New Sisyphus - PDX

TAP TAP Is This Thing On?

2010-10-04T12:34:00.002-07:00

Greetings all-

I stopped this blog because it's reason for being had ceased to be: I left the Foreign Service due to a medical issue.

I am happy to report that this medical issue has been resoved, I have returned to duty and am back at a life I had thought long lost to me.

I look forward to returning to regular posts here.

However, be warned: you host has changed quite a bit since you last saw him. Still, I hope you find the regular reports here interesting and engaging.

Which Sounds More Close To The Truth To You?

2008-05-07T13:46:00.000-07:00

A) Christopher Hitchens, "Still a Soixante-Huitard", City Journal:

The lowest form of solidarity, I remember reading somewhere, is generational. What do you have to do, after all, to qualify as a "baby boomer"? Membership in that vast sodality means that you were in your late teens or early twenties during the sixties: an underwhelming achievement that required no more than being able to say "present." As someone born in 1949, I prefer to consider myself not a mere sixties person but a soixante-huitard. If there didn't happen to be French argot for this, I would still want to answer to the name "sixty-eighter."

For me, this date-stamped association of memories and ideas and bygone struggles has almost nothing to do with the checklist recently evoked onscreen by Tom Brokaw, which ran the gamut from the Tet Offensive and the murder of Martin Luther King to the images of Haight-Ashbury and the mystic lyrics of Buffalo Springfield. That year was for me a rite of passage, a sort of ordeal, as well as a kind of joy and liberation.

Like most years and most decades, it didn't begin or end on strict calendar time. The sixties themselves didn't get started until at least 1963, and the psychodrama of 1968 arguably opened with the death of Che Guevara in the fall of 1967. I myself would argue that it began earlier, with the fascist military coup in Athens in April of that year and with the first strong manifestations of open dissent in Czechoslovakia. If you were a real political soixante-huitard, which meant that you were in one way or another related to the New Left, what you looked for and hoped for was a resistance to both the Eastern and Western "blocs." Sex, drugs, and rock and roll were strong options, but they were just that-optional. In my cohort, we kept our hair short and our demeanor non-psychedelic, the better to appeal to the workers at the factory gate, who, we thought, were about to see through the realm of illusion foisted upon them by a combination of consumerism and the Cold War.

Laugh all you like. You didn't see the workers in that French plant in 1968, rearranging the big letters of the factory owner's name (Berliet) so that the sign over the gate now read liberte. * * *

There are also soixante-huitards whose adventures are less well known and far from over. I have met them among the tiny minority, from Bosnia to Zimbabwe to Iraq, who have struggled to evolve a consistent antitotalitarian politics and to marry it to a thoroughgoing internationalism. One day, perhaps, their less glamorous story will also be told. The owl of Minerva, as Hegel put it, takes wing at dusk. Only at the close of an epoch can one begin to evaluate it. * * *

Or B) Cyril de Pins, "Mai 68 ou le vide en heritage," Causeur.fr?

We are the heirs of May 1968. It is indubitable. But we no longer see ourselves only in that light. Those, like myself, who were born after 1970, only inherited what was bequeathed to them by the preceding generation, the generation of those who were in their twenties during the springtime festivities regarded by so many as a revolution. And this heritage is indeed impoverished: it consists of a juvenile proclivity to publicly complain and denounce, of an unlimited and blind confidence in youth and in oneself, of a hatred of the principle of authority, and of a hateful rejection of the past.

The Communist Internationale said, "Let us make tabula rasa of the past." May 1968 and its lyrical little soldiers did just that, shouting: "Run, comrade, the old world is behind you."

The least one can say is that they pretty much succeeded: there is no longer a student who knows who Danton or Marat were, who can distinguish a Romanesque church from a wash house, or who can even say who Lenin and Mao were. Students today use history in the same way as their elders: history is good only insofar as it proposes imperfect rough drafts of our modernity.

* * *

Like all spoiled children, they destroyed what they received, what history had preserved for so long, those languages, those traditions, the instruction inherited from the Jesuits and spread by the Republic. They replaced all of that with their whims, their fantasies and by the memory of their youth.

* * *

We received only the narcissism of history's spoiled children and their "feel good" notions; we received no knowledge, no savoir-faire. Therefore, is it not up to our generation to judge the record of May 1968 and the actions of its participants, rather than the generation that has already done enough to deaden the minds of its descendants and deprive them of culture? But THEY are the only ones we hear! For forty years they are all we hear, as if France had begun with their shouts and their slogans; every day they strut, like veterans of a war, when in fact they are recent pensioners. The REAL resistance fighters, who owed their careers to their commitment, had both courage and modesty.

To merge my politics with my passion for MMO gaming:

omg, de Pins just totally pwned Hitchens.

The Idiocy of the United States Government, In One Picture Or Less

2008-04-25T08:20:00.000-07:00

Which Side Are You On? A Simple Test To Find Out

2008-03-04T14:57:00.001-08:00

A quiz:

Question One: Which of the following views on the fundamental nature of Islam presented by a president of the United States of America fits more closely with actual events and your own personal knowledge?

A) The View of President George W. Bush:

The Islam that we know is a faith devoted to the worship of one God, as revealed through The Holy Qur'an. It teaches the value and the importance of charity, mercy, and peace.

B) The View of President John Adams:

The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.

Question Two: Which of the following views on the advisability of negotiating in good faith with Muslims strikes you are more closing aligning with objective historic experience of such negotiations?

A) The View of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice:

Last week in Annapolis, the parties, Israelis and Palestinians, agreed to launch negotiations to establish a Palestinian state and to achieve a peace treaty by the end of the year -- by the end of 2008.

* * *

Most Palestinians now believe that Israel will always be its neighbor and that no Palestinian state will be born through violence. And for most Arab states, the question now is not whether Israel is going to exist, but on what terms to make peace with Israel.

B) The View of President John Adams:

Of Mahometan good faith, we have had memorable examples ourselves. When our gallant [Stephen] Decatur had chastised the pirate of Algiers, till he was ready to renounce his claim of tribute from the United States, he signed a treaty to that effect: but the treaty was drawn up in the Arabic language, as well as in our own; and our negotiators, unacquainted with the language of the Koran, signed the copies of the treaty, in both languages, not imagining that there was any difference between them. Within a year the Dey demands, under penalty of the renewal of the war, an indemnity in money for the frigate taken by Decatur; our Consul demands the foundation of this pretension; and the Arabic copy of the treaty, signed by himself is produced, with an article stipulating the indemnity, foisted into it, in direct opposition to the treaty as it had been concluded.

Question Three: Why is it that what passed as quite obvious common sense historically is now viewed as outlandish today, even when such "outlandish" views comport quite readily with observable reality?

A) Because previous generations possessed an oppressive and racist view of non-White, non-Christians, which distorted their views.

B) Because Liberalism is a lie and ideology that has blinded our leaders as sure as Marxist dogma blinded the men who used to stand on Lenin's Tomb.

Results:

If you answered "B" to all the above, congratulations. You may not know this, but you are a radical opponent of the institutions around you.

If you answered "A" to all the above, please do go back to sleep. Then again, maybe not. Perhaps you see rainbows and unicorns both while sleeping and while awake.

An Exchange With Lewy14

2008-02-26T13:40:00.002-08:00

My on-line friend and all around good guy Lewy14 and I recently exchanged posts at Discarded Lies. Since it captures many of the things I've been thinking about lately, I post the exchange here as well. Please do join the conversation.

KevinV (responding to a graph showing the incredible growth in box office receipts since the late 70s):

This graphic actually displays one of my main reasons for moving in my heart from pretty mainstream conservative to a more radical position.

When I was younger, I remember debating the market and culture with my friends on the Left and a few on the further Right. They always sounded paranoid to me and more than a little off-base. To my mind, the market operated within the bounds of accepted legal norms, social traditions and cultural markers that tended to mitigate its worst features.

Well, now that I'm older I've seen my own arguments in practice and, wow, was I wrong.

In fact, the market has run rough-shod over all of these things and is even now in the process of running right over my country's existence as a nation, in the name of cheap labor and retail sales.

Over the past three decades of my life, I've seen just about everything that I've cared deeply for or, in fact, loved, turn to shit by the famous invisible hand.

It didn't take the steroid scandal to see that baseball had run off the rails, with age old traditions tossed aside for the chance to market bad-ass baseball caps to gangsters. But, as the Wall St Journal will tell you, baseball has never been so healthy. Revenue and attendence are at record levels.

You didn't have to sit through the left-arty cliches and "Jon" Stewart's obnoxious smarminess last night at the Oscars to know that the movie industry is a mere shadow of what it once was. Yet, as this graph shows, business is booming.

It's the same in field after field. Restaurants are doing well but the food, atmosphere and service have never been worse. Governments have never had such fat budgets, but their ability to perform their duties is laughable. Schools have never been so well funded, and they educate next to nobody.

Across the board, the market has achieved levels of rationality and uniformity that have crushed any other voices, imposing a lowest-common demoninator outlook as the money men look to the next cultural atrocity to squeeze more dollars out of an increasinly brutalized marketplace.

Look at our TV shows, our movies, god forbid, our pop music: blood and criminal chic fairly oozes out of it all while the Davos-going businessmen behind it lecture us on global warming.

I don't know where it's headed, but I am no longer afraid or ashamed to say that I am an enemy of all of it and if I find a movement that makes sense and in which I can fight it, I will.

Lewy14:

Kevin, I can understand your frustration but I think you have the wrong culprit: the "root cause" is not the market but the general malaise (at best) and self hatred (typical) of America itself. There is no will to exist, no will to be. Howard Zinn won, we are bad, we need to go away.

Unless and until this changes, no amount of "market reform" (meaning coercive control over what you are allowed to buy and what you are allowed to sell, and at what price) is going to help the situation one bit.

If we rediscover what it means to be an American and actually desire to remain Americans, as opposed to post-martial European-style or the northernmost Latin American country or some kind of zoo where the crowd is angry and the Americans are on the inside, in cages, being laughed and cursed at--if we say no to all that and can remain ourselves, then the market isn't going to be an issue.

Consider Japan. They have a free market, but the collective behavior that permeates that market is cultural, organic, and not (always) legislated. The Japanese are, right now, looking into the abyss and figuring out whether they want to make it. I think they will. And in ten years Japan will be just as overrun with Hello Kitty and fancy cars and gadgets and everything else, but the people will be happier and the population will grow and they will have made a reckoning with history (not the one we'd have them make, to be sure), and they'll be a lot more confident and assertive on the world stage. Or not. But the market will have little effect.

I was going to do a point by point refutation of your list Kevin but I'll just say briefly that I don't see how the Government Budget or poor schools is the fault of the market, or how deprecation of the market culture is going to solve these problems.

Just what kind of "market reform" is going to restore our collective will?

KevinV:

In a sense, of course, you are exactly right: the market is merely a tool, a set of rules formatting the domain in which lawful economic activity may occur. In that sense, it makes no more sense to blame this particular tool for the things in our culture and national life that I despise than it would to curse the hammer I've dropped on my toe.

Put that tool in a different context of use--by the Japanese Civilization or, imagine, a revived American nation no longer radically alienated from itself--and its handiwork retains all altogether different character.

Of that, I have no doubt.

But even a most benign tool leaves marks of its passing and its constant use impacts the environment around it with its effects. In the case of free market capitalism, that effect is all around us.

Today, it is pretty much an academic consensus except amongst a few diehards that Marx was a bad political philospher and and an even worse economist. And so he is. But the man's works would not have had such a tremendous impact on our lives in the West and in the Orthodox Civilization unless he had at least a few truths to tell. Most of the Communist Manifesto is unreadable drivel, but on the impact of this particular tool, Marx hit that hammer square:

Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real condition of life and his relations with his kind.

The result is all around us. Men and women have been reduced to market units, trained from birth to size each other up on the basis of use and worth to self. Marketing has trained the vast majority of our countrymen to regard anything of more than a year's age as "history," meaning, useless, to be disregarded. What was shocking yesterday is commonplace today and will soon be replaced my something even more "shocking" to get our attention (and our dollars).

In this environment, the very sinews of traditional life are nigh on impossible, the comforts earlier generations derived from living right, according to recognized values, is fading quickly.

Have you ever wondered why the criminal is so popular now? Gangster films, gangster television shows, gangster rap, gangster fashion?

Because the gangster is liberal democratic capitalism's last man, its most perfect creation: freed from anything other than an unerring sense for the relative values of commodities—-be they drugs, clothing or women—-the gangster buys low and sells high, taking what he wants. On what basis is he to be opposed?

Morality? Whose? Where can you buy it?

Tradition? Whose?

The word honor has long since had not any meaning to most, and walks around like a chicken with its head cut off thanks to the last remnants of the Jacksonians still with us in the (mostly) European-American middle class.

Idiocracy is not our future; it is here.

A Fight, Not An Argument

2008-02-04T15:52:00.000-08:00

NRO's Lisa Schiffren writes at the Corner:

Hillary and the Newest Immigrants [Lisa Schiffren]

Given Hillary's feminism — it would be clever to keep on highlighting the all too true consequences of escalating Islamic immigration. Hispanic immigration may just look like new votes to her. But what about the story Kathryn linked to below, about the powerlessness of the British welfare state to deny benefits to second and third wives? No feminist of Hillary's generation will find that bigamy tolerable — even if they want to increase the reach of the welfare state. Indeed, no woman of Hillary's marital history will find that tolerable either. Hillary is bound to react with extreme disgust — as all right-minded people do — to the importation of nice rituals like genital mutilation and honor killing. Keep the focus on the next immigrants rather than the last ones, and she will want to slow it down too.

This entry prompted me to write the following email to Ms. Schiffren, which makes a point about the key line dividing today's mainstream conservatives and those of us who have realized, against our wishes in many cases, that the nature of the current crisis does not allow for mainstream anything:

More and more lately, as I'm reading the Corner, I've begun to feel like one cynical, reactionary radical. Steyn complains about the human rights commission's actions in Canada and asks why no liberal/left folks are worried about the opressive precedent and I think "of COURSE they're not worried Mark, they exist to shut you up and criminalize rightist thought, of COURSE this doesn't worry the left." Mark Kirkorian says that people are trying to make a distinction between free speech and "hate speech" and points out how dangerous to free discourse this is and I think "yes, that's the point. See Steyn, Mark, Legal Troubles Of."

And then I read your above-entitled post in which it appears to me that you are under the misguided impression that feminism has something to do with the legal rights of women. It does not. It was, is and will remain a club upon which to strike certain European political and legal traditions and nothing else.

I am sure you have noticed--have you not?--the profound silence in the official feminist movement regarding the status and treatment of women by the Taliban. I am positive you have remarked upon the absence of stories in the New York Times about the targeting of young, female students in Iraq. I know you are intelligent enough to have realized that the treatment of women by men in the Sudan is not nearly on the same scale of importance as how women are treated on U.S. college campuses.

There are only two possibilities here: either the feminist movement has simply over-looked matters central to them to which conservative writers need only to bring to their attention to get the press releases humming, or they don't give a good god-damn about women in any of these places and, in any case, they're probably about cultural traditions that we, as Westerners, are not well-placed to criticize.

Again, at the risk of sounding like a radical, I think the time has long since passed that NRO and other conservative journals of opinion begin recognizing that we are not engaged in a debate, but a fight. Human rights law is all about criminalizing alternative points of view. Victim's groups and other race-and-gender based organizations are about tearing down the West, not criticizing Muslims.

Until we stop acting like our adversaries are merely misguided people who need to be argued to their senses and start fighting as if they mean to take our liberties away from us, we're nothing more than sheep who bleat a bit more than most as the wolves circle.

A Partial Response to Evariste

2008-01-21T14:56:00.000-08:00

Over at the wonderful Discarded Lies website, a sort of virtual second home to me, a place whose regulars form the only kind of parliament I'm interested in keeping my good name with, co-proprietor Evariste has posted a very heart-felt piece, asking the sort of fundamental questions that all good people of whatever political stripe should be asking themselves in these dangerous times. I won't quote the whole piece (I encourage you strongly to read it all) but it seems to me that Evariste's main point is here:

So what's a guy like me supposed to do? Keep reading New Sisyphus and VFR and fuming about everything? Why are there no serious leaders with serious thoughts and substance any more? I guess people like me are doomed to a lifetime in political wilderness, railing against a system that doesn't notice and doesn't care. They're buffoons on the left and buffoons on the right, and they're all my enemy because they're the enemy of my country. You know how Ahavat Yisrael is a mitzvah for Jewish people? Love of one's fellow Jews and Israel? Why don't we have any politicians who have Ahavat America and Americans? Isn't it crazy that so many of our politicians were declaring us to be racists and rednecks, who need to be shut up, when we got mad about the illegal immigration amnesty bill they were trying to railroad through? What's so horrible about liking being American and liking America and wanting to preserve it? Why doesn't anyone in power truly love America, Americans, and American ideas? Why are our leaders a bunch of jetsetting citizens of the world who want to rule Mexicans and Somalis instead of Americans? Can we toss them out and get some American leaders instead?

This is indeed the main question facing America today. It is a tribute to his insightful style that Evariste has nailed the issue directly, rather than dance around it as most do.

The key to understanding this issue and how it is now playing out before our eyes is to understand the tragic substitution of the central conception of America as a nation and as a polity that was a largely unintended and unanticipated consequence of the Liberal Revolution of 1968, arising from out of the Cold War context.

Okay, so the answer isn't snappy. So sue me. It's clunky and it's complex, but it also happens to be true, to the best of my ability to discern the truth of the matter. I leave it up to you to decide on that point. I compel no one. Yet.

To properly explain my response I would need a book-length affair with academic footnotes and sociological studies, so I won't even try to properly explain it. Instead, I'll just outline what I think is going on here with appeals here and there to facts or phenomena that I move the court to take judicial notice of.

WWI destroyed the self-confidence of the West and introduced into its affairs a deep, and reasonable, fear of the fires of nationalism. The unresolved matters of that horrific war led directly to the next, which further sullied the good name of nationalism. It also had the rather interesting side-effect of leaving the United States as the Last Man Standing.

Now, not just any nation could have fulfilled the role of Last Man Standing, so it's not entirely correct to note it as the whimsical outcome of fortune. Had, say, Belgium emerged from the War relatively unscathed it still would not have been up to the role. But given the US' economic, political and military might, its heritage, its traditions and its international position, the US was the de facto leader of the Western World at the conclusion of the affair.

But it was not the leader of the world. In what was once the Orthodox world, a competitor state, the Soviet Union, made a play for global dominance.

The resulting Cold War is well-known, as is its global reach. The standard operating procedure was a fight for influence among the various peoples of the world, not the least in Europe herself, which required American officials to quickly leave behind the parochial concerns of places like Iowa or Montana for exciting new places like Greece and Viet-nam.

The result was the internationalization of the government of the United States, NSC-68 and the USG's wholesale transformation into an instrument of global responsibility. Not for nothing does the Department of Defense divide, not the U.S., but the entire world into "commands." Or does it not strike you as odd that the U.S. Army should have a command with "responsibility" for Africa or East Asia?

This much, at least, is well-known and unremarkable. I hope to this point it is also relatively uncontroversial.

It was this new out-ward looking, leader-of-the-free-world version USG that stumbled into the 1960's and the Western-world-wide Liberal Revolution. We may talk of Dr. King on this day, or of a struggle for civil rights, but the fact is that this Revolution was universal across the West, a replay of 1848 with better communications and media.

The roots of this sea change in law, politics and morals are well-known and not worth repeating here. What I'm after here is how they fused with the new internationalized USG forged from the fires of the Cold War.

The dominant feature of the Liberal Revolution was to make equality and non-discrimination not a feature of our political life but the organizing principle of political life. Whereas once it was alright for minorities to be minorities and for the majority to be dominant while tolerant, now the state was given all sorts of new powers to go into the institutions of majority dominance and dismantle them.

The USG's internationalized responsibilities began to reflect the internalized values of the Liberal Revolution. That is, as the USG now looked at all of its citizens as exact equals it began to apply that same outlook to its foreign charges as well.

The end result is a world we are all familiar with: one in which there is no issue that the United States is not directly responsible for and for which it must or should have used its powers to ensure the absence of nationalist or racial conflict, i.e. to enforce equality. Thus, even remote racial conflicts, like that of Rwanda, become over time a failure of the United States and not at all the responsibility of Rwandans or, God forbid, the Europeans.

The twin internationalizing pressures of the Cold War and the Liberal Revolution produced, therefore, a transformation in the self-image of America and Americans. Rather than being a specific people with a specific history, we are now an ideal to which anyone can adhere to, a proposition nation that could be filled with anything or assume any responsibility and still be America.

In order for any leader to speak of reversing this and restoring the America-that-was, that leader would have to do two, equally unthinkable things: 1) he would have to renounce American world leadership and put an end to the culture of international dependence it has fostered; and 2) he would have to confront and take issue with all the central assumptions of the Liberal Revolution. And he would have to do this while every institution of any heft-academic, cultural, social and political-have already long-since transformed themselves to hew to the twin revolutions in American affairs of the 50's and 60's.

In short, such a leader would not only have to take on the entire establishment as we know it, he would even lack a readily-accessible rhetoric in which to couch his opposition.

The end result is that the political and social realm is left ceded to those who accept its dominant characteristics while minority malcontents like me might as well be speaking in a dark room at night, alone.

It is my belief (okay, you got me: hope), however, that this situation cannot long endure. The inherent strains in the internationalist mind-set run up against two immovable objects.

The first, is the reality of civilizational conflict in the international realm. As Huntington has demonstrated conclusively, foreign affairs follow a quite predictable civilizational paradigm and any attempt to build bridges is futile. After all this time, East is East and West is (still) West.

The second, is the reality of human nature in the national realm. All these kind words about civil rights, diversity and equality and European-Americans are still quite aware of who they are, who they want their kids in school with and where they are going to live.

In order to damp down the conflicts that the denial of these two immovable objects will continue to throw up, the USG will have to fight ever more ridiculous wars, take on ever more onerous responsibilities, impose ever more regulations on its people, take on ever more tyrannical powers to compel adherence to the dictates of diversity.

This state of affairs cannot last forever.

Inevitably, there will come a crisis and it is at that time that the construction of a rhetoric of alternatives will become possible. Possible, mind you, not inevitable.

Until then, Evariste, we are men without leaders, partisans without a party, countrymen without a country.

And we wait.

That Mexican Sense of Entitlement Needs To Be Shoved Somewhere

2008-01-21T13:53:00.000-08:00

One of the most interesting things about the relationship between the United States of America, which is, by the way, a real country in North America with real citizens and not, say, a dreamy ideal that millions around the world aspire to, and Mexico is the shameless level of Mexico's sense of entitlement to all things Estadounidense.

Typically, it's Mexico this and Mexico that, flag waving, red-white-and-green and Our Lady of Guadalupe stickers, but say one cross word and they get this quite funny hurt look on their face--threaten the river of gold flowing their way and all of a sudden we're all amigos and one big happy familia and can't we just all get along?

It's funny when it's not pathetic, but at times the smug Mexican sense of entitlement boils over into the outrageous.

Of course, our so-called leaders are in part responsible for encouraging these periodic displays of Mexican helplessness. It's gotten so bad that it is routine for high-ranking members of the Mexican government to issue statements or make speeches about US domestic affairs, even to sometimes summon our diplomats for lectures on our responsibilities. All of which we smile and take.

In case you think I exaggerate, please direct your attention to the following report from the Tuscon Citizen (Gannett-owned, local Tuscon, mainstream paper) about visiting Mexican legislators who are, er, a bit put-out by Arizonans presuming to pass legislation affecting the State of Arizona:

Sonoran officials slam sanctions law in Tucson visit

A delegation of nine state legislators from Sonora was in Tucson on Tuesday to say Arizona's new employer sanctions law will have a devastating effect on the Mexican state.

At a news conference, the legislators said Sonora - Arizona's southern neighbor, made up of mostly small towns - cannot handle the demand for housing, jobs and schools it will face as illegal Mexican workers here return to their hometowns without jobs or money.

The law, which took effect Jan.1, punishes employers who knowingly hire individuals who don't have valid legal documents to work in the United States. Penalties include suspension or loss of a business license.

Its intent is to eliminate or curtail the top draw for immigrants to this country - jobs.

The Mexican delegation, members of Sonora's 58th Legislature, belong to the National Action Party (PAN), the party of Mexico's president, Felipe Calderon.

They spoke at the offices of Project PPEP, a nonprofit that provides job retraining for farmworkers and other programs. [Translation: Mexican activists]

The lawmakers were to travel to Phoenix for a Wednesday breakfast meeting with Hispanic legislators. [Translation: Latino legislators elected by the people of Arizona are openly, and expectedly, working on behalf of their racial brothers, i.e. Latino elected officials in America occupy a completely different political space then their European-American colleagues...ask youself: why?]

They want to tell them how the law will affect Mexican families on both sides of the border.

"How can they pass a law like this?" asked Mexican Rep. Leticia Amparano Gamez, who represents Nogales.

"There is not one person living in Sonora who does not have a friend or relative working in Arizona," she said in Spanish.

You said it, lady.

Note that she also presumes to deliver her lecture in Spanish.

Nothing will change in Mexico until the border is drawn sharply, both physically and, more importantly, mentally.

Mexican smug self-satisfaction and sense of entitlement notwithstanding, the day we forthrightly tell these people that we are not responsible for them in any way, shape, manner or form is they day they, perhaps, grow up and take responsibility for their failed state.

Or not. I'm not holding my breath.

I'm just waiting for someone to come along and shove that offensive sense of entitlement right up their Mexican asses.

Today's Conservative Outrage

2008-01-18T11:48:00.000-08:00

One of the things that is most tiring about being right-wing in modern America is having to put up with the conservative press' "outrage piece o' the day" in which some lame example of PC or thoughtless government action is held up as confirmation that We Are The Way and The Truth.

It's just as tiresome as the Left's similar process and no more enlightening.

But what really gets me is when it betrays the type of blindness that today's Liberal-Right has become famous for.

Take NRO for example. Today it and much of the right-of-center blogosphere is focusing on the latest weasel words out of the mouth of a British minister. The report setting off the fury is as follows:

Government renames Islamic terrorism as 'anti-Islamic activity' to woo Muslims

Ministers have adopted a new language for declarations on Islamic terrorism.

In future, fanatics will be referred to as pursuing "anti-Islamic activity".

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said that extremists were behaving contrary to their faith, rather than acting in the name of Islam.

Security officials believe that directly linking terrorism to Islam is inflammatory, and risks alienating mainstream Muslim opinion.

Of course, what's actually interesting about this is not the well of outrage it is supposed to invoke, but that, so far as I know, not one of the oh-so-conservative commentators has bothered to point out that this minister is saying absolutely nothing that has not been the oft-stated policy of President George Bush and the Government of the United States from almost the moment the Twin Towers were felled.

As President Bush said upon rushing immediately to a mosque after the attacks of 9.11.

Remarks of the President before the Islamic Center of Washington, D.C., September 17, 2001:

Like the good folks standing with me, the American people were appalled and outraged at last Tuesday's attacks. And so were Muslims all across the world. Both Americans and Muslim friends and citizens, tax-paying citizens, and Muslims in nations were just appalled and could not believe what we saw on our TV screens.

These acts of violence against innocents violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith. And it's important for my fellow Americans to understand that.

The English translation is not as eloquent as the original Arabic, but let me quote from the Koran, itself: In the long run, evil in the extreme will be the end of those who do evil. For that they rejected the signs of Allah and held them up to ridicule.

The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don't represent peace. They represent evil and war.

This is no different in substance from what the Home Secretary has said.

But don't expect today's blinkered "conservatives" to notice, let alone tell you that.

A Response to Babs

2008-01-17T14:21:00.000-08:00

NOTE: The following comment of mine first appeared in the comments to the post below, but since it touches upon a point that I feel is central to understanding not only where I am coming from but where we as a people are I thought to re-post it on its own:

It is true that those of us who have left those areas of the US that have already experienced massive Mexican and Central American immigration constitute a type of vanguard. We can point to our experiences with our new neighbors and argue against the Mexicanization of our new homes.

At times, this argument seems strong. After all, it is an easy thing to go to a school board just considering adopting bilingual education and point to the fact that California and Arizona tried it, it failed and it was abolished.

Ultimately, however, such arguments are bound to fail given the lack of any counter-narrative for a right-wing political movement to appeal to for American authenticity. Right now, the entire political culture is captured by liberalism. It is a necessary pre-requisite to winning such battles that there be seen to exist an alternative story, an alternative rhetoric that has cultural and political acceptance.

Going back to my biligual example above, no matter how good the facts are, the reviewing officials, the credentialed experts they will rely on, the educational establishment and the educational unions all will offer a much-stronger counter-narrative. One of inclusiveness, service, community-outreach, etc., that will prevail at the end of the day.

I know that you have interpreted such comments from me in the past as a type of fatalism, that we're bound to lose.

In a way, I plead guilty as charged, in the same I way I feel sure in saying that, given the current rules structure and environment in the modern NBA, me and my four closest friends are sure to lose if we play the Lakers.

The key to eventual victory is to realize that we are not in a reform or movement era. Arguments, facts, examples, questions will not suffice.

We are in a revolutionary era, one that requires the birth and construction of a new nationalist political party and movement which has the will to disobey and the guts to not only disregard the rules, but to mock them. Until then, there is no point in fighting City Hall.

As I never tire of telling people: The FBI sends its agents to CAIR fund-raisers.

Until we truly grasp what that means and act accordingly, we conservatives are just sheep that bleat slightly louder than the rest.

Any Town, Oregon

2008-01-14T07:58:00.000-08:00

-- There is a sound wall now along Highway 26 right on the Beaverton-Hillsboro border that I pass by every day. When it was first built I was saddened because I began to see how the concrete walls of my former hometown, L.A., came to be. You see, a new housing development was going in and, as it was right up against a freeway, and as freeways are astonishingly loud creatures, whoever it was that gave approval for the development required a sound wall. It's long, high and grey and goes only so far as the development does. After that, mercifully, it's back to open fields and trees with occasional "improvements," though I'm sure that will be put to an end, sooner rather than later.

About three months ago I noticed at the end of the wall brand new Mexican gang graffiti. Whoever was responsible for the wall had it painted over. It left an off-grey smudge on the wall, still ugly, but the gang statement was painted over.

Waste of time and effort, I thought, but, hey, this is all new to these Oregonians. No doubt they have many lessons coming their way.

About a week later, the same gang graffiti appeared in the same, exact location. A few days later, it was covered up again with another coat of off-color grey.

Then again.

And again.

And then again.

Last week, I noticed the gang graffiti again. I waited for the wall owner's response. To date, there has not been one.

Like water on stone until the stone becomes nothing more than brittle powder. Again and again and again and again.

-- There is an Albertson's by my house that I don't go to anymore. Why? Because it's across the border. Don't bother looking, you won't find it on any map, but this border is written in the hearts of my neighbors and colleagues. They won't call it the "border," of course, and they'll deny its existence if you press them on it (until you get a few drinks in them, at any rate), just like they'll deny the phrase "we're looking for a house in a good school district" doesn't mean what it clearly means.

But that doesn't mean the border isn't there.

One day, a few weeks ago, I was driving by and had, by chance, an urgent need to pick something up at the store. It was a pain to drive by a perfectly good store, so I pulled in against my better judgment.

I got out of the car and got one kid out. Then another. I was reaching for kid number three (the last kid) when up pulled next to me a souped-up Nissan. Five Mexican teen-agers got out. Long white t-shirts. Oversized jeans/pants. Gold ropes. Black baseball caps with my grandfather's beloved Dodger's logo on them (MLB approved their sale in black, to increase market share; yet another sell out by those privileged to lead). Alarm bells went off.

Lots of kids in my arms.

I go into the store. I get my thing. I come out. Car is gone, as are teenagers, as is my car's maker's logo, pried off my trunk.

Translation: This ain't your store no more, White-ass prick. And whatcha gonna do about it?

All store signs in Albertson's are now bilingual.

-- Dateline: Anytown, Oregon:

Talk to anyone who knows [Local High School] Assistant Principal [Latina Woman], and you'll hear the same words: She is an inspiring, dedicated role model and advocate. Since arriving in Anytown at age 15 with her father and six siblings, [Latina Woman] has achieved one distinction after another, most recently being selected to serve on the Anytown City Council.

* * *

The District Strategic Plan of 2000-2005 opened a new door for [Latina Woman] when the Office of Hispanic Outreach was created to better address the needs of the growing Hispanic population.

"The reason she was selected as Director was her strong connections with the community," says another of her mentors, Deputy Superintendent [Latino Man - completely a coincidence, you understand]. "Residing in the community, she has her fingers on the pulse. She knows the families, the businesses, and the agencies that work in the Latino community. She built alliances and relationships that have strengthened the District. It's through her effort that the Office of Hispanic Outreach has been recognized as a national model."

Same old story I saw in L.A. Race-conscious Latinos working the system and advocating for their people while European-Americans are so scared of their own shadow they don't even acknowledge they are a people.

-- My wife decides to take our children to the new local parks and recreation department public swimming pool. It's the "Aquatic Center." When she arrives, she is greeted in Spanish and told to pay $5 a head. As she's fishing for cash or a debit card, all these "Latino" families come piling in, waving pale yellow cards at the officials demanding my wife and children pay.

My wife asks what they are and are told that they are free passes given out to "disadvantaged youth."

-- Despite lavish local parks and recs facilities, a local private club, which offers the same exact parks and recreational facilities offered for vastly reduced prices by the local government parks and recs department, is doing booming business. It's got a steep entry fee, but we've found a lot of our friends and neighbors are members.

Care to guess why?

-- From the Anytown, Oregon Police Department web-site:

Goal :

To reduce the length of time graffiti is visible in Anytown by educating the public about proper removal. We will educate community groups about reducing repeat graffiti through prompt removal.

Strategies :
. Educate community about reducing the reoccurrences of graffiti in neighborhoods.
. Translate educational material in Spanish.
. In addition to ongoing removal, arrange for an annual city-wide graffiti removal.
. Engage youths in graffiti removal.

a building, fence, and other properties by engaging civilian volunteers to participate in the process of graffiti removal. Through community education, we will educate our citizens to first report the graffiti to police and then remove the graffiti within 72 hours

Historically, grafitti has been an ongoing problem in the City of Anytown. We know that graffiti or "tagging" seems to increase during the spring and summer months. The reasons for graffiti ranges from bored kids to gang-related behavior by "marking areas" with graffiti that identifies a particular gang.

No.

Historically, Anytown has not had an on-going problem with grafitti. It's all part of the re-write of our history. Everything has always been thus, so shut up about it and get to painting over this grafitti!

-- Dateline, City-Next-To-Anytown, Oregon:

It was the first ripple of gang-related activity in town in a number of years - and Neighboring School District, local law enforcement officials and county gang experts are determined to squelch it.

They're attacking the issue with a combination of community awareness - holding parent forums at local schools - and extra-vigilant policing.

One such meeting, called "Gangs in Our Community," drew 150 parents and community members to school Nov. 16 to hear from county gang experts.

Presenters included [Latino Name One], a juvenile counselor; [Latino Name Two] of the Anytown County Sheriffs Office and [Latino Name Three] of the county Interagency Gang Enforcement Team.

Presented in Spanish and translated into English, the information was aimed at helping the largely Latino crowd understand the "gang mentality" and learn ways to dissuade their teens from joining, said [Hapless White Guy Name], assistant superintendent.

"The most important thing for all of us is our children, and that's why we're here," [Hapless White Guy Name] told the audience of mostly-Latino parents.

"We want to hear more about how to keep our kids safe."

Well, the game's pretty much given up here in this little local news story, isn't it? How this little nugget of reality happened to slip by the censors is beyond me. Latino public administrators and Latino police officers at a public school lecturing Latino parents in Spanish about how their kids are overwhelmingly in Latino gangs, which are new to Neighboring Town and, well, you wouldn't exactly be shocked if I told you that this once sleepy town is now seeing an exodus of certain, tax-paying individuals of a certain hue, now, would you?

Coming up next are headlines like this: "Dwinding Tax Base Cited As Need For More Direct State Funding of Neighboring Town School District" and "Local Boy, 15, Shot Dead At Late-Night Party."

-- The ads in the bus stops and benches changed last month. They are now uniformly for Latino radio stations, in Spanish.

But we drive on, to our jobs and our families. We have bills to pay, after all. Two sets, actually. The first for the "public" officials and infrastructure described above and the second for the alternative "private" institutions we've fled to.

And no one has the simple courage to stand up and say simply "no."

No.

No to the Mexicanization of our people, our communities and our culture.

Because that would be wrong.

So, shut up and keep those checks rolling.

The Paradox (Re-Post)

2008-01-03T16:46:00.000-08:00

Ladies and gentlemen: As I come to terms with the end of a very busy work season and begin a new year, I have more than a few ideas about what I want to do with my poor, neglected blog. A word of explanation: When I stopped writing on this site some time ago, I really felt that I needed to stop. Then, of course, I decided that I needed to write. In the interim, however, my readership dropped dramatically. My fault.

Then, as I began to change my political views, I got the idea to morph this site into a new one, the New Nationalist. However, a friend pursuaded me that my reasoning for doing this--that is, this blog was started when I was an FSO and an officer of the President and it is unseemly for such a person to blog under the same title and name when taking exceptional offense to that same President even if the commission is resigned--was not sound. I returned. And my readership dropped even more dramatically. Again, my fault and my apologies.

When I re-launch, and re-launch I shall, it will be with new features and some new ideas. And I won't make the same mistakes again.

In the meantime, I present one of my favorite old NS posts: The Paradox. Please do let me know what you think.

-- KevinV

Some weeks ago I found myself in an intense debate about our government's tactics in the Iraq War with some of the folks over at Little Green Footballs. The debate was far-reaching but soon evolved into a simple dispute. I argued that the Bush team's over-zealous love affair with elections and confusion of the concepts of the majority and democratic legitimacy had caused it to neglect its natural allies in Iraq in favor of a misguided strategy that requires the U.S. to enter combat on behalf of something called the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the leading group of the coalition that won parliamentary elections there. My point was that in fighting for democracy in an occupation the occupying forces cannot waste time with anti-democratic forces, even if they are the majority.

To say that this view provoked incredulity is an understatement. "Democracy means majority rule, you moron!" was the kindest reply my point of view elicited. Again and again, I was told that elections are the root of democracy and majority support the only source of democratic legitimacy.

That, of course, is hogwash of the highest source, the type of simplistic thinking that has led us so far astray in our struggle to introduce liberty in the Islamic world. I could spend half my day setting forth my reasoning and argue in detail, but I'd rather tell you a story. A story with a moral, a point that will make my case for me, but an entertaining story nonetheless. It's a story I've been thinking rather a lot about recently and one I think is under-noticed in the noise and fury of the history of the West.

It is a story about France. Forgive me if you know some of the detail here, but this sketch will assume the reader knows nothing of French history save the barest outline. Let us begin:

France under the ancien regime was ruled by the kings of the Bourbon dynasty. You've probably heard of the greatest of them, a king by the name of Louis XIV who ruled France from 1643 to 1715, an astonishing 72 years. Often misleadingly called "absolute" kings, the Bourbons actually had to deal with a tangle of ancient bodies, differing rights of certain classes (especially with regard to taxation), a mess of differing offices and posts and the claims of the guilds. In any case, the king ruled in a very real sense, appointing ministers of state, conducting foreign affairs and war and granting titles and rank.

One day, way back in 1789, the French decided that they had had enough of kings and had a revolution. Not surprisingly, this event is known as the French Revolution. The Revolution ushered in a new, democratic form of government with an elected body of legislators called the Republic. This government, known nowadays as the First Republic, went through an ever-more-authoritarian series of executives, moving from the Convention to the Directory to the Consulate, until a man named Napoleon Bonaparte was leading the nascent Republic in battle on all fronts and throughout Europe. The First Republic ruled from 1792 to 1804.

Eventually, Bonaparte formalized his personal rule and the First Republic gave way to the First Empire (note that the "firsts" came much later; at the time no one though there would be more of them). The First Empire ruled from 1804 until 1814 when Napoleon's enemies finally defeated the great general and banished him.

Europe was then ruled by monarchies, so it's no surprise that the victorious allies imposed on a war-weary France a return to the old ways. This event was called the Restoration and it involved a return to the Bourbon monarchy in the person of Louis XVIII and, later, Charles X. The restored Bourbons ruled France from 1814-1830, with a tiny scare from a returning Napoleon thrown in for historical drama.

Charles X was an intensely traditional man, however, and his steadfast refusal to acknowledge that the world had changed since the Revolution brought the monarchy into a bad light. More and more Frenchmen saw it as a relic and an unresponsive one at that. So, some good people got the idea to bring the monarchy into the modern era by ushering in a more constitutional form of government. One of the good guys who led this march was none other than Lafayette, the great French hero of our own revolution in 1776.

The result was the overthrow of the Bourbons and their replacement by the rival royal family, the Orleans. The new king was named Louis-Philippe or, as he sometimes styled himself in proper republican style, "Louis-Egalite." This new quasi-British constitutional monarchy is called the July Monarchy and it ruled France from 1830 to 1848.

The liberal monarchy, however, was not enough to stop the tide of renewed revolutionary fervor that hit Europe in 1848. The republicans took to the streets and tossed the monarch out, instituting the Second Republic. The Second Republic ruled France from 1848-1852.

The presidency of the Second Republic was won by a Bonaparte, this one the great emperor's nephew. You won't be surprised at this point to learn that Bonaparte tossed off the republican mask in 1852 and re-installed the empire. The result was the Second Empire, which ruled France from 1852 to 1870.

In 1870, Prussia invaded France in a war that went very, very badly for the new emperor. The Second Empire fell like a house of cards, leading to the establishment of the Third Republic.

In a period of less than eighty years, within a long-lived man's lifetime, France was ruled by the First Republic, the First Empire, the Bourbon Monarchy, the July Monarchy, the Second Republic, the Second Empire and then the Third Republic. There was no reason to suspect in 1870 that the life span of the Third Republic would be anything other than a handful of years.

Then, an amazing thing happened: the merry-go-round stopped. The new government signed a peace deal with the Prussians, suppressed the rival revolutionary Paris Commune government and her sister communes, rallied the republicans to its banner and unified the nation. France had lost Alsace and Lorraine, but found a government it could live with. From the crushing defeat of 1870, the initially wobbly Third Republic found its legs and, with each passing decade, it's rule become more and more normal, more and more expected, more and more quite simply just the way things are. Memories of kings and emperors dimmed.

The legislature was elected by a suffrage more or less popular, and the head of state was an elected President. In short, the government of the Third Republic was a creature we would today recognize as democratic. Its power derived from the ballot box, its authority from common consent, its laws from a democratic parliament, its force backed by popular sovereignty.

The horrific shock of World War I did not budge the Third Republic from its perch. Despite the occupation of much of the French countryside and the horrific losses inflicted on the French people, the Third Republic endured. Elections at all levels went on, governments rose and fell according to parliament's wishes and make-up. And, when the great ordeal was over, not only was it still standing, the Third Republic was victorious.

Year after year, government after government, the Third Republic went on, establishing once and for all the principle that, for the French, the republic is the form of government that divides them the least. France was, at last, and after so much struggle, a democracy in its soul and not just in name.

In the 1930's, the government of France was presented with the growing threat of Nazi Germany and, like their British counter-part, was divided on how best to meet that threat. Many advocated a policy of caution combined with a defensive posture. A few, war-mongers with names like Churchill and DeGaulle, advocated rapid re-armament and military confrontation with the then-young Third Reich, but they were out-voted and not in favor. In any case, the normal democratic process held in France right up to the start of World War II.

In September, 1939, Germany invaded Poland and both Britain and France declared war. You probably know what happened next: Germany conquered Poland, took Denmark and Norway and then, in May, 1940, a mere eight months from the blitzkrieg that overran Poland, Hitler invaded France itself. France's darkest hour had come.

The French government directed the conduct of that war, of course. Elected and appointed ministers directed control of the national defense effort and the French military was solidly under civilian control. To summarize: at the outbreak of WWII, the French were ruled by a democratic government that had, by French standards, an incredible pedigree of stability and legitimacy.

Now, the story is going to get a little more complicated from here on out. I'll simplify things quite a bit, and some of the detail will thus be lost, but for the most part the story is straight forward. Here goes:

The war was not looking good for the French. The new German doctrine of armored warfare proved its effectiveness on the battlefield and simply went past the French system of fortified defenses. Within a few days the Germans outran their line of greatest advance in WWI and threatened Paris itself. Everywhere in France the roads were packed with fleeing refugees and, even more pitiful, fleeing soldiers.

At this time the French prime minister (so-called in English because that term lets us understand his role; in French he is officially the president of the council of ministers) was a man of impeccable republican credentials by the name of Paul Reynaud. Reynaud was a known advocate of the hawkish tendency when it came to matters German, but his government was composed of representatives of all the popular tendencies of his day. The President of the Republic was a man by the name of Albert Lebrun.

As the war went from bad to worse, Reynaud sought to shake things up by bringing fresh blood into the government. One of the new men brought in was the new commander of the improvised French 4th Armored Division, General DeGaulle. DeGaulle took up his duties as the under-secretary of state for defense and quickly realized that the defense of France required rapid reinforcement and a retreat to a defensible position.

In that regard, DeGaulle was entrusted with studying varying scenarios in which France could go on fighting. There was some discussion of pulling the government and what was left of the Army into Brittany, there to link up with the French Navy as a fighting redoubt and an entryway for British and (it was expected) American troops. Another plan was to lift the entire government and army to Algiers and continue the fight from French North Africa and elsewhere in the French Empire.

While this discussion was going on, the Reynaud government moved from place to place, always a few days ahead of the ever-advancing Germans. Cabinet meetings were held, as normal, and orders given, as would be expected. To assess London's ability to provide further assistance, DeGaulle was sent to London on an official mission. There the junior minister found that the RAF was needed for the defense of Britain and that, while Britain would do what she could, what she could do was precious little.

DeGaulle returned to France and the current seat of government to find a cabinet in deep disagreement about the way forward. Some, including most of the defense establishment and the Army, argued that the war was already lost and that peace must be sought on advantageous terms while France still had some bargaining chips. Others, like Reynaud himself, wished to find a way to continue to resist. Many others were somewhere in between.

DeGaulle sat in on meetings in France during these dark days in which high British officials were also present. The British were, of course, doing everything they could do to keep France in the fight. But the trend in opinion was not moving the warriors' way. Faced with occupation and ruin, many prominent members of the French government concluded that cutting a deal with Hitler before they were powerless before him was the best way to secure France's long-term national interest.

DeGaulle returned to London, this time with orders to coordinate with the Royal Navy plans to cover a French evacuation to North Africa, where the fight would continue. When he arrived, he found Jean Monnet, then the head of a joint British-French defense materiel purchasing agency (later one of the architects of the European Union) and the French ambassador knee-deep in a plan that just a few days before would have been unthinkable.

The plan? Nothing less that a full, formal and legal union of Britain and France into one nation. Only by convincing the French government that Britain remained committed to the fight could the French government come to see the utility of continuing the struggle. Churchill, initially taken aback by the proposal, heartily endorsed it. The idea was to merge the two nation's fighting forces and allow the French to continue to resist from Africa and Britain, with a new combined fleet ruling the waves.

DeGaulle called Reynaud and set forth the proposal. The Prime Minister was enthusiastic. At last, something to strengthen his hand with the defeatists! DeGaulle hurried back to France as Reynaud called a cabinet meeting to discuss the proposal.

Was it to be the union or an armistice? That was the question before the government that eventful night. To remind you: this government was the elected government of France, the Third Republic, in power through the ballot box. The discussion went round and round, but it was immediately clear that the prospect of union with Great Britain was not popular. The proponents for seeking Hitler's terms for an armistice won the debate and carried the day. As a result, Reynaud tendered his resignation to President Lebrun, who accepted it grudgingly.

The President was then faced with a problem. Who should he ask to form the next government? Who had the support of the parliament? When he summoned the heads of the two chambers, they both suggested he re-appoint Reynaud, but that was out of the question. That faction in the government that had won majority approval in cabinet was led by Petain, the hero of Verdun and WWI. Lebrun was informed that Petain was ready to serve if called and that he had lined up a list of ministers who had all already agreed to serve and to get the job done. Accordingly, the President of the Third Republic called on Petain to form a government, which he did immediately. A message seeking terms for an armistice was sent to Hitler by way of Madrid that very night.

Those terms were dictated by Hitler and accepted by Petain. They required the division of France into two zones, one occupied directly by the Germans and the other ruled by the French government formed by Petain and headquartered in the town of Vichy. These terms were accepted and, truth be told, were very popular with the average Frenchman on the street. The war was over, the bombs stopped falling and if the Germans were beasts at least they were polite enough on the streets and in the cafes.

Our story would end there except for the whole point. You see, one man in that government, DeGaulle, rejected the outcome. He was just a junior minister and had been out voted and out argued at every turn. The duly elected government of France had decided to ask for an armistice and ask for one it did. The duly elected president of France had asked Petain to be the man to lead the government in that endeavor and lead it he did.

DeGaulle rejected it all. Every last bit of it. The Third Republic had been the government of France for 70 years. This meant nothing to DeGaulle. The President had appointed Petain who then exercised the powers voted him. This also meant nothing to DeGaulle.

Instead, he got on a British plane to a foreign country, practically alone, landed in London, tossed his baggage in a loaned Mayfair flat, and claimed to all who would listen to him that he, Charles DeGaulle, was the leader of France.

Yes, you read that right. He appointed himself leader of the French. No election, no appointment, no nothing. He wasn't even in France at the time. He gave a speech the next night, on June 18, 1940, that no one heard and even fewer Frenchmen cared about. It was carried on the BBC. Here is what he said:

The leaders who, for many years, were at the head of French armies, have formed a government. This government, alleging our armies to be undone, agreed with the enemy to stop fighting. Of course, we were subdued by the mechanical, ground and air forces of the enemy. Infinitely more than their number, it was the tanks, the airplanes, the tactics of the Germans which made us retreat. It was the tanks, the airplanes, the tactics of the Germans that surprised our leaders to the point to bring them there where they are today.

But has the last word been said? Must hope disappear? Is defeat final? No!

Believe me, I speak to you with full knowledge of the facts and tell you that nothing is lost for France. The same means that overcame us can bring us to a day of victory. For France is not alone! She is not alone! She is not alone! She has a vast Empire behind her. She can align with the British Empire that holds the sea and continues the fight. She can, like England, use without limit the immense industry of United States.

This war is not limited to the unfortunate territory of our country. This war is not finished by the battle of France. This war is a world-wide war. All the faults, all the delays, all the suffering, do not prevent there to be, in the world, all the necessary means to one day crush our enemies. Vanquished today by mechanical force, we will be able to overcome in the future by a superior mechanical force.

The destiny of the world is here. I, General de Gaulle, currently in London, invite the officers and the French soldiers who are located in British territory or who would come there, with their weapons or without their weapons, I invite the engineers and the special workers of armament industries who are located in British territory or who would come there, to put themselves in contact with me.

Whatever happens, the flame of the French resistance must not be extinguished and will not be extinguished. Tomorrow, as today, I will speak on Radio London.

Who was this man to question the actions of a legitimate, elected government and its lawful decision? From what source did he think he drew the right to speak for France? Who is this ridiculous figure absurdly calling for volunteers to join him in London to fight for France?

France "can align with the British Empire?" Sure, she can, but the lawful government of the Third Republic debated that and rejected it outright. DeGaulle had lost that argument to a panel of elected ministers. DeGaulle had been there when the proposal was shot down.

"The war is not finished"? The democratic government decided to seek an armistice. Who was DeGaulle to reject the armistice and wage war? By what right? Who elected him king? To coin a phrase: supreme executive power arises from the mandate of the masses, not some farcical loquacious ceremony.

Make no mistake about it: this one man, literally with just a handful of supporters around him, declared himself to the exclusion of elected authority the embodiment of Republican France and France's will. For the next four years he would continue to insist that he and he alone spoke for France.

Our story must end here. Today, of course, France is still a republic (Version 5.0): still a democracy, still with elected parliamentarians and an elected president, still subject to the power of the ballot box.

So, I must ask you after having heard this story: if the democratic government of France today were to trace her history back, who would her grace fall upon for the year 1940? Would her story run through an office in Vichy or a office in London?

Who is the ancestor of this great democratic nation? Who embodied her popular will, the essence of French democracy, the spirit of the republic? Who carried the hopes, dreams and aspiration of millions of French men and women in 1940? Who carried with them that day the authority of the French people? Who spoke for France in June, 1940? With who was the imperishable flame of French liberty? Which was more "democratic"?

The elected government of France?

Or a lone man in a London basement making a speech?

I Heart Iowahawk

2007-12-06T20:16:00.000-08:00

Iowahawk has obtained the first draft of the Foer...the Foer...er.....explanation as to why TNR published laughable made-up stories as...as...commentary on the de-humanization...imposed by...war...or, well. Let's let Iowahawk take it.

Soldier A: "I swear upon my BDUs that everything Scott Beauchamp wrote is 100% true. I personally remember seeing Stumpy in Kuwait. As Scott Beauchamp's poignant and true tales illustrate, the soul-sucking horror of war ends up twisting our own humanity. Beauchamp's darkly humorous memoir is among the most indispensible in the annals of war, and destined to be a best-seller."

Soldier B: "I swear upon my BDUs that everything Scott Beauchamp wrote is 100% true. I personally saw Stumpy in Kuwait. As Scott Beauchamp's poignant and true tales illustrate, the soul-sucking horror of war ends up twisting our own humanity. Beauchamp's darkly humorous memoir is among the most indispensible in the annals of war, and destined to be a best-seller."

* * *

Naturally we wanted to learn more about these stories--although, in hindsight, the genesis of these anecdotes in such a nonchalant aside should have provoked greater suspicion, along with the fact that he cc'd the email to Brian De Palma and Oliver Stone. Not wanting to be beat out by a Hollywood greenlight, we sent Beauchamp the okay and ran with the stories.

2007-12-06T10:47:00.000-08:00

Mark Steyn writes in The Corner:

One of the critical differences between America and the rest of the west is that America has a First Amendment and the rest don't. And a lot of them are far too comfortable with the notion that in free societies it is right and proper for the state to regulate speech. The response of the EU Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security to the Danish cartoons was to propose a press charter that would oblige newspapers to exercise "prudence" on, ah, certain controversial subjects. The response of Tony Blair's ministry to the problems of "Londonistan" was to propose a sweeping law dramatically constraining free discussion of religion. At the end of her life, Oriana Fallaci was being sued in France, Italy, Switzerland and sundry other jurisdictions by groups who believed her opinions were not merely disagreeable but criminal. In France, Michel Houellebecq was sued by Muslim and other "anti-racist" groups who believed opinions held by a fictional character in one of his novels were not merely disagreeable but criminal.

Up north, the Canadian Islamic Congress announced the other day that at least two of Canada's "Human Rights Commissions" – one federal, one provincial – had agreed to hear their complaints that their "human rights" had been breached by this "flagrantly Islamophobic" excerpt from my book, as published in the country's bestselling news magazine, Maclean's. Several readers and various Canadian media outlets have enquired what my defense to the charges is. Here's my answer:

I can defend myself if I have to. But I shouldn't have to.

If the Canadian Islamic Congress wants to disagree with my book, fine. Join the club. But, if they want to criminalize it, nuts. That way lies madness. America Alone was a bestseller in Canada, made all the literary Top Ten hit parades, Number One at Amazon Canada, Number One on The National Post's national bestseller list, Number One on various local sales charts from statist Quebec to cowboy Alberta, etc. I find it difficult to imagine that a Canadian "human rights" tribunal would rule that all those Canadians who bought the book were wrong and that it is beyond the bounds of acceptable (and legal) discourse in Canada.(Emphasis Added)

Mark Steyn is an incredibly intelligent and perceptive writer whose insights are almost always keen, but on this issue his imagination has failed him. For not only is it possible to imagine the various human rights commissions finding against him, it is in their very nature to do so. That is what they are for.

As regular readers will know, one of this blog's central themes has been the danger of human rights as a concept. As with fundamental rights under the US Constitution, once a right is found to be a "human right," it is a right beyond question and beyond debate. It becomes something so fundamental, so basic, that to even raise a question about its correctness or applicability is to place oneself in lock-step with those who would deny human beings the dignity of their basic rights. It is, in short, to become a colleague of Nazis, of Latin American death squads, of the most evil and vile men in history.

And this, of course, is the point.

Having failed to secure popular support for their public policy prescriptions and their social goals, liberals throughout the Anglosphere fell back upon a by now well known alternative strategy: the imposition of those desired rules and regulations by judicial action.

For a time, this worked. It worked especially well in those countries with parliamentary systems and fractured or weak conservative opposition, like Canada. However, despite some resounding successes early on, it did not work so well in countries with either a robust conservative opposition, like Australia, or those in whose law the concept of individual liberty was especially strong, like the U.K, or especially in those who had both, like the United States.

In the Anglosphere countries, conservative opposition to the imposition of liberal norms and public policy prescriptions in many cases rolled back advances liberal jurists had imposed. Welfare stopped being a benefit for a while and became a personal property right that requires a full state due process hearing to scale back or deny, but this was overturned. Criminal procedure was loaded down with so many protections for the defendant that criminal prosecution itself became highly problematic, but then this, too, was overturned. Campus administrators sought to create a new breed of student by convincing young people that speech should necessarily be restricted on matters touching upon certain protected classes, but then found themselves facing disapproving courts.

There are some success stories from this liberal tactic (abortion being the most obvious) but by and large this process has become counter-productive at worst and very troublesome and difficult to maintain at best. Despite the best efforts of good lawyers, the ABA and decent judges, the barbarians shouting about their "rights" and about "limited government" still had arrows in their legal quivers.

But what if we were able to move beyond that?

The concept of human rights and fundamental liberties is already present in the Anglo Common Law tradition. Once it was realized that, unlike mere judicial opinions, one cannot argue with a human right, the new tactic was revealed in all its glory.

Go ahead and visit the webpages of the various human rights NGOs and read their views. You'll find nothing more than liberal/left public policy prescriptions dressed up with the force of undeniable right.

This is not an accident.

Steyn is wrong. If freedom of speech means that one can say as one pleases, then an equally powerful "balancing" human right must be found to prevent anyone from objecting to the new order. Human rights legislation and commissions exist to enforce liberal norms from an unassailable position. Similarly, hate crime laws exist to politicize crime to liberal ends.

And if you object, well....you're just anti-human rights and pro-hate, aren't you?

We always knew tyranny would arrive with smooth phrases and a smile. Now, here it is.

The question is: what are we going to do about it?

What Tom Tancredo and Moderate Muslims Have In Common

2007-12-04T10:10:00.000-08:00

The Politico reports:

Immigration crosses party lines

Immigration was, until recently, an issue likely to cause only Republicans political heartburn. With the party's Big Business factions battling its increasingly vocal secure-the-borders grass-roots advocates, immigration looked like an internal GOP squabble that had little electoral upside.

That now seems like ancient history.

Immigration is emerging as an issue that is resonating with independent voters--the very ones who carried Democrats to landslide victories in 2006, winning control of the House and Senate. And it's presenting Democratic candidates with the challenge of how to discuss an issue they're not used to being defensive about.

Immigration is now viewed as an issue that affects key domestic areas long considered Democratic turf: health care, crime and education.

Growing numbers of immigrants--legal and illegal--are changing the composition of affluent suburban towns across the country, impacting independent and Democratic-leaning voters, who are concerned that schools are overcrowded, health care systems are strained and crime is on the rise.

Forty percent of respondents to a newly conducted, Democrat-sponsored Democracy Corps poll said the main reason the country is going in the wrong direction is that "our borders have been left unprotected and illegal immigration is growing." Immigration was easily voters' top priority, beating out concerns over the Iraq war, health care and the economy.

Republican pollster Rob Autry said the immigration issue polled near the top of the list among independent voters in last month's surprisingly competitive special election in a solidly Democratic Massachusetts district, where he polled for Republican Jim Ogonowski's campaign.

This literally doesn't matter.

The American people overwhelmingly reject massive immigration when asked their view and have for decades. Conservatives feel stronger about it than liberals do but mix them together and you still have a very comfortable majority in favor of limited legal immigration, enforcing border laws and stopping illegal immigration altogether.

That majority has *never* managed to see its preference put into policy. If a law does get written, it is unenforced. If a proposition or referendum passes (like California's Prop 187) it is quickly found unconstitutional and invalidated by a reviewing court. If some public event causes the authorities to have to make a show of action, the action will be largely symbolic, with the government arm charged with making that action ensuring that "stakeholders" such as Latino pressure groups and immigration attorney lobbies are involved from the start, so that there is a party around to exercise its full "due diligence" rights, thereby slowing the demonstration project down to a year's-long snail's pace.

Conservatives regularly express puzzlement at all this. One hears a lot of talk about "elites" and their interests being different than that of "normal" Americans.

This is all nonsense.

What is going on here is that having adopted an inclusive definition of what it means to be American, the American people and its government have lost the ability to construct a case to be made to object to immigration that fits within the ideals of the current political age we live in.

It's not that the opposition cannot mobilize. It is that it lacks a believable rhetoric in which to make its case. It literally cannot construct an argument that is recognizably American in any way the vast majority of the American people would define that term.

In that sense, the anti-immigration forces face much the same dilemma as so-called "moderate Muslims". They may believe that their country/faith should do certain things or adopt certain policies, but they are unable to point to any rhetoric or tradition within Americanism/Islam as currently understood by which to justify their point of view. And, so, it remains an unorganized, individual phenomena with no political power.

Until we begin addressing that root cause, no change is possible. And that cause cannot, by definition, be addressed within mainstream political organizations or institutions.

Questions for My Conservative Friends

2007-11-27T10:17:00.000-08:00

While American conservatives focus on very important issues, like whether Romney or Huckabee is the man to beat, what Senator Lott's resignation means and how many illegal aliens deserve tax- and penalty-free bonus citizenship prizes, here are a few questions from, say, right field that I would really like answered, if it's not too much of a bother.

Question One: In 2001, an organized Islamic terrorist group known as "Al-Qaeda" launched terrorist attacks on the United States of America, killing more than 3,000 people in four separate, horrific attacks on our people and our soil. It soon became known that Al-Qaeda was sheltered in the country of Afghanistan then under the control of a similarly radical Islamic organization called the "Taliban." Rightfully, the United States went to war with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. It is now November, 2007, and the Taliban still exists as a viable organization, with military assets in the field, still conducting acts of war against U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan. Why have we been unable to defeat a small, ill-equipped militia in six years?

Question Two: The President of the United States has a duty, and took an oath, to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. Are immigration laws being enforced?

Question Three: In 2003, the United States went to war with Iraq, after that nation routinely defied legitimate United Nations inspection requests regarding its known WMD programme, a matter made most urgent for the United States given the then-demonstrated willingness of Islamic radicals to execute WMD attacks upon the US, the Iraqi regime's open state of war with the United States and the Iraqi regime's past use of WMD attacks during its earlier war with the Islamic Republic. Given that the objectives of that war were met within two months, why are U.S. armed forces attempting to settle disputes among Kurds, Sunnis and Shi'ites concerning the future of Iraq?

Question Four: Earlier this year, a major Interstate System bridge collapsed in the United States. This year, how much has the Government of the United States spent on infrastructure in the nation of Iraq and how does that figure compare to that spent by the Government in the United States?

Question Five: On July 4, a nation with which we are currently at war under armistice, known popularly as "North Korea", launched a rocket with an unknown payload on a trajectory that would have taken it near the State of Hawaii. What steps has the President taken to protect the United States given this open act of war and clear breach of the armistice agreement?

Question Six: Hezbollah, an international terrorist organization which has hung, strangled, mutilated and humiliated the corpses of U.S. military officers, which has announced as one of its goals the killing of Americans anywhere it finds them, operates in the open in Lebanon, where its leaders hold press conferences in public in broad daylight, when not operating their television station. How does this fact square with the President's stated War on Terror goals?

Question Seven: The Archbishop of Canterbury, the head of the United Kingdom's established church and a member of its Parliament, has attracted international attention due to his remarks condemning the United States and claiming that it has lost its moral standing. Has the President objected? Has his Ambassador in London? Do we not have a duty or a sense of honor compelling us to respond at the highest possible level given the source of the condemnation of our nation?

Question Eight: Conservatives pride themselves on their pro-business, free-market policies. Given that Arizona business is engaged in a very high profile effort, not least through its Chamber of Commerce, to overturn Arizona's recently enacted laws regarding the hiring of illegal aliens and, further, given the U.S. Chamber's vocal and key support for the failed immigration amnesty effort in the Senate earlier this year, might we not want to address how those pro-business views mesh with business-as-it-actually-is-conducted and what this means for the future of the United States?

Question Nine: Education, at all levels, is firmly in the grip of the Left, yet our only response continues to be calls to privatize education via vouchers, an idea firmly rejected again and again by huge majorities of Americans, who believe that a common, public education is key to passing on our culture, our heritage, our history, our beliefs. May we not want to reconsider our approach, given that fact?

Question Ten: Is the United States comprised of a people, Americans, who are overwhelmingly European by heritage, Christian in outlook and culture, with a distinct history, a legal tradition embodied in the common law, and a devotion to republican government? Or is the United States comprised of citizens, Americans, who so long as they adhere to the basic tenets of the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, may be of any heritage, any religion, carry distinct cultures and beliefs, with their own ethnic and national histories, with a shared devotion to democracy and equality?

Sarkozy Buries "The France of the Strikers"

2007-11-23T10:42:00.000-08:00

From AFP:

PARIS - Almost normal service resumed on the French railways Friday after a crippling nine-day strike, as opinions divided over whether its end marks a victory for the reform programme of President Nicolas Sarkozy.

For the first time since the start of last week, most Paris commuters enjoyed an untroubled trip to work, and nationwide the state rail company SNCF said the network will be fully operational by the weekend.

After the country's longest train strike since 1995, the government insisted that it had held firm on its central aim of increasing railway workers' retirement age in line with the rest of the population.

"I promised this reform, and I kept my word," Sarkozy said in an address Friday, a day before leaving on a state visit to China.

Raymond Soubie, Sarkozy's councillor on social affairs, said decrees promulgating the pension reform will be drawn up in about a month, after the conclusion of round-table talks between unions, management and government representatives.

These discussions, whose opening on Wednesday triggered the end of the strtike, will focus on pay-rises, top-up pension schemes and other accompanying measures.

For supporters of Sarkozy's six-month old government, the outcome marked an unequivocal triumph for the right-wing president.

Le Figaro newspaper said the president had proved he was not a "paper tiger" and that his determination to remedy the ills of French society had passed a ground-breaking first test.

"Everyone knows that the head of state has in store other earth-shaking changes. If the pension reform -- the mother of all reforms -- has persuaded opinion that things had to change in the country, it will have greatly served the designs of the president," the right-wing paper said.

This is precisely the point, some regional and left-wing protests notwithstanding. Sarkozy was elected over the ususal candy-distributing Socialist by telling his countrymen that things cannot stay as they are, France needs dramatic changes, and (this is the part that astounds me) you French voters know that only I have the guts and the will to push this bad-tasting medicine down your throats.

And so he has.

It was little noted in the United States, but just a few days ago Sarkozy gave a fierce answer to the usual cynical press by loudly proclaiming that he would never bend on this issue, never compromise and that the France that these strikers represent is gone.

These SNCF/RATP workers, who, remember, are willing to bring the country to a standstill to protect their unique right to retire at age 57 rather than age 62, are nothing less than Sarkozy's PATCO air traffic controllers. As with Reagan's action, this signals a new man in charge, a new political culture. Sarkozy said there was a silent majority sick of these strikes and he was right.

UPDATE: Le Figaro also reports today:

Nicolas Sarkozy a remis ce soir a Beate Klarsfeld, la celebre pourchasseuse de criminels de guerre nazis, les insignes d'officier de la Legion d'honneur et a decore son fils Arno, qui a participe a l'oeuvre de ses parents, de l'ordre national du merite.

Lors de son allocution, le chef de l'Etat a longuement evoque le combat mene par Beate, de nationalite allemande, et son mari Serge Klarsfeld pour "empecher la banalisation voire la rehabilitation du nazisme".

"Vous futes parmi les premiwres, si ce n'est la premiwre, a convoquer votre pays au tribunal de son histoire et de sa memoire", a declare Nicolas Sarkozy. "L'Allemagne et la France ont eu la chance de vous avoir ensemble pour fille, chacune vous doit beaucoup et conjointement encore plus", a-t-il ajoute.

Le president de la Republique a ensuite rendu hommage a son fils Arno Klarsfeld pour sa participation decisive "a l'action de memoire et de justice" de ses parents, et pour ses combats "au nom de la tolerance et de l'entente entre les peuples et les cultures".

"Comme ta mere, tu es un militant qui agit, pas un militant qui declame", a poursuivi Nicolas Sarkozy. "Je suis tres fier de t'avoir comme ami", a conclu le chef de l'Etat.

This is not the old French Right on display here. Given his approach so far, Sarkozy is embarking on a project of breath-taking difficulty and complexity: the re-alignment of the Right, resulting in its complete break with Vichy, with Maurras, with Brasillach, and, thus, shed of its baggage. A new Right that can then compete and restore order to the Republic's poltical balance. It's an amazing thing to behold.

That Is Below Me

2007-11-19T08:39:00.000-08:00

Congressman Tancredo, in Concord, N.H., last night, as reported by the Concord Monitor:

Describing the United States as "the last best hope" for carrying on the ideals of western civilization, Republican presidential candidate Tom Tancredo called last night for an end to the nation's "bilingualization" and "Balkanization."

"I think Europe can not be counted on to help us in this endeavor," Tancredo said last night at Magdalen College in Warner. "They've already become, to a large extent, Islamicized. And that is worrisome." Referring to "Western" principles, Tancredo asked, "If we don't talk about them, who will? If we don't advance them, who will?"

Immigration is Tancredo's signature issue. Last night, he attempted to tie immigration to the threat posed by "radical Islam," and described the "grand experiment we call America" as rooted in "Judeo-Christian principles."

In a recent television ad in Iowa, Tancredo, a Colorado congressman, went even further. A voiceover in that ad warns viewers that "there are consequences to open border beyond the 20 million aliens who have come to take our jobs. Islamic terrorists now freely roam U.S. soil, Jihadists who froth with hate here to do as they have in London, Spain, Russia," according to Tancredo's campaign website.

Tancredo's comments didn't go unchallenged last night. One after another, audience members pressed him on his views on language, assimilation and border security, at times leading to heated exchanges.

"I speak the same language as the people that flew into the towers; I speak the same language as all the Iraqis we are killing; I speak many languages, and I'm proud of it," said Siham Elhamoumi, 22, who recently graduated from St. Michael's College in Vermont and traveled to the event with a group from the college. "Am I the enemy?" Elhamoumi then pulled her shawl over her head, so it covered her hair. "Am I the enemy if I do this?"

"Do you take us for idiots, for people who have no appreciation of our history?" she asked. "Perhaps you don't have an understanding of your country right now, of its composition."

Tancredo repeatedly broke in, asking Elhamoumi to pose a question. He finally asked her a question of his own: "Do you believe that we should replace the Constitution with Sharia law?"

"That is below me," Elhamoumi replied.

Hats off to the lone Congressman raising the national question forthrightly and honestly and also for asking the key question. Note, however, that by doing so he has reduced himself to a "fringe" character. Note the haughty, mocking tone adopted by the college student.

Note as well on what point specifically Tancredo was mocked:

Perhaps you don't have an understanding of your country right now, of its composition.

Therein lies the key, the explanation as to why Islamic groups and the La Raza groups share a common strategy in Congress, on K Street and elsewhere. Because their goal is the same: to hasten the day, not far off, when any complaints will be met with disbelieving statements along the lines of "Perhaps you haven't looked around lately, White boy; you're yesterday's news and, guess what?

You're not America any more."

The Boomer Mindset: Comedy Gold That Keeps On Giving

2007-11-16T13:37:00.000-08:00

One thing you can say about Boomers--a term I use to describe not only that unmistakable combination of pretention, self-absorption, lame counter-culturalism and bad music found in the Worst Generation but also their sad, younger acolytes--they are the gift that keeps on giving. Just when you think their obvious and threadbare approach to life and the arts can't possibly inspire anyone else to mouth the next cliche, it comes.

The latest example is from Robert Redford's unintentionally hilarious "anti-war" film "Lions For Lambs". Ross Douthat, reviewing the firm for National Review, informs us:

[Meryl] Streep’s reporter confines herself to lecturing [Tom Cruise's hawkish Republican senator] about how you can’t “kill people to help people,” and explaining that this is just Vietnam all over again. “Equivocation is defeat!” he brays; she asks him if he’s ever heard of The Who, and adds, in case we aren’t clear on the point, “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.” (I’m not kidding: She really says this.) It’s like watching Sean Hannity debate Jane Fonda after they both spent the whole day together sniffing glue.

You just can't make this stuff up. The cliched understanding of the world, the deification of the reporter, the evil, Republican senator, citing the wisdom of Rock "lyrics"...it's all there.

Is there no one in the arts world, no one at all, who tires of this tripe? Who can provide us with an alternative?

A Helpful Note for our East Coast Readers

2007-11-12T09:04:00.000-08:00

Now that the Ducks are ranked number two in the nation, we'd like to take this opportunity to remind our East Coast friends--once again--the the correct pronunciation of the great state of Oregon is like this:

Or-a-gun

and NOT

Or-a-gone

As in, "At the end of the season, Or-A-Gun reminded East Coast and Midwest football fans how consistently over-rated SEC and Big-12 teams are."

An Exchange with NRO's David Freddoso

2007-11-09T09:34:00.000-08:00

Writing at The Corner, NRO's David Freddoso posted the following:

Small, Temporary Victory for the Freedom of Conscience [David Freddoso]

A federal judge in Washington State suspended a state law yesterday that forces pharmacists to sell the abortifacient "morning-after pill."
That anyone should be forced by the government to sell anything - even aspirin - seems an extremely difficult argument to make. But this sort of compulsion is required in order to drive all believing Christians out of the medical professions, and this is the goal of some liberals. Recall Mayor Michael Bloomberg's push to make all medical students at New York City hospitals perform abortions as part of their training - it's nothing short of a filter for certain kinds of people.

The push to guarantee continued unlimited legal abortion and "reproductive rights" comes only at the expense of property rights and freedom of conscience (or in this case both). If you don't care about this issue now, you should think again. The liberal legislators who are depriving medical professionals' rights of conscience now with respect to abortion and contraception may be back for your business or your profession later in some other form.

Which prompted my email to Freddoso:

David -

You write:

That anyone should be forced by the government to sell anything - even aspirin - seems an extremely difficult argument to make.

You need a license to be a pharmacist and it's not up to the individual pharmacist to decide what may lawfully be proscribed. If one does not like that fact, one can choose not to become a pharmacist. Lest you think this is a liberal speaking, let me point out: cab drivers also are licensed and are obligated to take passengers pursuant to local regulation and law. Very famously, Somali Muslim cabbies at Minn-St Paul Airport have exercised their "freedom of conscience" by refusing drivers who are carrying alcohol or disabled passengers who use guide dogs, booze and dogs being hated by Muslims.

According to your standard, we are apparently to applaud the Muslim cabbies for their brave stand.

Or should they just piss off and get other jobs where they can indulge their "conscience" at their leisure?

Or is it now conservatism's stance that everyone has a right to a license in a public profession and can then decide for themselves which duties that license entails they will exercise?

Which prompted Freddoso's reply to me:

Well, I am for making all butchers sell veal. Let's pass a law.

And all fast-food restaurants should have Mountain Dew or some equivalent -- I'm tired of walking in and seeing only Orange, Coke, and Sprite.

Which prompted my response back:

You're ditching the issue. Are those Muslim cabbies proud standard-bearers of individual freedom? Or not?

Which prompted Freddoso's further reply:

Strictly speaking, I am a big fan of signs that say "We reserve the right to refuse service for any reason." That's my position in an ideal world.

I understand that we don't live in that world. But you are implying that the presence of weird people out there in this world (the Muslim cabbie, whose beliefs are not legit Islam anyway) somehow justify the continued erosion of the rights of business owners until they are gone.

I'd like to see us do less of that, not more. That is why I made the post.

So, it appears that in addition to not understanding basic Common Law principles--such as the duty of common carriers to accept passengers--and in addition to not knowing about important events--the situation at the airport did not involve a random "weird" cabbie but a whole host of cabbies--it now also appears that NRO's commentators are now Imams, pronoucing on the true nature of Islam.

What lucky people we conservatives are these days. We now know what "legit Islam" is, right from the source.

I would have continued the conversation, but appraently my mild questioning was too much for Freddoso, who blocked any further email from me. In NRO's world, it seems, sarcastic and ridiculous responses are alright but tough questions aren't.

David, maybe next time you could ask conservative movement giant Kathryn Lopez to weigh in?

A Popular Front of the Right

2007-11-07T14:25:00.000-08:00

By now, the fight between Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs and Paul Belien of Brussels Journal has been noticed and commented on by just about anyone who has been paying attention. I think Crunchy-Con Rod Dreher has done the best job of summarizing the issues and the fight over at his blog at beliefnet.com:

A most unfortunate but nevertheless revealing fight has broken out between the principals at Little Green Footballs and Brussels Journal, two of the more important websites devoted in large part to keeping tabs on and raising the alarm against Islamic extremism, especially in the West. The contretemps has to do with accusations of racism being lodged against the Brussels Journal writers by Charles Johnson of LGF (although it seems to have more to do with some of the people who post in the comboxes there than the actual writers for the site). The BJ writers strongly deny it-- and readers should be aware that in Europe, anyone who dissents from multiculti dogma, especially on immigration, runs the real risk of being denounced as the vilest kind of racist and fascist. Larry Auster, in defending Brussels Journal and Paul Belien, partly speaks to this point. As Auster suggests, reading the Wikipedia description of the Vlaams Belang party platform may startle Americans; this Flemish nationalist party that's supposed to be fascist is actually fairly ordinary in its conservatism, by American standards. Calling VB "fascist" is to indulge in the soft bigotry of low expectations. Ahem.

Anyway, whoever's right in this particular dispute, reading this post by Paul Belien on Brussels Journal convinces me that this bitter argument exposes a real and important division among the anti-Islamist faction, which is almost always associated (at least in Europe) with conservatives. Both sides can agree on what they're against -- radical Islam in power in the West -- but they cannot agree on what they're for.

Comrades! Now is not the time for such fighting!

The fact is that this is one of those issues in which both sides have very valid points and cause for complaint. From a classically American point of view, Johnson's dislike of Brussels Journal's boosterism of Vlaams Belang and its leader Philip Dewinter makes perfect sense; VB is an ethnically-based nationalist party seeking to form a nation devoted to that sole ethnic group. And, yes, despite the fact that Auster and others have sought to downplay it, the "Odin's Cross" that LGF has complained of is in fact an internationally-recognized symbol of White Nationalism and, yes, it has appeared favorably in VB publications, not to mention Mr. Dewinter's bookshelf. As an American, Johnson is leery of groups that are based on race and who advocate for racial nationalism.

On the other hand, from the point of view of the European Right, all of this is unremarkable. The European Right is traditionalist in its outlook and well before Paul Belien came along it took a very dim view of certain aspects of American life. It is entirely unremarkable in the European context for a party to organize on ethnic lines--especially in Belgium--and to speak the language of ethnic/racial nationalism. Simply put, Europe's Right isn't concerned with many of the peculiarities of the American Right, and I don't see any reason why it should be.

But all of this is beside the point. Regardless of whether one's conservatism runs to modern American (Johnson), traditionalist American (Auster), traditionalist European (Belien) or a more American-type European conservatism (Ali) the fact is that all share a common platform.

At all costs, Islamism must be defeated and the Islamification of our nations must be stopped.

On that front, the situation on the international right now is akin to that faced by the international left in the 1930's as the threat of German fascism arose. You history buffs out there will recall that in the face of that threat the various Communist parties stopped their feuds with the various Socialist and Radical parties, the Socialists/Radicals dropped their long-standing arguments with the Communists, and all joined together in what became known as the Popular Front.

Why?

Was it because the Communists stopped seeing the Socialists as misguided reformers who were merely prolonging the life of capitalism and delaying the revolution?

Was it because the Socialists stopped caring about freedom of speech and religion and other important liberties that the Communists denounced as bourgeois illusions?

Was it because the various factions of the Left suddenly agreed on both tactics and goals?

No, it was because they recognized that they all had much more in common with each other than that of the enemy and that only together could they stem the rising tide and save the space necessary to continue the argument at a later date.

Comrades, we face such a time today.

Auster may be right that Johnson is still a liberal at heart. Johnson may be right that Belien cares more about suppressing homosexuality than preserving individual liberty. Ali may be right that in seeking to impose their own vision of what the good society is on everyone traditional conservatives have much in common with Islamists. And Belien may be right that only a new traditionalist community could possibly give us strength and reason enough to resist Islamism.

These are discussions for a later time. Now, our goal is to unite on our common programme and resist the agreed-upon enemy.

Just as Socialists and Communists set aside-while never forgetting-their disputes to engage the Fascist enemy, we must do so today.

For a new Popular Front!

Black Sheep Nervous

2007-10-21T16:46:00.000-07:00

Slowly, like glacier ice just beginning to melt, the deep-freeze Europe's elites have decreed for poltical debate continues to show tell-tale signs of cracking. Those of us in the United States who broadly agree with the platforms of the European nationalist right would do well to take heed. What is happening in Dutch towns, Swiss cantons and German states right now--voters abandoning their traditional political parties to those willing to state where they stand honestly on the national question--will be happening in Iowa, Florida and California soon enough.

From Swissinfo:

Rightwing posts record result in elections

The rightwing Swiss People's Party and the Greens have made the biggest gains in Sunday's parliamentary elections.

Near-final results show the rightwing posted a record result, while the centre-left Social Democrats suffered a major defeat. The four main parties pledged to continue their long-standing cooperation despite an unusually heated election campaign.

Final results as well as a breakdown of seats for the House of Representatives are not expected until Monday morning.

The People's Party took 28.8 per cent of the vote in the elections for the House, up 2.1 per cent on 2003, according to the gfs.berne polling institute.

If confirmed the People's Party posted the best result among the four governing parties since 1919 and could win up to 62 of the 200 seats in the House.

The Social Democrats appear to have suffered the biggest loss, dropping up to nine seats and taking 19.3 per cent of the vote, down by four per cent on 2003.

The Radicals lost five seats as their share of the vote dropped 1.5 per cent to 15.8 per cent, while the other centre-right party, the Christian Democrats, recorded slight gains, winning three seats and 14.7 per cent, up 0.3 per cent.

These four parties have held more than 75 per cent of the seats in parliament for decades.

None of this was foreseeable as little as five years ago. Just as no one now who is watching American politics as usual can foresee a time when yesterday's men and women like Guiliani, Clinton, Romney, and Obama become obsolete overnight.

The task of the Right in the United States is to watch and heed the lessons, to organize and prepare for the time when our message finds a reception. Every day, ordinary men and women turn to their computers hoping to find out there someone who is seeing what they are seeing, is fearful of losing what must not be lost, who is thinking what they are thinking.

We must be ready for them, for the trickle that will become a flood.

As the ice melts.

Nothing New Under the Sun

2007-10-09T17:11:00.000-07:00

From a letter to the Earl Fitzwilliam from Edmund Burke, 1795, on the prospect of peace with the French revolutionary regime:

But, after all, for what purpose are we told of this reformation in their principles, and what is the policy of all this softening in ours, which is to be produced by their example? It is not to soften us to suffering innocence and virtue, but to mollify us to the crimes and to the society of robbers and ruffians! But I trust that our Countrymen will not be softened to that kind of crimes and criminals; for if we should, our hearts will be hardened to every thing which has a claim on our benevolence. A kind Providence has placed in our breasts a hatred of the unjust and cruel, in order that we may preserve ourselves from cruelty and injustice. They who bear cruelty, are accomplices in it. The pretended gentleness which excludes that charitable rancour, produces an indifference which is half an approbation.

They never will love where they ought to love, who do not hate where they ought to hate.

The Oregonian Engages in Self-Parody

2007-10-08T09:13:00.000-07:00

Today's Oregonian greets us with a banner headline:

HUNT FOR ID FRAUD HITS LATINOS

Oregonian reporter--completely unbiased and quite professional, mind you--Esmerelda Bermudez reports the facts:

Workers at Oregon's Driver and Motor Vehicle Services have turned in nearly 200 people to police for suspicious documentation, an effort that overwhelmingly singled out Latinos.

This summer, the DMV changed a long-standing policy: Rather than simply refuse service to customers suspected of presenting phony or altered documents to obtain licenses or identification, employees began to alert police.

From June through August, 140 people were turned in to police -- roughly 94 percent of them with Latino names, according to DMV records obtained by The Oregonian.

Oh, no! You mean to say that enforcing the law resulted in revealing what everyone already knows, that the Latino "community" in Oregon is largely composed of people here illegally, using fraudulent documents to obtain government licenses and benefits? And that, by contrast, the European-American community is largely playing it straight and by the rules?

This must be stopped! Bring us banner headlines and graphics highlighting the obvious discriminatory effect of 94% of such names being Latino! We must at all costs stop this bigotry!

And, as usual, it looks like the Oregonian has scared the ferrets who run our state government into their usual supine position:

"We, too, are in the process of analyzing this to see what have been the results," said Lorna Youngs, administrator of Oregon Driver and Motor Vehicle Services.

She said the agency will evaluate the new procedure after it has been in effect for at least six months. The review will include how DMV employees followed protocol and what police agencies did with referrals. If Latinos make up the bulk of suspects, state officials will investigate further, Youngs said.

Yes, of course! Should the investigation reveal wide-spread lawbreaking by a minority, this is a problem that requires.....additional investigation of the state!

This is not just liberalism, it is liberalism on steroids. Note that the author and the people quoted meekly accept our new civic religion: any wrong-doing found to be committed by Latinos is simply evidence of state misconduct. Any overwhelming evidence of wrong-doing by Latinos is simply powerful evidence of massive state misconduct. At all costs, the state must stop this disparate treatment.

The crackdown has caused concern among critics, including the Mexican Consulate, immigrant-rights groups and lawyers, especially when it comes to cases where they contend the DMV wrongfully accused customers.

"Before they take steps that affect people's lives, they should look at other solutions and have other methods to verify documents," said David Simon, acting consul of the Mexican Consulate in Portland.

You may ask yourself what business it is of a foreign government the workings of a department of motor vehicles.

Liberalism has decayed our governments so badly that the Mexicans don't even feel the need to pretend any longer. No doubt El Senor Simon's phone calls are answered and responded to promptly by Oregon DMV officials.

How about your phone calls, taxpayer and citizen?

True Then, True Now

2007-10-04T08:37:00.000-07:00

"...no 'Deparment of Defense' ever won a war."

-- Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers
1959

The Department of Defense was only 12 years old when Heinlein wrote that line for Juan Rico, having been born by the landmark National Security Act of 1947, an act that literally transformed the U.S. Government into the completely dysfunctional behemoth it has become today. At that time, it had only been tested by North Korea, a test it decidedly failed. Today, that failure has resulted in the survival of a nightmarish hostile regime, with which we are still at war today, acquiring nuclear weapons, extorting the American people and firing long-range ballistic missles at ocean space quite near Hawaii.

On the Fourth of July, no less.

Here we are, no less than 48 years from Heinlein's protagonist's statement, and it's still true. Year after year, war after war, Americans are now as a matter of course expected to die to deliver liberal democratic regimes to people who don't want them, when they are not posted to protect places like Germany and Japan, who despise them.

And, year after year, the American people behold this and collectively shrug.

Oh, sure, there are lots of outraged people. And, God knows, there are still thousands of honorable military men and women, doing their best under trying circumstances.

But the problem is one of first principles, of first approach. Right now, our entire system is set up for failure, as should be obvious to anyone contemplating Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War and, now, Iraq.

A collection of "citizens" receiving "government services" who pay taxes to the "Defense Department" is defeated before it begins.

A people make war, not a collection of citizens.

A nation fights wars, not a government.

A War Department wins wars, not a Department of Defense.

Ramadan-a-Ding-Dongs

2007-10-03T12:26:00.000-07:00

The Australian reports on events in southern Thailand, where brave Islamic fighters stuggle to free their land, which sits on the 236th most holy site in all Islam, which the locals call "Thai'baa Farms" and which are occupied by illegal orthodox Buddhist setters....

POLICE have found video clips showing the beheadings of a soldier and a Buddhist, while

three men were shot dead by suspected Islamic rebels in Thailand's restive south, officials said today.

"One video clip showed a militant holding the head of the slain soldier," said an army official who declined to be named.

The gruesome clips had been taken by mobile phones which were seized by authorities during a raid Sunday on militant hideouts in Yala, one of three Muslim-majority provinces bordering Malaysia.

The southern region has been rocked by a separatist insurgency which has killed more than 2,600 people since January 2004.

The video of the beheaded soldier was taken early this year, while other footage showed the killing of a Buddhist married couple and then the beheading of the husband, the army official said.

Authorities last month lifted a curfew imposed since March on two of the most violence-torn districts in Yala for the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, but the Premier said rebels were stepping up attacks.

"Violence is increasing during Ramadan, which reflects that militants have no faith in religious teachings," army-backed Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont said .

In a concession to local concerns about Ramadan, the army said last month it would lift a curfew until October 21.

Of all the idiocies in the West and the United States about Islam and what it is, nothing is funnier than our obsession with Ramadan. It's just amazing how often Muslim fighters are able to pull the old "you must stop fighting us" trick every Ramadan.

And now look at what the U.S. Congress is up to these days.

H. Res. 635

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

October 2, 2007.

Whereas it is estimated that there are approximately 1,500,000,000 Muslims worldwide;

Whereas since the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, some threats and incidents of violence have been directed at law-abiding, patriotic Americans of African, Arab, and South Asian descent, particularly members of the Islamic faith;

Whereas, on September 14, 2001, the House of Representatives passed a concurrent resolution condemning bigotry and violence against Arab-Americans, American Muslims, and Americans from South Asia in the wake of the terrorist attacks on the United States;

Whereas some extremists have attempted to use selective interpretations of Islam to justify and encourage hatred, persecution, oppression, violence and terrorism against the United States, the West, Israel, other Muslims, and non-Muslims;

Whereas some Muslims in the United States and abroad have courageously spoken out in rejection of interpretations of Islam that justify and encourage hatred, violence, and terror, and in support of interpretations of and movements within Islam that justify and encourage democracy, tolerance and full civil and political rights for Muslims and those of all faiths;

Whereas Ramadan is the holy month of fasting and spiritual renewal for Muslims worldwide, and is the 9th month of the Muslim calendar year; and

Whereas the observance of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan commenced at dusk on September 13, 2007, and continues for one lunar month: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) recognizes the Islamic faith as one of the great religions of the world;

(2) expresses friendship and support for Muslims in the United States and worldwide;

(3) acknowledges the onset of Ramadan, the Islamic holy month of fasting and spiritual renewal, and conveys its respect to Muslims in the United States and throughout the world on this occasion;

(4) rejects hatred, bigotry, and violence directed against Muslims, both in the United States and worldwide; and

(5) commends Muslims in the United States and across the globe who have privately and publicly rejected interpretations and movements of Islam that justify and encourage hatred, violence, and terror.

That's our Congress: Chock full of morons, idiots, traitors and Ramadan-a-Ding-Dongs.

America as Boarding House

2007-10-02T15:49:00.000-07:00

A story has been making the rounds lately on the conservative side of the Internet, yet another "can you believe this?" story which has become the desperately sad hallmark of political discourse on the right. It's the same story every day, from National Review to Rush Limbaugh: you post or talk about something outrageous that the liberals have done or brought us to and then you....then you......then you.....

Well, then you do nothing. "Quietly seethe", I suppose is the answer. Anything but suggest an answer or a course of action, because to do so would be to be forced to take issue with our current civic religion-liberalism-and that is frankly a bigger job than our oh-so-brave mainstream conservatives can bring themselves to do.

Take the latest such story. It's making the rounds today for the second day in a row, having moved from the minor sites to the Corner:

Someone Restrain Mark Steyn [Jonah Goldberg]

This just in:

(CBS) OAK LAWN, Ill. A southwest suburban school district has taken action, responding to the concerns of a Muslim parent.

But now, as CBS 2's Suzanne Le Mignot reports, other parents are angry that traditional school holidays will be renamed or even eliminated.

"That does not represent all the Muslims, all of the Arabs at that school," said Qais Nofel, the father of a student in Ridgeland School District 122.

There was some heated discussion between parents outside Columbus Manor Elementary School in Oak Lawn on Friday. The thought of no more traditional holiday celebrations has many parents really upset.

For now, children in Ridgeland School District 122 will celebrate fall festival instead of Halloween and winter festival instead of Christmas.

Brenda Elvidge said, "It's not fair to our kids. This is America and that's an American tradition."

Yes, Jonah? And? This means, what? Yes, it's upsetting, but what does it mean? Mr. Goldberg [who, I should note, seems to me a very decent sort with his heart in the right place whose writing is frequently quite good] doesn't say.

But we can. Let's think about this for a moment. What does this story mean?

What does Brenda Elvidge mean when she says "This is America and that's an American tradition?"

First, we can note that such a reaction is common. All across America, European-American parents have rolled their eyes and worried a bit as Christmas vacation became "Winter Break" and Thanksgiving Day became a day to study the unjust oppression of the native Americans by religious nuts.

Second, we have to regrettably note that despite this and despite Ms Elvidge's plea that the blindingly obvious be recognized, that none of those Americans have any basis upon which to complain.

What Ms Elvidge and other similarly-situated Americans don't realize is that their understanding of who they are and what their country is has been repealed. There are no traditions to call upon and America is whatever anyone here chooses to say it is. This isn't a matter of view or opinion. This is what America officially is now. The sad thing about conservatives today is they keep making appeals to America without realizing that "America" doesn't mean what they think it means.

They've had the floor cut out from beneath them; the horrible reality is just so painful that they haven't realized this yet.

The reason for this is the key tenet of the liberal revolution which has transformed our country: America as a propositional country.

Once you understand this, once you understand that in the course of a generation our nation has come from being a nation made up of a specific people, with a specific history, specific values and specific traditions to being a nation of immigrants, where everybody's history is as good as anyone else's, where values are culturally relative and where anyone's traditions work, the rest follows as a matter of course.

America as an idea, as an abstraction that anyone can hew too, is our current and quite dominant civic religion. It is shared by liberals and conservatives alike, by both Kos and Jonah Goldberg, by both President Clinton and President Bush.

That this is so is unremarkable. It's like saying the sky is blue. What is more amazing is that so many average Americans don't realize that this change has occurred, let alone what it means.

Listen to the words of President Clinton, speaking to graduates of the Portland State University way back in 1998:

More than any other nation on Earth, America has constantly drawn strength and spirit from wave after wave of immigrants. In each generation, they have proved to be the most restless, the most adventurous, the most innovative, the most industrious of people. Bearing different memories, honoring different heritages, they have strengthened our economy, enriched our culture, renewed our promise of freedom and opportunity for all.

Of course, the path has not always run smooth. Some Americans have met each group of newcomers with suspicion and violence and discrimination. So great was the hatred of Irish immigrants 150 years ago that they were greeted with signs that read, "No Dogs Or Irish." So profound was the fear of Chinese in the 1880s that they were barred from entering the country. So deep was the distrust of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe at the beginning of this century that they were forced to take literacy tests specifically designed to keep them out of America.

Eventually, the guarantees of our Constitution and the better angels of our nature prevailed over ignorance and insecurity, over prejudice and fear.

But now we are being tested again -- by a new wave of immigration larger than any in a century, far more diverse than any in our history. Each year, nearly a million people come legally to America. Today, nearly one in ten people in America was born in another country; one in five schoolchildren are from immigrant families. Today, largely because of immigration, there is no majority race in Hawaii or Houston or New York City. Within five years there will be no majority race in our largest state, California. In a little more than 50 years there will be no majority race in the United States. (Applause.) No other nation in history has gone through demographic change of this magnitude in so short a time.

Just so. And note the President's view: this is mandated by the guarantees of our Constitution, not to mention the "better angels of our nature." There is no majority race, there will be no majority race, and America is just an empty vessel to be filled with whatever race or group of immigrants that fill it up.

And so, you see Ms. Elvidge, you have it wrong. Your complaint is anti-American, anti-Constitution and anti-the-better-angels-of-our-nature. America is whoever happens to be here. And their traditions are just as valid as yours. Your call for tradition is just as small-minded as the famous "no dogs or Irish" sign.

I try to imagine being a college kid and applauding the withering away of my people and my heritage and cheering and the mind reels.

Make no mistake about it. There exists in America today two distinct groups of people. One believes that their history, their traditions, their people should endure. The other thinks that their history is one of oppression and violence, that the traditions were excuses for that oppression and that their people is whoever they call brother.

And what generally happens when two people with competing visions of the future proclaim possession of the same territory and claim the right to speak on its behalf?

NHL Note

2007-09-27T15:40:00.000-07:00

Ironic juxtaposition, hockey-style.

From ESPN's current NHL coverage homepage:

Headline One:

When the Chicago Blackhawks reported to camp, there was something there that was missing for quite some time: hope.
Headline Two:

Blackhawks owner Wirtz dies of cancer at 77

The 07-08 campaign starts Saturday afternoon with a Kings-Ducks matchup on CBC.

Go Canucks!

Newt Gets It - Does Anyone Else?

2007-09-23T09:31:00.000-07:00

Writing in today's New York Post,former Speaker Newt Gingrich takes the current crop of Presidential candidates of both major parties to task for failing to address the central issues currently facing us. Reading this, I am struck yet again by how clearly and forthrightly Newt states his case and the elements of that crisis. Here is a man who has clearly thrown caution to the wind and is speaking his mind.

But I am most struck by how clearly Newt gets it.

Whatever his personal failings or poor qualities as a candidate, the fact is that Gingrich is the only--literally the only one--major American political figure who both acknowledges that we are in a crisis and correctly identifies the contours of that crisis. Gingrich writes:

Contrary to what candidates in either party may think, the political dividing line in America doesn’t run between the GOP and minorities. For most Americans, it’s not even found between Republicans and Democrats, or the red-versus-blue-state invention of the media.

The real division is between hardworking, tax-paying Americans - of both parties and all races - and an entrenched, permanent governing system in Washington and state capitals designed to serve its own needs and not the needs of the American people.

Over the 42 years since the beginning of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, the increasing power of public employee unions, the growth of the bureaucracies, the rise of lawyers, the development of complex regulatory legalism, and the entrenchment of an elite establishment that imposes political correctness have combined to create this permanent governing class system.

And the values of this permanent government are not those of the Americans who pay the taxes and the union dues that support it. Its bureaucracies value process more than achievement; its lawyers value rules over results; and its politically correct elite value avoiding embarrassment more than telling the truth about failure.

Newt gets it. Does anyone else?

A People Without Pride, Part II: A Response To Comments

2007-09-21T14:55:00.000-07:00

I appreciate the comments to my post below about America's lack of reaction to obvious insults to her honor and integrity.

I want to make myself perfectly clear here: I realize that there remains among my people many millions of men and women of good sense who are proud Americans and who swim daily against the currents of today's culture and its institutions.

That is beyond question. It is not, however, the issue.

The issue is that this culture and its institutions have grown so powerful that despite the presence of those many millions, they are unable to respond to events as people of honor understand is necessary. Individuals may have their hearts in the right place, but collectively all of us together--as expressed through our institutions and, even more critically, through our government--do not. Something is getting lost in translation.

And the issue is not just one of being in a minority. That would be bearable. If our current government was composed as it now is and there was in the Congress a minority that was standing up on a daily basis and saying we must answer these Mexican provocations, we must make sure our war memorials are proper, that would be one thing. But we don't see this. There are Members of Congress here and there who are solid on particular issues, but no mass articulating an alternative vision.

I've been called a pessimist for pointing this out, but while I plead guilty to not having the sunniest of outlooks, it's not pessimism if it's an accurate depiction of reality. While there are individual and small groups protesting the "Crescent of Embrace," there is no political institution that has picked it up as a cause.

The real question, given the undeniable existence of patriotic Americans who want their nation to act like a nation--to answer insults to its honor, to defend its interests, to teach its children its history, to guard and protect its borders, to decide who may come among us and live--is why such people are, for all intents and purposes, invisible as an organized force in our institutions.

How can 80% of Americans be for border and immigration law enforcement, yet all of our cities turn a blind eye, our states provide illegal aliens with all the benefits of citizens, our Federal Government is practically an accessory?

You may say that there are plenty of Americans out there fighting the good fight, but where are they? The last mass protest I saw involved tens of thousands of Latinos--in all major American cities, on the same day, on the same time, wearing a uniform, mobilized by their media--marching to support their brothers.

Where were the Americans?

Again, I say: no reaction.

Also, as a (quasi-) Spanish speaker, I watch Univision's newscast regularly. While our news is an endless parade of "your kids are in danger" (Toxic Mold!), consumer exposes (They prey on Seniors!) and celebrity doings (You'll never guess what Paris is up to now!), the Spanish speaking news is intensely political, with in-depth coverage of issues that are of interest to Latinos. Complete with Spanish-speaking USG spokesmen assuring them that the government is on their side.

People say a new movement is needed, and I agree. But there cannot be movement until there is passion and anger and understanding.

And right now, our people are showing none of the above.

I don't know what the answer is yet. But pretending we're not in deep trouble isn't it.

UPDATE: Everyday this phenomena presents itself, in multiple forms. Take this exchange from today's White House press briefing. Such a response is literally unthinkable from any other nation's executive office:

Q Thank you, Dana. Two questions. The head of the Institute for Holocaust Studies, Dr. Medoff, has compared Columbia University's speaking invitation to Iran's Ahmadinejad to Columbia's hosting of Nazi speakers and Columbia faculty members attending Nazi ceremonies in Germany in the 1930s. And my question, does the White House agree or disagree?

MS. PERINO: Look, it's a free country. We wish the same were true in Iran. And if people want to attend and listen to a person who has advocated the destruction of Israel and treats his people terribly, then that's their business.

Andy McCarthy responded to this in the following manner at The Corner:

I kind of wish she had added something about what he advocates about OUR country and how he treats OUR people.

McCarthy puts his finger right on it. A spokeswoman for our president--the American president--and it doesn't even occur to her to speak to Ahmadinejad's actions against AMERICANS. Instead, it's "he's mean to Israelis and awful to Iranians."

Again, America: No reaction.

A People Without Pride, Unknowing

2007-09-19T15:18:00.000-07:00

It's nearly always a mistake for me to stop and look at the breakroom copy of The Oregonian as I head for the inevitable Wednesday morning coffee refill. Today was no exception:

Oregon is counting on a new tool to educate Spanish-speaking students across state schools: Mexico's curriculum.

Already in place at three Oregon high schools, the programs aims to use textbooks, a detailed online Web site, DVDs and CDs provided for free by the Mexican government to teach math, science and even U.S. history to Spanish speakers in Oregon.

Conversations are under way between the Oregon Department of Education and Mexico's secretary of public education to align the curriculums of Oregon and Mexico so many courses in Mexico will be valid here and vice versa. The innovative move puts Oregon on par with other educators nationwide who have launched similar ventures in Yakima; San Diego, Calif.; and Austin, Texas.

"Students come to us with such complex issues," said Tim King, director of Clackamas Middle College and Clackamas Web Academy, where a virtual course using Mexico's learning materials got off the ground this week. "We've had to change in order to fit into each school scene, become more complex and open ourselves up to new situations."

Oregon officials say the new approach is intended as a supplement to keep students on track by learning subjects in their native language while also gaining English skills. Until now, school districts statewide have generally relied on bilingual aides to teach and translate English material or used Spanish material that was not necessarily equal to the English material mainstream students were studying.

"That's not enough," said Patrick Burk, chief policy officer with the superintendent's office of the Oregon Department of Education, adding that the goal is to "minimize disruption" for immigrant Latinos.

"The availability of resources is astounding," said Burk, who flew to Mexico with a team of Oregon curriculum officials in August to discuss making equivalency standards official. "We're able to serve the students so much better if we're working together."

Lawrence Auster of View From the Right wrote a short while ago that when he was younger and a more "mainstream" conservative supporter of the Republican Party he used to get angry when he saw Democrats and members of the press insult Republicans in the most hateful manner. However, after a while, he began to notice that despite the fact that the insults were of a variety demanding a response, the Republicans never really seemed to care much.

We've all seen this: think Senator Hatch grinning like an idiot on a Sunday morning talk show while being called a child-killing warmonger and then referring to the person who just called him a willing murderer of children for profit "my friend from across the aisle."

Auster noted that after a while it occurred to him to wonder why he should care so much about these Republicans' honor when they seemed perfectly fine with being insulted to their face. After all, if they don't care, who should?

It's a good point, and a sentiment I've long since shared, but applying it to the losers of the Stupid Party is one thing. Seeing that same sentiment writ large to one's own country and countrymen is something else entirely.

The insults to our national honor pile up so quickly that they are almost impossible to keep up with.

The Mexican president proudly declares that so far as Mexico is concerned, it has no borders and wherever there is a Mexican, there is Mexico.
Americans: No reaction.

The Shi'ite leader in Iraq refuses to speak to or even be in the same room with Americans, who he considers filthy infidels.
Americans: No reaction.

A popular German police drama portrays the US Government as behind the attacks of 9.11 and its message is applauded by prominent members of the German government.
Americans: No reaction.

Turkish government officials praise a film depicting US soldiers in Iraq as crazed child-killers. Americans: No reaction.

The Dept of the Interior awards a contract to memorialize the heroes of Flight 93 and the central motif of the winning design is a Muslim crescent.
Americans: No reaction.

The government of China does nothing to prevent mobs of students from ransacking the exterior of the US Embassy in Beijing, leaving our diplomatic personnel prisoners and under siege for days. Americans: No reaction.

High school students in Montebello, California tear down the U.S. Flag and run the flag of Mexico up the pole to rowdy applause and supportive speeches from school administrators.
Americans: No reaction.

An American state begins using a foreign government's educational materials to teach U.S. history.
Americans: No reaction.

The President of Mexico refers to legislation in the U.S. Congress touching upon immigration as hostile, "unilateral" acts to be resisted by the government of Mexico.
Americans: No reaction.

I'd love to fight this, but after a while one gets the unsettling feeling that one would be bounding into battle without a cause, that one would turn around only to find no one at one's back. It's one thing to make speeches rallying one's countrymen to action to restore the nation and its place of honor, but what if there is no one left to hear?

It's times like this that I get a strong feeling that that ghost has already left the machine. What we see around us is nothing more than slowly decelerating motion of a society that no longer has an engine. Like that chicken selected by the farmhouse wife, it's still moving, even running, but it's not going anywhere.

That's bad enough.

What's worse is the same process that has allowed this to happen--no, that's not quite right--let's say compelled this to happen, also, by some monstrous joke, has also left the vast majority of people unable to even comprehend that anything is happening.

We have become a people without pride and a government without honor.

And we don't even realize it.

Cherry On Top - HNIC Forever

2007-09-18T10:37:00.000-07:00

Vancouver's The Province reports:

The wrath of Grapes is returning to Hockey Night in Canada for another season -- with a shocking twist.

For the first time in his broadcasting career Don Cherry will go into a season with management clearly in his corner.

* * *

There's no real mystery about Cherry. He is what he is, a gifted entertainer who consistently says what he believes, knows his audience and every Saturday night delivers a brilliant performance.

Never was that more clear than in 1987 when he defended the Canadian junior players for protecting their teammates in a bench-clearing brawl with the Soviets at the world championship.

Cherry went on national TV and passionately explained that Canadians value loyalty and honour more than a gold medal.

He was right.

* * *

Yet, in 2004, when he pointed out that most of the NHL players wearing visors were "European and French guys," that somehow crossed the line.

Harold Redekopp, the CBC's executive VP, denounced Cherry, calling his comments "inappropriate and reprehensible," and imposed a seven-second delay.

It didn't seem to matter that Cherry's assessment of the visor ratio was completely accurate.

In all, "visorgate" resulted in four different government investigations -- including Cherry receiving a Quebec court order.

Cherry now admits he simply wrote "don't understand" on the order, in red pen, and sent it back.

Later that same year Cherry was voted in a national poll as one of the 10 greatest Canadians of all time....

I have never in my life beheld such an effortlessly brilliant and apparently intuitive response to the bureaucratic administrative "human rights" state.

Red Ensign all the way, that guy.

Always Look On The Bright Side...

2007-09-17T15:54:00.000-07:00

I've just returned from a nice lunch filled with some heavy reading, papers submitted to the ISI's recent symposium marking the 20th anniversary of the publication of Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind. I'm in the middle of two loan closings at the moment-one of which involves HUD-so you'd think the last thing I'd want to deal with right now are more documents, but if you're spending all day shuffling paper you might as well shuffle something interesting every once in a while.

That's what I tell myself, anyway.

As fate would have it, I had just re-read Bloom's unlikely best-seller a few months ago, on a whim. I had no idea that the book's 20th anniversary was just a few weeks away when I lifted it from its accustomed place on my meager bookshelves.

It made for a riveting revisit. I've changed a lot in the past twenty years, so perhaps it was a different perspective. But I felt at the time that there was more to it than that. I remember walking into my living room one late Saturday night and informing my wife that I had just finished reading a particular chapter of The Closing of the American Mind and how it all just seems to make so much more sense to me now. It seemed to me then that there was more to it than just the passage of personal time. Somehow, events had transpired to illustrate Bloom's main points in a way even the great professor could not have anticipated.

I'd try to explain, but this is the age of the Internet. After pounding through the pages of the ISI symposium submissions, I found that I wasn't the only one who felt as I did. University of Tennessee Professor Wilfred M. McClay put it better in his essay "Recovering the Western Soul" much better than your poor correspondent ever could:

But such a vision does not answer the larger crisis that Bloom himself posited, the crisis of our Western civilization, because he had only a partial and misleading understanding of what the West is. That fact was visible already in 1987, but it has become even more apparent since the emergence into public awareness on 9/11 of the great civilizational struggle that now preoccupies us-and is likely to continue to preoccupy us for the rest of our lives. Here I speak not merely of the "war on terrorism" but of the catastrophic loss of civilizational self-confidence exhibited by the West, particularly in Europe. The demographic collapse experienced by all Western European countries, and the concurrent changes in the makeup of those societies as they follow a rapid and seemingly inexorable course toward Islamization, speaks louder than any words, and has raised the question of whether a strictly liberal and secular Europe has the will to perpetuate itself, let alone defend itself. This question in turn leads back to the point that Bloom himself makes, about a failure "at the peaks of learning." For even an educational vision as deep and humane as Bloom's does not, finally, tell us why we should have children, what we owe our fathers and mothers and neighbors, why we should make good on our commitments, why we should struggle to preserve our way of life, what is finally worth fighting for, and possibly dying for.

Bloom assumed, over against the multiculturalism coming into fashion in his day, that the civilization of the West is universal in character, based as it is on ideas-such as natural rights-that are grounded in unchanging nature rather than changeable convention. But this triumphalism seems far less plausible today. Indeed, it was already being challenged forcefully well before 9/11, notably by writers such as Samuel Huntington, who emphasized the particularity of our civilization, and the need for the West to see itself as a competitor in a world of civilizational alternatives rather than as the wellspring of that self-evident, universal "progress" to which "the rest" all aspire. Like the historian David Gress, Huntington has made a strong case that we have defined the West without sufficient reference to its religious and historical roots-precisely the features of the West that Bloom neglects.

That is to say, without those first principles, the great tradition Bloom so eloquently defends is ultimately lost because it is not a universal tradition, but a Western one. It is this now obvious fact that is glaringly absent from Bloom's book, but not due to any fault on the professor's part. The fact of the matter is that in 1987 the current spiritual crisis of the West had not sharpened to the point of identification. Now, with wide swathes of Western people refusing to even procreate and with the West's very bastion, the United States, unable to memorialize its war dead from 9.11 in any way telling of civlizational confidence (the "Crescent of Embrace"), the crisis is obvious.

You would think that is bad news. But the fact of the matter is that the crisis hasn't worsened. It is systemic and it is on-going. What has happened is that as it has become increasingly obvious more and more people are waking up to the facts and facing the challenge.

There is a lot of despair out there right now. I know because I feel it at times, too. And when one reads papers published by professors who use terms like "the crisis of the West" or "the collapse of Western civlizational confidence" as asides, as givens, as widely-recognized features that undergird the current political debate, it's easy to lose one's head. One begins to understand why Irish monks built those crazy little stone towers.

But that's also the good news. I have grown increasingly convinced that each passing day finds more and more men and women of the West recognizing what is going on and beginning to search for the like-minded and for solutions.

To be sure, it's just a trickle now. But think to how invisible the phenomena was even 20 years ago. Twenty years from now will see mass movements and mainstream political parties grappling with the issue.

In short, the crisis caused by the closing of the Western (not just American) mind is now having such visible effects that people are starting to question the reigning liberal orthodoxies that lead us to this spiritual dead end.

And therein lies hope.

No Shame Winners

2007-09-14T14:20:00.000-07:00

ESPN reports:

FOXBOROUGH, Mass. -- Coach Bill Belichick tried to keep the focus on New England's upcoming game against the Chargers, but the media would have none of it Friday.

Speaking to reporters the morning after he was fined $500,000 and the Patriots were ordered to pay $250,000 and forfeit draft picks for spying on an opponent's defensive signals, Belichick stood firm while grilled about the situation.

"It's over and we're moving on," the coach said at his media briefing. "That's where we're at. Everything else is in the past."

Belichick was fined the NFL maximum by commissioner Roger Goodell, who also ordered the Patriots to give up their first-round draft choice next year if they reach the playoffs this season, or their second- and third-round picks if they miss the postseason.

"This episode represents a calculated and deliberate attempt to avoid long-standing rules designed to encourage fair play and promote honest competition on the playing field," Goodell said in a letter Thursday to the Patriots.

There comes a point when the rottenness at the heart of the system becomes so widespread that it even begins to gush filth in the most unexpected of places. What we're seeing now in almost all professional sports are the only possible fruits from our maniacal pursuit of victory at all costs, dumping our traditional reverence for sportsmanship and fair play along the way.

As conservatives, this presents us nothing but trouble. We've been taught that the market knows best, the competition drives people to ever higher efforts and that winners are winners because they've earned their place.

Which is true, exactly until it isn't. And when it becomes untrue is exactly here: At the point where the desire to win and be the best becomes the object of sports and not a feature, obscuring the traditions and values of the people from whom athletes arise.

And look at the pathetic Belichick's response! "It's over and we're moving on." Has there ever been such a perfect expression of our bankrupt popular culture than that?

The owners and marketers of the NBA make millions selling gang-style logo'ed clothing and think nothing of presenting a game in which the players resemble, and often imitate, street thugs.

The shameful crew that currently run MLB knew all during the moronic "home run chase" era that their game was being de-based and cheapened by steroids and an idiotic fixation on home runs.

The money-men who run the NFL care nothing for the fact that more and more of their athletes are revealed as nothing more than criminals, Vick being just the latest, so long as their corporate sky-box sales aren't in jeopardy.

Was anyone really surprised when an NBA referee was caught betting on games?

Is anyone really shocked that the "owners" of the Los Angeles Dodgers-a team that was always run until recently by people who understood what owning a baseball team means-have authorized oversized, black baseball caps to be sold as gangster clothing?

Were you really thrilled when the obviously drug-filled Bonds broke the home run record? Or did you take it for the cynical, empty marketing moment it was?

There is something deeply, spiritually wrong with America and Americans right now. These facts are mere reflections of it.

The market isn't everything. Nor is winning.

Until we remember that, we will remain a nation on anti-depressants.

Wondering: what is wrong?

Pay, Please.

2007-09-12T17:38:00.000-07:00

It’s the small things that I dread, when you really get down to it, because the small things have a way of confirming one’s suspicions about the larger things. The small things are really just reflections of a larger process, the local manifestation of the wider phenomena. If one is lucky enough to be walking around unaware of patterns or issues—unaware of the large things—then small things appear to be simply unconnected random events. But once you see the larger picture, well then, from that point on, you poor soul, all you will ever see is the same thing presented to you over and over again. The form is different, the essence the same.

I’m not talking about Conspiracy. Or about some grand Ideology. In both cases, they are delusions, leading their followers to whisper about secret knowledge and the patterns such knowledge impart. No. Walk down that path and you’ll soon find yourself thinking that perhaps Queen Elizabeth the Second really is in charge of the international drug trade with the Trilateral Commission.

There is no grand conspiracy nor any grand answer.

And, yet, once you open your eyes and begin to take in the big picture, it’s all there. The thing I’m struck about reading the news is how predictable it all is. After 20 years of reading the news, one gets to the point where you can simply stop reading after the first few lines. You know where this is going and where it is heading.

But the big things no longer interest me. Where we are is where we are. There is no stopping it at this point.

That would be bearable. Would be, that is, if it weren’t for the fact that the small things turn out to be just small-scale versions of the predictable big things.

Let me give you an example: A big thing right now in our culture is the cretinization of popular culture. In the name of equality—everything being just as good as everything else—the base and the low are the obvious winners. This has many consequences, but the one I’m concerned with today is education.

Since No Child Will Be Left Behind, all children are equal. There are no dumb kids, only kids who need more state resources. (Pay, please). There are no bad-behaved kids, only kids who need treatment. (Pay, please). There are no bad parents, only parents who need support and programs to help them. (Pay, please). And since all of this is True, since, comrade, we are without fail moving everyday to the glorious future where all children of many hues will learn side by side in equal measure and complete harmony (Pay, please), schools are no longer able to make such distinctions.

That would be Wrong.

That’s the big picture. Here’s the small. You try to retreat, to put the whole rotten game out of mind and just cultivate your own garden, but you can’t help it. They’re in your goddamn garden, too, as it turns out.

Say there is this certain 2nd grade little boy. Say he is a model student. Say he is the apple of his teacher’s eye. Say he is well-behaved, eager to learn, polite. Say that he has been raised by parents who take their responsibility seriously. Let us also say that this child is what they call “white”. Let us call him “Boy One.”

Now, let’s say there is another certain 2nd grade little boy. Say he is the worst student in his class. Say he is the bane of his teacher. He is so poorly behaved that by the end of his 1st grade year he has been in trouble more than 3 times the rate of the next 10 troublesome boys combined. Say he yells in class uncontrollably. Say he is uncommonly violent with his classmates, who, remember, are 6 years old. Say his single mother presents him at school with a heavy, hooded gang-culture jacket complete with I-Pod buds in his ears. (They’re poor. Pay, please). Let us also say that this child is what they say we must say is “African-American.” Let us call him “Boy Two.”

Now, let’s say in planning the upcoming 2nd grade year, the school administration has realized that there is a problem in the number of 2nd grade children. There is an imbalance. One class will have to spill over into another grade, resulting in 10 of the 2nd grade children having to stay with their 1st grade teacher in a 2/1 split classroom.

Now, you’re the administrator, having to choose which 10 you’re going to stick with their old teacher. Who do you want?

Well, there will be young children, so it better be the kids who aren’t bullies. The teacher will naturally have to expend more energy and attention on the younger 1st graders, so it better be the kids who are good students. The teacher will have a gaggle of younger kids to look after, so it better be the better behaved kids, the self-directed ones, the ones you don’t have to worry so much about.

It better be a kid like Boy One. You wouldn’t want to put Boy Two around some poor kid fresh out of Kindergarten, now, would you? No, better go with Boy One.

And, so, at the end of the day, Boy One is crying. Why isn’t he in a real second grade class like all his other friends? Why does he have the same 1st grade teacher?

But, no worries. Unlike Boy Two, Boy One has parents. Parents who will help him get over the hurt and disappointment, parents who are there to explain to him that these things happen. Parents who will make an effort to figure out what to do when, as bad as it is now in his little world, wait til he realizes that the two grades are on a different recess and lunch schedule.

Boy Two? Smiling in his real 2nd grade class, the unknowing beneficiary of Boy One’s parent’s naive idiocy.

A small thing, to be sure. A minor event. And, yet, there they are, the big picture principles.

-- Deviancy, coddled.

-- Traditional parenting, de-valued.

-- Good behavior, punished.

-- Violence, rewarded.

The big picture: Pay, please.

Twenty Years Ago, Today

2007-09-10T17:06:00.000-07:00

Twenty years ago, today, I woke my parents up at 4.30 in the morning for the drive to LAX. It was my first trans-Atlantic flight and I was so giddy with excitement that I had hardly slept that night. Nevertheless, I wasn't tired in the least.

We arrived at the PanAm counter at around 6am, all my other fellow students and their parents jumbled into a big line heavy with serious baggage. Four months abroad in a dorm room requires some real packing. I remember thinking, each time I shuffled my feet forward closer towards the end of the line, that there was a real energy I had never felt before in my legs. Something good was about to happen and each step brought me closer to it.

In the air, I realized that the big old jet was mostly empty (Poor, sweet lost PanAm--I count myself lucky to have been one of the last on that great line). The stewardress (as they still were, barely, then) was very friendly to us and as soon as we got a decent distance over the eastern seaboard of the United States, she started passing out complimentary beer and wine. I had never drank before in perfectly legal circumstances.

I remember sleeping, a little, sprawled on some back middle row with all the armrests pulled up. Then I remember hearing people saying "we're descending...we're almost there....just about time..."

I moved over to a window seat and saw only clouds below me, the sun shining. I leaned my head against the window and just watched the clouds rolling below me.

Then, we were in the clouds. As we began to descend further, we emerged from the wispy grey tendrils of the clouds' underbelly and there was a landscape, dazzingly green, below me.

A ribbon of a road cut through the most green fields I had ever seen, the farms separated by tree lines and hedges. A village--not a small city or a town or anything I had ever seen before in the US while landing, but a village, with stone houses, a central market square and, abutting the square, a perfect little church. I could see children walking along a road (to school?) and trucks of an odd size and shape winding down a road. As far as I could see, the land was green and rolling and breathtakingly beautiful. The sun's early morning golden rays enveloped this land, which seemed alive in a way I had never before seen.

They say there is no such thing as love at first sight and they are wrong. I felt it go through me--me, unexpectedly--me, the cynic--me, the life-long Anglophile who only agreed to this trip as a means to get closer to my beloved London--a charge as real as anything I have ever felt.

Perhaps is was some ancestor speaking down the ages in some kind of race memory, my forefather Robert, who left those shores for New France and a new name, recognizing his long lost home through the prism of 20 generations. Perhaps it is just me, something in my soul, something I didn't know I was looking for suddenly there.

I don't know.

All I know is that I loved her the moment I saw her and that she is precious to me, as precious as she is to any of her native sons.

Twenty years ago, today. When I first beheld France.

An Apology

2007-04-30T15:18:00.000-07:00

I would like to apologize to my regular readers for what must have seemed a rather abrupt disappearance and one dead blog site. All I can plead in my defense is that the scope of change in my life recently, added to quite a significant political and philosophical re-alignment, in addition to my on-going unease regarding this site's original purpose as a vehicle to discuss my experiences in the State Department, a part of my life that has almost completely disappeared now, all combined to make posting further seem unthinkable.

It was selfish and wrong and I apologize. For those few of you out there who have enjoyed my writing and have engaged in discussion here, I will be posting shortly on my future plans.

Until then, dear reader, please know that I have not forgotten you--far from it. It's just that the pain of our current situation caused momentary paralysis. An infliction which seems to have ebbed as I've become more comfortable with the contrary stance I have come to believe forms a truth that must be discussed: the coming re-birth of nationalism and the death of the post-modern, post-national definition of "American".

More later...

Vive le Quebec Libre!

2007-01-31T08:58:00.000-08:00

From the good folks at Moonbattery:

Hats off to the citizens of tiny Herouxville, Quebec for taking a stand against encroaching dhimmitude and the disease known as multiculturalism that enables its advance.

The town welcomes immigrants, but insists they make themselves aware of a declaration of "norms" adopted by the town council. These include:

At Christmas, children sing Christmas songs.

No stoning women.

No burning women with acid.

No ceremonial daggers in school even if you're a Sikh.

Boys and girls can swim in the same pool whether Muslims like it or not.

Men can drink alcohol whether Muslims like it or not.

No walking around with your face hidden except on Halloween.

Female police can arrest male suspects even if it troubles their egos.

Women are allowed to dance.

Women are allowed to drive.

Women are even allowed to make decisions on their own.

It's remarkable that "progressives" in 2007 would find such rules objectionable, but, then again, their agenda has always been about self-hatred and destruction more than rights anyway.

Our Soldiers Ordered To Make The World Safe for Child Abusing Fuedal Theocrats

2007-01-29T09:10:00.000-08:00

The advance of liberty has never been easy, and Iraq is proving how tough it can be. Yet, the safety and security of our citizens requires that we do not let up. We can be smarter about how we deploy our manpower and resources; we can ask more of our Iraqi partners, and we will -- one thing we cannot do is give up on the hundreds of millions of ordinary moms and dads across the Middle East who want the hope and opportunity for their children that the terrorists and extremists seek to deny them, and that's a peaceful existence.

-- President George W. Bush, Press Conference, December 20, 2006

Photo Caption: Iraqi kids beat themselves with chains during Muharram, a Shiite period of mourning, in Karbala.

-- Fox News Website, January 29, 2007

I have learned on good authority that U.S. soldiers were ordered to protect this Shi'ite festival, which featured self-flaggelation by children as directed by adults.

In Afghanistan, our soldiers have been tasked with guarding pre-pubescent girls in prison cells for the "crime" of running away from an arranged marriage to an adult male relative in the name of upholding Afghan law.

In Iraq, our soldiers have been tasked with providing security for a barbaric cult ritual that involves ritual child abuse.

This is deeply, deeply wrong, offensive and unworthy. In both nations, our soldiers are increasingly asked to fight and die for an Islamic government imposing Shari'a Law in the name of a new Islamic Republic.

When the President said the people who attacked us on 9.11 would "all be hearing from us very soon," did you honestly think that meant we would be adopting two Muslim nations and helping to enforce their Stone Age legal system or ridiculous religious rites?

Or did you think we were going to be led to war, in which the Islamic world would learn to its great displeasure that there are limits to their debauchery that are not in their interest to ever transgress again?

This is the failure of this disgraceful President: he has imposed upon us all the costs of war, while delivering none of the fruits of war's benefits.

Pressler Brings Disney Magic to The Gap

2007-01-23T13:53:00.000-08:00

It was a small story in today's business news that, even if you saw it, I'm sure meant little to you. But it meant something to me.

CHICAGO (MarketWatch) -- Gap Inc. said late Monday that Chief Executive Paul Pressler is leaving the company and the board immediately, ending a difficult period for the company. He will be replaced by Robert Fisher, chairman of the board and son the company's founder, until a new CEO is hired. The company said it prefers to recruit a new leader with deep retailing experience, something Pressler did not have.

In another lifetime, in a world far, far away, I worked for Disneyland. Not the Walt Disney Company, nor Disney Studios or the Disney Store, nor, later, for ABC. For Disneyland.

As a young man, working my way through college, I worked in the Park as a busboy and then a waiter at the Blue Bayou. Later, with the invaluable help of my sister, who worked in Casting, I returned to a "real" job in the Entertainment Division. Through my years working at the Park, I learned what it was that made Disneyland special, that made its people feel that DL is something worth going out of one's way for.

In all the places I have worked in my varied life, DL is the only place I have ever seen employees walk out of their way to pick up a stray piece of litter off the ground coming off of break. It's the only place where I've seen people off-shift wait a half-hour for the park to close so they could "walk" back to Costuming through an empty Adventureland and Main Street.

And I got to work with some amazing people, people who understood what "show" means in the DL context and who would do whatever it took to make that happen (Take a bow Chaz!).

DL was, though, a sleepy backwater of what had become Eisner's Walt Disney Company. It was an afterthought, a jewel in the crown to be sure, but not the unit that was driving the company. In that sense, mercifully, it was left mostly alone, its traditions, its management and its unique business culture untouched.

And it remained that way right until it began to show some serious potential as a resort destination. For a variety of reasons, too complicated to go into here, DL was not a place families went to for days on end. It was a place you visited in one day, and locals have always been the bulk of the business. But then, with the acquisition of the Angels and the Mighty Ducks (and, more importantly, the passing of a particular strawberry farmer!), the long-dreamed-of "Second Gate" began to seem possible.

Alas, for poor, old Disneyland, such possibilities brought it the attention of the Higher Ups, who sent as their emissary an energetic young executive named Paul Pressler.

I could tire you with pages of stories about the war Pressler's appointment as Disneyland President set off between the "Old Timers" and the "Presslerites", but I'll spare you. Needless to say, those small but crucial elements that kept Disneyland special were eliminated with maximum ruthlessness. In the interests of time, I'll let the man's Wikipedia entry give you the gist:

The park's management team of the mid-1990s was a tremendous source of contention to many Disneyland fans and employees.

During Pressler's tenure, a transition was made in how the stores were stocked. Traditionally, Main Street and the other themed areas had many specialty stores, such as the tobacconists and magic stores on Main Street. In addition, many items had been sold in only one or two stores in the park. Under Pressler, the number of unique items sold decreased, specialty stores were reduced in number, and more of the remaining merchandise was made available in more places in the park. Stores such as the One of A Kind Shop (personally created by Mrs. Lillian Disney) were closed down to make way for more generic park merchandise.

In addition, Pressler is credited with the decision to remodel Tomorrowland. In previous decades, Tomorrowland had undergone changes as rides were updated to keep from getting 'stale,' but Pressler's remodel was much more far-reaching. Many rides popular with Disneyland employees and fans closed, and the land underwent a radical makeover to a look that evoked a future as it was envisioned by Jules Verne and early Science Fiction.

Lastly, maintenance and staffing procedures changed under Pressler's tenure. Traditionally, attractions, railings, and other painted areas were painted on a routine basis, and lightbulbs were replaced before they burned out. Over time, longtime visitors and employees observed a reduction in the frequency of such maintenance.

Due to these issues, Pressler was unpopular with many longtime fans and employees. Pressler was also behind Disneyland Resort's second gate, California Adventure, which has been criticized for muddled theming and lackluster attractions.

Another example: around the Park, at popcorn carts, retail shops, rides and restaurants, we once kept cardboard boxes with rain ponchos. If the infrequent happened and it began to rain, we opened those boxes up and gave the Guests rain ponchos.

Under Pressler's guidance, this was a "revenue stream" to be "maximized." Now, if you're at DL and it starts raining, you can have a poncho for you and your family...at $5 a pop.

After ruining DL and running some of its best people out of town, Pressler was, of course, promoted. He then went on to ruin more stuff with his abject cluelessness.

I am not at all surprised to see him behind the Gap's road to ruin. There is in corporate America a certain type of executive, one who impresses by spouting the latest business school jargon, plays effective office politics, who manages to position himself for advancement, all the while sucking the life out of the entities they are put in charge of to no one else's gain.

Paul Pressler is such a man. I wish him nothing but continued failure.

Hitchens On Steyn: The Most Important Essay You'll Read This Year

2007-01-22T08:28:00.000-08:00

NOTICE: New Sisyphus has undergone technical difficulties due to Blogger's switch to Google-based accounts. A temporary work-around has been discovered, and regular posting resumes with this new post.

When I heard from a friend that Christopher Hitchens had published a review of Mark Steyn's new book America Alone on City Journal's website , I about ran down my poor wife getting to her laptop computer to read it. (Sorry, honey).

You can find it

here

If you follow politics at all, you know that such a formulation has, literally, the number one best writer and case-maker the Left has to offer passing a review on the number one best writer and case-maker the Right has to offer. You just don't find that happening every day.

The results are riveting. Having devoured the essay in one quick gulp, followed by two close readings, I have to say that to the extent Hitchens offers any criticism of Steyn and his book, I agree with them. In order, the major objections Hitchens raises are:

1) Steyn's posing as a lone voice Cassandra is unnecessarily tiresome and misstates the case a bit as the West and its elites are steadily waking up to the danger.

2) Steyn's reliance on demographic arguments overstates the case a bit, but only a bit.

3) Islam is not monolithic and Steyn does not account for Muslims in Europe who disagree with Islamofascism.

4) Steyn's "ten-point program" at the end of his book appears a bit cobbled together and not at all well thought out.

You may think that that is some rough stuff, but you'd be mistaken. (Indeed, Steyn's own website makes too much of Hitchens' criticism). Aside from Number 3 above, none are very important. Number 1 has more to do with stylistic and personality differences between the author and the reviewer (and the fact that Hitchens is friends with some of the Euro intellectuals Steyn beats the stuffing out of), Number 2 is obvious to most readers, and Number 4 is sadly accurate. As for Number 3....that's an argument for another day.

No, the criticism is not what is important here. What is important is that between these two men, as between our Left and Right writ large, there are wide swathes of common ground. In fact, by taking on the "ten-point program" Hitchens has done us a huge favor by setting forth not only a realistic strategy, but one that could, given proper and imaginative leadership, unite most Americans and even some Europeans.

Hitchens' program strikes me as hitting all the right notes, holding up the bare bones principles that all who believe in liberalism (small "l") should have no difficulty rallying around.

I urge you in the strongest possible terms to read the entire essay, but, for now, here are Hitchens' ten action items:

1. An end to one-way multiculturalism and to the cultural masochism that goes with it. The Koran does not mandate the wearing of veils or genital mutilation, and until recently only those who apostasized from Islam faced the threat of punishment by death. Now, though, all manner of antisocial practices find themselves validated in the name of religion, and mullahs have begun to issue threats even against non-Muslims for criticism of Islam. This creeping Islamism must cease at once, and those responsible must feel the full weight of the law. Meanwhile, we should insist on reciprocity at all times. We should not allow a single Saudi dollar to pay for propaganda within the U.S., for example, until Saudi Arabia also permits Jewish and Christian and secular practices. No Wahhabi-printed Korans anywhere in our prison system. No Salafist imams in our armed forces.

2. A strong, open alliance with India on all fronts, from the military to the political and economic, backed by an extensive cultural exchange program, to demonstrate solidarity with the other great multiethnic democracy under attack from Muslim fascism. A hugely enlarged quota for qualified Indian immigrants and a reduction in quotas from Pakistan and other nations where fundamentalism dominates.

3. A similarly forward approach to Nigeria, Sao Tome and Principe, and the other countries of Western Africa that are under attack by jihadists and are also the location of vast potential oil reserves, whose proper development could help emancipate the local populations from poverty and ourselves from dependence on Middle Eastern oil.

4. A declaration at the UN of our solidarity with the right of the Kurdish people of Iraq and elsewhere to self-determination as well as a further declaration by Congress that in no circumstance will Muslim forces who have fought on our side, from the Kurds to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, find themselves friendless, unarmed, or abandoned. Partition in Iraq would be defeat under another name (and as with past partitions, would lead to yet further partitions and micro-wars over these very subdivisions). But if it has to come, we cannot even consider abandoning the one part of the country that did seize the opportunity of modernization, development, and democracy.

5. Energetic support for all the opposition forces in Iran and in the Iranian diaspora. A public offer from the United States, disseminated widely in the Persian language, of help for a reformed Iran on all matters, including peaceful nuclear energy, and of assistance in protecting Iran from the catastrophic earthquake that seismologists predict in its immediate future. Millions of lives might be lost in a few moments, and we would also have to worry about the fate of secret underground nuclear facilities. When a quake leveled the Iranian city of Bam three years ago, the performance of American rescue teams was so impressive that their popularity embarrassed the regime. Iran's neighbors would need to pay attention, too: a crisis in Iran's nuclear underground facilities-an Iranian Chernobyl-would not be an internal affair. These concerns might help shift the currently ossified terms of the argument and put us again on the side of an internal reform movement within Iran and its large and talented diaspora.

6. Unconditional solidarity, backed with force and the relevant UN resolutions, with an independent and multi-confessional Lebanon.

7. A commitment to buy Afghanistan's opium crop and to keep the profits out of the hands of the warlords and Talibanists, until such time as the country's agriculture- especially its once-famous vines-has been replanted and restored. We can use the product in the interim for the manufacture of much-needed analgesics for our own market and apply the profits to the reconstruction of Afghanistan.

8. We should, of course, be scrupulous on principle about stirring up interethnic tensions. But we should remind those states that are less scrupulous-Iran, Pakistan, and Syria swiftly come to mind-that we know that they, too, have restless minorities and that they should not make trouble in Afghanistan, Lebanon, or Iraq without bearing this in mind. Some years ago, the Pakistani government announced that it would break the international embargo on the unrecognized and illegal Turkish separatist state in Cyprus and would appoint an ambassador to it, out of "Islamic solidarity." Cyprus is a small democracy with no armed forces to speak of, but its then-foreign minister told me the following story. He sought a meeting with the Pakistani authorities and told them privately that if they recognized the breakaway Turkish colony, his government would immediately supply funds and arms to one of the secessionist movements-such as the Baluchis-within Pakistan itself. Pakistan never appointed an ambassador to Turkish Cyprus.

There is much there that all sides can agree on.

In other words, the leading man of the Left has met the leading man of the Right and they've walked away from the encounter almost shoulder-to-shoulder. This says something about our continued vitality and our prospects. The obvious objection is that Hitchens is "no longer of the Left", but for reasons too complicated to go into here, I do not believe that this is the case. I believe his thought is still solidly leftist in outlook and his values, if mobilized correctly, would rally a significant portion of the American and Euro Left.

Today, intellectually, the stage is being set for Western solidarity and the dumping of the multi-culti suicide cult alliance with the Islamic Fascist death cult. In the future, we will all reap the benefits.

As a final matter, note that his discussion is only possible in the United States. In Britain, Canada, France and Germany, frank discussion of matters relating to Islam is constrained by anti-freedom "hate speech" codes and disagreement-criminalizing "human rights commissions."

We should all be on our knees, every one of us, thanking Jefferson and the founders for understanding the importance of our natural right to full and complete free speech.

It is ultimately our most important weapon, by far.

Stupidity, Defined, Part Two

2007-01-15T10:21:00.000-08:00

Below, I made the obvious case that "Prime Minister" Maliki is a shill for the Shiite forces in "Iraq" and that he and his buddy Sadr are engaging in a pantomime act designed to engage the most powerful military in the world (not to mention the stream of gold that comes with it) on his side in a civil war.

I say obvious, because it is just that: obvious.

Those who cannot see it simply do not wish to see. Those who are not thinking about it are those who have accepted the ludicrous conventional wisdom that the on-going civil war is a disaster for America.

But you do not have to take my word for it. From John Burn's latest report from Iraq in today's New York Times:

American military officials have spent days huddled in meetings with Iraqi officers in a race to turn blueprints drawn up in Washington into a plan that will work on the ground in Baghdad. With the first American and Iraqi units dedicated to the plan due to be in place within weeks, time is short for setting details of what American officers view as the decisive battle of the war.

But the signs so far have unnerved some Americans working on the plan, who have described a web of problems - ranging from a contested chain of command to how to protect American troops deployed in some of Baghdad's most dangerous districts - that some fear could hobble the effort before it begins.

First among the American concerns is a Shiite-led government that has been so dogmatic in its attitude that the Americans worry that they will be frustrated in their aim of cracking down equally on Shiite and Sunni extremists, a strategy President Bush has declared central to the plan.

"We are implementing a strategy to embolden a government that is actually part of the problem," said an American military official in Baghdad involved in talks over the plan. "We are being played like a pawn."

* * *

Compounding American doubts about the government's willingness to go after Shiite extremists has been a behind-the-scenes struggle over the appointment of the Iraqi officer to fill the key post of operational commander for the Baghdad operation. In face of strong American skepticism, the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, has selected an officer from the Shiite heartland of southern Iraq who was virtually unknown to the Americans, and whose hard-edged demands for Iraqi primacy in the effort has deepened American anxieties.

The Iraqi commander, Lt. Gen. Aboud Qanbar, will be part of what the Americans have described as a partnership between the two armies, with an American general, Maj. Gen. Joseph F. Fil Jr., commander of the First Cavalry Division, working with General Aboud, and American and Iraqi officers twinned down the operational chain.

* * *

The plan gives a central role to the National Police, viewed as widely infiltrated by Shiite militias and, despite an intensive American retraining program, still suspected of a strongly Shiite sectarian bias. One American officer said that the National Police commanders have been "dragging their feet" over their role in the new plan and that they could seriously compromise the operation.

* * *

Shiite neighborhoods present special challenges. Tightly woven networks of militias backed by the government, the areas have been largely off-limits to American forces. An early test will be Sadr City, the largest Shiite enclave in the capital, and the main stronghold for the Mahdi Army militia, led by the renegade cleric, Moktada al-Sadr. American officers say it is far from clear that the Maliki government will permit American troops to operate freely in the enclave.

That seems certain to pose early on the central question that confronts American commanders as they start the plan: will the Maliki government agree to operations aimed at Shiite extremists, or resist them and push for the focus to be laid on Sunni extremists attacking Shiite areas?

American officers say that only time will tell, but that they will be surprised if Mr. Maliki and his top aides change colors, despite the assurances the Iraqi leader is said to have offered President Bush. As described by American commanders, the pattern in the eight months since Mr. Maliki took office has been for the Shiite leaders who dominate the new government to press the Americans to concentrate on Sunni extremists.

The argument is that Shiite death squads, which have accounted for an almost equal number of deaths, are engaged in retaliatory attacks, and that those will cease when the Sunni groups are rooted out.

In other words, the Iraqi "government" is doing exactly what it has clearly said it would do all along. Our President, in discussing the matter with Maliki, is either being foolishly mislead or stubbornly idealistic.

Read that again. We are being played.

I ask again: Are we really this stupid?

Stupidity, Defined

2007-01-12T10:03:00.000-08:00

The President, speaking on his plans to increase America's military involvement with the Iraqi Government, on what we expect the Iraqi Government to do:

I've made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people -- and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act. The Prime Minister understands this. Here is what he told his people just last week: "The Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation."

The Iraqi Government, from a BBC report and the New York Sun, telling Americans directly what it will do:

Six Iranians held in a US military raid in northern Iraq were working there with the approval of the authorities, Iraq's foreign minister has said.
* * *
The US said it believed the six people seized in Thursday's raid had targeted Iraqi and US-led coalition forces. Mr Zebari said details of the detainees had now been passed to the Americans. "We contacted the US embassy and submitted all the information available to us on the nature of their work and the place of their work," he said. "They have been working under the approval of the government."

One of the group, seized when US troops stormed the building, has since been released. Mr Zebari said the other five remained in US custody ...

The President, leading the Republican Party to electoral suicide, on what he expects "Prime Minister" Maliki to do:

Many listening tonight will ask why this effort will succeed when previous operations to secure Baghdad did not. Well, here are the differences: In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents, but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned. This time, we'll have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared. In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter those neighborhoods--and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.

"Prime Minister" Maliki's aides, on what they will do:

Several al-Maliki aides and confidants have told The Associated Press that the prime minister plans to focus his troops, with American backing, on Sunni insurgents in western Baghdad at the outset of the drive. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the details of the plan had not been disclosed. Al-Maliki, the associates said, then plans to challenge al-Sadr to disarm and disband his militia because there would no longer be a reason for them to roam the streets with Sunni Arab insurgent forces crippled.

This is stupidity, defined: Having found ourselves in between warring branches of fanatical, anti-American Islamism, we have now extended our military committment to enable one of those factions to eliminate their mortal enemy on their behalf.

Are we really this stupid?

The mind reels.

Let Us Listen To What The Enemy Is Saying, Part II

2007-01-11T08:52:00.000-08:00

One of the disabilities Westerners labor under in dealing with Islam is our widespread lack of ability in Arabic. Arabic is a very, very difficult language to even obtain a basic competency in, even, in many cases, for native speakers. And, given the fact that, outside of the highly specialized worlds of big oil and international diplomacy, virtually no business is conducted between the Arabic-speaking world and the West, there is little incentive for the average Westerner to take the plunge and learn it.

This unfortunate circumstance has persisted for decades and has effectively given the Jihadist movement the ability to divide its message: one (call it "ROP Mode") in English, the other (call it "Jihad Mode") in Arabic. The use of the word "cease-fire" is the most famous of the dual usages. In English, it is presented in the Western meaning of the word, i.e. a cessation of hostilities in advance of peace negotiations with an eye towards a final settlement. In Arabic, the term "hudna" is used, i.e. a temporary cessation of hostilities with the sworn enemy for reasons of tactical advantage or to give time to recover from a set-back.

But that is only the most famous example. The fact is such double-usages are legion and part of a larger tactic of saying one thing in ROP Mode and quite another in Jihad Mode. (Incidentally, this is why the service provided by MEMRI is invaluable).

However, if you pay attention, the mask slips often. The Jihadists are really fooling no one who doesn't willingly want to be fooled.

Still, the difference between ROP Mode, in which multi-culti pieties are mumbled, and Jihad Mode, in which our Muslims let their hair down and speak their mind secure in the ignorance of the infidels, can at times be quite striking.

Take "Australian" Muslim leader Taj al-Din al-Hilali for example. Just weeks after slapping idiot liberal and left-wing Aussies in the face by bolding proclaiming the right of Muslims to rape Western women who do not submit to the veil (see his speech excerpt below), the "sheik" has done the traditional thing and gone on a Grievance Tour. He is currently stirring the shit in Egypt--which, admittedly has quite a bit of shit to stir--and had the following to say.....in Arabic, of course.

Speaking in Arabic on Egyptian television Sheik al-Hilali said, according to a Seven Network translation, that white Australians arrived in the country shackled as convicts.

"We (Muslims) came as free people. We bought our own tickets. We are entitled to Australia more than they are,'' he said.

The mufti was on the Egyptian chat show explaining the controversy last year over his comments likening immodestly-dressed women to uncovered meat.

But according to the translation, he said the controversy was a white conspiracy aimed at terrorising Australian Muslims.

* * *

The mufti told Egytpian television that outrage over his controversial meat sermon was "a calculated conspiracy'', that started with him, "in order to bring the Islamic community to its knees''.

He also said "Australian law guarantees freedoms up to a crazy level'', when reportedly referring to anti-Muslim courts and the harsh sentencing of a Muslim gang rapist in Sydney.

Islamic Friendship Association president Keysar Trad today criticised and defended his close friend, saying some of his comments were "ill-advised''.

"I believe his intention was to indicate that we choose to be in Australia because we love Australia, because his Egyptian interviewers were asking him why he stays and puts up with the controversy here,'' Mr Trad said.

"He was defending Australia, but saying sometimes democracy fails, and the reaction to his comments put a lie to the democratic principle of free speech.

"But I, as a Muslim Australian, do feel the need to apologise for anyone who is offended by these comments.''

Note particularly Mr. Trad's, that is to say, a moderate Muslim's, reaction to free speech: to Muslims, as to Leftists, what "free speech" means is that Muslims are free to speak and we are free to shut the fuck up. Note that even Australian Islam's public face, a man who must have been chosen for his communication skills and ability to act as a spokesperson for the cause of Australian Muslims, literally has no understanding of what "free speech" means. None whatsoever.

Oh, and also note that no apology is needed. You're the one who has to apologize, infidel.

We have but to listen to understand.

*Excerpt: al-Din al-Hilali's Speech, given at Lakemba Mosque, on the MOST HOLY YOU-CAN'T-KILL-US-BUT-WE-CAN-KILL-YOU Month of Ramadan:

But in the event of adultery, the responsibility falls 90 per cent of the time with women. Why? Because the woman possesses the weapon of seduction. She is the one who takes her clothes off, cuts them short, acts flirtatious, puts on make-up and powder, and goes on the streets dallying. She is the one wearing a short dress, lifting it up, lowering it down, then a look, then a smile, then a word, then a greeting, then a chat, then a date, then a meeting, then a crime, then Long Bay Jail, then comes a merciless judge who gives you 65 years.

But the whole disaster, who started it? The Al-Rafihi scholar says in one of his literary works, he says: If I come across a crime of rape - kidnap and violation of honour - I would discipline the man and teach him a lesson in morals, and I would order the woman be arrested and jailed for life.

Why, Rafihi? He says, because if she hadn't left the meat uncovered, the cat wouldn't have snatched it. If you take a kilo of meat, and you don't put it in the fridge, or in the pot, or in the kitchen, but you put in on a plate and placed it outside in the yard. Then you have a fight with the neighbour because his cats ate the meat. Then (inaudible). Right or not?

If one puts uncovered meat out in the street, or on the footpath, or in the garden, or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, then the cats come and eat it, is it the fault of the cat or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem! If it was covered the cat wouldn't have. It would have circled around it and circled around it, then given up and gone.

If she was in her room, in her house, wearing her hijab, being chaste, the disasters wouldn't have happened. The woman possesses the weapon of seduction and temptation. That's why Satan says about the woman, "You are half a soldier. You are my messenger to achieve my needs. You are the last weapon I would use to smash the head of the finest of men. There are a few men that I use a lot of things with, but they never heed me. But you? Oh, you are my best weapon."

Not My Country, Part Two

2007-01-05T08:23:00.000-08:00

From the AP:

TUCSON, Ariz.--National Guard troops working at an observatory post near the Mexican border were forced to flee after being approached by a group of armed individuals, authorities said.

The event occurred about 11 p.m. Wednesday at one of the National Guard entrance identification team posts near Sasabe, said National Guard Sgt. Edward Balaban.

He said the troops withdrew safely, no shots were fired and no one suffered injuries.

U.S. Border Patrol officials are investigating the incident and trying to determine who the armed people were, what they were doing and why they approached the post before retreating to Mexico.

The incident occurred in the west desert corridor between Nogales and Lukeville in the vicinity of Sasabe, Balaban said.

"We don't know exactly how many because obviously it took place in the dark," Balaban said. "Nobody was able to get an accurate count."

The Guard troops are not allowed to apprehend illegal entrants.

This is where "El Presidente" Bush has led us. Our own soldiers, sent to the border on his command, are now *running* from their duty. The boastful confidence and expectation of cowardice and incompetence on the part of the gangsters here says everything you need to know about where we are standing at the beginning of 2007.

But, really, who can blame the soldiers? The last US officers to actually stand their ground and fight against Mexican bandits thowing their weight around were sentenced to long prison terms. And the troops aren't exactly allowed to *do* anything, are they?

By their own government.

This is not my country.

Open Season

2007-01-03T22:38:00.000-08:00

Stuck Mojo's speed metal/hip-hop sound and unflinching lyrics have led them to the top of the right-wing pops with their song "Open Season." The song is straight forward enough: try your jihad shit here and you may find yourself on the receiving end of a gun.

That much, though, has been obvious from the beginning. On 9.11 itself, Muslim communities around the world (contrary to popular myth) burst into open celebration, from the Gaza to York.

That is, old York. New York, which has a rather large Muslim population by American standards, was mostly silent. There were chilling stories of New Jersey Muslims mocking individual bystanders, but for the most part you didn't see the kind of open gloating, horn honking, flag waving and outright celebrations here you saw elsewhere.

The reason for that is that, whatever negative cost America pays for the fact (and let's not kid ourselves: that cost is not inconsiderable), America is an armed society, with a long tradition of self-reliance when it comes to matters of the public peace and self-action when it comes to the state acting too slowly to protect its people from threats (real or perceived).

From the stories we've all heard, or perhaps experienced, about the two brothers who "pay a visit" to an abusive husband or boyfriend of a sister to the woman who opens her purse to reveal her snub-nose pistol to an over aggressive lout on the subway to the Korean shopkeepers of the Los Angeles Riots standing guard over their property with AR-15s and shotguns, we've all seen cases where Americans think it's perfectly okay to "take the law into their own hands." As a general matter, this is not condoned; as a practical matter (i.e. the "hidden law") we all realize that a beating from those brothers is in order and a restraining order is largely useless.

Americans believe in the rule of law, but they also believe that the state does not exactly have a monopoly on bringing "the law" to bear, assuming the right set of circumstances.

Which brings us to Mark Steyn and Northern Ireland.

Steyn's book "America Alone" is not actually a necessary purchase for his core fan base. If you've kept up with his articles over the past 4 years, there is really nothing new in the book that would surprise you. But that is not to say that on occasion Steyn doesn't make a new point that is worth amplifying. What I now call the "Open Season" scenario is one of them.

As an Anglosphere kind of guy, Steyn assumes his readers understand the strange terminology and lexicon of Northern Irish politics, so to be sure his point isn't lost here, it's important that you understand the basic labels.

"Unionists" are those, mostly Protestant, who believe that Northern Ireland should remain a part of the United Kingdom. "Loyalists" are those Unionists willing to use violence and to kill in pursuit of that goal.

"Nationalists" are those, mostly Catholic, who believe that Northern Ireland is illegitimate and should dissolve in favor of a "united" Ireland. "Republicans" are those Nationalists willing to use violence and to kill in pursuit of that goal.

"Ulster" is one of the historic provinces of Ireland, most (but not all) of which is today in present-day Northern Ireland; as such, "Ulster" is a Unionist term for Northern Ireland. Nationalists prefer other terms, like "the North" or the Repubican "Six Counties."

The IRA/Sinn Fein, for example, is Republican. The Social Democratic and Labour Party is Nationalist. The UVF/PUP is Loyalist. The Ulster Unionist Party is Unionist. Etc.)

Now that you're clear on the lingo, cue Steyn:

Islamists are foolish to assume that freelance nukes go one way. If a dirty bomb with unclear fingerprints goes off in London or Delhi, it's not necessary to wait for the government to response. As in Ulster, there'll always be groups who think the state power is too pussy to hit back. So unlisted numbers will be dialed hither and yon, arrangements will be made, and bombs will go off in Islamabad and Riyadh and Cairo. There will be plenty of non-state actors on the non-Islamic side. In the end the victims of the Islamist contagion will include many, many Muslims. But surely we don't need to wait for Iranian nukes, do we? The Bali bombs and Madrid bombs and London bombs have already lit up the sky: they make unavoidable the truth that Islamism is a classic "armed doctrine"; it exists to destroy. One day it will, on an epic scale.

To date (to date, mind you) the contest between the West and Islamism has been between state and non-state actors. This is one reason why the Left has deployed "international human rights" to the battlefield: by its own terms, states are restrained, while non-state actors are not.

But, as Steyn points out here, there is no reason--no reason whatsoever--to assume that this will always be the case, especially if Steyn is right and the manure hits the air moving device with wild abandon.

The question is: what would it take to push Americans and others into taking such action? Would such action enjoy quiet popular support?

Under what circumstances would such action not only be morally defensible, but a duty?

And what would that mean about such people's relationship with the United States Government? They would be criminals and terrorists, no doubt. Yet, like the Loyalists, they would be making claims on behalf of the self-same state that declared them criminal and beyond the pale.

And, more importantly, could such an foreseeable consequence turn entire countries into Northern Ireland writ large?

Could this be our future?

Let Us Listen To What The Enemy is Saying

2007-01-01T13:10:00.000-08:00

As I have said here many times, the biggest advantage the anti-Jihadists in the West have, in addition to freedom of speech in America (but, sadly, only in America) is the fact that our enemies are fascists. As fascists, they naturally believe in the obviousness and truth of their cause. Since they are soldiers fighting in a God-commanded historic war to purge the Volk (the "Ummah") of impurity and lead them to a state of purity in which all the dishonor and grievance they hold so deeply repugnant will be purged from the body politic and religious, ushering in a new Volkish (Islamic) state, they see no need to shrink from speaking their cause loudly and obviously.

In the West, there has been a war of ideas between the advocates of traditional religious tolerance and freedom of religion--who see Islam as nothing more than yet another religion that sadly bigoted Americans merely need to educate themselves about--and the advocates of Islam as Ideology. That is, between those who badly misread the conflict as a mere religious issue and those perceptive enough to realize that Islam has never been simply a religion the West is unfamiliar with like, say, Hinduism.

One of the centerpieces of that war of ideas has been over the Muslim veil. To the extent that a large number of Americans and other Westerners have bought that the wearing of the veil, in whatever form, is merely a harmless religious practice, the overwhelming view of the majority, the Jihadists and their sophisticated Western allies (CAIR, left-wing groups, "human rights" groups [but I repeat myself]) have been very successful.

This is understandable, if lamentable. Americans especially, but Westerners in general, take a very hands-off approach to religion. If someone says "my religion commands this" who is anyone to disagree?

Fortunately, the debate over this charade has just been settled, and from no less a Jihadist source than Al-Qaeda "Number Two", the psychopathic Egyptian "doctor" al-Zawahri. In his latest ramblings, he said:

The statement--said to have been issued by al-Qaeda's "media arm" al-Sahab--praised Muslim women who insist on wearing the Islamic veil despite pressures not to in some Western lands.

He described anyone doing that as "a soldier in the battle of Islam against the Zionist- Crusader attack".

This is exactly correct: the wearing of the veil is not a religious statement, but a statement of political solidarity with Islam Armed.

And, slowly, every day, more and more come to pierce that veil and see the enemy for who he--and she--is.

WWGSD?

2006-12-27T11:36:00.000-08:00

(What Would General Sherman Do?)

"War is the remedy our enemies have chosen, and I say give them all they want."

It really is that simple.

And with that, dear reader, I leave you until after the new year. May we find ourselves in 2007 after a dark 2006.

Mr. Bush, Meet Mr. Zenawi

2006-12-26T11:53:00.000-08:00

PLEASE SEE UPDATES BELOW

Over this Christmas weekend, Prime Minister Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia had enough of the latest Islamic "dispute" over "occupied lands" (From Israel, to Lebanon, to Thailand, to Russia, to the Philippines, Islamist demands are always cast as the jihadis as the victimized party) in his country. The neighboring "Islamic Courts Union" of Somalia ("ICU"), yet another jihadist outfit left unmolested by the President's failure, had been pressing Ethiopia for weeks and had shown a, shall we say, robust appetite for violence.

Ethiopia, unlike the United States however, doesn't have to play by a different set of rules. Instead, Ethiopia acted as a state should: forthrightly, with strength and obvious disdain for its enemies and those who would do them violence. Despite the fact that the European Union had sent one of its largest idiots to the African hell-hole for "peace talks", Ethiopia didn't blink.

The ICU had vowed all out war against the Ethiopian-backed transitional government of Somalia, with Islamic commander Hassan Bullow stating that "This war is a religious obligation and we are here to fight for our religion against the enemies until we die....The world is silent today while Ethiopian forces are killing us inside our country, but tomorrow when we defeat them and chase them things will be changed, we will enter their territories and at that moment the world will shout."

However, when Ethiopia dropped the gloves, the Islamists were revealed as the cowards and pitiful creatures that they are:

Islamic fighters attempting to wrest power from Somalia's internationally recognized government retreated from the main front line early Tuesday, witnesses said, a day after Ethiopian fighter jets bombed the country's two main international airports.

Troops loyal to the Council of Islamic Courts withdrew more than 30 miles to the southeast from Daynuney, a town just south of Baidoa, the government headquarters.

The Islamic forces also abandoned their main stronghold in Bur Haqaba and were forming convoys headed toward the capital, Mogadishu, residents in villages along the road told The Associated Press by telephone.

"We woke up from our sleep this morning and the town was empty of troops, not a single Islamic fighter," Ibrahim Mohamed Aden, a resident of Bur Haqaba said.

On the northern front, government and Ethiopian troops entered the town of Bulo Barde, where just two weeks ago an Islamic cleric said anyone who did not pray five times a day would be executed.

"We have withdrawn as part of our military strategy," said Sheik Mohamoud Ibrahim Suley, an official with the Islamic council in Mogadishu.

Come now, Suley! Surely there are some little girls or bound hostages you could kill to pep you up some? I do so hate to see a jihadi this depressed.

This is how you defeat jihadists: you kill them until they run and hide like the piss-pants cowards they are.

Mr. Bush? How is that January speech coming along?

UPDATE:

Cliff May over at NRO's The Corner adds the following post, which makes it even more clear what needs to be done:

I've just been talking with an FDD researcher who has been monitoring developments in Somalia via Arabic media. It does indeed appear that the Ethiopians are defeating Islamist forces there. Why are they achieving what American forces in Somalia in1993 did not and what American forces in Iraq today apparently are not?

More "boots on the ground" may be part of the explanation. The Ethiopians are not attempting to have a "light footprint." They are not worried about whether they will be seen as "occupiers" or whether their "occupation" will be viewed as benevolent.

Secondly, the Ethiopians are not overly concerned about whether their tactics will win approval from the proverbial Arab Street--or the European Street or Turtle Bay. They are fighting a war; their intention is to defeat their enemies; everything else is secondary or tertiary.

Anyone have an alternative interpretation?

UPDATE II:

From the New York Times, two days ago:

Ethiopian officials said today that they had run out of patience with the Islamist leaders, who have declared war on Ethiopia and vowed to turn Somalia into a recruiting ground for anti-Ethiopian fighters.

"What did you expect us to do?" said Zemedkun Tekle, a spokesman for Ethiopia's information ministry. "Wait for them to attack our cities?"

Mr. Snow, meet Mr. Tekle....

UPDATE III:

From the New York Times, today:

As the situation in Somalia began to shift, it seemed that the Islamists may have overplayed their hand. Just a few months ago they were the most powerful force in the country and popular in many areas for restoring order after 15 years of anarchy. The transitional government, which is internationally recognized but weak and divided, was urging the Islamists to return to peace talks to discuss sharing power.

But all that changed last Wednesday at dawn when the Islamists attacked Baidoa from two directions. Witnesses said that their waves of young fighters were summarily mowed down by the more experienced (and older) Ethiopian-backed troops. On Saturday, the Islamists announced that Somalia was now open to Muslim fighters across the world who wanted to wage a jihad against Ethiopia, which has a long Christian history though it is actually about half Muslim.

The next day, Ethiopia struck. [It was threatened on Saturday and attacked on Sunday. Mr. Bush?]

With warplanes and tanks, the Ethiopian military pushed deep into Somalia and began uprooting the Islamists from their positions. Meles Zenawi, Ethiopia's prime minister, said his country had been forced into war by the Islamists and that Ethiopia would try to neutralize the threat as quickly as possible.

The toll is rising in Mogadishu. At Benadir hospital, crowds of women pushed at the gates to get inside to see their wounded sons and husbands. Witnesses said the hospital's courtyards were stacked with dozens of corpses buzzing with flies. Some of the women even threw stones at the Islamist commanders visiting the hospital and shouted, 'Why have you done this to us?'

The day Iraqi women throw stones at the jihadis and wail at their misfortune is the day that we, like Ethiopia, begin winning. The lessons here are clear and beyond debate. To the extent we understand them, we will begin to pull ourselves out of the mire of self-inflicted defeat.

Can? Or Won't?

2006-12-22T11:58:00.000-08:00

The results of recent CNN poll reveals an interesting twist in the Iraq numbers:

"Do you think the United States CAN win or CANNOT win the war in Iraq?"

Can win -- 54 percent
Cannot win -- 43 percent

"Do you think the United States WILL win or WILL NOT win the war in Iraq?"

Will win -- 40 percent
Will not -- 56 percent

If these numbers are accurate, and I believe they are, there is a generally feeling among a solid majority of Americans that we can win the war but that we won't.

This is critically important, because the first question (the "can") speaks to attitudes about the realm of possibility, while the second question (the "won't") speaks to restraints placed on the realm of possibility.

In other words, more and more people are coming around to the Jacksonian view of this war: we could win it, if we were serious, but we're not serious, so we won't. This is why the President's "leadership" and the current mess in DC is so disheartening.

Surely, if we lived under a parliamentary system, the government could act by sacking the man in charge and giving another man a shot. One of the great shortcomings of our presidential system, though, is that such a process is almost impossible under it.

That is not to say, however, that is should not be considered. If the President's speech in January on the war contains more of the same--or, God help him, the sheer idiocy on display at his press conference yesterday--it may well be time for a Republican delegation to trek up to the White House and tell the President that he has run out of time and credibility.

Unlikey, yes, but sadly such an unlikely scenario may be our last-ditch hope that the badly-led USG can move us from the "can" column to the "will" column.

UPDATE:

Secretary of State Rice is quoted this morning as saying Iraq is "worth the investment" in American lives and dollars.

That statement is just outrageously ridiculous and makes me glad I won't have to present it professionally with a straight face.

According to Tony Judt's masterful history of Europe since 1945, Post-War, the famous Marshall Plan for Western Europe had the following characteristics:

-- Amount Spent by US: 14 billion dollars

-- Adjusted to 2004 Dollars: 100 billion dollars

-- Adjusted to an equivalent share of America's GDP in 2004: 201 billion

That is, even taking the most generous measure of the equivalent amounts spent by the US under the Marshall Plan and for reconstruction in Iraq, the *entire* Marshall Plan expenditure is less than half of that spent on the "Islamic Republic of Iraq" since 2003.

And that doesn't even factor in the additional $100 billion now requested.

And what do we have to show for such expenditure? The Marshall Plan set Western Europe up for the amazing boom in prosperity and stability that the now-lucky continent has enjoyed since the late 1940s. Does anyone imagine anything remotely similar to take place in Iraq?

This is beyond politics; this is bloody delusional.

Contest Time!

2006-12-20T14:52:00.000-08:00

It's time to play "Spot The Dumbest Thing The President Said At His Press Conference This Morning!" Here's the rules: Of the five actual, real, not-made-up idiotic quotes, which one brings you closer to collapsing in utter despair as you realize that the Presidency is in the hands of a dreamer with a weak grip on reality?

Quote No. 1:

The advance of liberty has never been easy, and Iraq is proving how tough it can be. Yet, the safety and security of our citizens requires that we do not let up. We can be smarter about how we deploy our manpower and resources; we can ask more of our Iraqi partners, and we will -- one thing we cannot do is give up on the hundreds of millions of ordinary moms and dads across the Middle East who want the hope and opportunity for their children that the terrorists and extremists seek to deny them, and that's a peaceful existence.

Quote No. 2:

A recent report on retail sales shows a strong beginning to the holiday shopping season across the country -- and I encourage you all to go shopping more.

Quote No. 3:

I want the Iraqis to understand that we believe that if they stand up, step up and lead, and with our help we can accomplish the objective.

Quote No. 4:

And so we support the formation of the unity government and the moderate coalition. And it's important for the leader Sistani to understand that's our position. He is a--he lives a secluded life, but he knows that we're interested in defeating extremism, and we're interested in helping advance a unity government.

Quote No. 5:

My message to the Iranian people is you can do better than to have somebody try to rewrite history. You can do better than somebody who hasn't strengthened your economy. And you can do better than having somebody who's trying to develop a nuclear weapon that the world believes you shouldn't have. There's a better way forward.

Be sure to vote, but remember: whichever you vote for, everybody loses!

Is John Bull Waking Up? -- Part Two

2006-12-19T11:37:00.000-08:00

The Conservative Member of Parliament for Wycombe, Paul Goodman, speaking in the House of Commons, November 15, 2006 (Source: Hansard):

We know that the central theme of the Queen's Speech is the terrorist threat and our security response. I observe in passing that no Labour Back Bencher remains in place to make a speech on this or any other theme on the first day of our debates on the Queen's Speech. I will do my best to fill the gap. This is my first chance to address the House about these issues since my constituents in High Wycombe woke up on 10 August to find themselves in the eye of a media storm about the aeroplane terror plot. Four of my constituents were arrested and two have since been charged with serious offences. I must, of course, presume that my constituents are innocent until or unless a court decides otherwise, but it is important to say that 10 August was an immeasurably sad day for High Wycombe and it is essential to pay tribute to Thames Valley police, to the local mosque committee and local imams, to Wycombe district council and to all local people for the good sense that they have shown during these difficult weeks and months.

More than 9,000 of my constituents are Muslims, almost 11 per cent. of my electorate. I thus represent more Muslim voters than any other Member of Parliament of my party. I therefore necessarily see one of my most important duties as a constituency MP and, indeed, more widely, as being to help to do what I can to create a moderate, prosperous and integrated British Muslim majority. The aeroplane plot, the Dhiren Barot trail and conviction, the Abu Hamza affair, the horror of 7/7, the attempted shoe-bomb atrocity by Richard Reid and the whole terrible history of recent events stretching back to 9/11 and beyond should remind the House--if, with our eyes also on currents events in Afghanistan and Iraq, we need any reminding--that this aspiration and our common security are under threat.

A central question about the Queen's Speech, therefore, is whether both it and Government policy more broadly will curtail terror, build security and help to deliver that moderate, prosperous and integrated British Muslim majority that we all want to see. Ministers must thus convince the House that the analysis that accompanies their actions is thoroughly thought through. I shall risk a medical analogy: relations between Muslims and non-Muslims in Britain are clearly to some degree poisoned. Seeking to drain the poison and heal those relations is a bit like a doctor treating an illness. We have to diagnose the cause of the illness before seeking to cure it.

There is no shortage of diagnoses. Some claim that the main cause of Muslim alienation is racism and Islamophobia; others that it is poverty and lower life chances; and others still that the cause is intergenerational conflict between older people who, in some cases, still inhabit psychologically, if not physically, the hill villages of Pakistan and Azad Kashmir, and more rootless younger people who identify neither with traditional life in those villages nor with modern Britain. Other voices cite the failure of the multi-culturalist experiment in delivering social cohesion, and others point to foreign policy.

For myself, I believe that all those observations are part of any sensible diagnosis. As the first parliamentary Member of my party, as far as I know, to call publicly for an independent inquiry into the Iraq war on 2 June 2003, I am scarcely likely to argue otherwise. However, in my view these observations do not constitute the whole diagnosis. Clearly, there is something missing. Dhiren Barot, for example, cannot originally have been a victim of Islamophobia as he was raised as a Hindu. Jermaine Lindsay, the 7/7 bomber, cannot have been caught in an intergenerational struggle with Pakistani elders as he was black. Mohammed Sidique Khan, another 7/7 bomber, cannot have had his livelihood damaged by lower life chances as he was a graduate of Leeds Metropolitan university.

I suggest to the House that that missing something is the ideology of Islamism. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean) said, Islamism is not Islam. Islam is a religion--a great religion at that and one, it seems to me, as various, as complex, as multi-faceted and as capable of supporting a great civilisation as Christianity. Islamism, however, is an ideology forged largely in the past 100 years, and that word "ideology" should help to convey to the House a flavour that is as much modern as mediaeval.

Like communism and like fascism, those other modern ideologies, Islamism divides not on the basis of class or of race, but on the basis of religion. To this politician, it has three significant features. First, it separates the inhabitants of the dar-al-Islam--the house of Islam--and the dar-al-Harb--the house of war--and, according to Islamist ideology, those two houses are necessarily in conflict. Secondly, it proclaims to Muslims that their political loyalty lies not with the country that they live in, but with the umma--that is, the worldwide community of Muslims. Thirdly, it aims to bring the dar-al-Islam under sharia law.

I am not an expert on Islam, but I have learned enough about it since I was first elected to this place in 2001 to recognise that its view, and our inherited view of the difference between the sacred and secular, diverge. In our inherited view, the sacred and the secular are separate. The Christian tradition from which our inherited view springs has always acknowledged a distinction between what is God's and what is Caesar's. In Islam, that distinction is harder to perceive.

It is, of course, true that in the Muslim societies in which I have travelled sharia law and secular law exist side by side. In Pakistan, for example, there are both secular and sharia courts. None the less, the distinction is anathema, so to speak, to the Islamists. They look back for inspiration to Mohammed's original political settlement, in which the religious and political were, in effect, one and the same. They are, as the phrase has it, "dreaming of Medina." They seek to restore the caliphate to a glory that is tinged with nostalgia and longing.

Let me give a hard example of what that means and its significance in the context of the Queen's Speech. The Home Secretary was recently and notoriously heckled at a public meeting in Leyton by Abu Izzadeen, another convert to Islam, who was formerly known as Trevor Brooks. He said to the Home Secretary:

"How dare you come to a Muslim area?"

That was not some random insult or interruption; Mr. Izzadeen knew what he was doing. He was asserting that Muslims are in a majority in the part of Leyton in which the Home Secretary was speaking. He was therefore claiming that part of the country as part of the dar-al-Islam. He was saying, in effect, that sharia law, not British law, should run in Leyton. Mr. Izzadeen's version of sharia law would be consistent with dispensations for Muslims from some aspects of British law, the application of a sharia criminal code, special taxes for non-Muslims, a public ban on alcohol consumption and the closure of pubs and bars, and a ban on conversions from Islam to other faiths.

We can, of course, choose to dismiss Mr. Izzadeen as an isolated fanatic, but such a view may be unwise. There is polling evidence to suggest that his views tap into a reservoir of sympathy and support. For example, an ICM poll that was commissioned last February found that four out of 10 British Muslims want sharia law introduced to parts of this country. It is important to note that that almost certainly represents a degree of support for what I would call soft sharia--in other words, for the application of some sharia law in relation to family arrangements alone. None the less, even the implementation of soft sharia would mark, I think for the first time, one group of British citizens living under a different set of laws from other British citizens.

We must consider what the likely future effect would be on domestic Muslim support for sharia, and even for terror, of a further downward spiral events, of further international tensions between Muslims and non-Muslims, of further domestic terrorist incidents--which, alas, there may be--and of racist and xenophobic backlashes against British Muslims. That is the challenge that we all face together. In my view, it is a challenge to Britain that is no less pressing than the challenge of climate change, which has occupied much of the debate today. That is the challenge for the political and media classes as a whole, and it is especially the challenge for this Government and the security and terror-related aspects of the Queen's Speech.

There are three tests for those parts of the Queen's Speech and, in concluding, I will put them as questions. The first question is: does the whole Government machine clearly recognise that Islamism is a key element in poisoning relations between Muslims and non-Muslims? The evidence is ambiguous. The Prime Minister has said, crucially:

"The rules of the game have changed".

Individual Ministers, such as the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, whom I heard speaking on this matter last week, see the scale of the problem. However, as a brilliant pamphlet--Martin Bright's "When Progressives Treat with Reactionaries"--for the think tank Policy Exchange indicated, the foreign policy, Home Office and security establishments are divided on how to deal with the Islamists. Anyone who doubts that those divisions exist should ponder the leaked memos from Government in relation to the proposed visit by Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, with which Mr. Bright illustrates his pamphlet.

The second question for the Government is: can they prove to the House and to the country that the proposals in the Queen's Speech on security are inspired by the long-term good of the country, rather than by short-term political manoeuvring? That is a crucial question. Ministers must recognise that the yoking together of spin--which my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) mentioned and which I describe as the practices devised originally to deliver new Labour from the failures of the Kinnock and Foot years--and the selling of the Iraq war has eviscerated trust in the Government.

Alas, the habit of spin continues. The Chancellor now tells us that he wants to get tough on security, but, as I pointed out to the Prime Minister this afternoon, only 476,000 [Pounds] has been seized from suspect sources in six years and only four enforcement actions have been taken against Islamic charities--not that I am criticising Islamic charities as a whole, of course. The Home Secretary--that rival to the Chancellor, we read--will no doubt claim that he will be even tougher, but according to a written answer that I received recently:

"There has been no centrally issued instruction to prison governors on the receipt of Islamist publications by prisoners." [ Official Report, 26 October 2006; Vol. 450, c. 2126W.]

That is remarkable. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, for her part, must realise that those who sit on her new Integration and Cohesion Commission are unlikely to be optimistic, given that its predecessor, the huge "Tackling Extremism Together" project, has had only four of its proposals implemented. The Secretary of State for Education and Skills, in the wake of the collapse of his policy on admissions to faith schools, must now ensure that university principals strike the right balance between allowing free speech to flourish on campuses and closing down the incitement of violence, whether by Islamists or by anyone else. The Government as a whole must recognise that their motives in arguing for 90 days' detention are greeted with deep suspicion, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) pointed out in his characteristically incisive speech earlier today.

The third and final question for the Government is: if they acknowledge the dangers posed by Islamism, and if their analysis is correct, will they see the necessary action through? The aftermath of the recent remarks by the Leader of the House about the niqab--remarks that I suspect were driven by his own concern about shariaisation--revealed deep uncertainty within the Government. Soon after he spoke out, voices were heard suggesting that his remarks had alienated moderates and driven Muslims into the hands of the extremists; that his words could have been better chosen; and that now was not the right time to have a public discussion about Islamism. I am not so sure. There is a deep problem. Politicians' words can nearly always be better chosen, and now is never the right time, it seems, to have a public discussion about Islamism and integration. Broadly speaking, we have not been having this public discussion since the Rushdie affair, and my main concern about not having an informed, decent, consistent and rigorously thought through public discussion about Islamism centres on the effect that that postponement will have, not only on the non-Muslim majority, but on the Muslim moderates--the moderate and prosperous greater share of Muslims to whom I referred earlier.

The leadership of the Muslim community that I know best, in High Wycombe, is moderate and sensible. The community makes a huge contribution to the town. It is well integrated into both the main political parties and it produced the first Conservative Asian mayor in the country--Mohammed Razzaq--in the 1980s. However, it is clear that nationally, and especially among the alienated young, the moderates are not making the running; the Islamists are making the running. The moderates are in a position strikingly similar to that of the Social Democratic and Labour party in Northern Ireland, which has, in the past 15 years, been outpaced, outwitted and outsmarted by Sinn Fein-IRA, with consequences that are still fully to be seen. Deferring the debate further will only allow this process to continue. When it finally takes place, which it will, it will probably be noisier and nastier than would otherwise have been the case. It is essential that the moderates grasp that the main threat of the Islamists is as much to them as to anyone else.

This Queen's Speech thus presents us with a choice--we can either take an approach that tends to lurch from pacification in the wake of future highly charged public rows, such as the veils controversy, to panic in the wake of future terrorist attacks, which we are, alas, told are only too likely to happen, or we can rise to the challenge in an informed, decent and consistent way. In facing the challenge, Opposition Members must acknowledge and be mindful of the fact that Ministers have a responsibility that none of the rest of us at present has to bear.

George Orwell once wrote of the "deep, deep sleep of England, from which I sometimes fear that we shall never wake till we are jerked out of it by the roar of bombs."

On 7/7, we heard the roar of bombs in London. I sometimes worry that the deep, deep sleep that Orwell described in the 1930s is still here in relation to Islamism in sections of the Government, parts of the political and media establishment, the House and the country. This is one of the most urgent problems facing us, and if we are in that deep, deep sleep, it is time for all of us to wake up.

"...but the bird does not know how to fly"

2006-12-18T13:28:00.000-08:00

From MEMRI ("LBC" is Lebanese television):

Following are excerpts from a TV debate with Iraqi MP Iyad Jamal Al-Din, which aired on LBC TV on September 10, 2006.

Iyad Jamal Al-Din: Blessed be America for giving Saddam a good kick, sending him straight into the abyss of jail. Blessed be America for giving Mula Omar a good slap, sending him straight into the garbage bin of history and into the dunghills of oblivion. These people were tiny idols, who humiliated their peoples, and turned Allah's property into states and His servants into slaves. It was the moral duty of America, as the greatest and strongest power in this world, to topple these rodents, who treated their people ferociously. We should be happy. Instead of going to Britain for asylum and to beg for food, we should welcome them, so they can rid us of these despicable dictators, who have plundered Iraq's resources and turned the Iraqis into their slaves. Now there is freedom in Iraq, there are elections. People who never even dreamt of being ministers have become ministers through free elections. We did not know what democracy was until America brought it against our will. We did not want democracy or freedom...

Interviewer: At the same time, one can claim that there is much violence in Iraq, and this might even lead to a civil war. Some officials have acknowledged this. Blood is spilled in Iraq every day. Is this the price of democracy and freedom?

Iyad Jamal Al-Din: Yes, because we do not know what freedom is or what to do with it. We are like a tiny bird born in a cage. Its father and mother were born in the same cage, and so were its ancestors - for the past 1,400 years. Along came America and broke the cage open, but the bird does not know how to fly, because it has never used its wings. We do not know what to do with the values of freedom, because we were born slaves, the sons of slaves, the sons of slaves--for the past 1,400 years, with this inferior culture. I am not talking about the beautiful, tolerant, Islamic religion, which respects humanity. But there is an Arab Islamic culture, which, in many of its aspects... I don't mean all its aspects, because there is the Sufi culture, which is wonderful. But the official culture teaches you to become a slave to the ruler and to obsolete values and traditions. This is why we do not know what to do with the modern values of democracy.

From Time Magazine

2006-12-18T09:11:00.000-08:00

This speaks for itself:

It's time to face the facts here. This is no longer just a "liberal" media we're talking about. We're talking about a MSM that has been repeatedly caught simply making things up (the New York Times, Reuters, the British Broadcasting Corporation), admits that it has withheld news and stories to please Muslim rulers (CNN), and which relies on local Muslims to report on conflicts in which they are emotionally and personally invested (Associated Press, Reuters, AFP).

On the plus side, if anyone ever tries wasting your time talking or writing about Andrew Sullivan or what he thinks about conservatism again, just remember: Sullivan is an paid employee of people who refer to men like Ahmadinejad as a "champion of the dispossessed."

The Real Road To Victory

2006-12-16T10:19:00.000-08:00

A busy week for me ends with more work, so my post for the week-end will have to be a cut-and-paste job. That doesn't mean, however, that it's not important. Far from it. When I read this this morning I was simply stunned. This essay is simply the single most important essay that has appeared in the MSM this year. (Just barely: the Washington Times has only recently begun to be identified in the MSM community as one of its own and not without reason.). I've highlighted the passages that were particularly of interest.

This is the way, folks. This is how we win. The enemy is split into two warring camps. Time to drop the universalist pretentions and get to business.

LET THE MUSLIMS FIGHT IT OUT

By Diana West

Funny thing about the recent op-ed by Nawaf Obaid in The Washington Post outlining likely Saudi actions if the United States withdraws from Iraq: namely, that Saudis would both support Sunnis in Iraq (versus Shi'ites supported by Iran) and manipulate the oil market to "strangle" the Iranian economy.

I think it sounds peachy, this let-them-devour-each-other strategy--which I'm guessing many Americans mutter to one another in frankness, if not also in confidence.

After the column appeared, not only did the Saudi government disavow it, but Mr. Obaid was fired from his job advising the Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Turki al-Faisal. Hmmm, thought Saudi-ologists.

Before anyone could say, "shifting desert sands," Mr. Turki resigned his post in Washington, hightailing it back to the so-called kingdom for reasons unknown but possibly concerning machinations related to securing the post of foreign minister long held by Mr. Turki's ailing brother, Prince Saud al-Faisal. The post is also coveted by former Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan. Hmmm again.

But now it seems the Obaid column "reflected the view of the Saudi government," after all. At least, that's the way the New York Times tells it. Meanwhile, the Associated Press is reporting that "private" Saudi money is already supporting Sunni forces in Iraq. According to the New York Times, this private funding could easily become official Saudi policy. While Saudi leaders say they have so far withheld support from al Qaeda-led Sunni groups in Iraq, the newspaper explains, "if Iraq's sectarian violence worsened, the Saudis would line up with Sunni tribal leaders"--al Qaeda or no al Qaeda. Meanwhile, we already know Iran is backing, if not guiding, Iraqi Shi'ites.

So what should we do?

I propose two options, neither of which has occurred to Iraq Study Groupies calling for peace parleys with Hezbollah boosters and Holocaust deniers, or to hawkish proponents of "winning" Iraq (or at least Baghdad) with more troops. But maybe that's because neither group dares to reckon with the two greatest obstacles to our efforts in the region: namely, Islam (culturally unsuited to Westernity) and our own politically correct ROE, or rules of engagement (strategically unsuited to victory).

The first option is military, but it carries a seemingly insurmountable cultural override. The fact is, the United States has an arsenal that could obliterate any jihad threat in the region once and for all, whether that threat is bands of IED-exploding "insurgents" in Ramadi, the deadly so-called Mahdi Army in Sadr City, or genocidal maniacs in Tehran. In other words, it's a disgrace for military brass to talk about the 21st-century struggle with Islam as necessarily being a 50- to 100-year war. Ridiculous. It could be over in two weeks if we cared enough to blast our way off the list of endangered civilizations.

As a culture, however, the West is paralyzed by the specter of civilian casualties, massive or not, that accompanies modern (not high-tech) warfare, and fights accordingly. It may well have been massive civilian casualties in Germany (40,000 dead in Hamburg after one cataclysmic night of "fire-bombing" in 1943, for example) and Japan that helped end World War II in an Allied victory. But this is a price I doubt any Western power would pay for victory today.

So, the military solution--which isn't the same as boosting ROE-cuffed troop levels in Baghdad--is out, unless or until our desperation level rises to some unsupportably manic level. The great paradox of the "war on terror," of course, is that as our capacity and desire to protect civilians in warfare grows, our enemy's capacity and desire to kill civilians as a means of warfare grows also. Our fathers saved us from having to say, "Sieg Heil," but what's next--"Allahu akbar"?

Not necessarily. There's another Middle Eastern strategy to deter expansionist Islam: Get out of the way. Get out of the way of Sunnis and Shi'ites killing each other. As a sectarian conflict more than 1,000 years old, this is not only one fight we didn't start, but it's one we can't end. And why should we? If Iran, the jihad-supporting leader of the Shi'ite world, is being "strangled" by Saudi Arabia, the jihad-supporting leader of the Sunni world, isn't that good for the Sunni-and-Shiite-terrorized West?

With the two main sects of Islam preoccupied with an internecine battle of epic proportions, the non-Muslim world gets some breathing room. And we sure could use it--to plan for the next round.

Why We Are Losing In Iraq

2006-12-14T09:07:00.000-08:00

From the website The Captain's Journal, a non-military website that posts frequently on military affairs and whose author has many NCO contacts in theatre in Iraq:

The military has also tightened rules of engagement as the war has progressed, toughening the requirements before a sniper may shoot an Iraqi. Potential targets must be engaged in a hostile act, or show clear hostile intent.

The marines say insurgents know the rules, and now rarely carry weapons in the open. Instead, they pose as civilians and keep their weapons concealed in cars or buildings until just before they need them. Later, when they are done shooting, they put them swiftly out of sight and mingle with civilians.

Rules of Engagement: The U.S. soldier and Marine shall fight by rules easily manipulated by jihadi forces

It goes on:

From Observation Post Blazer, marines view Fallujah through a thick sheet of bullet-proof glass--already tested with numerous impacts. Or they stare through night-vision goggles or a thermal imaging scope that can pick up the heat of a dog hundreds of yards away.

The marines still patrol key roads. The US military, which still travels boldly through town despite a surge in deadly sniper attacks and roadside bombs, is spending $200 million on 60-plus projects to rebuild the city, heavily damaged in fighting two years ago.

But with just 300 marines, the US military footprint is smaller in this Sunni stronghold of more than 300,000 than it has been in two years. As the marine presence shrinks and Iraqis take more control, Fallujah--once a template for counterinsurgency efforts in Iraq, where US forces have controlled all the variables--is likely again to set a standard for the rest of the country.

"A lot of us feel like we have our hands tied behind our back," says Cpl. Peter Mattice, of Bravo Company, 1st Battalion, 24th Marine Regiment. "In Fallujah, [insurgents] know our [rules of engagement]--they know when to stop, just before we engage."

Rules of Engagement: The US soldier and Marine must be badly outnumbered and must patrol in the open, presenting an easy target, while the enemy can control the terms of the engagement through unilateral acts that act to "stand down" US forces adhering to artibtrary political rules.

It gets worse. From an NCO who served a year in Ramadi, on the ever-present danger of suicide bombers in cars/trucks:

My unit, as well as the thousands of other soldiers in our area dealt with these problems on a daily basis. The "details" of the ROE changed daily. Some examplesÂ For a time, the gunners would bring buckets full of rocks into the turret with them to throw through the windshields of vehicles not adhering to our warnings to stay away (that ended quickly after command had to pay for numerous windshields). We put signs in Arabic/Kurdish/Turkish on the backs of the vehicles warning them to stay away. We fired warning shots. We did nothing. We drove in the center of the road and dominated our routes by running ignorant drivers right off the road. We drove with the flow of traffic and narrowly averted disaster numerous times.

It is frankly immoral and criminal to ask American military personnel to conduct a war in such an environment.

In war, the side that can control when and where operations will occur has an enormous advantage. It is clear as day that these "rules" are easily manipulated.

You don't need to be a genius to figure it out. Base yourself in a Mosque, after getting some local "cleric" to declare it the 76th Most Holy Site in All of Islam. Spead your fighters out. Have them constantly walking in clothing that could conceal weapons. Have some of them armed, some of them not. Direct these men so there is constant inter-action between them and the US forces. Some walk into their path, get challenged, only found to be found unarmed. Some walk nearby, then turn around abruptly.

Every hour of every day, you are forcing US soldiers to make split-second decisions. They will feel the pressure, knowing that every day they face death and, if they make the wrong decision, that their own press will "Abu Ghraib" them and their own leadership will ship them to Leavenworth.

Meanwhile, run cars near convoys using the same concept. Some with lone men, others with families. Some come near, then leave. Others turn away quickly when spotted. Cause confusion and uncertainty in the crusader/infidel ranks.

Then, after a few weeks prep, after they get tired of all the near misses, you hit them. They will hesitate and you will get them. And the next day, your patient work of two weeks pays off as the AP headline hits America:

5 GIs Killed in Anbar Province.

Fantasy and Reality

2006-12-13T09:23:00.000-08:00

Fantasy is the President saying that the Sunni "vice-president" of Iraq is a real political leader who believes in the nation-state of Iraq and the Sunni, Shi'ites and Kurds united therein.

Reality is a sectarian killing by a bomb set to explode among job-seekers shattering over 60 human bodies.

Fantasy is our leading generals lining up on television to explain that there is no military victory, only a political one which will be achieved if only we have a few more years on the ground.

Reality is that we've been in Iraq longer than it took to defeat the Axis.

Fantasy is asking Americans to sacrifice their lives for the belief that the Arab and Muslim people desire liberty.

Reality is that Americans are mere targets who can be killed at will by an enemy ruthless enough to know our beliefs are nothing more than tarted-up weakness.

Fantasy is that Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Russia, China and the European Union will all act in the better interests of the Iraqi and the American people.

Reality is that they will look after their own while we do not.

Fantasy is that the Saudis have another peace plan.

Reality is that Saudi clerics continue to raise money and lavish praise on the Sunni killers of Baghdad.

Fantasy is the Secretary General of the United Nations saying this:

Fourth, states must be accountable to each other, and to a broad range of non-state actors, in their international conduct.

My fifth and final lesson derives inescapably from those other four. We can only do all these things by working together through a multilateral system, and by making the best possible use of the unique instrument bequeathed to us by Harry Truman and his contemporaries, namely the United Nations.

Reality is the United Nations, in the face of jihadi genocide, doing this:

The United Nations Human Rights Council agreed on Wednesday to send a mission to assess the human rights situation in the strife-torn Sudanese region of Darfur, council president Luis Alfonso de Alba said.

The resolution was adopted by consensus by the 47-member Council following a tense two-day special session. "It is so decided," de Alba said.

The mission will be headed by the UN Special Rapporteur on Sudan and "five highly qualified persons" to be appointed by the president of the council after consultation with other members, according to a draft text released by the United Nations.

The decision came after an often fractious debate which again saw a fault-line emerge between Western members of the council on one side, and African and Islamic states on the other.

Western countries, backed by Secretary General Kofi Annan and the Human Rights Commissioner Louise Arbour, insisted any mission should involve the UN's human rights expert on Sudan and composed of specialists.

African states had sought to have de Alba at the head of the mission alongside other diplomats.

The mission will "assess the human rights situation in Darfur and the needs of Sudan in this regard," the text of the draft decision said.

Human rights groups and mainly Western officials regarded the special session as a test of the council's credibility, after Annan warned that it had not paid sufficient attention to rights violations in Darfur.

"It is essential that this council send a clear and united message to warn all concerned, on behalf of the whole world, that the current situation is simply unacceptable and will not be allowed to continue," Annan said Tuesday.

The reality is that the killing in Iraq, the continuing deterioration of American standing and power in the world, the continuing strength of the jihadist movement and the continuing jihadist genocide in Sudan will get worse.

Until we make the collective decision to stop living in a fantasy world.

UPDATE: I love Gen. McCaffrey and would follow him into battle without question. But, goddamn it, this essay of his today in the Washington Post is a prime example of the level of fantasy that has taken hold of our debate.

First, the general advances this:

There is a better option. First, we must commit publicly to provide $10 billion a year in economic support to the Iraqis over the next five years. In the military arena, it would be feasible to equip and increase the Iraqi armed forces on a crash basis over the next 24 months (but not the police or the Facilities Protection Service). The goal would be 250,000 troops, provided with the material and training necessary to maintain internal order.

Then, without so much as realizing the implications of what he is saying and how it affects his first point, he advances this:

Lack of combat experience is not the central issue Iraqis face. Their problems are corrupt and incompetent ministries, poor equipment, an untrained and unreliable sectarian officer corps (a result of Rumsfeld's disbanding the Iraqi army), and a lack of political will caused by the failure of a legitimate Iraqi government to emerge.

C'mon people! Focus!

Is John Bull Waking Up?

2006-12-08T11:39:00.000-08:00

There are what must be to the jihadis among us distressing signs of life stirring across the Anglosphere. Forget France, Germany, Italy and Spain. They were basket-cases 100 years ago, 50 years ago and today. Who really finds it hard to believe that a handful of weak nations who, in living memory, have gone through numerous republics, authoritarian dictatorships and, now, the latest genius, soppy social democracies don't have it in them to resist the demands of a militant sub-group? No, that lot has always blown with the wind, for good or ill and imagined themselves the world's moral superiors because of it.

But in those nations of the Anglosphere, those nations who don't just talk of an inheritance but have one, the resistance to the jihadi movement is beginning to stiffen. Sure, an increasingly Europeanized Canada and U.K. were easy enough targets at first; there is something in radical Islam that causes the modern liberal's knees to buckle. Whether it is an urge to surrender a life without values to something stong enough to proclaim them or simply the time-honored leftist admiration for brute force, it's hard to say.

However, as the jihadist movement cuts through the butter of our governments and our universities, it is discovering quite a different attitude from the common people on the ground. They are showing a distressing tendency to make fun of Mohammed, suicide bombers and the monkey-fist-pumper crowd. They tend to refer to the nikaaaaa'bbbb/beeerk'a'tageential'akim,lawasszisam or whatever the silly things are called (seriously, who gives a shit?) as "Hefty bags". And, in America at least, they have a distressing tendency to remind Muslims that they have rifles and know how to use them.

CAIR and other groups have not been able to mau-mau Americans into shutting the hell up, though they have done quite a number on our government. But, in America, they are discovering that the government isn't quite a prize.

Capture the government in Belgium and the next thing you know it's illegal to say "Islam Sucks" in Brussels. Do the same in Washington DC and no matter how many times the FBI sends an agent to speak at a CAIR fundraiser I and millions of other Americans can still say that Islam represents a vital threat to our values and our way of life, is an ideology born of hatred and violence and one which must be resisted at all costs, including those self-same rifles if it comes right down to it.

So, across the Anglosphere, average Canadians, Americans, Britons, Australians and even (if the rumors are true) a few New Zealanders and Irish are beginning to push back. Just a bit here and there, mind you, but it's starting.

Which brings us back to Britain. Prime Minister Blair had some absolutely amazing stuff to say on the subject of multi-culturalism yesterday. Read this and tell me something fundamental hasn't changed in the debate over there:

However, it has thrown into sharp relief, the nature of what we have called, with approval, "multicultural Britain". We like our diversity. But how do we react when that "difference" leads to separation and alienation from the values that define what we hold in common? For the first time in a generation there is an unease, an anxiety, even at points a resentment that our very openness, our willingness to welcome difference, our pride in being home to many cultures, is being used against us; abused, indeed, in order to harm us.

I always thought after 7/7 our first reaction would be very British: we stick together; but that our second reaction, in time, would also be very British: we're not going to be taken for a ride.

People want to make sense of two emotions: our recognition of what we legitimately hold in common and what we legitimately hold distinct. When I decided to make this speech about multiculturalism and integration, some people entirely reasonably said that integration or lack of it was not the problem. The 7/7 bombers were integrated at one level in terms of lifestyle and work. Others in many communities live lives very much separate and set in their own community and own culture, but are no threat to anyone.

But this is, in truth, not what I mean when I talk of integration. Integration, in this context, is not about culture or lifestyle. It is about values. It is about integrating at the point of shared, common unifying British values. It isn't about what defines us as people, but as citizens, the rights and duties that go with being a member of our society.

Blair is a social democrat. He isn't about to toss his political ideology over the side. They were for multi-culturalism yesterday and, according to Blair, they're all for it today.

But look closer. Look at the language being used here. Oh, yes, of course we're all for diversity and multi-culturalism, says Blair. Just so long as we all agree on shared, common unifying British values. You're free to identify with whatever sub-culture you wish, so long as we all agree on the basics.

That's not "multi-culturalism" properly understood at all. What that is, astute readers will have already noticed, is American assimilation. Or, to quote the great sergeant Hulka: We don't care who you are, where you come from, what you look like, if you're red, white, black, brown or purple....but when we're done with you, you are all going to walk, talk, sleep, eat, shoot, shit....like an American.

The same phenomena is on display in Canada, where the Globe and Mail just reported a huge majority of Canadians in favor of "multi-culturalism" yet, at the same time, that same huge majority agreed that "the rights of women cannot vary from that given under Canadian law due to cultural traditions or practices," including religious ones.

Well. Looks like Joe Molson and John Bull are coming around. Blair continued:

Partly the answer lies in precisely defining our common values and making it clear that we expect all our citizens to conform to them. Obedience to the rule of law, to democratic decision-making about who governs us, to freedom from violence and discrimination are not optional for British citizens. They are what being British is about. Being British carries rights. It also carries duties. And those duties take clear precedence over any cultural or religious practice.

It is very hard for me to express to my American readers, to whom such a statement seems obvious and unobjectionable, how damn revolutionary such rhetoric is in the British political context. The socialists of Blair's party, who have poisoned the Common Law heritage with endless talk of "rights" while despising and sneering at words like "duty" and "obligation", who have literally--literally--killed the spirit of the once-great Scottish nation, are going to go over the top at hearing this.

But the average Briton will, I think, whisper in wonder at hearing such common sense from their rulers for the first time in ages. And it is they who hold the power, still. Blair concluded:

First, we need to use the grants we give to community racial and religious groups to promote integration as well as help distinctive cultural identity. In a sense, very good intentions got the better of us. We wanted to be hospitable to new groups. We wanted, rightly, to extend a welcome and did so by offering public money to entrench their cultural presence. Money was too often freely awarded to groups that were tightly bonded around religious, racial or ethnic identities.

In the future, we will assess bids from groups of any ethnicity or any religious denomination, also against a test, where appropriate, of promoting community cohesion and integration.

Second, we stand emphatically at all times for equality of respect and treatment for all citizens. Sometimes the cultural practice of one group contradicts this.

We need very clear rules for how we govern the public realm. A good example is forced marriage. There can be no defence of forced marriage on cultural or any other grounds. We set up the Forced Marriages Unit in 2005 and they now deal with 250-300 cases a year mainly relating to people of South Asian background. We have also changed immigration rules raising the age at which a person can obtain marriage entry clearance to come to the UK to 18. We consulted on whether a specific offence should be created, but, in the light of the responses received, chose not to pursue this. We will however return to the matter if necessary and will also consult on raising the age for entry clearance further, a point made strongly and well by Ann Cryer MP.

One of the most common concerns that has been raised with me, when meeting women from the Muslim communities, is their frustration at being debarred even from entering certain mosques.

Those that exclude the voice of women need to look again at their practices. I am not suggesting altering the law. But we have asked the Equal Opportunities Commission to produce a report by the spring of next year on how these concerns could be practically addressed, whilst of course recognising that in many religions the treatment of women differs from that of men.

Third, we must demand allegiance to the rule of law. Nobody can legitimately ask to stand outside the law of the nation. There is thus no question of the UK allowing the introduction of religious law in the UK. Parliament sets the law, interpreted by the courts. All criminal matters should be dealt with through the criminal justice system. There may be areas where, in civil proceedings, parties consent to arbitration by a religious body. But these are arrangements based on consent and, in all cases, parties will have recourse to the UK courts.

Fourth, there has been a lot of concern about a minority of visiting preachers. It would be preferable for British preachers to come out of the community rather than come in from abroad. Where they are recruited internationally, we will require entrants to have a proper command of English and meet the pre-entry qualification requirements.

Overseas nationals can come to the UK in a public speaking capacity as business visitors or as visiting religious workers. However, the Home Secretary may exclude from the UK any person where he judges that their presence here is not conducive to the public good. We have published a list of certain unacceptable actions that would normally lead to the exclusion of a person from the UK. The publication of those unacceptable actions makes it clear that we will not tolerate those who seek to create an environment in which terrorism and radicalism can thrive.

Fifth, we have a very established set of rights that constitute our citizenship. We should not be shy to teach them. That is why citizenship became part of the statutory national curriculum in secondary schools in 2002.

The national curriculum needs to stress integration rather than separation. The 1988 Education Reform Act states that religious education in all community schools should be broadly Christian in character but that it should include study of the other major religions. There is currently a voluntary agreement with faith schools on this basis. Faith schools also naturally give religious instruction in their own faith. It is important that in doing so, they teach tolerance and respect for other faiths and the Education Department will discuss with the faith groups how this is achieved and implemented, according to new national guidelines.

These will be based on the pioneering work done in this area by Charles Clarke when Education Secretary. As he said in his recent and excellent Royal Commonwealth Society lecture on Faith, such policies 'will rightly increasingly marginalize those very small numbers who want to teach religious education in a way which misleads and misrepresents other faiths.' We will also encourage all faith schools to construct a bridge to other cultures by twinning with schools from another faith. There have been concerns about some Madrassahs. The DfES is working to bring together a host of voluntary groups to form a National Centre for supplementary schools. It will recommend best practice to try to encourage tolerance and respect for other faiths by, for example, establishing links with other schools.

There can be no excuse for Madrassahs not meeting their legal requirements and they will be enforced vigorously. Sixth, we should share a common language. Equal opportunity for all groups requires that they be conversant in that common language. It is a matter both of cohesion and of justice that we should set the use of English as a condition of citizenship. In addition, for those who wish to take up residence permanently in the UK, we will include a requirement to pass an English test before such permanent residency is granted. I do not in any of this, ignore the social and economic dimension to extremism.

This is nothing short of revolutionary.

Our task is to get the American government to admit to the same principles, particularly on the overseas provision of "preachers" and funding to mosques and so-called madrassas here.

Oh, yes, John Bull is waking up. He'll be very nice about it, doesn't want to offend, and he'll even put his demands in soothing terms, but, one must admit, at the end of the day there is nothing particulary optional about what the PM is proposing, is there?

"We're not going to be taken for a ride."

As a half-Brit/half-American, I am in a unique position to translate that from British English to American English for you:

"Don't tread on me."

Not My Country

2006-12-06T09:31:00.000-08:00

The Iraq Study Group report has been issued today and it makes for stunning reading. The report is so clearly detached from observable, objective reality and so clearly the product of an ossified and exhausted political elite out of ideas and clueless as to how to lead that it can only induce in those who read it a moment of clarity: here is our collective madness on display.

In this fantasy world, the Islamic Republic has a constructive role to play in a "support group," the Saudis can be induced to provide support to the Sunnis so as to delicately balance the Iranian support to be given to the Shi'ites and Ba'athist Syria can be reasoned into patrolling its borders to help America by promises of progress on the Golan.

Meanwhile, in the wider regional conflict, since Israel is "tired of being a nation perpetually at war" (Yes, but what of the other party to the conflict? Of that, the Report has not a word) the only way forward is for an immediate peace conference on the basis of "land for peace." What an astonishingly new and bold idea! And, as is obvious to the whole world, what the conflict is really about is how many square meters of land are to be parcelled out to each warring party.

But the best part, the absolute best part, the part that makes me fall to my knees and thank God above that providence and chance led me to have to leave the Foreign Service is this:

RECOMMENDATION 34: The question of the future U.S. force presence must be on the table for discussion as the national reconciliation dialogue takes place. Its inclusion will increase the likelihood of participation by insurgents and militia leaders, and thereby increase the possibilities for success.

Violence cannot end unless dialogue begins, and the dialogue must involve those who wield power, not simply those who hold political office. The United States must try to talk directly to Grand Ayatollah Sistani and must consider appointing a highlevel American Shia Muslim to serve as an emissary to him. The United States must also try to talk directly to Moqtada al-Sadr, to militia leaders, and to insurgent leaders. The United Nations can help facilitate contacts.

Sistani won't talk to Americans, nor be in the same room with them, because they are filthy infidels. But, no problem! We'll just appoint an American Muslim as a special emissary and go beg. And then we'll go beg the guy who has killed American boys and bragged about it.

Beg.

This is not my country.

Fighting Words, Not Prayer

2006-12-06T08:32:00.000-08:00

Debra Burlingame, the brother of pilot Charles Burlingame of AA Flight 77 on September 11, reminds us all of the reality of the enemy we face in today's Wall Street Journal:

Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar! Those are the words that started it all. Six bearded imams are said to have shouted them out while offering evening prayers as they and 141 other passengers waited at the gate for their flight out of Minneapolis International Airport. It was three days before Thanksgiving. Allahu Akbar: God is great.

Initial media reports of the incident did not include the disturbing details about what happened after they boarded US Airways flight 300, but the story quickly went national with provocative headlines: "Six Muslims Ejected from US Air Flight for Praying." Yes, they were praying--but let's be clear about this. The very last human sound on the cockpit voice recorder of United flight 93 before it screamed into the ground at 580 miles per hour is the sound of male voices shouting "Allahu Akbar" in a moment of religious ecstasy.

This captures the position of the anti-Jihadist coalition that is growing in the West. Yes, we believe in freedom of religion and liberty. But what the Jihadis are putting on display is neither: they are fighting words, expressions of racist and religious supremism and a fascist ideology, that should be confronted at every turn with defensive violence.

Teaching this crucial distinction to the average American, let alone the average Westerner, will be difficult. Professional and well-funded Jihadist organizations, like CAIR and the Muslim American Board, understand our religious traditions well and seek to present their everyday expressions of superiority into religious protected speech, the kind of speech our traditions require us to approach with tolerance and understanding.

We must have the courage to understand the deeper meaning of the veil, the message that is conveyed by organized, public Muslim "prayer."

This is not simple worship. This is a political ideology tied to a regligious world-view that is dangerous, violent and contrary to every basic American and Western value of any worth.

The so-called "Flying Imams" are a warning to us all. They are going to use our own traditions against us in an effort to label the anti-Jihadist forces "anti-American." Already, CAIR has the support of our own government and many, many state governments as well. We are losing this struggle before it has even been well and truly joined.

Wake up, America. Fire, fear, foes. Awake.

Walter Russell Mead Speaks at Berkeley

2006-12-04T12:09:00.000-08:00

I've recently ran across a transcript of a live interview of Walter Russell Mead conducted at UC Berkeley's Institute of International Studies. His summary of what he calls the Jacksonian school of thought in American culture presented there is the best I've read.

It's not important to me that you, the reader, agree with the world-view presented here (though, as a Jacksonian by nature and nurture I hope you do). What is important to me, especially if you are not an American, is that you understand that the Jacksonian strand of American culture is of vital importance. Because Jacksonians are not often found in the elite, many of our own elite and practically all foreign observers tend to dismiss the power of this group, if they are even aware of them.

This is why so many British and Canadian reports on the recent election have so badly missed the mark. And, indeed, why so many domestic reports from true-blue areas of the country do the same.

When Andrew Jackson was a general in 1818, he was fighting a war against the Creek Indians in Georgia. Because Florida at the time was still under Spanish rule and there were two Englishmen in Florida selling arms to the Indians, who were then attacking U.S. forces in Georgia. Jackson took the U.S. Army across the international frontier into Spanish territory without any permissions or any U.N. resolutions. He went in there, arrested the two Brits, brought them back to the United States, tried them before a military tribunal and hanged them. And this did cause outrage in Europe. They said "These people have no respect for international law." But it made Jackson so popular in the U.S. that his election to the presidency was just a matter of time after 1818. [The idea is]: "Don't bother with people abroad, unless they bother you. But if they attack you, then do everything you can."

So in the 1930s, Hitler takes over Paris; we don't move an inch. He starts exterminating the Jews; we don't move an inch. Japan is [carrying out aggression] all over Asia. And on December 6, 1941, any opinion poll in the country would have said that most Americans wanted to stay out of World War II. Then December 7th, Japan attacks Pearl Harbor and suddenly the polls change. Jacksonians: when somebody attacks the hive, you come swarming out of the hive and you sting them to death. And Jacksonians, when it comes to war, don't believe in limited wars. They don't believe, particularly, in the laws of war. War is about fighting, killing, and winning with as few casualties as possible on your side. But you don't worry about casualties on the other side. That's their problem. They shouldn't have started the war if they didn't want casualties.

Hail to the Chief!

2006-12-01T09:17:00.000-08:00

"I like my wine French, my beer German, my vodka Russian, and my judicial system American."

-- Chief Justice Roberts, as reported in Washingtonian Magazine, December 2006, page 12

I think that would look smashing on the Supreme Court pediment just under "Equal Justice Under Law".

Speaking of which, did you know this? From Wikipedia:

In 1997, the Council on American-Islamic Relations demanded the Supreme Court remove the image of Muhammad from the marble frieze of the facade. While appreciating the fact that Muhammad was included in the court's pantheon of 18 prominent lawgivers of history, CAIR noted that Islam discouraged its followers from portraying any prophet in paintings, sculptures or other artistic representations. CAIR also objected that the prophet was shown with a sword, reinforcing long-held stereotypes of Muslims as intolerant conquerors. Chief Justice William Rehnquist rejected the request to sandblast Muhammad, saying the artwork "was intended only to recognize him, among many other lawgivers, as an important figure in the history of law; it is not intended as a form of idol worship." The court later added a footnote to the pamphlet describing the frieze, calling it a "a well-intentioned attempt by the sculptor to honor Muhammad".

I almost fainted when I read that. I've never been on the same side of an issue as the jihadis at CAIR. But in this, they have my full support:

What do we want?
Sandblast the image of Muhammad from the Supreme Court Building!
When do we want it?
NOW!!!

Newt Gets It

2006-11-28T14:45:00.000-08:00

I haven't been posting very much lately because, and this is an admission against interest, I haven't had a lot to say. It surely won't surprise you to learn that I've reached a point of despair about our collective ability to tackle the very real problems that the present and the all-too-near future are going to present.

I read most everything I can get my hands on and am fairly current on the major pronouncements on the issues of the day by the West's great political figures, and what I've been reading lately has driven me to gloom.

What passes for political discourse in the West right now, and especially in my own United States, is pitiful stuff. It's not even remotely relevant to the real issues that face us.

And then I stumbled across a long, cool drink of water in the form of Newt Gingrich.

Like most US conservatives, I like Newt. Liked him as a Republican leader, liked him as a Speaker, never thought much of the various allegations thrown at him. But, also like most US conservatives, I also thought of Gingrich as a bit of a crank. Always going on about management theory and third (or was it fourth?) waves. A solid guy, but not the kind of guy you necessarily want leading the team.

How wrong I was.

What follows is a speech Gingrich gave in October of this year at Johns Hopkins University. Read it and see if you do not agree with me that this speech hits you right between the eyes with the thought: "Finally! Someone is talking about the goddamn issues and getting it right!"

Here is the text of the speech. It's long, but well worth it:

I'm glad to be here. And I want to throw a couple of fairly big ideas out and then really go to questions and give you a chance to talk about anything you'd like to, but let me start with this proposition, which I think particularly fits people who are currently in college or at a point were they're thinking about their future, whether they're in college or doing other things.

I believe we are entering a period when the collective challenges will be the largest that they have been since Abraham Lincoln in 1861 called for 75,000 volunteers for 90 days. If you go back and look at that period, no one in April of 1861 had any idea that the Civil War would lead to the scale of difficulty that it did. Imagine they thought that there would be a brief moment of tension, that people would argue, that the government would prove it was serious by calling up 75,000 volunteers, they would have a nice conversation, and they'd be done.

Four years later 620,000 Americans had been killed. More than in all of our other wars combined. The United States had built a trans-continental railroad to the Pacific to keep California in the Union. We had run out of gold and had to issue paper money called Greenbacks which we still use 'til this day. And they ran out of volunteers in 1863 and had to go to a draft, in response to the draft the riots in New York City were so great that they actually sent in 10,000 federal troops who ended up hanging and shooting people in the streets. Nobody imaged this scale of difficulty. If you want to get a sense of how agonizing it was, go to the Lincoln Memorial and read Lincoln's second inaugural. Which is 700 words, it mentions God 14 times, in 700 words, and has two quotes from the Bible.

The difference between the rational, calm, historically reasoned Lincoln of Cooper Union in 1860, and this anguished State of the Union, excuse me, Second Inaugural is 4 years of agony for a country.

Now we are not faced with a Civil War, that's not the parallel I am trying to draw. But we are faced with a series of challenges from so many different directions occurring simultaneously that their cumulative effect is greater than the Cold War, greater that the Second World War, greater than the Great Depression, and I think that the only time I know of comparable in terms of having to deal with a multitude of challenges is the period of 1861 to 1865.

Let me just give you a brief survey of what I am describing. First of all, you are going to live through the largest wave of scientific knowledge that we have ever seen. In the next 25 years, we will have 4 to 7 times as much new science as we had in the last 25. I think these are literal numbers, I used to say 4 times as much and then I gave a talk to the National Academy of Science's working group on Computation and Information. And afterwards the Chairman said to me, "4 times isn't big enough, it's got to be at least 7."

I then went to New York to the American Museum of National History and asked my friend Michael Novichek who is the chief scientist what he thought and he said "I think maybe ten times as much." But as I thought about it, Novichek is a vertebrate paleontologist, and that is kind of a lagging field in terms of knowledge (LAUGHTER), and we haven't had the same scale of capitol investment and so we don't have the same rise of instrumentation. So let's say it's 4 to 7 times as much new knowledge. What does that mean on a practical level? It means that if you were sitting down as part of a planning committee looking out to 2031 for the University, for the city of Baltimore, for a profession, for a company, for the US government. If it's 4 times as much new knowledge, it would be as though you were in 1880 trying to imagine tonight. Now 1880 is pre-electric light, pre-automobile, pre-long distance telephone, pre-radio, pre-television, pre-motion picture, pre-airplane, pre-air-conditioning, pre-iPod, and just go down the list. But if it is 7 times as much new knowledge, it's as though you're Sir Isaac Newton in 1660 trying to discover calculus. I mean, you couldn't start the conversation. How would you begin to explain the world you now live in?

Now this is going to happen because there are more scientists alive today than in all previous human history. They are getting better computers and better instruments every year. They are then connected by email and cell phone instead of being connected by snail mail and publication. And they are then connected by licensing, venture, capitol and royalties, so you move from the laboratory to the marketplace very quickly, and finally they are connected to china and India's reserve centers of production. So when you add all that up, you are talking about just an enormous wave of new knowledge which will have many good things. We think at the Center for Health Transformation which I helped found, we think that it is very likely that we will eliminate cancer as a cause of death, we think its very possible that we will find a vaccine for Alzheimer's, we think that many good things will happen.

It will also probably lead to several bad things, because that is the nature of knowledge, to have a good and a bad. But in either event, it is going to mean a constant process of change, and a constant process of rethinking things, and it means we almost certainly have to fundamentally overhaul American education to insure that from K through 12 people learn enough math and science just to be capable of operating in the modern world, and that is a big change.

The second big change is the rise of China and India, and I just want to say from the standpoint of your generation, China and India are a fact, they're not a problem. What we do about them is a problem, but they're a fact. There are a billion, three hundred million Chinese; there are about a billion Indians. We say in our declaration of independence that we are endowed with certain inalienable rights among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Well the same creator that endowed us, endowed them. They have every right to pursue happiness, and they're going to. So you're going to see a lot of people working very hard to pursue happiness.

And we basically have only two strategies for your generation. We decide we are prepared to compete in which case we've got to roll up our sleeves and go through a series of transformations; or we decide competition is too hard, and we want to run and hide. In which case we can accept a strategy of elegant decay, which in the European model has led to 25% unemployment for people who are under 30, and an absence of new jobs, and a stunning decline in net wealth, but its an option, its always an option to decide not to compete. If we want to compete, which is what I would advocate, because I want my two grandchildren to have the highest value added jobs in the world, in the wealthiest country in the world, with the greatest capacity for leadership, if that is what we want, then we have to transform litigation, regulation, taxation, education, health and energy. That is a lot.

And yet unless we're prepared to go through that level of change its very hard for me to see how we're going to compete 30 years from now with China and India. On the other hand if we do go through that level of change I think there is every reason to believe we'll be for the next hundred years the most successful country in the world. We are far and away by a very big margin the best integrated society in history. People come from anywhere in the world and they learn to be American. They learn to work hard they learn to be creative, they learn to compete, they learn to cooperate. So you can come from Bosnia and Serbia where your families would kill each other, show up at an American suburb, send your kids to the same school, they show up at the same soccer team. It doesn't occur to them they hate each other, they're too busy. (LAUGHTER) They want to be Americans, It's a very different model...It's a remarkable cultural pattern which began 400 years ago at Jamestown, and has continued to spread, and which makes us a very unique civilization.

The third challenge we face after science and the economic competition of China and India is a very simple fact which now that I am 63 I feel more passionately about. The baby boomers are going to hang around for a long time. Now this did not affect me much at 20 but at 63 it strikes me as a good idea. (LAUGHTER) But let me give you some numbers just so you can understand the scale of change we're describing. In 1900, 46 was the average lifespan, now think about that. Since we are talking to a college age crowd how many of you have parents who are older than 46? Look around the room. On average they would be dead in 1900. Isn't that amazing? Last year in the longest living society in the world which is Japanese, a girl born in Japan last year on average will live to be 88. That means half of them will live to be older than 88. Let's think about that, you go from 46 to 88, no society in history has tried to sustain this many people for this long. And guess what, the baby boomers are going to apply to aging exactly the pattern they have applied to the whole life, it's about me.

You know when it was time to build primary school they wanted them built. When it was time to go watch ballet or football, they wanted the parents to show up. When it gets time to get older, they are going to want it to be the best aging in the world with the greatest range of choices. This is going to require enormous changes. There were complaints recently that the new Medicare Parts D drug program had too many choices. I don't know many of you heard about this, but I did. Senior citizens can't really be asked to make complex choices. So you shouldn't have all these different options because after all it's too hard for them to think it through.

Well, it occurred to me, I took a cruise this summer and I was thinking about it, and it occurred to me that we should consider introducing Medi-Cruise. (LAUGHTER) Because if you go online and check there are lots of cruise lines, and they leave from lots of different ports and they go to lots of different places, and they have lots of different pricing structures, and when you go to the ports, you have lots of different tours. Now think about what a brutal vicious thing we are doing to our senior citizens. Think about how confusing they must find it to be to sit there and go, "Do you really want to do the Caribbean again or do you want to do Alaska?" "Do you want to do the Baltic or do you want to do the Mediterranean?" "Do you want to pay whole lot and have that sweet up on top?" "Do you want pay a little bit and be down below?" "Do you want the one with all the meals, or only half the meals?" Do you want to go on the ship that has the casino, or the ship that doesn't have the casino?" "Do you want to go on the Disney ship with the 6,000 grandchildren, or do you want to go on the adult ship?" I mean, obviously this is wrong. Am I right? It's brutal, it's unfair, and so I am thinking on behalf of the notion of protecting seniors themselves, trying to get someone to introduce a bill called Medi-Cruise.

We'll create a federal administration of cruses. They will reach out with wisdom, and bureaucratic knowledge. They will pick 3 cruise options: Cruise A, Cruise B, and Cruise C. If you are over 65 we will limit you, nobody should be allowed to go on a cruise on your own just because you are wealthy. You should be required to have the same cruise as every one else just to prove that we are an egalitarian society. And then we will all be happy, right? We will have shared the misery evenly. I mean isn't that the insanity of this whole model?

By the way, I thought up the same thing with cars. Do you realize that there are over 600 models of cars? Maybe there should be a rule, at 65 you only get to pick 3. (LAUGHTER) But think about the difference of these two models. The Baby-boomers are going to want active healthy aging. There are going to want long term living, not long-term care. They are going to want to remain very active for as late as they can. And they are going to travel all over the place, and they are going to stay busy.

I studied under Edwards Deming, the father of the quality movement, when he was 90 years old. I took a 60 hour tutorial. He taught a 4 day 10 hour course, until he was 92. I consulted with Peter Drucker when he was 89. Because people who work with their brains like to stay busy. Henry Kissinger had a book review I read on the way over here. Kissinger is remarkably active and will be, I suspect, until the day he dies. He loves what he does, he wants to do it. Picasso panted till he was 93. This is different than the industrial agricultural model were people were physically broken at 55, and by the way they were going to die young.

You know I told that the average person lived to be 46 in 1900. As late as 1935 when Franklin Delano Roosevelt passed Social Security, you could get your retirement at 65 and the average person died at 63. Now I want you to think about this. If you want to understand why Roosevelt was the greatest politician of the 20th Century...think about the fact that people were thrilled about a program that most of them wouldn't get. Now the average Baby-boomer is going to be on Social Security for somewhere between 15-25 years. Nobody ever designed a program like this. The first year the Peewee paid Social Security checks, there were 42 taxpayers for every person getting a check. This year there 3. When my two grandchildren enter the job market there will be 2. It's a totally different situation, requiring real change.

I want to talk about 2 other great challenges that are domestic. One is the whole question of "Who are we as a country?" "What does it mean to be an American?" There is a very real struggle in a way... I just published a book last week called, "Rediscovering God in America." It's a very simple book. It starts at the National Archives with the Declaration of Independence which says, "We are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights." It's a very important concept. It means that power in America goes from God to you personally. You are sovereign, and then you loan power to the state. The government doesn't loan power to you. That's why the Constitution begins, "We the people of the United States of America" And this particular small book takes you around Washington. You go around the Washington Monument, the Jefferson Memorial, and then the Lincoln Memorial, and the ultimately the FDR the WWII and the Capitol and the Supreme Court. And we just show you how the historic America that existed prior to 1963 was totally imbued with this idea that our rights came from god. John F. Kennedy said the same thing. Our rights do not come from government, they come from God.

And how in the last 40 year the Courts have increasingly had a secular world view which is doubly weird because the Supreme Court has Moses holding the 10 Commandments in the wall. And say so...they're sitting there saying were not sure if this is legal as they sit under it. And it's a very very powerful argument, because the second part of defining who we are as being Americans is very simple.

We have been successfully integrative because for 400 years we have required English, and it means you could be....Benjamin Franklin worried about this because there was substantial number of people in Pennsylvania that spoke German. His concern was that ultimately he did not want us to us be come a country that had multiple languages...he's happy to have people speak multiple languages, but he did not want the country to be confused. Now this is a very significant question about the nature of America's future, and I would argue that we are to a peculiar degree a country defined by our memory. We are not genetically American. We are not racially American. We are not even geographically American. You know Arnold Schwarzenegger can show up...for that matter Henry Kissinger can show up and they become American. Colin Powell's parent's can migrate to New York City, and he's an American. My great great great grandparents could come over and I'm an American.

I mean we don't have any test that says "here is this little box." What we have is a collective memory. This is what it means to be an American, and anybody on the planet can learn how to be an American. But we face a grave danger if we quit teaching it, because our country's one generation deep. And the morning that generation disappears, if there is nobody left behind who understands how to be an American, why would you assume we'll reinvent this? Why would you assume that we won't become like the Balkans, or like West Africa, or like Baghdad? We have fully as much capacity to disintegrate as anybody else and we're sort of a miracle that we hold ourselves together with as great a diversity as we have, with as much energy as we have, and that we keep directing those energies in positive, creative ways rather than in destructive ways. So this whole question of how do you deal with immigration, how do you deal with the border, how do you deal with citizenship, how do you define being an American will be a major challenge for your generation.

The last great domestic challenge I think is the fact that we have large structured government institutions that simply don't work. You saw some of this with what happened in New Orleans and Katrina. The fact is, in Katrina, government failed. The federal government failed. The state of Louisiana failed. The city of New Orleans failed. And for 22,000 citizens in the lower 9th ward, citizenship failed. They literally did not have the education, the training, the habits of responsibility, or the capacity to get out of the way of a hurricane. And so you have got to look at that experience and say how much do you have to change each of those four layers, so that if it happened again you didn't have the same failure?

But consider a stage further. The Gates foundation reported that the Detroit school system graduates 21% of its entering freshman on time. Think about that, if you are going to compete with China and India in an age of science, think about the notion that four out of five people entering the Detroit school system do not graduate on time-assuming that you believe all 21 % who get a diploma actually got a document worth having. This is a stunning challenge. And you see it happen again and again. So part of the challenge is that not only do you have to absorb all this new knowledge from science, not only do we have to compete with China and India, not only do we have to deal the baby boomers and others who are going to live much longer than we ever expected, how are we going to have institutions that work?

We fought the entire Second World War from Pearl Harbor to victory over Japan in less than four years; it now takes 22 years to add a runway to the Atlanta airport. So think about the difference in those two systems, in the speed, accuracy and agility with which we once did things. And so your generation is going to face the challenge... You can go to my website; it's named after my first name its Newt.org. And there is a paper there on entrepreneurial public management, where we outline this scale. And we looked and try to explain here is what we have to do. Here is what it would be like to have government... I mean, imagine a government that was as accurate as a gas pump.

How many of you pump your own gas at self-service gas stations? It is not a radical thought, right? How many of you use a credit card to pay for it? Right, virtually the same number. How many of you do not keep your receipts, or do not even get a receipt? How many of you get a receipt and don't use it? This is my favorite group; I used to be in this group. And I asked this question for about six weeks and I realized one evening...that me. And it is an example of how culture changes, because I watched myself to try to figure out why I was getting this receipt that I wasn't keeping. And you finish pumping the gas, you pull it out, you start to hang it up, and the sign goes off and it says "would you like a receipt?" And I'd watch myself and think, why not? It's free. (LAUGHTER) You know and I punch yes and they print the receipt out and I look at it and go I don't want this. What am I doing? Now here is my point. I'll ask one last group. How many of you get a receipt, keep it, and check it against your credit card? Ok, raise your hand. This is the hardcore 10%. Here is the point I want to drive at for a second. 85% or 80% of the people in this room now stipulate that you have a gas pump smart enough that it knows who you are, how much gas you pumped, what it cost, what your credit card was, and it sent the data to your credit card accurate enough that it is not worth your while to check. You have to confess, this is a fairly smart gas pump.

By contrast last year, in dealing with illegal immigration, the social security administration received six billion, four hundred million dollars in tax payments for people who do not exist. And couldn't figure out that this was a problem. Now just consider the accuracy of the two systems that I just described. A government system which can't figure out that we should find out who sent the six billion, four hundred million dollars, and a private sector system that you trust enough to handle your cash flow every month. Remarkable difference in capabilities. One other example. How many of you have used an automatic teller machine outside the US to get cash? Well traveled group. Think about this model: you are in a foreign country, you walk up to an anonymous machine, you put in a plastic card, you punch in a four number code, it reaches out 7306 miles, finds your bank, verifies who you are, validates you have the money, changes it into the local currency at a slightly bad exchange rate, gives you the money. And it took eleven seconds, right?

Now how many of you have paper records in the health system? If you have a record in the health system, it is almost certainly paper. Think about it. We lost 1,100,000 paper records in New Orleans. And if you are a chemotherapy patient halfway though your treatment, and we just lost your record because it is now wet and lost. We have a real problem. And so, again, look at the kind of differences between the kinds of systems.

We are right at the edge of a breakout where you can have systems are unimaginably powerful, that allow you to be very accurate, very efficient, almost certainly wireless, and creating just a different world. And if we make the breakthroughs, if we use the new scientific knowledge, if we modernize our systems of government, we are going to have an amazing future. I mean, somebody said to me the other week, you know this is the edge of the renaissance, and we are a continent-wide equivalent of Florence. And you can see a renaissance over the next 30 to 50 years of just extraordinary creativity, if we can get there.

The biggest hurdle to getting there is overseas, and here at home. And it is the danger of terrorism. Now I want to close with this thought and then go to questions. But I want to drive this home for a minute.

This summer Scotland Yard arrested a couple who were going to use their six month old baby to get a bottle with bomb fluid in it on an airplane in order to kill people. Now if I come here tonight to tell you that there are people who hate our civilization enough, that there are young males who are 16 to 25 and they're prepared to die, as long as they get to kill you. That's one level of threat. And while it is frightening and unnerving, it is at least understandable.

But if I come here tonight to tell you that here is a couple willing to kill their own six month old baby as long as they get to kill you, that is a level of ferocity that we have not confronted yet. And this is going to potentially become very bad. And all of you need to understand that. Things like the North Korea nuclear test are not strange, abstract, page one headlines. They are life and death threats to Baltimore. I mean, useful study for the school, pick three places in the city that a nuclear bomb could go off and look what the footprint looks like. And it'll be pretty horrifying. Take your hometown, where ever you came from, go back home and look what it would look like after a nuclear weapon, it'll be pretty horrifying.

If all we were faced with were occasional car bombs, occasional airplanes flown into a skyscraper, it would be a problem, it would be painful, but it would not be a threat to our survival. We have enemies who hate us. It is not a problem in communication; they know exactly who they are.

For example in the irreconcilable wing of Islam, they would not allow a single woman in this room. Not hard. Anybody think we are going to compromise on that? I don't think so. In the irreconcilable wing of Islam their version of the Sharia says that a husband can kill his wife or his daughter and a son can kill his mother or sister as an honor killing in order to protect the family's honor. Anybody here think we are going to allow US law to say it is not murder? I don't think so. Under their version of the Sharia, if you do not have four male witnesses, you cannot prove that it is rape. And if you are picked up for a sexual offense, and you don't have four male witnesses, the woman is automatically guilty. Seventy-five percent of the women in prison in Pakistan are in prison for sexual offenses, because they couldn't prove anything. Do you think we are likely to adopt that standard? I don't think so.

This is going to be hard. Mark Bowden who is a great Philadelphia reporter wrote a book called Black Hawk Down, which became a movie, about Somalia, and he is a great investigative reporter. He went to Somalia, he interviewed Somalis. He just finished a book which came out a couple months ago called Guest of The Ayatollah, which is about the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979. He went to Iran. He interviewed the people who took the embassy. He interviewed the people who were guards. It's well worth you reading.

The subtitle of the book is "the first battle in Iran's war against America." And Bowden, who is not particularly ideological, is just very straight in the book. The elites who currently govern Iran hate us. They hate us because they know exactly who we are. We represent freedom. They are against freedom. They want a different world. And I will close with this quote from Ahmadinejad, the current leader of Iran, who said "we have to defeat the Anglo-Saxons and eliminate Israel from the face of the Earth."

Now I know I am on a college campus, and I know we very often, as a former teacher in a college, that we can have very complex abstract arguments about the meaning of words and the symbolic communication. But does anyone in here seriously believe that it is very hard to translate the term "we have to defeat the Anglo-Saxons and eliminate Israel from the face of the Earth?" His following quote a few weeks later-these were all public quotes on television-his following quote a few weeks later was "it is easy to imagine a world in our lifetime in which both America and Israel have disappeared." Now do any of you seriously doubt the meaning of that sentence? And so I think we are on the edge of a much harder world with a much bigger threat. And I think it is part of this whole process of the next twenty years.

While absorbing the science, competing with China and India, absorbing the challenge of the baby boomers living as long as they can and as actively as they can, figuring out how to define America, so that it continues to be the most integrative society in history, and dealing with the challenge of reinventing our government structures so they work, we had better figure out a national security policy which is capable of dealing with this scale of threat, or we will truly become a frightened world.

The President is a Joke

2006-11-24T19:18:00.000-08:00

News item, from Fox News:

WASHINGTON -- President Bush and Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki are facing a decision whether to keep their scheduled meeting next week in Jordan at the risk of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr making good on a threat to pull his Shiite faction from the fragile coalition government.

The White House sought to show strength in the face of the daunting situation, issuing a statement Friday denouncing recent acts of violence that included the burning Friday of Sunni mosques and worshippers, and car bombings that have killed more than 200 Iraqi civilians in the last two days.

Threatened by a petty Islamic fascist in the pay of a foreign nation, a minor thug who wouldn't even rate as Count Ciano to Mussolini to Hitler in the grand scheme of world affairs, the White House releases a pleading memo that, yet again, ignores American deaths and presents Muslim deaths as a horrible, horrible tragedy that the whole world condemns.

Bush took office pledging to restore the honor of the office of the President of the United States. Of all his failings, this seems to me the most serious. He has turned our nation into a laughing-stock, a ridiculous giant pleading for peace from barbarians.

Any conservative who still supports this obvious idiot is beyond my ability to explain.

How To Tell The Difference Between a Democrat and a Republican, Lesson Four

2006-11-20T15:49:00.000-08:00

The Republican does this:

Republican Sen. George Allen graciously conceded defeat Thursday after a bruising battle against Democrat Jim Webb, sealing the Democrats' control of Congress and the political downfall of a man once considered a White House contender.

Allen said the "owners of government have spoken and I respect their decision."

"The Bible teaches us there is a time and place for everything, and today I called and congratulated Jim Webb and his team for their victory," he said.

Webb, a former Republican and Navy secretary under President Reagan, claimed victory early Wednesday after election returns showed him with a narrow lead of about 7,200 votes out of 2.37 million ballots cast.

On Thursday, Webb's supporters roared when he took his Marine son's battered combat boots from a bag and held them high above his head at a rally. Webb, whose son is fighting in Iraq, had worn the boots throughout what he called "an unnecessarily brutal campaign."

Allen chose not to demand a recount when initial canvassing of the results failed to significantly alter Webb's lead.

"I see no good purpose being served by continuously and needlessly expending money and causing any more personal animosity," he said. "Rather than bitterness, I want to focus on how best Virginians can be effectively served by their new junior senator."

The Party of Sore Loserman does this:

State officials Monday certified Republican Vern Buchanan won the House seat being vacated by Republican Rep. Katherine Harris, though the loser immediately sued for a new election, arguing that touch-screen voting machines had malfunctioned.

Democrat Christine Jennings contested her 369-vote loss in the 13th District, asking a judge to order a new election because of problems in Sarasota County, where more than 17,000 voters who cast ballots in other races Nov. 7 failed to vote in the congressional contest.

That rate is nearly six times higher than in the other counties in the congressional district or on Sarasota's paper absentee ballots, Jennings alleges in her legal challenge. Though she lost in the other four counties in the district, Jennings did well in Sarasota County, winning there by a 6 percentage point margin.

Jennings' lawyer, Kendall Coffey, said the "statistical evidence is based on numbers that cannot be seriously questioned." He said there were also eyewitness accounts of voting problems.

Buchanan, a wealthy auto dealer, said there was no evidence of machine malfunctions. He attributed the huge Sarasota undervote to angry voters turned off by negative campaigning.

"I guess the theory is if you don't win, sue," Buchanan said, urging Jennings to concede and "stop listening to the high-price lawyers and out-of-town special interest groups."

The lawsuit is not Jennings' final option. She also could appeal the results to the House, which will be under Democratic control next year.

Given the history, I find it especially ironic that "progressives" everywhere were shocked when Senator Lieberman ignored the results at the polls and went ahead and ran for the Senate anyway.

Elections are just obstacles in the march of history and need not get in the way. Why, just ask another prominent Democrat, the President of the Univesity of Michigan, Mary Sue Coleman:

I am deeply disappointed that the voters of our state have rejected affirmative action as a way to help build a community that is fair and equal for all.

But we will not be deterred in the all-important work of creating a diverse, welcoming campus. We will not be deterred.

* * *
Today, I have directed our General Counsel to consider every legal option available to us.

In the short term, we will seek confirmation from the courts to complete this year's admissions cycle under our current guidelines. We believe we have the right, indeed the obligation, to complete this process using our existing policies. It would be unfair and wrong for us to review students' applications using two sets of criteria, and we will ask the courts to affirm that we may finish this process using the policies we currently have in place.

This is our first step, but only our first step.

I believe there are serious questions as to whether this initiative is lawful, particularly as it pertains to higher education. I have asked our attorneys for their full and undivided support in defending diversity at the University of Michigan. I will immediately begin exploring legal action concerning this initiative. But we will not limit our drive for diversity to the courts, because our conviction extends well beyond the legal landscape.

It is a cause that will take our full focus and energy as an institution, and I am ready to begin that work right now. We will find ways to overcome the handcuffs that Proposal 2 attempts to place on our reach for greater diversity.

As Susan B. Anthony said in her crusade for equal rights, "Failure is impossible."

Which begs the question: If the Left won't let elections and the law stop their agenda, what can the Right do?

Newsflash: Krauthammer Finally Sees the Light

2006-11-17T09:09:00.000-08:00

There are only a few columnists that I would label "must-read," and one of the them is Charles Krauthammer. Krauthammer is clear-thinking, judicious, reasoned and passionate about the issues of the day. It pleases me to no end to see him join the growing ranks of conservatives who have realized the truth about the fool's errand this fool of a President has sent us on in Iraq.

Krauthammer writes today in the Washington Post and National Review Online:

We have given the Iraqis a republic and they do not appear able to keep it.

Americans flatter themselves that they are the root of all planetary evil. Nukes in North Korea? Poverty in Bolivia? Sectarian violence in Iraq? Breasts are beaten and fingers pointed as we try to somehow locate the root cause in America.

Our discourse on Iraq has followed the same pattern. Where did we go wrong? Too few troops? Too arrogant an occupation? Or too soft? Take your pick.

I have my own theories. In retrospect, I think we made several serious mistakes — not shooting looters, not installing an Iraqi exile government right away, and not taking out Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army in its infancy in 2004 — that greatly compromised the occupation. Nonetheless, the root problem lies with Iraqis and their political culture.

In short, as I've been arguing for two years now, there has never been any evidence--none whatsoever--that the Arab Muslims of Iraq were somehow "different" or immune from the same civilization-wide pathologies of the Islamic Revival that is sweeping that entire world from Malaysia to Morocco.

Our objectives in Iraq were twofold and always simple: depose Saddam and replace his murderous regime with a self-sustaining, democratic government.

The first was relatively easy. But Iraq’s first truly democratic government turned out to be hopelessly feeble and fractured, little more than a collection of ministries handed over to various parties, militias and strongmen.

The problem is not, as we endlessly argue about, the number of American troops. Or of Iraqi troops. The problem is the allegiance of the Iraqi troops. Some serve the abstraction called Iraq. But many swear fealty to political parties, religious sects, or militia leaders.

That much should have been obvious from the first month, but our political culture has prevented us from viewing the scene dispassionately. At the point it became clear that the "Iraqis" were going to break down into tribal groups we should have packed our bags and left. Instead, we've been wasting billions of dollars down the rathole and actually financing the insurgency that is killing our sons and daughters.

(Don't believe me? Check out today's interview in the Financial Times with Iraq's deputy prime minister if you are able. It makes stunning reading.)

Krauthammer continues:

Are the Arabs intrinsically incapable of democracy, as the ”realists” imply? True, there are political, historical, even religious reasons why Arabs are less prepared for democracy than, say, East Asians and Latin Americans who successfully democratized over the last several decades. But the problem here is Iraq’s particular political culture, raped and ruined by 30 years of Saddam’s totalitarianism.

What was left in its wake was a social desert, a dearth of the trust and good will and sheer human capital required for democratic governance. All that was left for the individual Iraqi to attach himself to was the mosque or clan or militia. At this earliest stage of democratic development, Iraqi national consciousness is as yet too weak and the culture of compromise too undeveloped to produce an effective government enjoying broad allegiance.

Well, it's too much to ask a man to give up all his hopeful illusions at one time, so it's understandable that Krauthammer would find the locus of Islamic failure in the legacy of Saddam instead of where it rightly belongs, i.e. with Islam itself. Why else would the same pathologies arise in lands where no one has even heard of Saddam Hussein? But, we must take our victories where they come. Even if Krauthammer is coming to the right conclusion for partly the wrong reasons, he is still right in the basics.

Last month, American soldiers captured a Mahdi Army death-squad leader in Baghdad — only to be forced to turn him loose on order of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Two weeks ago, we were ordered, again by Maliki, to take down the barricades we had established around Sadr City in search of another notorious death-squad leader and a missing American soldier.

This is no way to conduct a war. The Maliki government is a failure. It is beholden to a coalition dominated by two Shiite religious parties, each armed and ambitious, at odds with each other and with the ultimate aim of a stable, modern, democratic regime.

Read that again:

This is no way to conduct a war.

Welcome to the team, Krauthammer. Glad you could make it.

How To Spot an Angry Judge

2006-11-16T20:32:00.000-08:00

There aren't many bright spots in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, but there are some. Take Judge O'Scannlain for example. If I were making judicial appointments, he would be on the Supreme Court so fast his head would be spinning. Another bright spot is Judge Alex Kozinski. His opinions are almost always a pleasure to read and exemplars of clear thinking.

When you've read as many opinions as I have, you begin to get a feel for the mood of the judge about his opinion. Sometimes, believe it or not, the mood is light-hearted, like Scalia's opinion in a product defect case brought against BMW that had the justice wondering if dwarves applied the pristine coat of paint to each gleaming, new BMW sedan in a hidden cave deep in the Alps. Other times the mood is sombre, especially when the facts are horrific. Then there are the dry ones that are written deliberately so because something about the case is extemely emotional, like Carhart.

Then there are those special cases where the judge is angry. Not just mad, mind you, but angry. These are rare, but when you read one you really know it.

Having said that, you're probably thinking that such opinions are shot through with heated language, denunciations of the offending side and other such common expressions of anger. No, it's worse than that.

Which is worse? Having your dad cuss you out or having your mom just quietly say how much you've disappointed her?

Right. Now you're getting the picture.

When a judge is mad, the language is sparse, but you cannot fail to recognize it. Take Judge Kozinski's recent opinion in Frunz v. City of Tacoma for example. First, the judge sets for the facts:

The facts are remarkable. Plaintiff, Susan Frunz, and her two guests were in Frunz's home in Tacoma, Washington, when police surrounded the house, broke down the back door and entered. The police had no warrant and had not announced their presence. Frunz first became aware of them when an officer accosted her in the kitchen and pointed his gun, bringing the barrel within two inches of her forehead. The police ordered or slammed the occupants to the floor and cuffed their hands behind their backs—Frunz for about an hour, until she proved to their satisfaction that she owned the house, at which time they said "never mind" and left.

The City of Tacoma had not done well at trial:

Frunz sued Alred, Morris and Stril under 42 U.S.C. 1983, claiming constitutional violations for unlawful entry and search of her home, and for use of excessive force by Alred. The jury found against all defendants on all counts, and awarded $27,000 in compensatory damages and $111,000 in punitive damages. The officers appeal, claiming the verdict is not supported by the evidence and that they are, in any event, entitled to qualified immunity.

After quickly disposing of the City's appeal, the Judge gets down to business:

We have found no authority even remotely supporting the notion that officers confronted with the situation here were entitled to ignore the constitutional requirement of a warrant and probable cause, or to conduct themselves as the jury must have found they did once they were inside the house. No reasonable lawyer would have advised the defendants otherwise.

In short, we must ask: Why is this case here? There may have been some justification for going to trial because there were disputed questions of fact about how the officers behaved during the course of the intrusion into Frunz's house. But a jury made up of seven members of the community heard the evidence and unanimously ruled in Frunz's favor. By not only finding defendants liable, but also imposing punitive damages, the jury determined that the officers acted in reckless or malicious disregard of plaintiff's constitutional rights. Only the most misguided optimism would cause defendants, and those who are paying for their defense, to appeal the verdict under these circumstances. Surely, the citizens of Tacoma would not want to be treated in their own homes the way the jury found officers Stril, Morris and Alred treated Frunz and her guests. A prompt payment of the verdict, accompanied by a letter of apology from the city fathers and mothers, might have been a more appropriate response to the jury’s collective wisdom.

Okay, here it comes. It's subtle, but this is how you know the judge isn't just mystified or disappointed or sad. It's at the very end, in a footnote, and believe me, you don't see this every day:

Defendants and their counsel shall show cause within 14 days why they should not be assessed double costs and attorney's fees for filing a frivolous appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 38.

A Letter to VDH

2006-11-14T15:49:00.000-08:00

After seeing VDH's post in the Corner today, I drafted him the following email. I haven't a clue whether or not I will get a response (though the good professor has been kind enough to reply to me in the past) and will post it here if I do.

I don't post this here as a pompous "open letter" or to demand an answer, but merely to note yet again that I think the anti-Jihadi coalition is taking the wrong lesson out of Election Day.

Simply put: a nation wherein 57% of the people are ready to go to war against Iran is not a war-weary nation. The American people are not anti-war, or even anti-War on Terror. What they are is anti-war-without-end-for-the-benefit-of-Muslim-Arabs-who-likely-as-not-are-in-fact-the-enemy-anyway.

Professor -

I admire your work very much, and have found your voice a steady one in uncertain times, but it seems to me there is a possibility about the American public's aversion to the war in Iraq that you are not addressing.

Opposition to the war is a given. Even in late 2002/early 2003, there was a solid 25% of the American people who were against the war. Presumably, these 25% represent the pacifists, the anti-American Americans, the conspiracy theorists, in other words, the hard Left/hard Right opposition. Over time, that percentage number in opposition has risen to about 60% or thereabouts.

There are really only two possibilities regarding the additional 35%: 1) they have heard the arguments of the "hardcore" 25% and now agree with them, or 2) their reasons for opposition are different in significant ways from the "hardcore" 25%.

Most of the arguments I've been seeing from you and at NRO seem to assume that number 1 is the only possibility. The argument is usually along the lines of "incessant jihadi propaganda, a media savvy enemy, and the domestic bias of the MSM have led to widespread demoralization in the American public, leading them to drop their support for the war." Looking at the numbers, this is highly improbable. The same electorate that just kicked Bush and the Republicans in the teeth gave that same team an overwhelming mandate in 2004, and the MSM and the jihadis were just as bad then. Unless one's argument is that the American people can take 3 years of bad news, but at 5 years they will bail in very, very high numbers, it just doesn't wash.

So what is going on here? In my view, my Jacksonian, lower-middle-class, ears-to-the-ground view, is that many of the "new" 35% are not opposed to war in general or even the War on Terror, but they are opposed to *this* particular war on the grounds that it is not being fought properly.

Forget all the articles about incompetence, failed plans to "win the peace" and all the rest of it. Americans don't care about that and never will; nor do they care about Iraqi schools or share the President's obsession with some foreign people's craving for "democracy". What they cared about was the war they were sold on, i.e. that the United States was taking the gloves off and from this point forward would wage war against international terrorist organizations and the governments that sponsor them.

Had Bush waged that war, the support would have held. Given how badly Bush has strayed from the "Bush" Doctrine, I'm frankly surprised that the support for him didn't wane earlier. In fact, given the "Islam means peace, the Saudis are our friends, and we must respect women of cover" rhetoric coming out of the White House, tied to the fact that our military obviously is fighting with one hand behind its back, it's *amazing* Bush's support held out as long as it did.

Last year, the LA Times ran a poll that found 57% of the American people in favor of war with *IRAN*. What we are seeing is the President's failure, not the American people's.

No, the American people are not tired of war. They are tired of this war and see no reason why their sons and daughters should be set in the middle of warring Stone Age tribes to no obvious American benefit. In short, they care about the American people, first and foremost and don't give a damn about the Iraqis, who have demonstrated clearly that they do not intend to seize the opportunity given to them and to continue the time-honored Muslim slaughter.

If any power over-reads too much into an Iraqi withdrawal, they will be surprised that not only will Americans continue to defend their nation and their interest, they will be shocked to find that Americans *enjoy* the prospect of doing so.

The Archbishop of York

2006-11-13T13:25:00.000-08:00

It figures that the last British bishop in the Church of England would turn out to be a Ugandan. But what a relief to hear him speak so! Listening to this man set forth very British, very calm, very measured and very strong views reminds me of how long it has been now that this type of common sense, the type that used to typify the British, has been heard from a member of the British elite.

The Archbishop, on Islam in Britain:

When asked whether it was right for Muslim women in Britain to wear the full veil in every aspect of their lives he replied: "Muslim scholars would say three things. First, does it conform to norms of decency? Secondly, does it render you more secure? And thirdly, what kind of Islam are you projecting by wearing it?

"I think in the British context it renders you less secure because you stick out and it brings you unwelcome attention. On the first question, I don't think it does conform.

"You know, when I visit Orthodox synagogues I never take a cross. When I go into Muslim mosques I take it off. When I go into a Sikh temple I cover my head. And I can't simply say, 'Take me as I am, whether you like it or not'.

I think the thing is in British society you can wear what you want, but you can't expect British society to be reconfigured around you. No minority can expect to impose this on the public or civic life."

On the British Broadcasting Company:

"We get more knocks. They can do to us what they dare not do to the Muslims," he said. "We are fair game because they can get away with it. We don't go down there and say, 'We are going to bomb your place.' It is not within our nature."

On British culture, morals and confidence:

Perhaps his strongest criticism was reserved for those who rejected the country’s Christian heritage. The Archbishop, who had trained as a lawyer in Uganda before fleeing Idi Amin's rule in 1974, said: "When I was in Uganda, everything that was British was the best. If you went to a shop to buy a ruler, you looked for one that said 'Made in Britain'. But now this country disbelieves itself in an amazing way.

"It almost dislikes its own culture. It doesn't realise that the arts, music, buildings have grown out of a strong Christian tradition. John Betjeman would be shocked that the nation is not interested in helping preserve these things."

He claimed in an interview with today's Daily Mail that the urban liberal elite were to blame. "They see themselves as holding the flag for Britain and that Britain is definitely secular and atheist. I want them to have their say, but not to lord it over the rest of us."

Sigh. If only the Archbishop of Canterbury was British and/or Christian.

Imagine that.

Sometimes, Stereotypes Are True

2006-11-10T16:30:00.000-08:00

In France, a video camera catches a leading Socialist spilling the beans!

PARIS, Nov 10, 2006 (AFP) - The Socialist favourite in France's presidential race Segolene Royal caused more dissension in the ranks Friday after she was shown in a video chastising teachers for not working hard enough.

In a clip circulating on the Internet, Royal is seen telling a meeting that "revolutionary ideas" are needed to reform the French education system, and that teachers in secondary schools should spend 35 hours a week on the premises as opposed to 17 hours at present.

"I am not going to sing it from the roof-tops, because I don't want to come under attack from the teaching unions," she says on the video, which was filmed in January in the western town of Angers.

She described it as an "absurdity" that many state sector teachers use their spare time to give private tuition via "companies that are quoted on the stock exchange".

"We need to take a step, perhaps with the new generation (of teachers) if the current lot say -- sorry, we've got our rights, 17 hours and then we are off home," Royal says.

Royal's spokesman Gilles Savary confirmed the video was genuine, but said its broadcast on the Internet was "an underhand attack" ahead of next Thursday's vote by Socialist party (PS) members to designate a candidate in April's presidential election.

Teachers make up a large proportion of the party's 200,000 card-carrying members and are likely to be angered by her remarks.

Americans are, in many ways, the suckers of the Western world. You have to wonder how long that will last.

Also, please expect light blogging here over the week-end, as I will be in France trolling for a teaching position.

The Aftermath: Notes and Observations

2006-11-09T11:59:00.000-08:00

There are a number of things to cover today in the aftermath of the mid-term elections, so let's get right to it, Quick Notes style:

-- On the matter of my pre-election prediction below, I was correct in all the essentials, except one. On the Senate, I was spot on the money, accurately predicting that the Democrats would take control with a one seat majority. My survey of right and right-leaning blog sites leads me to believe that this site was one of the very few who accurately predicted a change in the Senate.

On the matter of the House, I was right about it swinging to Democratic control, but for some reason that seems very odd to me now, I vastly understated the number of the new management's majority. It seems I had forgotten that when the House moves it tends to move in chunks of around 25 seats, i.e. 25 seats or so for a party change and around 50 seats for a historic change.

On the matter of turn out, I was absolutely correct in predicting it would be much higher than the mid-term average.

Most importantly, on the matter of my predicted suppression of Republican votes at the state level, which to my knowledge no other right-wing blogger predicted, I was also right. Republicans will not be marching in great numbers to the state houses and governor's chairs, with some notable exceptions.

On the outcome, I was exactly right. On the details, I was mostly right, with one glaring exception.

You don't have to read me, or value my opinion, or even like me very much, but, you have to admit, on the most important issue of the day there were only a handful of right Blogosphere sites that got it right, and this site was one of them.

-- After looking at the published exit poll data and reading just about everything about the election I could get my hands on, I also stand by the reasoning presented below in support of my predictions.

The bottom line was best put on election night over at the Corner by Michael Ledeen:

I think the left's pickups were basically due to disenchantment with Bush and the state of the war in Iraq. In retrospect, isn't it fair to say that Bush's reelection and the Congressional results in '04 were basically a message to him: Get Iraq right, you've got two years or else.

And he hasn't got Iraq right, so the "or else" arrived as threatened

That is exactly what is going on here. In our two-party system, if the ruling party is perceived as failing to deliver, it will be voted out. The fact that this voting out necessarily benefits the other party is incidental to most voters' intentions. Last night, the electorate was serving the R's a message, not endorsing Nancy Pelosi or her ideas. Anyone who doesn't understand that, or who thinks that all of a sudden all these American voters have turned magically liberal overnight, just doesn't understand American politics very well.

I don't really know for certain exactly what percentage of real, bona fide conservatives switched parties to protest what they see as Republican betrayal of their cause.

But I do know this: the American electorate did not take a dramatic turn to the Left over the past two years. It seems to me very unlikely that the same electorate that returned Pres Bush to office in 2004 with a *strong* Republican vote of confidence suddenly began to find the arguments of Harry Reid, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan and Nancy Pelosi more compelling.

I don't buy the argument that we're witnessing some wholesale change in the ideology of the bulk of the electorate. What I do buy is that Americans don't like a loser, or excuses, and if you take the country to war, you better take it to win or you're going to pay a political cost.

And, in a two party system, it's a zero-sum game. If one party has a cost the pay, the other automatically gains that cost as a resulting credit. On Tuesday, the Democrats reaped two benefits: one credit in their column came from their supporters, as to be expected, but the second credit in their column came from those voting against the Republicans, including some conservatives.

The two are not the same, and too many people, especially foreign observers, are simply missing this extremely important fact.

-- Reading the Wall St. Journal lead editorial this morning, I am heartened that, of all the great conservative voices in the country, one of the leading ones seems to truly understand what has happened here:

Tuesday's Democratic election victory was by any measure decisive, yet in the perspective of history also unsurprising. In the sixth year of a two-term Presidency, Americans rebuked Republicans on Capitol Hill who had forgotten their principles and a President who hasn't won the Iraq war he started. While a thumping defeat for the GOP, the vote was about competence, not ideological change.

* * *

All the more so because the GOP gave them so much ammunition. By our count, at least eight GOP House seats fell largely due to scandal; campaign-finance ties to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff probably cost Conrad Burns his Senate seat in Montana. These columns have spent several years warning Republicans that their overspending, corrupt "earmarks" and policy drift would undermine their claim as the party of reform. On Tuesday they did.

The GOP "base" voted in respectable numbers, but enough of it voted for Democrats to make the difference. At 32%, the self-identified conservative share of the electorate was down only slightly from 2004 (34%), and the liberal share of 21% stayed the same. What changed is that the GOP won fewer conservative and independent votes.

-- One thing I am very, very proud of is the Republican Party's, and, specifically Senator Allen's, grown-up, measured and above all responsible response to getting beaten. Let it be noted for the record that, unlike Vice President Gore, Senator Kerry and countless other Democrats high and low, when presented with a narrow loss in a key race the Republicans did their duty and conceded. (As of this writing, Senator Allen has not conceded, but is scheduled to do so in a few short hours).

I am quite sure that as seemingly unaware of the great damage they did to public confidence in our democratic system by repeated attempts (successful, disgracefully, in the State of Washington) to win lost elections in Democratic Party dominated courtrooms and by repeated puffed up charges of voter "intimidation" and "disenfranchisement," the Democrats are equally unaware of how petty, mean and small such actions make them out to be.

When the R's lost, they took it like men. The D's could learn something here, but probably won't.

-- I am also proud of the Right Blogosphere's response, which was measured and mature. There were no wild conspiracy theories or many cries of utter despair. Instead, almost from the first returns, there was a determination to re-double efforts, to re-invigorate conservatism and to find a way forward. Conservatism has many weaknesses inherent, given where we are as a people and a civilization, but one of its strengths that has served it well is a willingness to consider the evidence.

-- The one bright spot for me in this disaster is the election of Senator Webb, a true American war hero, a true son of the Jacksonian tradition, the greatest Navy Secretary since Roosevelt, and a man who understands what war is without illusion or romantic delusion. If Webb were the true face of the new Democratic Party, the Republicans would have much to fear. However, he is not (nor can he be, since as Webb himself knows, the cultural underpinnings of the Democratic Party exist to wipe out Jacksonianism and would rather die than embrace it). It will be very interesting to see how the Democratic Party deals with this non-Democrat in their midst and even more interesting to see how Webb behaves in office.

-- Both the President's actions after the election and those of the House Republicans make it sadly clear that both are beyond help at this point. Bush's quite sad press conference, in which the only moment he provided any passion or clarity was his hope that his Immigration Reform Bill could find a better reception in the House under the new management, made it crystal clear that no message of any import from American conservatives had reached his ears.

At the same time, the fact that the House Republicans would begin discussing new "leadership" and collectively deciding that there was not much need for change, and all this in less than twenty-four hours after the election, illustrates yet again, if such illustration is needed, that they are a collection of fools, incompetents, imbeciles and careerists way past their "sell by" date.

I hope they find the minority comfortable, because this bunch won't be doing anything else for a while.

-- By far and away the biggest loser of election night, and my personal choice for Loser of the Year, goes to a man who wasn't even on the ticket on Tuesday: Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, M.D. The first Senate leader in my memory who acted as if he was hopelessly outnumbered on all fronts, Frist neatly encapsulates all that was pathetic and incompetent in the former Republican majority: blow-dried, fake smile, no sense of tactics or timing, timorous, timid, not passionate, a sure loser. Frist is the kind of Republican who, when appearing on a news program and called an evil liar who participated in taking the country into an unnecessary war for the sake of Halliburton's stock, smiles and refers to the man making such a charge as "my friend from across the aisle."

Frist was a pathetic Senator who, believe me, we won't be hearing anything from again. He has as much chance of obtaining the 2008 Republican presidential nomination as I do.

-- Did anyone else notice that Fox News' Brit Hume turned in an uncharacteristic poor performance election night? There was more "ums" and "ers" than I care to listen to. And their graphics were ridiculous, like the ones that said merely "South Carolina" with two names and a vote count. House race? District attorney? Dog catcher? CNN, by contrast, ran a tight ship and, contrary to its usual practice, presented the viewer with two credible conservative spokesmen: J.C. Watts and William J. Bennett.

-- Fasten your political seat belts. The next two years are going to be interesting.....

Election Night in America

2006-11-06T10:59:00.000-08:00

Tomorrow, November 7, is election day in the United States. There is an election day every 2 years. Due to the set 4 year term of the American president, this election is therefore what we call a "midterm," meaning that it comes half-way through a President's term without he himself having to face the voters.

Due to the particular structure of our system, the voters of the several states will not all be electing people to the same types of offices. At the Federal level, all Representatives (i.e. those Members of Congress who serve in the House of Representatives, our lower house, the one in which all appropriations bills must arise) must present themselves for re-election every two years. So, tomorrow, everyone's local Representative will be facing a challenge of some sorts.

In the Senate, where each state is represented by 2 senators who serve six year terms, the Constitution set up a three-tier election category, under which one-third of the Senate is up for re-election every election day. So, depending on which state an American lives in, a voter may also be voting for a Senator as well. Here in Oregon, both our Senators are not up for election this year, so the matter is quiet here.

Currently, the Republican Party holds the majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, meaning they control the flow and pace of legislation and, critically, they control each of the various committees and sub-committees that do the lion's share of Congress' work.

At the State level, there are a number of governors up for re-election this year, but, as with the Senate, things have worked out for the most part so that in any given election only a portion of states are electing governors. On top of that, Americans will be voting for their state legislators (usually, state senators and state representatives, as most state governments mirror the federal structure, but not uniformly. I grew up in California, where they have Assemblymen and Senators). Some states, like Oregon, may have judges on the ballot as well, though others appoint judges much as in the Federal system.

Then, there are a host of county and city officials to be elected, not to mention the all important special district personnel (water and soil, transportation, fire district, police board, sewer and sanitation). These last actually make the day to day decisions that affect the voter most closely but you'd never know that by the level of attention given to those races!

This is the mechanics of what will happen tomorrow. Traditionally, the party that holds the White House does poorly in any given Midterm because under our system there is no other way to express dissatisfaction with the President than by taking it out on his party, and, usually, by two years in, a President has made enough controversial decisions to have pissed off enough people to make the vote go somewhat poorly for his team.

Those are the basics. Now, what do they mean for this year, for this war-time Election Day? What follows is my opinion and mine alone. You'll know in a few days time if I was tuned in to what was really going on or if I had no clue. Here goes:

-- I take it as a given that if the United States were a parliamentary system government that George Bush would not be the chief executive. He is strongly opposed by all of the opposition, by two-thirds of the non-aligned and by at least one-third of his own party.

-- The key issue in this election is the Iraq War. Almost every local race has been turned into a referendum on the conduct of the War.

-- The War is opposed by a strong majority of around 62% of Americans. Since liberals in America nowhere come near to 62% of our voting age population, the bulk of that opposition is non-liberal. Since the key issue in the election is the War, it would follow that all liberals and all non-liberals in this anti-War majority will vote against the War by voting against the party of war.

-- Adding up the Iraq War issue, the general trend of the President's power to do badly in Midterms and the observable fact that at least some of the oppsition is what would otherwise be the natural base of the Republican party, the outcome can only be a bloodbath for the Republicans across the board.

Predictions:

-- The House of Representatives: Goes Democrat, with a 5 seat majority.

-- The Senate: Goes Democrat, with a 1 seat majority.

-- Turnout: On the high side, by historical measure.

-- State Elections: While many local Republicans will buck the trend and do well, the overall anti-Republican trend at the Federal level will trickle down the ballot and suppress the R's generally across the board.

I'm putting it on the line here and calling it like I see it. Keep you eyes on the results and tell me what you think.

Bush Doctrine 2006

2006-11-05T10:47:00.000-08:00

A year ago today I posted here an in-depth essay about the Bush Doctrine. I re-post it here today for your consideration. Upon re-reading it, I note a few minor points where a year's more observation, experience and (hopefully) wisdom would cause me to state some issues differently, but, overall, I stand by this statement. As my last few posts illustrate, it is heartening to me personally to see so many prominent conservatives beginning to come around to the point of view advanced herein.

Please do leave your thoughts, whatever they may be. And, don't forget, you can always email me at: newsisyphus@yahoo.com.

From Nov 5, last year:

As usual, the good folks at Commentary Magazine have done us an invaluable favor in publishing yet another excellent issue this month, the bulk of which is available online without a subscription. The lead article this month is a Symposium, asking leading intellectuals to comment broadly on the Bush Doctrine, its application to date, its failures, and its future. The responses from 36 writers, professors and analysts are almost all compelling and noteworthy, though one wishes that more on the left were sought out.

Of all the responses that leapt out at me, though, the one that I want to discuss at some length is that of Aaron L. Friedberg, a professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton and formerly Vice President Cheney's national security advisor. Friedberg is interesting not only because he was an Administration insider responsible for policy creation during the time when the Bush Doctrine came into being, but also because he has long been connected with the neo-conservative Project for a New American Century, which had been calling for the ouster of the Ba'athist regime in Baghdad since at least 1997.

Thus, Friedman's views reflect not only those of the Administration he was once a part of, but also of that strata of Washington-based intellectuals who have exerted influence over the great policy decisions of the Administration. What follows are Friedman's comments, paragraph by paragraph, along with my comments and observations. (You can, of course, read the entire Friedman piece as a whole at the Commentary Magazine link provided above).

Since 9/11, the "Bush Doctrine" label has been applied to various aspects of administration policy, from the President's initial "with us or against us" warning to state sponsors of terrorism, to his declared willingness to act preemptively (and, if need be, unilaterally) to head off the danger of covert WMD attack, to his assertion that final victory in the global war on terror depends on the spread of liberty across the Middle East and throughout the Islamic world. I will focus on this final usage, which is likely to prove the most lasting.

This is frankly startling, especially to those of us who took the President at his word when he announced the Bush Doctrine. It seemed at the time, when the President spoke to Congress in the aftermath of the 9.11 attacks, that the President was ready, willing and able to declare war on those regimes which were sponsoring both international terrorism and those who harbored such terrorists. Now, Friedman tells us that this assertion was merely the first "usage" of the term; in other words, it was pointless rhetoric, discarded at the first opportunity for "clarification." My understanding of the Bush Doctrine was that we would no longer make a distinction between those who actively supported terror and those who harbored terrorists and that both would henceforth be treated by the U.S. as hostile regimes. Now, we are told, it merely means we hope the Middle East becomes a happier place, given time.

The difference between the two concepts could not be greater and can best be summarized in the relative stance of the United States in each: in the first the United States is pro-active, labeling states as "friendly" and "hostile" and taking action appropriate to each individual case; in the second, the U.S. is reduced to a "reactive" stance in which how we are doing is measured solely by what Mohammed and his wife think about politics, democracy, the role of religion in the state, etc. It seems fairly blindingly obvious to me that we can hope to "win" in the first sense, while the second gives the very definition of "winning" over to those who, either through active terrorism or inactive support of terrorism, will never give their consent to a U.S. victory. In short, the rhetorical change has ensured U.S. defeat by defining victory in a manner that makes it next to impossible to achieve.

Is a campaign aimed at the political transformation of the "broader Middle East" essential to the defeat of terrorism? If so, how can it be carried forward to a successful conclusion at an acceptable cost? The first of these questions is easier to answer than the second.

The first may be easier to answer, but the answer itself is by no means readily apparent. If nothing short of the wholesale political transformation of the Middle East can defeat terrorism, then we may as well pack it in and learn to live with Kerry's "nuisance."

While I agree that this is a solution, it is a solution in the same sense that a solution to the problem of domestic politics in the United States is to convert all Democrat blue states over to red-state Republicanism.

That could happen, but it really isn't in the cards, is it? And if the task of turning New England into a bastion of red state America daunts you, imagine the task of turning a part of the world steeped in tribalism, authoritarianism and an anti-liberal religious ferocity into a democracy.

I believe the administration's assessment of the Islamist threat is fundamentally correct. In al Qaeda and its affiliates, we confront an enemy who aims to inflict as much pain on us and our allies as possible, thereby dividing the West, forcing a retraction of American power, and clearing the way for the overthrow of local "apostate" regimes and their absorption into a transnational caliphate. Having concocted quasi-theological justifications for their actions, the terrorists put no limit on the numbers they are willing to kill to achieve their goals; all that stands in their way is, for the moment, an apparent lack of means.

Nothing objectionable here, save perhaps for the assertion that Al-Qaeda's justifications are "quasi-theological." On the contrary, the justifications advanced are spectacularly theological, as many a radical Muslim would happily explain to you (just prior to cutting your throat, of course). The humor here is watching Christian and Jewish American functionaries defend the honor of Islam against Muslim interpretations. If only for reasons of self-determination, I'm going with what the Muslims say about Islam and do in its name in order to come to judgment about it rather than relying on the latest "Islam Means Peace" speech from some official in Near Eastern Affairs.

The menace we face may not be "existential," in the same sense as the cold-war threat from the Soviet Union. Al Qaeda cannot rain down tens of thousands of nuclear warheads on American cities. But, with a few well-placed dirty bombs or vials of anthrax, it could impose terrible human and financial costs and radically alter, perhaps for a generation or more, the character of our open society and the extent of our integration into the global economy. The passage of time since 9/11, and the absence thus far of a follow-on attack on American soil, have caused some observers to lose sight of these dangers and even to argue that they have been grossly exaggerated. I know of no one involved in the conduct of the war on terror who shares this sense of complacency.

A useful reminder of the scope of the threat, I think this summary walks the fine line between alarmism and a willingness to face stark reality. A lot does depend, however, on one's definition of "existential." Does the ability to destroy three large American cities qualify? One? Twenty?

I'm not sure, but I do know this: to those who are living in the targeted cities, the threat is existential enough to demand immediate government action.

The ideology that motivates the jihadists has now metastasized and spread, so that it finds adherents even in free societies. But it sprang to life first in the diverse despotisms of the broader Middle East, and these are the sources from which it still feeds and which continue, either deliberately or indirectly, to sustain it. Even if it were possible to wave a wand and transform these societies overnight into functioning liberal democracies, the jihadist movement would likely live on, at least for a time. But unless and until progress is made in this direction, it seems certain to survive, and to thrive. The absence of liberty fuels frustration and extremism by cutting off avenues for more moderate forms of political expression, reinforcing social and economic stagnation, and feeding a sense of collective weakness, shame, and rage.

Here is where I begin to part ways with the Administration's view. While the absence of liberty has undoubtedly led to a growth in cultural pathologies in the Middle East, that fact alone does not explain the Islamist mindset any more than a mere reference to Germany's lack of liberty in the late 30's explains National Socialism. It is not clear to me that Western liberties would do anything to lessen the inherent dysfunction of the shame dynamic so common in Islamic, tribal cultures.

In fact, as is now helpfully on display in Paris, radicalized Islam is thriving in an environment where liberty is not only guaranteed, it is actively championed for on behalf of the larger Muslim community. The Left in France has done everything it can to extend liberty to the Muslims of France and, so far as we can determine, this hasn't really changed the nature of the underlying Islamic culture.

The fact remains that if a people fervently believe that they know the truth and that those who do not agree with them must either convert or be slaughtered, the fact that these people live in a state of liberty granted to them by others will change nothing.

The other key elements of U.S. strategy-stronger homeland defenses and a relentless global offensive against Islamist terror networks-are necessary to keep the enemy off balance and reduce the risk of future attack; but they will not be sufficient, in themselves, to achieve a lasting peace. Jihadism cannot be defeated on the defensive, or even by cutting back its visible offshoots. It must be pulled up by the roots.

Again, I agree. It's how those roots are to be pulled that is the issue. With German fascism and Japanese militarism, the roots were pulled by pounding the supporting population until they themselves agreed to give it up and not to have anything to do with those who advocated those ideas ever again. That, to my mind, is what pulling it up by the roots entails when one is facing fascist fanatics.

Obviously, the U.S. cannot go out and declare war against the entire Islamic world. Not only is that impractical, it would also be wrong. But the United States could, if it wished, do at a minimum the following, which I believe would be essential to winning the War on Terror:

1) It should institute conscription, radically enlarge the Armed Forces and put the U.S. economy on a war footing. It should make a special point to draft recent legal immigrants from Arabic and Farsi-speaking countries to ensure that U.S. forces have sufficient linguistic ability in the field;

2) It should declare war, in Congress, against the Islamic Republic, with the goal of handing over a conquered Iran to the U.N. or some other trans-national authority. It should play no role in reconstructing the county, except insofar as it should be made clear that any return of Islamic Fascism would invite a return engagement on the same terms;

3) It should declare war, in Congress, against the genocidal and Islamic fascist government of Sudan, and replace it with a provisional government led by Sudanese Christians;

4) It should be conducting war against the following Islamic terrorist groups, no matter where located: Hamas, Hezbollah, Abu Sayyaf, and Islamic Jihad. This should include direct military assaults on public displays of any those organizations, including military parades and press conferences;

5) It should demand the cessation of anti-American propaganda and the funding of Wahabbi institutions abroad by Saudi Arabia, backed by the threat of force if not agreed to;

6) It should rally world support for its program by speaking out forcefully and persuasively (i.e. freed from the shackles of political correctness and modern political culture) about the anti-liberal, fascist nature of Islam armed. For example, the plight of women and children should never stopped being spoken of, the abuses of Shari'a should be widely disseminated and the actual practice of Islam in Iran and the Sudan should be the first, middle and last point of discussion whenever a U.S. official opens his or her mouth; and

7) It should use the U.N. as a platform to discuss the crimes and the threat posed by Islamic Fascism and little else.

Should the Islamic world be faced with a confident, stern opponent willing to use force, it would be only a matter of time before the Islamic masses as a whole would give up the struggle and, indeed, do our policing for us.

I understand that these proscriptions sound extreme, and I must admit I've come to them only reluctantly. It has everything to do with judgment: if one believes, as I do, that nothing short of full-scale war will deter the growth of Islamic Fascism, then the rest follows as a matter of course.

It's impossible, it's never going to happen, and all those other things you may well now be thinking, but the cold fact is that a day is not too far off when some President of the United States is going to be presented with the possibility of a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic that has as an official, publicly-stated goal the destruction of the United States of America.

We are a liberal people, but reality is what it is and at the end of the day, I have to believe we'll vote for us when it comes down to "us vs. them."

There are alternatives to a strategy that has transformation as its ultimate goal. If pressed, most liberal critics of the Bush Doctrine would say they agree with its ends but differ over means (more "soft" power and less "hard," more multilateralism and less unilateralism). While the differences are in some respects overstated, there is a serious debate to be had here and a consensus to be hammered out, though controversies over Iraq have made this all but impossible for the moment.

Whatever the merits of the plan I outline above may be, the fact is that it isn't going to happen anytime soon. Political calculations are no less important in figuring out what to do than practical ones, even if I think the course of action is crystal clear. After all, who really would have been in favor of total war against Germany in 1938? I'm not at all sure that even knowing what we know now we would change that fact of history had we the power to do so. So, what is to be done?

True consensus cannot be hammered out on this issue until there is agreement about the scope of the threat. So long as a significant portion of the American people, and an overwhelming proportion of their Western cousins, believe that the threat is not grave, there cannot be such an agreement.

Prudent leadership, therefore, should be Rooseveltian at this time. Marshall our strength, do what we can to arm our allies, and prepare the ground for the time when the enemy shows himself.

It would benefit Bush and his successors greatly at this time if the U.S. were to back off, quietly making the Churchill arguments and gaining support here and there until the time comes.

More distinct are the options offered by advocates of what can only be called a policy of appeasement, on the one hand, and the self-described "realists," on the other. The first group asserts that by leaving Iraq, cutting support for Israel, and perhaps withdrawing altogether from the Middle East, we may be able eventually to deprive the jihadists of their base of support. Despite the evident moral and strategic bankruptcy of these arguments, they have begun to gain ground recently in academic circles, where books "bravely" questioning our ties to Israel and "proving" that suicide terrorists are motivated solely by a desire to free their homes from occupation are currently the rage. Fortunately, such ideas seem unlikely for now to exert much influence on practical policy.

I mostly agree with this, though it must be said that U.S. standing is higher in those Islamic nations that we have had next to nothing to do with than with dependencies like Egypt. (I also wonder sometimes if perhaps the U.S. shouldn't impose a Caliphate as a means of immunizing future Muslims from the fanciful image of an Islamic paradise they apparently have.)

It is the "realists" who most stand to gain if American policy in Iraq comes to be seen as a costly failure. Such an outcome would be taken as proof that the pursuit of liberalization in the broader Middle East is a fool's errand and that, instead of criticizing "friendly" local regimes and pressuring them to reform, we should be content to make common cause in wiping out the jihadists. What is needed, in this view, is a more effective and if need be a more ruthless version of the policy that existed before 9/11. The fact that this approach has already proved its ineffectiveness may not lessen its appeal, at least for a while.

"Realism" as defined here is a problem, but, whatever ones hopes and wishes, when one finds oneself arguing against "Reality," one has a problem. The fact is that unless the Iraqi people show a marked improvement over the next year in self-governance and self-protection, the U.S. should announce that it has done what it could and leave.

We simply cannot allow ourselves to be backed into a corner where if, and only if, we gain approval ratings for Bush in Baghdad that he can't achieve in Baltimore, we have succeeded in Iraq.

The Ba'athist threat is gone. We've given decent people a chance to prevail. I don't think there is much more that can be asked of the American people if the stark reality remains that Iraqis aren't interested in joining the modern world. When your biggest "ally" refuses to even speak with you because you're an infidel dog...well, we have better things to do.

In the long run, and whatever happens in Iraq, some variant of the Bush Doctrine will remain an essential part of overall U.S. strategy for defeating Islamist terrorism. The questions facing this administration as it enters its final quarter are more practical than theoretical. How to tailor the right mix of pressures and inducements to move "friendly" regimes toward meaningful reforms, and how to deal with openly hostile holdouts? How to minimize the inevitable risks of transition (the "one man, one vote, one time" problem)? How to institutionalize the "forward strategy of freedom" within the U.S. government and the Western alliance? And how to ensure continuing domestic political support for a goal that is both necessary and just?

Good questions all, and all well beyond the capabilities of this Administration, whatever its other virtues. For a moment, it seemed as if this President was going to rise to the challenge, but it is beyond clear that he lacks the ability and the vision to move us forward.

Whatever it's virtues, the fact remains that Bush and his Doctrine do not command the domestic and international support the U.S. needs to both wage and win the War on Terror. Which makes the lack of an effective opposition party even more keenly felt.

And, come to think of it, quite an opening for a Democrat with judgment and a sense of history.....

Why I Love Mark Steyn, Part 45 in an Occasional Series

2006-11-03T08:39:00.000-08:00

In today's National Post, there is a story about the unavailability of Mark Steyn's best-selling new book, America Alone. The leading book retailer in Canada, Indigo-Chapters, claims that the book's unvailability is due to back orders in the United States (as always, it's the United States' fault in all matters Canadian). Steyn has been laughing at the book's unavailability in his own country for weeks and, correctly, predicted that it would be mysteriously unavailable at Chapters bookstores upon release.

An excerpt:

In Ottawa, the Steyn book is available neither at Chapters nor at such independent bookstores as Nicholas Hoare. A clerk at the Nicholas Hoare bookstore said the book has been difficult to obtain for Canadian retailers.

"Our speculation is that they're keeping the book in stock in the States because of the demand there," said the clerk, who identified herself as Stephanie. [How 'bout Chomsky, Stepahnie? Got any Chomsky? - NS]

A Canadian citizen, Mr. Steyn lives in New Hampshire with his wife and three children. He is a former National Post columnist and now writes for the Atlantic Monthly, Maclean's and the Western Standard, among other publications.

In an e-mail exchange, Mr. Steyn yesterday said the excuses of Canadian book sellers, who insisted there was no demand for his book, are increasingly hilarious.

In Canada, he said, there are enough copies of Jules Carlysle's Dumbass "to carpet the Arctic Circle," but no one thought enough of his book to order sufficient copies.

"I can understand that there are products one might consider it prudent to restrict distribution of -- certain Canadian novels spring to mind -- but, oddly enough, my publishers prefer the old-fashioned model: They're in the bookselling business not the book-withholding business.

"My advice to Canadian readers is drive over to the Buffalo Barnes & Noble and smuggle it back in, cunningly hidden under the Algerian terrorist in the back seat."

The Corner: Andy McCarthy Wakes Up

2006-11-02T09:01:00.000-08:00

As a regular reader over at The Corner, one of the darker pleasures of the past year has been to watch how the regular commentators there have approached the obvious failure of our war policy in Iraq. It seems to me the responses there have divided the Cornerites into three distinct camps.

For the first camp, led by NR editor Rich Lowry, the response has been to argue the Administration's corner more loudly, though peppered with disclaimers like "if the idea here is to [insert highly improbable "secret" policy goal here] this may have the effect of stabilizing Baghdad, an important first step towards...." This ever more desperate posing is an outgrowth of the early years in the war when 85% of conservative commentators dismissed obvious signs of Bush's weakness in war matters by referring to a "secret plan," combined with an appeal to partisanship.

You've read comments like those a million times. This is how they go:

Charge: Well, here we are early in the Afghan campaign and I cannot help but notice that the Taliban's press spokesman is still holding daily press conferences in front of hundreds of reporters and the BBC seems to have no problem finding Mullah Omar. Hmmm, aren't we fighting a war here? Would we have let Goebbels hold a press conference in WWII if we could reach him and take him out? These guys don't look too scared of our military power here.

Response: In an ideal world, I would agree with you, but this isn't an ideal world and we have to deal with the cards we've been dealt. I'm sure the idea here in the White House is to lull the Taliban into believing that we are going to conduct the war "business as usual" and then when their guard is down the President will give the order to wipe them out. And, in any case, the fact is the MSM and the Democrats are poised to pounce on the President if anything goes wrong, so he's fighting to the best of his ability while holding these guys off. Plus, a press conference is no big deal. So what? The real action is elsewhere, probably Special Forces stuff the Administration can't really talk about. There's probably a huge war going on that they can't show us because of secrecy concerns. In the end, Bush is handling it better than Gore ever would have. Is that what you want? You want a President Gore in charge? You think things would be better then? Get real.

This has been going on for four years now, and the pattern shows no real sign of changing, except that has these "secret plan" responses and the always accompanying "do you want the Democrats to win?!?" canard have become even more lame and contrived as Bloody Obvious Objective Realty continues to rear its quite ugly head. Nevertheless, the partisans of the first camp continue to soldier on bravely.

The second camp are the Second Thoughters, led by Jonah Goldberg. These are the Cornerites who supported the war from the beginning but now realize that it is objectively a failure. Thus, they are in favor of publicly saying so. However, goes the *brilliant* analysis, since we are already in theatre in force we have no choice but to see it though, for to do otherwise would be to admit defeat.

I can just hear Patton delivering that speech to the new arrivals. "Boys! Go out there and die for a dreadful mistake! We don't want anyone to think we're soft or anything like that! Our credibility is on the line. So, fight and die and we'll go about our business pretending that everything is just going to turn out fine."

This is such bullshit of such a sublime order that I find myself unable to even write about it for any length of time. So, let's cut to the chase: the third camp.

The third camp are the To Hell With Them Hawks, led by John Derbyshire. This group doesn't give a goddamn about Islamic democracy; they want to win. They know who the enemy is and the only response they have to him is to put him up against a wall and shoot him, preferably in full view of the cameras.

As Derbyshire has stated:

One reason I supported the initial attack, and the destruction of the Saddam regime, was that I hoped it would serve as an example, deliver a psychic shock to the whole region. It would have done, if we'd just rubbled the place then left. As it is, the shock value has all been frittered away. Far from being seen as a nation willing to act resolutely, a nation that knows how to punish our enemies, a nation that can smash one of those ramshackle Mideast despotisms with one blow from our mailed fist, a nation to be feared and respected, we are perceived as a soft and foolish nation, that squanders its victories and permits its mighty military power to be held to standoff by teenagers with homemade bombs--that lets crooks and bandits tie it down, Gulliver-like, with a thousand little threads of blackmail, trickery, lies, and petty violence.

Just ask yourself: Given that Iran is the real looming threat in that region, are we better placed now to deal with that threat than we would have been absent an Iraq war? If we could ask President Ahmadinejad whether he thinks we are better placed, what would his honest answer be?

We are not controlling events in Iraq. Events in Iraq are controlling us. We are the puppet; the street gangs of Baghdad and Basra are the puppet-masters, aided and abetted by an unsavory assortment of confidence men, bazaar traders, scheming clerics, ethnic front men, and Iranian agents. With all our wealth and power and idealism, we have submitted to become the plaything of a rabble, and a Middle Eastern rabble at that. Instead of rubbling, we have ourselves been rabbled. The lazy-minded evangelico-romanticism of George W. Bush, the bureaucratic will to power of Donald Rumsfeld, the avuncular condescension of Dick Cheney, and the reflexive military deference of Colin Powell combined to get us into a situation we never wanted to be in, a situation no self-respecting nation ought to be in, a situation we don't know how to get out of. It's not inconceivable that, with a run of sheer good luck, we might yet escape without too much egg on our faces, but it's not likely. The place we are at is surely not a place anyone in 2003 wanted us to be at--not even Vic Davis Hanson.

And now it seems that good Andy McCarthy, who has been showing signs of actually thinking and drawing the logical conclusions from the evidence available, is showing signs of waking up. Significantly, he puts his finger on the conceptual problem with Bush's war fighting strategy and why victory is made impossible by it. He writes:

Maliki is a disaster. The support for Hezbollah, the kissy-face routine with Ahmadinejad, and the clear illustration that he is being controlled by Sadr-- not the other way around. Not only does he appear to do nothing to help us find our missing soldier, he affirmatively obstructs the effort. And he dares to refer to himself as "the general commander of the armed forces"--as if he (having taken his orders from Sadr) is empowered to give orders to our troops. And even worse for our representatives on the ground over there, he takes this outrageous action right after meeting with our National Security Adviser.

Like a lot of people who supported the Iraq invasion, I believed--and continue to believe--that the mission is to kill and capture terrorists and vanquish their state sponsors, and that Iraq is one phase (the second phase) in a much wider war. Bringing democracy to the Middle East is something I hope can happen someday, but it is a generational transformation and it continues to be nothing but a theory that democracy itself (much less the messy transformation thereto) is an effective weapon against jihadism (which has been shown to thrive in democracies). I don't deny that democratization has been part of Bush's overall Wilsonian policy, but I never thought democratizing Iraq was a policy priority because I never thought it was something that could be accomplished in short order in an Islamic society. Now, it seems to be the policy priority.

This is a long-winded way of saying that many of us who support the war do not care whether Iraq is democratized quickly, and therefore do not see why propping up its current, Iran-friendly government should be driving our policy. (The Bush administration did not seem to think it was too important that the United Arab Emirates is not a democracy.)

If Maliki continues to be the face of what "victory" means, according to the administration, in Iraq, then it is going to be impossible to sustain support for the war. And I say that as a supporter.

Or, put another way, as I wrote months ago:

My understanding of the Bush Doctrine was that we would no longer make a distinction between those who actively supported terror and those who harbored terrorists and that both would henceforth be treated by the U.S. as hostile regimes. Now, we are told, it merely means we hope the Middle East becomes a happier place, given time.

The difference between the two concepts could not be greater and can best be summarized in the relative stance of the United States in each: in the first the United States is pro-active, labeling states as "friendly" and "hostile" and taking action appropriate to each individual case; in the second, the U.S. is reduced to a "reactive" stance in which how we are doing is measured solely by what Mohammed and his wife think about politics, democracy, the role of religion in the state, etc. It seems fairly blindingly obvious to me that we can hope to win in the first sense, while the second gives the very definition of victory over to those who, either through active terrorism or inactive support of terrorism, will never give their consent to a U.S. victory. In short, the rhetorical change has ensured U.S. defeat by defining victory in a manner that makes it next to impossible to achieve.

What is the significance of all this?

Precisely this: That was once a minority tendency in the conservative movement is now gaining more and more adherents, as the reality we face becomes ever more clear. As it dawns on more people that the very method by which we are fighting this war is fatally wrong-headed, those people will begin to demand a change in strategy.

Andy McCarthy has woken up and shows every sign of seeing the right path. And I'm willing to bet there are thousands more out there just like him.

Never stop preparing, never stop writing.

UPDATE: No sooner do I post this, I find that the excellent Ralph Peters has finally acknowledged the truth, in today's USA Today. Excerpt:

My disillusionment with our Iraq endeavor began last summer, when I was invited to a high-level discussion with administration officials. I went into the meeting with one firm goal, to convince my hosts that they'd better have Plan B in case Iraq continued to disintegrate. I left the session convinced that the administration still didn't have Plan A, only a blur of meandering policies and blind hopes. After more than three years, it was still "An Evening at the Improv."

Then, last month, as Iraq's prime minister seconded al-Sadr's demand that our troops free a death-squad mastermind they had captured, I knew a fateful page had turned. A week later, al-Maliki forbade additional U.S. military raids in Sadr City, the radical mullah's Baghdad stronghold. On Tuesday, al-Maliki insisted that our troops remove roadblocks set up to help find a kidnapped U.S. soldier. Iraq's prime minister has made his choice. We're not it. It's time to face reality. Only Iraqis can save Iraq now--and they appear intent on destroying it. Apres nous, le deluge.

Iraq could have turned out differently. It didn't. And we must be honest about it. We owe that much to our troops. They don't face the mere forfeiture of a few congressional seats but the loss of their lives. Our military is now being employed for political purposes. It's unworthy of our nation.

Derb responds at the Corner:

One More for the Rubble Faction [John Derbyshire]

Good for Ralph Peters.

And pieces like that are handy for purposes of monitoring the general, overall slide into gloomy-hawkishness about the MME (i.e. Muslim Middle East).

A couple of years ago I-which is to say, a fringe, cranky, not-very-respectable commentator-came under withering fire from all over the place for saying that I had quite enjoyed the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88.

Today a respectable big-newspaper commentator like Ralph Peters can say this: "If the Arab world and Iran embark on an orgy of bloodshed, the harsh truth is that we may be the beneficiaries."

Stick around; soon the president himself will be making positive remarks about MME inhabitants mass-slaughtering each other.

The Islamic Civilization has chosen war and says they prefer jihad to life.

It's well past time we put that conviction to the test, and, each day, the number of people in the West who feel that truth in their bones grows.

No Worries: NATO is On the Job!

2006-10-26T09:16:00.000-07:00

While the real fighting in Afghanistan is left to the same old Anglosphere nations that have been doing the civilized West's fighting for some 60 years now (i.e. the United States, Great Britain, Australia and Canada), the mission is technically a NATO operation.

What this means is that Norway has some troops there doing what the Great Mark Steyn calls "cross-guarding duties" with strict instructions that they are to be kept as far away from combat as possible because (and, believe it or not, I am not making this up) the Norwegian government has admitted that their troops are not actually trained for actual combat.

Added to this wonderful cadre (who, dear reader, you are pledged by treaty to the last drop of your, your sons' and your daughters' blood to defend) are other equally pathetic European "troops" similarly untrained and similarly restricted.

Germany is there, too. But it seems that some German soldiers posed for goofy pictures with a human skull and now the entire German political structure is pissing itself in outrage. From Deutsche Welle this morning:

Two soldiers were brought in for questioning after a newspaper published photographs of German troops posing with a human skull while on a tour of duty in Afghanistan. Germany now fears reprisals against its troops.

Photographs purporting to show German soldiers desecrating a human skill in Afghanistan, splashed on the front page of the country's mass-selling Bild newspaper on Wednesday, provoked shock and disgust in Germany.

"Such behaviour is absolutely inexcusable," Chancellor Angela Merkel said. "The government will investigate the soldiers involved and take rigorous measures against them," Merkel said.

Meanwhile, politicians have voiced fears of retaliatory attacks by Islamists against German peacekeepers in Afghanistan.

"I hope that such incidents don't happen again and the safety of our soldiers is not at risk," German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung told German broadcaster ARD.

Oh God no! The German soldiers may be at risk!

Ladies and gentlemen: our "alliances" are a farce and the international organizations that our entire foreign policy is built around, like NATO, are nothing more than pathetic charades.

The sooner we realize that we are alone, that we of the Anglosphere need realistic political leadership that will bind our cause in unity, the sooner we will begin to turn the tide. Any foreign policy, let alone a war-fighting policy, that is built on fantasies like Norwegian "soldiers" and a German will to actually fight Islamists is bound to fail as a matter of course.

Imagine what the jihadists viewing this pathetic German reaction must think of us in the West! They're sawing off the heads of school children and putting them up on the internet where they are shared from Dubai to Dearborn! Until we change the picture of what the jihadist sees when he gazes at his enemy we are bound to endure endless war and aggression.

This is war for hearts and minds alright. Just not in the way our current weak and frankly incompetent governments think it is.

England Begins to Stir

2006-10-24T14:57:00.000-07:00

Regular readers will recall strange posts appearing on this website from time to time concerning the British Constitution. I have long been warning that the current Labour Government's radical and not-well-thought-out changes to that venerable Constitution posed a dire threat to the British union.

Now, it seems, the merging of: (1) an increasing nationalist awakening in England, (2) the actual fact that both the Religion of Peace and the Religion of Multiculturalism's strangle-hold on public discourse has been forever shattered, (3) the West Lothian Question and Gordon Brown's rise as probable Prime Minister designate, and (4) a re-energized Conservative Party has produced a political moment for those seeking an English voice.

From today's Telegraph, its lead editorial:

Tony Blair was never particularly exercised by the minutiae of constitutional reform when he was leader of the opposition. By all accounts, he found them a bore. Yet when he came to power, he had no option but to make devolution his first-term legislative priority--this, after all, was the "unfinished business" that had been bequeathed him by the late John Smith.

It was a debt of honour he had no option but to settle. Sentimentality is rarely a sensible basis on which to construct such far-reaching changes. For devolution has not--as its cheer-leaders endlessly proclaimed--strengthened the Union. It is weakening it. In Scotland, the clamour for full independence grows apace, while in Wales, the Assembly in Cardiff is hungry for greater power--and is getting it.

Meanwhile, the 49 million people who live in that neglected corner of the United Kingdom called England face a yawning democratic deficit. This slumbering giant has yet to be particularly exercised by the intrinsically unfair nature of New Labour's half-cocked constitutional settlement.

This is hardly surprising: it is hardly the stuff to set the political pulse racing. Yet the dangers of this Government's constitution by accretion are great. That is why we welcome the establishment of the English Constitutional Convention, in the hope that it will ignite a real national debate about the way the English are governed.

At the heart of it must be the role of the Westminster Parliament. The West Lothian Question remains as pertinent today as when it was first posed by Tam Dalyell in the run-up to the 1979 devolution referendums. Scottish and Welsh MPs can vote on matters affecting English constituencies, while English MPs have no such reciprocal rights over what happens in Scotland and Wales.

This potential instability needs to be addressed now. If there is any "unfinished business" in New Labour's constitutional reforms, it is giving the English greater control over their affairs. Specifically English laws ought to be dealt with by English MPs--just as the Scottish Parliament deals exclusively with Scottish measures and the Welsh Assembly, in the new powers it gained in July, deals with Welsh matters.

This is not a novel concept. The Conservatives have toyed with the idea of English votes for English laws--indeed, William Hague made it part of his platform for the 2001 general election. Then it was an idea ahead of its time.

Unless England's post-devolution settlement is addressed urgently, we may find the question becoming toxic. This newspaper is committed to the Union - but we fear it is at grave risk of being undermined by stealth and collateral damage.

While in the letters page, we find this:

Sir--The current "post-devolution settlement" is iniquitous to England.

Scotland and Wales have their own Parliament and Assembly, and yet are still over-represented in the House of Commons; the West Lothian Question has yet to be answered--why should Scottish and Welsh MPs preside over English matters when MPs representing English constituencies have no reciprocal right?

And the long-discredited Barnett formula, the system by which regional funding is allocated, remains grossly unfair to the taxpayers of England.

It has been nearly 10 years since the people of Scotland and Wales were consulted in a referendum prior to devolution. No such courtesy has been extended to the people of England, and our politicians seem reluctant even to allow open debate on the subject.

Dividing England into "regions", while leaving Scotland and Wales as "nations", is rightly unpopular and undemocratic. Stopping Scottish and Welsh MPs voting on English issues will cause as many problems as it solves.

The question of the establishment of an English parliament must be considered and the option placed in front of the electorate.

At a meeting in the House of Commons today, the English Constitutional Convention will be formally established, with the aim of promoting debate and raising public awareness of England's democratic deficit. As patrons to the convention, we urge the Government, Opposition and all the people of the United Kingdom actively to participate in that debate. England will be heard. The time for silence is over.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley; Lord Stoddart of Swindon; John Horam MP; Professor Hugo De Burgh; Professor Jeremy Dibble; Prof Roger Scruton; Dr. Gerald Morgan Trinity Dublin; Jervis Kay QC; Garry Bushell Journalist; Iain Dale Conservative commentator; Neil Addison Barrister; Mike Knowles, Chairman, Campaign for an English Parliament; Robin Tilbrook, Chairman, English Democrats; Christine Constable, Chairman, English Lobby; Bishop Michael Reid; Rev Richard Martin; Richard Long, Solicitor; Andy Smith, Past President, Chartered Institute of Journalists; Simon Lee, Lecturer, Hull University; Prof Charles Greenawalt

The plot, as they say over there, thickens....