Sunday, April 29, 2007
Out of town. Again.
Just a quick note: the Conservative Article Annals will be on hiatus this week as I will be out of town and away from my computer. Updates will resume next Sunday.
Certified Madness
America might not have beaten the Japanese if Jack Murtha had been around.
By Bruce Berkowitz
Sunday, April 29, 2007 12:01 a.m.
One of the more interesting sections of the war funding bill Congress will soon send President Bush is its provision for "readiness." The bill prohibits spending funds "to deploy any unit of the Armed Forces to Iraq unless the chief of the military department concerned has certified in writing . . . that the unit is fully mission capable."
Rep. John Murtha (D., Pa.), chairman of the House subcommittee on defense appropriations, is mainly responsible for the clause. Mr. Murtha is a Marine Vietnam combat veteran and he's concerned that U.S. forces don't have all the resources they need to complete their missions.
U.S. Navy Ensign George Gay would have been bemused.
Ensign Gay became famous in World War II as the sole survivor of Torpedo Eight, a squadron flying off of the USS Hornet in the pivotal Battle of Midway. If ever there was a unit of the armed forces that wasn't "mission capable," it was Torpedo Eight.
In June 1942, the Navy's new torpedo bomber, the Grumman TBF Avenger, wasn't ready. So Ensign Gay and the other Americans had to fly old Douglas TBD Devastators, an aircraft that was inadequate for the task of taking on Japanese fighters.
A Devastator's top speed was about 200 mph. The Japanese interceptors--Zeros--could do around 350 mph. That's correct, the Japanese pilots had an advantage of about 150 miles per hour.
But Ensign Gay's bigger problem was training. "When we finally got up to the Battle of Midway it was the first time I had ever carried a torpedo on an aircraft," he later told a Navy interviewer, "and was the first time I had ever taken a torpedo off of a ship, had never even seen it done. None of the other ensigns in the squadron had either."
Ensign Gay and the others got the attack plan in "chalk talks" and then rehearsed the attack by walking through the steps on the flight deck.
Not a single TBD flying that day from the Hornet made it back. Ensign Gay was the only one of the 30 men in his squadron who survived the attack and he had to be fished from the sea a day after the battle. The TBDs from the other two American carriers suffered similar losses.
But by drawing the Zeros to themselves, the slow, low-flying Devastators gave U.S. dive bombers a clear shot to strike from above. The dive bombers sank three of the four Japanese carriers, a loss that decided the outcome of a battle that proved to be turning point in the war in the Pacific.
Which gets us back to Mr. Murtha's readiness provision.
Lt. Gay (he was promoted) later briefed the events to a Navy interviewer. He described the situation, succinctly, as "a difficult problem."
"We had old planes and we were new," the pilot recalled. "We had a dual job of not only training a squadron of boot Ensigns," he said, "we also had to fight the war at the same time."
In fact, training and fighting became one and the same. Ensign Gay's squadron leader told him and the others to follow him to the target, and then they figured out a way to get through the flack when they got there.
Ensign Gay and the other pilots knew they were ill-equipped and under-trained. But they flew the mission anyway because they also knew that something larger was at stake--like losing the war if they waited until someone was willing to "certify in writing" that they met official readiness standards.
It's unfortunate, and often tragic, but that's what happens in war, or at least one that you are serious about. And that's the issue. Are we serious about the war? Can anyone imagine Congress in 1942 passing a provision like the one in the current bill? Would they constrain Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower the way they propose to constrain Gen. David H. Petraeus?
Mr. Murtha has good intentions, but he's got it exactly wrong. If U.S. forces lack the equipment or training they need, it's his job, as the chairman of the one subcommittee specifically responsible for originating defense appropriations, to make sure they get it.
If legislators really don't believe we should continue in Iraq, they need to come clean, shut down the war--and accept the risks, and take responsibility for the consequences. Otherwise, they need to provide U.S. forces the means to carry out their missions.
By Bruce Berkowitz
Sunday, April 29, 2007 12:01 a.m.
One of the more interesting sections of the war funding bill Congress will soon send President Bush is its provision for "readiness." The bill prohibits spending funds "to deploy any unit of the Armed Forces to Iraq unless the chief of the military department concerned has certified in writing . . . that the unit is fully mission capable."
Rep. John Murtha (D., Pa.), chairman of the House subcommittee on defense appropriations, is mainly responsible for the clause. Mr. Murtha is a Marine Vietnam combat veteran and he's concerned that U.S. forces don't have all the resources they need to complete their missions.
U.S. Navy Ensign George Gay would have been bemused.
Ensign Gay became famous in World War II as the sole survivor of Torpedo Eight, a squadron flying off of the USS Hornet in the pivotal Battle of Midway. If ever there was a unit of the armed forces that wasn't "mission capable," it was Torpedo Eight.
In June 1942, the Navy's new torpedo bomber, the Grumman TBF Avenger, wasn't ready. So Ensign Gay and the other Americans had to fly old Douglas TBD Devastators, an aircraft that was inadequate for the task of taking on Japanese fighters.
A Devastator's top speed was about 200 mph. The Japanese interceptors--Zeros--could do around 350 mph. That's correct, the Japanese pilots had an advantage of about 150 miles per hour.
But Ensign Gay's bigger problem was training. "When we finally got up to the Battle of Midway it was the first time I had ever carried a torpedo on an aircraft," he later told a Navy interviewer, "and was the first time I had ever taken a torpedo off of a ship, had never even seen it done. None of the other ensigns in the squadron had either."
Ensign Gay and the others got the attack plan in "chalk talks" and then rehearsed the attack by walking through the steps on the flight deck.
Not a single TBD flying that day from the Hornet made it back. Ensign Gay was the only one of the 30 men in his squadron who survived the attack and he had to be fished from the sea a day after the battle. The TBDs from the other two American carriers suffered similar losses.
But by drawing the Zeros to themselves, the slow, low-flying Devastators gave U.S. dive bombers a clear shot to strike from above. The dive bombers sank three of the four Japanese carriers, a loss that decided the outcome of a battle that proved to be turning point in the war in the Pacific.
Which gets us back to Mr. Murtha's readiness provision.
Lt. Gay (he was promoted) later briefed the events to a Navy interviewer. He described the situation, succinctly, as "a difficult problem."
"We had old planes and we were new," the pilot recalled. "We had a dual job of not only training a squadron of boot Ensigns," he said, "we also had to fight the war at the same time."
In fact, training and fighting became one and the same. Ensign Gay's squadron leader told him and the others to follow him to the target, and then they figured out a way to get through the flack when they got there.
Ensign Gay and the other pilots knew they were ill-equipped and under-trained. But they flew the mission anyway because they also knew that something larger was at stake--like losing the war if they waited until someone was willing to "certify in writing" that they met official readiness standards.
It's unfortunate, and often tragic, but that's what happens in war, or at least one that you are serious about. And that's the issue. Are we serious about the war? Can anyone imagine Congress in 1942 passing a provision like the one in the current bill? Would they constrain Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower the way they propose to constrain Gen. David H. Petraeus?
Mr. Murtha has good intentions, but he's got it exactly wrong. If U.S. forces lack the equipment or training they need, it's his job, as the chairman of the one subcommittee specifically responsible for originating defense appropriations, to make sure they get it.
If legislators really don't believe we should continue in Iraq, they need to come clean, shut down the war--and accept the risks, and take responsibility for the consequences. Otherwise, they need to provide U.S. forces the means to carry out their missions.
The Truth About the Pay Gap
By Steve Chapman
Sunday, April 29, 2007
New Year's Day is called that because it begins a new year, and Thanksgiving has that name because it's an occasion for expressing gratitude. But Equal Pay Day, observed this year on April 24, is named for something that, we are told, doesn't exist -- equal pay for men and women.
The National Committee on Pay Equity used the occasion to announce that among full-time workers, women make only 77 cents for every dollar paid to men. The three leading Democratic presidential candidates have all endorsed legislation to fix the problem.
And the effort got new fuel from a report by the American Association of University Women (AAUW) Educational Foundation, which says women are paid less starting with their first jobs out of college, and that the deficit only grows with time. Pay discrimination, says AAUW, is still "a serious problem for women in the work force."
In reality, that's not clear at all. What we know from an array of evidence, including this report, is that most if not all of the discrepancy can be traced to factors other than sexism. When it comes to pay equity, we really have come a long way.
On its face, the evidence in the AAUW study looks damning. "One year out of college," it says, "women working full-time earn only 80 percent as much as their male colleagues earn. Ten years after graduation, women fall farther behind, earning only 69 percent as much as men earn."
But read more, and you learn things that don't get much notice on Equal Pay Day. As the report acknowledges, women with college degrees tend to go into fields like education, psychology and the humanities, which typically pay less than the sectors preferred by men, such as engineering, math and business. They are also more likely than men to work for nonprofit groups and local governments, which do not offer salaries that Alex Rodriguez would envy.
As they get older, many women elect to work less so they can spend time with their children. A decade after graduation, 39 percent of women are out of the work force or working part time -- compared with only 3 percent of men. When these mothers return to full-time jobs, they naturally earn less than they would have if they had never left.
Even before they have kids, men and women often do different things that may affect earnings. A year out of college, notes AAUW, women in full-time jobs work an average of 42 hours a week, compared to 45 for men. Men are also far more likely to work more than 50 hours a week.
Buried in the report is a startling admission: "After accounting for all factors known to affect wages, about one-quarter of the gap remains unexplained and may be attributed to discrimination" (my emphasis). Another way to put it is that three-quarters of the gap clearly has innocent causes -- and that we actually don't know whether discrimination accounts for the rest.
I asked Harvard economist Claudia Goldin if there is sufficient evidence to conclude that women experience systematic pay discrimination. "No," she replied. There are certainly instances of discrimination, she says, but most of the gap is the result of different choices. Other hard-to-measure factors, Goldin thinks, largely account for the remaining gap -- "probably not all, but most of it."
The divergent career paths of men and women may reflect a basic unfairness in what's expected of them. It could be that a lot of mothers, if they had their way, would rather pursue careers but have to stay home with the kids because their husbands insist. Or it may be that for one reason or another, many mothers prefer to take on the lion's share of child-rearing. In any case, the pay disparity caused by these choices can't be blamed on piggish employers.
June O'Neill, an economist at Baruch College and former director of the Congressional Budget Office, has uncovered something that debunks the discrimination thesis. Take out the effects of marriage and child-rearing, and the difference between the genders suddenly vanishes. "For men and women who never marry and never have children, there is no earnings gap," she said in an interview.
That's a fact you won't hear from AAUW or the Democratic presidential candidates. The prevailing impulse on Equal Pay Day was to lament how far we are from the goal. The true revelation, though, is how close.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
New Year's Day is called that because it begins a new year, and Thanksgiving has that name because it's an occasion for expressing gratitude. But Equal Pay Day, observed this year on April 24, is named for something that, we are told, doesn't exist -- equal pay for men and women.
The National Committee on Pay Equity used the occasion to announce that among full-time workers, women make only 77 cents for every dollar paid to men. The three leading Democratic presidential candidates have all endorsed legislation to fix the problem.
And the effort got new fuel from a report by the American Association of University Women (AAUW) Educational Foundation, which says women are paid less starting with their first jobs out of college, and that the deficit only grows with time. Pay discrimination, says AAUW, is still "a serious problem for women in the work force."
In reality, that's not clear at all. What we know from an array of evidence, including this report, is that most if not all of the discrepancy can be traced to factors other than sexism. When it comes to pay equity, we really have come a long way.
On its face, the evidence in the AAUW study looks damning. "One year out of college," it says, "women working full-time earn only 80 percent as much as their male colleagues earn. Ten years after graduation, women fall farther behind, earning only 69 percent as much as men earn."
But read more, and you learn things that don't get much notice on Equal Pay Day. As the report acknowledges, women with college degrees tend to go into fields like education, psychology and the humanities, which typically pay less than the sectors preferred by men, such as engineering, math and business. They are also more likely than men to work for nonprofit groups and local governments, which do not offer salaries that Alex Rodriguez would envy.
As they get older, many women elect to work less so they can spend time with their children. A decade after graduation, 39 percent of women are out of the work force or working part time -- compared with only 3 percent of men. When these mothers return to full-time jobs, they naturally earn less than they would have if they had never left.
Even before they have kids, men and women often do different things that may affect earnings. A year out of college, notes AAUW, women in full-time jobs work an average of 42 hours a week, compared to 45 for men. Men are also far more likely to work more than 50 hours a week.
Buried in the report is a startling admission: "After accounting for all factors known to affect wages, about one-quarter of the gap remains unexplained and may be attributed to discrimination" (my emphasis). Another way to put it is that three-quarters of the gap clearly has innocent causes -- and that we actually don't know whether discrimination accounts for the rest.
I asked Harvard economist Claudia Goldin if there is sufficient evidence to conclude that women experience systematic pay discrimination. "No," she replied. There are certainly instances of discrimination, she says, but most of the gap is the result of different choices. Other hard-to-measure factors, Goldin thinks, largely account for the remaining gap -- "probably not all, but most of it."
The divergent career paths of men and women may reflect a basic unfairness in what's expected of them. It could be that a lot of mothers, if they had their way, would rather pursue careers but have to stay home with the kids because their husbands insist. Or it may be that for one reason or another, many mothers prefer to take on the lion's share of child-rearing. In any case, the pay disparity caused by these choices can't be blamed on piggish employers.
June O'Neill, an economist at Baruch College and former director of the Congressional Budget Office, has uncovered something that debunks the discrimination thesis. Take out the effects of marriage and child-rearing, and the difference between the genders suddenly vanishes. "For men and women who never marry and never have children, there is no earnings gap," she said in an interview.
That's a fact you won't hear from AAUW or the Democratic presidential candidates. The prevailing impulse on Equal Pay Day was to lament how far we are from the goal. The true revelation, though, is how close.
Neverland
By Debra J. Saunders
Sunday, April 29, 2007
The smartest woman in America, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., declared that she was wrong to believe "the president when he said he would go to the United Nations and put inspectors into Iraq to determine whether they had WMD." That's odd because the congressional resolution for which she voted in October 2002 didn't promise to send inspectors to Iraq. A small hint that the resolution was not about inspections can be found in its title, "Joint Resolution for the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq."
Also during Thursday night's MSNBC Democratic presidential primary debate, former Sen. John Edwards said: "I was wrong to vote for this war. Unfortunately, I will have to live with that forever. And the lesson I learned from it is to put more faith in my own judgment."
Does that make any sense?
As the Senate voted 51-46 for a measure to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq no later than Oct. 1, an air of unreality permeated the debate. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson both pledged to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq -- the Senate measure would allow some U.S. troops to remain to pursue terrorist organizations and train and equip Iraqi security forces -- and then touted their plans to call on the international community to place international peacekeeping forces in Iraq.
Fascinating, but I have to wonder: After a U.S. pullout, which country would provide those fine international peacekeeping troops? France? The next time that Democrats debate, here are two questions I would like to hear: One, what will happen in Iraq if Congress wins its troop-withdrawal timetable? Two, will remaining U.S. troops be more or less secure? Not that I'd expect an honest answer.
Indeed, it ought to concern the voting public that the Democrats apparently don't have enough confidence in their stand on Iraq to speak plainly about it.
In a recent interview on CNN before the debate, Senate Majority Leader Harry ("the war is lost") Reid of Nevada, insisted, "I agree with Gen. (David) Petraeus," the U.S. commander in Iraq -- about the fact that the Iraq war must be won politically. And, "He's the man on the ground there now."
Reid not only misrepresented Petraeus' position -- Petraeus believes the war must be won politically, but that can't happen until Iraqis feel secure, hence the need for a surge in U.S. troop strength in Iraq -- but also, Reid then declared that he doesn't "believe" Petraeus when the commander says he sees progress in Iraq.
If there is any good news coming out of Iraq, clearly Reid does not want to hear it. What is more, as the antiwar base pushes D.C. Democrats to de-fund the war, the day may come when they get what they want -- a precipitous withdrawal of U.S. troops.
Then what? On Thursday, two CNN correspondents just back from Iraq -- Kyra Phillips and Michael Ware -- were asked if it would help the situation in Iraq to withdraw U.S. troops.
Phillips responded: "There is no way U.S. troops could pull out. It would be a disaster."
Ware answered, "If you just want to look at it in terms of purely American national interest, if U.S. troops leave now, you're giving Iraq to Iran, a member of President Bush's axis of evil, and al-Qaida. That's who will own it. And so, coming back now, I'm struck by the nature of the debate on Capitol Hill, (by) how delusional it is. Whether you are for this war or against it, whether you've supported the way it's been executed or not, it does not matter. You broke it -- you've got to fix it now. You can't leave, or it's going to come and blow back on America."
Ware made news himself when he dismissed GOP Sen. John McCain's assertion that Westerners can walk through some Baghdad neighborhoods unarmed -- Ware wondered if McCain was in "Neverland." McCain later took back those words.
Meanwhile, Ware's claim that Congress is "delusional" likely will garner scant attention.
If the Democrats prevail, more than 3,300 U.S. troops will have died for a war that al-Qaida in Iraq could claim to have won. Many more Iraqi civilians will die, while survivors will be doomed to living with dread and chaos.
And all the Democrats can say is: Time to get out because Bush made me do it.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
The smartest woman in America, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., declared that she was wrong to believe "the president when he said he would go to the United Nations and put inspectors into Iraq to determine whether they had WMD." That's odd because the congressional resolution for which she voted in October 2002 didn't promise to send inspectors to Iraq. A small hint that the resolution was not about inspections can be found in its title, "Joint Resolution for the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq."
Also during Thursday night's MSNBC Democratic presidential primary debate, former Sen. John Edwards said: "I was wrong to vote for this war. Unfortunately, I will have to live with that forever. And the lesson I learned from it is to put more faith in my own judgment."
Does that make any sense?
As the Senate voted 51-46 for a measure to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq no later than Oct. 1, an air of unreality permeated the debate. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson both pledged to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq -- the Senate measure would allow some U.S. troops to remain to pursue terrorist organizations and train and equip Iraqi security forces -- and then touted their plans to call on the international community to place international peacekeeping forces in Iraq.
Fascinating, but I have to wonder: After a U.S. pullout, which country would provide those fine international peacekeeping troops? France? The next time that Democrats debate, here are two questions I would like to hear: One, what will happen in Iraq if Congress wins its troop-withdrawal timetable? Two, will remaining U.S. troops be more or less secure? Not that I'd expect an honest answer.
Indeed, it ought to concern the voting public that the Democrats apparently don't have enough confidence in their stand on Iraq to speak plainly about it.
In a recent interview on CNN before the debate, Senate Majority Leader Harry ("the war is lost") Reid of Nevada, insisted, "I agree with Gen. (David) Petraeus," the U.S. commander in Iraq -- about the fact that the Iraq war must be won politically. And, "He's the man on the ground there now."
Reid not only misrepresented Petraeus' position -- Petraeus believes the war must be won politically, but that can't happen until Iraqis feel secure, hence the need for a surge in U.S. troop strength in Iraq -- but also, Reid then declared that he doesn't "believe" Petraeus when the commander says he sees progress in Iraq.
If there is any good news coming out of Iraq, clearly Reid does not want to hear it. What is more, as the antiwar base pushes D.C. Democrats to de-fund the war, the day may come when they get what they want -- a precipitous withdrawal of U.S. troops.
Then what? On Thursday, two CNN correspondents just back from Iraq -- Kyra Phillips and Michael Ware -- were asked if it would help the situation in Iraq to withdraw U.S. troops.
Phillips responded: "There is no way U.S. troops could pull out. It would be a disaster."
Ware answered, "If you just want to look at it in terms of purely American national interest, if U.S. troops leave now, you're giving Iraq to Iran, a member of President Bush's axis of evil, and al-Qaida. That's who will own it. And so, coming back now, I'm struck by the nature of the debate on Capitol Hill, (by) how delusional it is. Whether you are for this war or against it, whether you've supported the way it's been executed or not, it does not matter. You broke it -- you've got to fix it now. You can't leave, or it's going to come and blow back on America."
Ware made news himself when he dismissed GOP Sen. John McCain's assertion that Westerners can walk through some Baghdad neighborhoods unarmed -- Ware wondered if McCain was in "Neverland." McCain later took back those words.
Meanwhile, Ware's claim that Congress is "delusional" likely will garner scant attention.
If the Democrats prevail, more than 3,300 U.S. troops will have died for a war that al-Qaida in Iraq could claim to have won. Many more Iraqi civilians will die, while survivors will be doomed to living with dread and chaos.
And all the Democrats can say is: Time to get out because Bush made me do it.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Al-Qaida Is the Problem in Iraq
By Lawrence Kudlow
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Our last, best hope in Iraq -- Gen. David Petraeus -- reminded Pentagon reporters this week of a critically important fact long forgotten by most observers: Our real enemy in Iraq, the true source of all the murders, mayhem, and instability, is not sectarian strife. And it's not the Sunnis or the Shiites, either. The real enemy we face in Iraq is al-Qaida.
According to the top American commander in Iraq, al-Qaida's No. 1 priority is defeating the United States in Iraq. The general called this organization "public enemy No. 1," adding that "Iraq is, in fact, the central front of al-Qaida's global campaign."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid doesn't understand this. Nor, for that matter, do the other defeatist Democrats carelessly demanding our immediate withdrawal. They fail to grasp that the root of our problems in Iraq -- again, the true source of the hostilities -- remains al-Qaida. These murderous thugs are fomenting the sectarian strife on both sides of the Iraqi street. Their tactic is the nadir of nihilism.
In contrast to the blind Harry Reid contingent, I'd like to highlight one remarkably clear thinker who does get what's going on in this war -- someone who recognizes the true enemy and is able to articulate his position in breathtaking clarity. I'm talking about Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. Frankly, no public official understands what's at play better than Lieberman. He set forth his lucid position in Thursday's Washington Post and brought it alive when I interviewed him on "Kudlow & Company" later that day.
Lieberman forcefully stated that "al-Qaida, after all, isn't carrying out mass murder against civilians in the streets of Baghdad because it wants a more equitable distribution of oil revenue. Its aim in Iraq isn't to get a seat at the political table; it wants to blow up the table -- along with everyone seated at it."
To miss this point is to miss the crux of this conflict. There can be no doubt about the central role being played by al-Qaida in this war. Its domination of the Iraqi theatre is unmistakable. It is the hinge of this war. And, lest we forget, these are the same murderers who bombed us on Sept. 11, 2001. They are terrorists who have made crystal clear their intention to subvert us at every turn. And make no mistake about it -- they are regrouping in order to strike us again.
This is why the stakes are so high and why we must not interrupt the surge. This is why there can never be a so-called "political settlement" unless and until the United States can militarily cripple al-Qaida in Iraq. Only then can a political settlement be reached, one that can provide for a healthy representative government, oil sharing, proportional staffing in ministries and on down the line.
Without question, it is a near certainty that Iran and Syria are helping al-Qaida with money, arms and explosives. And, yes, if we leave now, al-Qaida will have an open field in which to expand its operations and prepare for the ultimate attack on the United States. In fact, the Defense Department and the CIA just nabbed a high-ranking al-Qaida operative known as al-Iraqi. He was a key link between the Taliban in Afghanistan, al-Qaida in Iraq and al-Qaida members in Iran. And while it's great news we got him, he's one more reminder that this network is strong and playing for keeps.
Another reality, too often overlooked, is that the United States successfully removed Saddam Hussein from the world scene. We ended a ruthless, tyrannical dictatorship. We fostered three heavily participated elections in Iraq and helped establish a new democratic government in the center of the Middle East.
These are important accomplishments. Yet the stated goal of al-Qaida is to sabotage all of this. Its aim is to prevent representative government in the region, since its twisted totalitarian ideology opposes such developed-world things.
The Harry Reids in Washington don't get it. They fail to see the terrorist fingerprints. But when you look at Iraq through the Lieberman lens, the dust settles. The task before us becomes clearer. Why are we in Iraq? We are fighting al-Qaida. Period.
A final question for Reid: If, as he says, we have "lost" the Iraq war, who exactly has won? Who is the winner, Sen. Reid? Who would you like the United States to surrender to?
It's not the Sunnis. It's not the Baathists. It's not the Shiites. And it's certainly not Prime Minister Maliki. In conventional warfare terms, Harry Reid is suggesting we surrender to al-Qaida.
Does the majority leader of the U.S. Senate understand his own unthinkable conclusion?
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Our last, best hope in Iraq -- Gen. David Petraeus -- reminded Pentagon reporters this week of a critically important fact long forgotten by most observers: Our real enemy in Iraq, the true source of all the murders, mayhem, and instability, is not sectarian strife. And it's not the Sunnis or the Shiites, either. The real enemy we face in Iraq is al-Qaida.
According to the top American commander in Iraq, al-Qaida's No. 1 priority is defeating the United States in Iraq. The general called this organization "public enemy No. 1," adding that "Iraq is, in fact, the central front of al-Qaida's global campaign."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid doesn't understand this. Nor, for that matter, do the other defeatist Democrats carelessly demanding our immediate withdrawal. They fail to grasp that the root of our problems in Iraq -- again, the true source of the hostilities -- remains al-Qaida. These murderous thugs are fomenting the sectarian strife on both sides of the Iraqi street. Their tactic is the nadir of nihilism.
In contrast to the blind Harry Reid contingent, I'd like to highlight one remarkably clear thinker who does get what's going on in this war -- someone who recognizes the true enemy and is able to articulate his position in breathtaking clarity. I'm talking about Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. Frankly, no public official understands what's at play better than Lieberman. He set forth his lucid position in Thursday's Washington Post and brought it alive when I interviewed him on "Kudlow & Company" later that day.
Lieberman forcefully stated that "al-Qaida, after all, isn't carrying out mass murder against civilians in the streets of Baghdad because it wants a more equitable distribution of oil revenue. Its aim in Iraq isn't to get a seat at the political table; it wants to blow up the table -- along with everyone seated at it."
To miss this point is to miss the crux of this conflict. There can be no doubt about the central role being played by al-Qaida in this war. Its domination of the Iraqi theatre is unmistakable. It is the hinge of this war. And, lest we forget, these are the same murderers who bombed us on Sept. 11, 2001. They are terrorists who have made crystal clear their intention to subvert us at every turn. And make no mistake about it -- they are regrouping in order to strike us again.
This is why the stakes are so high and why we must not interrupt the surge. This is why there can never be a so-called "political settlement" unless and until the United States can militarily cripple al-Qaida in Iraq. Only then can a political settlement be reached, one that can provide for a healthy representative government, oil sharing, proportional staffing in ministries and on down the line.
Without question, it is a near certainty that Iran and Syria are helping al-Qaida with money, arms and explosives. And, yes, if we leave now, al-Qaida will have an open field in which to expand its operations and prepare for the ultimate attack on the United States. In fact, the Defense Department and the CIA just nabbed a high-ranking al-Qaida operative known as al-Iraqi. He was a key link between the Taliban in Afghanistan, al-Qaida in Iraq and al-Qaida members in Iran. And while it's great news we got him, he's one more reminder that this network is strong and playing for keeps.
Another reality, too often overlooked, is that the United States successfully removed Saddam Hussein from the world scene. We ended a ruthless, tyrannical dictatorship. We fostered three heavily participated elections in Iraq and helped establish a new democratic government in the center of the Middle East.
These are important accomplishments. Yet the stated goal of al-Qaida is to sabotage all of this. Its aim is to prevent representative government in the region, since its twisted totalitarian ideology opposes such developed-world things.
The Harry Reids in Washington don't get it. They fail to see the terrorist fingerprints. But when you look at Iraq through the Lieberman lens, the dust settles. The task before us becomes clearer. Why are we in Iraq? We are fighting al-Qaida. Period.
A final question for Reid: If, as he says, we have "lost" the Iraq war, who exactly has won? Who is the winner, Sen. Reid? Who would you like the United States to surrender to?
It's not the Sunnis. It's not the Baathists. It's not the Shiites. And it's certainly not Prime Minister Maliki. In conventional warfare terms, Harry Reid is suggesting we surrender to al-Qaida.
Does the majority leader of the U.S. Senate understand his own unthinkable conclusion?
Economic Ups and Downs
Growth keeps chugging along, but inflation is the threat to watch.
Wall Street Journal
Saturday, April 28, 2007 12:01 a.m.
Investors and the statisticians sent seemingly contradictory messages this week, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average hitting new highs and breaking past 13,000, while GDP growth for the first quarter came in at 1.3%, its lowest level since before the 2003 tax cuts. So whom do you believe?
The stock market is hardly a perfect predictor of the future, and the recent upward trend could reverse itself at any time. But the market is, as the old adage goes, a mechanism for discounting the future, while statistics like Friday's GDP estimate are calculations about the past. So if we had to choose between the two conflicting signals, we'd put our money on the collective sense of the market, which these days is saying that the economy is stronger than the conventional wisdom would have you think.
The housing slump has undeniably taken its toll on overall growth for the past three quarters, and that continued in the first quarter of this year. For the quarter, the decline in residential investment shaved about one percentage point off GDP growth.
The good news is that the housing slump shows no signs of tanking the larger economy. Unemployment remains low, at 4.4%, and wages are rising amid an overall very tight labor market, especially for skilled workers. This wage growth in turn is helping consumer spending, which continues to increase despite rising gas prices. Hidden beneath Friday's disappointing headline growth number of 1.3% was 3.8% growth in consumer spending on an annual basis. That's none too shabby, given that home-equity extraction has dropped precipitously with rising interest rates and falling home prices.
Corporate profits, meanwhile, continue to come in ahead of expectations, even though profit growth will likely come out slower in the first quarter than the double-digit rates of recent years. Trade also knocked first-quarter GDP down by about 0.52%, as exports declined and imports rose. Rising imports are a sign of strong domestic growth, and we doubt exports will keep falling given buoyant growth overseas. Trade figures are a part of the GDP report often subject to revision, and that could make the quarter look better in future weeks.
If there's a real red flag in yesterday's economic data, it's the inflation numbers. The personal-consumption expenditures deflator--the inflation measure used to derive real economic growth from the nominal figure--rose at a 3.4% rate in the first quarter. The "core" number, which excludes food and energy prices, rose by 2.2%, still above the Federal Reserve's comfort range. The core number has now been above 2% for more than a year, and the inflation expectation for the coming year, as measured by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, is above 3%.
There's still too much underlying strength in the economy to call this stagflation; it looks more like "growthflation," to borrow a phrase from economist Michael Darda. The Fed has been betting that slower growth would bring inflation down, thus vindicating its decision to stop raising interest rates last year. But we all learned in the 1970s, or should have, that inflation can coexist with slower growth.
Inflation is a monetary phenomenon, and bringing it under control means creating fewer dollars. We doubt the Fed will find much inflation comfort in Friday's data, and it shouldn't. With gold near $700 an ounce and the dollar hitting record lows against the euro, the danger is too much dollar liquidity, not too little. The Fed has been hoping to see how bad the housing slump gets before it considers further tightening, but in the meantime price pressures have been building and dollars are sloshing around the world. As we said last year, we think the Fed would have done better had it not gone on "pause."
The stock market closed basically flat on Friday, suggesting that the headline GDP weakness didn't spook anyone much. The Dow's march into record territory this week signals that investors believe that the economy will emerge from this inflationary period intact. But Wall Street's professional economists have been underestimating the inflationary threat since this cycle began. There's no sign that this has changed, which means that the further tightening that the Fed will likely have to come to grips with may come as a rude awakening to some Wall Street pros.
All of which is another reason that this is exactly the wrong moment for Congress to be toying with tax increases and protectionism. The 2010 expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts is looming ever-larger as an economic question mark. We can expect to feel the effects of that event long before New Year's Day, 2011. Tax rates affect decisions throughout the economy, and unless those cuts are made permanent, or a pro-growth tax reform is put in place to replace them, their expiration will influence economic activity before that day arrives. Economic decision-makers, like the markets, try to look forward, rather than back.
Wall Street Journal
Saturday, April 28, 2007 12:01 a.m.
Investors and the statisticians sent seemingly contradictory messages this week, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average hitting new highs and breaking past 13,000, while GDP growth for the first quarter came in at 1.3%, its lowest level since before the 2003 tax cuts. So whom do you believe?
The stock market is hardly a perfect predictor of the future, and the recent upward trend could reverse itself at any time. But the market is, as the old adage goes, a mechanism for discounting the future, while statistics like Friday's GDP estimate are calculations about the past. So if we had to choose between the two conflicting signals, we'd put our money on the collective sense of the market, which these days is saying that the economy is stronger than the conventional wisdom would have you think.
The housing slump has undeniably taken its toll on overall growth for the past three quarters, and that continued in the first quarter of this year. For the quarter, the decline in residential investment shaved about one percentage point off GDP growth.
The good news is that the housing slump shows no signs of tanking the larger economy. Unemployment remains low, at 4.4%, and wages are rising amid an overall very tight labor market, especially for skilled workers. This wage growth in turn is helping consumer spending, which continues to increase despite rising gas prices. Hidden beneath Friday's disappointing headline growth number of 1.3% was 3.8% growth in consumer spending on an annual basis. That's none too shabby, given that home-equity extraction has dropped precipitously with rising interest rates and falling home prices.
Corporate profits, meanwhile, continue to come in ahead of expectations, even though profit growth will likely come out slower in the first quarter than the double-digit rates of recent years. Trade also knocked first-quarter GDP down by about 0.52%, as exports declined and imports rose. Rising imports are a sign of strong domestic growth, and we doubt exports will keep falling given buoyant growth overseas. Trade figures are a part of the GDP report often subject to revision, and that could make the quarter look better in future weeks.
If there's a real red flag in yesterday's economic data, it's the inflation numbers. The personal-consumption expenditures deflator--the inflation measure used to derive real economic growth from the nominal figure--rose at a 3.4% rate in the first quarter. The "core" number, which excludes food and energy prices, rose by 2.2%, still above the Federal Reserve's comfort range. The core number has now been above 2% for more than a year, and the inflation expectation for the coming year, as measured by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, is above 3%.
There's still too much underlying strength in the economy to call this stagflation; it looks more like "growthflation," to borrow a phrase from economist Michael Darda. The Fed has been betting that slower growth would bring inflation down, thus vindicating its decision to stop raising interest rates last year. But we all learned in the 1970s, or should have, that inflation can coexist with slower growth.
Inflation is a monetary phenomenon, and bringing it under control means creating fewer dollars. We doubt the Fed will find much inflation comfort in Friday's data, and it shouldn't. With gold near $700 an ounce and the dollar hitting record lows against the euro, the danger is too much dollar liquidity, not too little. The Fed has been hoping to see how bad the housing slump gets before it considers further tightening, but in the meantime price pressures have been building and dollars are sloshing around the world. As we said last year, we think the Fed would have done better had it not gone on "pause."
The stock market closed basically flat on Friday, suggesting that the headline GDP weakness didn't spook anyone much. The Dow's march into record territory this week signals that investors believe that the economy will emerge from this inflationary period intact. But Wall Street's professional economists have been underestimating the inflationary threat since this cycle began. There's no sign that this has changed, which means that the further tightening that the Fed will likely have to come to grips with may come as a rude awakening to some Wall Street pros.
All of which is another reason that this is exactly the wrong moment for Congress to be toying with tax increases and protectionism. The 2010 expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts is looming ever-larger as an economic question mark. We can expect to feel the effects of that event long before New Year's Day, 2011. Tax rates affect decisions throughout the economy, and unless those cuts are made permanent, or a pro-growth tax reform is put in place to replace them, their expiration will influence economic activity before that day arrives. Economic decision-makers, like the markets, try to look forward, rather than back.
The Perils of Power
By Rich Tucker
Saturday, April 28, 2007
You don’t want to be the person in charge, Jerry Seinfeld once advised. Whenever something goes wrong, the first question people ask is, “Who’s in charge?”
Democrats in Congress don’t seem to think too highly of Seinfeld’s counsel. They’re eager to present themselves as the people “in charge.” As Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told CNN, “the Constitution that I have right here in my pocket calls for us being equal to [President Bush].”
But with power comes responsibility. That’s what makes the war spending bill, recently passed by both the House and Senate, problematic for the left. The bill would require that troop withdrawal from Iraq begin by Oct. 1, and aims to end U.S. combat operations there by next March.
But why the delay? Reid said on April 19, “This war is lost, and the surge is not accomplishing anything, as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq.” And as Sen. Ted Kennedy put it in a statement on the Senate floor, “It is time to end the loss of American lives and to begin to bring our soldiers home.” Kennedy added, “For the sake of our troops we cannot repeat the mistakes of Vietnam and allow this to drag on long after the American people know it’s a mistake.”
But the Vietnam analogy is apt. Kennedy’s fellow Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry once wondered, “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?” That would seem to apply here. If we’ve already lost in Iraq, we should bring the troops home immediately. After all, congressional leaders shouldn’t ask our troops to keep fighting in Iraq for the next six months or the next year, since anyone killed would be dying for a lost cause.
But here’s where the Democrats run into trouble. Our warriors on the ground don’t seem to think the war is lost. Gen. David Petraeus, commander of all U.S. forces in Iraq, sounds cautiously optimistic. “We generally, in many areas -- not all, but in many areas -- have a sense of, sort of, incremental progress,” he told reporters on April 26.
Sen. Reid, however, may not be aware of any progress, since news of it isn’t making it into the media. As Petraeus put it, “That is not transmitted at all. Of course, it will never break through the noise and the understandable coverage given to it in the press of a sensational attack that kills many Iraqis.”
Or maybe Reid just doesn’t want to hear any good news from Iraq. Consider this exchange: CNN’s Dana Bash tells Reid, “General Petraeus is going to come to the Hill and make it clear to you that there is progress going on in Iraq, that the so-called surge is working. Will you believe him when he says that?” The Majority Leader answers, “No, I don’t believe him, because it’s not happening.”
This is quite a turnaround. Just three months ago, Reid was one of 81 senators who voted to confirm Petraeus (zero voted against him) to go to Iraq and lead a new American approach -- the surge. Now Reid doesn’t even want to listen to the commander.
The bottom line is that if the United States pulls out of Iraq prematurely, we’ll be handing our terrorist enemies a victory they haven’t earned. “We’ve got a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. We’re going to wave the white flag there,” as Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani put it on April 23. “We’re going to cut back, cut back, cut back, and we’ll be back in our pre-September 11 mentality of being on defense.”
Not surprisingly, many Democrats went after Giuliani. Presidential candidate John Edwards said his “suggestion that there is some superior ‘Republican’ way to fight terrorism is both divisive and plain wrong. He knows better.”
But here’s what John Kerry told a reporter for The New York Times Magazine when he ran for president in 2004: “We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they’re a nuisance.” That sure sounds like a man in favor of playing defense against terrorists.
Giuliani says we’ll eventually defeat the terrorists. But he adds, “The question is going to be: How long does it take and how many losses will we have along the way? And I truly believe that if we go back on defense for a period of time, we’re going to ultimately have more losses and it's going to go on much longer.”
Rudy’s right. The United States will win the long war against terrorism, and we’ll do it much sooner if we go after terrorists wherever they are -- including Iraq -- instead of waiting for them to come to us.
Last year’s elections gave Democratic lawmakers power -- but it’s up to them to show some responsibility. They should either give the surge time to work, or vote to withdraw right now. And whatever they do, they should know that Americans will hold them accountable. After all, they’re now at least partially “in charge.”
Saturday, April 28, 2007
You don’t want to be the person in charge, Jerry Seinfeld once advised. Whenever something goes wrong, the first question people ask is, “Who’s in charge?”
Democrats in Congress don’t seem to think too highly of Seinfeld’s counsel. They’re eager to present themselves as the people “in charge.” As Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told CNN, “the Constitution that I have right here in my pocket calls for us being equal to [President Bush].”
But with power comes responsibility. That’s what makes the war spending bill, recently passed by both the House and Senate, problematic for the left. The bill would require that troop withdrawal from Iraq begin by Oct. 1, and aims to end U.S. combat operations there by next March.
But why the delay? Reid said on April 19, “This war is lost, and the surge is not accomplishing anything, as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq.” And as Sen. Ted Kennedy put it in a statement on the Senate floor, “It is time to end the loss of American lives and to begin to bring our soldiers home.” Kennedy added, “For the sake of our troops we cannot repeat the mistakes of Vietnam and allow this to drag on long after the American people know it’s a mistake.”
But the Vietnam analogy is apt. Kennedy’s fellow Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry once wondered, “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?” That would seem to apply here. If we’ve already lost in Iraq, we should bring the troops home immediately. After all, congressional leaders shouldn’t ask our troops to keep fighting in Iraq for the next six months or the next year, since anyone killed would be dying for a lost cause.
But here’s where the Democrats run into trouble. Our warriors on the ground don’t seem to think the war is lost. Gen. David Petraeus, commander of all U.S. forces in Iraq, sounds cautiously optimistic. “We generally, in many areas -- not all, but in many areas -- have a sense of, sort of, incremental progress,” he told reporters on April 26.
Sen. Reid, however, may not be aware of any progress, since news of it isn’t making it into the media. As Petraeus put it, “That is not transmitted at all. Of course, it will never break through the noise and the understandable coverage given to it in the press of a sensational attack that kills many Iraqis.”
Or maybe Reid just doesn’t want to hear any good news from Iraq. Consider this exchange: CNN’s Dana Bash tells Reid, “General Petraeus is going to come to the Hill and make it clear to you that there is progress going on in Iraq, that the so-called surge is working. Will you believe him when he says that?” The Majority Leader answers, “No, I don’t believe him, because it’s not happening.”
This is quite a turnaround. Just three months ago, Reid was one of 81 senators who voted to confirm Petraeus (zero voted against him) to go to Iraq and lead a new American approach -- the surge. Now Reid doesn’t even want to listen to the commander.
The bottom line is that if the United States pulls out of Iraq prematurely, we’ll be handing our terrorist enemies a victory they haven’t earned. “We’ve got a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. We’re going to wave the white flag there,” as Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani put it on April 23. “We’re going to cut back, cut back, cut back, and we’ll be back in our pre-September 11 mentality of being on defense.”
Not surprisingly, many Democrats went after Giuliani. Presidential candidate John Edwards said his “suggestion that there is some superior ‘Republican’ way to fight terrorism is both divisive and plain wrong. He knows better.”
But here’s what John Kerry told a reporter for The New York Times Magazine when he ran for president in 2004: “We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they’re a nuisance.” That sure sounds like a man in favor of playing defense against terrorists.
Giuliani says we’ll eventually defeat the terrorists. But he adds, “The question is going to be: How long does it take and how many losses will we have along the way? And I truly believe that if we go back on defense for a period of time, we’re going to ultimately have more losses and it's going to go on much longer.”
Rudy’s right. The United States will win the long war against terrorism, and we’ll do it much sooner if we go after terrorists wherever they are -- including Iraq -- instead of waiting for them to come to us.
Last year’s elections gave Democratic lawmakers power -- but it’s up to them to show some responsibility. They should either give the surge time to work, or vote to withdraw right now. And whatever they do, they should know that Americans will hold them accountable. After all, they’re now at least partially “in charge.”
Friday, April 27, 2007
Is the war on terror over?
By Victor Davis Hanson
Friday, April 27, 2007
Do we still need to fight a war on terror?
The answer seems to be no for an increasing number in the West who are weary over Afghanistan and Iraq or complacent from the absence of a major attack on the scale of 9/11.
The British Foreign Office has scrapped the phrase "war on terror" as inexact, inflammatory and counterproductive. U.S. Central Command has just dropped the term "long war" to describe the fight against radical Islam.
An influential book making the rounds - "Overblown: How Politicians and the Terrorism Industry Inflate National Security Threats, and Why We Believe Them" - argues that the threat from al-Qaida is vastly exaggerated.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's national security adviser, goes further, assuring us that we are terrorized mostly by the false idea of a war on terror - not the jihadists themselves.
Even onetime neo-conservative Francis Fukuyama, who in 1998 called for the preemptive removal of Saddam Hussein, believes "war" is the "wrong metaphor" for our struggle against the terrorists.
Others point out that motley Islamic terrorists lack the resources of the Nazi Wehrmacht or the Soviet Union.
This thinking may seem understandable given the ineffectiveness of al-Qaida to kill many Americans after 9/11. Or it may also reflect hopes that if we only leave Iraq, radical Islam will wither away. But it is dead wrong for a number of reasons.
First, Islamic terrorists plotting attacks are arrested periodically in both Europe and the United States. Just last week a leaked British report detailed al-Qaida's plans for future "large-scale" operations. We shouldn't be blamed for being alarmist when our alarmism has resulted in our safety at home for the past five years.
Second, have we forgotten that Nazi Germany was never able to kill 3,000 Americans on our homeland? Did Japan ever destroy 16 acres in Manhattan or hit the nerve center of the U.S. military? Even the Soviet Union couldn't inflict billions of dollars in damage to the U.S. economy in a single day.
Third, in some ways stateless terrorists can be more dangerous than past conventional threats. Autocrats in some Middle East countries allow indirect financial and psychological support for al-Qaida terrorists without leaving footprints of their intent. They must assume that a single terrorist strike could kill thousands of Americans without our ability to strike back at their capitals. This inability to tie a state to its support for terrorism is our greatest obstacle in this war - and our enemies' greatest advantage.
Fourth, jihadists have already scored successes in all sorts of ways beyond altering the very nature of air travel. Cartoonists now lampoon everyone and everything - except Muslims. The pope must weigh his words carefully. Otherwise, priests and nuns are attacked abroad. A single false Newsweek story about one flushed Koran led to riot and death.
The net result is that terrified millions in Western societies silently accept that for the first time in centuries they cannot talk or write honestly about what they think of Islam and the Koran.
Fifth, everything from our 401(k) plans to municipal water plants depends on sophisticated computers and communications. And you don't need a missile to take them down. Two oceans no longer protect the United States - not when the Internet knows no boundaries, our borders are relatively wide open, and dozens of ships dock and hundreds of flights arrive daily.
A germ, some spent nuclear fuel or a vial of nerve gas could cause as much mayhem and calamity as an armored division in Hitler's army. The Soviets were considered rational enemies who accepted the bleak laws of nuclear deterrence. But the jihadists claim that they welcome death if their martyrdom results in thousands of dead Americans.
Finally, radical Islamists largely arise from the oil-rich Middle East. Since 9/11, the price of oil has skyrocketed, transferring trillions of dollars from successful Western, Indian and Chinese economies to unsuccessful Arab and Iranian autocracies.
Terrorists know that blowing up a Saudi oil field or getting control of Iraqi petroleum reserves - and they attempt both all the time - will alter the world economy. Even their mere threats give us psychological fits and their sponsors more cash.
This is a strange war. Our successes in avoiding attack convince some that the real danger has passed. And when we kill jihadists abroad, we are told it is peripheral to the war or only incites more terrorism.
But despite the current efforts at denial, the war against Islamic terrorism remains real and deadly. We can't wish it away until Middle Eastern dictatorships reform - or we end their oil stranglehold over the world economy.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Do we still need to fight a war on terror?
The answer seems to be no for an increasing number in the West who are weary over Afghanistan and Iraq or complacent from the absence of a major attack on the scale of 9/11.
The British Foreign Office has scrapped the phrase "war on terror" as inexact, inflammatory and counterproductive. U.S. Central Command has just dropped the term "long war" to describe the fight against radical Islam.
An influential book making the rounds - "Overblown: How Politicians and the Terrorism Industry Inflate National Security Threats, and Why We Believe Them" - argues that the threat from al-Qaida is vastly exaggerated.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's national security adviser, goes further, assuring us that we are terrorized mostly by the false idea of a war on terror - not the jihadists themselves.
Even onetime neo-conservative Francis Fukuyama, who in 1998 called for the preemptive removal of Saddam Hussein, believes "war" is the "wrong metaphor" for our struggle against the terrorists.
Others point out that motley Islamic terrorists lack the resources of the Nazi Wehrmacht or the Soviet Union.
This thinking may seem understandable given the ineffectiveness of al-Qaida to kill many Americans after 9/11. Or it may also reflect hopes that if we only leave Iraq, radical Islam will wither away. But it is dead wrong for a number of reasons.
First, Islamic terrorists plotting attacks are arrested periodically in both Europe and the United States. Just last week a leaked British report detailed al-Qaida's plans for future "large-scale" operations. We shouldn't be blamed for being alarmist when our alarmism has resulted in our safety at home for the past five years.
Second, have we forgotten that Nazi Germany was never able to kill 3,000 Americans on our homeland? Did Japan ever destroy 16 acres in Manhattan or hit the nerve center of the U.S. military? Even the Soviet Union couldn't inflict billions of dollars in damage to the U.S. economy in a single day.
Third, in some ways stateless terrorists can be more dangerous than past conventional threats. Autocrats in some Middle East countries allow indirect financial and psychological support for al-Qaida terrorists without leaving footprints of their intent. They must assume that a single terrorist strike could kill thousands of Americans without our ability to strike back at their capitals. This inability to tie a state to its support for terrorism is our greatest obstacle in this war - and our enemies' greatest advantage.
Fourth, jihadists have already scored successes in all sorts of ways beyond altering the very nature of air travel. Cartoonists now lampoon everyone and everything - except Muslims. The pope must weigh his words carefully. Otherwise, priests and nuns are attacked abroad. A single false Newsweek story about one flushed Koran led to riot and death.
The net result is that terrified millions in Western societies silently accept that for the first time in centuries they cannot talk or write honestly about what they think of Islam and the Koran.
Fifth, everything from our 401(k) plans to municipal water plants depends on sophisticated computers and communications. And you don't need a missile to take them down. Two oceans no longer protect the United States - not when the Internet knows no boundaries, our borders are relatively wide open, and dozens of ships dock and hundreds of flights arrive daily.
A germ, some spent nuclear fuel or a vial of nerve gas could cause as much mayhem and calamity as an armored division in Hitler's army. The Soviets were considered rational enemies who accepted the bleak laws of nuclear deterrence. But the jihadists claim that they welcome death if their martyrdom results in thousands of dead Americans.
Finally, radical Islamists largely arise from the oil-rich Middle East. Since 9/11, the price of oil has skyrocketed, transferring trillions of dollars from successful Western, Indian and Chinese economies to unsuccessful Arab and Iranian autocracies.
Terrorists know that blowing up a Saudi oil field or getting control of Iraqi petroleum reserves - and they attempt both all the time - will alter the world economy. Even their mere threats give us psychological fits and their sponsors more cash.
This is a strange war. Our successes in avoiding attack convince some that the real danger has passed. And when we kill jihadists abroad, we are told it is peripheral to the war or only incites more terrorism.
But despite the current efforts at denial, the war against Islamic terrorism remains real and deadly. We can't wish it away until Middle Eastern dictatorships reform - or we end their oil stranglehold over the world economy.
10 Differences between Conservatives And Liberals
By John Hawkins
Friday, April 27, 2007
Conservatives and liberals approach almost every issue with completely different philosophies, underlying assumptions, and methods. That's why it's so hard to find genuine compromise between conservatism and liberalism -- because not only are liberals almost always wrong, their solutions almost always make things worse.
With that in mind, let me take a few moments to explain some of the key differences between liberals and conservative to you.
Bonus) Conservatives believe that judges should act like umpires instead of legislating from the bench. That means that judges should determine whether laws are permissible under the Constitution and settle debates about the meaning of laws, not impose their will based on their ideological leanings. Liberals view judges as a backdoor method of getting unpopular left-leaning legislation passed. They don't want umpires, they want political partisans in black robes who will side with them first and then come up with a rationale to explain it.
10) Conservatives believe that individual Americans have a right to defend themselves and their families with guns and that right cannot be taken away by any method short of a Constitutional Amendment, which conservatives would oppose. Liberals believe by taking arms away from law abiding citizens, they can prevent criminals, who aren't going to abide by gun control laws, from using guns in the commission of crimes.
9) Conservatives believe that we should live in a color blind society where every individual is judged on the content of his character and the merits of his actions. On the other hand, liberals believe that it's ok to discriminate based on race as long as it primarily benefits minority groups.
8) Conservatives are capitalists and believe that entrepreneurs who amass great wealth through their own efforts are good for the country and shouldn't be punished for being successful. Liberals are socialists who view successful business owners as people who cheated the system somehow or got lucky. That's why they don't respect high achievers and see them as little more than piggy banks for their programs.
7) Conservatives believe that abortion ends the life of an innocent child and since we believe that infanticide is wrong, we oppose abortion. Most liberals, despite what they'll tell you, believe that abortion ends the life of an innocent child, but they prefer killing the baby to inconveniencing the mother.
6) Conservatives believe in confronting and defeating enemies of the United States before they can harm American citizens. Liberals believe in using law enforcement measures to deal with terrorism, which means that they feel we should allow terrorists to train, plan, and actually attempt to kill Americans before we try to arrest them -- as if you can just send the police around to pick up a terrorist mastermind hiding in Iran or the wilds of Pakistan.
5) Conservatives, but not necessarily Republicans (which is unfortunate), believe it's vitally important to the future of the country to reduce the size of government, keep taxes low, balance the budget, and get this country out of debt. Liberals, and Democrats for that matter, believe in big government, high taxes, and they have never met a new spending program they didn't like, whether we will have to go into debt to pay for it or not.
4) Conservatives believe that government, by its very nature, tends to be inefficient, incompetent, wasteful, and power hungry. That's why we believe that the government that governs least, governs best. Liberals think that the solution to every problem is another government program. Even when those new programs create new problems, often worse than the ones that were being fixed in the first place, the solution is always....you guessed it, another government program.
3) Conservatives are patriotic, believe that America is a great nation, and are primarily interested in looking out for the good of the country. That's why we believe in "American exceptionalism" and "America first." Liberals are internationalists who are more concerned about what Europeans think of us and staying in the good graces of the corrupt bureaucrats who control the UN than looking out for the best interests of this nation.
2) Conservatives, most of them anyway, believe in God and think that the Constitution has been twisted by liberal judges to illegitimately try to purge Christianity from the public square. We also believe, most of us anyway, that this country has been successful in large part because it is a good, Christian nation and if our country ever turns away from the Lord, it will cease to prosper. Liberals, most of them anyway, are hostile to Christianity. That's why, whether you're talking about a school play at Christmas time, a judge putting the Ten Commandments on the wall of his court, or a store employee saying "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays," liberals are dedicated to driving reminders of Christianity from polite society.
1) Conservatives believe in pursuing policies because they're pragmatic and because they work. Liberals believe in pursuing policies because they're "nice" and make them feel good. Whether the policies they're advocating actually work or not is of secondary importance to them.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Conservatives and liberals approach almost every issue with completely different philosophies, underlying assumptions, and methods. That's why it's so hard to find genuine compromise between conservatism and liberalism -- because not only are liberals almost always wrong, their solutions almost always make things worse.
With that in mind, let me take a few moments to explain some of the key differences between liberals and conservative to you.
Bonus) Conservatives believe that judges should act like umpires instead of legislating from the bench. That means that judges should determine whether laws are permissible under the Constitution and settle debates about the meaning of laws, not impose their will based on their ideological leanings. Liberals view judges as a backdoor method of getting unpopular left-leaning legislation passed. They don't want umpires, they want political partisans in black robes who will side with them first and then come up with a rationale to explain it.
10) Conservatives believe that individual Americans have a right to defend themselves and their families with guns and that right cannot be taken away by any method short of a Constitutional Amendment, which conservatives would oppose. Liberals believe by taking arms away from law abiding citizens, they can prevent criminals, who aren't going to abide by gun control laws, from using guns in the commission of crimes.
9) Conservatives believe that we should live in a color blind society where every individual is judged on the content of his character and the merits of his actions. On the other hand, liberals believe that it's ok to discriminate based on race as long as it primarily benefits minority groups.
8) Conservatives are capitalists and believe that entrepreneurs who amass great wealth through their own efforts are good for the country and shouldn't be punished for being successful. Liberals are socialists who view successful business owners as people who cheated the system somehow or got lucky. That's why they don't respect high achievers and see them as little more than piggy banks for their programs.
7) Conservatives believe that abortion ends the life of an innocent child and since we believe that infanticide is wrong, we oppose abortion. Most liberals, despite what they'll tell you, believe that abortion ends the life of an innocent child, but they prefer killing the baby to inconveniencing the mother.
6) Conservatives believe in confronting and defeating enemies of the United States before they can harm American citizens. Liberals believe in using law enforcement measures to deal with terrorism, which means that they feel we should allow terrorists to train, plan, and actually attempt to kill Americans before we try to arrest them -- as if you can just send the police around to pick up a terrorist mastermind hiding in Iran or the wilds of Pakistan.
5) Conservatives, but not necessarily Republicans (which is unfortunate), believe it's vitally important to the future of the country to reduce the size of government, keep taxes low, balance the budget, and get this country out of debt. Liberals, and Democrats for that matter, believe in big government, high taxes, and they have never met a new spending program they didn't like, whether we will have to go into debt to pay for it or not.
4) Conservatives believe that government, by its very nature, tends to be inefficient, incompetent, wasteful, and power hungry. That's why we believe that the government that governs least, governs best. Liberals think that the solution to every problem is another government program. Even when those new programs create new problems, often worse than the ones that were being fixed in the first place, the solution is always....you guessed it, another government program.
3) Conservatives are patriotic, believe that America is a great nation, and are primarily interested in looking out for the good of the country. That's why we believe in "American exceptionalism" and "America first." Liberals are internationalists who are more concerned about what Europeans think of us and staying in the good graces of the corrupt bureaucrats who control the UN than looking out for the best interests of this nation.
2) Conservatives, most of them anyway, believe in God and think that the Constitution has been twisted by liberal judges to illegitimately try to purge Christianity from the public square. We also believe, most of us anyway, that this country has been successful in large part because it is a good, Christian nation and if our country ever turns away from the Lord, it will cease to prosper. Liberals, most of them anyway, are hostile to Christianity. That's why, whether you're talking about a school play at Christmas time, a judge putting the Ten Commandments on the wall of his court, or a store employee saying "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays," liberals are dedicated to driving reminders of Christianity from polite society.
1) Conservatives believe in pursuing policies because they're pragmatic and because they work. Liberals believe in pursuing policies because they're "nice" and make them feel good. Whether the policies they're advocating actually work or not is of secondary importance to them.
Africans for Wolfowitz
Third World reformers resist a coup by rich Europeans.
Wall Street Journal
Friday, April 27, 2007 12:01 a.m.
One of the most revealing subplots in the European coup attempt against World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz is who is coming to the American's defense. The rich European donor countries want him to resign, while the Africans who are the bank's major clients are encouraging him to stay.
You wouldn't know this from the press coverage, which continues to report selective leaks from the bank staff and European sources who started this political putsch. The latest "news" is that the European Parliament has asked Mr. Wolfowitz to resign, thus sustaining that body's reputation for irrelevant but politically correct gestures. If Mr. Wolfowitz leaves, no doubt some of the europols will angle for the job.
The more telling story is the support for the bank president from reform-minded Africans. At a press conference during this month's World Bank-IMF meetings in Washington, four of the more progressive African finance ministers were asked about the Wolfowitz flap. Here's how Antoinette Sayeh, Liberia's finance minister, responded:
"I would say that Wolfowitz's performance over the last several years and his leadership on African issues should certainly feature prominently in the discussions . . . . In the Liberian case and the case of many forgotten post-conflict fragile countries, he has been a visionary. He has been absolutely supportive, responsive, there for us . . . . We think that he has done a lot to bring Africa in general . . . into the limelight and has certainly championed our cause over the last two years of his leadership, and we look forward to it continuing."
The deputy prime minister for Mauritius, Rama Krishna Sithanen, then piped in that "he has been supportive of reforms in our country . . . . We think that he has done a good job. More specifically, he has apologized for what has happened."
Sub-Saharan Africa is the world's poorest region, and Mr. Wolfowitz has appropriately made it his top priority. On his first day on the job, he met with a large group of African ambassadors and advocates. His first trip as bank president was a swing through Burkina Faso, Nigeria, Rwanda and South Africa. He also recruited two African-born women vice presidents, a rarity at the bank.
If you're surprised by that last fact, then you don't appreciate that the World Bank has always been a sinecure for developed-world politicians. They get handsome salaries, tax free, and their performance is measured not by how much poverty they cure but by how much money they disperse.
Mr. Wolfowitz has upset this sweetheart status quo by focusing more on results, and especially on the corruption that undermines development and squanders foreign aid. Yet many of the poor countries themselves welcome such intervention. At the same April 14 press conference, Zambian Finance Minister N'Gandu Peter Magande endorsed the anticorruption agenda:
"We should keep positive that whatever happens to the president, if, for example, he was to leave, I think whoever comes, we insist that he continues where we have been left, in particular on this issue of anticorruption. That is a cancer that has seen quite a lot of our countries lose development and has seen the poverty continuing in our countries. And therefore . . . we want to live up to what [Wolfowitz] made us believe" that "it is important for ourselves to keep to those high standards."
The real World Bank scandal is that Mr. Wolfowitz's enemies don't care much about Africa. The French and Brits who want him ousted have never entirely shaken the paternalism they developed during the colonial era. Their real priority is controlling the bank purse-strings and perquisites.
As for the coup attempt, Mr. Wolfowitz's fate now rests with the 24-member bank board. Europeans dominate, while we saw only two Africans listed on the bank's Web site. These profiles in buck-passing have asked Mr. Wolfowitz to meet with them on Monday; his lawyer can join him but won't be allowed to speak.
The noisy leaking and staff protests are aimed at getting Mr. Wolfowitz to make their life easy by resigning. But that would only validate their campaign to oust him for giving his girlfriend a raise that the bank's own ethics committee advised him to deliver after he had tried to recuse himself. Since our editorial reported on all of these "ethics" details two weeks ago, no one has even tried to dispute our facts. The critics have shifted to a new line that, because his "credibility" has been damaged by these selective smears, Mr. Wolfowitz must now resign "for the good of the bank."
Let's hope the White House doesn't fall for this rot, and, by the way, it's about time Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson spent some of his political capital and defended Mr. Wolfowitz. He'd be in good company among Africa's progressive leaders.
Wall Street Journal
Friday, April 27, 2007 12:01 a.m.
One of the most revealing subplots in the European coup attempt against World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz is who is coming to the American's defense. The rich European donor countries want him to resign, while the Africans who are the bank's major clients are encouraging him to stay.
You wouldn't know this from the press coverage, which continues to report selective leaks from the bank staff and European sources who started this political putsch. The latest "news" is that the European Parliament has asked Mr. Wolfowitz to resign, thus sustaining that body's reputation for irrelevant but politically correct gestures. If Mr. Wolfowitz leaves, no doubt some of the europols will angle for the job.
The more telling story is the support for the bank president from reform-minded Africans. At a press conference during this month's World Bank-IMF meetings in Washington, four of the more progressive African finance ministers were asked about the Wolfowitz flap. Here's how Antoinette Sayeh, Liberia's finance minister, responded:
"I would say that Wolfowitz's performance over the last several years and his leadership on African issues should certainly feature prominently in the discussions . . . . In the Liberian case and the case of many forgotten post-conflict fragile countries, he has been a visionary. He has been absolutely supportive, responsive, there for us . . . . We think that he has done a lot to bring Africa in general . . . into the limelight and has certainly championed our cause over the last two years of his leadership, and we look forward to it continuing."
The deputy prime minister for Mauritius, Rama Krishna Sithanen, then piped in that "he has been supportive of reforms in our country . . . . We think that he has done a good job. More specifically, he has apologized for what has happened."
Sub-Saharan Africa is the world's poorest region, and Mr. Wolfowitz has appropriately made it his top priority. On his first day on the job, he met with a large group of African ambassadors and advocates. His first trip as bank president was a swing through Burkina Faso, Nigeria, Rwanda and South Africa. He also recruited two African-born women vice presidents, a rarity at the bank.
If you're surprised by that last fact, then you don't appreciate that the World Bank has always been a sinecure for developed-world politicians. They get handsome salaries, tax free, and their performance is measured not by how much poverty they cure but by how much money they disperse.
Mr. Wolfowitz has upset this sweetheart status quo by focusing more on results, and especially on the corruption that undermines development and squanders foreign aid. Yet many of the poor countries themselves welcome such intervention. At the same April 14 press conference, Zambian Finance Minister N'Gandu Peter Magande endorsed the anticorruption agenda:
"We should keep positive that whatever happens to the president, if, for example, he was to leave, I think whoever comes, we insist that he continues where we have been left, in particular on this issue of anticorruption. That is a cancer that has seen quite a lot of our countries lose development and has seen the poverty continuing in our countries. And therefore . . . we want to live up to what [Wolfowitz] made us believe" that "it is important for ourselves to keep to those high standards."
The real World Bank scandal is that Mr. Wolfowitz's enemies don't care much about Africa. The French and Brits who want him ousted have never entirely shaken the paternalism they developed during the colonial era. Their real priority is controlling the bank purse-strings and perquisites.
As for the coup attempt, Mr. Wolfowitz's fate now rests with the 24-member bank board. Europeans dominate, while we saw only two Africans listed on the bank's Web site. These profiles in buck-passing have asked Mr. Wolfowitz to meet with them on Monday; his lawyer can join him but won't be allowed to speak.
The noisy leaking and staff protests are aimed at getting Mr. Wolfowitz to make their life easy by resigning. But that would only validate their campaign to oust him for giving his girlfriend a raise that the bank's own ethics committee advised him to deliver after he had tried to recuse himself. Since our editorial reported on all of these "ethics" details two weeks ago, no one has even tried to dispute our facts. The critics have shifted to a new line that, because his "credibility" has been damaged by these selective smears, Mr. Wolfowitz must now resign "for the good of the bank."
Let's hope the White House doesn't fall for this rot, and, by the way, it's about time Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson spent some of his political capital and defended Mr. Wolfowitz. He'd be in good company among Africa's progressive leaders.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
What Supply-Side Economics Means
By Alan Reynolds
Thursday, April 26, 2007
In "The Seven Fat Years," Robert Bartley, the legendary former editor of The Wall Street Journal, wrote: "On March 26, 1976 Herb Stein coined a label, the 'supply-side fiscalists,' telling a conference at the Homestead Resort in Virginia that it consisted of 'maybe two' economists. Alan Reynolds passed this along to Jude (Wanniski), who promptly appropriated the label, though dropping 'fiscalists' as awkward and misleading." The label was new, but the basic concepts had been explained in Wanniski's Journal article of Dec. 11, 1974, "It's Time to Cut Taxes."
In 1977, Bruce Bartlett went to work for Jack Kemp, the congressional quarterback for what eventually became President Reagan's first round of tax rate reductions.
In a recent New York Times article, Bruce wrote: "I think it is long past time that the phrase (supply-side economics) be put to rest. ... It has become a frequently misleading and meaningless buzzword that gets in the way of good economic policy. Today, supply-side economics has become associated with an obsession for cutting taxes under any and all circumstances. No longer do its advocates in Congress and elsewhere confine themselves to cutting marginal tax rates -- the tax on each additional dollar earned -- as the original supply-siders did. Rather, they support even the most gimmicky, economically dubious tax cuts with the same intensity. ... Today, it is common to hear tax cutters claim, implausibly, that all tax cuts raise revenue."
Labels aside, those remarks are nothing new. In a July 2004 column, Bartlett correctly remarked that, "The vast bulk of tax cuts since 2001, in revenue terms, have gone for tax rebates, kiddy credits and other measures having no impact on marginal incentives."
Of course such "gimmicky tax cuts" lose tax revenue. But Wall Street Journal columnist Robert Frank, writing on economist Greg Mankiw's blog, recently imagined he had witnessed "the supply-sider Bruce Bartlett now conceding that tax cuts for top earners don't boost total tax revenues." Bartlett conceded no such thing. Revenues have risen impressively since the 2003 reduction of tax rates, and nearly all of the gains are from top earners, including profits, capital gains and dividends.
In 2004, Bartlett wrote that "with federal revenues at just 15.8 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) -- well below their historical level of 18 percent -- I don't think our economy is overtaxed." The Congressional Budget Office now estimates federal revenues of 18.6 percent of GDP this year and 19 percent next year.
Phrases intended to describe complex ideas in a word or two, such as Keynesian or monetarist, invariably become misused or hijacked after three decades. But such semantic abuses can't be halted by Bartlett's white flag. Like it or not, the phrase "supply-side economics" will doubtless continue to be used and abused.
Bartlett says, "The context in which the term had meaning no longer exists, and therefore it has become a barrier to communication." That context refers to a debate about the appropriate "policy mix" in a situation of double-digit inflation combined with severe recession, as in 1974-75 or 1980-82. The supply-side innovation, from Nobel Laureate Bob Mundell, was to suggest that (1) monetary policy is the right tool to keep inflation in check, and that (2) the focus of tax policy should be shifted from short-term accounting results (deficits) toward improving longer-term incentives for productive work and investment. The first part of that package is actually monetarist, and neither part ever ceases to be relevant to inflation and economic growth, respectively.
I wrote a paper on "The Fiscal-Monetary Policy Mix" for the Fall 2001 Cato Journal. It began by saying: "In the early postwar years, during the heyday of fiscal fine-tuning ... the predominant view was that the main function of monetary policy was to 'stimulate' debt-financed purchases by keeping interest rates low. Inflation was first considered a useful lubricant to be traded for lower unemployment, and inflation could be reduced only by tolerating high unemployment. In the late '60s and early '70s, when the shrinking dollar proved less popular than expected, inflation was routinely described by a thermal metaphor ('overheating') and regarded as an endemic problem to be endlessly 'fought' by using fiscal policy (a surtax) and incomes policy (wage-price controls), but never monetary policy."
The context of my remarks was the conventional unwisdom that gave us LBJ's surtax in 1968 and Nixon's price controls in 1971. In a blog commenting on Bartlett's piece, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman was irritated by Bartlett's comment that "Keynesians of that era" thought "monetary policy is impotent and inflation is caused by low unemployment." Krugman replied: "I was a grad student at MIT -- the great Keynesian stronghold -- in the 1970s, and this bears no resemblance to what was being taught. In fact, I still have my copy of Dornbusch-Fischer, 'Macroeconomics,' the 1978 edition -- and it doesn't make any of those assertions."
By 1978, however, supply-side ideas were even getting attention in textbooks. In the 1978 edition of Campbell McConnell's best-selling "Economics" text, the "Last Word" on fiscal policy was a paper of mine that is still online at taxfoundation.org. The 1978 Dornbusch-Fischer text found supply-side tax policy "intriguing" and thought we may well need "fiscal policies that operate on aggregate supply."
Bartlett says: "I still think (supply-side economics) was the right cure for the economic problems we were facing in the late 1970s. I also think it embodies some fundamental truths that are applicable at all times. But these fundamental truths, such as the idea that high marginal tax rates are bad for the economy, are now almost universally accepted." That is almost true. Mainstream economics almost universally accepts "optimal tax theory" and the "elasticity of taxable income" -- elegant elaborations of original supply-side themes. If incentives didn't matter, then we might as well discard the word "economics," not just supply-side (incentive-based) microeconomics.
Greg Mankiw is a "new Keynesian" scholar who thinks tax incentives matter a lot. Ed Prescott is a "real business cycle" scholar who thinks tax incentives matter even more. But Mankiw, Prescott, Martin Feldstein and others still quarrel with their retrograde peers. Being "almost universally accepted" is almost good enough, but not quite. When tax policy in most countries is as close to optimal as Hong Kong's, I will gladly stop mentioning supply-side economics.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
In "The Seven Fat Years," Robert Bartley, the legendary former editor of The Wall Street Journal, wrote: "On March 26, 1976 Herb Stein coined a label, the 'supply-side fiscalists,' telling a conference at the Homestead Resort in Virginia that it consisted of 'maybe two' economists. Alan Reynolds passed this along to Jude (Wanniski), who promptly appropriated the label, though dropping 'fiscalists' as awkward and misleading." The label was new, but the basic concepts had been explained in Wanniski's Journal article of Dec. 11, 1974, "It's Time to Cut Taxes."
In 1977, Bruce Bartlett went to work for Jack Kemp, the congressional quarterback for what eventually became President Reagan's first round of tax rate reductions.
In a recent New York Times article, Bruce wrote: "I think it is long past time that the phrase (supply-side economics) be put to rest. ... It has become a frequently misleading and meaningless buzzword that gets in the way of good economic policy. Today, supply-side economics has become associated with an obsession for cutting taxes under any and all circumstances. No longer do its advocates in Congress and elsewhere confine themselves to cutting marginal tax rates -- the tax on each additional dollar earned -- as the original supply-siders did. Rather, they support even the most gimmicky, economically dubious tax cuts with the same intensity. ... Today, it is common to hear tax cutters claim, implausibly, that all tax cuts raise revenue."
Labels aside, those remarks are nothing new. In a July 2004 column, Bartlett correctly remarked that, "The vast bulk of tax cuts since 2001, in revenue terms, have gone for tax rebates, kiddy credits and other measures having no impact on marginal incentives."
Of course such "gimmicky tax cuts" lose tax revenue. But Wall Street Journal columnist Robert Frank, writing on economist Greg Mankiw's blog, recently imagined he had witnessed "the supply-sider Bruce Bartlett now conceding that tax cuts for top earners don't boost total tax revenues." Bartlett conceded no such thing. Revenues have risen impressively since the 2003 reduction of tax rates, and nearly all of the gains are from top earners, including profits, capital gains and dividends.
In 2004, Bartlett wrote that "with federal revenues at just 15.8 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) -- well below their historical level of 18 percent -- I don't think our economy is overtaxed." The Congressional Budget Office now estimates federal revenues of 18.6 percent of GDP this year and 19 percent next year.
Phrases intended to describe complex ideas in a word or two, such as Keynesian or monetarist, invariably become misused or hijacked after three decades. But such semantic abuses can't be halted by Bartlett's white flag. Like it or not, the phrase "supply-side economics" will doubtless continue to be used and abused.
Bartlett says, "The context in which the term had meaning no longer exists, and therefore it has become a barrier to communication." That context refers to a debate about the appropriate "policy mix" in a situation of double-digit inflation combined with severe recession, as in 1974-75 or 1980-82. The supply-side innovation, from Nobel Laureate Bob Mundell, was to suggest that (1) monetary policy is the right tool to keep inflation in check, and that (2) the focus of tax policy should be shifted from short-term accounting results (deficits) toward improving longer-term incentives for productive work and investment. The first part of that package is actually monetarist, and neither part ever ceases to be relevant to inflation and economic growth, respectively.
I wrote a paper on "The Fiscal-Monetary Policy Mix" for the Fall 2001 Cato Journal. It began by saying: "In the early postwar years, during the heyday of fiscal fine-tuning ... the predominant view was that the main function of monetary policy was to 'stimulate' debt-financed purchases by keeping interest rates low. Inflation was first considered a useful lubricant to be traded for lower unemployment, and inflation could be reduced only by tolerating high unemployment. In the late '60s and early '70s, when the shrinking dollar proved less popular than expected, inflation was routinely described by a thermal metaphor ('overheating') and regarded as an endemic problem to be endlessly 'fought' by using fiscal policy (a surtax) and incomes policy (wage-price controls), but never monetary policy."
The context of my remarks was the conventional unwisdom that gave us LBJ's surtax in 1968 and Nixon's price controls in 1971. In a blog commenting on Bartlett's piece, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman was irritated by Bartlett's comment that "Keynesians of that era" thought "monetary policy is impotent and inflation is caused by low unemployment." Krugman replied: "I was a grad student at MIT -- the great Keynesian stronghold -- in the 1970s, and this bears no resemblance to what was being taught. In fact, I still have my copy of Dornbusch-Fischer, 'Macroeconomics,' the 1978 edition -- and it doesn't make any of those assertions."
By 1978, however, supply-side ideas were even getting attention in textbooks. In the 1978 edition of Campbell McConnell's best-selling "Economics" text, the "Last Word" on fiscal policy was a paper of mine that is still online at taxfoundation.org. The 1978 Dornbusch-Fischer text found supply-side tax policy "intriguing" and thought we may well need "fiscal policies that operate on aggregate supply."
Bartlett says: "I still think (supply-side economics) was the right cure for the economic problems we were facing in the late 1970s. I also think it embodies some fundamental truths that are applicable at all times. But these fundamental truths, such as the idea that high marginal tax rates are bad for the economy, are now almost universally accepted." That is almost true. Mainstream economics almost universally accepts "optimal tax theory" and the "elasticity of taxable income" -- elegant elaborations of original supply-side themes. If incentives didn't matter, then we might as well discard the word "economics," not just supply-side (incentive-based) microeconomics.
Greg Mankiw is a "new Keynesian" scholar who thinks tax incentives matter a lot. Ed Prescott is a "real business cycle" scholar who thinks tax incentives matter even more. But Mankiw, Prescott, Martin Feldstein and others still quarrel with their retrograde peers. Being "almost universally accepted" is almost good enough, but not quite. When tax policy in most countries is as close to optimal as Hong Kong's, I will gladly stop mentioning supply-side economics.
American resilience fuels global prosperity
By Donald Lambro
Thursday, April 26, 2007
The world is in the midst of an economic boom that is raising living standards, creating jobs and improving the quality of life for billions of people.
That's not the story or picture we see on the nightly news shows, where the world is torn by civil war, terrorism, death, destruction and unending poverty. There is certainly much of that, but there is another compelling story that needs telling, too, because it has a lot to do with our economy and future well-being.
The past week's wealth-creating run-up in the stock markets, where the Dow Jones industrial average was breaking records and nearing 13,000, is the latest manifestation of the Bush economy's continuing strength and resilience. But its strong performance was also the result, increasingly so, of the global economy's growth -- from which we benefit as a nation of merchants and exporters selling our goods and services to the world.
"The good news on U.S. jobs highlights a welcome global phenomenon. Unemployment rates have fallen to lows in Europe, Japan, China, India, Brazil and many other areas," Bear Stearns economist David Malpass wrote earlier this month in The Wall Street Journal. "While the U.S. itself is less openly exuberant than in the 1990s, most of the world is much better off economically." But let's not sell the U.S. economy short. The unemployment rate has dropped to 4.4 percent, disproving gloomy forecasts it would rise. More of us are working at increased pay scales (the average hourly wage was up to $17.22), which has been the driving force behind the rise in consumer spending and increased investments.
The dark, almost hysterical predictions that the collapse of the subprime home mortgages along with the decline in the housing market generally would send the economy into a recession have not born out. And the global economy's growth, denied by economic nationalists and leftist ideologues who see it as an evil force of exploitation and poverty, is helping us weather our housing and construction downturn.
Among the best-performing stocks last week were Caterpillar and other heavy earth-moving machinery corporations -- who turned in higher-than-anticipated quarterly earnings reports. The reason: record sales overseas from Asia to South America, which are in the midst of building booms.
Thus, while construction equipment sales were falling here because of a downturn in new housing starts and construction generally, they were booming globally: boosting profits and jobs here at home and benefiting working class 401(k) buy-and-hold investment portfolios.
Other industries were also benefiting from global expansion and sales growth abroad. Boeing was selling jet planes as if there was no tomorrow to economic powerhouses like China, accounting for a large part of the Dow's upsurge. Beverage companies like Coca-Cola were reporting higher revenues, largely on overseas sales. GM's best-selling car in China was the Pontiac. The list is long and growing.
Global growth only begets more growth if the right economic policies are being implemented, said Malpass in an analysis that was far ahead of his many economic colleagues on Wall Street.
"The sea change in global conditions toward fuller employment has profound implications. This is an opportunity to build on success rather than dwell on U.S. recession odds," he said.
Developing countries could boost their housing stocks by stabilizing their currencies and privatizing their banking systems, thereby attracting foreign investment to drive mortgage finance. Countries such as Brazil, India, and others still need to overhaul their anti-growth tax systems. Mexico can take a major leap forward if it further privatized its economy, using global liquidity to expand housing and raise living standards.
Meantime, the story of the global boom is not getting the respect and attention it deserves from a news media that sees only global imbalances, trade deficits, debt and poverty.
Quite the contrary, a worldwide economic revolution is fully under way, and America is its leader and one of its chief beneficiaries. "The global economy is adding more to jobs, output, literacy and government tax receipts than ever in its history," Malpass said.
All of this global growth has not hurt us; it has strengthened us, giving consumers more choices, boosting competitiveness and giving American companies stronger consumer markets in which to sell our goods and services. Last year, the American economy grew more than 3 percent (the same as the year before), lifting our gross national product to more than $13 trillion a year. Export sales rose to more than $1.3 trillion and climbing.
Since 2002, we've created 6.7 million net new jobs, according to the government's business payroll survey, and 10 million new jobs, according to the wider household survey that includes the self-employed and small family-run businesses.
The nightly news shows won't report any of this because they think only bad news sells. But they're missing a story of monumental importance about America's central role in the growing wealth of nations that is lifting the global economy to a new level of prosperity that benefits us all.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
The world is in the midst of an economic boom that is raising living standards, creating jobs and improving the quality of life for billions of people.
That's not the story or picture we see on the nightly news shows, where the world is torn by civil war, terrorism, death, destruction and unending poverty. There is certainly much of that, but there is another compelling story that needs telling, too, because it has a lot to do with our economy and future well-being.
The past week's wealth-creating run-up in the stock markets, where the Dow Jones industrial average was breaking records and nearing 13,000, is the latest manifestation of the Bush economy's continuing strength and resilience. But its strong performance was also the result, increasingly so, of the global economy's growth -- from which we benefit as a nation of merchants and exporters selling our goods and services to the world.
"The good news on U.S. jobs highlights a welcome global phenomenon. Unemployment rates have fallen to lows in Europe, Japan, China, India, Brazil and many other areas," Bear Stearns economist David Malpass wrote earlier this month in The Wall Street Journal. "While the U.S. itself is less openly exuberant than in the 1990s, most of the world is much better off economically." But let's not sell the U.S. economy short. The unemployment rate has dropped to 4.4 percent, disproving gloomy forecasts it would rise. More of us are working at increased pay scales (the average hourly wage was up to $17.22), which has been the driving force behind the rise in consumer spending and increased investments.
The dark, almost hysterical predictions that the collapse of the subprime home mortgages along with the decline in the housing market generally would send the economy into a recession have not born out. And the global economy's growth, denied by economic nationalists and leftist ideologues who see it as an evil force of exploitation and poverty, is helping us weather our housing and construction downturn.
Among the best-performing stocks last week were Caterpillar and other heavy earth-moving machinery corporations -- who turned in higher-than-anticipated quarterly earnings reports. The reason: record sales overseas from Asia to South America, which are in the midst of building booms.
Thus, while construction equipment sales were falling here because of a downturn in new housing starts and construction generally, they were booming globally: boosting profits and jobs here at home and benefiting working class 401(k) buy-and-hold investment portfolios.
Other industries were also benefiting from global expansion and sales growth abroad. Boeing was selling jet planes as if there was no tomorrow to economic powerhouses like China, accounting for a large part of the Dow's upsurge. Beverage companies like Coca-Cola were reporting higher revenues, largely on overseas sales. GM's best-selling car in China was the Pontiac. The list is long and growing.
Global growth only begets more growth if the right economic policies are being implemented, said Malpass in an analysis that was far ahead of his many economic colleagues on Wall Street.
"The sea change in global conditions toward fuller employment has profound implications. This is an opportunity to build on success rather than dwell on U.S. recession odds," he said.
Developing countries could boost their housing stocks by stabilizing their currencies and privatizing their banking systems, thereby attracting foreign investment to drive mortgage finance. Countries such as Brazil, India, and others still need to overhaul their anti-growth tax systems. Mexico can take a major leap forward if it further privatized its economy, using global liquidity to expand housing and raise living standards.
Meantime, the story of the global boom is not getting the respect and attention it deserves from a news media that sees only global imbalances, trade deficits, debt and poverty.
Quite the contrary, a worldwide economic revolution is fully under way, and America is its leader and one of its chief beneficiaries. "The global economy is adding more to jobs, output, literacy and government tax receipts than ever in its history," Malpass said.
All of this global growth has not hurt us; it has strengthened us, giving consumers more choices, boosting competitiveness and giving American companies stronger consumer markets in which to sell our goods and services. Last year, the American economy grew more than 3 percent (the same as the year before), lifting our gross national product to more than $13 trillion a year. Export sales rose to more than $1.3 trillion and climbing.
Since 2002, we've created 6.7 million net new jobs, according to the government's business payroll survey, and 10 million new jobs, according to the wider household survey that includes the self-employed and small family-run businesses.
The nightly news shows won't report any of this because they think only bad news sells. But they're missing a story of monumental importance about America's central role in the growing wealth of nations that is lifting the global economy to a new level of prosperity that benefits us all.
Hacks or Flacks?
By Cliff May
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Journalists are often accused of bias. Rarely do journalists level that charge against themselves. But the 35,000 members of Britain’s National Union of Journalists (NUJ) have done exactly that. Call them prejudiced, call them unprofessional. You can’t say they aren’t candid.
The NUJ has declared a boycott against the usual suspect: Israel. Just say no! to Israeli oranges, lemons and melons, they demand.
The NUJ has not declared a boycott against Sudan – despite the fact that the Khartoum regime is committing genocide against black Muslims in Darfur. Nor have they called for a boycott against the Syrian and Russian regimes that regularly murder their critics; the Iranian mullahs who torture reporters; the Palestinian Authority which is complicit in the kidnapping of correspondents; or the many Middle Eastern regimes that trample human rights day in and day out. No, the NUJ targets what is indisputably the freest and most democratic country in the Middle East, the one nation in the world with neighbors so hostile they vow to wipe her off the map.
The simple explanation is anti-Israelism – the 21st century’s most fashionable form of anti-Semitism. The NUJ is not quite candid enough to say that. Instead, the union cites what it calls the "savage, pre-planned attack on Lebanon by Israel."
You may be thinking: But didn’t last summer's conflict begin when Hezbollah fired rockets from Lebanon at villages inside Israel? Didn’t Hezbollah commandos cross the border into Israel and kill three Israeli soldiers and kidnap two more (who are to this day still in captivity, deprived of the most basic rights to which POWs are entitled)? Weren’t those acts of war to which Israel had a right to respond?
Also, you might wonder why the NUJ is so blithely unconcerned about Hezbollah’s use of Lebanese civilians and, in some cases, entire villages, as human shields. Though there was little press coverage during last summer’s war, after the conflict U.K. Foreign Office Minister Kim Howell investigated and reported to a parliamentary committee that Hezbollah had extensively hidden caches of arms in schools and mosques, and rockets in homes and apartment blocks.
“What I saw out there begs many questions about the way we try to define what constitutes a war crime,” Howell said. “Every time the Israelis responded [to a missile attack] and smashed a building down, every picture of a burnt child and every picture of a building that had housed people [where] there was now pancake on the ground was propaganda for Hezbollah.”
Propaganda that many journalists were more than willing to distribute globally (as Marvin Kalb, a senior fellow at Harvard’s Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, documents in a recent report: “The Israeli-Hezbollah War of 2006: The Media As A Weapon in Asymmetrical Conflict") . But that’s the luxury that bias affords: You can ignore war crimes by those you favor while, deriding as “savage” attempts at self-defense by those against whom you are prejudiced.
The British journalist, Toby Harnden, who has worked in the Middle East and who opposes the NUJ action, writes in the Telegraph that the NUJ has “a childish fixation with trendy-Leftie causes,” of which anti-Israelism is merely the most pronounced.
He notes, for example, an NUJ motion that "applauds the advances made by the Venezuelan people and government in redistributing the country's wealth" since Hugo Chavez came to power and turned that country into a bastion of anti-Americanism and an ally of Iran’s rulers.
Ironically, even as the NUJ is bashing Israel, Alan Johnston, the Gaza correspondent of the BBC is being held captive (and may have been killed) by Palestinian militants. Or maybe that isn’t ironic. Johnson’s kidnapping, the abduction and forced conversions of Fox journalists Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig, the video-taped decapitation of Daniel Pearl – these and other atrocities are intimidating a growing list of journalists.
With this as backdrop, perhaps the NUJ boycott against Israel should be seen less as bias and more as a kind of tribute -- a sacrifice of journalistic integrity in the hope it may appease the editors who matter most, those who cut not with red pens but with butcher knives, those who produce not packages for the evening news but snuff videos for the Internet.
“The use of media as a weapon [has] an effect parallel to a battle," Hezbollah commander Nabil Qaouk has declared. Al-Qaeda's Ayman al-Zawahiri, has observed that more than half of the Islamists' war "is taking place in the battlefield of the media."
That Britain’s National Union of Journalists has now surrendered any pretense of balance and neutrality in regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict must be a source of enormous encouragement to such men.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Journalists are often accused of bias. Rarely do journalists level that charge against themselves. But the 35,000 members of Britain’s National Union of Journalists (NUJ) have done exactly that. Call them prejudiced, call them unprofessional. You can’t say they aren’t candid.
The NUJ has declared a boycott against the usual suspect: Israel. Just say no! to Israeli oranges, lemons and melons, they demand.
The NUJ has not declared a boycott against Sudan – despite the fact that the Khartoum regime is committing genocide against black Muslims in Darfur. Nor have they called for a boycott against the Syrian and Russian regimes that regularly murder their critics; the Iranian mullahs who torture reporters; the Palestinian Authority which is complicit in the kidnapping of correspondents; or the many Middle Eastern regimes that trample human rights day in and day out. No, the NUJ targets what is indisputably the freest and most democratic country in the Middle East, the one nation in the world with neighbors so hostile they vow to wipe her off the map.
The simple explanation is anti-Israelism – the 21st century’s most fashionable form of anti-Semitism. The NUJ is not quite candid enough to say that. Instead, the union cites what it calls the "savage, pre-planned attack on Lebanon by Israel."
You may be thinking: But didn’t last summer's conflict begin when Hezbollah fired rockets from Lebanon at villages inside Israel? Didn’t Hezbollah commandos cross the border into Israel and kill three Israeli soldiers and kidnap two more (who are to this day still in captivity, deprived of the most basic rights to which POWs are entitled)? Weren’t those acts of war to which Israel had a right to respond?
Also, you might wonder why the NUJ is so blithely unconcerned about Hezbollah’s use of Lebanese civilians and, in some cases, entire villages, as human shields. Though there was little press coverage during last summer’s war, after the conflict U.K. Foreign Office Minister Kim Howell investigated and reported to a parliamentary committee that Hezbollah had extensively hidden caches of arms in schools and mosques, and rockets in homes and apartment blocks.
“What I saw out there begs many questions about the way we try to define what constitutes a war crime,” Howell said. “Every time the Israelis responded [to a missile attack] and smashed a building down, every picture of a burnt child and every picture of a building that had housed people [where] there was now pancake on the ground was propaganda for Hezbollah.”
Propaganda that many journalists were more than willing to distribute globally (as Marvin Kalb, a senior fellow at Harvard’s Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, documents in a recent report: “The Israeli-Hezbollah War of 2006: The Media As A Weapon in Asymmetrical Conflict") . But that’s the luxury that bias affords: You can ignore war crimes by those you favor while, deriding as “savage” attempts at self-defense by those against whom you are prejudiced.
The British journalist, Toby Harnden, who has worked in the Middle East and who opposes the NUJ action, writes in the Telegraph that the NUJ has “a childish fixation with trendy-Leftie causes,” of which anti-Israelism is merely the most pronounced.
He notes, for example, an NUJ motion that "applauds the advances made by the Venezuelan people and government in redistributing the country's wealth" since Hugo Chavez came to power and turned that country into a bastion of anti-Americanism and an ally of Iran’s rulers.
Ironically, even as the NUJ is bashing Israel, Alan Johnston, the Gaza correspondent of the BBC is being held captive (and may have been killed) by Palestinian militants. Or maybe that isn’t ironic. Johnson’s kidnapping, the abduction and forced conversions of Fox journalists Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig, the video-taped decapitation of Daniel Pearl – these and other atrocities are intimidating a growing list of journalists.
With this as backdrop, perhaps the NUJ boycott against Israel should be seen less as bias and more as a kind of tribute -- a sacrifice of journalistic integrity in the hope it may appease the editors who matter most, those who cut not with red pens but with butcher knives, those who produce not packages for the evening news but snuff videos for the Internet.
“The use of media as a weapon [has] an effect parallel to a battle," Hezbollah commander Nabil Qaouk has declared. Al-Qaeda's Ayman al-Zawahiri, has observed that more than half of the Islamists' war "is taking place in the battlefield of the media."
That Britain’s National Union of Journalists has now surrendered any pretense of balance and neutrality in regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict must be a source of enormous encouragement to such men.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Harry's War
Democrats are taking ownership of a defeat in Iraq.
Wall Street Journal
Wednesday, April 25, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
Gen. David Petraeus is in Washington this week, where on Monday he briefed President Bush on the progress of the new military strategy in Iraq. Today he will give similar briefings on Capitol Hill, but maybe he should save his breath. As fellow four-star Harry Reid recently informed America, the war Gen. Petraeus is fighting and trying to win is already "lost."
Mr. Reid has since tried to "clarify" that remark, and in a speech Monday he laid out his own strategy for Iraq. But perhaps we ought to be grateful for his earlier candor in laying out the strategic judgment--and nakedly political rationale--that underlies the latest Congressional bid to force a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq starting this fall. By doing so, he and the Democrats are taking ownership of whatever ugly outcome follows a U.S. defeat in Iraq.
This isn't to say that the Administration hasn't made its share of major blunders in this war. But at least Mr. Bush and his commanders are now trying to make up for these mistakes with a strategy to put Prime Minister Maliki's government on a stronger footing, secure Baghdad and the Sunni provinces against al Qaeda and allow for an eventual, honorable, U.S. withdrawal. That's more than can be said for Mr. Reid and the Democratic left, who are making the job for our troops more difficult by undermining U.S. morale and Iraqi confidence in American support.
In his speech Monday, Mr. Reid claimed that "nothing has changed" since the surge began taking effect in February. It's true that the car bombings and U.S. casualties continue, and may increase. But such an enemy counterattack was to be expected, aimed as it is directly at the Democrats in Washington. The real test of the surge is whether it can secure enough of the population to win their cooperation and gradually create fewer safe havens for the terrorists.
So far, the surge is meeting that test, even before the additional troops Mr. Bush ordered have been fully deployed. Between February and March sectarian violence declined by 26%, according to Gen. William Caldwell. Security in Baghdad has improved sufficiently to allow the government to shorten its nightly curfew. Radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has been politically marginalized, which explains his apparent departure from Iraq and the resignation of his minions from Mr. Maliki's parliamentary coalition--a sign that moderate Shiites are gaining strength at his expense.
More significantly, most Sunni tribal sheikhs are now turning against al Qaeda and cooperating with coalition and Iraqi forces. What has turned these sheikhs isn't some grand "political solution," which Mr. Reid claims is essential for Iraq's salvation. They've turned because they have tired of being fodder for al Qaeda's strategy of fomenting a civil war with a goal of creating a Taliban regime in Baghdad, or at least in Anbar province. The sheikhs realize that they will probably lose such a civil war now that the Shiites are as well-armed as the insurgents and prepared to be just as ruthless. Their best chance for survival now lies with a democratic government in Baghdad. The political solution becomes easier the stronger Mr. Maliki and Iraqi government forces are, and strengthening both is a major goal of the surge.
By contrast, Mr. Reid's strategy of withdrawal will only serve to enlarge the security vacuum in which Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents have thrived. That's also true of what an American withdrawal will mean for the broader Middle East. Mr. Reid says that by withdrawing from Iraq we will be better able to take on al Qaeda and a nuclear Iran. But the reality (to use Mr. Reid's new favorite word) is that we are fighting al Qaeda in Iraq, and if we lose there we will only make it harder to prevail in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Countries do not usually win wars by losing their biggest battles.
As for Iran, Mr. Reid's strategy of defeat would guarantee that the radical mullahs of Tehran have more influence in Baghdad than the moderate Shiites of Najaf. It would also make the mullahs even more confident that they can build a bomb with impunity and no fear of any Western response.
The stakes in Iraq are about the future of the entire Middle East--and of our inevitable involvement in it. In calling for withdrawal, Mr. Reid and his allies, just as with Vietnam, may think they are merely following polls that show the public is unhappy with the war. Yet Americans will come to dislike a humiliation and its aftermath even more, especially as they realize that a withdrawal from Iraq now will only make it harder to stabilize the region and defeat Islamist radicals. And they will like it even less should we be required to re-enter the country someday under far worse circumstances.
This is the outcome toward which the "lost" Democrats and Harry Reid are heading, and for which they will be responsible if it occurs. The alternative is to fight for a stable Iraqi government that can control the country and keep it together in a federal, democratic system. As long as such an outcome is within reach, it is our responsibility to achieve it.
Wall Street Journal
Wednesday, April 25, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war. Senator Schumer has shown me numbers that are compelling and astounding.
--Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, April 12.
Gen. David Petraeus is in Washington this week, where on Monday he briefed President Bush on the progress of the new military strategy in Iraq. Today he will give similar briefings on Capitol Hill, but maybe he should save his breath. As fellow four-star Harry Reid recently informed America, the war Gen. Petraeus is fighting and trying to win is already "lost."
Mr. Reid has since tried to "clarify" that remark, and in a speech Monday he laid out his own strategy for Iraq. But perhaps we ought to be grateful for his earlier candor in laying out the strategic judgment--and nakedly political rationale--that underlies the latest Congressional bid to force a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq starting this fall. By doing so, he and the Democrats are taking ownership of whatever ugly outcome follows a U.S. defeat in Iraq.
This isn't to say that the Administration hasn't made its share of major blunders in this war. But at least Mr. Bush and his commanders are now trying to make up for these mistakes with a strategy to put Prime Minister Maliki's government on a stronger footing, secure Baghdad and the Sunni provinces against al Qaeda and allow for an eventual, honorable, U.S. withdrawal. That's more than can be said for Mr. Reid and the Democratic left, who are making the job for our troops more difficult by undermining U.S. morale and Iraqi confidence in American support.
In his speech Monday, Mr. Reid claimed that "nothing has changed" since the surge began taking effect in February. It's true that the car bombings and U.S. casualties continue, and may increase. But such an enemy counterattack was to be expected, aimed as it is directly at the Democrats in Washington. The real test of the surge is whether it can secure enough of the population to win their cooperation and gradually create fewer safe havens for the terrorists.
So far, the surge is meeting that test, even before the additional troops Mr. Bush ordered have been fully deployed. Between February and March sectarian violence declined by 26%, according to Gen. William Caldwell. Security in Baghdad has improved sufficiently to allow the government to shorten its nightly curfew. Radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has been politically marginalized, which explains his apparent departure from Iraq and the resignation of his minions from Mr. Maliki's parliamentary coalition--a sign that moderate Shiites are gaining strength at his expense.
More significantly, most Sunni tribal sheikhs are now turning against al Qaeda and cooperating with coalition and Iraqi forces. What has turned these sheikhs isn't some grand "political solution," which Mr. Reid claims is essential for Iraq's salvation. They've turned because they have tired of being fodder for al Qaeda's strategy of fomenting a civil war with a goal of creating a Taliban regime in Baghdad, or at least in Anbar province. The sheikhs realize that they will probably lose such a civil war now that the Shiites are as well-armed as the insurgents and prepared to be just as ruthless. Their best chance for survival now lies with a democratic government in Baghdad. The political solution becomes easier the stronger Mr. Maliki and Iraqi government forces are, and strengthening both is a major goal of the surge.
By contrast, Mr. Reid's strategy of withdrawal will only serve to enlarge the security vacuum in which Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents have thrived. That's also true of what an American withdrawal will mean for the broader Middle East. Mr. Reid says that by withdrawing from Iraq we will be better able to take on al Qaeda and a nuclear Iran. But the reality (to use Mr. Reid's new favorite word) is that we are fighting al Qaeda in Iraq, and if we lose there we will only make it harder to prevail in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Countries do not usually win wars by losing their biggest battles.
As for Iran, Mr. Reid's strategy of defeat would guarantee that the radical mullahs of Tehran have more influence in Baghdad than the moderate Shiites of Najaf. It would also make the mullahs even more confident that they can build a bomb with impunity and no fear of any Western response.
The stakes in Iraq are about the future of the entire Middle East--and of our inevitable involvement in it. In calling for withdrawal, Mr. Reid and his allies, just as with Vietnam, may think they are merely following polls that show the public is unhappy with the war. Yet Americans will come to dislike a humiliation and its aftermath even more, especially as they realize that a withdrawal from Iraq now will only make it harder to stabilize the region and defeat Islamist radicals. And they will like it even less should we be required to re-enter the country someday under far worse circumstances.
This is the outcome toward which the "lost" Democrats and Harry Reid are heading, and for which they will be responsible if it occurs. The alternative is to fight for a stable Iraqi government that can control the country and keep it together in a federal, democratic system. As long as such an outcome is within reach, it is our responsibility to achieve it.
A Tale of Two Scandals
"Full confidence" for an EU official despite a romp on a nude beach with an employee.
By Bret Stephens
Tuesday, April 24, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
Imagine that a top civil servant at a major multinational institution arranges a job for a fortysomething female colleague that comes with a $45,000 raise and brings her yearly salary to about $190,000, tax free. Now imagine that the couple has been photographed at a nudist beach--him wearing nothing but a baseball cap.
The latest sordid twist in l'affaire Wolfowitz? Not at all. This is the story of Günter Verheugen, first vice president of the European Commission in Brussels. In its contrasts and similarities with the "scandal" now absorbing the World Bank and its president, it offers timely instruction on the nature and power of modern bureaucracies.
In April, Mr. Verheugen, a former German parliamentarian for the Social Democrats, appointed economist Petra Erler as his chief of staff. In August, the couple was spotted au naturel on a Baltic shore. Mr. Verheugen--who also has a wife--has dismissed allegations of impropriety as "pure slander" and asked the German newsweekly Der Spiegel whether "two adults [can't] do as they wish in their private lives?"
In fact, they can't: The EU Commission's Code of Conduct, which he helped draft, observes that "in their official and private lives Commissioners should behave in a manner that is in keeping with the dignity of their office. Ruling out all risks of a conflict of interest helps guarantee their independence."
Don't think, however, that the commissioner is out on his ear: German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier defends him as "an irreplaceable Brussels heavyweight," while Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso says Mr. Verheugen has his "full confidence." That's more support than Mr. Wolfowitz will ever get from his European friends, who are clucking noisily about the need for the World Bank to preserve its "credibility" and for its president to be "beyond reproach." (It's also more than he's getting from the Bush administration, which is offering token words of support while quietly shopping former Afghan Finance Minister Ashraf Ghani as a potential successor.)
But this isn't just a story of European hypocrisy (an old story). Like Mr. Wolfowitz, Mr. Verheugen is a man of major prior accomplishments--in his case, engineering the enlargement of the European Union to 25 from 15 member states. Also like Mr. Wolfowitz, Mr. Verheugen came to his current job pledging to make war on the methods of his own bureaucracy. "The idea is that the role of the commission is to keep the machinery running and the machinery is producing laws," he said last October. "And that's exactly what I want to change."
The machinery had a different idea. Mr. Verheugen announced plans in 2005 to do away with scores of economically burdensome and antiquated regulations, which he thought could help lift economic growth. When his efforts went nowhere, he gave an interview to the press blaming the failure on the opposition he'd encountered within the Brussels bureaucracy. The Commission's staff union reacted predictably, by calling on him to apologize and suggesting he resign. Not coincidentally, it was around the same time that stories of his special relationship with Ms. Erler, and of her new job, came to the attention of the press and the public.
Now consider the Wolfowitz saga. Superficially, the similarities with Mr. Verheugen rest with the details of their respective scandals: a close lady friend on staff, a suspiciously generous pay raise, allegations of nepotism and conflicts of interest.
But aside from the facts that Mr. Wolfowitz is unmarried and prefers his clothes on, the substance of the cases could not be more different. Mr. Verheugen seems to have obscured the nature of his relationship with Ms. Erler; Mr. Wolfowitz acknowledged his relationship with Shaha Riza before he took the job as Bank president. Mr. Verheugen sought to use the power of his office to bring Ms. Erler nearer to him; Mr. Wolfowitz sought to use the power of his to move Ms. Riza away. Ms. Erler moved into a better job; Ms. Riza was forced into a lesser one. Mr. Verheugen ignored his own code of conduct; Mr. Wolfowitz followed the instructions of his ethics committee, whose chairman later praised him for acting in a "constructive spirit."
What the Wolfowitz scandal comes down to, then, is that he gave Ms. Riza a fat raise after the Bank's board agreed that she deserved compensation for losing her job. This is where the bureaucracy comes in and the real similarities with the Verheugen case begin.
When Mr. Wolfowitz arrived at the World Bank in 2005, it was to an institution ideologically committed to seeing him fail. When he announced that he would make the fight against corruption his signature issue, the ideological opposition became institutional as well. As development economist William Easterly observes, for the World Bank "priority No. 1 is to get the money out the door. When you introduce a wild card like cutting off corrupt governments, you threaten the loan-pushing culture."
Since then, it's been a steady dribble of leaks about Mr. Wolfowitz's every misstep and perceived wrongdoing, most of them to the suggestible Financial Times. The operative theory here, says former Bush administration diplomat Otto Reich, is that if you throw enough mud at a man "the stain will remain even if none of the mud sticks." That's just what has happened in the campaign at the World Bank: Having doused Mr. Wolfowitz in skunk juices, the critics can now say, with justice, that he stinks.
This isn't to say that Mr. Wolfowitz's tenure at the World Bank has been without disappointments: Mr. Easterly faults him for indulging utopian ambitions for what the Bank can do to alleviate poverty and promote democracy.
But that can't possibly justify the furies that have now descended on Mr. Wolfowitz. Like Mr. Verheugen, he sought to use his office to change an organization he thought--mistakenly, as it turns out--that he ran. Unlike Mr. Verheugen, he never really did anything improper. That he is now on the firing line while Mr. Verheugen is not is a point worth noting. That both men, despite the great differences between them, have been thwarted by their bureaucracies should be a reminder to everyone that the government of mandarins is more than just a danger to interloping neocons.
By Bret Stephens
Tuesday, April 24, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
Imagine that a top civil servant at a major multinational institution arranges a job for a fortysomething female colleague that comes with a $45,000 raise and brings her yearly salary to about $190,000, tax free. Now imagine that the couple has been photographed at a nudist beach--him wearing nothing but a baseball cap.
The latest sordid twist in l'affaire Wolfowitz? Not at all. This is the story of Günter Verheugen, first vice president of the European Commission in Brussels. In its contrasts and similarities with the "scandal" now absorbing the World Bank and its president, it offers timely instruction on the nature and power of modern bureaucracies.
In April, Mr. Verheugen, a former German parliamentarian for the Social Democrats, appointed economist Petra Erler as his chief of staff. In August, the couple was spotted au naturel on a Baltic shore. Mr. Verheugen--who also has a wife--has dismissed allegations of impropriety as "pure slander" and asked the German newsweekly Der Spiegel whether "two adults [can't] do as they wish in their private lives?"
In fact, they can't: The EU Commission's Code of Conduct, which he helped draft, observes that "in their official and private lives Commissioners should behave in a manner that is in keeping with the dignity of their office. Ruling out all risks of a conflict of interest helps guarantee their independence."
Don't think, however, that the commissioner is out on his ear: German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier defends him as "an irreplaceable Brussels heavyweight," while Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso says Mr. Verheugen has his "full confidence." That's more support than Mr. Wolfowitz will ever get from his European friends, who are clucking noisily about the need for the World Bank to preserve its "credibility" and for its president to be "beyond reproach." (It's also more than he's getting from the Bush administration, which is offering token words of support while quietly shopping former Afghan Finance Minister Ashraf Ghani as a potential successor.)
But this isn't just a story of European hypocrisy (an old story). Like Mr. Wolfowitz, Mr. Verheugen is a man of major prior accomplishments--in his case, engineering the enlargement of the European Union to 25 from 15 member states. Also like Mr. Wolfowitz, Mr. Verheugen came to his current job pledging to make war on the methods of his own bureaucracy. "The idea is that the role of the commission is to keep the machinery running and the machinery is producing laws," he said last October. "And that's exactly what I want to change."
The machinery had a different idea. Mr. Verheugen announced plans in 2005 to do away with scores of economically burdensome and antiquated regulations, which he thought could help lift economic growth. When his efforts went nowhere, he gave an interview to the press blaming the failure on the opposition he'd encountered within the Brussels bureaucracy. The Commission's staff union reacted predictably, by calling on him to apologize and suggesting he resign. Not coincidentally, it was around the same time that stories of his special relationship with Ms. Erler, and of her new job, came to the attention of the press and the public.
Now consider the Wolfowitz saga. Superficially, the similarities with Mr. Verheugen rest with the details of their respective scandals: a close lady friend on staff, a suspiciously generous pay raise, allegations of nepotism and conflicts of interest.
But aside from the facts that Mr. Wolfowitz is unmarried and prefers his clothes on, the substance of the cases could not be more different. Mr. Verheugen seems to have obscured the nature of his relationship with Ms. Erler; Mr. Wolfowitz acknowledged his relationship with Shaha Riza before he took the job as Bank president. Mr. Verheugen sought to use the power of his office to bring Ms. Erler nearer to him; Mr. Wolfowitz sought to use the power of his to move Ms. Riza away. Ms. Erler moved into a better job; Ms. Riza was forced into a lesser one. Mr. Verheugen ignored his own code of conduct; Mr. Wolfowitz followed the instructions of his ethics committee, whose chairman later praised him for acting in a "constructive spirit."
What the Wolfowitz scandal comes down to, then, is that he gave Ms. Riza a fat raise after the Bank's board agreed that she deserved compensation for losing her job. This is where the bureaucracy comes in and the real similarities with the Verheugen case begin.
When Mr. Wolfowitz arrived at the World Bank in 2005, it was to an institution ideologically committed to seeing him fail. When he announced that he would make the fight against corruption his signature issue, the ideological opposition became institutional as well. As development economist William Easterly observes, for the World Bank "priority No. 1 is to get the money out the door. When you introduce a wild card like cutting off corrupt governments, you threaten the loan-pushing culture."
Since then, it's been a steady dribble of leaks about Mr. Wolfowitz's every misstep and perceived wrongdoing, most of them to the suggestible Financial Times. The operative theory here, says former Bush administration diplomat Otto Reich, is that if you throw enough mud at a man "the stain will remain even if none of the mud sticks." That's just what has happened in the campaign at the World Bank: Having doused Mr. Wolfowitz in skunk juices, the critics can now say, with justice, that he stinks.
This isn't to say that Mr. Wolfowitz's tenure at the World Bank has been without disappointments: Mr. Easterly faults him for indulging utopian ambitions for what the Bank can do to alleviate poverty and promote democracy.
But that can't possibly justify the furies that have now descended on Mr. Wolfowitz. Like Mr. Verheugen, he sought to use his office to change an organization he thought--mistakenly, as it turns out--that he ran. Unlike Mr. Verheugen, he never really did anything improper. That he is now on the firing line while Mr. Verheugen is not is a point worth noting. That both men, despite the great differences between them, have been thwarted by their bureaucracies should be a reminder to everyone that the government of mandarins is more than just a danger to interloping neocons.
How About Economic Progress Day?
By John Stossel
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Last Sunday was marked by an orgy of celebrations of Earth Day, the worldwide annual event intended to "to spark a revolution against environmental abuse."
Even the Bush administration had an Earth Day website, which stated, Earth Day and every day is a time to act to protect our planet".
Watching the media coverage, you'd think that the earth was in imminent danger -- that human life itself was on the verge of extinction. Technology is fingered as the perp.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
John Semmens of Arizona's Laissez Faire Institute points out that Earth Day misses an important point. In the April issue of The Freeman magazine, Semmens says the environmental movement overlooks how hospitable the earth has become -- thanks to technology. "The environmental alarmists have it backwards. If anything imperils the earth it is ignorant obstruction of science and progress. ... That technology provides the best option for serving human wants and conserving the environment should be evident in the progress made in environmental improvement in the United States. Virtually every measure shows that pollution is headed downward and that nature is making a comeback." (Carbon dioxide excepted, if it is really a pollutant.)
Semmens describes his visit to historic Lexington and Concord in Massachusetts, an area "lush with trees and greenery." It wasn't always that way. In 1775, the land was cleared so it could be farmed. Today, technology makes farmers so efficient that only a fraction of the land is needed to produce much more food. As a result, "Massachusetts farmland has been allowed to revert back to forest."
Human ingenuity and technology not only raised living standards, but also restored environmental amenities. How about a day to celebrate that?
Yet, Semmens writes, the environmental movement is skeptical about technology and is attracted to three dubious principles: sustainable development, the precautionary principle, and stakeholder participation.
The point of sustainable development, Semmens says, "is to minimize the use of nonrenewable natural resources so there will be more left for future generations." Sounds sensible -- who is for "unsustainable" development?
But as the great economist Julian Simon often pointed out, resources are manmade, not natural. Jed Clampett cheered when he found oil on his land because it made him rich enough to move to Beverly Hills. But his great-grandfather would have cursed the disgusting black gunk because Canadian geologist Abraham Gesner hadn't yet discovered that kerosene could be distilled from it.
President Bush chides us for our "addiction to oil." But under current conditions, using oil makes perfect sense. Someday, if we let the free market operate, someone will find an energy source that works better than oil. Then richer future generations won't need oil. So why deprive ourselves and make ourselves poorer with needless regulation now?
Anyway, it's not as if we're running out of oil. That's one of the myths I expose in my new book, "Myths, Lies and Downright Stupidity". If the price of a barrel of oil stays high, entrepreneurs will find better ways to suck oil out of the ground. At $50 a barrel, it's even profitable to recover oil that's stuck in the tar sands in Alberta, Canada. Those tar sands alone contain enough oil to meet our needs for a hundred years.
The precautionary principle, popular in Europe, is the idea that no new thing should be permitted until it has been proved harmless. Sounds good, except as Ron Bailey of Reason writes, it basically means, "Don't ever do anything for the first time."
Stakeholder participation means that busybodies would be permitted to intrude on private transactions. Semmens's example is DDT, which for years would have saved children from deadly malaria, except that "'stakeholders' from the environmental quarter have prevailed on governments to ban the trade in this product."
The first victims of these principles are the poor. We rich Westerners can withstand a lot of policy foolishness. But people in the developing world live on the edge, so anything that retards economic progress -- including measures to arrest global warming -- will bring incredible hardship to the most vulnerable on the planet.
If we care about human life, we should celebrate Economic Progress Day.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Last Sunday was marked by an orgy of celebrations of Earth Day, the worldwide annual event intended to "to spark a revolution against environmental abuse."
Even the Bush administration had an Earth Day website, which stated, Earth Day and every day is a time to act to protect our planet".
Watching the media coverage, you'd think that the earth was in imminent danger -- that human life itself was on the verge of extinction. Technology is fingered as the perp.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
John Semmens of Arizona's Laissez Faire Institute points out that Earth Day misses an important point. In the April issue of The Freeman magazine, Semmens says the environmental movement overlooks how hospitable the earth has become -- thanks to technology. "The environmental alarmists have it backwards. If anything imperils the earth it is ignorant obstruction of science and progress. ... That technology provides the best option for serving human wants and conserving the environment should be evident in the progress made in environmental improvement in the United States. Virtually every measure shows that pollution is headed downward and that nature is making a comeback." (Carbon dioxide excepted, if it is really a pollutant.)
Semmens describes his visit to historic Lexington and Concord in Massachusetts, an area "lush with trees and greenery." It wasn't always that way. In 1775, the land was cleared so it could be farmed. Today, technology makes farmers so efficient that only a fraction of the land is needed to produce much more food. As a result, "Massachusetts farmland has been allowed to revert back to forest."
Human ingenuity and technology not only raised living standards, but also restored environmental amenities. How about a day to celebrate that?
Yet, Semmens writes, the environmental movement is skeptical about technology and is attracted to three dubious principles: sustainable development, the precautionary principle, and stakeholder participation.
The point of sustainable development, Semmens says, "is to minimize the use of nonrenewable natural resources so there will be more left for future generations." Sounds sensible -- who is for "unsustainable" development?
But as the great economist Julian Simon often pointed out, resources are manmade, not natural. Jed Clampett cheered when he found oil on his land because it made him rich enough to move to Beverly Hills. But his great-grandfather would have cursed the disgusting black gunk because Canadian geologist Abraham Gesner hadn't yet discovered that kerosene could be distilled from it.
President Bush chides us for our "addiction to oil." But under current conditions, using oil makes perfect sense. Someday, if we let the free market operate, someone will find an energy source that works better than oil. Then richer future generations won't need oil. So why deprive ourselves and make ourselves poorer with needless regulation now?
Anyway, it's not as if we're running out of oil. That's one of the myths I expose in my new book, "Myths, Lies and Downright Stupidity". If the price of a barrel of oil stays high, entrepreneurs will find better ways to suck oil out of the ground. At $50 a barrel, it's even profitable to recover oil that's stuck in the tar sands in Alberta, Canada. Those tar sands alone contain enough oil to meet our needs for a hundred years.
The precautionary principle, popular in Europe, is the idea that no new thing should be permitted until it has been proved harmless. Sounds good, except as Ron Bailey of Reason writes, it basically means, "Don't ever do anything for the first time."
Stakeholder participation means that busybodies would be permitted to intrude on private transactions. Semmens's example is DDT, which for years would have saved children from deadly malaria, except that "'stakeholders' from the environmental quarter have prevailed on governments to ban the trade in this product."
The first victims of these principles are the poor. We rich Westerners can withstand a lot of policy foolishness. But people in the developing world live on the edge, so anything that retards economic progress -- including measures to arrest global warming -- will bring incredible hardship to the most vulnerable on the planet.
If we care about human life, we should celebrate Economic Progress Day.
Duke Lacrosse Scandal: Eight Lessons
By Dennis Prager
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
America's news media, an amoral university, an opportunistic district attorney, and a police department that seems to have collaborated in framing innocent students all combined to nearly destroy the lives of three innocent young men -- members of the Duke University lacrosse team.
The attorney general of North Carolina announced that all charges -- of rape, sexual assault and whatever other charges a mendacious young woman got Mike Nifong to bring against the Duke lacrosse team players -- were being dropped. He pronounced the students "innocent," not merely "not guilty." And the attorney general also declared Nifong a "rogue prosecutor."
The lessons of this terrible story are obvious, but given the political correctness of our time and the inverted values that prevail among America's elites -- particularly the news media, the universities and the legal profession -- these lessons will rarely be expressed, let alone learned.
First, the rape of a name is also a rape. A false accusation of rape can be as devastating to a man and his family as a real rape can be to a woman and her family. Sometimes a real rape is more destructive; sometimes the rape of a name is more destructive. It is therefore a grave injustice not to prosecute the woman who brought these false charges.
Second, moral Americans of every race must acknowledge that our society has a problem of anti-white prejudice in parts of the African American community. Proportionally, it seems that more blacks unfairly mistrust whites than whites unfairly mistrust blacks. Mike Nifong won his race for district attorney largely by appealing to this prejudice.
Third, it is utterly unjust that the families of the Duke lacrosse players had to pay millions of dollars in attorneys fees to defend their sons against a lying woman and a morally corrupt district attorney. Such injustices happen every day because the American legal system, unlike that of other countries such as Great Britain, forces those who win lawsuits wrongly brought against them to pay all their legal bills. Trial lawyers and the Democratic Party, which trial lawyers fund, prevent all reform in this area in order to allow frivolous lawsuits and their accompanying high lawyer profits to continue. That is why three young men who did nothing wrong have cost their families much, if not all, of their life savings.
Fourth, while Duke University has good individuals, like most universities today, Duke is a moral wasteland. Eight-eight professors, abetted by Duke's president, created a mob mentality against the young men not unlike that of a lynch mob. Of course, nothing will be done to Duke's president or to those professors. To get fired as the president of an elite American university, one must suggest that men and women are innately different. Politically incorrect truth telling -- not race-, gender- or class-baiting of whites, athletes or males -- gets you fired. And Duke alumni will continue to fund Duke, just as Columbia University alumni are funding Columbia with record donations despite Columbia's reluctance to discipline radical students who violently disrupted a conservative speaker on campus last year.
Fifth, the moral vision of much of the Left, which led the anti-white athlete hysteria, was revealed again. It views the world not as a conflict between good and evil but between white and black, male and female, and rich and poor. The athletes were rich and white and male. For many on the Left, that alone made them villains. As a general proposition, subject to exceptions that accompany all generalizations, the Left has considerably more compassion for groups (racial, ethnic, socioeconomic and sexual groups it favors) than for individuals.
Sixth, any time Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson get in front of cameras on a race matter, assume that they are there to inflame, not heal. We await their apologies to the three Duke students. But we are also awaiting Al Sharpton's apologies to those he libeled in the Tawana Brawley rape hoax.
Seventh, the next time you hear that someone was indicted by a grand jury, unless you have knowledge of the case, or reason suggests possible guilt, don't assume it. As Joe Cheshire, one of the accused boys' lawyers said, "A grand jury would indict a ham sandwich for the death of a pig."
Eighth, it is time to drop the anti-male bigotry and either hide the names of accused rapists -- at least until their indictment -- or also reveal the names of their accusers. Short of that, the press and justice system surely have the moral obligation to reveal the names of false accusers of rape. It is almost beyond belief (but little is anymore) that news media like The New York Times will still not reveal the name of the lying accuser. For the record, it is Crystal Mangum. Shame on her and her supporters.
I weep for those boys and their families. And I fear for America.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
America's news media, an amoral university, an opportunistic district attorney, and a police department that seems to have collaborated in framing innocent students all combined to nearly destroy the lives of three innocent young men -- members of the Duke University lacrosse team.
The attorney general of North Carolina announced that all charges -- of rape, sexual assault and whatever other charges a mendacious young woman got Mike Nifong to bring against the Duke lacrosse team players -- were being dropped. He pronounced the students "innocent," not merely "not guilty." And the attorney general also declared Nifong a "rogue prosecutor."
The lessons of this terrible story are obvious, but given the political correctness of our time and the inverted values that prevail among America's elites -- particularly the news media, the universities and the legal profession -- these lessons will rarely be expressed, let alone learned.
First, the rape of a name is also a rape. A false accusation of rape can be as devastating to a man and his family as a real rape can be to a woman and her family. Sometimes a real rape is more destructive; sometimes the rape of a name is more destructive. It is therefore a grave injustice not to prosecute the woman who brought these false charges.
Second, moral Americans of every race must acknowledge that our society has a problem of anti-white prejudice in parts of the African American community. Proportionally, it seems that more blacks unfairly mistrust whites than whites unfairly mistrust blacks. Mike Nifong won his race for district attorney largely by appealing to this prejudice.
Third, it is utterly unjust that the families of the Duke lacrosse players had to pay millions of dollars in attorneys fees to defend their sons against a lying woman and a morally corrupt district attorney. Such injustices happen every day because the American legal system, unlike that of other countries such as Great Britain, forces those who win lawsuits wrongly brought against them to pay all their legal bills. Trial lawyers and the Democratic Party, which trial lawyers fund, prevent all reform in this area in order to allow frivolous lawsuits and their accompanying high lawyer profits to continue. That is why three young men who did nothing wrong have cost their families much, if not all, of their life savings.
Fourth, while Duke University has good individuals, like most universities today, Duke is a moral wasteland. Eight-eight professors, abetted by Duke's president, created a mob mentality against the young men not unlike that of a lynch mob. Of course, nothing will be done to Duke's president or to those professors. To get fired as the president of an elite American university, one must suggest that men and women are innately different. Politically incorrect truth telling -- not race-, gender- or class-baiting of whites, athletes or males -- gets you fired. And Duke alumni will continue to fund Duke, just as Columbia University alumni are funding Columbia with record donations despite Columbia's reluctance to discipline radical students who violently disrupted a conservative speaker on campus last year.
Fifth, the moral vision of much of the Left, which led the anti-white athlete hysteria, was revealed again. It views the world not as a conflict between good and evil but between white and black, male and female, and rich and poor. The athletes were rich and white and male. For many on the Left, that alone made them villains. As a general proposition, subject to exceptions that accompany all generalizations, the Left has considerably more compassion for groups (racial, ethnic, socioeconomic and sexual groups it favors) than for individuals.
Sixth, any time Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson get in front of cameras on a race matter, assume that they are there to inflame, not heal. We await their apologies to the three Duke students. But we are also awaiting Al Sharpton's apologies to those he libeled in the Tawana Brawley rape hoax.
Seventh, the next time you hear that someone was indicted by a grand jury, unless you have knowledge of the case, or reason suggests possible guilt, don't assume it. As Joe Cheshire, one of the accused boys' lawyers said, "A grand jury would indict a ham sandwich for the death of a pig."
Eighth, it is time to drop the anti-male bigotry and either hide the names of accused rapists -- at least until their indictment -- or also reveal the names of their accusers. Short of that, the press and justice system surely have the moral obligation to reveal the names of false accusers of rape. It is almost beyond belief (but little is anymore) that news media like The New York Times will still not reveal the name of the lying accuser. For the record, it is Crystal Mangum. Shame on her and her supporters.
I weep for those boys and their families. And I fear for America.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Are gun-free nations or "zones" safer?
By Mark M. Alexander
Sunday, April 22, 2007
http://patriotpost.us/alexander/edition.asp?id=529
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic..." --Justice Joseph Story
Gun-free nations are safer -- at least for folks like Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Idi Amin, Castro, Pol Pot and Saddam, all of whom disarmed their detractors before slaughtering them by the tens of millions.
History records the consequences of disarming people, both in terms of protection, in their person and property, from tyrannical governments and from criminals. Regarding the latter, "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."
Thomas Jefferson understood that maxim. In his Commonplace Book, Jefferson quotes Cesare Beccaria from his seminal work, On Crimes and Punishment: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
The same can be said of so-called "gun-free zones" in America, as on the campus of Virginia Tech.
"Virginia Tech has a very sound policy"
In 2002, at the Appalachian School of Law just up the road from Virginia Tech, a Nigerian student, who had flunked out, returned to campus, murdered three people and wounded three others. Fortunately, his killing spree was interrupted by two students who had retrieved handguns from their vehicles and held the murderer at gunpoint until police arrived.
This intervention was not unprecedented.
In 1997, an assistant principal in Pearl, Mississippi, retrieved a handgun from his car and apprehended a murderer. A few days later, a copycat assault in Edinboro, Pennsylvania, ended after a nearby merchant wielding a shotgun forced the attacker to surrender. Off campus, it is estimated conservatively that gun owners use their weapons defensively more than 1.3 million times each year.
With that as a backdrop, last spring Virginia Tech admonished a student for having a handgun on campus -- never mind that the student had a state-issued concealed-carry permit.
That admonishment was a motivating factor behind a proposed bill before the Virginia legislature to prevent academic institutions from enacting "rules or regulations limiting or abridging the ability of a student who possesses a valid concealed-handgun permit ... from lawfully carrying a concealed handgun."
The legislation died in committee, prompting Tech's associate vice president, Larry Hincker, to praise the General Assembly in a Roanoke (Virginia) Times op-ed: "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus. We believe guns don't belong in the classroom. In an academic environment, we believe you should be free from fear."
A month later, there was a murder near Tech's campus, prompting a lockdown.
In response, Tech grad student Bradford Wiles penned an op-ed in the campus paper calling on the school to allow those with concealed-carry permits to carry guns on campus should they choose.
Larry Hincker emerged again, protesting, "[I]t is absolutely mind-boggling to see the opinions of Bradford Wiles. Surely, [the editors] scratched their heads saying, 'I can't believe he really wants to say that.' Guns don't belong in classrooms. They never will. Virginia Tech has a very sound policy preventing same."
Congratulations Mr. Hinkler. Your "sound policy" created a "safe campus" for only one student -- Cho Seung-Hui -- who was able to slaughter 32 people without interruption.
A theatrical performance
Unlike most psychopathic killers, Korean native Cho Seung-Hui produced the equivalent of theatrical trailers and stills advertising his murderous intentions and motives and sent them to NBC on the day of his rampage. The video outlined his intense hatred for his fellow students, and the still photos looked like promotional shots from almost any violent video game, rap CD or Hollywood release.
The violent images were consistent with a report filed by one of Cho's teachers, Lucinda Roy, who noted violent themes in Cho's writing projects. Unfortunately, she was told there were too many legal hurdles to open an investigation. Another professor, Nikki Giovanni, had him removed from her class because his behavior was so threatening.
In 2005, Cho was temporarily detained for a psychiatric assessment ordered by a County District Court Judge, who certified in the order that Cho presented "an imminent danger to self or others" and ordered him to receive outpatient treatment. The psychologist who evaluated Cho reported that "his affect is flat and mood is depressed," but "his insight and judgment are normal." Apparently not.
In an act of stupefyingly poor judgment, NBC chose to release Cho's murderous manifesto, raising immediate and serious questions about copycat killers. "Showing the video is a social catastrophe," protests forensic psychiatrist Michael Welner. "I promise you the disaffected will watch him the way they watched 'Natural Born Killers.' I know. I examine these people. I've examined mass shooters who have told me they've watched it 20 times. You cannot saturate the American public with this kind of message."
The prospect of getting through the end of this school year without a copycat incident is diminishing.
"Gun Violence"?
In the words of Lucius Annaeus Seneca, circa 45 AD, "Quemadmoeum gladuis neminem occidit, occidentis telum est." (A sword is never a killer, it is a tool in the killer's hands.)
Suggesting that mass murder is a "gun problem" ignores the real problem -- murderous pathology and the culture which nurtures it. (See the Congressional Testimony of Darrell Scott, father of Rachel Scott, one of the children murdered at Columbine High School.)
If guns cause homicides, then one may, by logical extension, draw the following conclusions about causal factors for the top U.S. mortality groups: golden arches cause heart disease, cigarette lighters cause cancer, sex causes abortions, steering wheels cause car accidents, toxic-warning labels cause poisonings, ladders cause falls and bottles cause deaths associated with alcohol abuse.
Of course, by way of this liberal blameshifting logic, one may also conclude that commercial jets and truck bombs cause buildings to collapse, 90210 causes 9/11 conspiracy theories, freedom causes tyranny, beards cause terrorism, SUVs cause global warming, White House interns cause infidelity, saying "no" causes rape, chains cause slavery, matches cause arson, cameras cause pornography, sporks cause obesity, marriage causes divorce, crowbars cause burglary, credit cards cause bankruptcy, elections cause corruption, 24-hour news-cycle talkingheads cause ignorance, ad nauseam...
Murder statistics in perspective
According to the most recent annual statistics from the Centers for Disease Control, there were 11,500 homicides committed by perpetrators using guns. There were 17,000 deaths committed by perpetrators using vehicles after consuming alcohol. Your chances of being killed by a drunk driver are much higher than being killed by a perp with a gun.
In the last decade, there were almost 180,000 (that's 180 thousand) people killed in car wrecks where alcohol abuse was a key factor. In the same ten-year period, there were 110 students (including those at VA Tech) murdered on campus by psychopaths.
Perhaps the Brady Campaign and Democrats in Congress should set their sights on federal legislation mandating a five-day waiting period before purchasing alcohol. After all, many of the perpetrators who used guns instead of cars to commit homicide were also abusing alcohol.
Fact is, if we exclude gang-bangers and crack heads, the probability of being murdered in the U.S. is more in line with the oft-cited lower murder rates in Western Europe -- but let's not separate the wheat from the chaff.
The solution to the "gun problem" is "gun control"
In the wake of any mass homicide by a psychopathic killer, Second Amendment opponents are the first responders, and predictably, endeavor to convert the blood of innocents into political capital for gun confiscation.
Typical of the confiscators' rhetoric was this comment from Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke: "It is well known how easy it is for an individual to get powerful weapons in our country. [After many school] killings, we've done nothing as a country to end gun violence in our schools and communities. If anything, we've made it easier to access powerful weapons."
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy carried the Democrats' banner: "The unfortunate situation in Virginia could have been avoided if congressional leaders [had] stood up to the gun lobby."
Of course, the media set the tone. The New York Times issued numerous "gun problem" headlines like "Gun Rampage is Nation's Worst" and "Epidemic of Gun Violence." The editors insisted, "What is needed, urgently, is stronger controls over the lethal weapons...."
Despite the Leftmedia's trumpeting of the Virginia Tech massacre as the "bloodiest student attack in history," the most lethal attack on a school occurred on 18 May 1927, when Andrew Kehoe, a Bath, Michigan, school-board member, murdered 45 people, including 38 elementary students -- with a bomb.
Of note, The Times also endeavored to capitalize on the carnage -- paying for positions with search engines to make sure its stories were high on the results list for info on the Virginia Tech "gun violence."
Conversely, Cato Institute Senior Fellow Robert Levy recently noted: "Many politicians have exploited a few recent tragedies to promote their anti-gun agenda. But gun controls haven't worked and more controls won't help. In fact, many of the recommended regulations will make matters worse by stripping law-abiding citizens of their most effective means of self-defense. Violence in America is due not to the availability of guns but to social pathologies -- illegitimacy, dysfunctional schools and drug and alcohol abuse. Historically, more gun laws have gone hand in hand with an explosion of violent crime."
Forty states now issue carry permits to law-abiding citizens -- but the liberal press is unrelenting in its effort to undermine such policy.
It was just last month, in fact, that I chastised the Roanoke Times for publishing a database of concealed-carry permit holders in Virginia, in effect creating a "Do Not Call List" for criminals.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
http://patriotpost.us/alexander/edition.asp?id=529
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic..." --Justice Joseph Story
Gun-free nations are safer -- at least for folks like Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Idi Amin, Castro, Pol Pot and Saddam, all of whom disarmed their detractors before slaughtering them by the tens of millions.
History records the consequences of disarming people, both in terms of protection, in their person and property, from tyrannical governments and from criminals. Regarding the latter, "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."
Thomas Jefferson understood that maxim. In his Commonplace Book, Jefferson quotes Cesare Beccaria from his seminal work, On Crimes and Punishment: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
The same can be said of so-called "gun-free zones" in America, as on the campus of Virginia Tech.
"Virginia Tech has a very sound policy"
In 2002, at the Appalachian School of Law just up the road from Virginia Tech, a Nigerian student, who had flunked out, returned to campus, murdered three people and wounded three others. Fortunately, his killing spree was interrupted by two students who had retrieved handguns from their vehicles and held the murderer at gunpoint until police arrived.
This intervention was not unprecedented.
In 1997, an assistant principal in Pearl, Mississippi, retrieved a handgun from his car and apprehended a murderer. A few days later, a copycat assault in Edinboro, Pennsylvania, ended after a nearby merchant wielding a shotgun forced the attacker to surrender. Off campus, it is estimated conservatively that gun owners use their weapons defensively more than 1.3 million times each year.
With that as a backdrop, last spring Virginia Tech admonished a student for having a handgun on campus -- never mind that the student had a state-issued concealed-carry permit.
That admonishment was a motivating factor behind a proposed bill before the Virginia legislature to prevent academic institutions from enacting "rules or regulations limiting or abridging the ability of a student who possesses a valid concealed-handgun permit ... from lawfully carrying a concealed handgun."
The legislation died in committee, prompting Tech's associate vice president, Larry Hincker, to praise the General Assembly in a Roanoke (Virginia) Times op-ed: "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus. We believe guns don't belong in the classroom. In an academic environment, we believe you should be free from fear."
A month later, there was a murder near Tech's campus, prompting a lockdown.
In response, Tech grad student Bradford Wiles penned an op-ed in the campus paper calling on the school to allow those with concealed-carry permits to carry guns on campus should they choose.
Larry Hincker emerged again, protesting, "[I]t is absolutely mind-boggling to see the opinions of Bradford Wiles. Surely, [the editors] scratched their heads saying, 'I can't believe he really wants to say that.' Guns don't belong in classrooms. They never will. Virginia Tech has a very sound policy preventing same."
Congratulations Mr. Hinkler. Your "sound policy" created a "safe campus" for only one student -- Cho Seung-Hui -- who was able to slaughter 32 people without interruption.
A theatrical performance
Unlike most psychopathic killers, Korean native Cho Seung-Hui produced the equivalent of theatrical trailers and stills advertising his murderous intentions and motives and sent them to NBC on the day of his rampage. The video outlined his intense hatred for his fellow students, and the still photos looked like promotional shots from almost any violent video game, rap CD or Hollywood release.
The violent images were consistent with a report filed by one of Cho's teachers, Lucinda Roy, who noted violent themes in Cho's writing projects. Unfortunately, she was told there were too many legal hurdles to open an investigation. Another professor, Nikki Giovanni, had him removed from her class because his behavior was so threatening.
In 2005, Cho was temporarily detained for a psychiatric assessment ordered by a County District Court Judge, who certified in the order that Cho presented "an imminent danger to self or others" and ordered him to receive outpatient treatment. The psychologist who evaluated Cho reported that "his affect is flat and mood is depressed," but "his insight and judgment are normal." Apparently not.
In an act of stupefyingly poor judgment, NBC chose to release Cho's murderous manifesto, raising immediate and serious questions about copycat killers. "Showing the video is a social catastrophe," protests forensic psychiatrist Michael Welner. "I promise you the disaffected will watch him the way they watched 'Natural Born Killers.' I know. I examine these people. I've examined mass shooters who have told me they've watched it 20 times. You cannot saturate the American public with this kind of message."
The prospect of getting through the end of this school year without a copycat incident is diminishing.
"Gun Violence"?
In the words of Lucius Annaeus Seneca, circa 45 AD, "Quemadmoeum gladuis neminem occidit, occidentis telum est." (A sword is never a killer, it is a tool in the killer's hands.)
Suggesting that mass murder is a "gun problem" ignores the real problem -- murderous pathology and the culture which nurtures it. (See the Congressional Testimony of Darrell Scott, father of Rachel Scott, one of the children murdered at Columbine High School.)
If guns cause homicides, then one may, by logical extension, draw the following conclusions about causal factors for the top U.S. mortality groups: golden arches cause heart disease, cigarette lighters cause cancer, sex causes abortions, steering wheels cause car accidents, toxic-warning labels cause poisonings, ladders cause falls and bottles cause deaths associated with alcohol abuse.
Of course, by way of this liberal blameshifting logic, one may also conclude that commercial jets and truck bombs cause buildings to collapse, 90210 causes 9/11 conspiracy theories, freedom causes tyranny, beards cause terrorism, SUVs cause global warming, White House interns cause infidelity, saying "no" causes rape, chains cause slavery, matches cause arson, cameras cause pornography, sporks cause obesity, marriage causes divorce, crowbars cause burglary, credit cards cause bankruptcy, elections cause corruption, 24-hour news-cycle talkingheads cause ignorance, ad nauseam...
Murder statistics in perspective
According to the most recent annual statistics from the Centers for Disease Control, there were 11,500 homicides committed by perpetrators using guns. There were 17,000 deaths committed by perpetrators using vehicles after consuming alcohol. Your chances of being killed by a drunk driver are much higher than being killed by a perp with a gun.
In the last decade, there were almost 180,000 (that's 180 thousand) people killed in car wrecks where alcohol abuse was a key factor. In the same ten-year period, there were 110 students (including those at VA Tech) murdered on campus by psychopaths.
Perhaps the Brady Campaign and Democrats in Congress should set their sights on federal legislation mandating a five-day waiting period before purchasing alcohol. After all, many of the perpetrators who used guns instead of cars to commit homicide were also abusing alcohol.
Fact is, if we exclude gang-bangers and crack heads, the probability of being murdered in the U.S. is more in line with the oft-cited lower murder rates in Western Europe -- but let's not separate the wheat from the chaff.
The solution to the "gun problem" is "gun control"
In the wake of any mass homicide by a psychopathic killer, Second Amendment opponents are the first responders, and predictably, endeavor to convert the blood of innocents into political capital for gun confiscation.
Typical of the confiscators' rhetoric was this comment from Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke: "It is well known how easy it is for an individual to get powerful weapons in our country. [After many school] killings, we've done nothing as a country to end gun violence in our schools and communities. If anything, we've made it easier to access powerful weapons."
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy carried the Democrats' banner: "The unfortunate situation in Virginia could have been avoided if congressional leaders [had] stood up to the gun lobby."
Of course, the media set the tone. The New York Times issued numerous "gun problem" headlines like "Gun Rampage is Nation's Worst" and "Epidemic of Gun Violence." The editors insisted, "What is needed, urgently, is stronger controls over the lethal weapons...."
Despite the Leftmedia's trumpeting of the Virginia Tech massacre as the "bloodiest student attack in history," the most lethal attack on a school occurred on 18 May 1927, when Andrew Kehoe, a Bath, Michigan, school-board member, murdered 45 people, including 38 elementary students -- with a bomb.
Of note, The Times also endeavored to capitalize on the carnage -- paying for positions with search engines to make sure its stories were high on the results list for info on the Virginia Tech "gun violence."
Conversely, Cato Institute Senior Fellow Robert Levy recently noted: "Many politicians have exploited a few recent tragedies to promote their anti-gun agenda. But gun controls haven't worked and more controls won't help. In fact, many of the recommended regulations will make matters worse by stripping law-abiding citizens of their most effective means of self-defense. Violence in America is due not to the availability of guns but to social pathologies -- illegitimacy, dysfunctional schools and drug and alcohol abuse. Historically, more gun laws have gone hand in hand with an explosion of violent crime."
Forty states now issue carry permits to law-abiding citizens -- but the liberal press is unrelenting in its effort to undermine such policy.
It was just last month, in fact, that I chastised the Roanoke Times for publishing a database of concealed-carry permit holders in Virginia, in effect creating a "Do Not Call List" for criminals.
Picking a fight with pacifism
By Burt Prelutsky
Monday, April 23, 2007
The main problem with pacifism is that it doesn’t work in all situations. The main problem with pacifists is that they’re convinced it does.
Gandhi persevered for years and ultimately gained independence for India, but that was because, for all its faults, England was basically a civilized, Christian nation. It was possible to arouse the sympathy and good will of the British people. Had he tried it with Nazi Germany, he would have died in an oven.
There’s no getting around the fact that being a pacifist has a nicer ring to it than being, say, a warmonger. But when I hear people such as Alan Colmes say, as he did recently, that we rushed to war in Iraq and didn’t give negotiations a chance to work, I wonder what planet he and Mrs. Colmes call home. After all, for a dozen years, Saddam Hussein had violated his 1991 ceasefire agreement, and he cynically used the profits from his oil-for-food program to bribe Russia, Germany and France, into complicity. During that period, the U.N., the last great hope of the feeble-minded, passed 17 resolutions against Iraq. I guess the member nations figured they’d shame Hussein into compliance. They couldn’t even get him to allow the inspectors to search his palaces, leading one and all to believe he had WMD stashed in his wine cellars.
But in spite of British and American intelligence, and the leading lights in both political parties, agreeing that the Butcher of Baghdad had to be taken out, the pacifists disagreed. To them, anything beyond the equivalent of giving Hussein a good talking-to and a time-out, as if he were a three-year-old who’d been acting up, was unthinkable.
It’s hard to get a grip on the way their minds work. Do pacifists simply choose to believe that evil doesn’t exist? Do they actually believe that Hitler and Stalin, Pol Pot and Osama bin Laden, Idi Amin and Che Guevara, Fidel Castro and Mao Tse-tung, are or were good guys who were simply misunderstood? The question is whether pacifists are hopelessly naïve or simply cowards.
Recently, I received an e-mail from a reader who wanted me to know that we had no business fighting Germany in World War II. It wasn’t that he was pro-Nazi, but that he felt it was Europe’s war and we had no business being involved. Apparently, the notion of several hundred million people being under the boot of a madman and his gang of goose-stepping degenerates didn’t faze him in the slightest.
I can only assume that if he was your next-door neighbor and he saw your wife being attacked or your house being burgled, he wouldn’t bother calling a cop. After all, it’s not his wife, not his house.
I wouldn’t want you to get the idea that I love war. Heck, I don’t even like war movies. But I acknowledge that there are times when war is the only honorable, only reasonable option. To believe otherwise doesn’t make you wise or good; it only makes you a toad or a weasel.
Winston Churchill, who knew more about war than most men, gave strong voice to the British people at a time they were under Nazi siege, when he said, “Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say: ‘This was their finest hour.’”
And what would Dennis Kucinich say to bolster American spirits if we found ourselves in similar straits? Remember, folks, to keep your talcum powder dry?
Monday, April 23, 2007
The main problem with pacifism is that it doesn’t work in all situations. The main problem with pacifists is that they’re convinced it does.
Gandhi persevered for years and ultimately gained independence for India, but that was because, for all its faults, England was basically a civilized, Christian nation. It was possible to arouse the sympathy and good will of the British people. Had he tried it with Nazi Germany, he would have died in an oven.
There’s no getting around the fact that being a pacifist has a nicer ring to it than being, say, a warmonger. But when I hear people such as Alan Colmes say, as he did recently, that we rushed to war in Iraq and didn’t give negotiations a chance to work, I wonder what planet he and Mrs. Colmes call home. After all, for a dozen years, Saddam Hussein had violated his 1991 ceasefire agreement, and he cynically used the profits from his oil-for-food program to bribe Russia, Germany and France, into complicity. During that period, the U.N., the last great hope of the feeble-minded, passed 17 resolutions against Iraq. I guess the member nations figured they’d shame Hussein into compliance. They couldn’t even get him to allow the inspectors to search his palaces, leading one and all to believe he had WMD stashed in his wine cellars.
But in spite of British and American intelligence, and the leading lights in both political parties, agreeing that the Butcher of Baghdad had to be taken out, the pacifists disagreed. To them, anything beyond the equivalent of giving Hussein a good talking-to and a time-out, as if he were a three-year-old who’d been acting up, was unthinkable.
It’s hard to get a grip on the way their minds work. Do pacifists simply choose to believe that evil doesn’t exist? Do they actually believe that Hitler and Stalin, Pol Pot and Osama bin Laden, Idi Amin and Che Guevara, Fidel Castro and Mao Tse-tung, are or were good guys who were simply misunderstood? The question is whether pacifists are hopelessly naïve or simply cowards.
Recently, I received an e-mail from a reader who wanted me to know that we had no business fighting Germany in World War II. It wasn’t that he was pro-Nazi, but that he felt it was Europe’s war and we had no business being involved. Apparently, the notion of several hundred million people being under the boot of a madman and his gang of goose-stepping degenerates didn’t faze him in the slightest.
I can only assume that if he was your next-door neighbor and he saw your wife being attacked or your house being burgled, he wouldn’t bother calling a cop. After all, it’s not his wife, not his house.
I wouldn’t want you to get the idea that I love war. Heck, I don’t even like war movies. But I acknowledge that there are times when war is the only honorable, only reasonable option. To believe otherwise doesn’t make you wise or good; it only makes you a toad or a weasel.
Winston Churchill, who knew more about war than most men, gave strong voice to the British people at a time they were under Nazi siege, when he said, “Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say: ‘This was their finest hour.’”
And what would Dennis Kucinich say to bolster American spirits if we found ourselves in similar straits? Remember, folks, to keep your talcum powder dry?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)