters were arrested Thursday after they lay down on Fifth Avenue to block traffic in the latest of a series of ongoing demonstrations against the war.
Let's just hope that traffic didn't happen to include an ambulance rushing to an emergency. But then again, "peace" is not the primary result of these protests:
The traffic-blocking technique was used in recent antiwar protests in San Francisco, which led to thousands of arrests and complaints that police used excessive force. Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said Wednesday that antiwar protests were costing millions of dollars in overtime and drawing police resources away from crime-fighting and antiterrorism operations. "People are out to disrupt life in the city," Kelly said. "This is more than protest, more than free speech. We're talking about violating the law." [About 190 Arrested After Protests Block Fifth Ave, WNBC]
Free speech means freedom from
force by those who seek to prevent you from expressing your views. Conversely, free speech does not mean you are free to
force an unwilling audience to listen--which is precisely what the traffic -blocking peacemongers are doing. Just as you are free to expound your views, others are free not to listen. By violating the rights of others by physically blocking their movement, these "anti-war" protestors are enemies of the very freedom that underlies free speech, and upon which free-speech depends.
One's status as a so-called "idealistic" "protestor" does not make one above the law. Rather these protestors should be judged for what they are by their actions: as thugs out to disrupt the lives of others. It is high time that all of these peacemongers who block traffic and disrupt the lives of others should be made to
pay for their crimes.
Mar 27, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Almost a week into the invasion of Iraq, a coalition force that was deliberately kept smaller than some Pentagon officers recommended is fighting under constraints designed to minimize world condemnation and avoid alienating Iraqis the Bush administration wants to liberate. Coalition troops limit fire to avoid killing civilians, and forces deliberately steer clear of destroying electric plants and other infrastructure vital to daily life. There are already signs the limits are jeopardizing allied lives. Restrictions on the use of firepower against Iraqi defenders have prolonged battles, endangered supply lines and possibly contributed directly to casualties.
Army Apache helicopters, for example, encountered withering ground fire in a nighttime engagement Monday south of Baghdad, in part because the Apache crews were ordered not to attack the power grid in the area. Lights from streets and buildings made it easier for Iraqi gunners to spot the aircraft against the night sky. One Apache was downed, its two-man crew taken prisoner.
[...] Well aware of the coalition's self-imposed constraints, Iraqi forces are exploiting them, violating the laws of war by placing fighters among civilian populations, shedding uniforms for civilian clothes, using ambulances to send military messages and even firing on U.S. troops from hospitals and homes. [...] Tactics used by the Iraqis have included parking fighter jets in cemeteries, using civilian vessels to lay sea mines, signaling surrender and then opening fire, and using women and children as human shields to get closer to allied forces.... [USA Today, 3/26/03]
Mar 26, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
An editorial in today's New York Sun runs down the list:
On Friday in Athens, Greece, anti-war protesters hurled Molotov cocktails--gasoline-fueled firebombs--at the American embassy, according to reports in the European press. Also Friday, an anti-war protester threw a Molotov cocktail into a McDonald's hamburger stand in a suburb of Oslo, Norway, Agence France Presse reported. In San Francisco on Friday, police discovered a backpack full of what the San Francisco Chronicle described as "about a dozen bottles filled with gasoline and equipped with makeshift fuses," left where police had earlier clashed with anti-war protesters. Even here in New York, 17 police officers were injured in clashes Saturday with anti-war protesters. One was struck in the head with a brick, one was kicked in the face, and two were knocked off their horses, police said. [New York Sun, 3/26/03]
Mar 26, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
AMMAN, Jordan -- A group of American anti-war demonstrators, part of a Japanese human-shield delegation, returned from Iraq yesterday with 14 hours of uncensored video, all shot without Iraqi government minders present, with Iraqis eager to tell of their welcome for American troops.
The Rev. Kenneth Joseph, a young American pastor of the Assyrian Church of the East, said the trip to Iraq "had shocked me back to reality."
Some of the Iraqis he interviewed on camera, he said, "told me they would commit suicide if American bombing didn't start. They were willing to see their homes demolished to gain their freedom from Saddam [Hussein]'s bloody tyranny."
Mar 25, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Diplomatic sources at the U.N. say that while members of the Security Council were working hard to find a negotiated compromise that would reunite the fractured body behind a plan to send humanitarian aid to Iraq, Russia joined Syria in its refusal to even negotiate."The Russians definitely raised their objections up a notch," said one diplomat who participated in the talks.
He said that the Russians contended that the old program should remain intact, despite the fact that all U.N. personnel who ran it were evacuated from Iraq on the eve of the war. Most of all, he said, the Russians were worried about any indication that the old Iraqi regime is not recognized as the legitimate representative of Iraq. "Any reform in oil-for-food could indicate that Saddam's regime is illegitimate," the diplomat said....
Russia ... is concerned that any change might result in loss of oil contracts signed with Saddam's regime. Oil analysts also believe that as a major oil producing nation, Russia may worry about loss of revenue as result of the revamping of post-war Iraq's oil production, which would increase output and lower global oil prices. [New York Sun, 3/25/03]
So Russia is threatened by the idea of what might happen if dictatorship ceased to be considered a legitimate form of government. Perhaps it is an option Putin doesn't wish to close off for himself?Mar 25, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
The US and Britain are calling this war a liberation of Iraq. That sets the expectation that the Iraqis will welcome us, as Italy welcomed American troops as they swept northward from Sicily.
Frankly I don't suspect that will happen. The Iraqi culture is Arab culture, i.e. it is in psychosis. I expect that most Iraqis, being Arab, will hate America. It won't look like a liberation but an occupation.
Nothing is wrong with an occupation in this situation. Except for when the British and American public are told to expect a liberation. Then a successful occupation will appear to be a failed liberation--and a failed war.Mar 25, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Here's wishful thinking for you:
There were many smiling faces in Ramallah on Monday as Palestinians celebrated the capture of American and British soldiers by the Iraqi army. "This is a big day for the Iraqi people and all the Arabs and Muslims," said a policeman at Yasser Arafat's battered headquarters.
[...] At Manara Square in the center of town, the mood was one of euphoria. "They have just shot down two Apache helicopters," an excited merchant shouted hysterically as he ran out of his shop. "This is unbelievable. The Americans are losing the war. Iraq is going to be Bush's Vietnam."
[...] "Oh beloved Saddam, bomb, bomb Tel Aviv," [a group of about 50 girls] chanted as passersby and shopkeepers greeted them with the traditional Islamic battle cry of Allahu akbar (God is great). As they marched through the streets, the girls, some younger than 10, urged Saddam to eliminate Israel: "Oh Saddam, we love you, why don't you annihilate all the Jews?"
[...] Many people said that for the first time since the war broke out, they are finally able to walk around with a sense of pride. "Until yesterday [Sunday], the feeling here was bad," said a journalist. "But when the pictures of the American prisoners and bodies of soldiers were shown on TV, there was a lot of excitement. It's very moving to watch Arab soldiers defeating American and British soldiers and killing them. Saddam is now more popular than ever. The people here adore him. The feeling here is that Saddam has restored Arab confidence and dignity." ...
[...] The sense of triumph and pride was also reflected in the Palestinian Authority media. "On the fourth day of the war, Iraq has presented to the Arabs and all the peoples of the world proof that it is possible to defeat the US," said Hasan al-Kashef, a respected columnist and senior PA official. "On this day, the Arabs and the rest of the world have come to learn that the US is not the almighty superpower that is capable of doing anything, any time. Iraq has proved that surrendering to the will of the US is the result of impotence, miscalculation, and a lack of will." [Jerusalem Post, 3/25/03]
In the future, we'll need to make sure our leaders remember not only the Palestinians' enmity but also the degree of irrationality that prevails in that culture.Mar 24, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
A private hospital in central Harare was overflowing with the walking wounded, several of whom were sexually assaulted as the army laid into the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) following a two-day strike last week. "I was sleeping naked, and they took me and sexually assaulted me with AK47," said Sonia Kulinji, 47, whose house in an MDC stronghold was invaded by soldiers wielding pipes and weapons in an overnight raid. Doctors later confirmed she had sustained severe genital bruising. Another woman, Sharon Nel, 48, said she had prevented five uniformed men from raping her by shouting that she had AIDS. [from the Daily Telegraph, New York Sun, 3/24/03]
[T]wo opposition MPs were arrested and, according to Amnesty International, up to 500 people were being held on allegations that they participated in last week's strike....
The Zwakwana human rights monitoring group said that Harare emergency wards are treating people for broken bones, bruising and sexual assault after they were beaten with wire whips, iron bars, electrical cords and rifle butts by ruling party militias, uniformed soldiers and police reservists. Witnesses said they saw police and ruling party youth militias taking part in assaults. Staff members at one private clinic said its emergency services treated 200 people....
Speaking last Friday, Mr Mugabe ... warned opposition leaders that "those who play with fire will not only be burnt but consumed". [Guardian, 3/24/03]
Mar 24, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Iraqi opposition members are wondering why Iraqi television and radio stations are still on the air at this stage of the military campaign.Those outlets are allowing Saddam to disseminate propaganda to the Iraqi people.
But Secretary Rumsfeld said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that it would be risky to destroy the Iraqi media facilities because they are close to civilian populations. [New York Sun, 3/24/03]
This is scary--it shows that even Rumsfeld has accepted the irrational conditions placed upon this war. It's one thing not to cause unnecessary civilian casualties. It's another thing to refrain from taking necessary military action out of fear of harming civilians. Casualties of all sorts will be minimized if we win this war as soon as possible. But war is war. Bending over backwards not to offend like this does not buy goodwill; the ones who want to be liberated will recognize the necessity of military action, even if it puts their lives at risk--and the ones who don't want us there will find any excuse however trivial to oppose us, regardless of how few civilians we harm.
Comments Chip Joyce,
Doesn't it seem that our obsession not to harm civilians is jeopardizing the lives of our soldiers?
Here's my advocated principle: one American soldier's life trumps any number of foreign civilians. Civilians should not be targeted but they should be risked for the safety of American soldiers.
Our government exists to protect American citizens. When it sends soldiers to fight wars, it should hold them in higher regard than foreigners. Tough choices come with war. To choose otherwise is to unjustly sacrifice our brave soldiers. When it comes down to it, Iraqis are more responsible for their government than our soldiers are. [About the War, 3/24/03]
Mar 24, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Eugene McCarthy, speaking at an event titled "A Threat to Democracy: The Tyranny of the Two Party System," at Central Presbyterian Church in downtown St. Paul: "This is a faith-based war... The worst thing is faith-based religion." (Is there any other kind?) And we're supposed to believe this guy is an opponent of faith when he's speaking at a church, opposing the war with accusations that have no foundation in this-worldly reality? And is he ready to denounce faith-based pacifism as well?