March 2004 Archives

Interesting post on the ransom kidnappings going on in Iraq by Zeyad. Damn good reminder of the tribalism extant in the Arab World, particularly considering Iraq is supposed to be one of the countries where such things are relatively muted.

It helps frame some of the context of today's savagery.

Islamic Jihad promises heaven to teen recruit

Hat tip to mal for pointing me to this Jerusalem Post piece about the rash of kiddie would-be suicide murderers. I've seen it posted in a couple of places before but hadn't really read it all through. Glad I did. It paints a fairly grim picture of the civil disorder in a place like Nablus. First we find the remarkable attempt of many of the Palestinian Arabs to blame Israeli agents for recruiting the kids to discredit the "resistance," then we find out that that's not really such a clear picture.

Later in the piece:

But what can Israel do? There simply is no authority ready to take control in the name of peace and order on the Palestinian side. One thing is certain, Israel must continue to target the leadership of the terror groups, to disrupt their weapons smuggling and operations...and Yasser Arafat must go. One way or another. There never will be a change in the situation with him anywhere near the reigns of power. There doesn't seem to be any way off the tracks short of a trip to an absolutely crisis-level breaking point.

This article also points to the near impossibility of discerning what the hell is going on in Palestinian Arab society - a polity in complete turmoil. You cannot have any useful change in a situation where basic personal safety is threatened by speaking one's mind, nor can we even know what will come out of that mind when it does speak.

Update: In timely fashion comes this brief article at the Middle East Forum: If Hamas Inherits the Palestinian Authority: A briefing by Shmuel Bar. It paints about the same picture as above: Post-Arafat (or even how we get to a post-Arafat era) there are many questions, and no clear answers at this juncture.

The Carnival of the Vanities is sort of like...like when you get picked last for the team, but you get a special chit that let's you say, "No, no...you don't seem to understand...I don't suck..." and you get to turn in the chit and force everyone to pick teams again with you first...or something like that, anyway...

Eric Berlin is this week's host.

I submitted my post, "Ernie Pyle is Dead", which went horribly unappreciated, except by Nathan at The Argus (where you should be getting all of your 'stans news). Thank you, Nathan.

I'm sure there's a lot of interesting stuff over there, so if you're looking to broaden your blog-reading horizons, go check it out.

Great story on getting action from your Reps over at Citizen Smash.

Norman Geras finds a bit of Judenhass writing in the mainstream press of South Africa. Don't imagine I'm surprised at all. It's my perception that only in the United States are such obviously displayed sentiments slapped down with any sort of serious vigor. Abroad, some of the most overt displays of antisemitic canard-flogging appear regularly in the mainstream - not that I don't think it's easing its way in here bit by bit. This one's by a Philosophy professor, no less. Read Norm's take (and scroll around for other good stuff).

Update: Perhaps another word on this. One of the prominent threads in Holiday's (the author) Judenhass screed (among several), is the quality that is reminiscent of the words of Heykal Pasha, who, prior to the partition of Palestine, warned of an inevitable race-war should the vote go through. Thus he simultaneously set out the threat and transfered the blame for his own people's actions. The first in an attempt to influence the vote through threatened violence, and the second to wash his hands of the blame for same, while simultaneously making it more likely by providing an excuse, thus helping to fulfill his own prophesy. "Do as I say, or X will result, and that X will be your own fault, not the perpetrator's."

Holiday's nonsense is little different. The Zionists of South Africa could not possibly undermine their own patriotic position, as the concern of theirs that Holiday takes issue with is entirely concerned with Foreign Affairs - support for the State of Israel. Said state is no enemy of South Africa and poses no threat to it. Quite the contrary. Holiday's fears and tears are entirely crocodilian in nature. He isn't worried about the rise of bigotry against the Jews, he's polemicizing in its favor.

Boston radio's Jay Severin explains why liberal talk radio is destined for miserable failure. It's about the audience...and spending power.

Boston.com / News / Boston Globe / Opinion / Op-ed / Liberal talk radio? No one will buy it

Severin's sub-text: Liberal talk radio will never gain enough quality listenership to attract real advertising dollars. It's a temporary construct being set up for one reason, the campaign season. Once that's over, the backers responsible for artificially propping it up will lose interest, and then bye-bye.

Not an unpersuasive argument.

Oh wait, I read that wrong. This can't be right. This article actually indicates that the UN is taking responsibility for something. Yes, UN employees have been held accountable for...failure.

CNN.com - Annan fires security chief over Iraq failures - Mar 29, 2004

Of course, the UN's reaction was somewhat distinct from America's. They ran like hell.

Some are saying it doesn't go far enough.

Well, it is still the UN, after all. I guess blaming the US only carries you so far, even at the UN. But don't worry, CNN is here to help you out, and mitigate your humiliation (otherwise known as responsibility for yourselves), Mr. UN Bureaucrat:

The bleat goes on.

Oliver Kamm is excellent in reaction to the memorial service held for former ISM activist, Tom Hurndall.

Oliver Kamm: A pointless death in an ignoble cause

From Hanson's blog:

It goes on like that. Very good.

Interesting developments.

Jews who fled Arab lands now press their cause / Refugees' advocates link issue to Palestinians' claims on Israel

My previous post on the film "The Silent Exodus" and the talk by Bat Ye'or is here.

Seriously, it's true. You can join. They even have stirring karaoke theme music you can goose-step along with. (Via NKZone)

Yeah? Well that's not what I heard. I heard Jesus thinks Rantisi sucks donkey you-know-what. Please, someone drop an anvil on this guy's head already.

New York Times: Hamas Leader Says God Has Declared War on U.S.

This reminds me of some kind of Three Stooges routine. OK, let me get this straight...If America declared war on God, and Sharon declared war on God, and God declared war on America, Bush, and Sharon, then who's hand is that on my shoulder?!?! AAAHHHHH! (Sorry, that probably only makes sense to me...long day.)

And when does the guy in Syria get taken out? Will we demand Syria hand him over? Shaa, right. Will Israel do it with an airstrike into Syria? Just wait for the hew and cry over that if it were to happen.

Also, note how this article tries to frame the confrontations with the terrorists as post-Yassin escalation:

The uninitiated don't understand that the Israelis had already been foiling multiple terror attempts per day as it was. The events indicated in the article are just business as usual, even though the impression the author tries to leave is that this is all a recent response to events. It's too bad the terrorists don't have to "call their shots." Like, "OK, we're gonna go for one at 3:30 tomorrow afternoon." That way, when the Israelis foil it, it's obvious to all as a failure. As it is, eventually, sadly enough , one strike will get through, and the terrorists can say, "OK, yeah, that one. That one was for Yassin! The other ones were just Zionist lies. Never happened."

...but it appears it's a real bitch to ween them from the government teat when it comes time. At least that's the explanation being given for the Conservatives (Chirac's Party) being routed today at the poles in favor of the Socialists, Greens and Communists - a reaction to Conservative attempts to get the French entitlement system under control. Let this be a lesson to all - once a critical mass of people start relying on the government's largess for sustenance, it's awfully tough to get them off. It would be lovely to be able to rejoice at a Chirac voter slap-down, but alas, this doesn't seem to be that type of thing. ...Awe, OK, lower-case "yay."

Conservatives Routed in French Elections (washingtonpost.com)

Last Wednesday I was fortunate enough to hear about an event happening near me that was most worth my while to attend. The eminent historian, "Cleveland E. Dodge Professor of Near Eastern Studies Emeritus at Princeton University," Bernard Lewis was giving a talk at Brandeis University as part of an international symposium on the "New Antisemitism." Bernard Lewis is like a rock star of Middle East Studies. Although some of his colleagues (to their shame), might disagree, if there's a historian of his field who ever deserved to be referred to as "eminent," the 87 year old (I believe) Lewis is it. And let's face it, 87 years is a pretty good run in anybody's book, so it may be wise to take any opportunity to see him. Off I went.

The speech was held in a relatively large hall. It was clearly a special event, with extra police directing traffic outside. By the time things got started it was standing room only - about 350+ people. The speech was also taped. I got there plenty early and would have been in the first couple of rows, but those were reserved (elitists!). Nevertheless...following the introductory remarks by University President Jehuda Reinharz, and a couple of extremely boring speeches by folks who I'm sure were very, very nice people, it was Professor Lewis's turn.

Lewis's years of lecturing show in his speaking ability. He did speak deliberately, in his light British accent, glancing down at his notes from time to time, but the wit and ability to engage were still there in full form. I get right to my notes (which I almost did not bother taking)... Standard disclaimers apply. I didn't write everything down - these are impressions, not a transcript - and any errors or misunderstandings should be considered as mine and not those of Professor Lewis.

Khaaan

Hat tip to mal for alerting me to this "excellent" piece in the Weekly Standard.

The Holocaust Shrug by David Gelernter

That's really only the smallest part of it. Worth reading in full.

BrainTerminal: Pin the Tale on the Donkeys

Cognizant of the fact that some of my visitors are not regular blog-surfers and may actually have missed one of the many pointers to this, let me also recommend everyone watch Evan Coyne Maloney's latest video creation, as he plays game-show host with the "peace" marchers. Just click on the link above.

Previous posts on Evan's work are here, here and here.

When I started this site I didn't even know what a blog was. I just wanted a place to be able to shout a few frustrations to the world and maybe practice my writing from time to time. I also wasn't sure I'd keep on doing even that forever, and I wanted a web site that I could use for whatever I felt like - practicing web design, posting pictures, hobbies, etc...

So when thinking of a URL, I wasn't thinking of it with "Blog Marketing" in mind. (Geek alert ahead!) The history of the word "Solomonia" is fairly simple. When I computer game(not very often recently), I often game under the name "Solomon." Particularly when I play games like Civilization, I use that name, and what would Solomon's capital city be? Right, "Solomonia." Not a bad url, although I've since found out it's also the name of an Orthodox Christian Saint, not that that's really here nor there.

Recently I've been thinking that, well, the name is kinda lame, and I might change it. For instance, some possibilities are "Tough to Figure," or my favorite of the moment, "Tevye's Burden" - both URLs I've locked up already. Much as I am hesitant to change anything, thinking of what little bit of notoriety this place has gotten and the links I'll have to ask people to change, maybe it's worth it.

Or maybe not...I dunno. Maybe I'm being silly, and yes, I know, "it's the content, stupid," but an appealing name might not be that bad, either. Or maybe "Solomonia" is just fine. Or maybe I just need a nap...

Anyway, if anyone has an opinion, you know what to do.

(Via OceanGuy) While the world of punditry and diplomacy argue about Sheik Yassin's overdue demise, it might be good to hear what Israel herself has to say about it. Here is Ambassador Gillerman's statement. It's excellent.

Israel's statement at the UN

OceanGuy has an interesting take on the 9/11 hearings based on his experience as a Navy pilot.

Ocean Guy: Somewhere on A1A

Who knew? That old Native American activist, Russell Means, is actually a Libertarian/Republican campaigning for the Republican opponent to Tom Daschle out in South Dakota. Interesting stuff. Here's the article at Frontpage:

Fighting "Federal Communism" on the Reservation

Always interesting to see old radicals like this develop - or maybe he hasn't developed so much as remain consistent. Here's Means' web site. Here's Means talking about the making of Last of the Mohicans, at the web site from which I got the above picture.

Jonah Goldberg is excellent on describing this sad child bomber and the sickness of the people who sent him, and those who turn the other way:

Jonah Goldberg: Palestinians' use of kiddy bombers appalling

Picture via LGF, link via Power Line.

"What is better, peace and full rights for the Palestinian people, or Shahada?"

"Shahada."

That is the question asked on Official Palestinian TV of a young Palestinian girl and the answer the interviewer approvingly received. Is it any wonder that political solutions to the violence amongst the Palestinian Arabs are hard to come by?

Palestinian Media Watch has an important report on the indoctrination of Palestinian children into the cult of martyrdom. If you want to understand what's going on "over there," you owe it to yourself to check out this report. You don't have to read the thing, just watch the seven minute video at the top of the page. (I had trouble getting most of the shorter videos imbedded in the report to work, but I think they're just clips from the longer piece anyway.) Whitewashing this horror, peace plans and condemnations of Israel that don't take this hard reality into account are worse than useless. It is not enough to say, "Well I bet the Israelis do the same thing." They do not. There is no analogue to this hate indoctrination on the part of the Israelis toward their children.

It is absolutely worth your time to watch this. It may be a real eye-opener and it's available in several languages.

ASK FOR DEATH - The Indoctrination of Palestinian Children to Seek Death for Allah – Shahada

From HonestReporting: Amidst all the sickening hand-wringing over the righteous death of one of the world's most blood-thirsty terrorists, comes this cartoon from Brazil:

In the words of Honest Reporting: "The insult here to Christians (comparing a sadistic terrorist to Jesus) is at least as great as the insult to Jews [The classic deicide charge. - Sol]. And Simanca is no small-time journalist: MSNBC'S Daryl Cagle deemed him 'Brazil's top editorial cartoonist.'" The entire report on world reaction to the event is not yet online.

Of course, I prefer Cox & Forkum's view:

This past Monday, I was able to attend a lecture at Brandeis University by noted scholar Bat Ye'or, author of the book Islam and Dhimmitude, as well as several other works on the relationship of the Islamic World to non-Muslims. She also runs the website Dhimmitude.org, where much of her work can be read online.

I cannot recommend strongly enough that you read this post in its entirety. I absolutely do not say that out of any ego for the importance nor certainly for the flair (what little there is) of my own writing. These are, after all, simply lecture notes put to prose. No, but the concepts touched on in Ye'or's work are absolutely essential to forming an understanding of what's going on today between Europe, America, the Middle East and the War on Terror. There was a lot of good stuff transmitted that night at Brandeis, and I have tried to convey a number of the key concepts which, in the end, can only be touched upon even in a fairly lengthy blog-post like this one. Many blog readers will find much familiar ground here, but in the chance that you find something new, or get a reminder of something that was slipping, or have some new connection made, I strongly recommend reading on. I do apologize if the piece is boring at times, but I have been anxious to get the information down before too much of my memory fades, so I'll have to save a more engaging version for another time.

For me, the lecture served as a follow-up to the previous day's viewing of the film, "The Silent Exodus," a report of which can be read here. It's an important film and an important subject, so when you have a chance, give the entry a glance if you haven't already.

This lecture was sponsored by the Middle East Forum At Brandeis and held in the atrium of the Brandeis student center, and as such, it was a large room, and quite loud, with students coming and going and chatting and eating. Ye'or is a small woman who is obviously ill at-ease with English, and every bit of the PA system was needed. Turnout was good at around 80 individuals, although only small percentage of the attendees appeared to be students. Please remember that what follows is my report on what I got from the talk. Any errors of fact or concept should first be assumed to be mine, not Ye'or's.

Bat Ye'or is a pseudonym. It translates to "Daughter of the Nile," which recalls that Ye'or herself was born in Egypt and part of the mass exodus of the Jews from all parts of the Arab world in the 40's and 50's. She began by discussing the Muslim-World's relations with non-Muslims, beginning, naturally enough, with a discussion about Jihad. (See my previous report on a talk given by Jihad Watch's Robert Spencer for some further discussion on this subject.)

According to Islam, the political world is divided into "Houses," The first being Dar al Islam, or "House of Islam," - the Muslim nations and the second being Dar al Harb, or "House of War" - the non-Muslim nations. In effect, this second is a sort of "free fire zone" (my words) for Muslims. In between, there is often a condition known as Dar al Suhl, or "House of Truce," a status which may be achieved by a non-Muslim nation that enters into a Hudna (truce) with Dar al Islam.

This is wild. Go here, put in your address and/or zip and it will tell you what Presidential candidates your neighbors have donated to, including name and address. (Via Mutated Monkeys)

It's a bit disturbing to see how the concept of the secret ballot has apparently slipped, although I can understand the reasons for it. I am, however, relieved to discover that there isn't a Kucinich or Sharpton supporter within ten miles of me.

(Via LGF) Yes, that's right, the Great Satan of the Loony Left has his own blog - and get this, comments are active. What's the over/under on how many days they stay turned on? I say the comments are up for 5 days as Prof. Chomsky discovers that pure democracy might not be such a great idea after all (he's already started to delete posts, apparently.). Check out the comments as they start fawning, before the rest of the internet apparently discovers the place, then it's a real hoot - that is, if the original post itself isn't good enough for you.

Update: 5 days is waaay too optimistic on the comments thing. The clock is definitely ticking. I do wish the outright spammers would knock it off. I'd love to see Chomsky fisked in real-time, but the complete junk is wrecking it.

Update: 18:15 EST - They're dead, Jim!

La la la link whorage time again with the "be your own pimp and pay no commissions" joy of that recurring festival known as the Carnival of the Vanities. Bloggers from all over these parts and beyond submit their best post from the past week or so. That means lots of reading material ahead. This week it's at Pete Holiday's place. Here's the link: Encyclopeteia: Carnival of the Vanities#79. I submitted my post, President Bush a Divider? Be real. this week.

It's not fair. I haven't even had a chance to write-up my notes from Bat Ye'or's talk on Monday night, and already I see that tonight, Bernard Lewis will be appearing on the Brandeis campus. It's an embarrassment of riches.

The details are here: The New Anti-Semitism First Religion, Then Race, Then What?

Nice rant here on the Yassin fallout (The UN Human Rights Commission has adopted a resolution condemning the killing, btw, calling it "tragic." What a joke.):

d e j a f o o . n e t -- Hey World, Shove It

David Kaspar points to this story about German President Johannes Rau having to cancel a scheduled stop in Djibouti on information that Islamists were planning at taking a pop at him. But, but, why Germany? After all, they oppose the USA, and they opposed the invasion of Iraq, as Kaspar says, "That's Not Fair!"

Ahh...there it is. Well I guess we're all in this together whether we want to be or not - at least while Germany is still, for now at least, part of "the West."

Aznar defends his record and his government's response to the events on 3/11 in today's OpinionJournal.

He writes on the lessons of that day:

He defends the early focus on ETA:

He defends his record of being forthright with all of the evidence:

He understands the implications and import of the democracies' next move:

Victor Davis Hanson's new blog needs permalinks! He's got a new entry up, When I Was Young:

Roger L. Simon points to a couple of items. First, George Bush as the only World Leader (well, that I've seen) saying the right thing:

What a guy.

Meanwhile, there is also this very interesting rumor, from Maariv:

So Yassin may have gotten a chance he should have taken. He didn't, so now we say, "Next!" Interesting. If true, it might make it a bit more difficult for the next guy to push a cease-fire, as it'll be more than a bit suspect that he's chickening out. Who knows? Who cares? Hamas cease-fires aren't worth much, and Israel has plenty of missiles left, I'm sure.

...for this paean to Ahmed Yassin published in, where else, The Guardian. (Via LGF)

And while we're at it, James Taranto points out CAIR's condemnation of the old monster's destruction. For a group that's supposed to be selling Islam as a religion of peace, they certainly are more than willing to take ownership of the old murderer.

CAIR:

Taranto points to aspects of The Covenant of Hamas and asks, "Is Islamist terrorism a perversion of a great and peaceful religion? We hope so, but CAIR, by bestowing on Yassin the status of "an Islamic religious leader," seems to reject this view."

All I caught was a few moments of Medeleine Albright's testimony, but reading Tom's take at undercaffeinated (he also live-blogged some of the testimony, just scroll up), it sounds like it was about what I expected - highly missable. Things are way too partisan these days for there to be much hope of anything useful coming out of such a commission - just legacy protection by former officials, ass protection by the current ones and crafted conclusions to be twisted by a partisan press. Besides, it's way too soon after the event to get out all the really secret intelligence information.

Telegraph | News | France accused of genocide by Rwanda's leader

(Also via Angry Left) IranMania News: Russia sticks to nuke cooperation with Iran

When asked what Russia would do if Iran did not continue to cooperate with the IAEA, Mr. Yakovenko shrugged and said, "Eh."

Via Angry Left there is video here of Syrian security and militia forces firing on Kurdish civilian marchers. It's actually pretty tough from the video to really make out what was going on, but considering the dearth of information and video that comes out of a totalitarian terror state like Syria (unlike open societies like, oh...I don't know...Israel, where there's a reporter on every block and if anyone comes down with so much as a hangnail it's on the 6:00 news worldwide) it is interesting, nonetheless.

Mansoor Ijaz has come out swinging against disgruntled former "White House terrorism czar" and book salesman, Richard Clarke. (via LGF)

NewsMax: Ijaz: Clarke Blocked bin Laden Extradition

I care little what guys like Richard Clarke say. Why? Because I can't trust it. All these so-called revelations so far, when looked at more closely, end up disolving into nothing - that, or they come off as just the rantings of people who, to their credit, took their jobs very seriously, and just can't handle the fact that they were not able to convince the rest of the bureacracy to take their point of view. So they quit with hard feelings, but rather than just fading into the twilight, or biding their time and waiting for circumstances to change and the opportunity for vindication, they look for the quick shot of vengeance. In our high-stakes world of politics, there are only too many opportunities for the disgruntled to cash in - whether it be in book deals today, or the hope for better position with a new administration tomorrow. Where in the past, people might have put propriety, a sense of honor and class ahead of gain, today the temptations are too great, and their are only too many people ready to whisper in your ear just what you want to hear, "You owe to the People to speak out. We need you to do the right thing..." Never mind that those voices have their own profit to be gained from this perfidy. Never mind that by these self-serving turncoats donig what they do, it makes it even more difficult for those in power to govern under already difficult circumstances. The ego of a guy like Clarke must know no bounds. He must not understand that, contrary to his own inflated sense of self-importance, no one in their right mind would ever trust such a person again.

Anyone who's ever been involved in an effort with more than one other person knows there's politics in everything, and that means compromise, and that means you may not always get everything you want. Sometimes you may even run afoul of the boss and end up on "the outs." That's true in everything from coaching a Little League team right on up to the White House. Richard Clarke's sour grapes are absolutely nothing unique, and you know what? He may be right, but we don't have enough information to know. And maybe the people he's stabbing in the back had information and plans that he himself wasn't aware of.

I'm not going to worry over-much about it in the mean-time. For now, I'm backing the people on who's shoulders the burdens fall, and that isn't Richard Clarke any more.

Update: Viking Pundit has several good links on Clarke, and Roger L. Simon says, "Books For Sale! Get Your Hot Books!"

Update2: Hat tip to mal for the pointer to this Mansoor Ijaz piece in NRO with seven questions Ijaz would like to see the 9/11 Commission ask Clarke...

Hat tip to mal for the pointer to yet another excellent Mark Steyn piece. This guy is one of the best writers out there.

Telegraph | Opinion | We tried appeasement once before...

Read it all, of course. It's good.

Side note: Light posting today, I think, that is, until I can find time for a power-nap. I did attend last night's Bat Ye'or talk and took copious notes. I will put a post together on the subject when I have a chance. I'll try to put it in a more readable form than my last couple of such "After Action Reports..." This is a message that needs amplification.

I've been updating my post below with more links to reaction from around the blogosphere to the Yassin termination.

Condoleezza Rice sets the record straight on some of the scandal-mongering that's been floating around of late. Read in full.

9/11: For The Record (washingtonpost.com)

Quick update on this for those who are curious. I did attend the film this morning, "The Silent Refugees," or "The Silent Exodus" as I wrote it down from the screen when viewing the film (still a bit of a work in progress, perhaps?). I took my dad with me, as I did when I went to see Dore Gold, only this time, the event actually happened. I'm not going to do an exhaustive post on this one like I have the last couple of events I attended as it is frankly a crap-load of work to take all those notes and transfer them to a blog post, and I'm not sure how interesting/useful people really find it. In this case, you can read-up on the Jewish refugees from Arab lands pretty easily (you can start here), and you can read Bat Ye'or's books and essays easily yourself. Start at her web site Dhimmitude.org.

Today's event was again sponsored by the Middle East Forum. The film was shown on a rented screen at the West Newton Cinema. Attendance was fairly good, although I couldn't give you a number. The movie was done by a French filmmaker named Pierre Rehov who was described as someone becoming so dismayed by the resurgence of antisemitism in France, he decided to do something to bring out the other side of the story. So, all is not lost in France these days.

His first effort is this film, "Les Refugees Du Silence." The film features lots of old film footage and interviews, including Bat Ye'or, and her husband, David Littman, who represents the NGO, World Union for Progressive Judaism, at the UN (A representative for a pro-Israel, pro-Jewish NGO at the UN? My hat is off to him.), both of whom were in attendance and took questions at the conclusion of the film.

The history is good, and the old film footage is interesting. The personal testimonials by those who themselves were refugees (Bat Ye'or is a refugee from Egypt) is powerful. Unlike Honest Reporting's film, Relentless, this film comes across as much more of a historical document, with its personal stories much more difficult to debate (which is not to say I didn't like Relentless, but see my entry on the subject for discussion of that issue).

Like Relentless, this is a film that needs to be shown to a wider audience, and unlike that other film it stands a far smaller risk of alienating the viewer. Hopefully someone will buy the rights to the film and allow it to be distributed widely. As Mr. Littman explained, the issue of the Jewish refugees is one that Israel and the world Jewish Community have failed to publicize. One reason is, of course, that Israel took in these refugess. It's part of the Israel success story, so there's never been a need to push it. Further, in the past, even Israel didn't want to make an issue of it, prefering more subtle tactics in the UN and hoping not to needlessly antagonize the large Arab/Muslim UN contingent - sounds strange, I know. But at this late date, as the issue of Palestinian refugees continues to drag on and on as a weapon to bludgeon Israel, the time seems ripe to push back. There seems to me to be no question at all that it is long past time to begin screaming about this issue. It is powerful stuff, and frankly extremely useful diplomatically.

It was noted that the film has been selected to be shown at a French film festival on human rights, as well as at the UN itself. All good news.

As I mentioned, Ye'or and Littman answered questions following the film. They are a physically incongruous pair. Ye'or is a dimminuative little lady - think Dr. Ruth with a different accent - and husband Littman is 6' 5" easy. They interrupt and coach each other regularly like old married couples do, and they patiently stood and answered questions until the time ran out at 11am.

Tommorow, Bat Ye'or will be speaking at Brandeis University. As with today, I do intend to be there. Here's the info for anyone else who may be interested:

See you there if you attend.

Long overdue news just in from CNN! No link yet. Stay tuned.

"-- Hamas spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin has been killed in an apparent Israeli attack on his car, Palestinian sources tell CNN."

Update: Yup, lots of links over at LGF (where else). Let me note for the uninitiated that this is an individual for whom one need have absolutely no sympathy, and that's all I'll say about that.

Charles: "I predict the mother of all car swarms." Heh.

Update: Powerline says "As a result of the operation Hamas now vows "to wage war, war, war on the sons of Zion." Before the attack did they only vow to wage "war, war" on the sons of Zionl?" and has some links.

Meryl also has some links and relatively restrained reaction, but that doesn't stop her from collecting song lyrics.

Tacitus: "In retaliation for Yassin's deserved end, they're going to move from an exterminationist war on Israel to....what? An exterminationist war on Israel?"

The Rottweiler: "Great! At least they struck before they could get into a car this time. Cars are expensive, you know."

Right Thinking: "Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated. Anwar Sadat was assassinated. That terrorist scumbag got blown up. Good riddance."

Belmont Club: "Fully knowing that it cannot strike with much effect at the IDF, Hamas may now be tempted to hit at Europe and through them to pressure Israel. Why not? It worked in Madrid..."

dejafoo here, here and here: "Oh, He Was In A Wheelchair - Oh, Our Bad"

Banagor: "Saruman in Hell"

Kathy Kinsley: "I'm sure that if there is a hell, it's gates were opened... to let "Sheik Ahmed Yassin" in..."

Israellycool: "Mood in Israel - We are in high spirits..."

Smooth Stone: "Hamas founder reaps what he sows. And this is a problem because?"

Jihad Watch: "They'll open the gates of hell? What have they been doing up to now?" Spencer has the transcript of a report from Austrialian media. And at Dhimmi Watch, Jack Straw outrageously condemns the killing.

Roger L. Simon: "Good Marksmanship!"

David Bernstein: "...Under Yassin's leadership, Hamas has been responsible for the murder of hundreds of Israelis, and the wounding and maiming of hundreds more..."

Lynn B.: "You'll find no tears or apologies for his passing here."

More at LGF: The morally confused BBC with Sheikh Yassin: Life in pictures. And the world reactions in condemnation of the killing. Reprehensible moral cowardice. Charles:

Exactly.

Allison says: ..."The overall support for the Yassin assasination, though not always enthusiastic, is nearly unanimous, notably among those centrists to center-lefties like myself, who would have opposed such a move vehemently until a very short time ago..."

Tom Paine says: "ULULULULULULULULULULULU!"

Michael J. Totten: "...Only the enemies of civilization will miss him..."

Mick Hartley: "...Justice may have been done, but I don't believe that this has made Israel safer. Nor has it made it any easier for those of us who support Israel to argue its case in future."

Oliver Kamm: "...Any responsible government has the right, indeed the duty, to protect its citizens rather than place its faith in agreements and negotiations that are manifestly not respected by its interlocutors..."

Interesting analysis of the French political character by Gabriel Gonzalez at Winds of Change. Worth a read.

Where have I heard that before? My take on the "big news" that yet another former administration official with a book to sell has realized he can cash in on the press's appetite for yellow: Isn't this just more of the same? Boring pseudo-revelations repackaged as this week's "new and improved." Anyway, looks like Steven Taylor has it pretty well covered here and here.

Thomas Oliphant has some advice to absolutely cement the image of Kerry as a guy who wants to have all sides of an issue covered - nominate a Republican as your running-mate.

American winner-take-all party politics just don't work the way Oliphant fantasizes. Both men would alienate their parties and earn nothing. If Kerry can't convince the electorate that he stands for anything, he won't be helped by choosing a Republican to run with him, short of the two splitting off and forming a third party on a new, clearly stated, set of political platforms, and Kerry, having already won his party's nomination has absolutely zero reason to do so.

Further, as has been shown time and again, Americans base their vote on the Presidential candidates, not their running-mates. That is at best frosting. If the cake tastes bad, it won't help one bit.

Boston.com / News / Boston Globe / Opinion / Op-ed / McCain should be on Kerry's mind

This Globe article following up on the current state of the new English-Immersion policy in Massachusetts schools almost blind-sided me with another argument by the foes of immersion - the parents aren't able to communicate with their kids as well, thus their authority is undermined, and they worry that their kids' language and culture will be diluted. Welcome to the club. If this is so, then it puts the lie to the idea that bi-lingual education was doing all it could to bring the kids along, or else this would have been of concern before - the kids just would have been growing more distant and assimilated more gradually. The concern of assimilation is the same for all immigrant groups since time immemorial, and it's simply not the government's place to be concerned about it. But further, I read another success here. In an effort to keep up with their kids, the parents are being forced to learn English at a new, rapid pace.

It's a double win.

Boston.com / News / Local / English immersion hits home

Ernie Pyle, the great WW2 correspondent, had a way, a certain way, of conveying the story of war. From his first-person view, often having put his own life on the line, he narrated a tale from the perspective of the individual soldier - no grand strategy here - and he pulled no punches. No, somehow he was able, even at a time in our history when the press wasn't allowed to show pictures of dead American soldiers, Pyle was able to convey all the suffering, the blood, the agony, and yes, the death and maiming that go along with the practice of warfare. Pyle didn't hesitate to tell the background story of some fellow, how he grew up, what a fine, well liked person he was, how he excelled in school and sports and was wed to his sweetheart before shipping out...and how he was killed on some nameless field in France, and how his buddies grieved at his loss. No, Pyle let us in on the story. He brought us along with the troops and let us share their triumphs while never forgetting to remind us of their sacrifice.

Yet somehow, Pyle was able, by doing so, not to call into question the cause in which the men and women fought, but to ennoble it. Pyle could write about a bunch of infantrymen living in a muddy foxhole for two weeks hoarding cigarettes and make it sound like the god-damned noblest sacrifice any person ever made for any other since a certain man from the Levant stumbled down a Jerusalem street to a hill just outside of town. His was not just a war of horror and sacrifice. His was a war of horror, sacrifice and purpose. "Look," he seemed to say to us, "look at what these people are doing for you. Look at what this dreadful and important task is requiring of them, so you better appreciate it, damn it."

Sure, Pyle would tell us about the screw-ups and the SNAFU's. He would write about the 8th Air Force accidentally bombing the stuffing out of our own guys in an early attempt to use strategic bombers in a tactical manner and having almost predictably bad results. Thing is, when Pyle wrote it, he didn't mean it as a condemnation of the Army, or a personal indictment of the leadership, or a call to an investigation or an underhanded way of asking, "Why are we fighting, let's bring the boys home." Yes, it was a screw-up, but he didn't dwell on it. He put it into its proper perspective, and by doing so, we appreciated our guys' sacrifice all the more. We had faith the Army learned its lessons, and we knew, we just knew, we'd do better next time.

In Pyle's world, his was not to reason the why's and wherefore's - those things were already decided. Who was he to question? No, Pyle's work was to help us understand, through the lens of the guy on the ground, just how important the job was by showing us just how much those guys were willing to sacrifice to do it. Get it? That's important right there. His writing showed us how tough our guys had it, and thereby challenged us once again to go up to the big picture level for another look-see at the importance of their Earth-transforming mission, and understand once again, if we needed any reminder, of "Why We Fight." It showed them to us, and demanded that we honor their sacrifice by asking ourselves what we've done to fight Fascism ourselves today.

How different today's press is.

Today's journalists tend to take a top-down approach. Every reporter thinks it's his or her own duty to make us question anew what it's all about. Only after they present this framework do they tell us about what our guys and gals are doing - how tough they have it, how much they're sacrificing. That's the framework. First the questioning, then the story of strife. They say they want us to support our troops, but the dissonance is strong. How can you support our guys, really, truly give them the moral support they need when you don't really support what they're doing? It shows through. You can feel it like a sickness creeping into even the best-intended articles.

No, the feeling we get is one of pity rather than exultation. It's cause to falter, to question, and to turn against the mission. For today's journalist, the troops aren't the story, they're the excuse. They're the wedge to make the point the author really wants to make. They may be the subjects of any given story, but for many of today's writers, they're just props for the real performance.

I admit to more than a bit of trepidation in writing a post like this. I know I risk being accused of all sorts of things - "keyboard bravery" and the like. The truth is that neither I, nor anyone close to me is in harm's way at the moment. I can only guess at what must go through the minds of those who serve and their families. My only answer is that if the paid press can write what they do for money, I can write what I do for free, and with the best of intentions for those who are serving - honest opinions, sincerely held. It seems to me, if I were to suffer some loss, at the very least I'd want to know it counted for something, and I don't think I'd be very appreciative of anyone who claimed to have my interests at heart while sticking a knife in the things I believe in.

It's been a year since the invasion of Iraq. It's been a year since our armed forces put it all on the line, left families at home, risked and sometimes lost life and limb overthrowing the regime of monster, and striking a blow at the heart of terrorism in the person of an Arab demagogue. Do the newspapers report on the great successes we've been experiencing? The mass graves? The close of the rape rooms? The torture chambers? The whisper of Democracy blowing through the Arab world? How the world has been changed and is changing for the better?

No. Today the press reports "Thousands rally against the war..." That is today's only context.

The Boston Globe's front page carries this headline:

Back home, wounded grappling with the price

Now it is right, and it is good, and it is wholly appropriate to report on the costs of this war. For a thousand reasons it's right. And it can be done in such a way, as Ernie Pyle's work attests, that it honors the sacrifice and doesn't endanger the memory of their deeds or their comrades' mission going forward. Context means so much.

And what is the context of what appears on the surface to be a sensitive piece on two damaged men and two damaged families? [I have clipped the names from the piece. For whatever reason, it just doesn't feel comfortable in this instance to use them for this post, nor is it necessary.]

and...

...and further down...

Just a few examples of the editorial voice of the narrator inserting itself to ensure we take the context correctly. On this day, a year and a day after the start of the invasion that these men gave so much for, this is what the Globe puts on the front page. Again, it's not wrong that these men have their story told. It's not wrong that it be on the front page, but must every article be so obsessed with "balance" that even a story like this be editorialized to put doubt in our minds? And should it be the only story on the front page today under the heading "A Year In Iraq?" I think not. It can be said to be an important part of that year certainly...without necessarily defining it.

Ernie Pyle had his own doubts on occasion. Here's a bit of a letter he wrote to his boss at Scripps-Howard over a year before the final period was put on his life:

Pyle had his own self-doubts and weaknesses, doubts and weaknesses he'd never inflict on, nor use our guys to express. Yes, WW2 was a different kind of a war, but it's still Americans and our friends fighting, dieing and being hurt. It's still Americans with a mission to accomplish who need us to be on their side and let them know we not only support them, but we support what they're doing and will continue to support them through to the end. We can do that and our press can help us to do so and still be honest about it all.

Ernie Pyle was killed in 1945 on a small South Pacific Island by a Japanese bullet.

He's still dead.

I am planning on attending the following event this Sunday:

The film sounds interesting, as does the panel to follow. It'll require a bit of an early rise on a Sunday morning, but if I manage to drag my behind out of bed I'll be there.

Here's another interesting event the next day, also featuring Bat Ye'or:

JPost: French FM: Iraq war led to a more dangerous world

Dear Mr. De Villepin,

It has come to our attention that you believe that Iraq is "one of the world's principal sources of world terrorism." Should you have some information that international terrorists are operating out of, or planning operations from somewhere in the territory of Iraq, would you please forward the proof of same to us so that we may take immediate and appropriate action?

Should you have no such proof, would you STFU s'il vous plait?

Domo,

L. Paul Bremer

Of course the French don't believe there were any international terrorists in Iraq before the war, after all, they were on the same side then.

(Via LGF)

Couple things from David Kaspar. First, Chancellor Schroeder has re-iterated his opposition to the idea of sending German troops to Iraq, calling it a choice representative of "responsible policy." How not doing everything possible to re-stabalize Iraq at this point can be anything but unprincipled is beyond me - unless the German government actually knows it's going to happen without them anyway. At this point in the game, such policies strike me as tantamount to cutting off one's nose to spite one's face, but such is life in today's Germany.

Herr Schroeder also believes that Germany...wait for it...is deservant of a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. Perhaps the UN does, in fact, deserve Germany, but why the United States would ever support the further erruption of the credibility of the UN as an organization is too bizarre to consider.

Links and comment at Davids Medienkritik.

Judith has a collection of pointers to various bloggers' reactions to the anniversary of the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom, as well as her own link-filled post.

Copied from the walls of Baghdad. Some of these are great. (Via Dean's World)

Dispatches From Iraq - The writing on Baghdad's walls—a riot of free speech. By Wendell Steavenson

I must admit to being perplexed when I read columns like Richard Cohen's Washington Post piece today, A Divider, Not a Uniter. This is something we've heard many a time over the past three years - that President Bush is divisive, that he's been particularly partisan and "extremist." All I can think of when I read or hear something like this is that the person in question is simply complaining that Bush isn't a Democrat, or a European, or an Atheist, or...you get the picture.

In today's political world, no, scratch that, in the political world generally, there's never been a way to avoid such a charge, and it usually says more about the person leveling it than the subject of the accusation. It's a childish, "You're not doing what I want so I'm going to stomp my feet until you give me what I want." Well give me a break.

We've just come off of eight years of the most divisive political environment in anyone's memory with a President that was impeached, lest we forget. It would be tough to top that era for vitriol and bile. But I'm not blaming Bill Clinton for that. Clinton often bent over backward trying to appease (there's that word again) his political rivals - to the point of backing off stands he should have stayed with - from abandoning nominees to dropping National Health Care to Don't Ask, Don't Tell. He backed down, sold-out his choices and compromised his beliefs to such a point that one might reasonably infer that he didn't have any core beliefs at all, much in the hope of appeasing the opposition. It didn't work. It just emboldened them further.

Ronald Reagan was loyal to a fault, standing by his people and his programs. Yes, it angered his opponents, but they respected him, he got things done, and history will judge him well for this. That's a component of good leadership - don't worry over-much about what the other guy thinks. If you know where you want to go, and you believe you can bring enough others along with you, then getting bothered over the whiners will just distract you from your goals. If you represent a new direction, and a change in the old ways, you should expect to attract some enemies.

George Bush is being paid to govern, and to lead. Being popular is a part of that, but it's not the only part. It may not even be the most important part until the election rolls around. Spend too much time worrying what other people think, and it's likely you won't do the right things that lead to real, lasting popularity and respect anyway. Then you don't have to worry about any more elections, anyway. Funny thing, that.

Cohen tells us most of what we need to know in his first paragraph:

That sounds like a respectable record to me. We can stop right there. Taxes, the military, missile defense, education standards...all things in the President's power to control, more-or-less. So why the failing grade?

Nonsense. First, let's get one thing straight. What other people think of him is probably the thing least within The President's power to control. No one can. By all accounts, President Bush is a personable, likeable fellow. It's not his fault he's not a Democrat - and have no doubt, becoming one is the only thing that would satisfy. Our system is such today that anything the President does, the Democrats will define themselves by being the opposite. Moments of cooperation are fleeting, as soon as there's a political buck to be made by taking the other side, there's where you'll find a talking head on the evening news with a [D] in front of their name. That's why they call it the "opposition" party. Hello? That's one of the reasons John Kerry looks like such a flip-flopper. He's more concerned with defining himself in contrast to President Bush and worrying over people liking him than he is in showing he has an idealogical core...and The People can smell it a mile away.

Don't be naive. Trying to out Democrat the Democrats gets you nothing. They still won't accept you because you're not one of them, and it just makes you look as though you have no principles and no program. If it's true that you don't then that's one thing, but if you throw out your core in the hope of making the other side like you, then what does that make you? Both an empty suit and a fool.

That's the domestic front. Cohen, a little further down:

To which I can only say, "Who cares?" Overstating? Only a little. Of course I want to be liked. Who wouldn't? And it would certainly make policy implementation easier, but at what cost and what policy? What would it take to make us popular outside the US? And is it George Bush's fault that we're not?

First of all, we never were popular in any of those places. One needs to have a memory bordering on the senile to believe that just a few years ago the United States was viewed by great majorities as a light unto nations. Get into a foreign policy discussion with any foreigner, and where do the complaints start? The laundry-list of supposed American perfidy goes back decades, sometimes centuries, to a period long before there was even a Bush I. No President could possibly overcome that, and no President should ever concern themselves with trying to do so.

Moving closer to our time, Bill Clinton, through no fault of his own, was President at a time when a great number of international problems could be deferred - when issues of Middle-East peace and stability and terrorism could be dabbled in while we still felt safe inside Fortress America. You may argue that he should have tackled them then, that had he been more agressive, and cared less what other people, including some foreign leaders thought, we might be having an easier time today, but be that as it may, George Bush came into office if anything promising to continue with more of the same.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the isolationist rally. International Terrorism, spawned by years of the soft hand in the Middle East came and smacked our country upside the head, and suddenly our leader's choices were narrowed.

Now, would you have our President worry over what the citizens in the "Arab World" thought of us? Maybe...but not overmuch. Seems to me we've done quite a lot of that and it hasn't done us all that much good. And that, and Cohen's article, begs the question, doesn't it? Just what is it that would make us popular, anyway? Give the terrorists what they want? Become a Muslim nation? Help the Arabs in performing a second Holocaust in Israel? Impoverish ourselves giving even more in tribute (foreign aid) to them, all without even the guarantee we would, in fact, achieve our goal of being "well liked"? Thank you, no. I'll take being unpopular over any of the above, and certainly over all of the above.

The Europeans have tried much of the above, and it doesn't appear to me that it's made the world a much safer place.

And what of Europe? Should we adopt their economic policies to be more liked in Paris? Would we trade our personal freedoms for theirs? Our methods of protecting ourselves? Our attitudes toward appeasement and standing by allies? Please say no, no, no and no. Yet those are just a few of the things it would take to be more liked on the Continent. I'll take a pass, thank you. It's The President's job to protect us from those things, to defend America and our traditional, and oh so succesful values from such corruption. Fail to do so, and then the terrorists will surely have won.

There's even more to it, though, I'll admit. Something personal to George Bush that makes this canard stick with so many. Cohen:

There it is! Bush's opponents, foreign and domestic, saw this inarticulate bumpkin, this rube, take office and they thought, "Well it could be worse, at least we'll be able to manipulate a naif like this." After all, even a brilliant man like Bill Clinton was like putty in the hands of his oppenents - he yearned to be liked, and that was his weakness.

But George Bush actually has a leader's core. He has a personal belief system and principles he's willing to fight for, and it's secondary to him whether that makes him popular or not. The gall! How dare he? It's particularly bothersome to the international prep-school set. He won't play the game. I think many of us have had this experience. We know what we want to accomplish, we understand the situation, what our goal is and what we need to do to get there, and when we won't just go along to get along, when we let it be known we have our own, better way, the knives come out in the dark. You have to have poise, self-assuredness and yes, a little arrogance to make it work, but when it does...look out. The success is sweet and new path is blazed. And the others? Those who hated you for your ability and lack of fear of rocking the boat? They're yesterday's news.

George Bush didn't start out as a trailblazer, but, as all good leaders must, he's so far rissen to the challenge.

Cohen understands, I think, how unfair the Bush hatred is. His conclusion:

You didn't say anything remarkable, Richard. You should therefore understand how irrational, at root, Bush-hatred is. He did do an admirable job post-9/11, and he continues to be admirable in many ways (and not in others - no one's perfect). He could not and would not make it last for several reasons. First, because the unity of our nation and the sympathy that America supposedly enjoyed from the world were, if they existed at all, paper thin - domestically for systemic reasons, abroad because that sympathy was never more than a phantom.

And second, because George Bush has things to do and places to lead us. That means it only matters what certain people think of us, not all the people. Sorry to say, but George Bush has a vision that those on the domestic Left simply won't like no matter what. There's a problem if he's too popular in a bi-partisan sense for reasons I've stated above (And NO, I do not believe George Bush is a rabid "right-winger." In fact, I find the idea laughable - as do real "rabid right-wingers.") Internationally, I do not expect European bureaucrats and their supporters, Arab Nationalists, Fascist/Communist governments or the citizens of societies spawned by such parents to find a strong American leader to be to their tastes. GOOD.

Leadership and good governance are not a popularity contest. Only a fool would believe that they were. They are not defined by popularity polls, as though leading a great nation could be distilled to factors of no more weight than a Junior HighSchool election for Class President., or that bringing such factors up has any meaning at all.

No, leadership and governance are defined, in great part, by results. Being no fool, I like the results so far. I'm willing to be patient for more.

Every time I hear a European leader talk like this I think, "Just image if George Bush said things like this." Can you imagine? Yet George Bush is supposed to be the one who's inept diplomacy alienates allies.

Spain's Next Prime Minister Says U.S. Should Dump Bush (washingtonpost.com)

Victor Davis Hanson gives a great interview to Jamie Glazov in this FrontPage interview.

Here are a few choice cuts:

(Hat tip to mal)

Hat tip to Mike for pointing to this web page. You can go there to listen to Brigitte Gabriel interviewed on Israel National Radio. Listen to this Lebanese Christian Arab's story of horror in the days when the PLO was terrorising Lebanon and why she came to love Israel and America. Hear her interview at the link below:

American Congress for Truth

That's what Australia's Foreign Minister said in response to the ravings from jailed (for the moment) Indonesian Muslim terrorist leader, Abu Bakar Bashir.

Bashir's warnings best ignored: Downer. 18/03/2004. ABC News Online (also here, at CNN)

Lynn B. is skeptical. In Context: Al Hafs' laugh and a half

Interesting.

A good analysis of the election from Allah. (Via In Context)

Hat tip to mal for a pointer to this article in the enemy press about the 101st Airborne in Iraq. Surprisingly balanced and positive, you'll understand why I call it the "enemy" press when you begin to read it. Thing is, more articles like this and they're going to have to start to seriously come to grips with their own cognitive dissonance on issues of right, wrong, good-guys and bad-guys.

Iraq: A Thousand and One Fronts - DER SPIEGEL - SPIEGEL ONLINE

Good article by Pejman Yousefzadeh on the fact that religion and intellection are not always at odds.

TCS: Tech Central Station - Bumper Sticker Moralities?

What's going on in Iran? The networks don't have good video to show, and are too worried about losing access in any case to be relied upon. Here's a little update from the folks at Blog-Iran

Zeyad at Healing Iraq says this NRO article from a few days back is a good article in what it says about Ali Sistani. That means it's worth a read.

Overplaying Sistani A Western media giant. By Abu Ayad

(Via Citizen Smash) Blogger Bob Zangas (along with Fern Holland and an unnamed Iraqi translator) were "killed" last week in Iraq. Here is the final entry on his weblog, and here is a page where you can pay respects.

The hot war is over, civil authority exists now. Their deaths were not an accident.

Isn't it about time we started calling this what it is..."murder?"

Update: Blogger Scott Elliott of 'Election Projection' lost both his parents yesterday. They were two of the four Christian Missionaries murdered while working on a water purification project in Iraq. (Via New England Republican)

From Cox & Forkum

Lest we forget. (Via Vodka Pundit):

New York Post Online: The French War for Oil by Kenneth R. Timmerman

Interesting story about an Ansar Al-Islam would-be suicide bomber and how he was recruited. (Hat Tip: mal) Sounds like any cult activity anywhere. I saw an interesting episode of National Geographic Explorer about the Kurdish region of Iraq where the reporter went into a jail and talked to a young suicide bomber who had gotten cold-feet. His story was a lot like this one. It may even have been the same guy.

When they brought his suicide vest into the room and had him try it on, he started giggling.

Odd moment.

Yahoo! News - Ansar Al-Islam Prisoner Shows Techniques

That's the sub-head on this CNN story:

CNN.com - Vindicated Blix returns to U.S. - Mar 16, 2004

OK, one more time. Hans Blix is not a hero. Even if the existence of WMD were the only reason for removing Saddam (they weren't), or even the only stated reason (they weren't), Blix and his job were a dead-end. What we have found in Iraq were large numbers of programs waiting to be re-started the moment the UN sanctions were lifted. Eventually, the sanctions were going to be lifted - sometime after Hans Blix certified Iraq WMD free...and left the country. Blix certainly wasn't going to stay forever, and Saddam certainly had no track record of cooperation with regard to international non-proliferation regimes.

With the inspectors gone and the sanctions down, it would be back to business as usual. The sheets come off the programs, the support for terror and suicide bombing goes back on line and the mass graves, torture and rape rooms get busy again. Hans Blix was just the tool through which an evil man could manipulate a corrupt organization (the UN) to enrich himself and stay in power. Now that doesn't make old Hans an intentionally bad man, but it's nothing to be proud of.

It's been a year since the death of erstwhile bulldozer wrangler, Rachel Corrie. OpinionJournal issues a thank you to her memory.

OpinionJournal - Tribute to Rachel Corrie: Thanks for showing us what "peace" really means. By Ruhama Shattan

If you want help getting inside the mind of the enemy, you certainly don't need to read Arabic, all you need to do is pick up a copy of The Independent and read Robert Fisk. Spot On (Via the Carnival) finds Fisk doing an admiring obituary on the old murderer, twisting his life and death to turn the old hijacker into a victim.

Spot On: "...Fisk sounds sad that the world never got to hear the other side of the story from this, clearly, great man. Read the whole thing, if for no other reason that to remember that wars have two sides. I want to be on the opposite one from Robert Fisk."

The Independent: The life and unexplained death of a Palestinian militant by Robert Fisk

(Hat tip: mal) Andrew Sullivan fisks the ever-execrable Guardian at TNR Online. When the next big terror attack hits the UK, large numbers of British citizens will know exactly who to blame - not the terrorists themselves, no, but the traditional scapegoats - the Jews, and the International Jew, the United States. All with the help of those great opinion-leaders - The Guardian and The Independent. Bet on it. The groundwork is laid, and like the pre-written obituary for an ageing celebrity, the boiler-plate is all in place.

Bet on it.

The New Republic Online: Moral Nihilism

The Carnival of the Vanities is up this week at Patterico's Pontifications. Not sure what The Carnival is? Go take a look. Lots of reading material over there. I have submitted my report on Robert Spencer's talk for further exposure.

This may be old news, but it's the first I'd heard about it, just now reading in the dead tree Jewish Advocate, (no web-link available):

That's the email reply one of the organizers of the Oxford University Jewish Society's Holocaust Memorial Day commemoration (January 27) got back from the Oxford Russian Society.

As I said, no link to the Advocate article, but here's an article about the incident in the Oxford Student.

There's a sort of strange legalistic twist to the story as to whether the guy who sent the email had the proper authority to do it, and, according to Josh Bellin, writing in The Advocate, the President of the Russian Society sent a "long letter of apology to the members of the Jewish Society," but that all seems somewhat beside the point.

I mean, some presumably intelligent Oxford student figures it's perfectly fine to send out a note saying, "Yeah, we'd come, but a lot of the guys don't like Jews, as I'm sure you can understand." Astounding. Honestly, if I received such an email I'd probably just sit at my computer staring at the screen with a blown gasket in my head.

Bellin concludes his article thus:

To which I would add, What the hell is going on out there?

That's the title of this item at CNN, but it seems a bit off. Here's the interesting lede:

No further detail provided. Not sure what "document" they're talking about. Could it be the book referred to in the previous item? Hardly "exclusive to CNN", though.

Update: Here's the more detailed story. Bombs 'to split Spain from allies'

Hat tip to mal for pointing to this analysis by Dr. Reuven Paz of PRISM, of the Jihadi group which may be responsible for the Spanish bombing. What jumped out at me (no quote as the link is in PDF format) was the fact that the group in question was certainly aware of and studying the Spanish political ground. This just reaffirms the idea that the terrorists know what they're doing - beyond just blowing things up, they have a plan. So far, they've gotten what they wanted.

(Via Volokh - also see the link for info on the Ashdod terror attack) Haaretz - Report: Talks aimed at ending riots in north Syria fail

Cutting commentary at dejafoo - UN Convenes To Condemn Mid East Massacre Of Stateless Minority, Finds Out It's Syria, Breaks For Long Lunch.

Just for the fun of it, I've added a scan of a couple of "pages" of my notes from the Robert Spencer talk (scroll down to the bottom). Wouldn't it be nice if the mainstream press gave us access to some of their raw data so that we can see how they come up with some of their stories? With internet archiving, it wouldn't be hard.

Ocean Guy is none-too-pleased with the Spanish election results.

Maariv International: 10 year-old Palestinian caught transporting bomb

Like drug-dealers who use children as runners, the Palestinian terrorists take advantage of the humanity of the Israelis (in contrast to their own inhumanity) to transport their deadly cargo. It's a win-win-win for the terrorists. They get the kids started early in the struggle, if the children are caught it makes the guards more careful and inconveniences more people, which makes the Israelis look worse ("They even stop and search children!") and if the children are hurt or killed, even more's the victory.

Victor Davis Hanson writes on his new blog about the Spanish election.

Blame Whom?

Update: Robert Spencer on the election:

Andrew Sullivan:

Lots going on in Iran, particularly in the north of the country. Things have been heating up. This thread has a collection of stories including pictures. Here, too. This has been posted around a few places, but it always deserves more exposure.

Via Jihad Watch comes a run-down of sermons from across the Middle East, including this portion of a sermon by Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who's statements the Islamic Society of Boston continues to use for fund-raising (in Arabic only, of course):

Reuters: Socialists Claim Victory in Spain Election

If the reason for this is as the press spins it, as the Spanish voters blaming their government for "provoking" al Qaeda, then it's a sad, sad day, indeed. This is a point scored for the bad guys. Allowing the successfull manipulation of a vote [the Conservatives were expected to win before the bombing.] by blowing people up just guarantees more of the same. The future does not look bright, but the fight continues.

Last Thursday evening I was fortunate enough to attend a talk given by Robert Spencer, author of several books on radical Islam, such as Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World's Fastest Growing Faith and Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West. He blogs regularly at his website Jihad Watch and is a frequent contributor to web sites such as FrontPageMag.com. Regular blog readers should be familiar with his work, and I have linked it here any number of times.

The evening was co-sponsored by the Middle East Forum with the specific topic for the talk billed as "How Radical Muslims Recruit."

The event was held at Temple Emanuel in Newton, Massachusetts - seemingly home to a large congregation as there was much going on in the Temple's various rooms on that Thursday night. I arrived a bit early to find a smallish room laid out with some refreshments. I forgot to count the attendance, but I'd just guess that by the time the talk started there were about 75 people there. The crowd tended strongly toward the higher end of the age range, and at 36, I think I may have been the second youngest person in the room. That's not exactly an encouraging sign for the future, particular when one thinks of all the young people out there receiving the radicals' message on the other side.

This is a fairly long piece, so please click on the link below (or the permalink) to read the entire thing.

Incredible synopsis at StrategyPage of the starvation in North Korea and how it's affected the population physically, and likely mentally. It's just amazing that things can get that bad without there being some sort of revolt. What a nightmare state. (Via One Hand Clapping)

North Koreas Army of Starved Soldiers

Krauthammer is excellent today in his Washington Post editorial fisking Le Monde editor Jean-Marie Colombani. Enjoy.

Tripe a la Mode (washingtonpost.com)

Derrick Z. Jackson has discovered that incumbents and the party in power (at present, the Republicans) tend to attract more donations than the other guys. While throwing this revelation at us, and trying desperately to get us to feel some sort of outrage over it, Jackson sneaks in the real point - the government needs to protect us from ourselves...and the depradations of hamburgers.

Boston.com / News / Boston Globe / Opinion / Op-ed / Trash food makers fatten GOP coffers

Welcomed by whom? I could stand to lose a few, but I'll take a few Big Mac ads over Derrick Jackson's nanny-state any day.

It takes a few moments to understand what H.D.S. Greenway considers "success" in this Boston Globe Op-Ed. He credits "the Administration" with some Foreign Policy successes, but then you realize he really means that anywhere that the "neo-cons" has kept hands off and allowed the State Department to handle things on its own, that's success. When problems are swept under the rug, enemies appeased, the headlines kept quiet, those are "successes." Attempts to tackle problems, deal with the most intractable leaders and situations - failures.

The item starts badly, with a run of dubious statements:

Boston.com / News / Boston Globe / Opinion / Op-ed / US policy successes in Asia

Let's see what Greenway counts as a success, so that we can get a sense of how seriously we should take his tally of failures:

So, rebuking Taiwan for "flirting with independence" in order to keep cozy with Red China is an item in the plus column for Greenway. Should it be? Regretably necessary realpolitik, maybe, but absolutely nothing to be proud of. Certainly not something you'd put in bold-face on a resume.

What's one of the big reasons for some of America's failures? Greenway asks and answers:

Solomonia readers know this, but I thought I'd point out that Cuba is in neither Europe nor the Middle East. Putting that aside, you see that our problem is that those two groups have constituencies who a) Understand the details of the various situations, b) Have desired and understandable, statable goals (They are, to use the terminology of Greenway's demonology, "ideologues." Which means in this case that they have principles and values - perish the thought.), and c) The focus they shine on their issues disallows the sweeping under the rug of their concerns. The light they shine prevents an administration from simply cozying up to the dictators and appeasing the demagogues. For those who are fans of State's approach, who prefer that issues be out of sight and out of mind, "uppity" interest groups are anathema.

Just got back from a talk given by Jihad Watch's Robert Spencer and sponsored by The Middle East Forum. I took some notes and will try to get some thoughts down in the next day or two when I have a chance. It was an interesting evening. Spencer certainly pulls no punches.

While much of the press is busy looking for mouthpieces to air their own views of certain campaign advertising, The Wall Street Journal has another in-depth investigative article on the disaster known as the UN Oil-for-Food program.

OpinionJournal - The Oil-for-Food Scandal - The program was corrupt. The U.N. owes the Iraqis--and Congress--an explanation.

Lawrence F. Kaplan reviews Tim Robbins' new play. It's a kabal-fest.

Tim Robbins' Devious Plot

Now, stop right there. You would think having to tone down the potentially antisemitic rhetoric of an essay you include for explanation of your message would send up warning signals to a self-professed humanitarian such as Robbins. I mean, by way of extreme example, if I found an essay by David Duke that I felt made some good sense, but needed to do some creative editing to make it more palatable for my audience, that might be a signal that it was time to do some serious self-examination. But, as we've seen over the past months, for some on the left, looking to either side to see who it is exactly that they've found themselves marching with has never exactly been a high priority.

The latest edition is up at Aaron's Rantblog. More self-pimping bloggage than you can shake a stick at on a variety of subjects. This week I submitted my reaction to the Bush ad kerfuffle. Notice me! Notice me!

Kevin, of Boots on the Ground is back home from Iraq. He's put up his final post trying to piece together some of his feelings. Go on and give it a read.

Welcome home, Kevin.

(Via Jihad Watch) The Boston Herald is back on the case, checking into some of the statements of the Islamic Society of Boston concerning the building of their new, large Mosque. After declaiming any current connection with radical cleric, Dr. Yusuf Abdullah al-Qaradawi, including on this web site, the Society appears to be attempting a bit of slight of hand, practicing the sadly familiar technique of "one thing in English, another in Arabic." In its promotional literature, according to the Herald, an endorsement appears from Mr. Qaradawi - in the Arabic, not the English version.

Things are looking up, that's what's happening. Via Norman Geras comes this report on how things have been changing for the better in Saddam's old town, with special note of the parts in bold.

Telegraph | News | Saddam's old neighbours want to forget the fighting and find a job

What's this? This Washington Post Editorial almost seems to be taking the side of the activist "neo-cons" in their efforts to democritize the Middle East against the sometimes wishes of our "friends" in Europe and our "allies" like Mubarak.

The Arab Backlash (washingtonpost.com)

OK Post, just remember, we'll be quoting you.

Not Waiting for Election, Putin Names New Cabinet (washingtonpost.com)

No tears over this one. I'll give CNN half credit (actually, the AP, from when the report comes) - they actually refer to Leon Klinghoffer as a "Jewish American" - most news reports I read tended to leave the "Jewish" part out, IIRC - but I wonder if they could do any more to make Abbas sound like a de-fanged pussy-cat. Wouldn't want anyone to think that Saddam had any doings with actual terrorists, after all.

CNN.com - Hijacker of Achille Lauro dead - Mar 9, 2004

I'll take the perspective of Klinghoffer's daughters over the AP's:

An interesting quick look at the people behind the Bush policies by way of review of a new book:

OpinionJournal - The War of Ideas - A look at the men and women who shape Bush's bold foreign policy

OpinionJournal tosses yet another log on the fire of the "outrage" agaainst President Bush's first campaign ad, tracking down the sources of funding and partisan nature of the attacks.

OpinionJournal - The Politics of 9/11 - The activists who claim to speak for the families are not exactly politically neutral.

Nawaf Obaid writes from Riyadh in today's Washington Post. His thesis? That Saudi Arabia, including its Royal Family, is ready for reform and that it is only the ruling Sunni Clerical elite who stand in the way. True? Don't know. Is this one of the reasons we get a lot of patience plead for from certain sectors of our own government with regard to Saudi reform? Eh. Maybe. Interesting read, nonetheless.

Clerical Hurdles To Saudi Reform (washingtonpost.com)

I link to Roger Simon's stuff quite a bit because it seems that he stares at a lot of the same stuff I do and has a lot of similar thoughts - that by way of excuse for linking yet another of Roger's pieces that hits the nail directly on the head for me yet again. This time, his thoughts on the "Foreign Policy" (such as it is) of Europe's choice for the American Presidency, John Kerry. Read the whole thing, but here's a snip:

Roger L. Simon: The Big Scorn

James Carroll compares George W. Bush to Otto von Bismarck today in a new take on the same-sex marriage as civil rights debate. Carroll credits Bismarck with inventing German antisemitism for political gain in the 1870's, calling the new trend a "surprising reversal" - never mind that it was nothing new, and barely a reversal, else what did Jews have to be "emancipated" from? Having stapled Bush to Bismarck's coat-tail, where does Bismarck's "Kulturkampf" lead us to? Why, the Final Solution, of course.

Look, I'm not thrilled about the prospect of a Constitutional Amendment against same-sex marriage, but I'll say this, I don't believe George Bush's position is pure politics. I at least think he believes as a core belief that there is value to the idea of the label "marriage" being applied only to male/female relationships. My question is, where is John Kerry's appearance in this column? Kerry, as I understand it, has a virtually identical position on same-sex marriage - he's against it, yet somehow, as per usual, the Democrat gets the pass. And something else: I don't believe he believes it. If you want to compare the two to figure out who's position represents a core belief, and who's taken a purely cynical stance for political expediency's sake I'll take George W. Bush for sincerity every time, and that means a lot to me and my vote this time out.

All of this is to say nothing of the over the top attempt to draw parallels between the position of American Homosexuals and their (correct) desire to have their relationships recognized as equivalent in all respects to traditional marriage and Jew Hatred in pre-Nazi Germany. Bush certainly did not create the idea in people's minds that "marriage" (per se) is for a male and a female, nor is he using overheated or hateful rhetoric to make his point and fan the flames, nor is it particularly hateful to take such a position in the first place. His position is reflective of the same one many people of conscience may take. One need not demonize them in order to disagree with them. One may feel either way on the issue, but both sides have, in their own way, a point. Labeling anyone who tries to defend traditional values against just any new idea to come down the pike - who'd like to see radical new changes in society vetted a bit before adopting them whole-hog - as demagoguing along the pathway to extermination is, shall we say, "less than helpful." But hey, never let it be said that James Carroll ever missed an opportunity to compare GWB to a German imperialist...

Boston.com / News / Boston Globe / Opinion / Op-ed / The risks of waging 'culture war'

And if there's one thing we can't have, it's leaders who actually advocate and are up front about what they consider "virtuous." Dangerous stuff, that.

Via Smooth Stone, I read with interest this JPost report on a visit of six African UN Ambassadors to Israel's Security Fence. Their reaction is telling, and they had some advice for Israel.

I'd hop on the popular bandwagon of blaming Israel's ability to get the message out, but that's not really how I view it. Perhaps I'm a pessimist, but to me it seems that Israel, while it could do better in getting its side of the story told, really just fights against enormous odds. The number of enemies arrayed against it, and the power they wield is formidable. Israel and its truly dedicated friends are relatively few, and concentrated (particularly in the US and Israel itself). They need a PR effort as effective and skilled as their vaunted military, and as everyone knows, hearts and minds are more difficult to capture than territory. My fear, though, is that they already have such a PR force...and this is the best they can do.

MEMRI publishes a translation of an interview with Iranian "radical reformist" leader, Reza Khatami. Yeah, he's a real radical, but of course there's one thing he agrees with everyone on:

Even the "radicals" find common ground with all the best people.

An interesting and hopeful project seeks to straddle the border between Israel and Jordan:

Israel21c: Replacing a border with a bridge

Now, call me a cynic, but I'm getting visions of scientists penning their names on their stuff in the common-room refrigerator, then some of the backers visit a few weeks later to find a line of orange duct-tape down the middle of the entire complex and the scientists complaining that "Hey, everything's fine, just so long as they understand that this is our side of the line, and that's theirs!" Hopefully Jordanian scientists will do better in keeping true to the spirit of science than Jordanian athletes did in keeping to the spirit of sport.

And this one is defending President Bush. Debra Burlingame, "a life-long Democrat," lost her brother, the pilot of AA flight 77 on September 11.

OpinionJournal - Our 9/11 - The attacks happened to us all.

Roger L. Simon has a couple of good posts this weekend. The first is on one of my favorite subjects, an example of the "hard news" press editorializing, and even novelizing, on the front page. In his post Guantanamera, Roger takes the Times to task for just such an article describing in sensationalistic terms the goings-on with Iraqi prisoners being held by American forces

The second, The As If Man, shows Roger has about the same viscerally negative reaction that I have to John Kerry's continuously opportunistic, self-serving statements, this time, predictably on the issue of Aristide's fall. Kerry gives one the impression of being a guy who'll say absolutely anything, not based on what he believes, but merely what he believes to be politically expedient at any particular moment - and that makes it very, very difficult to take him seriously.

Jerusalem Post : Egyptian Speaker snubs Knesset

Oh, so the guy is planning on being mummified and having his corpse shipped over sometime around the year 3000.

"I was going to bring along a number of important initiatives and cultural exchange proposals, but instead I think I'll see how far I can take a piss off the top of a pyramid," said the infuriated Israeli FM in a follow-up interview.

Anyway, apparently Srur slept on it and thought a bit better of at least some of the edge in his remarks...

JPost: Egyptian Speaker tones down rejection of Rivlin's invitation

Washington Post: Quick Change Suits Libyan Leader

Interesting article on the Libyan dictator's stroll down the path of reconciliation with the West. While Gaddafi is so far cooperating with disarmament procedures, and opening slowly to Western business...

...don't expect much political liberalization yet, though. Gaddafi remains the dictator ensconced in a sea of Leftism...

...which means that despite moves to do the right things to get closer to the West (good), it's likely his people will remain in poverty a bit longer.

Lee Harris steps back to appreciate the wonders of America's ability to avoid, in fact, never really come close to, military rule. It really is something for Americans to take pride in.

TCS: Tech Central Station - The Meaning of the Unipolar Moment

Follow this link to read excerpts from a good speech by Congressman Robert E. Andrews of New Jersey on regime change in Iran and issues of the War on Terror generally. It's a bit long, but the entire thing is worth checking out if you have the chance. (Via Blog Iran)

This Washington Post article calls for the commission on intelligence to study the use the information was put to:

Study of Rhetoric On Iraq Is Urged - Kay: Panel Should Check for Distortion

Why should a panel be appointed by a President to investigate whether that President and his administration "accurately portrayed the information"? Isn't that the very definition of a political question? And wouldn't that by definition lead to a panel who's conclusions are bound to be so bound up by politics as to be useless? How about just getting us what information is available and letting we, the people, figure things out for ourselves. Washington doesn't need yet another panel pinching out politicized conclusions.

Tony Blair gave a speech today reminding everyone of what's important and why.

CNN.com - Blair warns of WMD terror threat - Mar. 5, 2004

Gone are the days when "the enemy" built a battleship, so you built two and felt yourself safe. Gone are the days when a European army could be a million men strong, and we could feel content sitting on the opposite side of an impentrable wall known as the Atlantic Ocean and feel ourselves safe. In these days when unconventional weapons are obtainable by many, including independent operators with no Ambassadors, no capital city and no head of state with whom to negotiate or force capitulation, the old formulas simply do not apply - in spite of the Democratic Party's and other's attempts to get us to slumber anew. So thank you, Tony Blair, for once again firing another salvo in the good fight.

Oh, and the article also has some quotes from some guy named Blix, which are out of place in a supposed news article about a Tony Blair speech other than in his part as the voice of the narrator, in this case CNN, inserting their own editorializing as part of the story. Anyone who understands what really matters, understands that Blix's opinion doesn't.

Update: Here is the text of the speech in full (hat tip: mal)

Something Awful is on Mel Gibson's hit film with "Advertisements of the Christ ." Some of them are quite funny.

This OpinionJournal editorial pretty-well sums up my feelings on the media-manufactured "outrage" surrounding President Bush's campaign ad. I thought they were very good. It never occured to me that there could possibly be anything controversial about them. In fact, I thought, "Great, they certainly can't label these as negative campaigning, that's for sure." Well, "they" couldn't say the ads were negative, so they had to find something else to whine about - in this case, it happens to be a fleeting image of Ground Zero. The horror.

I hate to clue the Bush-haters in, but 9/11 was perhaps the defining moment of the Bush Presidency. It was the watershed moment in American politics that separated the early days of the Administration from the later period - a period that can only be understood in the context of that horrible day. For me, and people like me, George Bush's leadership response to that new reality was the final turn of the screw to make us respect the man. In my case, it made me a "Republican."

In those moments, many of us understood that we were at war. We understood that the chickens had, indeed, come home to roost, but that they were not the chickens of unjust foreign policy and our wickedness afflicted upon the world - no, these chickens were roosters crowing a wake-up call to a sleeping giant. We had deluded ourselves that we could turn the other cheek, go about business as usual, let half-measures be our policy, cooperate with people we knew didn't share our interests and hope that the world would recognize us for the good people we knew, with our oh-so healthy self-esteem, oursleves to be.

It didn't work out that way. That rooster crowed and we woke up, looked around and discovered that, despite our best intentions, we were a target, and a still-groggy one at that. We needed leaders who recognized the sunrise as we did, who could lead us, who could recognize the changing reality and chart a course through rough waters and make difficult decisions.

George Bush, that inarticulate guy who had given the impression that he was more of an isolationist than anything else, was that leader. He became it on 9/12.

It is, therefore, completely legitimate that images of 9/11 appear in the context of George Bush's re-election campaign. I cannot think of a more appropriate image.

It is unsurprising in this context, that the Democrats and anti-Bush forces would want to remove those images from our sight. For John Kerry's base, there is no war. It must be so, for without that absurd belief, the prattle that the invasion of Iraq was for oil would be dismissed out of hand. The idea that Haliburton ("Vice-President Cheney's former company" as the press enjoys reminding us) is the real driving force behind the War on Terror becomes a silly fantasy that gains no traction. The Patriot Act becomes the venom of a poisonous snake that was always poised to strike, rather than the bi-partisan attempt to correct problems in our laws that are, in fact, late in coming. Without the War, we become confused into thinnking that the prisoners at Guantanamo just happened to be school kids run-afoul of John Ashcroft, rather than disarmed soldiers of the enemy.

The Kerry base wants us, needs us, to go back to sleep. They cannot win otherwise. They have made the War on Terror (and yes, Iraq is a piece, a battle, in that greater war) their central, rallying issue. Even if Kerry himself understands the need to keep up the fight, to not doze off again, it speaks to no good for him. If that is so, then he is clearly [mis]leading a large number of people who just don't "get it," and he is absolutely in no way, unlike his defeated opponent Joe Lieberman, providing the leadership necessary to help them wake up. Further, he is encouraging a political wave of irresolution that would have us losing this battle. Shades of the war he fought decades ago.

It would require real leadership not to shift and slide on opportunistic political sands, leadership John Kerry cannot or will not provide. It stands in stark contrast to President Bush's ability to recognize a shifting reality and risk alienating his right-wing isolationist supporters while suffering the slings and arrows of opponents willing to stop at nothing for an extra electoral point or two.

So I say to President Bush, yes please, keep reminding us of the images some would like for us to forget, and never be afraid to speak out on your own behalf about your own strengths. 9/11 was your defining moment, and it is completely legitimate to remind us, tastefully, of the context of your leadership.

Keep it up.

Final side note: This so-called "outrage" is so much media-manufactured piffle. Most of the people being quoted in all of these media stories were already anti-Bush activists. See LGF posts here and here, as well as a good Power Line post here. Also see Power Line's post pointing to Hugh Hewitt's piece on the cognitive differences between the two Americas. This mini-"scandal" is one of the worst examples (that is, best example of bad behavior) of a media-created and guided story I've seen in some time.

I am quite convinced that should I reach retirement age, I will be forced to both continue working 'till I keel over, face-down in the fryalator, and subsist on dog food. That's the impression one could certainly come away with after reading this George Will op-ed on the future of Social Security.

Entitlement of Silence (washingtonpost.com)

Jerusalem Post Internet Edition: Muslim group opposes Arafat's burial on Mount

Cripes almighty. They better figure out where to bury the desicated old shit soon, or he may end up living forever just to spite us all. Maybe Mrs. Arafat can have him cremated and keep him on the mantel in her Paris apartment. I wonder if people would start seeing Arafish's image in glops of ice cream or reflected in plate-glass windows?

More neat high-tech toys. This is cool.

CNN.com - Troops get high-tech noisemaker - Mar. 3, 2004

They start running tomorrow. These are well done and positive. Thumbs up. Watch them for yourself here.

I haven't posted much on the Gay Marriage issue, mostly because I still have questions in my own mind on the issue, and I'm sympathetic in some ways to both sides. Basically, it seems to me right that couples who behave as married, and for all intents and purposes are, and therefore do, by their actions respect the institution of marriage ought to be recognized as such by the State. Why not bring them into the tent and have them conform to society's norms (in every way but the obvious), rather than leaving them outside to the chaos of developing their own ways and own society by chance - and thus risk the chance that it may develope in a direction that leaves it something incapable of getting in the tent door when we do decide to allow them in? This seems to me to have arguments in its favor that are good for the state and a stable society.

On the other hand, I am not willing to dismiss out of hand out of simple bigotry the concerns of those social conservatives who believe that we may be rushing too quickly and too completely down this path, nor am I completely comfortable with the way it is in large part occuring - by judicial fiat. Bad things can happen when social changes are mandated too quickly, completely and inorganically from on high. Christopher Hitchens finds a decent enough reason to support gay marriage - it'll bug the crap out of the fanatics.

OpinionJournal - The Married State - One good thing about gay nuptials: It'd drive the mullahs mad

Being on vacation, I missed much of The Passion bruhaha, but this US News article on the historical place of Jesus, and how that place has been interpreted through the ages and why is very worthwhile reading. (Hat Tip: mal)

U.S. News: How a Jewish reformer lost his Jewish identity(3/8/04)

...when plain old incompetence will do. The American Government is not omnipotent, as this article at The American Thinker, written by the former Chief of Staff in the Iraqi Ministry of Science and Technology describing his observations of David Kay's activities points up. (Hat Tip: mal) Kay's task was(is) huge, and never exactly done before.

The American Thinker: Case Not Closed: Iraq’s WMD Stockpiles

I think I need an insulin shot after reading all four pages of this shlocky Washington Post profile of former King Hussein import trophy-wife, Jordan's Queen Noor. After reading this, I'm quite convinced the woman may actually piss honey - with class, of course. What there is about we Americans that makes us gush so over foreign royalty I'll never know. I thought the whole idea of this project was to get beyond all that. Oh, and she's against landmines, too, btw. Well, nothing wrong with that.

If you made the same mistake of reading this gunk as I, may I recommend as an antidote this Dick Morris review of her memoir, Leap of Faith: Queen Noor's Anti-Semitism.

Fascinating Frontpage interview with former head of Communist Romania's espionage service, Ion Mihai Pacepa - how they taught Saddam and others to hide the WMD, how the Communists created Arafat and the resurgence of the KGB in Russia. Worth a look.

FrontPage magazine.com: From Russia With Terror By Jamie Glazov

Courtesy of Al-Qaeda, apparently. A sad day in Iraq, and the world gasps just a day after Iraqi leaders agree to a new, exciting, interim constitution.

124 Dead After Blasts on Iraqi Shi'ite Holy Day

It's so difficult for some journalists to deal with - "terrorist" and other terminology that risks carrying a judgement along with. After all, we must not judge. The Rantingprofs take on this piece in the Toronto Star that has the problem. They even provide us a handy and sensible definition:

"Terrorism is violence or the threat of violence against civilians (some prefer "non-combatants" and I can live with that) for political purposes by a sub-national group. Why do bright people have such a hard time with that?"

Read the rest as well. I think one of the (many) reasons reporters eschew this language is the old standby reason - sheer laziness. Taking a side means investigating an issue deeply enough to hold to it with moral fortitude and correctness when challenged - a difficult task under the best of circumstances in many of the contentious arenas reporters are required to engage themselves in. Far easier to stay on the outside, feign neutrality and then gain the satisfaction of victimhood and moral superiority when attacked by one side or the other when they, in fact, invariably get it wrong and, correctly, appear morally blind. Perhaps in some cases, they also simply allow themselves to be carried along by the prevailing sentiment in their milieus, which may go to explain why some reporters who have been on the scene for long years still wind up on the wrong side of an issue.

A few previous posts on the "T" word and press responsibility here, here, here and here.

Side note: Just getting back in the swing of things after my vacation. And now between getting into the busy season at work and deciding to get my business web site in shape, blogging will continue to be light, but hopefully regular. Thanks for bearing with me!

That's not something I would ordinarily say, not being a supporter of slavery reparations, but William Raspberry brings up an incident of far more recent vintage that I wasn't aware of that the tax payers of Virginia might consider.

Still Battling 'Massive Resistance' (washingtonpost.com)

It might sound funny, but $2 million on a state budget isn't exactly a huge bill.

This sounds promising. Yes, "Islam" will be a basis for Iraqi law, but not the basis, which sounds like a workable compromise. They'll have to decide how to determine such things, but with other provisions such as 25 percent of the seats in the provisional legislature set aside for women (is that a minimum?), there seems to be good indication that what's happening in Iraq still falls under the category of "exciting."

Iraqi Council Agrees on Terms of Interim Constitution (washingtonpost.com)