Thursday, October 31, 2002

Happy Anniversary, Star Control 2!

Go visit the fan sites, and pay your respects to one of the three best (not to say "only") space-exploration games ever written.

May this tide you over under Starflight III comes out.

UPDATE: Looks like SC2 is going to be re-released for modern PC's. Woohoo!!

posted by Zimri on 20:44 | link |

Commissar without a commission

Chris Hitchens, as The Former Nation Lefty Who Does Not Approve Of Terrorism, has been on a fast track to blogosphere canonisation. But from Sully's page, the beatified one lets us know that he's not ready for sainthood yet:

I'll accept compliments from the Right when they agree that Henry Kissinger belongs in the dock, and when they admit that this failure on their part is also sheltering Saddam Hussein from an indictment for war crimes and crimes against humanity, and when they acknowledge that their trashing of the International Criminal Court is a betrayal of the whole ethos of "regime change". And after that, I have some other bones to pick with them...

The issue with that statement isn't that his three criteria are unreasonable. I'm sure Hitchens can find plenty of voices on the Right who are either unwilling to defend Kissinger, or else are willing to provide a reasoned case for his acquittal. This is not something my own blog's been ready to take on (I don't know the facts, and I have other priorities). Practically all the serious Right agrees that Saddam ought to have been deposed, and given over to Kuwaiti and democratic-Iraqi courts, decades ago (yes, plural). Many complained as far back as 1991; others - like George I himself - have been very forthcoming with meae culpae. The only sticking point that would prevent Hitch from accepting a compliment from me personally, is the issue of the International Criminal Court. The ICC is very debatable in its own right, and eventually I probably will mount a case against it. But Hitch could be right even there.

I'm also not going to sniff about whether his comment was "ungracious". A compliment should be an objective assessment of one's work. If the assessor is only delivering compliments because it serves his or her own ends, the assessment is mere flattery and therefore extremely hazardous to take to heart. Hitch is right to warn in advance that he is not to be flattered or co-opted.

The problem is that Hitch is being imperious. You must "agree", "admit", and "acknowledge" all these tenets of faith before you become one of the Elect, wise enough to deliver an opinion of Hitch's work.

There is an adjective that describes a demand to accept theorems on face value, without admitting that the theorems may yet be proven wrong, as a prerequisite to acceptance as a peer. This word is "bigoted". Hitch may lack a master, but he has shown that he has some way to go before he loses his will to be a master over others.

posted by Zimri on 01:57 | link |

Aerosmith and Run DMC

I was at an Aerosmith concert tonight. I don't know if it was the sound or the singer, but the vocals were shaky at the start. They did improve. Actually, to such an extent you wouldn't know that they've been at it for decades.

Another memorable moment: late into the concert the band gave out a minute of silence to Jam Master Jay of Run DMC. Some assholes in the crowd decided it'd be cool to yell out in the middle of it. For the most part the crowd behaved, though.

I'm not averse to a bit of heckling - earlier when they'd shouted "let's hear it for Houston" I'd shouted back "what? this is Milwaukee" - but when you consider all the good Jay did for the members of Aerosmith, refusing to allow them a moment of respect out of a whole concert is just revolting.

posted by Zimri on 01:37 | link |

Wednesday, October 30, 2002

"Less solidly Democratic"

Apparently the percentage of Blacks who define themselves as Democrats has plummeted - from 74% to 63%. Meanwhile the 4% Republican registration has rocketed up to the vast margin of 10%. I think I'm right in assuming the "%" isn't the result of a stuck "shift" key...

This begs some questions: It was possible to be more solidly Democratic?

Yeah, yeah, I read the article. It reminds me of that Boondocks cartoon from 2000 in which Huey announced he was going to support Nader. This spooked his Black Democrat neighbour no end. But at least we know this much: its author Aaron McGruder is not part of that dwindling 63%. He's an Independent. He's also popular. I cannot help but wonder if "less solidly Democratic" is better news for the CPUSA and Ralph Nader than it is for the RNC and Marc Racicot.

But even in this there is some hope. One interesting theory is that majorities this lopsided in a community tend to enforce a majoritarian mentality. It strikes me that as long as Democratic affiliation remains above 50%, Blacks will associate that party with being true to their people.

This implies that one hope for Republicans could be that Aaron McGruder leads 20% of his fellows off into the nowhere land of Naderite socialism. That will leave 43% Dem and 20% Naderite. At that point party affiliation won't be a factor in Black consciousness anymore, and Republicans and other parties can start making double-digit progress.

A better hope would be a Condi Rice presidential bid... one can dream...

posted by Zimri on 03:02 | link |

Russia delivers warning to Londonistan

It's not just the French who've noticed.

posted by Zimri on 02:30 | link |

Cornyn supports repeal of the First Amendment

I can't see any other way to read this.

I may have to vote for the Libertarian...

posted by Zimri on 02:26 | link |

Why complain? Why now?

People have been complaining that Wellstone's funeral has turned out more a political rally than a funeral.

When I was at college, our Student Association President sent out a spam to the whole student body saying we ought to all go to Barbara Jordan's memorial. So I went. The experience was indeed quite spiritual. We had a hand-holding prayer and a gospel choir, which proves it. We in the audience were privileged also to hear speeches from such statesmen and -women as the Reverend Kirbyjon Caldwell and the US Representative Sheila Jackson Lee. These sermons mostly concerned how bravely Barbara Jordan supported the Constitution, and also how a system of racial nobility then called "affirmative action" (we call it "diversity" now) was just, proper, and in need of support.

The good Reverend felt strongly about "community", sometimes allowing that word to stand as its own sentence. As part of his ideal of community, he supported the "affirmative action program". He proved this by teaching us that for every dollar a rich man earns, the middle class loses a dollar. "Immorality is expensive!", as he put it. He further backed this up in some study, from which he regrettably could not recall the exact citation. The most holy member of the Board of Directors for Chase Manhattan bank (a detail too insignificant to mention in his praise of the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, which forced the bank to "invest in the community") also left as exercises for the audience: what this had to do with race, and how it was immoral to allow someone (else) to earn wealth. But hey, given that I would next run across this fellow in the 2000 Republican National Convention, I suppose we should not judge a person by the content of his character, but by the colour of his money.

Sheila Jackson Lee for her part considered herself a beneficiary of A.A., and declared herself "proud of it", I recall. I imagine I might have been less proud if I had been accepted to that college knowing that a less-advantaged Asian student with higher SAT's had been rejected in my favour due to our racial differences. But I am not as enlightened as the Honourable Lady from Houston.

So you see, celebrations - er, remembrances for the death of a beloved Democratic wealth-redistributionist are going to end up sort of, you know, political, showcasing every brand of hustler and demogogue eager to lavish praise and slap backs (and scratch them).

posted by Zimri on 01:39 | link |

Tuesday, October 29, 2002

Shoe, other foot...

I'm number 262, on the proviso that Blair's Britain not be included. (And why should it be?) America, Britain, Australia: divest from the EU!

posted by Zimri on 23:42 | link |

Guess they don't want the gay vote anymore

Times sure have changed since Clinton promised the gay community the Armed Forces. Nowadays the prime gay-baiters in politics are in Clinton's party.

The Montana race I thought was a one-off. Then come revelations from Minnesota that Wellstone wasn't quite as progressive as commonly thought. And now we have the South Carolina race.

Both the above come from Orrin Judd. I admit to a little surprise to find a conservative Christian supporting the gay community against political attacks. But on the other hand - to their shame - he's doing a better job of it than is PRIDE.

I think what we have here are three examples of a Democratic candidate who got into office on a close race, and six years later realised his electorate has shifted to his right. That always poses a problem.

On the one hand, the candidate could run to the right himself, like Zell Miller, even changing parties. Or, he could throw out cheap shots at a constituency with next-to-zero visibility in his state, that votes overwhelmingly Democratic anyway. That earns him points on the "morality" issue with no loss in credibility. (Andrew Sullivan will complain, but how many Dish fans are there in Minnesota or Montana, anyway?)

It strikes me that Democrats don't have much that can appeal to social conservatives. They seem to be attempting to fake it the cheap and easy way. I posted to one of the Judds' comments that we can "expect more gay-baiting from them in future"; I didn't expect the future to be six hours from posting.

We can also expect a right turn from disgusted gays who feel taken for granted. Hell hath no fury like a gay man scorned.

posted by Zimri on 19:20 | link |

How Republicans can win over secularists

Republicans needn't go RINO to win over secular America. As libertarians we will not be amused by Pataki'ite pandering to unions and government constituencies. Nor do most of us want the government to ban religion, beyond dangerous cults that are already under scrutiny.

All I want is what most Republicans already claim to want: judges who will apply a strict constructionist approach to the Constitution. The trick is this: these Republicans have to apply it to church-state cases as well.

Republicans should also quit trying to force variant forms of creationism in public schools. Peer-reviewed science ought to prevail in the classroom until college, unless the student can prove otherwise with reproducible results.

It would also be nice if the President were willing to uphold the Constitution in public, rather than mocking the legitimate concerns of a minority, that they feel like non-citizens when speaking a pledge that counts them out.

Do that, and you will see the end of the true secularist base of the Democratic Party. In fact there will no longer be a reason for any free and intelligent person to support that Party.

posted by Zimri on 18:49 | link |

Secularists have not written off the Republicans

I was almost twenty-six when I went to that secularist conference in San Antonio.

Among the speakers were Barbara Ehrenreich and cartoonist Steve Benson. They managed to keep to the topics at hand. I was glad of this, because I knew that the Democrats were the more secular-friendly party, and I was afraid of being forced to drink lefty Kool-Aid as a prerequisite for supporting the cause.

Also in attendance were a few college students from UT and some other twentysomethings. We hung out together for the evening, shared a room, and went our separate ways. When they spoke of politics, I was pleasantly surprised to find that they were libertarians too.

In the audience there was definitely a difference between the older members and the younger. The older ones were more angry and defencive, and less willing to tolerate religious believers. They were the ones shouting down the one Christian in attendance at the meeting, and they also included the atheist near-jihadi I met around that time. The younger ones had a more optimistic and open-minded attitude.

It was only later that I realised that both Ehrenreich and Benson were on the left side of the group. Their writings show they are only willing to confront Christian fundamentalism, and have no such qualms about socialist or even Muslim fundamentalism. But Ehrenreich and Benson did not demand an active welfare state or a passive foreign policy (respectively) at the conference; they chose, wisely, to relay those funky ideas on their own time.

The secularist movement, insofar as there is one, is not run by the young libertarians. It is however smart enough to realise that the libertarians are on the secularist side. That tells me that secularists, even the leadership, understand their aims are limited enough to be compatible with those of the Republican Party.

posted by Zimri on 18:18 | link |

Secularists: the Left's fundies?

The NRO Corner links to a fascinating exposé in the Fall 2002 issue of The Public Interest, called Our Secularist Democratic Party by Louis Bolce & Gerald De Maio. It proves that there is a fundamentalist secularist left in the Democratic Party, that matches the fundamentalist theocratic right in the Republican Party like a mirror image.

The article defines secularists as "self-identified agnostics, atheists, and persons who never or seldom attend religious services". Their influence in the Left has not exactly gone unnoticed by the Religious Right, nor by the more mainstream Kurtz, but it has gone largely unnoticed by the mainstream media. This TPI article cannot be dismissed as a right-wing rant, though, and deserves wide dissemination throughout all forms of media.

If I may generalise: Secularists "backed Gore with two-thirds of their votes" in the last election, and make up the bulk of white Democrat delegates. They tend to be highly "educated" by comparison with others, at least in terms of university degrees (I use scare quotes because with the current state of the university, a diploma doesn't necessarily imply an education). Lastly, they have a deep antipathy toward Christian fundamentalists.

That last is certainly true in my part. The Christian presence in the Republican column is a large reason why I count myself an independent. In the last election, I was a McCain supporter and then leant toward the Libertarian candidate. I moved to Bush literally in the last weekend of the campaign.

I got to that Corner piece via lucianne.com. One fellow on that thread has already spoken up for libertarian secularists like myself:

I think you'll find most athiests are libertarian free thinkers. All of the atheists I know are conservative. I mean CONSERVATIVE, not semi socialist like the GOP. Most of the "touchy feely" democrats that I know believe in an extraterrestrial higher power. Of course you will find all types on all sides. One only has to look at the Jewish or black vote to realize that the Dems are over run with religious superstition. This article fails to raise the real issues and instead plays the "god" card like the DumoRats play the "class" or "race" cards. People who think for themselves and don't play follow the leader will always lean towards less intervention from whatever authority is in power. It goes towards individualism instead of being one of the "flock".

The problem is that he is only speaking for the atheists he associates with as a conservative. His is not what I would call a representative sample.

But non-socialist secularists are still a serious constituency. However motivated secularists are to vote opposite from Christians, Americans can take solace in the fact that secularists supported that fool Gore by only two-thirds, not (yet) the nine-tenths the Black electorate gave him. Therefore I do not think that the Republicans need ignore secularists as such, but can find a message that libertarian secularists and theocrats both might agree on.

posted by Zimri on 17:36 | link |

"Dude, you've got herpes on your face!"

Everyone eventually finds out that the chicken pox s/he caught at five-to-ten years of age was actually a form of herpes. It is typically the oldest sibling who discovers this fascinating medico-genetic fact as a teenager, whereupon s/he employs it in tormenting his/her younger siblings when they catch this dread disease. (Chicken pox, I mean.) That, or one just watches too much South Park.

Over the last couple of weeks, I've had a re-education in the consequences of what it actually means when we say that chicken pox is a form of herpes. Namely, it makes its home in the nervous system, not the skin. That, and it...does...not...go...away. Ever. Lastly, it's even less fun, and lasts a lot longer, the second time around.

The virus I caught in Disneyland at age seven has just decided to reacquaint itself with me. To give you some perspective, that virus has full voting rights in this country. I have a brother in college younger than that virus. That virus could buy me drinks in an American bar.

Anyway, the posting here will be somewhat sporadic and erratic while I'm fending off this burning, aching pain in the nerves and skin down the back of my head.

posted by Zimri on 01:24 | link |

Ship abandoned

I devoted the Battle of Poitiers entry to commenting on Privateer's 6 October post.

He's just quit blogging.

*sigh*

posted by Zimri on 01:06 | link |

Sunday, October 27, 2002

"Do something about those prisons"

So says Congress of Racial Equality Chairman Roy Innis. He worries about jailhouse al-Qaida converts going forth and wreaking havoc. So does Reynolds, I think.

I'd say we need fewer people in prison, and have the prisons that exist today be run with the aim of rehabilitation. No more gangs, "prison bitches", etc. etc.

posted by Zimri on 14:34 | link |

The green strings of the marionette

US News, a conservative newsweekly, alleges a "Postal plot":

A Democratic executive of the U.S. Postal Service abruptly quit last Friday amid allegations that she used the federal mail budget to hurt the re-election chances of Arkansas Republican Sen. Tim Hutchinson. Sources allege that Deborah Willhite, the Postal Service's top lobbyist, pushed to have the budget for Arkansas post offices cut–and Hutchinson blamed. The money was to be transferred to Georgia's post offices, allowing supporters there to credit Democratic Sen. Max Cleland, who's in his own tough re-election battle. Senate Republican leader Trent Lott caught wind of the deal making and demanded the resignation of Willhite, an Arkansan who has donated to Hutchinson's opponent and to Cleland. Willhite, however, says "it's all a plot" to discredit her and that she planned to resign anyway. "It spins a good story," she says, "but it's just not the case." Postmaster General John Potter is scouring all recent budget moves for other political hanky-panky.

Orrin Judd takes the above at face value. But what sources are making this claim? Where else is this being reported? Note that the story refuses to name Hutchinson's opponent. But for the sake of this blog entry I'll be accepting that claim too.

Contra Judd's comment that this is "criminal conspiracy", I don't know how it is illegal for a bureaucracy like the Postal Service to shift resources around to influence the political system. That is exactly how the Congress got a national drinking age of 21, by withholding highway funds to recalcitrant states like Louisiana. In other words, "do as we say or you won't get YOUR OWN MONEY back!". I haven't heard too much against that from Orrin Judd, or other religious Republicans for that matter.

If Congress is really worried that the Postal Service is too politicised, it should simply close it down and let FedEx handle the rest. But as long as the federal government has a licence to steal from the rich and give to (whomever it deems) needy, expect more of such extortion stories in future. From both parties.

UPDATE: In the comments, Scott makes clear that there are two issues here. One is the use of federal money - my money - to influence a political issue for which that money is not intended. The other is when that political issue is the selfish career ambitions of a bunch of hacks. It is that subset which Orrin and Scott are decrying. But ultimately, this is why strict constructionism and fiscal accountability are required. If we let Congress weasel its way around appropriations for one political cause, it will surely find a way to appropriate monies for its own cause - re-election. This current scandal was as inevitable as it is obvious.

posted by Zimri on 13:58 | link |

Advise and consent

The Claremont Institute has a solution to the Senate's abuse of judicial confirmations. For lower courts, the House of Representatives has the legal authority to legislate away the Senate's "advise and consent" role, for lower courts.

Perhaps another amendment may be called for, to give the House authority to set time limits on the Senate's advise and consent role for all appointments. These limits may not be less than ten working days of the Senate. That way, a rogue House won't be able to set a deadline of, say, five seconds and effectively usurp the Senate's role.

posted by Zimri on 13:13 | link |

Friday, October 25, 2002

Something's wrong

Some bad news...

Senator Wellstone just died in a plane crash. (Link from Drudge.)

Rather like Carnahan before him. And the moderate-Hutu prime minister of Rwanda before them...

These "accidents" need to be investigated. In my opinion there have been far too many of them.

posted by Zimri on 17:22 | link |

Fired!

Not a minute too soon. America's most prestigious fraudster just resigned from Emory. Read the report! (from Prof. Reynolds)

Clayton Cramer was in large part responsible for unearthing the facts. His response in full:

There won't be any corks popping tonight at my house. My reaction this is rather like watching a killer being executed: justice requires it, but it would have been far better if Bellesiles hadn't pulled this dishonest stunt--and if the academic community and mass media hadn't decided to play along with it.

I've spent much of my spare time in the last two years gathering evidence on this matter, and writing two books (one now ready for publication, one still a ways out) refuting Bellesiles's nonsense. I have little confidence that either will ever get published, for the simple reason that Bellesiles can now parade around as a "victim" and publishers will simply choose to feel sorry for him.

On come on, Clayton. Lighten up. One word: Regnery.

posted by Zimri on 16:57 | link |

Les banlieux

"Theodore Dalrymple" sounds the alarm that the barbarians may already be at the gates of Paris.

posted by Zimri on 10:51 | link |

Wednesday, October 23, 2002

...seven days...

Have you seen The Ring yet, run out and see it. Now.

I'll check up on you next week.

posted by Zimri on 19:20 | link |

Jews for Jesus-worship (if not Jesus Himself)

Dennis Prager feels unthreatened by evangelical Christianity. You know, the sort that claims Jesus is the Way, and that Prager's Judaism is not.

Prager argues primarily that Jews concerned with this world ought to worry about what other sects propose for them in this world. Since Christians focus on the next world and are pro-Jewish in this one, Jews ought to reciprocate Christian support.

One problem with this is that Christianity has historically never stopped at the next world. Where the faithful believe eternal souls are at risk, they pursue some the worst atrocities known to man - out of love. Prager wants to think Christians believe "that secularism is wonderful for government but fatal for society". But the government already isn't fully secular and most Americans want it to be even less so.

Another problem is ethics. Evangelical Christianity defines itself from the New Testament canon. But most books in that canon are demonstrably false on the facts. Should a Jew care more about truth or expediency? Prager, by not addressing the claims of this variant of Christianity, is arguing for the latter.

Jews and evangelical Christians share an enemy that openly vows to wipe them both out. In that light I agree with Prager that the two ought to work as allies of America. I do not, however, think Jews ought to give evangelicals thanks or praise just because they've promised not to restart the Inquisition until Bin Laden is provably dead.

posted by Zimri on 03:10 | link |

The personal is political

Ah, the oft-praised Lileks... proving why he is praised:

A good parent teaches ABCs; a good parent marches for peace; a good parent realizes the importance of five-point restraint carseats; a good parent subscribes to the MMM position on guns. The personal is the political, after all. And oh-so vice versa.

Around here, a good employee shows up on time; a good employee remembers his/her jacket/pantyhose; a good employee is diligent; a good employee subscribes to the Berkeley multi-culti position on American citizenship. It's all stolen from the Indians anyway.

posted by Zimri on 02:26 | link |

This could happen at my job

A Kodak employee got in trouble for objecting to an email he didn't like. They tried to get him to sign a note saying he was wrong, which he refused on principle. Then Kodak fired him.

We have a Diversity Department at our job too, as part of Human Resources.

One day some co-workers and I overheard another co-worker losing his patience. The two of them told HR and I got called in as a witness. In this case, they asked me, "does this lead to a hostile environment?" On a hunch I refused to say yes to that wording directly. Later I realised that the term "hostile environment" was a legal term and that if I had said yes, it would have meant that the angry co-worker might have lost his job.

That would have been Bad. Very Bad. That co-worker is probably the smartest programmer my company has on staff (much more so than I). In fact I think the only reason he lost his patience in the first place was because his boss had been running his team so poorly. That boss eventually quit - for Enron. (No joke!) The environment got so much less hostile after he left. The co-worker's still around, thankfully.

My next contact with HR was when they had a diversity training seminar, in which they instructed us that America used to be a "melting pot", "in which other cultures were lost [intonation implying that that was Bad. Very Bad.]." But now, it is a "salad bowl", with distinct cultures.

This'd be fair enough if they were talking about the company; the company does not hire exclusively American citizens. (I'm an immigrant myself.) But they cross the line when they go off about America. Multiculturalism is eminently debatable when applied to nation-states.

We workers would love to respond to this indoctrination. We'd all love to scream back at them at least this much: "I don't need this to do my job. It has nothing to do with [whatever]. It could've been any other topic. It's just that enough is enough. We really don't need this to do our jobs... The Eastman Kodak Company gives me a paycheck; they don't own me." But we can't, because we know what passes for due process down there. We'd lose our jobs and be blacklisted citywide as bigots.

It was better to be accused of Communism in the 1950's than it is to be accused of bigotry today.

Taranto asked, "But wouldn't the company's "diversity group" be truer to its name if it learned to tolerate differences of opinion?" As usual, he knows the answer: it's not about diversity. Kodak is scared of Al and Jesse. So's my company. If someone says something dumb and it goes public, we'll be picketed and boycotted.

There's another lecture coming up next spring, this time on sexual-harassment. Taught by the same guys. Maybe I should take a stand this time. But I think I'm too chicken.

posted by Zimri on 02:00 | link |

Macho, macho man

Jim Taylor is back, and has a new slogan: "If I must go down, it should be in a good cause." Er... he also says: "Montana needs an engine in Washington, not a caboose."

That's right, Taylor - give his b*tchy little caboose some hell! I bet Baucus is feeling Taylor breathing down the back of his neck right now. Don't count him out; he may yet come from behind in this race.

Cheap shots aside: I thought Taylor's public exit was even more sissy than That Ad. I also wish Taylor had endorsed the Blue Guy instead of pulling a Gary Ross Hart Perot at the last minute. I suppose I'd vote for him if I lived in Montana - I'd have to - but I still think the Blue Guy is the best candidate on the list.

UPDATE: Just One Minute's title: "Hey-la, Hey-la, My Boyfriends Back!" That's just cruel, people.

posted by Zimri on 01:29 | link |

Tuesday, October 22, 2002

Truth.org HACKED

Oh dear. There goes the anti-smoking site...

I personally can't stand nicotine cigarettes (the left-handed ciggies are more my sort). But I can stand puritanism a whole lot less.

I'll be posting a mirror to all this when it's done :^)

posted by Zimri on 18:20 | link |

Garlic roast

The French think they can weasel their way out. This is foolish. As John O'Sullivan over NRO-way writes:

But the terrorists' hostility cannot be appeased by changing our foreign policy — or indeed by changing our domestic policies to make Western society more accommodating to Moslem immigrants. We would need to transform Western societies to conform completely with Islamic law and practices — ultimately to convert wholesale to Islam — if we are to persuade the radical Islamists to stop murdering us. Unless we take the view that Paris is worth abandoning the Mass, we really have only two choices: we can commit suicide by degrees or we can fight them.

He's not just a right-wing nutbar. Faye Bowers shows that some intelligence officials are worthy of the name:

The only way to permanently defuse Al Qaeda's threat to the US may be to make the group's ideology seem less legitimate to recruits – the radically discontented of the Islamic world...

One thing intelligence officials have learned since Osama bin Laden rose to the top of their concerns is that Al Qaeda's actions are designed to carry out attacks that the group leaders say are motivated by Islamic tenets.

Successful attacks make the group more attractive to discontented Muslims, who see Al Qaeda as redressing what they perceive as insults to their faith. The ousting of the group from Afghan bases does not appear to have ended its ability to recruit...

"Until we come to grips with his ideology," the official says, "the attacks will continue."

Gunaratna agrees: "As long as people believe they are waging a jihad for God, many people will support it and join it."

Go read both.

For this reason and now this, the French are a prime target whether they obstruct the war on terror or not.

posted by Zimri on 17:55 | link |

What Houellebecq can expect

Now that French law has failed the Wahhabis, they are sure to turn to Islamic law.

The Paris mosque has already laid the groundwork: "Islam has been reviled, attacked with hateful words. My community has been humiliated." Note that Dalil Boubakeur didn't say "Arabs have" or even "Muslims have" to the court, despite the charge of racism - to his mosque, this is about blasphemy.

Expect a fatwa from a shari'a court that first backs up the Paris mosque, second levies a death sentence for blasphemy against Houellebecq, and third threatens jihad against the now-public humiliation embodied by the primacy of French law over Islamic.

That is, terrorism against French courts.

posted by Zimri on 11:32 | link |

Another Poitiers

The BBC writes: 'French writer Michel Houellebecq has been cleared of inciting racial hatred by saying Islam was "the stupidest religion".'

The prosecution included Saudi Arabia's World Islamic League. This is pretty rich from the country that hosted this telethon. But that line of commentary is too easy.

The real issue is France. The whole point of French culture is that French culture is superior. As a corollary, if you become a citizen of France, you must become a Frenchman. Houellebecq's own name is an example: that name is Low German ("Whelbeck", see also "Hellbeck" and "Welbeck"), but rewritten in the Franco-Latin manner (wh->hou, k->q, ell->elle).

In that light, this verdict was a great victory for France. This case was a critical one for the Saudis, to get (their variant of) Islam special protection under French law. Instead they received another rude reminder that French culture is superior to Islam.

By the way, I really, really enjoyed typing that last sentence.

UPDATE: Spain - a country with even more to lose vis-a-vis Islam - has asserted her own cultural perogatives lately. We'll see how Italy does...

posted by Zimri on 11:20 | link |

Monday, October 21, 2002

Uppity colonials

Chris Patten will stop at nothing to further United Europe against the real axis of evil - the United States. But I will allow that he is resourceful. To the US, he begged and pleaded for us to fund his bid to oppose our national interests. To India, he decided on a display of economic strength, presumably to cow it toward a more neutral stance between the US and the EU. (Link from Palit.)

He also held up China as a role model, a nation whose character he deemed so highly that he handed 6 million UK passport-holders over to them. Perhaps if the Indian government sent a fleet to occupy and colonise western Europe in the manner of Tibet; I mean, the Indians need the space and it's not like anybody important is currently using it.

posted by Zimri on 19:02 | link |

Moderate Muslims to America: shut up and do as we tell you

So we finally have an essay from one of Fareed Zakaria's moderates. NRO gave the former "senator" Mushahid Hussain of Pakistan the byline, "give Muslim democracy a chance". But his article is not an exhortation for us to support libertarian and secular elements in Pakistan. Instead it asks us as Americans to limit our private speech and state action so that Muslim countries may peacefully elect... Islamic regimes.

As token of the good will and peaceable intentions of the Islamically-minded, Mushahid offers us some guidance. He tells us first that it would be wise of Americans to avoid causing offense to Muslims. Here, he cites the example of Jerry Falwell, whom he blames for inciting hundreds of Muslims to riot in India. In the sphere of state policy, he instructs us that America ought to side with Islamist political parties in other countries if they are voted into a position of power. There, he cites the example of Algeria, whose civil war has killed hundreds of thousands.

Somehow, we are to blame Falwell for the actions of violent men in India, and George HW Bush for the actions of violent men in Algeria. In addition, the justified reaction to a controversial statement (by a private citizen no less) is not a spirited defense and counterattack in writing, but a riot. The justified reaction to Americans ignoring a coup is not demonstrations and refusal to work for the government, but a massacre.

Here is a radical thought. Very radical. I'm not sure Mushahid is ready for this one, being a politician, but I'll give it a shot. What if... just maybe... personal responsibility may come into play here?

You know, that the violence is the fault of the violent men themselves?

Falwell didn't order the Muslims to riot in India. Bush didn't demand that the Armed Islamic Group carry out a campaign of massacre against civilian villages. In that light, I don't see why we can't just let American citizens and the American government ignore those thugs and do as we damned well please.

If your instinctive reaction to a statement or even a government you don't like is to murder civilians and to make a play for an even more oppressive government - guess what? You're a criminal. You don't deserve to have a say in public affairs. And if you cite the Qur'an's verses approving jihad against "oppression", then all you've done is discredit the Qur'an (as if it needed any more discrediting).

Mushahid is affronted that any of us should dare propose anti-Islamic opinions. He is likewise affronted we insist on equal rights for non-Muslims, even in Muslim-majority countries, even if they vote in a regime that promises unequal rights. The thing is, this country isn't some Third World despotism where we have to shut up and keep still. This is America. And if one Muslim, a thousand Muslims, or a million Muslims feel strongly enough about their "right" not to be confronted with variant opinions as equal to their own, that they must take up arms: all I can say is that Allah had better brace Himself for a massive influx of recently-deceased Islamists.

It is not our folly. It is theirs.

UPDATE: Olasky via Taranto ask why American mainstream media likewise "want our sweet land of liberty to become, when discussion of religion is concerned, a clone of Saudi Arabia". That's easy enough. They've been snowed by the likes of Mushahid, to the effect that clear and honest speech is dangerous.

UPDATE II: The view from India on Falwell's comments.

posted by Zimri on 12:22 | link |

Sunday, October 20, 2002

Crying in the wilderness

Former FrontPage contributor David Yeagley is conservative, Comanche, candid... and cut out from the Columbus Day commentary on the right wing. Including, to Yeagley's disappointment, from FrontPage itself:

Instead, today [Horowitz] published "Cornell Leftists Trash Columbus/America," by Joseph J. Sabia. A typical ant-Left article, Sabia indulges anti-Native rhetoric like "savage, vicious, animalistic," and calls Natives "brutal thugs waging constant wars," etc., and then in truly unforgivably gross generalization says Indians ate typically a three course meal of "maize, tree bark, and human flesh."

As if that weren't enough, FrontPage posted another piece by Peter Berkowitz about Columbus and America, in which he refers to Indian life as having been "nasty, brutish, and short." There was "no division of labor, little agricuture and scant permanent settlement." This is simply false. But Berkowitz says without the benefits of Western culture, "most of today's Indians would be infintely poorer or not even alive." This is more than false. This is free-wheeling racism, and clearly designed as moral justification of the same.

Such remarks must show where David Horowitz really stands with regard to Indians, too. This incendiary sort of journalism does no good for anyone, certainly not Indians. It is harmfully superficial, racist, and is nothing more than another form of communist racial agitation.

I am not Yeagley's sort of conservative. Referring to English common law, he wrote, "I don't idolize the legal system"; in its place he idolises a will to power I doubt even his fellow Comanches are prepared to take to its logical conclusion.

But here, he has a point. If FrontPage was unwilling to accept Yeagley's contribution, its editor still ought to have read it. If it were too much for FrontPage to swallow, its editor may have consulted someone else, like Russell Means, who's not exactly press-shy. He could have even gone to the grad student pub at my alma mater and asked for the bartender (a libertarian Coahuiltec from southwest Texas); or, if the pub wasn't open, popped down to the library and - radical thought here - picked up a book.

But instead, FrontPage called in a bunch of ignorant European-descended pundits, who care so little about Native American culture they didn't bother distinguishing between the Aztecs, Caribs, Mayas, Plains Indians, and Iroquois. The results, predictably, fulfilled every stereotype the Left insists of conservatives. I suspect if I said something like "Horowitz, Sabia, Buchanan... who cares, they're all racist whites to me" that Horowitz at least would take umbrage.

Yeagley followed up:

Even someone as profoundly committed to 'people improvement' as David Horowitz behaves differently toward the Indian. Why? Indians are different. Indians love who we are. We don't want to be like anyone else. We want to preserve ourselves and our ways. We don't want to assimilate. We don't want to be "equal" to other people. Non-Indians simply cannot understand that. I'm hoping Mr. Horowitz can come to understand that.

Actually, non-Indians can understand it; it's just that American assimilationists refuse to accept it.

posted by Zimri on 23:02 | link |

The Truth Is A Virus

According to WaPo, young people are as a whole more libertarian than their elders - and more apathetic. That article doesn't mention that the political blogosphere is dominated by computer-literate under-40's, and that these blogs lean heavily to the "anti-idiotarian". It would seem that blogs reflect a passable microcosm of young peoples' views and are anything but apathetic.

But blogs are a niche of a niche. They represent a subset of 'web commentary, itself a subset of the 'web as a whole. Even there bloggers tend to focus on issues that have little resonance to their web-surfing contemporaries. (Who really cares about the Senate race on Tuesday when the final is on Wednesday?)

What is needed is a drive to enroll students in the blogging enterprise. A university blog or an alternative newsletter from a college or even high school (SHS.com is still up, by the way) can go after faculty and administrative follies, student council abuses, extremist lectures, and other local issues. Sort of like that Christian Slater classic Pump Up The Volume.

Students would get their causes relayed to a national platform. And bloggers would learn the political demands of students - and by extension those of young people as a whole, their parents, and their teachers. They could then develop a platform that takes power away from government officials and administrators, and perhaps even influences a vote or two.

Just a thought.

posted by Zimri on 20:43 | link |

Fareed-iocy, part II

Fareed Zakaria opines that we are losing the diplomatic war. This is something of a recurring theme in his work. At least this time he did not levy direct accusations of fecklessness, Clintonism, and infighting upon the current administration.

It has been six months since Zakaria last warned us of the dire consequences of America's foreign policy, and in that time Islamists have not touched us. Zakaria continues to claim that radical Islam is becoming more popular, and that this is a problem.

The former may be true, but the latter is not. More al-Qaida Muslims means more attacks on al-Qaida targets. But the nature of al-Qaida is religious, not political. Therefore its primary targets will not be chosen for their damaging effect but for their Islamic significance. Its affiliates will continue to attack symbols of Western hedonism, Western culture, and Western victories over Islam. And when they do, all they will manage is to anger the West.

Zakaria seems to have given up on the Arabs, who were never going to accept our view of things anyway. His latest column mostly concerns the non-Arab nations of Pakistan and Indonesia (if they can still be called "nations").

As for Pakistan, Zakaria fails to explain why "moderate" Islamists blame America for "its arrogance, its bullying". For my part, I see two reasons. First, the US defeated the Taliban allies of Pakistan's Islamists. Second, Pakistan's Islamists have been let free to preach hatred of America, as part of Musharraf's bid to stay in charge. In this light, "arrogance" is not something the US can do anything about, short of deliberately weakening itself.

As for "its double standards on the Israel-Palestine issue—and they conclude, America is anti-Muslim” - by that logic, we must conclude that the 25% of Pakistan that supported the Islamists did not do it for Pakistani reasons, but for Muslim reasons like support of Israel['s existence]. This too is not something the US can do anything about in the long term, short of converting en masse to Islam and/or demanding the final solution of the Israeli problem (words chosen deliberately).

There is no point in pursuing diplomacy with anti-Semites and religious fanatics. There is also no point in making a case to a people who never get to hear that case. Instead, Zakaria should recognise that Islam is a battlefield religion, and will be defeated when its adherents recognise it to be militarily ineffective. In Pakistan's case, when its citizens sympathise more with secular Israel than Muslim Palestine.

In that regard, all America has to do is let the Islamists institute their barbaric form of law for as long as it takes to get US troops on the ground, and the people will realise their error in no time. The Communist model applies here. First, Islamists take over a part of a country. Then they alienate the non-Islamist parts of that country. At some point the Islamists will commit crimes so egregious - but non-damaging to Western power - that there will be open war. Islamists lose. Repeat until Islam is discredited everywhere it is put into place.

Zakaria should know the "good Muslim" in Pakistan and elsewhere wants the following from American "diplomacy": cozying up to dictators, kings, and mullahs; cutting down on military strength; and selling out non-Muslim allies. This is the exact opposite of what America needs to do to beat the "bad Muslim", and will not even make it more popular.

posted by Zimri on 18:45 | link |

Another amendment proposal

The US Constitution does not allow for electoral fraud at the state level trickling up to the branches of the federal government.

in 8 October I noted that the deciding votes in the Senate are already illegitimate, and therefore so is that body's leadership. The reason this administration hasn't done anything about it yet is because it considers the Jeffords-Carnahan Senate to be provisional. It is waiting for the election.

If the Democrats win enough close races that they retain the Senate, and enough of those are shown to be fraudulent, I do not expect the Republicans to sit by. Likewise I do not expect the Democrats to sit by if the Republicans retake the Senate. In 2 October, I wrote "we will be ceding close races to whatever party controls the state Supreme Court".

The US Supreme Court will be asked to enforce the state laws that state Supreme Courts refuse to enforce. So far the US Supreme Court has refused to do so in the case of New Jersey, and in fact the majority opinion of Bush vs. Gore likewise did not argue along those lines (preferring an equal-protection argument).

Also, in the case of the Senate, standard federal legislation will not suffice to fix broken state jurisprudence. Article II.4 can be read as banning Congressional legislation that affects its election: "The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators".

There may be a call for a new constitutional amendment, to take federal-level elections away from state jurisdiction. I think this would be a gross infringement on the rights of the states to decide their own affairs.

But maybe this:

Should the judiciary of a state fail to uphold the law of that state with regard to election of the federal representatives and electors (defined in Articles I and II), the Supreme Court (defined in Article III) may hear and decide on the case of appeal.

posted by Zimri on 15:58 | link |

Friday, October 18, 2002

What the right wing thinks of secularists

Now this article is an eye-opener for all who declare themselves supporters of secularism and/or science. Pamela Winnick crows over this bit of news from Ohio: "In what could turn out to be a stunning victory for opponents of evolution, the Ohio Department of Education voted 17-0 on Tuesday to pass a "resolution of intent" to adopt science standards that would allow students to "investigate and critically analyze" Darwin's theory of evolution."

This is fair enough, but her article is more revealing in its implications than in its statements of fact.

She calls the dispute between scientists and the majority population "the never-ending debate over how life began". This would seem to imply that it is a debate in the scientific community, which even she (later) agrees it is not. As for whether it is important that the "public disagrees" with the scientific consensus: the best pollsters in the nation - the US House of Representatives - votes on the assumption that the majority of this country is willfully ignorant of Constitutional law, and mushily pro-theocratic. In addition, given the majority views of other nations (China, say), if the majority view of a nation equals truth, then there is no truth.

Ms Winnick also claims, "In recent years, a handful of renegade scientists and academics have launched a revolt against Darwinism". Since she has not named names or dates, this claim is worthless on its face. If she is referring to Michael Behe and Philip Johnson, any Google search will tell you that those 1990's-era books have been debunked years ago.

The very word "Darwinism" is insufficient to describe the modern theory of evolution - deliberately so. In fact Darwin's contribution only applied to natural selection on the assumption of difference within a population. It does not account for the differences themselves, the problem genetics solved. The word "Darwinism" is used by creationists to insinuate that evolution is a teaching of a lone heretic, the way variant Christianities received the labels "Nestorianism" and "Arianism".

But this is the money quote:

In a much-publicized Republican primary that drew attention from such liberal groups as People for the American Way — which flew in Ed Asner to read from Inherit the Wind — three board members were voted out of office; and the newly elected "moderate" board last year voted to include both Darwinian evolution and the Big Bang in the Kansas science standards.

In other words, she views Republicans who support strong scientific standards not to be moderates. She considers them outside the mainstream of the Republican Party - to be RINO's ("Republicans in Name Only"). And why mention that communist Ed Asner unless she were trying to taint them with guilt by association?

National Review Online would like us libertarians to support its platform, which includes voting for conservative candidates (usually Republicans). But by printing this article, they have not only endorsed a position we cannot support, but have also endorsed the position that not to support it is not Republican. Why should we support the undermining of scientific standards in young children? How important are the other conservative goodies in comparison?

POSTSCRIPT: It will be interesting to see how far fellow self-described libertarian and/or secularist bloggers will support us on this. One of the more prominent is a Stephen Green, who has been something of a disappointment on a related issue. Keep the Valium handy...

posted by Zimri on 11:46 | link |

Thursday, October 17, 2002

It's Battle of Poitiers Day

On October 17, 732 CE, the French prevented the Muslims from invading Western Europe from the West. (This is not to be confused with the 1300's battle, in which the French did rather less well.)

This would be a good time to answer Privateer's question, why did someone-or-other bomb a French tanker:

Maybe the terrorists were just trying to attack anything they could that was remotely Western. Maybe the French ships are less guarded than American tankers. Or maybe, they know France is one of the countries they can intimidate through acts of terror (blowing up an American oil tanker just before the midterm elections would be a bad, bad idea for Muslim terrorists). France has shown weakness, and invited attacks on itself.

I think all this is incidental. This is an al-Qaida mission, and France was one of al-Qaida's first targets: witness the failed kamikaze run on the Eiffel Tower. This was before the French showed any of the "weakness" seen just prior to the Chirac / LePen shutout of that midget Jospin.

In fact France, particularly Paris, will be a central target of al-Qaida as long as it remains non-Muslim. It is more central in the al-Qaida mind than even Britain. That is because al-Qaida is a religious movement, not a political one. Its aim is to stoke Muslim spiritual pride, not to help them in any material sense.

Central to al-Qaida's view of its own role is that it fights jihad against "crusaders" (http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm is an inferior link). In the real-world context of their press release, US forces were not on crusade. The US is not in Saudi-occupied Arabia to convert the place to Christianity. So that statement would seem to make no sense... in the real world. But in Osama's vision of the Kingdom of God it makes perfect sense. Infidels are in Muslim land. Therefore they are crusaders and Muslims must wage jihad to get them off it.

So where are the French in the salvation-history of Islam? As it happens, front row centre, and not just the Battle of Poitiers. The real crusaders were led by "Franks" from what is now the region of Paris. To this day a Westerner is franj or faranji in Arabic - as seen in bin Laden's own words. (You can read more in Maalouf's classic work, The Crusades Through Arab Eyes.)

The Islamist attempt on the Eiffel - which will be repeated - is of a piece with the attack on the French tanker. The former attacked a recognisable symbol of France (albeit centuries younger than the "Franks" in history). The latter attacked the Faranji from Islamic soil. Both were a re-enactment of jihad. Only in the material world is it counterproductive for Muslims to attack French interests. But in the Kingdom of God which al-Qaida inhabits, attacking the Faranji is a sacred duty.

I predict other prime European targets include: Vienna, barely saved from Suleiman on the first September 11, 1683; Poland, whose king Sobieski administered the ass whoopin'; Spain, particularly the site of the Umayyad Mosque (as outlined in the Muslim children's game "Islamic Fun"); and Italy, which has Rome in it.

posted by Zimri on 20:15 | link |

Wednesday, October 16, 2002

When to sidestep a question

George II was recently asked, in public, what he would suggest Israel do if Iraq attaqed it.

If Iraq attacks Israel tomorrow, I would assume the Prime Minister would respond. He's got -- he's got a desire to defend himself. Our hope is that the Iraqi regime will disarm peacefully. But I can't -- maybe -- maybe Saddam will attack tomorrow. He's certainly a dangerous man. And he's got to understand that the international community won't tolerate an unprovoked attack on Israel -- or anybody else, for that matter. Of course, he's done it in the past. That's what I've explained to the American people. He's attacked two nations. He's gassed his own people. He's a dangerous man. That's why he must be disarmed. And that's why the international community must work to disarm him.

Atrios observed, "So, in a news conference just now Bush totally side-stepped the question of what Israel should do if Iraq attacks them after we attack them."

He's right. But why's that a problem?

I see two ways someone in George II's position could answer this one. He could say, he would not allow Israel to retaliate, just like George I did not allow it. Or, he could say, Israel should nuke the @#$% out of Baghdad and let the archaeologists sort it out. But note that for this purpose, the option of not invading Iraq in the first place is off the table, because that much is assumed by the question.

Option One would merit this response: "Oh, so now Bush is selling out his allies. No-one will trust us anymore. Now our name is diplomatic mud throughout the world. Dumbass."

Option Two: "Oh, so now Bush is letting Israel do whatever it wants. The Arabs are going to go nuts. Now our name is diplomatic mud throughout the world. Dumbass."

Instead, El Presidente explained what he thought Israel would do, and did not say whether the US would approve. He then turned that uncertainty into an implicit reason why it was so important that Saddam disarm before such a nightmare occurred.

If I am missing an option, please tell me. But I have not yet noticed Atrios suggesting such an alternative, in the blog or in the comments.

posted by Zimri on 18:38 | link |

Tuesday, October 15, 2002

Europe: the disputed lands

Over on Airstrip One, I've been talking past a Mr Philip Chaston about whether Europe and America face the same threat. He says they do and I say they don't.

He was probably defining Europe as the EU plus the central European democracies. I will be operating under that assumption.

Mr Chaston, representing Europe for the duration, sees trouble in rival states with rational (or at worst irrational) leaders. His article, the case in point, was about rogue states with damage and deployment capability. I, as a citizen of a nation founded on ideology, see trouble in rival ideas. My counter therefore concentrated on Islam.

Since he is focused on rogue states, his conclusion fails to account for the beliefs of those states, even to the point of those states' location. As to why that matters: I happen to consider Lukashenko's Belarus a rogue state. I think it almost certain he has a few nukes lying around, and he could probably get missiles from friends in the Russian mafiya. If he ever says he plans to use them on Berlin, then he is an open threat to Germany. But even then he will not pose a direct threat to American interests. And when he dies, even these modest ambitions will die with him. (Similar arguments apply to North Korea.)

Move the focus to south and southeast of Europe and the dynamic changes radically. There we have ambitions that include the conquest and subjugation of the entire world, which have not died in 1300 years.

So why is it that a rogue state in eastern Europe matters less to America than a rogue state in Mesopotamia? Simply, because as most Americans agree, the threat isn't the state, but the ideals of the state.

Europeans as a whole have not yet taken ideology seriously. Europeans see suicide attacks, from Palestine to New York, and they assume that the attackers must have acted out of suicidal depression. Something must have caused that depression, they reason, and so they blame US-backed regimes, and ultimately US policy. The fact that Atta was hardly poor and downtrodden is inconvenient to this analysis. It is hard for Europeans to accept that, maybe, Atta really believed he was going to Paradise.

Unlike a rogue state, a rogue faith cannot be located and "fixed" - short of conversion or death, commonly lumped together as genocide. Each believer is in effect his own little rogue state. His weapons are on his back and his war cabinet is in his head.

Since European goverments have not taken Islamism seriously, and since Muslims vote and riot, Europe's coping mechanism thus far has been a Saracengeld paid out to extremists. This takes the form of an array of pro-Islamic policies, cited in Mr Chaston's comments.

(Mr Chaston's explicit counter to that argument was, disappointingly, "your viewpoint has been informed and coloured by certain, neoconservative views on Europe". As it happens, he was right about my sources; the main inspiration to my comment was Bat Yeor's article on NRO, which I'd misplaced at the time of posting. But that does not quite refute what I said. It doesn't even rebut them: "informed and coloured" does not mean "misinformed and blinded", which would have at least implied I had made a factual error. But how far Bat Yeor is right or wrong is a topic for another blog entry.)

America has perceived a threat not only to itself but to world civilisation in Islamism. As I wrote in the comments section, European states can elect to accommodate Islamists, and in fact already have. How far each country goes to accommodate these people will have a strong effect on whether Islamic regimes will bother to threaten that country. This will also affect, in reverse, whether America will feel the need to threaten it first. (This does not mean that a neutral country far from the fray, as Mr Chaston would like England to be, will necessarily be viewed as a threat to America. But I will note in passing that the "Londonistan" boroughs of Greater London County, Leeds, Oldham etc. are neither neutral nor - thanks to communication and air travel - far from the fray.)

Therefore I stand by my statement that Europe and America do not face the same threat. It is more accurate to say that some factions of Europe share the same threat as America. Those factions represent an electoral minority in Germany, at least.

posted by Zimri on 20:27 | link |

Power to the people! Except for Minnesotans!

As another reminder that populism does not equal democracy, we have here "Democratic" Socialists promising to bend an election in a state not their own.

Er, assholes, if you want a socialist representative, then vote for one in your own goddamned state. Don't screw the Minnesotans out of a choice.

posted by Zimri on 18:05 | link |

Saturday, October 12, 2002

Cartoon History III is out!

Larry Gonick has written a lot of these books. My favourites - being an ancient-history fanatic - are the "History of the Universe" series, starting at #1 (1990) and #2 (1994). I expected another one in 1998... and waited... and waited. Now it's finally here.

I like it. No, I really like it.

One annoyance: as I feared, it continues the Cartoon History policy of relating modern religious legends as given historical fact, this time with respect to Islam. Yes, the legends are secularised and critiqued... but that's not good enough. For instance, the Muslims didn't start facing to Mecca for hundreds of years A.H. Admittedly the legend becomes accepted history three centuries after the fact. But that's an argument for giving the legend at that point in the timeline and not in the 600's CE section.

You may also want to take notes when it starts going off about the Turks, Persians, and other Central Asians. They're ping-pong balls between east and west and India, so their story gets pretty confusing.

Run out now and go get it!

posted by Zimri on 13:27 | link |

Friday, October 11, 2002

Would it were true

The Corner is informing us about moderate Islam. The moderates have harsh words for Osama, even describing him in antichristic tones:

The advent of these extremists was foretold by the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad. Prophet Muhammad’s authentic traditions detail for us the characteristics and behavior of the extremists, stating that their existence in our world would be revealed when “…the destitute (al-buhm) camel-herds compete in building tall structures,” or in another narration “…the barefoot, naked, indigent (al-‘âla) shepherds compete in building tall structures.” “…The barefoot and the naked are the heads of the people,” or “…the barefoot and naked, the deaf and dumb are the kings of the earth.”

If you followed the above link, you will find the cross-references. And as they show, the holy citations come not from the Qur'an, but from the Hadith.

Quick explanation for Jews: If the Qur'an is the Islamic Torah, the Hadith is the Islamic Mishnah: the sayings of the sages preserved, to explain Holy Writ as it is practiced among the faithful. The Hadith differs from the Mishnah chiefly in that the former runs to many more volumes than the latter, and tends more to the apocalyptic. For Christians: Christianity has nothing like this. Christians have a short and relatively understandable set of Gospels to provide a model of Christian life; the rest of it is pretty much left to priests and pastors to argue over.

So what do these scholars have to say about those ahadith?

"Barefoot and naked” and “deaf and dumb” are metaphors to describe in figurative speech just how depraved the new leaders would be. “Barefoot and naked” relates to people of the desert, and implies their utter ignorance in matters pertaining to organized society . “Deaf and dumb” implies that they would fail to use common sense in anything concerning religion, though they are perfectly sound in mind and limb. Implied as well is the notion that the extremists’ ultimate goal is world domination, to be “kings of the earth.” The traditions reveal another of the signs of the extremists’ onset is “the affectation of eloquence by the rabble and their betaking to palaces in big cities.” Prophet Muhammad predicted a reversal in society whereby these depraved leaders would take over the rule of every region by force. They would become extremely rich and their primary concern would be to erect the tallest buildings, rather than maintain order or care for the common welfare.

This is nothing less that eisegesis, sad to say. And pure wishful thinking for moderate Muslims and non-Muslims both.

The idea that the last will be first, and vice versa, is a commonplace - even a cornerstone - of apocalyptic, at least since Matthew 19:30 in the Christian-Islamic tradition. Apocalyptic by nature applauds the elevation of the "barefoot and naked" into positions of prominence - because the apocalypticist has lost all faith in the secular world to provide such justice.

What some of these traditions are really proclaiming is not the "extremist" enemies of Allah elevating themselves, but Allah's elevation of a marginalised faithful. The only possible exception is "the affectation of eloquence by the rabble and their betaking to palaces in big cities”. Even that, which soundsso iffy in English, may not have had such a connotation in a religion whose holy book is sensual to the point of offering 72 female slaves in Paradise.

If there is to be a serious "moderate Islam", it will have to do better than this.

posted by Zimri on 01:50 | link |

Blink 182 sucks

Most of you already know that those two-bit teenybopper Green Day clones could take a golf ball through a garden hose. But here's the proof. (Glad it wasn't the Buzzcocks. I didn't think they'd be so dumb. But thanks to Larry for the correction.)

Here is a microcosm, in fact, of how you tell the real revolutionaries from the wannabes: the real punks go for the evildoers, and the wannabes go for the authorities.

posted by Zimri on 01:28 | link |

The Warrior Sex

Russ Mackenzie recently wrote:

In Iraq, Saddam's biological weapons director is a woman, Rihab Taha. At the Balkan war crimes trials at The Hague, a woman, Bosnia's former Serb president Biljana Plavsic, has pleaded guilty to crimes against humanity during Bosnia's 1992-1995 conflict. And, of course, there have been many earlier examples of top-ranked women presiding over terror (Mme. Defarge) and/or combat (Mmes. Meir and Thatcher and Gandhi). So what's that about the fairer gender being incapable of evil and war?

"Evil" encompasses different meanings depending on different contexts. In particular I doubt that Margaret Thatcher counts as "evil" in the Townhall.com canon (although some leftists and Heath Tories may disagree).

But in war, I'll grant, strong women have advantages.

Firstly, the very absence of women from combat makes a warlike woman more credible to men. It is in a man's comfort zone to take orders from a Nelson (or, for Americans, a MacArthur). When a Boudicca takes herself out of her house and gives orders, men and women both understand that that is unusual. Surely the cause must be important if a woman has given up hearth and home for it.

Secondly, men are sexist - or, to be more polite, people in general are most comfortable with people who are most like them. Men and women are not alike. Therefore a woman must work harder to be accepted by men. A "proven" female warrior has proven herself to other men as being not only their equal, but probably their superior.

Thirdly, heterosexual men are by definition sexually attracted to women; many homosexual men feel an affinity to a woman who has a "butch side"; and all men love a challenge. A strong woman in charge is the apotheosis of any adolescent's fantasy, sexual or psychological. And the bulk of any army is adolescent.

Once a woman has a man's respect, there is no end to what a man will do for her. That is why Boudicca nearly kicked the Romans out of Britain; that is why Victorian Britain ruled the seas; and that is why Margaret Thatcher dictated the terms by which Anglo-America won the Cold War.

There are too many whiners - left and right - straining to draw moral equivalence or even superiority between men and women. As I said at the beginning, relative "evil" between the sexes isn't the issue - and it never was. We don't need whiners of either sex. We need warriors.

Who will be our American Thatcher - that I don't know, but I am sure she is born already.

posted by Zimri on 00:58 | link |

Thursday, October 10, 2002

Vote for the blue guy

Baucus does not deserve another term in Congress. The Republican challenger just quit. And Republicans are unlikely even to consider breaking all the rules to get some other dude in there, like the current Governor Racicot. After all, they're not as crooked as some parties.

I suggest that this is a golden opportunity for the McCain faction of the Republicans to pour money to the Libertarian candidate - yes, Stan Jones, the blue guy.

He's already got name recognition. He's pro-choice and pro-gay. And he's an economic conservative.

He'd be better than anyone the Republicans could put up. And for the country in general, he could swing the Senate to libertarian ideals, rather than Jeffords liberalism.

The House of David endorses Stan Jones for Montana Senator. Here's to Blue State America! (at least one state)

posted by Zimri on 18:22 | link |

Baucus's campaign is like, totally gay

I'm getting more disgusted by the day with the means by which Democratic pressure groups are campaigning for the Senate. Here's another little scheme: make your opponent out to be one of the Village People.

What really pisses me off is that this appalling tactic worked to such an extent that Baucus's opponent Taylor had to end the race, and at 33 points behind. (Link from Sully.)

The Baucus regime claims to be shocked, shocked about the ad. Newsday cited Olson, the local director of PRIDE, purporting to be more offended with Baucus's reaction than with the campaign.

Billings Gazette, to its credit, instead found a gay representative of an actual Montana constituency, Ken Toole, who understood (as did Sully) the real issue with the ad: it allows homosexuality to be used in an attack - in fact, as part of allegations of corruption.

And, to counter Olson further, it is a smear on Taylor's character. It implies that Taylor is attracted to people who - by definition - are not his wife. I don't think it fair that a campaign jeopardise an opponent's marriage for sheer political gain.

In other news, Joseph Farah had earned himself a Derbyshire Award nomination for Republican extremism yesterday, for calling the Democratic party "evil". His campaign for the award has, I suspect, just suffered a serious setback.

UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan has further comments. One is that Olson's choice of words - "loathesome" - was offensive. Point taken there.

posted by Zimri on 17:54 | link |

DAY-oh... oh-oh

Given Harry Belafonte's "unfortunate" and racist comments about our Secretary of State... should Trent Lott go to the dinner honouring Belafonte's work? (Drudge link.)

The President of Nigeria is another dubious character, given his refusal to enforce any sort of law in the north of his own country. He's quickly turning into the continent's own Mullah Omar.

I say: Stay far away, Trent. There've got to be other ways of improving the lot of Africa. Get with Colin and ask his advice.

posted by Zimri on 01:30 | link |

Libertarianism and its deficiencies

Jonah Goldberg writes that libertarianism is incomplete: it "can't persuasively answer what a society should do about children and foreign policy - two pretty big shortcomings for a political movement".

He's right about the former. Some years ago I suggested to a group of parents that they not let their kids watch TV. Instead the wee ones ought just to go to the Internet. After all it worked well enough for me...

The free Internet and free speech in general, incidentally, is as moderate as a libertarian cause gets. And it makes a parent's job that much harder. Drug legalisation would be even worse. I have never heard a libertarian explain what exactly his philosophy can offer parents.

On the other hand, foreign policy does not pose such a problem. Libertarianism doesn't hinder foreign policy the way it hinders parenting. It just fails to mention it, the way Mohammed's ahadith fail to explain how to eat fruit. That does not mean, like some Sufi mystics say about watermelon, that the libertarian cannot crunch foreign policy.

The least the libertarian can say about foreign policy is that he wants a volunteer army that is prepared to defend the libertarian. He might even join the force himself and give up his libertarianism during his term of service. (The libertarian already accepts a contract with his sovereign by dint of being "libertarian" and not "anarchist".)

The libertarian will also demand that his army not fight wars that are designed to enslave or harm others. One designed to enslave and harm al-Qaeda operatives, though, should be okay with him as long as it provides liberty to the captive population while preserving security (and liberty) to him.

So give Jonah two cheers for a pithy dual critique of libertarianism, including one issue that is actually serious. If you want to, that is.

posted by Zimri on 00:54 | link |

Why not?

Drudge calls this "MORE DIRTY: Conn. Dems admit disrupting Republican campaign event..."

Dirty? Disrupting? Uh, citizens are allowed to do that sort of thing... you know... to tell off incumbent rulers. It's not like they woke this guy up in the middle of the night or interrupted him at work. The governor at that point was acting as candidate and citizen, not leader.

It doesn't matter if these demonstrators are Democratic operatives or not. Nor is it written anywhere that hecklers can only act like idiots at the governor's convenience.

"Dirty" is getting a Supreme Court to void state law for your candidate. "Dirty" is inserting a mole into an opponent's campaign to take recordings. "Dirty" is holding polls hours late until your deceased candidate can beat the live one.

"Dirty", in short, is the province of Democratic Senatorial races. But let's be fair to this gubernatorial one (however "unsporting" it seems).

posted by Zimri on 00:22 | link |

Stinkin' badger

Excuse the cliché, but One Hand Clapping started it. OHC whines about this:

The mayor of Frederick, Md., ordered police to stop a group of activists carrying a "Save the Ten Commandments" banner from marching in a weekend parade..."I was shocked, shocked that we were not allowed to march in the parade," said Neil Parrott, 32, president of the Friends of Frederick. "I did not expect this kind of reaction from the city at all." His group carried the banner to demonstrate support of the city's fight against a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union to force the removal of a Ten Commandments monument from a public park.

Speaking of cliché, that "shocked, shocked" is a wonderful Casablanca slip, letting us know Parrott was not in the least surprised. In fact, I bet he was pleased as punch that he got his little crusade into the wider media.

Let's traipse along some logical paths here. "Save the Ten Commandments" implies that you think the Ten Commandments needs saving. That they need saving implies that there is something from which you wish to save them. The context here would be the city's attempt to move that hideous monument to theocracy off state property.

These fellows, in brief, were implying that the ACLU was trying to ban the Ten Commandments from public, or to wreck the monument, or to censor the text. Their banner was deliberately misleading.

Last I heard the First Amendment does not protect slander.

posted by Zimri on 00:00 | link |

Wednesday, October 09, 2002

The Propaganda Broadcasting Service

PBS, under fire from James Taranto and other rightish bloggers, has updated its "Middle East Timeline". PBS had, you will recall, started the timeline from events cited in Muslim propaganda.

So naturally they started over. First they went with Sennacherib's siege of Jerusalem in 701 BCE, the event that created a sense of "Judaism" in the nation of Judah. Then they delved into the Babylonian (and Egyptian) Exile, the Persian imperium led by Cyrus, the Second Temple, the rise of Samaritism, Alexander, the Seleucid-Ptolemaic struggle, the Hasmonaeans, Herod, the rise of apocalyptic, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the letters of Paul, Vespasian and Titus, the Bar Kosiba Rebellion, the secession and failure of Palmyra, the evolution of the Roman Empire in the East into the Byzantine Empire, Justinian's wars and religious persecutions, a brief history of Arabia Felix, the Year Without A Sun (535 CE) and ensuing plague, the rebellion of Phocas, the devastating re-incursion of Persia, the further development of apocalyptic, the Jewish-Arabic rebellion that swept the Near East, the murder of Ali, and the rise of Muawiya and the Umayyads. And just prior to the Crusades, they hosted a thoughtful discussion of jihad and how it applied to the new religion's conquests and forcible conversions of Jewish, Christian, and Zoroastrian lands. Including Spain (711 CE).

Er. Not exactly.

Now it includes Jewish and Christian propaganda instead.

Equal opportunity for all! (to lie to us)

posted by Zimri on 17:38 | link |

I agree with Phyllis Schlafly

She writes, "the 2002 election will decide whether constitutionalists or judicial activists, control the federal judiciary for the next 30 years".

And this is what is at stake:

Activist judges have been advancing a liberal agenda that opposes religious values, conventional morality, the separation of powers, our structure of federalism, the rule of law, and even the right of all of American citizens to govern ourselves.

Some of our most far-reaching social, economic and political decisions have been made by judges rather than by our elected representatives. These include decisions about criminal procedures, prayer and the Ten Commandments in public schools, internal security, pornography, forced busing, racial preferences and quotas, term limits, abortion and election procedures.

She's right: this is what is at stake. And if the Republicans lose, the portions I put into bold face will explain why.

Schlafly pays lip service to "constitutional self-government", but she doesn't really want it. She wants the religions defined by "the Ten Commandments" (in which document, exactly?) to be endorsed by the government, and delivered from the Sinai of the state to your children. And she speaks not for herself alone.

And should close races in the coming election be thrown to Democrats by libertarians - as they were in the last election - don't say you were surprised.

posted by Zimri on 12:11 | link |

Tuesday, October 08, 2002

America in decline?

So says Doug Sanders, on the authority of Immanuel Wallerstein and a few other Ivy League professors. The reason is because of economics... notionally. Actually it is because of cash reserves, and the US's lack thereof:

In his view, America gave up the ghost in 1974, when it admitted defeat in Vietnam and discovered that the conflict had more or less exhausted the gold reserves, crippling its ability to remain a major economic power. It has remained the focus of the world's attention partly for lack of any serious challenger to the greenback for the world's savings, and because it has kept attracting foreign investments at a rate of $1.2-billion (U.S.) per day.

Let us ignore that the Ivy League is not exactly a bastion of pro-Americanism, nor even objectivity, at this point in its history. (Wallerstein may be an independent, but an independent can still have uses to the faction in power.) Let us also try to look past all the irritating arguments from authority that are little more than transmissions of opinion. I will assume that Sanders is right in these factual assertions:

• that the US Dragon has lost its hoard,
  
• that America has 30% of the world's production but 70% of its currency,
  

I note in passing that Sanders has not provided a particularly rigourously-illustrated study. But let's just see how it's argued from this basis.

First off, gold is a commodity like any other. Its price fluctuates. When Russia went bankrupt, its gold reserves entered the global market and depressed the price. Gold reserves do sparkle quite nicely in the sunlight, but they aren't necessarily any more useful to America than Spain's were to that nation in 1588.

Second, power is always relative. For instance, no-one questions that the Vietnam War represented a dire opportunity cost to America's economy. But it was part of a Cold War that exacted similar costs on Russia's (Afghanistan, anyone?). Other nations stagnated, frittering their wealth away on even pettier conflicts and wasteful spending schemes. The "Asian tigers" seemed like exceptions - until it transpired that their economies were bubbles. Sanders admits that much when he says the 30% production / 70% currency "imbalance has been maintained for the past 30 years only because Japan collapsed and Europe took too long to get its house together." That is like saying, "your team sucks because you only scored one goal". So what, if the other team didn't score any?

The key, when one is talking about the rise and fall of empires, is whether that "serious challenger" exists. America may only have 30% of the world's production. But any threat to that would only reach parity if 3/7 of the remaining 70% could unite against it. And that's just economics. What of the technological and military advantages? What if America counteracts with a small 2/7 minority of that remainder 70%; India, for instance, is a natural ally against China and Islam both; as are Europe and Russia, if American citizens can somehow hold their temper with certain segments of their blitherati.

America is far from "over". Its hold over the North American continent will assure it of that. Nor is it at risk if democratic and sane regimes handle Asia for it (like India and Russia, and possibly the future Iran and China). With that much America won't even require an empire.

I believe America is currently where Athens was in the height of its prestige and empire: the beacon of hope to helots, the talons of doom to oligarchs. But not all-powerful. Athens made too many enemies, those enemies were too powerful when united, and the war with those enemies was badly mismanaged. At the end of it, not only Athens but all Greece ended up too weak to fend off Philip of Macedon.

America should endeavour not to repeat those mistakes. If it can, it will benefit not only America but the entire civilised world.

(This link brought to you by the gadflies of Airstrip One.)

posted by Zimri on 21:14 | link |

Pass the hat

According to the EU Observer, Chris Patten wants Europe to be a more effective haven of anti-American policy. And guess whom he wants helping out:

The External Relations Commissioner Chris Patten called on the US to help the EU strengthen its defence and security systems so as to "be taken seriously as international actor" and act as "a counterpart – if not a counterweight – to the US" itself. Speaking in Chicago on Thursday, he said that the "US might do more" to encourage the EU develop a common foreign policy.

To which Dan Beste wryly responds, "I think my irony meter just melted", in between adding a trio of links to anti-American diatribes in Patten's past.

I'm not sure if "irony" is the applicable word here. I was thinking more on the lines of "chutzpah", "cheek", and "like HELL", in between bouts of laughter.

posted by Zimri on 20:33 | link |

I'm shaken all right, and I'll stir you a new one

I second the opinion that James Bond has officially become a pansy. But let's let the peddlers of that insufficiently-diluted sheep-urine called "Ty Nant" speak:

Perhaps Bond wants to be associated with something more relevant than alcohol. And his drinking mineral water also sends out a much more positive message to the young people who will go to see the film.

Earth to Welshman: The young people aren't going to see your films if you keep... watering them down. Everyone I know under the age of 30 saw xXx, starring Van Diesel as a tattooed, rule-breaking, hard-partying badass. You want relevant? Try our constant struggle to live free and think free, despite the dictates of PC-preachers, drug warriors, and bloated corporations.

You can have that neutered shill that was once James Bond. I'll keep my South Park, Kevin Smith, and Van Diesel.

posted by Zimri on 20:04 | link |

Moses, genocidal rapist?

Jerry Falwell recently told a lie about Moses, which Corsair easily refuted: "I think we need look no further than Numbers 31:14-18 to see just what sort of man of peace Moses is". I won't quote it here (I save that for comments and emails).

The capture of women, incidentally, went beyond the LORD's commands, which were just to kick ass and take loot. To the discredit of either the Bible or the LORD it neglects to mention what the LORD did about it.

The Christian blogger who goes by the nom de cyber of Blithering Idiot hasn't considered Numbers 31 yet, at least in print, so let's see what he has to say.

Keep an eye out for "well, it was normal for its time" - a morally-relativist argument; and for "we don't know all the facts" - an evocation of eisegesis, which means "I'm going to read into the Bible what I think and not what the Bible thinks".

I offer one easy way out for Moses: the Torah is wrong in this instance. Moses did not commit that crime.

Okay, I need another way out, for the LORD Himself: I have to assume the transmitters of this holey text (pardon the pun) skipped the line in which God invoked this crime as one reason He didn't let Moses into the Promised Land.

posted by Zimri on 19:37 | link |

What the Senate should be asking judicial nominees

The Judicial Committee should ask its judicial nominees whether they are willing to enforce the Constitution against the wishes of the majority, even if backed (illegally) by Congress.

One might, if one were a cynic, counter that (1) it IS part of Congress and desires to keep its powers, (2) the whole point of the Democratic Party, if there is one, is that it wants majority rule to win out wherever possible and (3) the Senate is just as full of rogues, illiterates, and cowards as the House.

If one were a cynic.

posted by Zimri on 18:36 | link |

The latest outrage from Congress

And no, it's not the Senate this time.

FoxNews reports:

Lawmakers voted 401-5 for the measure that calls for "under God" to stay in the Pledge of Allegiance and to keep "In God We Trust" as the national motto. Four others voted present.

"Reuters" offers more and the A.P. gives the names of the naysayers. No-one seems to be giving the name of the bill itself, which I consider a failure of journalism.

In related news, Thomas Jefferson mentioned something like:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

Last I heard, the House of Representatives was part of Congress. Four hundred and one of them just flouted the most fundamental civil-liberties law in the country and another four were too craven to complain. (21 went AWOL, a list that includes Rep. Sununu, who deemed his Senate campaign more important. File them under either "craven" or "lazy".)

This shows, again, that the vast majority of this country want a monotheistic theocracy, however nominal (and history shows it never ends at being nominal).

Fair enough. If that is what they want, they have an amendment process by which they may repeal the First Amendment. Until that time, the 401 scofflaws are Constitutional lawbreakers, and on those grounds are liable for ejection from the House... just like their compadre Traficant.

It is a shame on the country and the state of reason in it that these Talibs are in such a lopsided majority. It is more of a shame on the Representatives that, during their tenure, they have not bothered to take in the amendment process, nor even the first phrase of the Bill of Rights.

posted by Zimri on 18:36 | link |

Whither next?

Pej offers his take on the latest, foolish Supreme Court decision:

In the event that the New Jersey Switch in Time is responsible for maintaining Democratic control of the Senate, I reserve the right to consider the Senate leadership illegitimate. Perhaps I can then echo people like Bruce Ackerman, who famously argued that the Senate should reject President Bush's Supreme Court nominees for at least the first term due to questions about his legitimacy. Now, if the Senate remains in Democratic hands as the result of an illegitimate and crass political move in New Jersey, conservatives can argue with about as much justification that the Senate should not even be allowed to consider judicial nominations until it has a new election, since the legitimacy of its leadership can be doubted.

Pej doesn't say it, but the antithesis of the "Ackerman Doctrine" would be: should Lautenberg get into the Senate and the Senate retain its majority because of that, Bush may as well make his "controversial" (code for "right of Christine Todd Whitman") judicial appointments while the Senate is on recess.

I would extend this to any period in which the Senate is controlled by crooked means.

This Senate majority already includes a dead man (Mel Carnahan) and an "independent" who was unwittingly elected by Republicans (Jim Jeffords).

It is unfortunate for Bush that he didn't act sooner.

posted by Zimri on 18:03 | link |

Monday, October 07, 2002

Londonistan

The Brits are too chicken to extradite their Islamists to France. (Link from Instapundit.)

Given that the authorities refused to break up the 9/11 Osama rally, and have been ignoring Finsbury Park for decades, I wish I could even express disappointment at this stage.

The French have a word for Britain's de-facto dhimmitude, where there is one law for Islamic extremists and another for the rest of the populace (can I still say "us"?). They call it "Londonistan". I call it treason against the Crown.

posted by Zimri on 11:57 | link |

Ave Caesar!

I knew the college Latin courses would come in handy one day: George Bush declares himself emperor.

When's the toga party?

posted by Zimri on 11:30 | link |

Sunday, October 06, 2002

Ooh! A challenge

The Instaguy would like us to know about an open letter blogburst... by peaceniks.

I'll write more on this after I finish watching Air Force One. (I saw the Russian speech scene at a restaurant last night. The management switched it to a useless football game, unfortunately. I leave you with this line, concerning the tyrant of Kazakhstan - "We acted too late.")

posted by Zimri on 22:31 | link |

Pim Fortuyn's ghost

I notice there was another attempted political assassination in Europe. (Link from file13.) This time, thank God, it didn't succeed.

I also "notice" that "Reuters" are "calling" it a homophobic hate crime, secondary to the "tenets" of "Islam". It's "never" Islam to "blame", you "see"; it's always "homophobia". You'd "get the impression" from "reading" "Reuters" that LePen ordered this hit.

Wise up, fools - and this means you - Islamists don't give a damn if you are a socialist, a libertarian, a pacifist, or a Monster Raving Loony Partisan. They only care that you are not their sort of Muslim. And you will be affected.

UPDATE: A Glenn Reynolds reader notes that in the French media, by contrast with "Reuters", there is "no punch pulling whatever".

posted by Zimri on 20:08 | link |

The Strike

First, a joke:

WOMAN: HELP! HELP! I've been raped by a longshoreman!

POLICE DISPATCHER: How do you know it was a longshoreman?

WOMAN: Because I had to DO ALL THE WORK!!

If I were making $100k/annum, I don't think I'd go on strike. (Link via Drudge.)

I think the best way to solve this would be to break up the unions, so that there is a maximum of one allowed per incorporated municipality. Also, make it illegal for more than one union to strike at once. We don't allow monopolies in software and we DAMN sure shouldn't allow one in labour.

That way, if one union strikes - San Diego, say - the other ports could still function. It would still be unfortunate for the city of San Diego, but at least it wouldn't wreck the entire Pacific economy.

UPDATE: Actually, don't. Just make sure the unions cannot organise across state lines. That way, the State of California, say, can decide to go with that one-per-municipality idea, but the State of Washington can decide for itself.

Also: split California into multiple states, so San Francisco can properly compete with Los Angeles and San Diego. This can be a bargaining chip Republicans might offer in return for weakened unions.

posted by Zimri on 19:56 | link |

NJ's laws don't apply to Republicans either

Jon Adler pointed out (on NRO's Corner) that SCONJ FELL LONG AGO:

I've read lots of outrage at the SCONJ decision in the New Jersey Senate case yet, with the exception of Mark Levin's post yesterday, I've seen no effort to deal with New Jersey precedent on the issue. While I agree with Mark that the prior cases are distinguishable, I think they are much closer than his essay suggests. In 1952, the SCONJ allowed the substitution of a candidate on the ballot when a candidate died after the substitution deadline in the New Jersey election statute. There the Court made clear its preference for candidates for both major parties, in addition to candidates from OTHER qualifying parties. In 1991, in the Catania case, the SCONJ allowed the Republicans to place a nominee on the ballot even though the Republican Party had failed to comply with the explicit statutory requirements for placing a candidate on the ballot. In other words, the SCONJ has long held that the interests of voter choice -- defined to mean candidates from the two major parties -- trumps a hypertechnical reliance on statutory text. I agree with all the commentators on this site that this is a terrible -- indeed, dangerous -- approach to statutory interpretation. But we should all recognize that, at least in the Garden State, it is not unprecedented.

The "Catania case" to which Adler refers is Catania v. Haberle, 123 N.J. 438, 442-43, 588 A.2d 374, 376 (1990):

The general rule applied to the interpretation of our election laws is that absent some public interest sufficiently strong to permit the conclusion that the Legislature intended strict enforcement, statutes providing requirements for a candidate's name to appear on the ballot will not be construed so as to deprive the voters of the opportunity to make a choice." (Citation omitted).

"Mark Levin's post" refers to Another Sleazy Court, which deemed it significant that in 1991 "the Republicans did not have a nominee", as opposed to now when the Democrats do but don't want to run him. (Andrew Sullivan for his part read Adler, but missed his point and ended up following Levin.)

But Adler's right. 1991 was when the SCONJ first canonised the Republican party's status above New Jersey electoral law. 2002's only true innovation is that the Democratic party must be afforded the same privilege.

Some readers may ask, why didn't I make a fuss about it then. The easy retort is that I wasn't alive in 1952 and wasn't in the US in 1991. But since we are on the subject...

The Republicans never should have taken to the courts in 1991 to save Catania. The Republicans betrayed their judicial principles. That they are being cheated in this case is blowback, pure and simple.

Nonetheless, it is high time this went to the Supreme Court of the US. Both parties have an interest in keeping the courts out of elections.

UPDATE: Silflay thinks that this is a decoy by the Dems, much as I thought a few days back. The thing is... I wrote that first post before I started thinking of the implications. What convinced me this WAS a battle worth fighting for - worth losing seats in the Senate for - was the attitude of the New Republic. And then I wondered why I had been so cynical. Because this is for the rule of law. This is for the integrity of our courts. This is for our electoral process.

Another two years of Majority Leader Daschle is a small thing in comparison.

posted by Zimri on 12:36 | link |

Over to you

Dawson Speaks links to Rush's rebuttal of the infamous Democrat cartoon.

posted by Zimri on 11:50 | link |

Saturday, October 05, 2002

A kitchen table dissection

The New Republic sounds the alarm on how patent law holds up innovations for new drugs.

Holding up to stereotype, the big pharmaceuticals do not wish to rock the boat. More interesting, at least to me, is that John McCain and Tom Daschle are the Senators most chummy with said big pharmaceuticals. Aren't they the ones bleating the loudest about, you know, "kitchen table issues" like the economy and prescription drugs?

But I'm not going to blame them. It's not their fault.

It's ours.

Some problems are caused by bad law. But while some laws are an easy call to abolish - like pretty much everything enacted by Southern state legislatures 1880-1920 or so, literally right down to the water fountains - others are just too complicated for the average voter.

Democrats are seen as the only ones willing to call attention to prescription costs and (secondarily) lack of innovation, with the media as mouthpiece. Unfortunately, begging everyone's pardon, the average Democrat is just as dumb as the average Republican.

Rather than figure out the root cause of a given problem, and rather than believe everything The New Republic writes (and see below for why the latter isn't always wise), it's easier to set up an entitlement in public and a bureaucracy in private.

The winners are lawyers, politicians, and those connected with either. Big Pharm also manages to skate by, making the same profits. Actually, probably more profits, now that they can afford to be cynical. They just divert the spending normally gambled away on research, over to sure winners like lawyers, politicians, marketing flacks, and government.

The losers are the R&D guys and the taxpayers. Ultimately though the REAL losers are those who need drugs to survive.

posted by Zimri on 13:23 | link |

Friday, October 04, 2002

"Monday is Voter Registration Deadline in NJ"

HAHAHAHAHAH ! ! !

posted by Zimri on 23:44 | link |

We all saw THIS coming

Cindy McJihad, the blogosphere's favourite Congressmoron, takes to the courts.

I'm beginning to wonder why this country still bothers with elections.

posted by Zimri on 23:41 | link |

Wednesday, October 02, 2002

Go.There.Now.

Oh my.

posted by Zimri on 22:46 | link |

Oh, the implications...

For future elections in New Jersey, it will no longer be possible to print ballots. Instead, voters will be issued blank sheets of paper. The voter will write down the name of the candidate and hand it in. Then each of the x-million sheets will be sorted and counted.

Yes, it means chaos. But that's the only way to run an election in which the cutoff date for official candidacy is the night before the big day. And THAT is the only way to interpret the Sconj's ruling that New Jersey law is less important than ensuring an election that is "fair" - to party convenience.

UPDATE: The New Republic argues that this event is unlikely to occur elsewhere:

You can argue that it violates some cherished abstract principle like rule of law. But, please, spare us the gloom-and-doom talk about what future elections holds if this precedent stands. The answer is nothing appreciably different from the present.

Leave aside TNR's shockingly blasé attitude toward the role and rule of law. The salient point here is that TNR is wrong even on this case's merits.

To give an example: say a burglar got into someone's house via a back door. TNR is arguing that the neighbourhood need have no cause for alarm. What are the odds that a burglar will try it again? Well, the next time, the burglar might go through a window. Or he might knock on the front door and shoot you.

The proper response is to apprehend the burglar, inform him and all others that burglary is illegal, and prevent him and his co-workers from trying such a stunt in future.

The problem is not the method of the crime. The problem is the judicial indulgence of any method of crime, at least as defined in the state of New Jersey. And now that the Supreme Court in New Jersey has blazed the trail, Supreme Courts elsewhere will find new loopholes to subvert their states' laws, rather than interpret them. In effect we will be ceding close races to whatever party controls the state Supreme Court.

This should alarm you. Even if the burglar is a Democrat.

posted by Zimri on 22:06 | link |

Fuhgeddaboudit

Blogspot's down... so I temporarily have a monopoly... muhahah.

I'm very ambivalent on the New Jersey decision, probably more than I should be. Yeah, the Sconj usurped legislative power, just like Scofflaw did in 2000. But as we learnt then, half the population of the country doesn't care about law. They care about "fairness" - meaning, that feeling you get when you try to sleep at night, when things went your way although someone may have cheated, but there was enough wiggle room that your conscience can be fobbed off - and the other guy was evil anyway so it all turned out OK in the end. That's "fairness". And that's increasingly how elections, and public policy in general, are conducted in this country.

If the Republicans fight this ruling, expect the Democrats to complain that the Republicans are subverting the electoral process. This will bring up memories of the 2000 contest in precisely those constituencies the Democrats need to bring them up in.

Of course it's illegal. Of course it's unjust. But harsh as it may seen to Republicans, it's not unfair - at least, not unfair to Democrats. Republicans should drop the suit, and instead launch a propaganda broadside about how the Democrats broke the law... again.

posted by Zimri on 21:51 | link |

De facto proportional representation

A friend of mine - identity disguised as "Lady X" - used to live in Seattle before she came here. What follows is a paraphrased transcript of part of our conversation:

Me: ...and another thing I read about, David Bonior and Jim McDermott recently went to Baghdad to call President Bush a liar [this has the latest]...

L.X.: Oh, Jim McDermott? I know him, from Seattle.

Me: Cool! You know him... what was he like?

L.X.: He's always said exactly what's on his mind.

Me: But in this case, since he was in Baghdad when he said it, supporting Saddam's party line... isn't that, you know, kind of like treason?

L.X.: Well, he doesn't tell people what they want to hear.

I have reason to assume L.X. is more sensible than to agree with McDermott, that Saddam is more trustworthy than George II. But why didn't she say so, even to the point of ducking the question of treason on his part?

Cynthia McKinney once had supporters who voted for her not because she did anything for the district, but because she spoke her mind: Atlanta Journal Constitution. It is likely Jim McDermott's supporters include some who might not agree with McDermott, but believe his views ought to be represented in Congress. Some apparently believe this so strongly they are willing to risk a weakened voice in Congress.

This is not necessarily folly on the part of McDermott and of his supporters. The other members of McDermott's locational constituency may feel disenfranchised, but they can always move out. In turn, those outside Seattle who agree with him may decide to move into his district. Better, they may just fund his campaign. Their needs will be satisfied despite Seattle, rather than because of it.

In short, McDermott's constituency is not really the district of Seattle. McDermott is providing a form of proportional representation.

On one hand, I agree a vote's a vote. I shouldn't complain about McDermott, any more than I should that many of Ron Paul's constituents are ideological libertarians.

But on the other, I've also noticed that, so far, this courtesy is only extended to leftists. I doubt a voter would go for, say, Pat Buchanan because, while the voter may not be a national-socialist himself, the voter feels the national-socialist vote wasn't being adequately voiced in Congress. But are Buchanan's beliefs really more reprehensible than McKinney's or McDermott's?

posted by Zimri on 13:31 | link |

On this site

• Home
• J/X
• Islam
• E-mail

- Archives - 04/01/2002 - 05/01/2002 05/01/2002 - 06/01/2002 06/01/2002 - 07/01/2002 07/01/2002 - 08/01/2002 08/01/2002 - 09/01/2002 09/01/2002 - 10/01/2002 10/01/2002 - 11/01/2002 11/01/2002 - 12/01/2002 12/01/2002 - 01/01/2003 01/01/2003 - 02/01/2003 02/01/2003 - 03/01/2003 03/01/2003 - 04/01/2003 04/01/2003 - 05/01/2003 05/01/2003 - 06/01/2003 06/01/2003 - 07/01/2003 07/01/2003 - 08/01/2003 08/01/2003 - 09/01/2003 09/01/2003 - 10/01/2003 10/01/2003 - 11/01/2003 11/01/2003 - 12/01/2003 12/01/2003 - 01/01/2004 01/01/2004 - 02/01/2004 02/01/2004 - 03/01/2004 03/01/2004 - 04/01/2004 04/01/2004 - 05/01/2004 05/01/2004 - 06/01/2004 08/01/2004 - 09/01/2004 09/01/2004 - 10/01/2004 10/01/2004 - 11/01/2004 11/01/2004 - 12/01/2004 12/01/2004 - 01/01/2005 01/01/2005 - 02/01/2005 02/01/2005 - 03/01/2005 03/01/2005 - 04/01/2005 04/01/2005 - 05/01/2005 05/01/2005 - 06/01/2005 06/01/2005 - 07/01/2005 07/01/2005 - 08/01/2005 08/01/2005 - 09/01/2005 09/01/2005 - 10/01/2005 10/01/2005 - 11/01/2005 11/01/2005 - 12/01/2005 12/01/2005 - 01/01/2006 01/01/2006 - 02/01/2006 02/01/2006 - 03/01/2006 03/01/2006 - 04/01/2006 04/01/2006 - 05/01/2006 05/01/2006 - 06/01/2006 06/01/2006 - 07/01/2006 07/01/2006 - 08/01/2006 08/01/2006 - 09/01/2006 09/01/2006 - 10/01/2006 10/01/2006 - 11/01/2006 11/01/2006 - 12/01/2006 12/01/2006 - 01/01/2007 01/01/2007 - 02/01/2007 02/01/2007 - 03/01/2007 03/01/2007 - 04/01/2007 10/01/2009 - 11/01/2009 11/01/2009 - 12/01/2009

Afield

• Secular Right
• Mencius Moldbug
• The Unreligious Right
• Gene Expression
• Climate Audit
• Tim Blair
• Transterrestrial Musings
• ZombieTime
• Jammie Wearing Fool(s)
• Ace of Spades HQ
• My Pet Jawa
• Daimnation
• Classical Values
• Spleenville HQ
• This Blog Is Full Of Crap
• Yourish
• Xanthippa's Chamberpot

Friends

• Coffee Shop

Table 9