God Bless Eastern Europe
The Daily Telegraph (2/22/03) discusses the Eastern Europeans' reaction to Jacques Chirac's admonishment:By antagonising eastern Europe with his indelicately chosen threats, M Chirac has done more to create a "new" Europe than Donald Rumsfeld ever dared to hope...When Poles were asked in a recent Wprost opinion poll to name countries they considered "friends", 50 per cent put America first, 34 per cent Germany and 25 per cent France. At the same time, 50 per cent considered Poland's greatest enemy to be Russia, 40 per cent said it was Germany and seven per cent Iraq...."America speaks with passion for democracy which is something that you miss in Europe," said Linas Linkevicius, Lithuania's foreign minister, whose office decor includes a blue baseball cap with "Mr Nato" emblazoned above its peak.... East European admiration for America is firmly seated in gratitude for the covert and overt support of successive Washington administrations for political dissent during the years of Soviet domination.
"Even under Soviet occupation, we trusted America rather than Europe," says Marius Laurinavicius, deputy editor of Lithuania's largest daily newspaper. "Unlike Europe, Washington never recognised the Soviet occupation of Lithuania."
Attack Us, Please!
The L.A. Times (2/23/03) carries an article about how Iranian expatriates hope the U.S. invades Iraq--and after that, Iran:Others, who despair of the clerical regime's capacity for reform, even hope that after Iraq, the U.S. will take on Iran....James Taranto also points to an article in the Teheran Iran News, a reformist paper:
When newspaper headlines suggest that Washington's resolve may be wavering, anxiety sets in.
"Are they changing their mind?" Goli Afshar, a 23-year-old student, asked as she alternately tightened and loosened her grip on a mug at a cafe on Gandhi Street. "Can they hurry up with Iraq already, so they can get on with attacking us?"
Why is nobody thinking about the immense suffering of the nation of Iraq? If one negotiates or yields to the demands of this hostage-taker Saddam Hussein, he will only be emboldened to increase his demands. He might even take more hostages. In any event, it is only the hostages [the Iraqi people] who will suffer further loss and injury….If Saddam Hussein is allowed to finesse his way out of this crisis, he may take the entire region as hostage in the near future….Moreover, someone should ask these antiwar protesters…if they realize how truly terrifying it is to live near a deranged and demented ruler such as Saddam Hussein, who has already invaded two of his neighbors?…Where were these protesters when Saddam Hussein was killing hundreds of thousands of citizens with conventional and unconventional weapons?…In conclusion, the same high and mighty Western powers who created the monster that is Saddam Hussein owe a debt of honor to the people of Iraq, as well as to the people of the entire region, to disarm and remove him from power now. [Iran News, 2/17/03]Needless to say, this is not the position of the Iranian government.
War Talk from Kid Rock
From the NY Daily News:Kid Rock won't be joining the music industry's anti-war movement. "Why is everybody trying to stop the war? George Bush ain't been saying, 'You all, make s-y records.' Politicians and music don't mix. It's like whisky and wine. [Musicians] ought to stay out of it." But it doesn't take much nudging to hear the Kid's policy analysis. "We got to kill that mother-[bleeper] Saddam," he says. "Slit his throat. Kill him and the guy in North Korea." Are some women and children going to die? "Yeah. But is doing the right thing. You got money, you sit around talking about peace. People who don't have money need some help." [February 24, 2003]
Observation About the Left
Back in the 1980s the Left had the pretense of being pro-individual rights. They pushed for boycotts of apartheid South Africa, for example, to end the racist government. I contend that their motivation had nothing to do with individual rights (which they called "human rights"), but no matter. Right now we are facing one of the most brutal, literally fascist dictators on earth, and what is the Left's position? No war with Iraq.I just came back from the Grammy's. The altitude of my nosebleed seats wasn't enough to be safe from the anti-war shrapnel. The Left is showing it's colors well now. They don't give a damn about "human rights" abuses: if they did they would be screaming for us to "do something" to stop fascist Sadam.
They don't give a damn about a population living in terror, political prisoners being tortured, children being slaughtered to extract confessions from parents. The reality is the the Left values no individual human life. They value, instead, floating abstractions like "peace," "love for your brother," and "getting along." For the sake of those slogans, who cares if people die. That, dear readers, is the truth about the Left.--
Watch Gold
A brief quote from the February 24th edition of Richard Salsman's InterMarket Forecaster:[I]t is somewhat bizarre that economists, Fed officials and commentators in the financial media have been worrying about 'deflation' (a rise in the purchasing power of a currency) in recent years and months. Not only is deflation non-existent -- but if it did exist it would be bullish for equity performance. The bearish results seen in world stock markets since early 2000 have been due, in part, to an acceleration in inflation -- not to 'deflation.' The first sign of higher inflation came with the rise in the dollar-gold price that began in September 1999. That decline in the dollar versus gold was followed by a persistent rise in broad commodity prices...
A Nobel Prize for Anti-Americanism…I mean “Peace”
From today's Guardian:The French president, Jacques Chirac, has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to avoid a US-led war against Iraq, it emerged yesterday. The news came as Mr. Chirac was preparing, amid protests in Paris, to welcome the Zimbabwean [dictator], Robert Mugabe, and other controversial leaders to a two-day summit of African heads of state due to start today.
It also follows uproar in eastern Europe after he told former communist states hoping to join the EU that they had been "infantile" and "reckless" to support the US on Iraq. For someone who before his re-election nine months ago was widely seen as a charming chancer who had achieved nothing of note in a 40-year career and would be in prison were he not in the Elys¿e palace, Mr Chirac's return to the world arena has been spectacular.
[...] one western diplomat warned: "He's overplaying his hand. "The outburst against eastern Europe and the red carpet for Mugabe could lead people to doubt the sincerity of his stance on Iraq. Faced with such apparent double standards, you could legitimately start questioning his real motives."
Let's see he criticizes Bush for attempting to overthrow a dictator, and welcomes Robert Mugabe who follows in Saddam's footsteps. Given his actions, can Chirac's motives be any less clear? For more on Chirac's good friend Mugabe see Zimbabwe's Mugabe: Another Left-Wing Icon Turns Murderous.
Ben & Jerry
The leftist founders of Ben & Jerry's ice cream have an ad on TV in which they say that invading Iraq will cost too much money, which could instead be used on socialist programs here. No doubt B&J have noticed that Iraq is socialist, and what they're really saying is that instead of invading Iraq we should be more like Iraq.Too Bad Lieberman Changed His Mind
An article in the New York Sun today mentions a 1995 statement by Sen. Joe Lieberman in which he opposed affirmative action (found online at the New York Times' site):Affirmative action is dividing us in ways its creators could never have intended because most Americans who do support equal opportunity and are not biased don't think it is fair to discriminate against some Americans as a way to make up for historic discrimination against other Americans. For after all, if you discriminate in favor of one group on the basis of race, you thereby discriminate against another group on the basis of race. [New York Times, 2/8/00]Sounds good. But then, by August 2000 Lieberman was running for vice president and was quoted by CNN as saying "I have supported affirmative action, I do support affirmative action and I will support affirmative action." [Issues2000.org]
Making Spammers Pay
From ZDNet News, [2/20/03]:An Australian entrepreneur has created what may be the first antispam service that lets its users charge for the privilege of sending them e-mail....To make it work, the service needs to make it easy to add a list of people who will not be charged. The article has a lame comment by the chairman of the Electronic Frontier Foundation saying it would have a "chilling effect on speech"--which makes it clear he has no understanding of the First Amendment whatsoever.
"Spammers aren't going to be sending many spams to you if you charge them 50 cents," [Bernard] Palmer said. "A spam would cost them $2 million."
... At least in its current form, CashRamSpam is more of a "proof of concept" than it is a robust antispam solution. Anyone who wishes to contact a CashRamSpam customer must purchase an account themselves first, there is no provision to permit friends or colleagues, and the system does not permit legitimate mailing lists to which users voluntarily subscribe to bypass the payment process. CashRamSpam keeps 10 percent of a user's contact fee as its payment.
When someone tries to contact a CashRamSpam customer, a message is automatically returned saying: "We regret your message cannot be delivered using ordinary e-mail because the receiver has a CashRamSpam account...If you want to succeed in reaching this receiver please register at www.cashramspam.com and resend the message from there."
How Low Did Gore’s Team Go?
Here's one I've been holding onto for awhile. Here's a campaign tactic of the "count every vote" Gore team in the New Hampshire primary:As late as 3 p.m. that day, Gore operatives had access to exit polls showing the vice-president being defeated by Bradley. They also learned that while Democratic voters were voting in large numbers for Gore, independents, many of them upscale suburban voters, were voting for Bradley's sophisticated brand of liberalism. Knowing that Bradley's strength came from tony tech havens such as Bedford, the Gore team organized a caravan to clog highway I-93 with traffic so as to discourage potential Bradley voters from getting to the polls. (Michael Whouley, a chief Gore strategist, recounted the Gore team's Election Day field efforts at a Harvard Kennedy School Institute of Politics symposium, and his comments are included in a book compiled by the Institute titled Campaign for President: The Managers Look at 2000. He knocked down the rumor that they considered overturning an 18-wheeler to clog up traffic.) The caravan--spoken of with awe by operatives who worked on the campaign--had the desired effect. It was harder for Bradley voters to get the polls. [Boston Phoenix, 2/6/03]How's that for cynical?
The Anti-War Farce in Europe
The following letter was sent to the The Guardian <http://www.guardian.co.uk> by Dr B Khalafand. It was published on Friday February 14, 2003:I write this to protest against all those people who oppose the war against Saddam Hussein, or as they call it, the "war against Iraq". I am an Iraqi doctor, I worked in the Iraqi army for six years during Iraq-Iran war and four months during Gulf war. All my family still live in Iraq. I am an Arab Sunni, not Kurdish or Shia. I am an ordinary Iraqi not involved with the Iraqi opposition outside Iraq.
I am so frustrated by the appalling views of most of the British people, media and politicians. I want to say to all these people who are against the possible war, that if you think by doing so you are serving the interests of Iraqi people or saving them, you are not. You are effectively saving Saddam. You are depriving the Iraqi people of probably their last real chance get rid of him and to get out of this dark era in their history.
My family and almost all Iraqi families will feel hurt and anger when Saddam's media shows on the TV, with great happiness, parts of Saturday's demonstration in London. But where were you when thousands of Iraqi people were killed by Saddam's forces at the end of the Gulf war to crush the uprising? Only now when the war is to reach Saddam has everybody become so concerned about the human life in Iraq.
Where were you while Saddam has been killing thousands of Iraqis since the early 70s? And where are you are now, given that every week he executes people through the "court of revolution", a summary secret court run by the secret security office. Most of its sentences are executions which Saddam himself signs.
I could argue one by one against your reasons for opposing this war. But just ask yourselves why, out of about 500,000 Iraqis in Britain, you will not find even 1,000 of them participating tomorrow? Your anti-war campaign has become mass hysteria and you are no longer able to see things properly.
Locum consultant neurologist, London
Leonardo vs. the Unthinking Hordes
By now you probably have heard that thousands of people across the world have been demonstrating against war in Iraq today. Here in Manhattan, the number 100,000 keeps getting tossed around, but I have no idea how reliable it is. In general, the protestors have nothing to offer but cliched slogans and stale altruism; at best they are guilty of intellectual sloth, but the leaders are dishonest. The whole thing fills me with contempt and disgust.For my part, I went to see the drawings of Leonardo da Vinci at the Metropolitan Museum of Art (something else that would be lost if a nuclear bomb went off here--but then, the protesters don't take that threat seriously, and if it happens, they'll blame it on our belligerence). I didn't like having to compete with crowds at the exhibit, but it did remind me that there still are civilized people in the world.
According to the AP,
Other demonstrators supported the possibility of U.S. military action. About 1,000 demonstrators gathered on Manhattan's West Side, where 41-year-old George Sarris held a sign reading "Bomb Iraq." [Associated Press, 2/15/03]I wish I'd known; I would have stood with them.
Sanctions Against Zimbabwe Continue to Crumble
From the Daily Telegraph, 2/13/03:President Robert Mugabe was given permission yesterday to visit France in violation of a European Union travel ban, delivering a further blow to the crumbling sanctions policy against his regime in Zimbabwe....
In exchange, France agreed to renew sanctions against Zimbabwe's political elite for a second year. These include a freeze on assets, a travel ban and a weapons boycott.
Paris, which regards tensions between Britain and Zimbabwe as a post-colonial family spat, feared that other African leaders would boycott the summit unless Mr Mugabe was included....
Critics say the sanctions policy has already been rendered worthless because of waivers allowing banned Zimbabwe ministers to make almost weekly shopping trips to Brussels under the pretext of attending EU events.
Richard Perle Rules
This evening I attended a debate in Manhattan on the question "USA vs. Europe: Who's Right About the War on Terror?" The debate, hosted by the Donald & Paula Smith Family Foundation, featured Dieter Dettke, executive director of the Friedrich Ebert Foundation (a foundation run by the German Social Democratic Party), Michael Howard, a Tory member of the British Parliament, and Richard Perle, chairman of the Department of Defense's Defense Policy Board. The debate was quite civilized, especially for such a contentious issue.Dettke started by addressing the question directly: Who's right about the war on terror? His first answer was that nobody knows. His second answer was that in both Europe and the US, some are right and some are wrong, so the answer is both and neither. After that cognitively valueless introduction, he proceeded to explain the position of the German government by noting that Germany had started World War II; after the war the German constitution legally prohibits it from starting a war of aggression. He urged that we refrain from an unprovoked pre-emptive attack on Iraq, accepting the "power of law" instead of the "law of power." He did agree that Saddam Hussein must be disarmed, but proposed "coercive inspections" with more inspectors, combined with bringing Saddam before a war crimes tribunal. He said he believed Saddam could be "contained." Dettke came off as a pleasant, jovial fellow.
Michael Howard, a Cambridge man, was very good--clear and to the point--though too willing to accept the UN and humanitarian foreign policy. He noted that international law respects the right to pre-emptive self-defense: It has to, he said, because it has to recognize reality. He asked the audience to imagine a situation in which a world leader addressed his people after millions had died in an attack, saying: "I knew they had weapons of mass destruction; I knew they were likely to use them. And I could have done something to prevent this attack before it happened. But international law prohibited me from doing so."
Perle was magnificent. He was calm, sober, penetrating, clear, forceful, and had complete mastery of his subject. As far as I could tell, there wasn't even a whiff of altruism in anything he said. He pointed out that saying an attack on Iraq would be "unprovoked" depends on what you mean by "provoked"--that the Gulf War ended in a cease-fire, not a peace and that Saddam has violated the conditions of that cease-fire. He forcefully defended the appropriateness of pre-emptive action against Iraq, and exposed the absurdity of a UN "multilateralism" that subjects American security to the veto of France, Russia and China. He pointed out that, following the logic of the idea that Saddam could be contained, there would be no reason even to disarm him. The proposal of more inspections and a war crimes tribunal was exposed as empty and designed only to delay action. By the end of it all, he had Dettke drawing a largely incoherent distinction between "prevention" (e.g., what Israel did against the Iraqi reactor, which Dettke accepted) and "pre-emption," which Dettke did not accept. Perle is definitely someone to watch for.
Happy Valentine’s Day, Muslims!
Tehran--To celebrate Valentine's Day this year, Iranian police have been confiscating Valentine's cards and forcing businesses to remove the "Western" influenced heart-shaped decorations.
"They are opposed to love and affection," one infatuated Iranian teenager complained. "They don't want us to be happy because Valentine's Day promotes happiness." No, no, you silly girl. Shoving the barrel of an AK-47 into the face of a Hallmark vendor is just part of your charming, peaceful culture.
Just ask your friends on America's left coast.
Today, peace Nazis kicked-off a week of "resistance against war and racism" in shameless approval of oppressive Islamic regimes everywhere. The festivities began with a "Make Love Not War" benefit in San Francisco, where I'm sure your Iranian police pals would have been welcomed with open arms.
With any luck, they'll hold the next rally in downtown Tehran, where they can "feel the love" firsthand.
US-Based Dissident Grabbed by China
Reports the Daily Telegraph, [2/11/03]:A Chinese dissident who has lived in America for 20 years has been jailed for life in China, accused of terrorism and spying for Taiwan.
Wang Bingzhang, 55, a father of four, all of whom have American citizenship, was arrested in mysterious circumstances last summer while on a trip ostensibly to meet Chinese labour activists in Vietnam.
The Chinese authorities say he was kidnapped by a local gang and that police found him bound and gagged in a Buddhist temple in the southern Chinese province of Guanxi last July after he could not pay a £6.5 million ransom demand.
The Free China Movement, which represents Dr Wang's China Democracy and Justice Party in addition to other opposition groups abroad, says Chinese security agents kidnapped him in Vietnam and smuggled him across the border. Official media confirmed his arrest only in December, announcing that he was accused of selling defence secrets to Taiwan in the 1980s and of plotting terrorist attacks.
The charges were condemned as "trumped up" by the FCM.
Food Aid for North Korea
ROME (Reuters) - The United States is receiving reports that United Nations food aid for desperately hungry North Korean women and children is being eaten by the military instead, a senior U.S. official said Tuesday.
Of course it is, you "humanitarian" idiots.