Thoughts, comments, musings on life, politics, current events and the media.



Blogroll Me!


Comments by YACCS

 

Oh, really?

George Bush announces that "evil may be present, and it may be strong, but it will not prevail." Then he had the U.S. vote, with beacons of freedom and democracy like China, in favor of a Security Council resolution calling on Israel to withdraw from Ramallah. I suppose we should be grateful that the U.S. decided not to side with the Syrians (who also have a seat on the Council), who wanted the resolution to avoid any mention of the terrorist attacks.

Am I the only one seeing the influence of Colin Powell here? Bush 43 is turning into Bush 41, confusing the ends -- defeating terrorism -- with the means -- creating an Arab coalition. And Bush 43 was just slapped in the face for his efforts, as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait publicly reconciled with Saddam Hussein at the Arab summit.

When is Bush going to realize that rewarding terror makes him look weak, which makes it harder, not easier, to accomplish his goals? What Bush needs to realize is that ousting Saddam Hussein, right now, with or without any Arab support, will do far more to win the cooperation of our supposed "allies" than appeasing them will. Diplomats cannot win wars. And this is a war, not a "peace process."
posted by David Nieporent at 3/30/2002 09:04:00 PM |

 

You know the old saying: If you're not part of the solution, you're part of Europe

After months of dithering, the European Union has finally come out decisively on the question of terrorism: they're in favor. The Greeks are the most explicit, arguing not merely that Arafat is necessary, but that he's really a nice guy:

Greek Foreign Minister George Papandreou condemned the Israeli military action, saying his country had "ties, both friendly and personal, with President Arafat."

"For us Arafat is not an enemy, and beyond this he is also a personal friend," said Papandreou, who also condemned the terror attacks on Israelis.

Maybe George Bush ought to remind the Greeks that the United States has vowed to treat those who support terrorists the same as the terrorists themselves. Who else are the Greeks friends with? Idi Amin? Kim Il Sung? Charles Manson? But that's not an isolated sentiment, as the European Union collectively is worried far more about Arafat's safety than about Arafat's behavior. It's as if they don't think there's any connection between Israel's reactions and the events that caused them.

Spain, which holds the rotating EU presidency, said Israel's fight against terrorism and its response to recent attacks must be compatible with safeguarding the Palestinian Authority and its president -- "the legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people."

At first, I was shocked to read this -- after all, Arafat hasn't bothered to hold any elections lately, has he? But then I realized where this was coming from: the European Union, which is also run by unelected authoritarians.

In France, President Jacques Chirac said "any attack on (Arafat's) ability to act, or on his person, would be extremely serious."

The French leader also urged Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to "immediately take all measures to stop the violence."

He then urged Czechoslovakia to "Just give him the Sudetenland. We wouldn't want to provoke him."

"Nothing can excuse or justify blind terrorism against civilians," Chirac told France-Info radio. "Everyone knows there cannot be a military solution to the conflict in the Middle East."

Well, not if the French military is involved. What he meant, of course, is that nothing can justify terrorism, unless Arafat is your "personal friend," and Jews are the victims.

French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine accused Israel of obsessing over Arafat and trying to "asphyxiate" him.

The group that insists that Arafat is a legitimate leader is accusing others of "obsessing" over Arafat?

"It's a complete illusion to believe that, even with Arafat elsewhere or replaced by whatever Palestinian chief, the problem would be different," Vedrine told RFI radio.

Then, just to be safe, Vedrine offered to vacate Paris if the PLO demanded that he do so. Meanwhile, just to make sure Israel got the message:

Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi's government asked Israel to guarantee Arafat's security and respect his elected position.

"It is fundamental that deeds are not carried out which can prejudice the prospects for a resumption of dialogue," a government statement said.

So why do the Europeans keep carrying out deeds -- like criticizing Israel -- that make the resumption of dialogue impossible? Are these people that anti-American and that anti-Semitic? Or are they just stupid? Or both? Do they really not understand that terrorism is a tool used by the Palestinians to put pressure on Israel, and that every time the Europeans react to terror by trying to appease Arafat, it emboldens Arafat to escalate the violence?
posted by David Nieporent at 3/30/2002 05:55:00 PM |

 

Today, beer. Tomorrow, the world

Michael Judge writes about the silliness of anti-alcohol groups in the United States.

It gets worse. The American Medical Association is calling for local ordinances against "reckless marketing practices" that target students with ads for boozy events like Barenaked Ladies concerts and spring-break packages to Boca Raton. And college boards are listening. Berkeley is just one of the many campuses where events sponsored by alcohol and tobacco companies are no-nos.

Much of this hysteria has to do with the state of perpetual alarm trumpeted by groups like Columbia University's National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse.

...

The problem is that many Americans see boozing as somehow immoral and not a salutary part of social mores. Studies by the Berkeley Alcohol Research Group and a host of others find that nations that teach children moderation over abstinence, such as France, Spain and Italy, may have higher overall rates of alcohol consumption, but far lower rates of alcoholism and alcohol-related disease.

This crusade against "sin" is certainly not limited to alcohol (and tobacco), though. It's just the first step, as this article from the L.A. Times notes.

Citing California's huge budget shortfall and its growing number of overweight children, a state lawmaker is proposing a new tax on soda to fight childhood obesity.

...

The California Soda Tax Act by Sen. Deborah Ortiz (D-Sacramento) is seen as the leading edge of a broader initiative to tax or levy fees on a variety of eating and drinking habits. One lawmaker, in fact, has introduced a bill to study taxing a wider range of junk food to finance health programs for children. Another may try to impose a fee on retail sales of alcoholic beverages to bolster trauma rooms.

Part of this is simply a fundraising measure, of course. But part of it is an attempt to run people's lives, spearheaded by groups like the California Center for Public Health Advocacy, which campaigns against food that people want to eat, in favor of exercise, and most importantly, in favor of government intervention. The only common thread that runs through their campaigns on behalf of public health issues is that none of them have anything to do with public health.

The larger problem, though, is that as Steven Milloy has pointed out, repeatedly, there's not much science behind the idea that obesity is increasing, let alone that it's really the serious problem activists claim it is.

Doesn't matter to activists, though:

Nonetheless, lawmakers are not stopping at soda and cigarettes as possible tax targets.

To address concerns that California students are struggling at school because they are sick, lawmakers led by Assemblywoman Wilma Chan (D-Alameda) are pushing a package of proposals to improve their health.

Chan has introduced a measure that would require the state to study the feasibility of taxing junk foods to pay for dental and health services for children.

I wonder how much we could raise if we just taxed stupid legislative proposals? That's one thing there never seems to be a shortfall of.
posted by David Nieporent at 3/30/2002 05:24:00 PM |

 

A change of heart?

The New York Timeshas suddenly rediscovered the First Amendment. Arguing against laws which restrict campaigning by judicial candidates, the Times notes:

Despite their good intentions, such prohibitions should not survive constitutional scrutiny. It is hard to imagine a more direct infringement on the free-speech rights of candidates.

Well, there's McCainShaysFeingoldMeehan, the law the Times has endorsed, which prohibits even the mention of candidates in ads broadcast before elections.
posted by David Nieporent at 3/30/2002 04:57:00 AM |

 

Ooh! Sign me up

The Guardian reports that a new American newspaper, War Times, is being started to provide alternative coverage of the war in Afghanistan. I know it's going to be good:

The venture is supported by a number of academics, including Noam Chomsky, labour organisations and anti-war groups.

Nothing like a newspaper published by anti-war groups to provide objective coverage of a war. And if that doesn't make it sound enticing enough:

The pilot issue carried an interview with the actor Danny Glover, who said: "Bombing Afghanistan and creating the idea that the US is the judge, the jury and the executioner is the wrong way to respond."

Next issue will feature Melanie Griffith discussing superstring theory and its utility for resolving the contradictions between quantum mechanics and general relativity.
posted by David Nieporent at 3/30/2002 04:27:00 AM |

 

At least they admit it

The censorship campaign finance "reform" law passed, and Bush violated his oath of office to sign it. And special interest groups like Common Cause claimed it would end corruption in politics. But as Robert Samuelson notes, this is about speech, and some politicians are "honest" enough to admit it:

"This bill . . . is about slowing political advertising and making sure the flow of negative ads by outside interest groups does not continue to permeate the airwaves," said Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.). "We must also close off the use of corporate and union treasury money used to fund ads influencing federal elections," said Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine). "I cannot believe the Founding Fathers thought that the right to put the same commercial on 5,112 times was intended to be protected by the First Amendment," said Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.).

You might ask: What's wrong with groups -- the National Rifle Association, the Sierra Club -- running ads to praise friends or pillory foes? That's democracy. You might wonder whether the First Amendment makes exceptions for "negative" speech (Cantwell), speech intended to influence elections (Snowe) or repetitive speech (Schumer). It doesn't. Finally, you might rightly suspect a role for incumbent self-protection. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) confessed that she would be well rid of "those vicious attacks" (advertisements) in the final 60 days before an election.

Nobody should be surprised that politicians would be willing to eviscerate the First Amendment in order to protect their own jobs. But what is surprising is that so many are willing to admit it openly.
posted by David Nieporent at 3/29/2002 01:41:00 PM |

 

Sickening, in more ways than one

There are some who think that Saddam Hussein isn't a threat to the United States. There are some who think that he's just some two-bit dictator, no different than other third world tyrants. For them, this New Yorker piece should be required reading.

Chemical weapons had been dropped on Halabja by the Iraqi Air Force, which understood that any underground shelter would become a gas chamber. "My uncle said we should go outside," Nasreen said. "We knew there were chemicals in the air. We were getting red eyes, and some of us had liquid coming out of them. We decided to run." Nasreen and her relatives stepped outside gingerly. "Our cow was lying on its side," she recalled. "It was breathing very fast, as if it had been running. The leaves were falling off the trees, even though it was spring. The partridge was dead. There were smoke clouds around, clinging to the ground. The gas was heavier than the air, and it was finding the wells and going down the wells."

...

Gosden believes it is quite possible that the countries of the West will soon experience chemical- and biological-weapons attacks far more serious and of greater lasting effect than the anthrax incidents of last autumn and the nerve-agent attack on the Tokyo subway system several years ago—that what happened in Kurdistan was only the beginning. "For Saddam's scientists, the Kurds were a test population," she said. "They were the human guinea pigs. It was a way of identifying the most effective chemical agents for use on civilian populations, and the most effective means of delivery."

And if that doesn't scare you enough, this should:

The Germans have a special interest in Saddam's intentions. German industry is well represented in the ranks of foreign companies that have aided Saddam's nonconventional-weapons programs, and the German government has been publicly regretful. Hanning told me that his agency had taken the lead in exposing the companies that helped Iraq build a poison-gas factory at Samarra. The Germans also feel, for the most obvious reasons, a special responsibility to Israel's security, and this, too, motivates their desire to expose Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction programs. Hanning is tall, thin, and almost translucently white. He is sparing with words, but he does not equivocate. "It is our estimate that Iraq will have an atomic bomb in three years," he said.

Whether he was specifically complicit in 9/11 is totally beside the point. Saddam Hussein needs to go. Not in a week, or a month, or six months. Now. That his overthrow and the destruction of the Iraqi military could help create a moderate Muslim state run by the historically oppressed Kurds is icing on the cake.
posted by David Nieporent at 3/29/2002 03:49:00 AM |

 

War

I've been holding off on commenting on the latest atrocity in Israel, mostly because it defies comment. I have no idea what one says when someone commits mass murder, picking targets for the crime of being Jewish and trying to eat dinner. Well, I know what some say.

"I am horrified at the level of violence reached. Civilians on both sides are by now the main victims of a conflict situation which they never chose to be part of," EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said in a statement.

I see. Civilians on both sides. Lots of Palestinian civilians are being blown up by suicide bombers. Sure. Palestinian "civilians" throwing rocks.

"I appeal to the parties to find, at this gravest of times, the courage to pursue last-ditch efforts to reach a ceasefire."

Oh, is that what it's going to take? "Courage?" I bet World War II could have been avoided, if Poland had just had the "courage" to surrender to Germany instead of resisting. That was certainly the French strategy.

In Atlanta, Georgia, U.S. President George W. Bush said "callous cold-blooded...terrorist killing" in the Middle East must be stopped. "I condemn it in the strongest of terms."

Oh, the strongest of terms? Well, then, now we know you're serious about fighting terrorism. And of course:

The Secretary-General strongly condemns today's suicide bomb attack in the city of Netanya in Israel in which at least 15 Israeli citizens were killed and many others wounded. He reiterates his conviction that such terrorist attacks are morally repugnant and immensely harmful to the Palestinian cause. He extends his heartfelt condolences to the Government of Israel and to the families of the victims of this attack.

The Secretary-General urges all sides to exercise maximum restraint

Oh, he does, does he? Does he think that Yasir Arafat is listening?

and not to allow the enemies of peace to derail the current efforts to secure a durable ceasefire and to implement the Tenet and Mitchell plans.

Really? How are those efforts going?

And all this comes on the heels of the new report that Saddam Hussein is paying suicide bombers to kill Israelis (via Ken Layne.) This distribution took place in Tulkarm, where the Netanya bomber lived. I wonder if George Bush and the Europeans will begin to understand that killing Saddam Hussein -- that's right, killing, not deposing or overthrowing -- is part of the resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, rather than the reverse. I wonder if George Bush and the Europeans will begin to understand that the attempt to reach a ceasefire is a cause of, not a solution to, the conflict.

This is not a disagreement, or a dispute. This is war.
posted by David Nieporent at 3/28/2002 05:29:00 AM |

 

Happy Passover

posted by David Nieporent at 3/27/2002 09:11:00 PM |

 

I wish I could write this well

James Lileks has another hilarious screed, this one dissecting the latest silliness that is Nicholas Kristoff.

That's your best-case scenario. Unless, of course, Mr. Kristoff thinks that the Iraqi Chess Club will storm the palace, disband the Republican Guards, and proclaim an era of peace, democracy, normalization with Israel and Segways for all.

It also turns out that a British organization, Indict, is already pursuing an indictment against Saddam for war crimes.

And the Belgian organization Frown is already drafting plans to mount an international campaign of scowling, which will force his regime to divert precious resources to rubber chickens, joy-buzzers and Singing Telegram Gorillas to improve their standing abroad. Meanwhile, the French organization Surrender is drafting plans to cede Marseilles to whomever wants it, just in case.

Need I mention the plans of an American organization, Depose? They?re known informally as the Armed Services.

I'm not sure which is more depressing: that Lileks is so much funnier than I can ever hope to be, or that Nicholas Kristoff is, unintentionally. Why does The Paper of Record give this guy regular space?
posted by David Nieporent at 3/27/2002 05:12:00 PM |

 

Show me the money

Susanna Cornett has a very good discussion of some of the problems with the recently announced slavery reparations lawsuit.

But wait, isn't he benefiting from work done by slaves, for which they weren't paid? Yes, but so are the descendents of the slaves, even if you accept that they are not benefiting as much as other groups. So you would need to look at the relative harm - he has benefited, say, 10% or 25% or 50% more because one half of his ancestry is American of Anglo-European descent. And what about the generalized benefit of living in the United States versus Africa? Would it be reasonable to calculate what the average person in Africa has vs what the average African slave descendent in America has, and use that as a part of the reparation formula?

Another difficulty is identifying which people should benefit and how much. It isn't as if, in the case of the interned Japanese-Americans, it could be tracked that the family owned this property and it was taken so therefore this harm calculates to this amount, and this person is a direct descendent of the person who lost the property, so he/she should receive the money. First we would need to determine which people have no ancestors who were slaves, and whether they suffered specific harm because of the culture resulting from a history of slavery in this country. The next tier are people who have varying degrees of slave ancestry - 10%, 25%, etc. I think it unlikely we would find many if any at all that have 100% ancestry from slaves or slaveholders. Can you imagine the mess it would be to parse these issues? What about a Halle Berry - if her black father was descended from slaves, and her white mother from slaveholders, would that not be a wash?

The issues she raises are valid; the only problem with her analysis is that she works from the faulty premise that people who were injured by slavery -- directly or through their ancestors -- are the intended beneficiaries of this lawsuit. As even the plaintiff's lawyers admit, that's simply not the case:

Any damages won from the lawsuit would be put into a fund to improve health, education and housing opportunities for blacks, said attorney Roger Wareham, one of a group of lawyers who prepared the lawsuits.

''This is not about individuals receiving checks in their mailbox,'' Wareham said.

If it were truly "reparations," of course it would be about individuals receiving checks in their mailbox. So if it doesn't go to individuals, where is it going to go? Well, aside from the plaintiffs' attorneys (which goes without saying), it will go to activist groups, who will then use the money to fund more lobbying efforts and lawsuits for more money. And, of course, to keep activists employed. Jesse Jackson has made a career of this; why shouldn't others?
posted by David Nieporent at 3/27/2002 04:36:00 PM |

 

Don't hold back; tell us what you really think

I don't think Victor Davis Hanson is a big fan of Islamofascism.

So we should stop apologizing, prepare for the worst, hope for the best, and accept this animosity -- just as our forefathers once did when faced by similar autocrats and their captive peoples who threatened us in 1941. I don't know about the rest of America, but I am proud that thugs like Khaddafi, murderers like Saddam Hussein, inquisitionists like the mullahs in Iran, criminals in Syria, medieval sheiks in the Gulf, and millions of others who do not vote, do not speak freely, oppress women, and are not tolerant of religious, gender, or ethnic diversity don't like me for being an American. I would find it repugnant if they did.

No, their hatred is a badge of honor, and I would have it no other way. I am tired of the appeasers of the Middle East on our Right who fawn for oil and trade, and those pacifists and multiculturalists on the Left who either do not know, or do not like, what America really is. I'd rather think of all the innocent dead on 9/ 11 than give a moment more of attention to Mr. Arafat and his bombers.

The truth is that there is a great storm on the horizon, one that will pass — or bring upon us a hard rain the likes of which we have not seen in 60 years. Either we shall say "no more," deal with Iraq, and prepare for a long and hard war against murderers and terrorists — or we will have more and more of what happened on 9/11. History teaches us that certain nations, certain peoples, and certain religions at peculiar periods in their history take a momentary, but deadly leave of their senses — Napoleon's France for most of a decade, the southern states in 1861, Japan in 1931, Germany in 1939, and Russia after World War II. And when they do, they cannot be bribed, apologized to, or sweet-talked — only defeated.

Comparisons to the Nazis are always dangerous, but he makes a good case. We're dealing with fanatics who want us dead -- no, not the French -- not merely people who disagree with us. And we need to win, not find a way to get them to like us.
posted by David Nieporent at 3/26/2002 03:30:00 AM |

 

Reason #4,241,517 to be a libertarian...

Maryland is taking steps towards legalizing medical marijuana. Or, at least, that's the lead in the Washington Post's coverage. Then you read this half-assed idiocy:

Under the measure, if defendants can prove to a judge or jury that they used marijuana exclusively for medical reasons, they would be subject to a $100 fine, instead of the current penalty -- a $1,000 fine and up to a year in jail.

Got that? The legislature is going to recognize marijuana as medicine -- but still fine people for using it! Sometimes you really have to wonder what kind of half-wits get elected to state legislatures. (The rest of the time, you don't wonder what kind -- you just wonder how.)
posted by David Nieporent at 3/26/2002 03:04:00 AM |

 

Fine, but first can we kick out the French?

Romania and Bulgaria are hoping to join NATO, now that the organization looks likely to expand its membership significantly.

Determined to be on that list, Bulgaria and Romania are working closely with the United States in the campaign in Afghanistan to show how valuable they can be as military partners. The two countries "are making the best use of this tragic opportunity," the Bulgarian foreign minister, Solomon Pasi, said in an interview here in the Romanian capital.

...

And in the rush to impress the Bush administration, viewed as the critical voice in determining the final list of countries invited to join NATO, Romania and Bulgaria are refurbishing airstrips and ports with the implicit promise that if the United States wishes to use them in future campaigns, including in strikes against Iraq, they are available for the asking.

"The next time when [the United States] asks for support, or needs support, Bulgaria will be an excellent ally," said Pasi when asked about Iraq. Romanian officials echoed his comments.

What a thought -- to show that they're our allies, countries are cooperating with us. Don't they understand that this isn't how things are done in Europe? But they've got at least one part of the French plan down pat:

The United States had been particularly concerned that the countries' military spending is low and that their armed forces cannot "inter-operate" with NATO's. Both countries have boosted their military budgets above 2 percent of their gross domestic products in an effort to accelerate the restructuring process and modernize equipment. At the same time, Romania is slashing the ranks of its top-heavy military and moving to create a professional, non-conscript army by the end of the decade, officials said.

Incompetent armed forces that can't work with us, but that promise they will be able to, someday. Now that's more like it.

Still, this does little to answer the long term question: what is NATO for? Certainly not to defend against a Warsaw Pact invasion. Does it even have a mission, and does expanding serve that mission? Right now, it seems that expansion is really just a way to avoid having to answer these questions. For NATO to turn down these applicants would require that NATO come up with a reason why. To keep expanding is just inertia. We've already seen that NATO is worthless as a military alliance; after all, even without NATO, the British can cooperate with us and the French can thumb their noses at us.
posted by David Nieporent at 3/26/2002 02:06:00 AM |

 

Close, but no cigar

William Raspbery comes oh so near to revelation, before backing off. He analogizes the perceived corruption in NCAA sports to the perceived corruption in Washington, arguing that the only way to reform the system is to "separate winning and money."

There's some merit there. The corruption in college sports comes from the fact that the stakes are so high. When a winning program can potentially bring in millions of dollars in cash and television exposure, you're always going to have an incentive to cut corners to win. So the way to reform college sports is to eliminate those millions of dollars. Stop signing the television deals and the endorsement deals.

But after working this through, Raspberry adds:

Now suppose it's the case that politics conflict not only with grass-roots citizen involvement but also with the integrity and ideals we like to espouse -- and suppose that conflict is inescapable. What are we to do? Reducing the stakes is not an option. Does it follow from Loughran's analysis that reform is impossible -- that moneyed interests will find a way around the new legislation and that reform will be proved a delusion once again?

But stop and ask why? Why can't we reduce the stakes?

In fact, that's exactly what we need to do. Reduce the stakes. No alumni booster is going to buy an illiterate high school dropout, no college is going to admit him, if there's no reward at the end. Similarly, no corporation, no rich special interest, is going to buy a candidate if there's no reward at the end. In politics, the reward is legislation. A simple truth: if there are no regulations, there can be no loopholes. No loopholes means nothing to be bought. What's the point of bribing a politician if the politician can't give you anything? Developers can't buy zoning board members if there are no zoning boards. Energy companies can't pay to write the government's energy policy if the government doesn't legislate an energy policy. Accounting firms can't buy influence over accounting regulations if the government isn't writing accounting regulations.

Unfortunately, Raspberry botches the argument, turning it into just another call for bigger government. After concluding that you can't reduce the stakes, his proposal is "some combination of private contributions fully disclosed, public funding of campaigns and free TV ads." The worst of all worlds. Legislation,or at least access, being bought, government picking winners and losers, and more political advertising on television.
posted by David Nieporent at 3/26/2002 12:17:00 AM |

 

But just give them a chance to criticize Israel...

The Washington Post has just come to the shocking conclusion that Europeans don't care about human rights. Well, not exactly; the Post says that Europeans "risk" sending that message.

Apparently now that the United States is no longer a member of the incredibly pointless United Nations Human Rights Commission, having been kicked off by the French, the UNHRC can't even be bothered to make a token effort to criticize Russia, or China, or even Cuba.

Though the U.N. commission has no real authority, Beijing has gone to great lengths to avoid the passage of resolutions in recent years, threatening would-be sponsors with economic and political retaliation. Both the Bush and Clinton administrations pressed resolutions anyway; with the United States gone this year, the European Union released its members to take action if they so choose. But so far none has done so -- not Britain, or Germany, or Italy or Spain -- and not France, or Sweden or Austria, the three countries that combined to muscle the United States off the commission last year. If that passivity continues, the message to China's Communist regime will be clear: Europe has no will to resist its suppression of political freedom, its torture and murder of the Falun Gong and other religious believers, its campaign against independent intellectuals or its crackdowns in Tibet and Muslim-populated Xinjiang province.

Europeans like to think of themselves as superior to the United States. And they like to think of the European Union as a vehicle to create a superpower to balance the United States' influence in the world. But if you want to have influence, you have to be willing to use it. America doesn't always make the right decisions, but at least we're willing to take a stand. The Europeans seem to be more willing to criticize America for it than they are to criticize dictators -- even in a forum where they can act "multilaterally."
posted by David Nieporent at 3/25/2002 01:01:00 PM |

 

Hey, at least they weren't dead at the time

The INS broke its own rules in giving special visa waivers to some 19 Pakistani crewmen from a ship which arrived last week. Fortunately, they were all responsible, law-abiding individuals. Well, except for the four crewmen who have now disappeared. None of them are actually proven terrorists, though, so there's nothing to be concerned about. And it's not fair to point fingers; the INS certainly can't be expected to identify every individual who might pose a risk. Well, except perhaps for the ones who've done this before.

An inspector also entered an improper birth date for one of the four missing Pakistanis. If the birth date had been entered correctly, INS would have found that the man had committed an immigration violation in Chicago several years ago, the INS official said. The error was not realized until the man disappeared, according to the official.

Better late than never. But I'm not worried, because John Ashcroft says, "I believe we will find these individuals, and I believe we will be able to correct this situation." Aren't you reassured? Certainly, though, the federal government has acted promptly. They've "launched an investigation." And they've dealt harshly with the person responsible:

William Bittner, a longtime INS employee who oversees the agency's Norfolk field office, has been reassigned to the Arlington office, an INS official said.

I'm sure the citizens of Arlington feel safer already. Aren't civil service laws great? You couldn't make this stuff up if you tried.

posted by David Nieporent at 3/25/2002 03:34:00 AM |

 

Reason #4,241,516 to be a libertarian...

The Washington Post reports on Maryland's efforts to make us "safer" by increasing the scope of law enforcement powers.

"I realize that this bill basically says you can tap someone's phone for jaywalking, and normally I would say, 'No way,' " said Del. Dana Lee Dembrow (D-Montgomery). "But after what happened on September 11th, I say screw 'em."

Well, that's principled leadership for you. But surely extreme measures are justified, right? Well, not exactly:

In January, Gov. Parris N. Glendening (D) formed a task force to pull a wide range of initiatives into one bill. Several of the task force proposals have since been stripped away by uneasy lawmakers, including restrictions that would have prevented foreign nationals from holding driver's licenses if their visas had expired.

Ah. So people who aren't even in the country legally may drive legally in Maryland. They should just avoid jaywalking. Gotcha.
posted by David Nieporent at 3/25/2002 03:13:00 AM |

 

Sayonara, Saddam?

Steven Den Beste makes an intriguing comparison between the culture of Imperial Japan before World War II, and Islamofascism today. In each case, we seem to be dealing with a culture incapable of handling the idea that it isn't the invincible center of the universe, a culture which needs to destroy those who pose a challenge to this worldview.

For my system to continue to exist, theirs must be changed. This is not a war of faith on my side, it's just a practical necessity. They need not give up Islam, but their fundamentalism will have to be destroyed. Islam must become tolerant, because as long as it is not we will continue to have wars with them.

Many Muslims are already tolerant. But many are not, and there is a major core of the faith of Islam which is not.

That is also what existed in Japan going into World War II, and to ultimately pacify Japan it was necessary to completely gut its culture and rebuild it according to our desires. There have been few nations as radically changed in such a short time as Japan between 1946 and 1951, when the occupation officially ended and a formal peace treaty was signed with the new government of Japan.

I fear that before this war ends we shall have to make changes as radical to the majority of Islamic nations, especially the Arab ones. I fear that, because I don't see how this war can end if we don't, unless we are defeated. We can't merely defeat them militarily; I think we have to break their spirit.

Steven's absolutely right. And although Germany's period of insanity was shorter than that of either of the other two cultures, it represents a similar case. Germany won some wars, lost some wars -- but didn't give up the idea of war until the United States smashed them completely and rebuilt their country from the ground up.
posted by David Nieporent at 3/25/2002 12:54:00 AM |

 

Newsflash: water is wet

Islam is a religion of peace, and a Palestinian Group Says It Will Increase Bombings. This is, of course, after Israel pulled back its tanks from the "Occupied" Territories and began negotiating again, as insisted upon by Israel's "allies," including the United States.

This isn't Hamas or Islamic Jihad, by the way. This is the Al Aksa Brigades, affiliated with Yasir Arafat's Fatah organization.

Last fall, the group's leaders said it would target only soldiers and Israeli settlers. But that view changed early this year, in part because Hamas, the militant Islamic group, had raised its standing among Palestinians with its suicide attacks, and Fatah was losing influence.

Hey, it's just a big P.R. campaign. Nothing to get excited about.

The brigades have claimed responsibility for several recent suicide bombings, including one in an ultra-Orthodox religious neighborhood in Jerusalem on March 2 that killed nine Israelis, including six children.

Bashir, a 27-year-old fighter in the Aksa Brigades who would not give his last name, said he agreed with the decision to attack Israeli civilians because "wherever there is an occupier, we should consider them a target. Besides, Israel sees all of us as targets."

If Israel actually saw all Palestinians as targets, they'd all be dead now. Duh. But don't think Palestinains are acting insane, out of frustration or despair:

In talks with many Palestinians across the political and economic spectrum in recent days, most wholeheartedly support the suicide attacks and say they are helping to bring concessions from the Israelis.

The attacks are evil, but they're rational. They're an attempt to win concessions. And they're working. The American government keeps pressuring Israel to negotiate. But here's the problem:

Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, today condemned the latest suicide bombing by the group, on Thursday in Jerusalem, and called for an end to attacks on civilians. But Mr. Badawi said the Aksa Brigades would ignore that.

"He does not support what we are doing," he said with a shrug, sitting on a sofa in his living room with a large-caliber pistol stuffed between the cushions just to his right. "But we believe this is our national responsibility. We respect our leader, but the decisions to carry out attacks remains with the Aksa Brigades leadership."

...

But both Mr. Badawi and Mr. Khader said the group's leaders do not communicate with Mr. Arafat. Mr. Badawi said Mr. Arafat had never approached anyone from the Aksa Brigades to ask them to stop the suicide bombings in Israel — although the leader did make a public statement to that effect on Thursday.

He added that if Mr. Arafat reaches an agreement for a cease-fire, the Aksa Brigades will decide independently whether to abide by it.

So what is Israel to do? Arafat either won't restrain his people, or he can't. Either he's evil or he's useless. Either way, what good is it going to do to negotiate?
posted by David Nieporent at 3/24/2002 08:36:00 PM |

 

Always go with your first guess?

The FBI is investigating a report that some of the 9/11 hijackers were treated for anthrax.

The two men identified themselves as pilots when they came to the emergency room of Holy Cross Hospital in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., last June. One had an ugly, dark lesion on his leg that he said he developed after bumping into a suitcase two months earlier. Dr. Christos Tsonas thought the injury was curious, but he cleaned it, prescribed an antibiotic for infection and sent the men away with hardly another thought.

But after Sept. 11, when federal investigators found the medicine among the possessions of one of the hijackers, Ahmed Alhaznawi, Dr. Tsonas reviewed the case and arrived at a new diagnosis. The lesion, he said in an interview this week, "was consistent with cutaneous anthrax."

Got that? This was in June -- months before 9/11, and months before the other anthrax attacks. So if this story is true -- and I should point out that a retroactive diagnosis is of questionable validity -- it adds a new twist to the story.

Originally, everyone assumed the anthrax attacks were caused by terrorists. Lately, as the proof for that hypothesis has failed to turn up, a revisionist theory has sprung up that a disgruntled former member of the U.S. biodefense program is responsible for the attacks. But if the hijackers got anthrax four months before the other anthrax victims, that would either be one of the biggest coincidences in the history of the planet, or incredibly strong circumstantial evidence that there's a terrorist connection.
posted by David Nieporent at 3/24/2002 06:42:00 AM |

 

Racism isn't dead.

Or, at least it isn't dead on some campuses. The Washington Post reports that black colleges are facing racial discrimination lawsuits.

DOVER, Del. –– Kathleen Carter says that when she became chairman of the education department at historically black Delaware State University in 1995, she found herself facing more than the usual administrative hassles.

Carter, who is white, says she was told that she was usurping blacks' right to govern themselves and that whites in the department were trying to make blacks look bad.

One colleague called her "a white bitch," Carter said in a discrimination lawsuit she filed against the school, alleging she was denied tenure because of her race.

That's only one of several such cases.

But Jane Buck, a former Delaware State psychology professor and national president of the AAUP, said a search committee at the school received about 100 applications for an opening a few years ago, and no black candidate turned up. The search was reopened, and the lone black applicant was hired.

"I perceived a great deal of pressure to see to it that we hired a black departmental member," Buck said.

This sounds like a blockbuster -- a college so racist that they rejected 100 job applications and reopened the job search, just to get someone with the right skin color. So why wasn't this story front page headlines, the way the story about blacks supposedly getting inferior healthcare was?
posted by David Nieporent at 3/24/2002 03:58:00 AM |

 

Help! I'm being oppressed!

The New York Times reports on the supposedly new phenomenon that college students nowadays aren't interested in political debate anymore, or are at least unwilling to engage in it. The article talks about an overemphasis on "tolerance" being part of the problem -- the Oprahfication of the world, where feelings are all that count. If you argue with someone, you might make them feel bad.

But I don't think this reluctance to debate has anything to do with the college generation. Look at Eric Alterman's whining about Andrew Sullivan in the latest Nation. Sullivan's criticism of the left is described by Alterman as "the will to censorship." That's right -- criticism of speakers is now considered "censorship." At least if those being criticized are on the left.

I think there's a good reason for it. The left has gotten so used to declaring everyone who disagrees to be racist, sexist, heterosexist, classist, speciesist, or all of the above, that they're afraid of actual debates. The only way to avoid being labelled a bigot is just not to say anything at all.
posted by David Nieporent at 3/24/2002 03:33:00 AM |