How evil are you?
All these people need to calm down, take a deep breath, and read their history — computing the logistics of fighting 7,000 miles away and considering the hurdles of vast space, unpredictable weather, and enemies without uniforms. And? In just a week, the United States military has surrounded one of history’s most sadistic and nasty regimes. It has overrun 80 percent of the countryside and has daily pulverized the Republican Guard, achieving more in five days than the Iranians did in eight years. Twenty-four hours a day, thousands of tankers and supply trucks barrel down long, vulnerable supply lines, quickly and efficiently. There is no bridge too far for these long columns. One-hundred percent air superiority is ours. There is not a single Iraqi airplane in the sky. Enemy tanks either stay put or are bombed. Kurds and Shiites really will soon start to be heard. Seven oil wells are on fire (with firefighters on the scene) — no oil slicks, no attacks on Israel. Kuwait City is not aflame. “Millions” of refugees fleeing into Syria and Jordan have not materialized. Even Peter Arnett is no longer parroting the Iraqi government claims of ten million starving and has moved on to explain why the Iraqis were equipped with chemical suits — to protect Saddam’s killers from our WMDs! Few, if any, major bridges in Iraq have been blown; there are no mass uprisings in Saddam’s favor. The Tikrit mafia fights as the SS did in the craters of Berlin, facing as it does — and within weeks — either a mob’s noose, a firing squad, or a dungeon. Through 20,000 air sorties, no jets have been shot down; there is nothing to stop them from flying another 100,000. They fly in sand, in lightning, high, low, day, night, anywhere, anytime. Supplies are pouring in. Saddam’s regime is cut off and its weapons will not be replenished. This is not North Vietnam, with Chinese and Russian ships with daily re-supply in the harbor of Haiphong. British and Americans, with courageous Australians as well, are fighting as a team without even the petty rivalry of a Montgomery and Bradley. Our media talks of Saddam’s thugs and terrorists as if they were some sort of Iraqi SAS. Meanwhile, the real thing — scary American, British, and Australian Special Forces — is causing havoc to Saddam’s rear guard. In short, for all the tragedy of a fragging, Iraqi atrocities, misdirected cruise missiles, and the usual cowardly antics inherent to our enemy’s way of war, the real story is not being reported: A phenomenal march against overwhelming logistical, material, and geographical odds in under seven days has reached and surrounded Saddam Hussein’s capital.And while you are at it, read the whole thing. Once you get a sense of the history of warfare, you will realize that what has been accomplished thus far by American and coalition forces is nothing short of extraordinary. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/28/2003 03:33:39 PM ----- BODY: THE VATICAN AND THE WAR By now, everyone knows of Pope John Paul II's opposition to the war against Saddam's regime. With regard to the Vatican's general stance on war, William McGurn points out something quite disturbing:
Of far more concern, at least to papal admirers such as yours truly, is that the war statements appear to reflect not simply a disagreement over Iraq but a strain in John Paul's thinking that sits uncomfortably with 1,500 years of Catholic teaching on the legitimate use to force--a teaching, moreover, that asks not when authorities have the "right" to use force but when they have the obligation. John Paul's unease over the state's use of force was perhaps first evident in his earlier treatment of the death penalty: that while it may be acceptable in principle, the state now has alternatives that make it all but impossible to justify in practice. The linkage is not only mine. In recent interviews, Archbishop Renato Martino, head of the Pontifical Council for Peace and Justice, explicitly says that classic just-war teaching may now be headed the way of the death penalty. When the National Catholic Register asked the archbishop if he meant by this that "there is no such thing as a just war anymore," his answer was unequivocal: "Absolutely." The pope has not gone this far. But neither has he repudiated the more fantastic claims by Vatican officials. And in fairness to Archbishop Martino, the catechism's argument against the death penalty does anticipate some arguments against modern war--e.g., that other avenues are available, or that the costs have become inherently disproportionate to whatever good end we hope to achieve.As someone who believes that tradition-laden texts should generally be granted a great deal of respect (after all, how would those texts have been so relevant over the centuries if it were not for the fact that they have something very important to say?), I have to say that I find this apparent willingness to dispense with Augustine's and Aquinas's teachings on what constitutes a just war, quite disturbing. Do any other readers feel the same way? I would be especially interested in hearing from Catholic readers on this issue, and what they think of this apparent trend in the Church. UPDATE: The Jewish concept of a just war appears to be alive and well. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/28/2003 03:02:17 PM ----- BODY: TELL ME AGAIN . . . how there is no connection between Iraq and terrorism. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/28/2003 02:52:49 PM ----- BODY: HE SHOOTS . . . HE SCORES! The Great One lends his support to the war effort:
FROM THE PRO-BUSH sentiments of hockey great Wayne Gretzky to actor Adrien Brody's rousing acceptance at the Oscars, the last few days have finally brought good publicity for the war effort. The patriots are coming out of the woodwork, their confidence in America as visible as the liquid contempt spraying from Michael Moore's lips. Gretzky told a press conference in Calgary on Tuesday: "All I can say is the president of the United States is a great leader, I happen to think he's a wonderful man and if he believes what he's doing is right, I back him 100 percent." Like the president himself sometimes does, Gretzky appeared to stake his faith on the man even more than the principle. "If the president decides to go to war he must know more than we know or we hear about. He must have good reason to go and we have to back that." Gretzky said he had a personal connection to the troops. "I have a cousin who is in Iraq right now and is in the U.S. Marines," said the Great One. "He was there in '91 and he's there now and it's a tough time for his family and it's a tough time for all of us." Ever the gentleman, the Canadian Gretzky passed on the opportunity to criticize his own prime minister, Jean Chrétien, who has parted ways with the United States on the issue of Iraq.Hey, if people can cite Martin Sheen and Janeane Garofalo approvingly, I can cite Gretzky. At least he has a personal stake in the conflict. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/28/2003 02:46:17 PM ----- BODY: I WISH . . . that more people would remember the following observation about Iraqi "resistance" to the American military:
Do not believe any commentator who says that a rising surge of "nationalism" is preventing Iraqis from greeting U.S. and British troops in the streets with open arms. What is preventing them from rising up and taking over the streets of their cities is confusion about American intentions and fear of the murderous brown-shirt thugs known as the Fedayeen Saddam, who are leading the small-arms-fire attacks on American and British soldiers. The coalition forces have an urgent need to send clear and unmistakable signals to the people of Iraq that unlike in 1991, there is no turning back from the destruction of Saddam Hussein. And in order to do this effectively they must turn to the Iraqi opposition, which has so far been marginalized.Precisely. This account is written by an Iraqi observer of the war effort, who believes that we should make a greater effort to remove Iraqi TV from the air. The more we hit at symbolic targets of Saddam's regime, the more people will come to the conclusion that Saddam himself is finished. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/28/2003 02:41:38 PM ----- BODY: WHO'S NEXT? Apparently, Syria is volunteering to replace Iraq in the Axis of Evil. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/28/2003 02:39:23 PM ----- BODY: MORE INFORMATION FOR HANS BLIX We continue to do UNMOVIC's job for it:
Statements from Iraqi prisoners of war and electronic eavesdropping on Iraqi government communications indicate that Saddam Hussein has moved chemical weapons to the Medina Division, one of three Republican Guard divisions guarding the approaches to Baghdad, Army officials said. The Army officials said they strongly believed that Mr. Hussein would use the weapons as allied troops moved toward Baghdad to oust him and his government. Officials with V Corps said intelligence information pointed to Mr. Hussein deploying 155-millimeter artillery weapons with shells carrying mustard gas as well as sarin, or nerve agents, an especially deadly weapon. Mr. Hussein used these chemical agents against the Iranians and the country's Kurdish population in the 1980's.Amazing how none of this stuff was found, and how Saddam claimed he had no chemical weapons, eh? Who woulda thunk it? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/28/2003 02:30:02 PM ----- BODY: INSANITY What is the justification behind this?
Diane Johnson found out the hard way that yellow ribbons make Mayor Edward "Buddy" Tyler see red. The borough mayor supports the council’s unanimous vote to outlaw any ribbons or other memorials for the American troops fighting in Iraq, if those ribbons are placed on public property because the government doesn’t want them there. "I’m shocked and outraged," Johnson said. "I can’t believe the mayor would force me to take down ribbons put there in honor of American troops, fighting for our freedom in Iraq." [. . .] The mayor said he initially didn’t think the yellow ribbon controversy was "a big deal," but after some thought, he said he agreed with compelling Johnson to remove the ribbon memorial. "Where would you draw a line if you started allowing the use of public property to exhibit whatever cause anyone wanted?" Tyler said. "Suppose someone wants to tie pink ribbons, or black flags, or a Confederate flag or a Nazi flag on public property?"Supporting American soldiers in combat is equivalent to flying Confederate or Nazi flags? Since when? This, by the way, seems like a blatant First Amendment violation to me. Assuming that the banning is content based (the ban has come about because of objection to the content of the demonstration), the borough would have to show that the ban is necessary to further a compelling state interest. I see no compelling interest whatsoever in banning yellow ribbons and American flags. It does appear that the ban is content based, as the ban is "to outlaw any ribbons or other memorials for the American troops fighting in Iraq, if those ribbons are placed on public property." A lawsuit should be brought posthaste. It would likely win. UPDATE: Here is Eugene Volokh's analysis, which differs from mine. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/27/2003 11:10:33 PM ----- BODY: THOUGHTS FOR THE DAY What great cause has ever been fought and won under the banner "I stand for consensus"? --Margaret Thatcher The place that had been the embodiment of liberal expectation after World War II had moved towards totalitarianism: the inversion of truth, the Big, Big Lie--this was now the language of the General Assembly. --Daniel Patrick Moynihan, former Senator from New York and former Ambassador to the United Nations, on the passage of the United Nations General Assembly resolution equating Zionism with racism, 1975. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/27/2003 11:07:16 PM ----- BODY: WAR TALK AND THE REAL WORLD I went today to a Mailboxes Etc.-resembling shop earlier this afternoon. The storeowner behind the counter was clearly an Arab, and the person in front of me was a young man--probably in his early 20's and likely to be an Iranian, although I can't be sure. The apparently Iranian customer asked the storeowner how things were going, and the storeowner responded "well, I'm not in the war, so things are good!" He chuckled a bit, and then launched into a discussion that he was clearly waiting to have. "You know," the storeowner said to the customer, "I consider myself an intellectual." (You know you are going to hear a fair amount of vapid nonsense when someone begins with such a self-aggrandizing comment.) "I think that this entire thing is screwed. Iraqis are coming to America to live, and we are going there to conquer!" "This thing is going to take a really long time," the storeowner continued. "The only reason that we were able to win the war in 1991 so quickly was that the Iraqis weren't going to fight for Kuwait. But they will fight for their own country! We haven't even taken on the Republican Guard yet. We are obsessed with the Fedayeen. Imagine what will happen when we go up against the Republican Guard!" "Yeah, I know," the young customer responded. "This is going to be bad." Mind you, at this point, I was grinding my teeth, trying not to respond or cause a scene. The storeowner continued. "We are going to be there for a year. And you know how we will get out? The French and the Russians will intervene and save face for us. Tell me, how can you possibly say that there are no civilians dead? I see them on TV! I check out al Jazeera's website--it's all there!" "Yeah, I check out al Jazeera too," the customer replied. Apparently, he was in a pliant mood. "The Americans say that a helicopter has not gone down," the storeowner continued. "But al Jazeera shows the helicopter on TV! What do you mean a helicopter has not gone down?" After this last line was uttered, the storeowner exchanged a few final remarks with the customer, and I was finally allowed to come up to the counter with my order. "Can you believe all of this," the storeowner started on me. I really didn't want to have this discussion, because, as I said, I didn't want to create any kind of a scene. But I finally had enough. I didn't lose my temper, but there are such things as verbal and vocalized Fiskings. It was time to deliver one. "The Russians are selling the GPS jammers to the Iraqis. What are we going to do about that," the storeowner said. "All of the GPS jammers have been destroyed. All six of them," I replied. "They have," the storeowner asked. He was quizzical now. "Yes. By GPS guided bombs, no less." "Then how are the Iraqis still downing helicopters?" "GPS jamming is not used to bring down helicopters," I replied tersely. "It is used to jam the GPS guidance of bombs. It is used to make bombs go off target. It has nothing to do with downing aircraft." "Really," the storeowner exclaimed. A look of enlightenment came over his face. "Yes," I replied. "And the only aircraft that we lost today was an unmanned Predator drone." "But, the news says that the Iraqis have downed a helicopter." "The helicopter that the Iraqis downed was the same one that was downed a few days ago," I responded. "They just filmed it from another angle. The only craft that the Allies lost today was an unmanned Predator drone." "Really?!?!" The exclamation was emphatic now. "Really," I replied. And I couldn't resist. "Al Jazeera lies. They lie all the time." The storeowner took a moment, and then recovered. "Well, you can't be happy about the civilian deaths. These smart bombs missed last time, and they are missing this time." "First of all," I replied, "the smart bombs made up only 10% of the munitions in the first Gulf War. They make up 80% of the munitions in this one. Additionally, the last time, they were TV-guided and/or laser-guided.* Now, they are GPS guided. Last time, bad visibility could make a bomb go off track. That doesn't work with the current smart bombs. GPS guided bombs don't lose their targets simply because of bad visibility. They are incredibly accurate." "Really?!?!" "Really. And that's a good thing too--especially considering the fact that Saddam likes to light oil fires and obstruct visibility. If it weren't for the kind of advanced smart bombs that we are using, Saddam's lighting of oil fires could cause the deaths of thousands of civilians." Again, I couldn't resist. "But they didn't work with the bombing in the marketplace yesterday!" "The Americans didn't bomb the marketplace. The marketplace area wasn't even on the list of bombing targets. And if there are civilian deaths, who is more to blame? The Americans, or Saddam for placing military installations in a civilian neighborhood? Do you see the American military do that in our cities much?" "Hmm." The storeowner was pensive. I had to go at this point. But a Parthian shot was required. "Al Jazeera lies. They lie all the time. You really should get your news from other news sources. At the very least, they shouldn't be your only source of information." The storeowner shrugged his shoulders, and smiled a bit. He wished me a good day. I wished him one as well. And I meant it. I don't think the man was meanspirited. I don't think he wished for American failure. And I didn't bear any animus towards him. But it is amazing how many people hold a worldview that is as fragile as a house of cards. And it is amazing to see the house of cards tumble. When they do tumble, it can be rather dramatic. And for the record, the man had a lot of Green Party paraphernalia on his counter. I guess that figures, and it certainly explains a lot. *For the record, the first generation of smart bombs were TV/IR guided bombs, and laser guided. I left the "IR" part out of my discussion, because I didn't want to get excessively technical. If you, however, want to get excessively technical, then at the risk of tooting my own horn, I would urge you to go here. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/27/2003 10:32:10 PM ----- BODY: THIS HAS GOT TO BE SOME KIND OF JOKE Behold Michael Moore's explanation for his incoherent Oscar rant this past Sunday: He went to church, and it got him riled up to vocalize his rant. And that really is it as far as explanations go. We finally have evidence for the argument that religion really is the opiate of the masses. I'd Fisk the article, but it is essentially a recapitulation of the speech, which others have already made fun of. I think that it is funny that Moore thinks (1) the country is "liberal" (what is he, a mindreader?); that (2) the people who were booing him were actually just booing the people who were booing him (he really says that--see if you can understand the logic); and (3) that no one would speak for the liberal side if Moore didn't (apparently the thinking is that the fatter and more obnoxious you are, the more indispensable you are as well). When you embarrass yourself, that is bad enough. When you dig the hole deeper, it gets even worse. Moore is probably digging as I write this. I just hope that his girth will fit in the hole that he is digging for himself. Somehow, I think it will--Moore seems determined to descend deeper and deeper into self-parody. (Thanks to the lovely Emily Jones--who had better not take a break--for sending me this link.) -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/27/2003 08:00:51 PM ----- BODY: FOR ALL THE ANTIWAR FOLK OUT THERE: One of your favorite quotes (at least, one of the quotes I have seen used most often in argument) has been debunked. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/27/2003 07:41:30 PM ----- BODY: THE INTELLECTUAL INFLUENCE BEHIND FRENCH FOREIGN POLICY Andrew Sullivan reveals the disturbing details. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/27/2003 07:38:20 PM ----- BODY: YOU JUST KNEW . . . that Mark Steyn would have something to say about the current "we are losing the war" hysteria:
I’m writing this a few hours before deadline. So by the time you read this Saddam may have won. That would seem to be the upshot of the BBC coverage we get over here, not to mention dear old Reuters. As Douglas Hamilton reported, ‘US military prowess suffered another setback in Iraq on Monday and another omen that bullets rather than liberators’ garlands may await the invasion force when it finally reaches Baghdad.’ ‘Omen’? Well, speaking as someone not privy to the entrails of the Reuters chicken, let me go out on a limb here: the Anglo-Aussie-American forces will win. And the way they win will have tremendous implications for the years ahead.And that is just the beginning. Read the rest. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/27/2003 07:04:23 PM ----- BODY: I DON'T KNOW HOW CREDIBLE THIS CLAIM REALLY IS . . . but if it is true, then Holland has a major domestic problem on its hands. (Thanks to Mike Daley for the link.) -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/27/2003 07:03:24 PM ----- BODY: THE FOLLY OF GUN LAWSUITS Walter Olson--the scourge of vexatious litigation--has the scoop. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/27/2003 06:58:36 PM ----- BODY: IF YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT MY INTELLECTUAL INTERESTS . . . it won't surprise you to see me link to this article. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/27/2003 06:43:38 PM ----- BODY: AN OPEN LETTER TO THE ANTIWAR PROTESTORS Arnold Kling's letter is worth a careful read. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/27/2003 06:16:51 PM ----- BODY: A VALUABLE SERVICE Mac Owens urges everyone to keep their cool about the conduct of the war:
Yes, the 350-mile supply line from Kuwait to Baghdad is vulnerable. But the allies are discovering ways to minimize this vulnerability by adapting and adopting new tactics to deal with guerillas. But it is important to remember that the Iraqis lack the capability to threaten coalition lines of communication with any sort of a major force. Guerillas alone cannot do the job. In the past, guerillas have been most effective when cooperating with conventional forces that are able to maneuver — something the Iraqi forces are not able to do. I am reminded of the war against the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan. During the early phases, critics were beginning to claim that Afghanistan had become a quagmire, that U.S. troops would suffer the same fate as the British and Russians before them. A week later the Taliban collapsed.The coverage of an American conducted war seems to have three stages: Stage 1 is the sudden interest in American military action, and the expectation that there will be a victory soon. Stage 2 is the emergence of conventional wisdom that defeat is certain, or that at the very least, the battle will be "much tougher than we thought." And Stage 3 is a realization that maybe we shouldn't have worried so much. As Owens points out, it happened in Afghanistan. I expect that it will happen with Iraq. UPDATE: I swear I didn't read this before adding my own commentary. After all, my hypothesis only calls for three stages, not four. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/27/2003 06:11:15 PM ----- BODY: THIS WON'T BE COMMENTED ON MUCH . . . but it is important to point out that Saddam Hussein is even willing to have valuable art destroyed in order to preserve his regime:
Voices questioning the wisdom of the U.S.-led operation against Saddam Hussein's dictatorship charge it will cause the reckless destruction of Iraq's cultural heritage. Is the U.S. taking sufficient care to spare Iraq's treasures? Does the Gulf War provide any guidance? And why are the people now accusing the U.S. making no mention of Saddam's uses of archaeological sites as military shields then? Millennia ago, Iraq was the cradle of civilization, hence the concern about its cultural and archaeological sites. Yet the laws of warfare make clear that while combatants may not target such sites, if they are used for military purposes they lose their protection. Legally, therefore, the burden to protect these sites falls most heavily on Saddam's regime. If Saddam used them to shelter his forces or hide his armaments they would legally become military targets. Unfortunately, at the CENTCOM briefing yesterday, Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks disclosed that the Iraqis had placed military equipment and communications equipment next to the 2,000-year-old brick arch of Ctesiphon on the banks of the Tigris River, the world's largest surviving arch from ancient times and the widest single-span arch in the world.And of course, it bears pointing out that many of those sites mark the artistic and civic achievements of the Persian Empire, which used to rule over the region. Needless to say, even critics of past American military action in Iraq have acknowledged that the United States is more solicitous of the archaeological significance of the area than is Saddam Hussein's regime:
Prof. Paul Zimansky, a Boston University archaeologist critical of U.S. bombing in the Gulf War due to its endangerment of antiquities, visited Iraq after the war and said that the damage turned out to be minor. Another initial critic of the bombing campaign, Prof. McGuire Gibson of the University of Chicago, allowed in 1993, "The U.S. Air Force went out of its way not to hit certain places." In contrast, at the height of the bombing campaign the Pentagon produced aerial photographs of the Al-Basrah mosque. They showed clearly that the Iraqis had destroyed the mosque for propaganda purposes. While coalition forces had bombed a target some 100 yards away, leaving the mosque unscathed, Iraqi engineers sliced off the dome in the hope of duping journalists that the U.S. had been responsible for the destruction.To close, a question: Does any of this sound familiar? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/27/2003 05:51:10 PM ----- BODY: DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, R.I.P. This is a worthy eulogy. And the following is a worthy epitaph:
[Moynihan] was born in Tulsa but spent his formative years on Manhattan's Lower East Side, from which he rose to Harvard's faculty and the administrations of Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Ford, serving as, among other things, ambassador to India and the U.S. representative at the United Nations. Then four Senate terms. Along the way he wrote more books than some of his colleagues read and became something that, like Atlantis, is rumored to have once existed but has not recently been seen -- the Democratic Party's mind.Who will take Moynihan's place as "the Democratic Party's mind"? The list of worthy candidates seems rather small. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/27/2003 05:44:15 PM ----- BODY: IT'S BETTER TO BE FEARED THAN LOVED After all, if you are feared, you can make enemy countries do this:
Coalition naval forces were on high alert against suicide attacks after Iranian gunboats intercepted an Iraqi speedboat packed with half a tonne of high explosive. Three other Iraqi speedboats, which it is feared may contain similar amounts of explosive, got away when Iranian forces engaged Iraqis at the mouth of the Shatt-al-Arab River, the waterway that marks the border between the two countries. The explosives were discovered after one of the Iraqi boats was run aground during the confrontation.Three guesses as to why the Iranian regime is suddenly being very cooperative. And it isn't just because they hate Saddam. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/27/2003 05:30:52 PM ----- BODY: IT'S FINE AND GOOD FOR KIDS TO PLAY WITH TOY GUNS But this is appalling:
Intelligence reports indicated 2,000 Iraqi troops were advancing on the camp, and a two-hour fight with missiles and artillery ensued, ultimately augmented by aerial bombing, he said. Garvin said some of the Iraqi fighters were using women as shields and had given guns to children. "Unfortunately some of the children have been firing at our Marines and our Marines have been forced to defend themselves," he said.I get tired of asking this: Will it be only those who support the war who point out such atrocities? Won't A.N.S.W.E.R., or other such organizations protest this? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/27/2003 05:28:13 PM ----- BODY: THE NATURE OF THE IRAQI REGIME This is telling:
The aftermath of the firefight was a tableau of twisted Iraqi bodies, tins of unopened food and the dirty mattresses where they had spent their final hours. But the Iraqi private with a bullet wound in the back of his head suggested something unusually grim. Up and down the 200-mile stretch of desert where the American and British forces have advanced, one Iraqi prisoner after another has told captors a similar tale: that many Iraqi soldiers were fighting at gunpoint, threatened with death by tough loyalists of President Saddam Hussein. Here, according to American doctors and Iraqi prisoners, appeared to be one confirmation. The wounded Iraqi, whose life was ebbing away outside an American field hospital, had been shot during the firefight Tuesday night with American troops. It was a small-caliber bullet, most likely from a pistol, fired at close range. Iraqi prisoners taken after the battle said their officers had been firing at them, pushing them into battle. "The officers threatened to shoot us unless we fought," said a wounded Iraqi from his bed in the American field hospital here. "They took out their guns and pointed them and told us to fight."And if you think this is bad, read the following passage:
On the roadside, the Iraqi prisoners huddled together. Only a few had uniforms; most wore tattered clothing and battered shoes. They did not seem like men who lusted for battle. American marines guarding the prisoners said they had complained that their own officers had shot at them during the battle. "I have four children at home, and they threatened to hurt them if I did not fight," another one of the wounded Iraqis said. "I had no choice."I genuinely feel sorry for these people. And if I were in their shoes, I might feel that I had no choice but to fight to save my loved ones from being slaughtered. But the point is that my own government would be threatening to commit the slaughter. And how committed would I--would anyone--be to fight for that regime in the end if I felt that there was a chance that I could help defeat and overthrow that regime--and save my loved ones in the process? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/27/2003 05:19:54 PM ----- BODY: "MY TIMING WASN'T THE BEST" And the content wasn't all that great either. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/27/2003 05:17:42 PM ----- BODY: HEH Usually, this kind of thing doesn't happen until after a President leaves office. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/27/2003 05:15:15 PM ----- BODY: THIS IS JUST A GUESS . . . but it appears that there is at least one war where France is taking sides. And the side it appears to have chosen isn't a good one:
Violent racist attacks quadrupled in France in 2002 to the highest level in a decade, and more than half of the assaults were aimed at Jews, a national report said Thursday. Assailants carried out 313 acts of racist violence last year, compared to 71 in 2001, according to a report by the independent National Consulting Committee on Human Rights. [. . .] In the report, the committee said 193 of 313 attacks were against Jews and noted a "real explosion" in anti-Semitic violence. Last year, the group reported 32 acts of anti-Jewish violence.There are too many such stories coming out for us not to pay attention to anymore. With each passing day, the French are making themselves more and more into a pariah nation. Who will want to associate with them once the conflict finally comes to an end, and their political position is revealed as the empty rhetoric that it is? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/27/2003 05:11:15 PM ----- BODY: MORE INFORMATION FOR HANS BLIX By all rights, coalition soldiers deserve to be paid the salary that would ordinarily go to UNMOVIC employees:
Also yesterday, US military officials reported that two Iraqi rockets, seized by American troops Tuesday southeast of Najaf, were suspected of containing chemical munitions. It was unlear whether they had been fired or where they were found. The rockets were undergoing testing in a military lab, said Lieutenant Christopher Pike, an intelligence officer with the Third Infantry Division.So what is Hans Blix's salary after taxes? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/27/2003 05:07:43 PM ----- BODY: UNBELIEVABLE But typical. France continues to sit on the sidelines:
France has once again refused to support the Coalition over the war with Iraq. French foreign minister Dominique de Villepin gave a talk at London's International Institute for Strategic Studies in his first visit to Britain since the outbreak of war. During a question and answer session at the end of his speech he refused to answer the question: "Who do you want to win the war?" France has been fiercely opposed to the US and British-led military action against Saddam Hussein's regime.Yet another chapter in the story of How to Lose Friends and Enrage People. And contrary to opinion in some circles, America isn't writing that book. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/27/2003 05:00:24 PM ----- BODY: GOOD LORD This isn't good:
Top officials in Toronto's medical staff believe up to 3,000 people may have been exposed -- directly or indirectly -- to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, according to Toronto Sun sources. "It's out of control," the source said. An "unprecedented" quarantine of thousands of Torontonians has been ordered to stop the deadly spread of SARS, which has also been declared a provincial emergency. 10-DAY ISOLATION Anyone who has even visited the Scarborough Grace hospital since March 16 has been asked to voluntarily isolate themselves in their homes for 10 days since their last visit.The scary thing is that this is but a taste of what we could expect to have to deal with if there was a full-scale biological attack on Canada or the United States. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/27/2003 04:56:24 PM ----- BODY: I'M CONFUSED I thought that Osama and Saddam were supposed to hate one another:
Near Basra, Iraq: British military interrogators claim captured Iraqi soldiers have told them that al-Qaeda terrorists are fighting on the side of Saddam Hussein's forces against allied troops near Basra. At least a dozen members of Osama bin Laden's network are in the town of Az Zubayr where they are coordinating grenade and gun attacks on coalition positions, according to the Iraqi prisoners of war. It was believed that last night (Thursday) British forces were preparing a military strike on the base where the al-Qaeda unit was understood to be holed up. A senior British military source inside Iraq said: "The information we have received from PoWs today is that an al-Qaeda cell may be operating in Az Zubayr. There are possibly around a dozen of them and that is obviously a matter of concern to us." If terrorists are found, it would be the first proof of a direct link between Saddam's regime and Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the 11 September attacks on New York and Washington.Well, if this is true, I guess it would mean that Colin Powell's presentation before the UN Security Council was right after all. And additionally, yet another contention of the antiwar protesters can be dispensed with. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/26/2003 11:16:54 PM ----- BODY: THOUGHTS FOR THE DAY Hear me more plainly. I have in equal balance justly weigh'd What wrongs our arms may do, what wrongs we suffer, And find our griefs heavier than our offences. --William Shakespeare If we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war. --George Washington Tell Astyages that I shall appear in his presence sooner than he will like. --Cyrus the Great (in response to the command of Astyages, the King of the Medes, to appear before him) -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/26/2003 07:15:43 PM ----- BODY: I WAS GOING TO BLOG ABOUT ERIC ALTERMAN'S LATEST INCOHERENT SCREED . . . but I see that Stephen Green has beaten me to it. And Jane Galt reveals Alterman as an economic ignoramus. Hey Eric, maybe next time you will write a slightly more defensible post. Or at the very least, take the trouble to defend it instead of leaving it out there begging for a whipping from people who are smarter than you. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/26/2003 06:44:27 PM ----- BODY: MORE ON THE OSCARS FALLOUT James Bowman takes on the celebrities:
"Anytime you''ve got the pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, your time is up!" said Mr Moore as, his own time being up, he was being gently led offstage. Maybe so, but it seemed at least equally obvious that anytime you find such bumptious celebrity politicoes as Barbra Streisand and Susan Sarandon practising some measure of self-restraint on a public occasion — a mention of protest songs and a peace sign between them — a loud-mouthed buffoon like Mr Boor will appear an embarrassment even among the seemingly unembarrassable of Tinseltown. All the same, it’s a little late in the day, one might have thought, for Hollywood to be getting all tasteful on us. I myself am always in favor of movie stars and other celebrities going public with their political opinions on the basis of the converse of the principle stated by Mark Twain when he said that "it is better to keep your mouth closed and appear a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." To me it is always better for fools to look like fools than to skulk around, like journalists, under a pretense of "objectivity." For the same reason, I am always in favor of teachers’ and academics’ being up-front about their political views. It is better for impressionable young people to be indoctrinated when they know they are being indoctrinated than when they don’t know it, or only suspect it. In the case of the celebrities, however, there is also the entertainment value of listening to, say, Janeane Garofalo complain that her political views are not being treated with sufficient seriousness or Martin Sheen solemnly opining that President Bush is "out of his depth." What I don’t understand is why more people aren’t taking the opportunity to laugh at them. Too many of those who are not fools themselves seem incapable of recognizing folly when it issues from the expensively capped teeth of celebrities. Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post, for example, took the bizarre view that the celebrity war protestors were ahead of the curve, leading the press into what he described as a much needed "full-throated debate" on the war. Debate? What has Howie been smoking? These guys wouldn’t know a debate if Cecil B. DeMille caught it in close-up. Maybe Moore had a point, after all, about the fictitious times. Though the president and the election results and the reasons for the war were all real enough — trust a fool like Moore not to see that — the illusion that the views of someone like him matter a hoot is a fiction too many of us seem determined to uphold.There's really not much more to add: Moore and many of his fellow celebrities regularly embarrass themselves with their uninformed pronouncements on national and international issues. I don't know whether they are listened to more because they are curiosities, or because people actually think that they are serious commentators. In either event, it is embarrassing to think that these people are miniature Clausewitzes on war, Machiavellis on foreign policy, and Kants on how the world can get along. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/26/2003 06:37:02 PM ----- BODY: POLLS, WAR AND THE SHAPING OF A FUTURE INTERNATIONAL ORDER Michael Barone's newest column is predictably terrific. Howell Raines should take note of Barone's critique of New York Times polling. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/26/2003 06:05:13 PM ----- BODY: "JIHAD TV" Walid Phares exposes al-Jazeera as the extremist propaganda organization that it truly is. The following is the key passage, and it relates to the showing of film of captured American POWs:
Following the sharp criticism of the Iraqis for breaching international law, al-Jazeera asked one of its advisers to provide additional defense arguments. Former Colonel Osama Damj at first acknowledged that prisoners should not be displayed for public curiosity. But, he added, there is an exception: that is, if the display is in the interest of the prisoners. Damj explained that the Iraqi leadership had two objectives in airing this broadcast. One was to prove they did indeed have U.S. soldiers in their custody. The other was to demonstrate that Baghdad respects human rights and that the prisoners are in good health. And then, Damj disclosed the real reason behind his arguments. To back up the so-called humane aspect of the Iraqis' behavior, he cited the example of the mother of one of the soldiers — who, as soon as she had learned her son was in captivity, begged President Bush to do something for her son. Damj eventually admitted that, at the end of the day, the broadcast was really about using the prisoners to score a political victory.(Emphasis mine.) Pretty much says it all, doesn't it? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/26/2003 05:38:21 PM ----- BODY: REMEMBER THAT SECOND FRONT WE WANTED? We're getting it. And for those who are worried that 1000 soldiers are too few, let me state the obvious response: Much more are on the way. The first wave will probably secure airfields in the north, and allow for the transport of fresh troops and equipment. The Iraqi military leadership now has something new to worry about. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/26/2003 04:36:49 PM ----- BODY: SANITY DESCENDING ON THE DEMOCRATS? Perhaps:
Democratic strategist Donna Brazile says she backs President Bush's war to overthrow Saddam Hussein and wants her party's leaders to project a stronger message that they support what U.S. troops are doing in Iraq. Top Stories Miss Brazile, who managed Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign, said she is not happy with the way Democratic congressional leaders have handled the party's message on the war. She says top Democrats have tilted too much of their message to curry favor with anti-war activists, ignoring swing voters and independents, and have failed to give their rank and file a well-thought-out position on how to deal with the national security threats posed by Saddam's regime. "We cannot afford to be talking just to the anti-war people. That's easy. We have to talk to everybody, especially independents," about the war, she said. "After I heard [the Arab television network] Al Jazeera broadcasting that videotape showing what the Iraqis did to the American POWs, I was livid," she said Monday in an interview with The Washington Times. "We have to send out the strongest possible message of support.Well, brava. And I mean that sincerely. Given the fact that Brazile has been one of the more strident Democratic operatives in the past (right up there with Paul Begala and James Carville), this may come as a surprise to some. But Brazile has gone out of her way to try to moderate the tone of the Democratic Party, and has even created friendships with Republicans like Karl Rove. Maybe people like her will work hard to create some form of bipartisan consensus regarding important national security issues. Hope spring eternal. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/26/2003 04:32:53 PM ----- BODY: I NEVER THOUGHT . . . that I would read a story like this one. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/26/2003 04:24:05 PM ----- BODY: JACQUES CHIRAC SAID THAT SADDAM "LOVE HIS PEOPLE" But maybe someone should let him know about this:
The distribution of humanitarian aid to civilians in the southern Iraqi town of Al Zubayr has been halted after Iraqi forces fired mortar rounds into crowds. Reporter Ian Bruce, who is travelling with Scots unit Black Watch, said troops had established a strong but not yet secure foothold in the town - a known Iraqi militia base - and were to begin distributing aid to its people. The troops were greeted by cheering crowds of several hundred people as they arrived western edge of the town, he said. But before any food or water could be handed out, snipers opened fire and two mortars shells fell into the crowd.Are you feeling the love yet? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/26/2003 04:21:02 PM ----- BODY: HERE'S MY GUESS The Marines just got angrier. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/26/2003 04:08:48 PM ----- BODY: UM . . . isn't this racist? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/26/2003 03:58:33 PM ----- BODY: AN OPTIMISTIC REPORT . . . from the incnreasingly indispensable Ralph Peters:
PERHAPS the craziest notion bouncing around the media is that Saddam Hussein is a brilliant military strategist. He may be a champion dictator, good at slaughtering, torturing, raping and starving his own people. But his military schemes are masterpieces of incompetence. Right now, the hand-wringers are warning that Saddam, in a stroke of genius, has deployed his Republican Guards in towns and villages, threatening us with deadly urban combat and inevitable destruction. What Saddam actually has done is to break his last, best armored divisions into little pieces. He'll never be able to put them back together. And we'll destroy them, piece by piece.It's a standard military tactic to try to break up enemy forces into smaller units so that those units could be individually taken on and destroyed. It is . . . um . . . highly unusual to have the enemy do that for you. When they do--as Saddam has--you know that you are going up against tactical novices. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/26/2003 03:53:55 PM ----- BODY: MEMO TO HANS BLIX: We found more stuff for you. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/26/2003 03:52:47 PM ----- BODY: AND IF THE IRAQIS AREN'T FIRING ON THEIR OWN PEOPLE . . . they are using them as human shields instead:
Iraqi paramilitaries are using civilians as human shields, Sky News has learnt. Militiamen facing besieging British troops outside Basra are forcing locals to march in front of them as they fire on soldiers, UK forces claim. Up to 1,000 Iraqi irregulars are thought to be in Basra standing firm against the British troops now responsible for fighting in southern Iraq. Emma Hurd, who is at the UK forces' base in northern Iraq, was told British troops were struggling to break the stand-off because of the tactic. "Irregular forces are using civilians as human shields," she said. "Men with guns advance out of the city with civilians in front of them towards the British forces. "These civilians are being forced into this."I wonder if al-Jazeera will evince any outrage over this. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/26/2003 03:48:30 PM ----- BODY: UNABLE TO ATTACK AMERICAN AND BRIITISH FORCES . . . the Iraqis are firing on their own people. I don't understand why--didn't Saddam get re-elected by 100% of the population? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/26/2003 03:37:30 PM ----- BODY: SHORT BUT SWEET Philip Kahn Fisks a "die-in." What's next? A "cerebral aneurysm-in"? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/26/2003 03:35:26 PM ----- BODY: FRATRICIDE IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTAL RACE? Things are getting heated already:
Howard Dean sent a handwritten letter to Democratic presidential primary rival John Edwards, apologizing for saying that Edwards avoided talking about his support of the Iraqi conflict before a largely anti-war audience. During a speech to California Democrats earlier this month, Dean criticized Edwards and Sen. John Kerry for backing the war. He said the two senators, who voted last fall for a congressional resolution authorizing force, did not stand by their positions when they addressed the same group. But Edwards, who spoke before Dean addressed the California audience, had pledged support for disarming Iraq by force and was booed and jeered by many in the crowd. Dean said he had not heard Edwards' speech and was unaware of what the North Carolina senator had said when he criticized him. "I thought it did take a lot of guts for him to get up in front of the convention and say what he said, and I commend him for that," the former Vermont governor said Wednesday. He said he mailed a personal letter of apology to Edwards Sunday during a campaign stop in Iowa. But Dean continued his criticism on Edwards on Monday. "It seems to me he has changed his position," he said, according to a report in the Des Moines Register. Then in an interview Tuesday with The Arlene Violet Show on WHJJ radio in Providence, R.I., Dean said all the candidates except Kerry have made their position clear on Iraq, including Edwards.This isn't exactly the biggest deal in terms of vitriol--there will be a lot worse to come as the campaign really shifts into high gear. What's amazing is how quickly the presidential race has started--it is 20 months until the general election. I'm a huge politics junkie, but I really wish people would get something of a grip. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/26/2003 03:31:14 PM ----- BODY: SAD, BUT PREDICATBLE Anti-Semitic acts are on the rise on campuses:
A new report from the Anti-Defamation League says anger over the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians caused a jump in anti-Semitic incidents last year in the United States, particularly on college campuses. An annual audit by the New York-based ADL found 106 acts of anti-Semitism on campuses in 2002, a 24 percent increase from the 85 a year before. The total number of anti-Jewish incidents increased by 8 percent, from 1,432 in 2001 to 1,559 last year. The ADL said the anti-Semitism acts on campuses included name-calling and damage to buildings housing Jewish fraternal organizations. Anti-Israel rallies that didn't lead to overt episodes of anti-Semitism were not included in the audit. "The unfortunate irony is that you would hope and believe that on a college campus the exchange of ideas would be tolerant and people would listen to other people," said Abraham Foxman, the national director of the ADL, which works to combat anti-Semitism.You never hear any outrage over this kind of blatant racism from groups like International A.N.S.W.E.R., or from many bloggers on the antiwar side. Wonder why. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/26/2003 03:28:39 PM ----- BODY: POW UPDATE At the present time, we hold 4000 Iraqi POWs. And it is quite definite that we are treating them better than our POWs are being treated. That simple fact is worth pointing out several hundred times. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/26/2003 03:26:18 PM ----- BODY: COME AND GET IT, GUYS The Iraqi Republican Guard marches towards its own destruction:
A huge column of elite Republican Guard units streamed out of Baghdad Wednesday evening heading toward U.S. forces massed near the southern Iraqi city of Najaf, CNN television reported. "A major column including about 1,000 Iraqi mobile units that might include tanks, might include armored personnel carriers, trucks and other things are on their way down from Baghdad toward Najaf," CNN said, quoting one of its reporters who is traveling with the U.S. 7th Cavalry. CNN said the Republican Guard were moving under cover of a sandstorm which has buffeted Iraq for the past day. It said U.S. troops were preparing for a possible confrontation within hours.Unless I miss my guess, these forces will--to the extent possible--first be hit by airpower. Then they will be hit by long range artillery. Byt the time they come into position to be hit by short range weapons fire, they will be fairly well decimated. This represents yet another example of the Iraqi regime signing its own death warrant. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/26/2003 03:22:10 PM ----- BODY: WOULD THAT WE HAD MORE LEADERS LIKE HIM Former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan is dead at age 76. He was always one of my favorite public figures--especially because of his stirring defenses of the United States before the UN Security Council back during the Ford Administration. As an advocate of Social Security reform, and as a voice of sanity in the Democratic Party, Moynihan further distinguished himself. His speeches were a pleasure to listen to, and he always acquitted himself well in debate. Even when he was wrong (as he was with the issue of welfare reform), he was still immensely compelling. Rest in peace, Senator. You will be dearly missed. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/25/2003 10:34:17 PM ----- BODY: THOUGHT FOR THE DAY We would do well to remember the following in peacetime, as well as now: I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o' beer, The publican 'e up an' sez, "We serve no red-coats here." The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die, I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I: O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away"; But it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play, The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play, O it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play. I went into a theatre as sober as could be, They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me; They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls, But when it comes to fightin', Lord! they'll shove me in the stalls! For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, wait outside"; But it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide, The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide, O it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide. Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap; An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit. Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, 'ow's yer soul?" But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll, The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll, O it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll. We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too, But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you; An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints, Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints; While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, fall be'ind", But it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind, There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind, O it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind. You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all: We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational. Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace. For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!" But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot; An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please; An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees! --Rudyard Kipling, Tommy -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/25/2003 06:28:33 PM ----- BODY: FUNNNIEST. THING. OF. THE. DAY. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/25/2003 06:11:14 PM ----- BODY: THE BENEFITS OF BLOGGINNG I get the coolest invites. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/25/2003 06:06:03 PM ----- BODY: AND SPEAKING OF MICHAEL MOORE . . . Mindles* H. Dreck has composed a rather catchy song about everyone's favorite Oscar-winning prevaricator. Go over and sing along. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/25/2003 06:00:51 PM ----- BODY: WE LIVE IN FICTITIOUS TIMES . . . when someone like Michael Moore can be celebrated. Debbie Schlussel explains why. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/25/2003 04:57:02 PM ----- BODY: A CLASSIC Gabriel Ledeen delivers a superb reply to an antiwar activist who claims to care for the soldiers currently fighting in Iraq:
"I find it disingenuous of you to claim that you support our troops now, when it is politically convenient to do so. Groups with which you identify have been railing against the military for years and years, idolizing those who burned down ROTC facilities. They spat on returning veterans in the '60s and early '70s. They have been protesting against the 'homophobic' and 'sexist' practices of the military, banning recruiters from career fairs all over the country, closing down ROTC units at Ivy League and other universities, campaigning against tax breaks for military families and against an increase in the shamefully low military salaries. It is convenient now to present your arguments within the framework of a pro-military view, since nobody would listen to you otherwise. However, to say that we share a common concern for the men and women serving our country is a false statement, and one that is quite unwelcome. While your concern for the troops is born of political strategy and desperation, I worry for my friends and comrades who are put in harm's way to accomplish a mission. These men and women are heroes, and they deserve to be treated as such — not as pawns in a political chess game."There are plenty of antiwar activists who suddenly claim to love the American soldier, sailor, and airman/airwoman, and that as proof of their love, they just want to "bring 'em home." They forget that the American military wants to be allowed to do its job, wants to remove a tyrannical blight that is a threat to American national security. And as Ledeen points out, such people are fair-weather friends of the military. Their disingenuousness is clear for all to see. They shouldn't think that they are fooling anyone but themselves. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/25/2003 04:51:45 PM ----- BODY: INCONGRUITIES Read "Jack Dunphy". That's all I will say. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/25/2003 03:11:27 PM ----- BODY: SOURCES OF BRITISH MILITARY MOTIVATION Reader Mike Daley sends me this . . . um . . . delightful link. It makes me admire the British all the more. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/25/2003 03:09:53 PM ----- BODY: ANOTHER BLOGGER SCOOP John Hawkins snagged an interview with Michael Fumento. Be sure to check it out. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/25/2003 03:03:09 PM ----- BODY: THE FATE OF SADDAM HUSSEIN This is encouraging. And if Saddam really is being treated, here's hoping that his doctors are incompetent. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/25/2003 03:00:25 PM ----- BODY: PROBLEM SOLVED As most people know, a dispute has been raised between the United States and Russia over the Russian sale of night-vision goggles and GPS jamming devices to Iraq. I don't know about the resolution of the issue of the night-vision goggles, but apparently, the issue of the GPS jammers has been resolved. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/25/2003 02:54:16 PM ----- BODY: SO MUCH FOR THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS I wonder if the antiwar protestors will protest this:
After securing the route through the town of Nasiriya - about 370 km (230 miles) south-east of Baghdad - US forces seize a hospital that appears to have been used by Iraqi forces to store weapons.I don't think you have to be a lawyer to recognize the illegality. Will we hear anything about this from those who oppose this war, and who think that the treachery of Saddam Hussein's regime is not worth bringing to an end? I won't hold my breath. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/25/2003 02:44:17 PM ----- BODY: BETTER LATE THAN NEVER At long last, the Canadians are coming closer to the American position on the war. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/25/2003 02:35:44 PM ----- BODY: NOT OUR FRIENDS The French continue to place themselves on the wrong side of history:
. . . a mood of “we told you so” is palpable in the spin and presentation of the “Anglo-Saxon” conflict, and the official allied version of events is treated with the same scepticism as that of Baghdad. Bad news for the coalition is being tacitly seized upon as a vindication of the French stand against war. “A black day for the Anglo-American forces,” the headlines said on yesterday’s main early television news bulletin recounting the allies’ losses and self-inflicted casualties. Newspapers also played up the obstacles facing the coalition. “The failures of a lightning war,” the front page of Libération said. Much is being made of the absence of any visible welcome for the supposedly liberating army. After broadcasting President Saddam Hussein’s address yesterday, commentators on TF1, the biggest television network, emphasised the way in which Iraq was resisting invasion. “The scenario of a regime as a clan that is cut off from its people is just not happening,” the TF1 analyst said. While the coalition is deemed certain to win, commentators are depicting the expected victory as pyrrhic, given the likely casualties.Not that this should concern anyone. After all, what do the French know about fighting a war? In any event, this gloating will surely be remembered by American and British officials at the end of the war. By then, the French should reap what they have sown. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/25/2003 02:31:58 PM ----- BODY: LISTEN TO DAVID WARREN The man knows of what he speaks:
You wouldn't know it from reading most of the papers, but the war in Iraq is going fabulously well. After just five days the U.S. Third Infantry Division and supporting units are approaching Baghdad. The immense steel column continues to drive reinforcements across the Iraqi desert, while its leading edge rumbles through the fields, villages, and waterways of Mesopotamia. To its rear, the "sleeper cells" of Ba'athist and terrorist hitmen waiting in ambush are being eliminated one by one. Special forces have seized bridges, dams, airstrips, oil and gas fields, and weapons sites all over the country. The U.S. Air Force has devastated leadership targets, military infrastructure, and the physical symbols of the Saddam regime, across Baghdad and elsewhere. Allied troops have Basra, Nasiriyah, now Karbala, and other Iraqi cities surrounded, and are tightening each noose. Snipers in the towns are being patiently deleted. The "Scud box" of western Iraq is in allied hands, daily more secure, and allied forces are building with endless air deployments to the northern front. In all, the allies have taken only a few dozen killed, and a couple hundred lesser casualties -- many of these from small accidents within the most amazing and vast logistical exercise since our troops landed in Normandy (when we lost men at the rate of up to 500 a minute, liberating France). In just five days all this has been achieved! And while the most grisly parts of the campaign still lie ahead, all the worst fears have gone unrealized, so far.Hopefully, this and other realistic reports will calm down some of the hand-wringing that has gone on in the past few days. At the rate things are going, you can be confident that this operation will be considered a classic in future military textbooks on how a ground war should be run. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/25/2003 02:27:09 PM ----- BODY: HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THE IRAQI REGIME IS FALLING? Fear of the regime is dissipating:
As Iraqi Americans reach out to their relatives in Baghdad and Basra, in Kirkuk and Irbil, some are hearing words they never thought possible: Iraqis are speaking ill of Saddam Hussein. They're criticizing him out loud, on the telephone, seemingly undeterred by fear of the Iraqi intelligence service and its tactics of torture for those disloyal to the Baath Party regime. "I was shocked," said Zainab Al-Suwaij, executive director of the American Islamic Congress, a nonprofit group in Cambridge, Mass., that promotes interfaith and interethnic understanding. "It's very dangerous. All the phones are tapped. But they are so excited."Right now, it is clear that Iraqi dissidents smell blood. The perception of Iraqi weakness will only grow in the coming days. Of course, some people continue to be blind:
Tamara Darweesh, 30, is a lawyer with the Los Angeles firm of Kegel, Tobin & Truce. Her parents were leftists, and university scientists, when the Baath Party came to power in 1968. "They made my parents' lives miserable," said Darweesh, whose 32-year-old brother is a transplant surgeon at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio. Their father, a Kurd, was an engineer but was forced to work in a concrete factory. Their mother, a Shiite Muslim, was a chemistry professor who was imprisoned for teaching children to read and write, Darweesh said. They left in 1980, just before Tamara turned 7, escaping first to England with help from friends in Iraq who subsequently were killed for smuggling them out. A few days ago, Darweesh went to the Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica, where antiwar protesters were gathered. She asked to talk to them about why it is important to topple Hussein. The protesters thanked her, turned and walked away. "I'm so disappointed with the left," said Darweesh, who considers herself a liberal. "They are in complete denial because it doesn't fit into their equation of the Mideast. But Saddam is an Arab leader who has killed more Arabs than Israel ever has." The antiwar protesters, she added, are "very condescending. They are supposed to be for human rights, but the suffering of the Iraqi people just doesn't exist for them. They deny us our stories."Yes they do. And the Ba'athist regime is not the only entity that is going to look bad at the end of this war. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/25/2003 02:24:46 PM ----- BODY: NO SURPRISE The Kurds love us:
ONLY a green field divided blood from laughter as bombs fell outside Kurdish-held Chamchamal. While the shockwaves from five explosions smashed glass and threw debris across the western edge of town, buyers and sellers in the bazaar jeered and clapped, delighted that the war had come at last to the front line in northern Iraq. Less than a mile away across a meadow, Iraqi troops reeled from their first experience of American airpower. “I am so happy,” Ismail Qadir, 32, a refugee from Kirkuk, said. “If this brings the end of Saddam Hussein’s regime even one minute closer, it is great news for us all.”Don't worry, it will. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/25/2003 02:21:36 PM ----- BODY: HEH Not that I endorse this, of course. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/25/2003 02:18:32 PM ----- BODY: MEMO TO THE IRAQI LEADERSHIP: The Marines are coming to get you. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/25/2003 02:16:49 PM ----- BODY: THE WAR WRAP-UP Umm Qasr and Nasiriyah appear to be relatively under control. Once mines are removed from the harbor, it is expected that humanitarian aid will come in quickly. In addition, there is a Shi'ite uprising that is going on in Basra, that could very well be bad news for Saddam Hussein. The sandstorms are slowing the march to Baghdad, but it appears still to be going on. In addition, I just heard that state run TV is off the air (the Iraqis are claiming technical problems--I hope that they are as a result of a well-placed American munition). Keep it going, guys. Onward to victory. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/24/2003 11:02:23 PM ----- BODY: THOUGHT FOR THE DAY Diplomacy without arms is like music without instruments. --Frederick the Great -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/24/2003 07:56:47 PM ----- BODY: MY TECH CENTRAL STATION COLUMN IS UP This week, I discuss the current air campaign against Iraq, and its potential effect on conventional wisdom regarding the use of airpower in future conflicts. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/24/2003 07:54:55 PM ----- BODY: THUMBS IN YOUR EYE Eugene Volokh properly points out here and here that in Arab lands, the "thumbs up" signal is the equivalent of giving someone the middle finger. He might perhaps be interested in knowing that it is also insulting to do that to Persians as well. Additionally, it is insulting to stick out one's big toe--which also has a meaning similar to giving someone the middle finger. One of my aunts is American, and she was sitting with bare feet among other members of my family, and was, for some reason, stretching her big toes out. No one thought she was being deliberately insulting, but the word was passed, and she stopped doing that. Additionally, for all of you wondering about the gesture in Dante's Divina Commedia, which is mentioned in the second post linked to above, it can be found in Canto XXV of The Inferno, where the gesture is performed by a character named Vanni Fucci, who was condemned to Hell for stealing the treasure of the sacristy of the church of San Zeno at Pistoia. Vanni Fucci directs the gesture at God--and is immediately punished by having snakes bind his neck to suffocate him from uttering blasphemies, and his arms to prevent him from continuing the obscene gesture. Vanni Fucci is such a violent and angry figure, that Dante is surprised that he was not condemned to the Circle of the Violent. You can read about Vanni Fucci in Canto XXIV and XXV here. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/24/2003 07:13:09 PM ----- BODY: LILEKS. READ. NOW. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/24/2003 06:56:05 PM ----- BODY: THE IRRESOLUTE ANTIWAR LEFT Read this description by James Robbins:
I read with interest a report out of San Francisco about the "rough" treatment some antiwar demonstrators got at the hands of the SFPD. Some complained that their hands were bound too tightly. Others noted the use of scare tactics, such as threatening to withhold bathroom privileges from a protester who refused to identify herself. ("That is not right," one survivor commented.) Some were forced to sleep overnight on cell floors, others on mats in a gymnasium. The sandwiches they were given to eat "didn't taste great." Some women were called "little girl" or "hon." The horror, the horror. Contrast these accounts with the latest revelation about the treatment of dissidents in Iraq, namely being fed through industrial-grade plastic shredders. The lucky ones go in head first. Imagine it. Seriously, take a minute and try to conceive it. What would be going through your mind the instant your feet made contact with the whirling metal? Bad sandwiches?For that matter, contrast these accounts with what American POWs are going through right now. The antiwar protestors state that they wouldn't want to fight this war. We are in agreement. I wouldn't want them to fight it either. We would lose easily if they did. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/24/2003 06:25:25 PM ----- BODY: THE PEACEFUL, ANTIWAR LEFT Charming, no? And by the way, I found this by looking through my referral files. I have absolutely no idea how it ended up there. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/24/2003 05:30:56 PM ----- BODY: AND NOW, EVERY DEMOCRAT'S WORST NIGHTMARE: Al Sharpton may run for President as an independent. I'll just let that comment stand on its own. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/24/2003 05:29:11 PM ----- BODY: THE OSCARS I didn't watch them, but Jonathan Last did. Read his account. You'll laugh. You'll cry. And I'm not kidding. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/24/2003 05:19:40 PM ----- BODY: SERVES 'EM RIGHT The French get what was coming to them. Heh. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/24/2003 05:17:58 PM ----- BODY: THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT THERE WILL BE A TRIAL FOR WAR CRIMES FROM THE FIRST PERSIAN GULF WAR The bad news is that it will try the wrong people:
The families of victims of an attack on a Baghdad shelter during the 1991 Gulf War plan to file a complaint in Belgium against former U.S. President George Bush under a law enabling its courts to hear human rights cases. The families said in a statement on Tuesday that they were filing a complaint against Bush senior, U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, and former U.S. commander General Norman Schwarzkopf. Cheney was secretary of defence and Powell chairman of the joint chiefs of staff under Bush, father of President George W. Bush, when the United States went to war against Iraq in 1991.Perhaps it would be smarter and more logical to sue Saddam for allowing his civilians to be placed in the line of fire during the first Gulf War. But then that would be logical, wouldn't it? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/24/2003 05:15:13 PM ----- BODY: HOW IS THE WAR GOING? Perhaps this article put it best:
IN combat, the ideal leader is the man who remains calm and methodical under fire. Today's 24/7 broadcast news demands just the opposite: raised voices, an atmosphere of crisis and a rush to judgment. After declaring victory on Friday and Saturday, a number of media outlets all but announced our defeat yesterday, treating the routine events of warfare as if they were disasters. Nonsense. We're winning, the Iraqis are losing, and the American people have executive seats for what may prove to be the most successful military campaign in history.Um, read it all. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/24/2003 04:58:19 PM ----- BODY: FOR ALL THE TALK ABOUT IRAQI RESISTANCE . . . stories like this one are still quite common:
They came staggering and stumbling across the desert - a bedraggled band of shoeless soldiers from Saddam Hussein's 51st Mechanical Infantry Division, waving any piece of white clothing they could find. The night before, they had fought a fierce battle with United States marines for the deep-water port of Umm Qasr in southern Iraq. Now, ravenous, begging for water and terrified, they were ready to surrender - to anyone they thought could feed and clothe them. Only a mile away in the desert, a few miles outside town, 400 of their comrades and officers who had been captured in battle were already receiving medical treatment at a makeshift PoW camp set up by Colonel Gil Baldwin's men from the Queen's Dragoon Guards. "We never wanted to fight - only the diehards did," said one Iraqi, as they grabbed at water bottles and clasped their palms as if in prayer, begging for food. Battle had raged the previous day as the marines struggled to hold and secure the town. Even now, Apache helicopters circled overhead, firing missiles into the hills above, where bands of Iraqi soldiers were holed up.Remember, we have a whole lot more of their prisoners than they have of ours. Morale in American ranks is significantly higher as well. The war won't be over by the next weekend, but it still looks very much on track to come to an end quite soon--and with a vivid display of American prowess. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/24/2003 04:55:03 PM ----- BODY: GEE, WHY WOULD THE IRAQIS NEED TO HAVE THAT? Look what American forces found:
. . . CBS News Correspondent Phil Ittner reports that Army doctors who treated some Iraqi prisoners of war, believed to be some high-ranking Iraqi officials, found Cipro pills among the Iraqis’ personal possessions. Cipro is meant to ward off the effects of a biological attack from several toxic agents, foremost among them, anthrax.There is more in the article about potential chemical weapons finds, finds that could finally and conclusively demonstrate the extent to which the Iraqis have violated and breached UN resolutions. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/24/2003 04:49:29 PM ----- BODY: HAVING BREACHED UN RESOLUTIONS LEFT AND RIGHT . . . Iraq now appears determined to make a practice of breaching the Geneva Convention:
Iraqi television showed on Monday video of two men it said were the crew of a U.S. Apache helicopter that was downed after attacking an elite Republican Guard division southwest of Baghdad. The men, who both appeared to be in good health, were wearing khaki overalls and remained silent on camera. The television showed their identity papers, including a Texas driving license, and their credit cards. It said their helicopter was shot down by a farmer. "The heroic farmer Ali Obeid-Mingash...shot down the Apache with his rifle. These are...the two American pilots who were sent by the little Bush to the inferno of death," the report said, referring to President Bush.The people who are deciding to parade American soldiers in this manner are signing their own death warrants. We'll be sure to collect on their signature once the war is over. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/24/2003 04:46:34 PM ----- BODY: BLOGGERS BECOMING FAMOUS, PART II It is so nice when friends get recognition:
As the scrappy Ivy League-educated voice behind the blog site www.asparagirl.com, Brooke Schreier lays out her views on subjects ranging from the momentous to the mundane. In one posting she'll muse on her upcoming marriage to her fiance in L.A. In another she'll free-associate about hearing emergency sirens outside her window in jittery Manhattan. "I do have my magic talisman handy, though, to ward off any problems: chocolate ice cream," she wrote the other day. "Solves almost everything." But it is Schreier's recent postings on what she regards as the myopic attitude of mainstream feminists toward the U.S.-Iraq war that have made her a minor overnight sensation in the small but expanding world of those who keep online journals, or Web logs ("blogs" for short). Criticizing such groups as Code Pink and Women Against War, as well as the international antiwar protest campaign called the Lysistrata Project, Schreier says that "so many women are being told that because of their gender they should support the antiwar movement." Au contraire, argues Schreier, 23, speaking by phone from New York, where she works as a Web producer and designer for IBM. One of the most compelling reasons for backing the war, she thinks, is that it may help liberate Iraqi women from a tyrannically sexist society. And although a Code Pink organizer has said that "testosterone-poisoned rhetoric" is behind the push for war, Schreier thinks such attitudes smack of a monolithic and "retro" view of femininity.I congratulated Brooke for her well-deserved fame via the telephone, but I want to do it again here. If you aren't checking her blog out on a regular basis, you are missing out in a big way. Be sure to congratulate Brooke yourself, and also check out the rest of the story--it is very complimentary. And rightfully so. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/24/2003 04:43:38 PM ----- BODY: BLOGGERS BECOMING FAMOUS, PART I Salam Pax finally gets the recognition that he deserves. I hope that once Iraq is liberated, Salam will tell us all his real name, so we will know who exactly to praise for his very brave reports from the inside of Iraq. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/24/2003 04:40:33 PM ----- BODY: FOR ALL THOSE CONCERNED ABOUT THE STATE OF THE WAR . . . remember the following: American and British forces have moved 600 kilometers in less than five days. That is the distance between Normandy and Belgium. In World War II, it took three months to move that far. Please relax. There may be tactical issues that have to be tweaked, but the overall strategy is still going very well. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/24/2003 04:37:28 PM ----- BODY: THE "SADDAM" SPEECH Folks, if you believe that speech was given live, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. I've heard that the broadcast was edited in nearly 70 places, and in the speech, Saddam praises a commander whose division surrendered quick and early in the war. There was no mention of American POWs captured (remember that in the prelude before the first Persian Gulf War, Saddam was willing to have himself shown visiting Western hostages), no mention of the Arab League summit that has taken place, and other incongruities. Commanders and citizens at Basra were urged to have "patience," and reassured that the Iraqis were heading there way. But since there was still resistance at Basra, Saddam should have urged further resistance, instead of urging "patience." He didn't even mention the battle at Nasiriyah, and any specifics that he did mention were well known as much as ten days before the war began. I'm even more convinced that Saddam is either seriously hurt or dead. Of course, it would be good if the Allies take out Iraqi television so that the thought of a post-Saddam environment becomes more credible for Iraqis, but I think that the head of the snake is at least dangling by a tendon, if not completely cut off. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/24/2003 04:30:42 PM ----- BODY: SORRY THERE HAS BEEN NO BLOGGING It's been one of those days where I really haven't had much free time. And that is a pity since there is a lot to say. My apologies. In any event, I'm blogging now. Off to the races. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/23/2003 11:39:49 PM ----- BODY: THOUGHT FOR THE DAY War is not its own end, except in some catastrophic slide into absolute damnation. It's peace that's wanted. Some better peace than the one you started with. --Lois McMaster Bujold -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/23/2003 06:19:05 PM ----- BODY: HOW THE ANTIWAR PROTESTORS MIGHT WANT TO BEHAVE This post is quite instructive. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/23/2003 05:42:32 PM ----- BODY: REMEMBER THIS In fighting the Iraqi regime, it is important to bear in mind the following observation by Mark Steyn:
It is Saddam's intention to compensate for American squeamishness about civilian casualties by ramping up the numbers himself. You couldn't have a more exquisite manifestation of an all but inviolable rule: For all their bluster about killing Jews and infidels, Arab leaders' first and last victims are always Arabs. This has been true ever since the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, the first Arab nationalist colossus of the modern era, launched his revolt against the British in 1936. By the time the dust settled, there were hundreds of dead British, hundreds of dead Jews, and thousands of dead Arabs, the vast majority of that last group murdered by the Mufti's men as part of intra-Arab score-settling. ''Kill the Jews wherever you find them,'' the Mufti liked to say, but, for all the stirring rhetoric, he found it a lot easier to kill his fellow Arabs--a tradition that his successors from Assad to Arafat have been happy to maintain. Saddam, like the Mufti, will depart the scene leaving behind a mound of mostly Muslim corpses. Fortunately for the Saddamites, there are plenty more where they came from. On Thursday in Gaza they were jumping up and down in the street. ''Death to America!'' they chanted. ''We will give our souls and blood for you, Saddam!'' Good. 'Cause that's pretty much all he needs from you. On the other hand, if I were the Butcher of Baghdad, I'd be little disappointed by the turnout: The Great Satan launches his unprovoked war on Iraq, and only 700 Palestinians bother to protest? He needs more blood than that, fellers.Read it all, as they say. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/23/2003 05:25:10 PM ----- BODY: WELL, HOW 'BOUT THAT! More chemical weapons found. Is it still too soon to declare "material breach" by general consensus? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/23/2003 05:17:27 PM ----- BODY: BY THEIR WISHES, YE SHALL KNOW THEM Steven Den Beste reports that the antiwar protestors got exactly what they called for. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/23/2003 04:51:43 PM ----- BODY: WANT TO KNOW WHAT LIFE IS LIKE ON THE OTHER SIDE? Read this:
IRAQI conscripts shot their own officers in the chest yesterday to avoid a fruitless fight over the oil terminals at al-Faw. British soldiers from 40 Commando’s Charlie Company found a bunker full of the dead officers, with spent shells from an AK47 rifle around them. Stuck between the US Seals and the Royal Marines, whom they did not want to fight, and a regime that would kill them if they refused, it was the conscripts’ only way out. In total, 40 Commando had collected more than 100 prisoners of war yesterday from the few square miles of the al-Faw peninsula that they controlled. Two of them were a general in the regular Iraqi Army and a brigadier. They came out from the command bunker where they had been hiding after 40 Commando’s Bravo Company fired two anti-tank missiles into it. With them was a large sports holdall stuffed with money. They insisted that they had been about to pay their troops, to the disbelief of their captors. These were the men who had left their soldiers hungry, poorly armed and almost destitute for weeks, judging by the state we had seen them in, while appearing to keep the money for themselves.Gee, a corrupt officer corps that so outrages conscripts under its command that the conscripts rise up and mutiny. Who would have expected it? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/23/2003 04:37:53 PM ----- BODY: COVERING ALL MY BASES I highly doubt that any high-ranking Iraqi generals read my blog. But in the event that they do, they should really click on this link. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/23/2003 04:31:43 PM ----- BODY: I KNOW THAT I AM LATE TO THIS . . . but it is always nice to see stupidity come to a crashing end:
I wanted to join the human shields in Baghdad because it was direct action which had a chance of bringing the anti-war movement to the forefront of world attention. It was inspiring: the human shield volunteers were making a sacrifice for their political views - much more of a personal investment than going to a demonstration in Washington or London. It was simple - you get on the bus and you represent yourself. So that is exactly what I did on the morning of Saturday, January 25. I am a 23-year-old Jewish-American photographer living in Islington, north London. I had travelled in the Middle East before: as a student, I went to the Palestinian West Bank during the intifada. I also went to Afghanistan as a photographer for Newsweek. The human shields appealed to my anti-war stance, but by the time I had left Baghdad five weeks later my views had changed drastically. I wouldn't say that I was exactly pro-war - no, I am ambivalent - but I have a strong desire to see Saddam removed.Be sure to read the rest--if you haven't already. It's always nice to see common sense dawn on the benighted, and this article is one of the most vivid expressions of such a phenomenon. UPDATE: More common sense:
A group of American anti-war demonstrators who came to Iraq with Japanese human shield volunteers made it across the border today with 14 hours of uncensored video, all shot without Iraqi government minders present. Kenneth Joseph, a young American pastor with the Assyrian Church of the East, told UPI the trip "had shocked me back to reality." Some of the Iraqis he interviewed on camera "told me they would commit suicide if American bombing didn't start. They were willing to see their homes demolished to gain their freedom from Saddam's bloody tyranny. They convinced me that Saddam was a monster the likes of which the world had not seen since Stalin and Hitler. He and his sons are sick sadists. Their tales of slow torture and killing made me ill, such as people put in a huge shredder for plastic products, feet first so they could hear their screams as bodies got chewed up from foot to head."It's about time they figured out the facts. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/23/2003 04:19:42 PM ----- BODY: WHILE PUBLIC MOOD VARIES IN IRAQ . . . it is increasingly clear that in many instances, coalition soldiers are being welcomed as liberators by the Iraqi people. There will be more of these celebrations as the military operation continues. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/23/2003 04:17:18 PM ----- BODY: CLEARING SOMETHING UP Apparently, the Iranians believe that the missile that landed inside the borders of Iran last week came from Iraq, and not from the United States. Additionally, there is the following very interestinng passage:
The two countries are communicating through a Swiss intermediary; a practice established after the U.S. cut diplomatic ties with Iran 24 years ago when Islamic student revolutionaries overthrew the Shah and held 52 Americans hostage. Anticipating the potential for problems, the Bush administration engaged in secret high-level diplomacy with Iranian officials weeks before the war began. U.S. officials said the talks paved the way for a policy of "active neutrality" between the United States and Iran -- similar to how the two nations handled the U.S.-led campaign in Afghanistan to remove the Taliban from power. This time around, officials said, Tehran granted the U.S. overflight rights for search and rescue missions, although Iran has not publicly acknowledged doing so. Although Iran is not a member of the "coalition of the willing" -- it also does not support the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein.Of course, none of this should save the Islamic regime from eventual overthrow--especially given the widespread disgust of Iranians with the regime. Nevertheless, it is interesting to see how the regime is quietly working with the United States. Is it because it fears regime change? Is it because of popular pressure to have Iran engage American more closely in dialogue? Perhaps. In either event, it is a very good development, and will greatly help the military effort. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/23/2003 04:12:34 PM ----- BODY: A SELF-DEFEATING TACTIC Jonah Goldberg points out why mistreating American POWs is a bad idea for the current Iraqi regime. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/23/2003 04:10:20 PM ----- BODY: WHY SHOULD WE LISTEN TO THE FRENCH . . . when their society appears to tolerate this:
Jérémy Bismuth is Jewish, though he doesn't wear a yarmulke or Star of David pendant or adhere to a Kosher diet or leave school early on Fridays to be home before sunset. Nothing identifies the 15-year-old French boy as Jewish except his birth. Yet because he is a Jew, he was attacked by a group of other children, mostly Muslim, at the private Catholic school he then attended. They dragged him into the school's locker room showers shouting that they were going to gas him as the Nazis had gassed Jews. He was beaten and flogged with a pair of trousers whose zipper scratched one of his corneas. [. . .] The word "feuj" — from the inversion of the French word "Juif," which means "Jew" — is now a playground standard, both as an insult against Jewish students and as a contemptuous adjective. Children say a pen that does not work is "completely feuj," for example, and the Hebrew salutation "mazel tov" is used in the same way. [. . .] When Jérémy broke free from his tormentors in the shower, he ran for help to the teacher's lounge but none of the faculty rose from their chairs to help the disheveled and distraught boy. Jérémy said it wasn't the first anti-Semitic incident he had experienced at the school, nor the last. The director of the school, Robert Patrois, dismissed the incident as a schoolyard brawl between a Muslim boy and a Jewish boy "that brought out their 14-year-old vocabulary." In a telephone interview he grew irritated when asked if the teachers had come to Jérémy's aide. "Don't ask me to remember what they did," he said. "I didn't want to treat it as an anti-Arab or anti-Jewish incident. I treated it as fighting." After the incident, Jérémy and his parents filed a complaint with the police, but the boy was taunted repeatedly in the subsequent weeks by other Muslim students. Finally, Jérémy's mother sent a lengthy complaint in the notebook that every student carries to pass messages between parents and faculty, but the notebook was never returned and a new, blank one was sent home with her son instead.Read the rest--if you have the stomach. And ask yourself why it is that French politicians--including the increasingly despicable Jacques Chirac--are more concerned about the welfare of Saddam Hussein and his gang of thugs than they are about the welfare of French citizens who are Jewish. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/23/2003 04:02:52 PM ----- BODY: HEY, GUESS WHAT? Iraq is in material breach of Resolution 1441:
The United States said on Sunday there had been reports of some Iraqi forces with chemical weapons near the town of Kut, about 105 miles southeast of Baghdad.Yet another stunner, eh? I wonder if there will be outrage on the Security Council at having been mislead. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/23/2003 03:58:56 PM ----- BODY: HOW IS THE WAR ON THE GROUND GOING? Largely like this:
In the desert near the Shi'ite holy city of Najaf, just 100 miles south of Baghdad, correspondent Luke Baker traveled through a plain littered with Iraqi bodies and gutted vehicles after U.S. forces fought a seven-hour battle against militiamen desperately trying to halt their advance. Some vehicles were still smoldering, and charred ribs were the only recognizable part of three burned bodies in a destroyed car lying in the roadside dust. "It wasn't even a fair fight. I don't know why they don't just surrender," said Col. Mark Hildenbrand, commander of the 937th Engineer Group. "When you're playing soccer at home, 3-2 is a fair score, but here it's more like 119-0."Yeah, it's probably that lopsided. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/23/2003 03:55:49 PM ----- BODY: AS FOR THE MARCH TO BAGHDAD . . . it continues, and will come to a head soon:
The ground war to capture Baghdad should begin by Tuesday, with no plan for U.S.-British troops to get bogged down fighting in Iraq's second city of Basra, a British defense source said on Sunday. "We're looking toward Monday night, Tuesday for the ground offensive on Baghdad," the source told Reuters on condition of anonymity. "The important thing is not to take Basra but to get through it and get to the north. We won't get into fighting in downtown Basra."The story goes on to mention that there will likely be substantial bombardment of Republican Guard positions prior to full engagement on the ground. That isn't a surprise. If really are interested in seeing "shock and awe" in action, it is likely to come up very soon. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/23/2003 03:51:54 PM ----- BODY: BREVITY IS THE SOUL OF WIT Also sprach former President George Herbert Walker Bush in an interview on the war, and the diplomacy leading up to the war:
What do you think is going on with France? [Pause] They’re French.I'm sure that he had much more to say, but he might have said it all. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/23/2003 03:31:36 PM ----- BODY: WHAT THE PAST TWENTY FOUR HOURS HAVE TAUGHT US While this war will in all likelihood be won in a rout, it will not necessarily be easy. If the rout occurs, it will only come as a result of exceedingly and painstakingly careful planning on the part of coalition commanders. In the meantime, there will be tension, there will be surprise, there will be tragedy, and there will be acts that prompt feelings of outrage and disgust. The tension came last night from the continuing firefight at Umm Qasr--a town that is largely under the control of American and British forces. We have command of the town, and we control the area, but from time to time, there will be pockets of resistance that our forces will have to deal with. This does not imply failure for the coalition. Nor does it come as a surprise to anyone even remotely familiar with how military operations unfold. The surprise came from the attack at Camp Pennsylvania at Kuwait City. Earlier, it was thought that the attack might have been carried out by al Qaeda, or other terrorist forces in Kuwait. Now we find out that it occurred as a result of an American soldier who, quite frankly, lost his mind. This is not going to be typical, but it bears remembering that the range of human emotions experienced during war is wide and varied, and sometimes leads to incomprehensible and even despicable acts. The tragedy came as a result of the accidental shooting of a British plane by an American Patriot missile battery. Friendly fire is a very unfortunate part of war, and it is, of course, heartbreaking to see people die accidentally at the hands of soldiers that are on their side. Again, this is not common in war, but it happens often enough to get attention. And finally, the outrage and disgust: As we all know by now, a small number of American soldiers have been taken prisoner by the Iraqis. Some of the soldiers were interrogated on television in an effort to frighten and intimidate them, as well as to humiliate Americans in front of the Iraqi people. Seven of the American soldiers were executed with bullets to the head and abdominal regions. Executed. There is a difference between killing in war, and cold-blooded murder. The latter was visited on the American soldiers in question today. It contrasts with something that I heard on Fox while at the gym today: A Kurdish contingent turned over a number of Iraqi soldiers to a group of Americans, and the first thing that the Americans asked was whether the Iraqis had been given food, water, and medicine. One of the Kurds remarked that this was the difference between the Iraqis in thrall to Saddam, and the Americans. He called the former "animals." Quite so. In any event, it will do nothing to quell the desire to institute regime change in Iraq. If anything, there will now be bloodlust in America--bloodlust that will demand those who committed these atrocities to be hunted down and punished. I remember the last Gulf War, when Saddam paraded captured American pilots before the cameras. He thought that it would make the American public lose its spirit for battle. Instead, it just enraged the country. Similar rage will follow in the current conflict. The only difference is that American soldiers will, by and large, continue to demonstrate greater respect for human life than will the Iraqis that are still loyal to Saddam and his dying regime. This doesn't constitute an ethnic difference between Americans and certain Iraqis. It does, however, constitute a moral difference between humane warriors on the one hand, and gangsters and thugs on the other. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/23/2003 02:46:22 PM ----- BODY: NO, I'M NOT DEAD . . . although I felt somewhat ill yesterday, and decided to take the day off from blogging. It's been the first time in a long while that I have been under the weather--exercising on a regular basis does wonders for one's immune system. And it wasn't that serious--but it did give me an excuse to relax a bit for the day. As of now, I am healthy, hale, hearty, and ready to blog. It's nice to see all y'all again. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/21/2003 11:34:48 PM ----- BODY: THOUGHT FOR THE DAY War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. --John Stuart Mill -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/21/2003 10:49:17 PM ----- BODY: AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT JACQUES CHIRAC I sent the following to everyone's favorite foreign leader (my apologies if there are some grammatical errors--it's been a while since I practiced my French):
Mon cher Monsieur le Président: S'il faut nécessaire, je souhaite vous offrir toute de mes sympathies pour la mort de votre meilleur ami, Saddam Hussein. Je suis Américain, et mon pays a beaucoup d'expérience avec la mort; la mort de nos amis, nos fils et nos filles, nos fréres et nos soeurs, nos pères et nos mères, nos collègues, et nos maris et nos épouses. Nous avons perdu 3000 telles personnes à 11 septembre, 2001. J'espére pour votre santé politique que la mort de Saddam a été accompagnée avec la déstruction des papiers qui démontrent la raccordement entre la France et l'Irak concernant la construction des armes chimiques et biologiques--les armes qui ont été construites avec l'aide de votre gouvernement, pendant votre présidence. Nous comprendons votre position politique au sujet d'Irak, et vos actions à la Conseil de Sécurité des Nations-Unies pendant notre travaile pour décreter une 18ème résolution concernant l'Irak. Nous nous rappelons nos amis, et nous nous rappelons nos ennemis aussi bien. Je vous donne ma parole. Actuellement, mon pays avance de la victoire à la victoire. Nous préserverons notre sécurité nationale, et nous réaliserons la gloire avec notre travail pour libérer la peuple Irakien. Je sais que vous comprenez la signification de la libération -- particulièrement parce que la France a été libérée il y a 59 ans par l'invasion de l'armée Américaine à Normandie. Merci pour votre attention. Vive les États-Unis d'Amerique. Vive la France aussi--mais vive une France courageuse, une France avec l'honneur. Une France sans votre présidence, et votre participation politique. Je vous prie d’agréer, Monsieur, mes salutations distinguées, Pejman YousefzadehThe translation is as follows:
My Dear Mr. President: Should it be necessary, I wish to offer you all of my sympathies for the death of your best friend, Saddam Hussein. I am an American, and my country has a great deal of experience with death; the death of our friends, our sons and fathers, our brothers and sisters, our fathers and mothers, our co-workers, and our husbands and wives. We lost 3000 such people on September 11, 2001. I hope for your political health that Saddam's death was accompanied with the destruction of papers which demonstrate the connection between France and Iraq regarding the construction of chemical and biological weapons--weapons which were constructed with the assistance of your government, during your Presidency. We understand your political position on the issue of Iraq, and your actions in the Security Council of the United Nations during our work to enact an 18th resolution regarding Iraq. We remember our friends, and we remember our enemies as well. I give you my word. At present, my country is advancing from victory to victory. We will preserve our national security, and we will achieve glory through the liberation of the Iraqi people. I know that you understand the significance of liberation--especially because France was liberated 59 years ago by the invasion of the American army at Normandy. Thank you for your attention. Long live the United States of America. Long live France as well--but long live a courageous France, a France with honor. A France without your Presidency, and your political participation. Yours truly, Pejman YousefzadehIf you want to send a message to President Chirac, go here. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/21/2003 09:51:27 PM ----- BODY: DING DONG, SADDAM IS . . . DEAD? FoxNews is reporting that the Defense Department has pictures of people engaging in "frantic digging" at the site of the bunker where Saddam and his cadre of leaders were located on Wednesday night, when they were struck by bombing. There are also pictures and accounts of Saddam being carried on a stretcher, and put into an ambulance. Dare we hope that he is dead? Or at least in very serious physical pain? The thought is delightful. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/21/2003 07:36:42 PM ----- BODY: JUST WHAT THE NATION NEEDED Another judicial filibuster--this one against Justice Priscilla Owen in her confirmation battle for a seat on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals--appears to be in the offing:
On the one hand, Republicans can’t help but admire the Democrats’ show of political strength. “The rock-solid way those guys in their caucus aren’t budging is surprising and, frankly, impressive,” says one GOP aide. “I think they’ve done a hell of a job.” But on the other hand, Republicans are stumped. They firmly believe Democrats are hurting themselves politically by obstructing Bush nominees. For example, parental notification laws enjoy broad popular support, and Republicans wonder why Democrats would thumb their nose at public opinion just to oppose a relatively obscure judicial nominee. And why do it after [Miguel] Estrada? “They’ve filibustered an accomplished Hispanic,” says one well-connected Republican. “On the heels of that, are they going to filibuster an accomplished woman? Do they want to do that?” The answer appears to be yes. Kate [Michelman of NARAL], Nan [Aron of the Alliance for Justice], and Ralph [Neas of People for the American Way] told them to.And when Kate, Nan and Ralph say "Jump," the only acceptable response in the Senate Democratic Caucus is apparently "How high, and how often"? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/21/2003 07:19:48 PM ----- BODY: AS ROUSING SPEECHES GO . . . this one, which is commented on by Eugene Volokh, is quite good indeed. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/21/2003 06:49:48 PM ----- BODY: WOW, THIS WAR MUST BE REALLY SERIOUS MoxiePundit is back. And she has miltary advice to share:
. . . while I am pro-war, I think our military has it all wrong. Think Baywatch meets the 101st Airborne Division. If you want to collapse Saddam's regime....send in the dancers from Spearmint Rhino, naked Playboy Bunnies and female porn stars. That alone would give the phrase "Patriot Missiles" a whole new meaning.No, no, no! They get deployed to my place! -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/21/2003 06:45:42 PM ----- BODY: HUMOR BREAK Well, sort of. I give you Lileks:
Was that bifocaled roué on TV last night actually Grampa Butcher himself? No idea. I’d be happy if they got one of the sons. If you ever played “Doom” you know that the Martian base had hundreds of barrels of toxic waste conveniently placed around the installation, and when shot they would blow up reel gud. If there was an imp or a zombie standing nearby, the hellspawn were instantly converted to a pixelated smear of red-currant jam. It was a crude effect, cartoonish and blocky, but we’d never seen anything like that in a game before; your first reaction was whoa. That’s what I think of when I think of the Tomahawks slamming into Uday or Qusay’s Love Shack - immediate conversion to a Smuckeresque crescent. And I’ll be frank - it’s not the way I’d like them both to go. The ideal scenario would take place in some dank third-string bolthole, where the Lads and Dad had taken refuge because all the nice bunkers with the gilt-edged toilets and circular beds had been destroyed. At some point the boys get claustrophobia, and start yanking the handle to open the steel door. That’s when Saddam takes out a pistol and says “I always knew you would disappoint me.” You may say I’m a dreamer. But I’m not the only one.I'm going to go off and laugh myself silly now. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/21/2003 06:25:01 PM ----- BODY: HEH! Also sprach Scott Ganz:
Oh, and I just caught footage of an Iraqi Defense Ministry Press Conference. The bombs were drowning out their statements. We have our Helen Thomas. Now they have theirs.Theirs is deadly. Ours is merely annoying. I would still choose to be plagued by ours--but the contest would be closer than many people think. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/21/2003 06:18:30 PM ----- BODY: SAY THIS FOR SADDAM HUSSEIN . . . The man certainly is prescient:
IN EARLY 1969, less than a year after his Baath Party seized power, Saddam Hussein spoke to an aggrieved family who complained that one of their number had been unjustly executed. Spurning a suggestion that they settle for diaya (blood money), they demanded justice and retribution. “Take the money,” Saddam said quietly. “Do not think you will get revenge, because if you ever have the chance, by the time you get to us, there will not be a sliver of flesh left on our bodies.” In other words, should he ever fall from power, there would be too many others queueing up to tear him and his fellow Baathists apart.I suspect he didn't even know the half of it. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/21/2003 05:40:42 PM ----- BODY: BY THE WAY . . . Thanks to the people who have hit the tip jar over the past day. It is appreciated. In the event that you haven't hit the tip jar yet, it is to your left. Give 'till it helps, if you are so inclined. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/21/2003 05:22:53 PM ----- BODY: THE ANTIWAR ACTIVISTS Jonah Goldberg has them pegged:
These people say they want Iraq to be free, that it's just the war that makes them sick. Well, at best, this is childishness of the first order. It is a refusal to condone the only means that will ensure the desired ends. It is akin to demanding that a doctor excise a tumor but demanding with even greater righteousness that he not use a scalpel. Imagine reasoning with a child: "Do you want to be able to leave the hospital and be able to play baseball with your friends?" "Yes." "Well, then you have to have this surgery." "But…" "No buts. That's it. Period."Alas, the child would get it. Many of these activists never will. And speaking personally, I would never have wanted to be on the wrong side of an issue of this consequence. Every indication is that I am not. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/21/2003 05:14:12 PM ----- BODY: "AND THE ARMY KEEPS ROLLING ALONG" The American army, that is. As for the Iraqi army . . . well . . . things are a little bit different. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/21/2003 05:09:33 PM ----- BODY: IF THIS REPORT IS TRUE . . . then I am positively thrilled:
ABCNEWS' Brian Ross reported that the three critical Iraqi officials — Taha Yasin Ramadan, Izzat Ibrahim al Douri, and Ali Hassan Majid, known as Chemical Ali — are believed to have died in Wednesday night's "decapitation attack," the opening salvo of the war. A spokesman said the CIA had no information to confirm the report that the three men had been killed but government officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, told ABCNEWS they had reason to believe the three men were dead. The officials said they reached this conclusion from analysis of radio traffic and after watching who went where, and who didn't arrive where they were expected.[Montgomer Burns voice]Eeeeeexcellent![/Montgomery Burns voice] -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/21/2003 04:58:09 PM ----- BODY: I GIVE UNTO YOU . . . Franglais! -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/21/2003 04:52:50 PM ----- BODY: JOHN FUND v. MICHAEL MOORE Advantage Fund. And given the incredible mendacity in which Moore engages, the advantage is pretty big indeed. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/21/2003 04:22:44 PM ----- BODY: HAD ENOUGH OF THE FRENCH? This guy has. And his behavior and attitude has been far more gentlemanly and honorable than Jacques Chirac's could ever be. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/21/2003 04:03:18 PM ----- BODY: NEVER LET IT BE SAID THAT WAR DISTRACTED ME FROM CHESS NEWS This is quite funny. I say that they should just play a few chess games to resolve their dispute. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/21/2003 03:51:11 PM ----- BODY: IRANIAN REVOLUTION WATCH Note the disconnect between the people and their barbaric government:
The "Great Satan" has invaded Iraq but students at Tehran University seem pleased at the prospect. "It will be a good thing to have American troops in Iraq. Perhaps that will bring change to Iran," said Namin, a lanky engineering student strolling to class. "Maybe that will put more pressure on the regime here." Unlike fellow Muslims in the Middle East or their predecessors 23 years ago who seized the United States embassy, students today are not seething with anger against America and are unmoved by the government's daily references to "the enemy" in Washington. "I think only about the consequences of a war. If the war has good consequences, let it be," said another student, Mohammad. "We're not protesting like European students. We don't have a democratic government like they do. We're not acting like them because we're not in European shoes." Politically incorrect attitudes on campus are not helping calm the nerves of the country's conservative leadership, which appears genuinely concerned at the implications of "regime change" next door.And it appears that even the leaders of the regime have figured out that they are in trouble:
According to Hassan Rowhani, secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, Washington is preparing to launch an elaborate "software war" against Iran. "After Iraq, the US administration plans to wage a media war against Iran, involving killing people's beliefs and changing their behaviour, to damage and destroy our national unity," Rowhani was quoted as saying.I certainly hope there is such a media war. I've called for one in the past (see here, here and here in case you missed it before). In this case, it will be quite nice to validate the fears of the Islamic regime. And again, the following is to be devoutly wished for:
Some analysts say that if Iraq emerges as a more open, democratic society than Iran, the conservatives will find it hard to suppress dissent or fend off calls for fundamental change to the theocratic system. The potential revival of Shia theological centres in Iraq could also provide an alternative platform for more moderate Islamic clergy in Iran who have called for limits on clerical political authority.All of which would be a tremendous improvement--especially if the clergy is totally removed from politics in the future. I've waited nearly a quarter of a century for liberation in Iran. It is so close that I can taste it now. My anticipation is incredible, and it is shared by millions of Iranians. With any luck, we'll all see what we have been waiting for--the fall of the Islamic regime, and the rise of a more democratic and tolerant society--one that is worthy of the best traditions of Persia and Iran. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/21/2003 03:40:00 PM ----- BODY: THIS PRETTY MUCH CINCHES IT Jacques Chirac is obstinate and insane:
French President Jacques Chirac said Friday that France would not go along with a new United Nations resolution allowing the United States and Britain to administer postwar Iraq. The French president said at a European Union summit he would "not accept" a resolution that "would legitimize the military intervention [and] would give the belligerents the powers to administer Iraq." "That would justify the war after the event," Chirac told reporters.Well, fine then. America and Britain will administer Iraq without any UN say whatsoever. The French will be even more cut out of a postwar Iraq. Sound self-defeating to you? It does to me. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/21/2003 03:32:42 PM ----- BODY: AT LAST The truth is beginning to dawn on Hans Blix:
Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix yesterday said Iraq violated its agreement with the United Nations if the missiles it fired at American troops were Scuds. "I'm very interested to know whether they used Scuds," Blix said in an interview with the Fox News Channel. "If they're firing [Scuds], of course that shows that there's a violation," he said. Blix told the U.N. Security Council this month that it was "questionable" whether the Iraqis had destroyed all of their Scuds and that about 50 Scud warheads were still unaccounted for.Well, given the fact that the Iraqis have actually used Scuds in this war, the use of the term "questionable" must be the understatement of this very young century. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/21/2003 03:28:16 PM ----- BODY: ANOTHER LOVELY PICTURE Just the beginning, people. Just the beginning. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/21/2003 03:21:56 PM ----- BODY: THE GROUND WAR It looks as if one strategic objective is about to be reached:
British and American troops are poised to take the southern Iraqi town of Basra. Unconfirmed reports say the centre of the the city has been taken by allied troops. UK chief of defence staff Admiral Sir Michael Boyce earlier said British and American forces were "on the outskirts of Basra itself". British forces on the way to Basra were dealing with "significant numbers" of Iraqi troops who had surrendered, Boyce said. They had seen proof of "large-scale Iraqi capitulation, evidenced by abandoned positions and items of equipment," he added. He said missions to secure the oil fields south and east of Basra had proved successful despite pockets of resistance.Next stop: Baghdad. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/21/2003 03:10:55 PM ----- BODY: THE WAR RALLY CONTINUES Apparently, Wall Street has also been hit with shock and awe--the good kind:
Stocks rallied strongly on Friday, lifting the blue-chip Dow to its best week in more than 20 years as investors found hope for a swift end to the Iraq war in a firestorm of missiles and bombs raining on Baghdad. The Dow and Standard & Poor's 500 Index posted their eighth straight day of gains. Stocks rose at the open and leaped in late morning after a BBC report quoted a British official as saying Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was likely killed in the first air strike on Baghdad. Britain's defense chief said he could not confirm the report. Wall Street watched as the United States and Britain unleashed a devastating air assault on Baghdad and other cities while their ground forces thrust deep into Iraqi territory. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the scale of the assault was intended to show Iraqis that Saddam was finished and his rule was "history." "This .. suggests there will be a more telescoped time frame for military conflict," said David Littmann, chief economist at Comerican Bank in Detroit. "It suggests certainty will take over in the economy and consumer confidence will return." The Dow Jones industrials jumped 235.02 points, or 2.84 percent, to 8,521.62, based on the latest available data. The Standard and Poor's 500 index rose 20.05 points, or 2.29 percent, to 895.89. The tech-laced Nasdaq Composite Index added 18.40 points, or 1.31 percent, at 1,421.17. The Dow's 8.36 percent rise for the week was the best since an 8.72 percent gain for the week ending Oct. 8, 1982. The S&P is up 7.39 percent on the week. The Nasdaq added 6.03 percent. The rally boosted the S&P 500 into positive territory by 1.8 percent and the Dow by 2.2 percent on the year, while the Nasdaq is up 6.4 percent for 2003. The last eight straight days of gains for the Dow occurred in December 1998, while such a streak last happened for the S&P in June 1997.(Emphases mine.) If this continues, we will wonder why we didn't move on Saddam sooner. I already wonder why it took this long. I suppose that comes from the benefit of hindsight, but if the war and the war rally keeps on course, there will be even less patience for the United Nations in any diplomatic impasse similar to the one surrounding the issue of Iraq. IMMEDIATE UPDATE: Here is another story on the incredible performance of the stock market. Here is one discussing the performance of the American dollar. And hey, it looks like buying gas won't cost an arm and a leg the way that it has for the past few weeks. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/21/2003 03:00:00 PM ----- BODY: THE SURRENDERS ARE COMING FAST AND FURIOUS Here is the story:
The commander of Iraq's 51st division and his top deputy surrendered to United States Marine forces today, according to American military officials. It was the first time that the commander of an Iraqi division has surrendered to allied forces. The 51st is a Regular Army unit that was deployed in southern Iraq directly in the path of the allied invasion. American forces made a determined effort to persuade the 51st division to give in, including leaflets and propaganda broadcasts. The leaflets instructed Iraqi forces that did not want to fight to park their tanks and walk at least half a mile away. American officials said that many of the soldiers of the 51st had simply left their posts and that the division melted away. There are indications that other Regular Army forces want to surrender or stay out of the fight. The most loyal capable forces, however, are the Republican Guards, who still seem determined to fight.In the next few days, surrender stories are going to be as plentiful as snow in the Arctic. IMMEDIATE UPDATE: Hey look, more snow! -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/21/2003 02:56:00 PM ----- BODY: A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS But I really wish that the soldier in this picture wouldn't be so shy about expressing his opinions. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/21/2003 02:52:55 PM ----- BODY: PATHETIC And scary:
War protesters trashed the grounds around a northern New Mexico home owned by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, placing "No War" stickers and throwing children's clothes around the property, authorities say. No arrests were made during the demonstration Thursday, said Lt. Eddie Martinez of the Taos County Sheriff's Department. The protesters were among 400 to 500 who began demonstrating at Taos Plaza and marched along U.S. 64 to two Rumsfeld properties at El Prado, a couple of miles northwest of Taos, Martinez said. "They got onto his property, and that would be trespassing," he said. "There's issues and laws they need to understand. If their choice is a peace demonstration, then they should keep the peace."I know that this wasn't Rumsfeld's primary residence, and far be it from me to offer advice to the Secret Service, but shouldn't someone have been on watch to ensure that the home of the Secretary of Defense was not vandalized by antiwar protestors during a war? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/21/2003 02:38:03 PM ----- BODY: AN INSIDE STORY OF THE WORKINGS OF THE NEW YORK TIMES This is just hysterical. And a little sad as well. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/21/2003 02:36:03 PM ----- BODY: AGAIN, NO SHOCK Behold the Kurdish reaction to the end of Saddam's regime:
It was at 6.15am yesterday morning that Ramazan Karim heard the news he had been waiting for: the allies had finally begun their attack on Baghdad. Mr Karim was already up. He had tuned his battered Panasonic radio, held together by a piece of string, to the Voice of Kuwait. "I expected something might happen because President Bush's deadline expired at 4am," he said. "We were absolutely delighted when the bombing started." "Saddam Hussein has been a tyrannical and cruel president. I have waited a long time for this," he added. As dawn broke across a dull grey Iraq, Mr Karim roused his still-sleeping sons and told them the good news: the war had begun. His wife Rumiya, 49, celebrated by making the family a cup of tea. "I was very happy. We hope we will be liberated soon," she said. Mr Karim, 45, said his support for the war was easy to explain: Saddam Hussein had razed his home to the ground four times. The Karims were yesterday camping out with their 10 children on the floor of a primary school in Quaratamo, a small village of donkeys, chickens and mud-walled houses just inside the Kurdish enclave of northern Iraq. The family's neighbours expressed the same sentiment - that an attack on Saddam was long overdue. There was no compassion at all for Iraq's beleaguered president following America's apparent attempt to assassinate him early yesterday. "When they do finally kill him we will all celebrate," Mr Karim's neighbour, Mam Dara, said. "He is a barbarian."This was the case even before the liberation started. These voices should have been heard before the war started, and should have been uppermost in the hierarchy of public opinion. Instead, people insisted on highlighting the deluded calls of fringe groups like A.N.S.W.E.R.. So much for priorities. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/21/2003 02:30:56 PM ----- BODY: I DON'T CARE WHAT YOUR POSITION ON THE WAR IS There is no excuse for this. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/21/2003 02:29:34 PM ----- BODY: UNBELIEVABLE Jacques Chirac is an even slower learner than I gave him credit for:
Britain and France clashed furiously again at last night's EU summit in Brussels as the outbreak of war in Iraq underscored Europe's deep and bitter divisions over the crisis. [. . .] British officials attacked Mr Chirac for vetoing a paragraph of the summit statement regretting that Iraq had not "taken the opportunity" offered by resolution 1441. "You are always surprised when people don't want a reference to an unanimous decision of the UN," said a Downing Street spokesman. But the president's position was hardly surprising since the deleted formulation clearly implied Baghdad was to blame for the end of UN weapons inspections and the start of military action. [. . .] Britain released figures yesterday showing that Paris had exported goods worth hundreds of millions of dollars to Iraq, prompting a government to allege that France was "stretching" the rules of UN sanctions. In a parliamentary written answer, Patricia Hewitt, the trade and industry secretary, claimed that in the first six months of last year France exported goods worth $212.5m (£135m) to Iraq. Germany exported goods worth $203.8m. In the same period Britain exported goods worth $27.8m.This report (via InstaPundit) gives even more information:
The diplomatic war of words between Britain and France over Iraq reached new heights last night as Tony Blair and Jacques Chirac clashed at a European Union dinner in Brussels. Downing Street made clear its disgust at the French president's behaviour after he insisted on removing a paragraph from the summit communique expressing regret that Iraq had not responded to UN demands to disarm under resolution 1441. In a withering reference to the French president, the Prime Minister's official spokesman said: "One is always surprised when people do not want a reference to the unanimous decision of the UN." But Mr Blair put his foot down when M Chirac also tried to remove a reference in the declaration stating that the EU's aim remained the "full and effective disarmament" of Iraq."Weasels" indeed. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/21/2003 02:21:47 PM ----- BODY: IF I'VE SAID IT ONCE, I'VE SAID IT A THOUSAND TIMES . . . Iranians are not Arabs! You would think that at some point, people would learn. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/21/2003 02:18:45 PM ----- BODY: AT THE VERY LEAST . . . it appears that we might have gotten Uday:
U.S. and British forces drove north from Kuwait into Iraq yesterday, and new intelligence reports confirm that Saddam Hussein was in a building struck by two precision bombs on the war's opening day. Top Stories A U.S. official told The Washington Times last night that there is no doubt that Saddam was meeting with top Iraqi leaders, including military commanders and his two sons, Uday and Qusai, in the building that was struck by two bombs from an Air Force F-117 stealth fighter. The official said the question is whether Saddam had left the building 30 minutes before the strike, which hit at 5:30 a.m. Baghdad time, or was still in the building. But the Associated Press quoted unnamed sources last night that medical attention was summoned afterward and that nobody appears to be commanding the Iraqi military. The U.S. official told The Times there are intelligence reports that his elder son, Uday, was killed.The sins of the father should never be visited upon the son. But when the son engages in the same sins . . . well . . . I really stop caring about his fate. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/21/2003 02:15:40 PM ----- BODY: QUERY: Who screwed up? I would speculate on how this might have happened, but Stephen Green beat me to the speculation exercise, so be sure to check his post out. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/21/2003 02:11:52 PM ----- BODY: SELECTIVE RACISM This article is quite timely. Be sure to read it, and ask yourself why it is that certain black leaders are considered legitimate targets for attacks carrying the worst kinds of vitriol, and why some black figures can get away with spreading that kind of vitriol, and racism against other groups. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/21/2003 02:09:55 PM ----- BODY: YET ANOTHER INDICATION . . . that war does not put an end to partisanship:
The Democratic National Committee is asking party members to defend Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle's criticism of the way President Bush has handled the Iraq crisis even as U.S.-led forces invade the country. Top Stories In the hours before and after the president's order Wednesday night to begin the war to topple Saddam Hussein's regime, the DNC sent e-mails to its grass-roots activists that said "Democratic leaders are standing up to Bush; Make sure you stand up for them!" "Republicans will stop at nothing to gain a political advantage from this military conflict," said an e-mail yesterday. Republican National Committee officials declined requests to comment on the DNC e-mails, copies of which were obtained by The Washington Times. But another Republican official called the messages "outrageous. Our people are at war, risking their lives, and the Democrats are playing politics."I suppose that the fact that Daschle may have completely miscalculated in making his statement did not cross the minds of the people at DNC headquarters. "My Senate Minority Leader, right or wrong," appears to be the order of the day. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/21/2003 02:05:36 PM ----- BODY: FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH . . . here is this report indicating what might have happened to Saddam Hussein. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/21/2003 02:04:05 PM ----- BODY: GEE, WHAT A SHOCK In absolutely stunning news, Iraqis are more than happy to be free and rid of Saddam Hussein:
U.S. Marines hauled down giant street portraits of Saddam Hussein in a screeching pop of metal and bolts Friday, telling nervous residents of this southern Iraqi town that "Saddam is done." Milling crowds of men and boys watched as the Marines attached ropes on the front of their Jeeps to one portrait and then backed up, peeling the Iraqi leader's black-and-white metal image off a frame. Some locals briefly joined Maj. David "Bull" Gurfein in a new cheer. "Iraqis! Iraqis! Iraqis!" Gurfein yelled, pumping his fist in the air. "We wanted to send a message that Saddam is done," said Gurfein, a New York native in the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force. "People are scared to show a lot of emotion. That's why we wanted to show them this time we're here, and Saddam is done." [. . .] A few men and boys ventured out, putting makeshift white flags on their pickup trucks or waving white T-shirts out truck windows. "Americans very good," Ali Khemy said. "Iraq wants to be free." Some chanted, "Ameriki! Ameriki!" [. . .] Gurfein playfully traded pats with a disabled man and turned down a dinner invitation from townspeople. "Friend, friend," he told them in Arabic learned in the first Gulf War. "We stopped in Kuwait that time," he said. "We were all ready to come up there then, and we never did." The townspeople seemed grateful this time. "No Saddam Hussein!" one young man in headscarf told Gurfein. "Bush!"What can I say? This is fantastic. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/21/2003 01:59:51 PM ----- BODY: HAS LIZ TAYLOR LOST IT? Decide for yourself:
Elizabeth Taylor and Justin Timberlake were the guests of honor at a benefit Elton John gave with Ozzy and Sharon Osbourne Wednesday night in L.A. But the names of two other well-known people were on everybody's lips: Bush and Saddam. "We all discussed whether to move forward with this event tonight," Sharon told the crowd, which had gathered in the garden of her Beverly Hills home to support Elton's AIDS foundation and her own colon-cancer charity. "We decided to continue because, war or no war, we are all fighting the war against AIDS and cancer," she went on. "At the same time, we should all say a big prayer for the American and British men and women who are risking their lives." Taylor, who got a twinkly pinky ring from Elton, had to leave early because of a stomach virus - but not before saying exactly what she thought of the war. "The thought sickens me beyond belief," she told us. "I was a refugee when I came to this country because of World War II. I listened to the radio all the time and thought, 'Why don't the Americans do something?' Now I think, 'What the [bleep] are the Americans doing by saying [to Saddam], 'Pack up your bags, mount a camel and get out of town!' What if someone said that to Bush? "You don't think [terrorists] are going to retaliate? You don't think they're going to bomb the s--- out of us? It's going to be terrifying."Someone set up a Patriot anti-missile battery around Liz. She appears to be quite frightened. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/21/2003 01:57:18 PM ----- BODY: THE SADDAM HUSSEIN UPDATE The word on TV is that he is at the very least seriously injured, and perhaps even dead, along with other high ranking Iraqi leaders. In any event, he is apparently completely unable to get in touch with his military commanders, and the other Iraqi leaders haven't been able to do so either. I guess they are too busy getting acclimated to the Nine Circles of Hell. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/21/2003 01:54:20 PM ----- BODY: AND AS FOR PUBLIC OPINION . . . it appears to be quite high. Let's hope that it continues, and that it has cause to continue. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/21/2003 01:52:09 PM ----- BODY: SHOCK AND AWE! The philosophy described by the most overused and irritating phrase in recent times is finally illustrated:
A barrage of mighty explosives crashed down Friday on Baghdad, sending enormous fireballs and clouds of smoke billowing high into the night sky above the Iraqi capital. Some two hours later, the distinct sound of aircraft could be heard over Baghdad for the first time since the start of the U.S.-led attack on Iraq. A huge fire raged to the south of the city; the red glow of the flames illuminated the horizon and distant explosions could be heard in the center of the city. The attack was heralded by the sound of air raid sirens and explosions, followed quickly by major detonations in the city of 5 million. Many buildings were ablaze in the heart of the capital, with towering red, pink and brown clouds rising high into the air.The TV pictures are really impressive. I guess you could say that I am shocked, and awed. Just imagine how the Iraqi military must feel. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/21/2003 12:35:22 AM ----- BODY: YEAH, THIS WOULD EXPLAIN A FEW THINGS. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/20/2003 11:29:25 PM ----- BODY: THOUGHTS FOR THE DAY Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether." --President Abraham Lincoln, Second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1865. In war, there is no substitute for victory. --General Douglas MacArthur -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/20/2003 10:55:31 PM ----- BODY: THIS IS ENCOURAGING And it's the kind of news I like to read:
U.S. intelligence officials believe Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, possibly accompanied by one or both of his powerful sons, was still inside a compound in southern Baghdad early yesterday when it was struck by a barrage of U.S. bombs and cruise missiles. But intelligence analysts in Washington and operatives working in the region were not certain whether the Iraqi leader was killed or injured or escaped the attack, according to senior Bush administration officials, who worked yesterday to analyze a videotape of an appearance by Hussein broadcast on Iraqi television within hours of the pre-dawn bombardment. "The preponderance of the evidence is he was there when the building blew up," said one senior U.S. official with access to sensitive intelligence. The official added that Hussein's sons, Qusay and Uday, may also have been at the compound. "He didn't get out" beforehand, another senior official said of the Iraqi president. A third administration official said "there is evidence that he [Hussein] was at least injured" because of indications that medical attention was urgently summoned on his behalf. The condition of Hussein's sons, and any others who may have been at the compound, was also unknown, officials said.At the very least, I hope that they were lousy doctors. And who knows? Maybe they were. Hope springs eternal, and there is definitely cause for hope. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/20/2003 10:33:28 PM ----- BODY: BAD NEWS/GOOD NEWS The bad news is that the coalition has suffered its first casualties--12 Brits and 4 Americans who died as a result of a helicopter malfunction. Rest in peace, gentlemen. Your comrades-at-arms will finish what you started. And thank you for your service. Always. The good news is that the story linked to above, along with this story indicate clearly that Baghdad is there for the taking:
Pushing though the border line from LD (line of departure Florida), the Marines had to move through a narrow 5-km path - the Kuwait border berm, a tank ditch, an electric fence and then the Iraqi border berm. The task was made easier by vanguard that destroyed the obstructions hours earlier. To a crescendo of distant explosions from U.S. aircraft doing what they do best, the Marines split into several columns and raced to their objectives. "It's a good day to be a Marine," one man yelled in his 26-ton vehicle. "They put up some minor resistance, kind of a show of face, I guess, and then surrendered," Staff Sgt. Gregory Craft said. Craft said his unit took six prisoners in the inky black night while searching trenches, eerily illuminated by the burning remnants of an artillery battery vaporized by laser guided bombs from planes. A small number of tanks were also engaged, but did not fire back. The Iraqis had abandoned them and fled.There may be a fight ahead, but things are going better than even optimistic planners in the Pentagon expected. And the "shock and awe" campaign has not even begun, and may never begin--the current campaign is going so well that the military planners may not even want to tamper with it at this point. Hopefully, these successes will continue. And if they do, it will make any objective person wonder why on earth the military option was so abhorred by antiwar politicians and diplomats who would have preferred to have us continue the dilatory gamesmanship of stalemated diplomacy. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/20/2003 05:32:16 PM ----- BODY: IN NON-WAR NEWS A kerfuffle was raised when Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia accepted an award for free speech, and made a speech in response--but demanded, that broadcast media be banned in anticipation of a speech that Scalia would make in response to the award. Scalia's critics jumped on the story, arguing that it was utterly hypocritical for the Justice to accept a free speech award, while seeking to ban broadcast media, and thus allegedly diluting dissemination of the news regarding Scalia's speech. Hypocrisy, right? Well . . . maybe not. Maybe the issue is a bit more complicated than Scalia's critics make it out to be. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/20/2003 05:07:22 PM ----- BODY: WELL, WE TRY. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/20/2003 05:00:33 PM ----- BODY: WANT TO THANK TONY BLAIR FOR HIS COURAGE? Josh Chafetz shows you how. By the way, check out the banner of different national flags at the top of OxBlog's page. That's our coalition. And it includes more than just Britain. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/20/2003 04:51:42 PM ----- BODY: BETTER LATE THAN NEVER Don't miss Michael Barone's wonderful evisceration of Tom Daschle, in the wake of the latter's remarks about the Bush Administration's diplomacy being a "miserable failure":
It is not clear whether Tom Daschle was referring to the general complaint or the specific complaint when he said that George W. Bush's administration was guilty of "disastrous" diplomacy. It is clear that he speaks in the accents of the Senate Democratic cloakroom, in which Bush is regarded as an illegitimate president, a usurper who is trying to impose crazed conservative policies, a stupid man incapable of understanding a sophisticated world, who must be opposed ferociously at every step and on any ground. No Democratic campaign consultant whom I know, and I know all the leading Democratic campaign consultants, would have advised Daschle to make the comment that he did. If the war goes badly, Bush and the Republicans will pay a political price, whatever the Democrats say now; if the war goes well, comments like Daschle's will work powerfully against the Democrats and for George W. Bush. Daschle's words can only be explained as the product of a kind of hatred, unbuttressed by any serious intellectual argument, likely to hurt the party of the speaker far more than the party of the president they were directed against.In the article, Barone tells a truer tale of the history of Bush Administration diplomacy--emphasizing the fact that a large number of nations support the American action. And speaking of the coalition the antiwar critics so desperately want to ignore, don't miss Steven Den Beste. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/20/2003 04:31:08 PM ----- BODY: A LITTLE SANITY IN SENATE DEBATE Given the preternatural silliness of Imperial Wizard . . . er . . . Senator Robert C. Byrd's hyperbolic statements regarding the war in Iraq--hyperbole that some people all too easily and predictably fall for--it is good that one of Byrd's colleagues rose to set him straight. Also sprach John McCain:
Madam President, there is one thing I am sure of, that we will find the Iraqi people have been the victims of an incredible level of brutalization, terror, murder, and every other kind of disgraceful and distasteful oppression on the part of Saddam Hussein's regime. And contrary to the assertion of the senator from West Virginia, when the people of Iraq are liberated, we will again have written another chapter in the glorious history of the United States of America, that we will fight for the freedom of other citizens of the world, and we again assert the most glorious phrase, in my view, ever written in the English language; and that is: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The people of Iraq , for the first time, will be able to realize those inalienable rights. I am proud of the United States of America. I am proud of the leadership of the president of the United States.It's amazing how many people foolishly forget that if America works to liberate others, it will ultimately redound to America's benefit--as well as reflecting exceedingly well on the United States itself. Perhaps Byrd, and those who mindlessly parrot his rhetoric, would be well-served if they were reminded of this basic fact. Kudos to McCain for reminding them. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/20/2003 04:16:43 PM ----- BODY: DESPITE THE WAR . . . partisanship is not dead:
lthough it was overshadowed by the beginning of war, on Capitol Hill Wednesday there was a major escalation in the conflict between Senate Democrats and the White House over the president's judicial nominees. The escalation had nothing to do with the ongoing Democratic filibuster over appeals-court candidate Miguel Estrada. Instead, it involved a Democratic decision to block, and, at least for the moment, kill a total of four Bush nominees to the federal courts of appeals. Acting in concert, Michigan Democratic Sens. Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow told the Judiciary Committee they will block the nominations of Richard Griffin, David McKeague, Susan Bieke Neilson, and Henry Saad to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. In addition, Levin and Stabenow said they will block the nomination of Thomas Ludington to a seat on the U.S. District Court. That means the two senators are attempting to kill every Bush nominee from the state of Michigan.Find me an equivalent case of such massive blue-slipping on the part of a pair of Republican Senators for a single circuit during the Clinton Administration. Find me another circumstance where Republican Senators tried to curb the constitutional authority of a President to nominate candidates for judicial office. When people complain that the current Democratic campaign to obstruct judicial nominations rewrites the Constitution, this kind of atrocious and irresponsible behavior is exactly what they are referring to. (Thanks to Mike Daley for the link.) -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/20/2003 03:11:00 PM ----- BODY: UNILATERALISM MY . . . WELL . . . YOU KNOW You want a coalition? You've got a coalition. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/20/2003 02:55:22 PM ----- BODY: NOW HERE'S SOMETHING YOU DON'T SEE EVERYDAY Digestive Disorder Against War:
In a unique form of opposition, some protesters at the Federal Building staged a "vomit in,'' by heaving on the sidewalks and plaza areas in the back and front of the building to show that the war in Iraq made them sick, according to a spokesman.Total. Loss. For. Words. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/20/2003 02:52:15 PM ----- BODY: THE FRENCH WORKED SO HARD TO PROTECT SADDAM And this is what they get in return:
The French Interior Ministry said on Thursday that traces of the deadly toxin ricin have been found in the Gare de Lyon railway station in Paris. A spokesman told Reuters that two small flasks containing traces of the poison were discovered in a left luggage depot at the mainline railway station which serves the south of France.I don't celebrate this in the slightest. I just want to know one thing: Will occurrences such as this one finally convince the French that appeasement fails? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/20/2003 02:50:04 PM ----- BODY: MORE GOOD DOMESTIC INDICATIONS All quiet on the American pump. Thank you. I'll be here all day. Be sure to tip your waitress. Or . . . er . . . me. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/20/2003 02:47:52 PM ----- BODY: WE'RE IN American troops are flooding into southern Iraq. And at this time, all indications are good:
Allied forces crossed into southern Iraq on Thursday, following a thundering barrage of artillery that put Saddam Hussein on notice that the ground phase of the war had begun. Infantrymen on the move, their weeks of waiting for war finally at an end, cheered as shells screamed overhead. Under the shelter of night, and with the support of heavy bombing, the 1st Marine Division entered Iraq at around 9 p.m. local time. The Marines encountered some resistance from "rear guard" units; they opened fire with machine guns on an Iraqi T-55 tank and finally destroyed it with a Javelin, a portable anti-tank missile. There were no American casualties.And just in case you doubted it, Saddam is making Uncle Sam very, very angry:
Earlier in the day, the troops in waiting had their first brush with action when Iraq fired missiles into Kuwait. There were cries of "gas, gas, gas," and U.S. troops were sent scurrying for their protective suits and gas masks - for naught, as authorities said none of the missiles carried biological or chemical payloads. Soldiers of A Company, 3rd Battalion, 7th Infantry Regiment were eating lunch when an Iraqi missile hit the desert. They wore the masks for 20 minutes until given the all-clear. After removing his mask, the company commander, Capt. Chris Carter of Watkinsville, Ga., said: "Saddam is a fool." "I think it's an obvious attempt by Saddam Hussein to demoralize the army and the American public," Carter said. "An attempt that has been a miserable failure. He's probably got the guys more ready to fight than ever."Nah, you think? Good luck guys. And good hunting. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/20/2003 02:05:03 PM ----- BODY: WAR RALLY? Things went quite well regarding the performance of the various exchanges today. All indices are up, and the hope is that the war will go well, and will end quickly. Of course, you don't have to have money in the markets to share in such a hope, but it is good to see that at this point, at least, there may be a palliative effect for the economy if the war goes well, and if matters regarding Iraq are finally resolved after 12 long years of gamesmanship. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/20/2003 12:22:25 PM ----- BODY: TRAFFIC UPDATE This is already shaping up to be a big day traffic-wise. As of approximately 12:20 pm Pacific Time, this site has experienced 1230 page views already--quite good for the traffic that is done here. I know that people are visiting for war news, and I hope that I am meeting expectations with my reports. Of course, if you all really like my reporting, then there is a tip jar to the left where you can express your appreciation. It would be appreciated in return. (Does this make you a war profiteer? Shut up--Ed.) -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/20/2003 12:04:28 PM ----- BODY: IN WAR-RELATED NEWS . . . apparently, debate in the Australian parliament is going rather well. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/20/2003 11:58:07 AM ----- BODY: WANT TO KNOW THE REASONS BEHIND THE RUMORS OF THE AZIZ DEFECTION? Well, here you go. Hah, hah, hah. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/20/2003 11:56:15 AM ----- BODY: MORE ON THE TELEVISED SADDAM I heard this morning that one Senator on the Senate Intelligence Committee has stated that he understands Saddam to have been wounded as a result of last night's bombing. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/20/2003 11:54:00 AM ----- BODY: WAS THE TELEVISED SADDAM A FAKE? One viewer thinks so. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/20/2003 11:48:53 AM ----- BODY: NOW HEAR THIS I've also heard reports that Republican Guard leaders are interested in surrendering. Remember, these are the guys who are supposed to put up a fight. If they collapse, Saddam is truly doomed. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/20/2003 11:46:58 AM ----- BODY: DON'T GET THE MARINES ANGRY You won't like them when they are angry. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/20/2003 11:37:32 AM ----- BODY: ON ANOTHER FRONT . . . here is a report on last night's raid in Afghanistan. Apparently, the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad is already paying dividends. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/20/2003 11:33:40 AM ----- BODY: HELLO MA/HELLO PA/GREETINGS FROM CAMP/SHOCK AN' AWE Here is what I know thus far: 1. First of all, it is still an open question whether (a) we really heard from Saddam last night, and (b) whether it was live or taped. Right now, there appears to be a growing consensus that the speechgiver was Saddam, but that it was taped. Others continue to cast doubt--based in large part on the changed appearance, and the use of thick glasses for the first time (dictators don't like to admit to personal weaknesses like poor eyesight--I guess this means that I would be a poor dictator.). Additionally, as mentioned before, nothing unique was mentioned or stated in the speech, although one factor that may weigh in favor of the speech being a real response to the attack was the haphazard nature of it--Saddam read from papers instead of using a TelePrompter. We'll see. As of now, the US is uncertain as to whether or not Saddam really is dead. 2. At the very least, Saddam and his senior leadership may be incapacitated and separated from the command structure. And it may be that Saddam's son Uday may be dead. 3. There was bombing over Baghdad once again about an hour ago--I don't know if it is still going on now. 4. American ground forces have fired on Iraqi positions, are now moving north, and have captured the southern Iraqi city of Umm Qasr. For all those who remember the Persian Gulf War of 1991, and the fact that the US did not move its ground forces into battle until 52 days after the conflict began, the rapidity of the engagement of American ground forces is nothing short of astonishing by comparison. 5. At least 4 oil wells are reported on fire. No word on whether or not this has been confirmed, although my hunch is that it has. 6. Iraqi radio is now reporting that American missiles hit the family home of Saddam Hussein. No independent confirmation of that report, and no report on casualties. 7. Rumsfeld and Myers gave a briefing, found here. 8. Ari Fleischer gave a briefing, found here (click on the video link--no transcript yet). Further bulletins as events warrant. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/20/2003 12:46:52 AM ----- BODY: OKAY, I'M REALLY GOING TO BED But not before posting to this. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/20/2003 12:45:50 AM ----- BODY: SO IT'S PICS YOU WANT Then it's pics you get. Look here, here, here and here. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/19/2003 11:37:50 PM ----- BODY: THOUGHTS FOR THE DAY Sic semper tyrannis. ("Thus always to tyrants.") --Unknown There can be slain No sacrifice to God more ácceptáble Than an unjust and wicked king. --Seneca, Hercules Furens -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/19/2003 11:30:37 PM ----- BODY: ADMINISTRATIVE ANNOUNCEMENT Okay, I am probably going to sleep now. See you tomorrow. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/19/2003 11:15:43 PM ----- BODY: THOUGHTS ON THE WAR Read Emily Jones. Now. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/19/2003 11:14:43 PM ----- BODY: BY THE WAY . . . the problem with the comments appears to be on the part of YACCS. I have nothing to do with it, and can't even raise their site. Maybe they just got completely overloaded. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/19/2003 11:06:12 PM ----- BODY: THE SADDAM SPEECH He looked fatter than usual, his mustache wasn't as thick as I remembered it, and gee, that transmission had some skips and the voice didn't synchronize with the moving of the lips, now did it? The TV people think that it was a tape. I'm inclined to agree. Additionally, American intelligence personnel are examining the tape to see whether the speechgiver might have been a double. I wouldn't be surprised if he was. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/19/2003 11:03:05 PM ----- BODY: HEY HANS! Guess what we found:
The U.S. government has obtained potentially valuable new information on Iraq's biological and chemical weapons programs in recent days from scientists and intelligence agents confronted outside Iraq with threats that failure to cooperate could mean unpleasant consequences when Baghdad falls, according to two U.S. officials with direct knowledge of the effort. In a top-secret adjunct to an openly reported diplomatic initiative, U.S. and allied intelligence services summoned scores of Iraqi operatives in foreign capitals to present a stark choice. They were told "they could either 'turn,' " said one official, using an expression for switching sides, or be expelled back to Iraq "to enjoy your very short stay in Baghdad."Note the mailed fist inside the velvet glove. Just out of curiosity, how many people out there would like to be the leader of a nation on the wrong side of the United States? (Thanks to Mike Daley for the link.) -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/19/2003 10:57:57 PM ----- BODY: *CATCHES BREATH* Okay, here is where we appear to be thus far: Tonight's campaign appears to have been a decapitation strike. The President was informed that there was a window of opportunity to take out Saddam, his two sons, and two other leaders in the northern town of Mosul. The deadline for Saddam's evacuation passed, and so the President gave the order to take Saddam and the leadership out. Apparently, the American military also wants to see whether the Iraqis will surrender quickly at the first stirrings of battle. By the way, if Saddam and four other top leaders, including two of his sons, were really stupid enough to gather themselves in one single place to allow the American military to conveniently take them out, they really are too stupid to live. Now there are reports that two regular Iraqi divisions are surrendering en masse. Perhaps that means that the scare tactics are working. UPDATE: Here is a link on the CIA operation to get Saddam. Note the statement at the end:
Whatever the result of yesterday's strike, officials said, there will be more rapid re-targetings and more unexpected opportunities before the war is over.Dead Man Walking. Assuming he is still walking, of course. ANOTHER UPDATE: Here is the story on the surrenders. All I can say is "wow." -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/19/2003 10:42:19 PM ----- BODY: DESPERATELY SEEKING A THESAURUS I think that if we all played a drinking game using solely the phrase "shock and awe," we would end up with the Mother Of All Hangovers. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/19/2003 09:17:52 PM ----- BODY: AN ARMY MARCHES ON ITS STOMACH . . . and a blogger types on his. I'm going to go make dinner, and eat it. See you later--perhaps later this evening. In the meantime, here is food for thought: Apparently, there is a huge airstrike going on in Afghanistan. If Osama is alive, does this mean that we are close to getting him? That's the speculation. Also, Fox is reporting that five senior Iraqi leaders have been killed. If so, may their souls rot in Hell for all of the crime, misery and terror that they must have perpetrated to gain leadership positions in Saddam's regime. UPDATE: The raid in Afghanistan was helicopter assisted, but apparently it was to transport troops for a ground raid. ANOTHER UPDATE: Here is a link to a story on the Afghanistan raid. (Via Stephen Green, who unlike me, has to blog while tending to his wife. This means that he is giving reports of a two front war, while waging one. As Darth Vader would say, "Impressive. Most impressive." And when you consider that Stephen is much more competent than Vader, and much less whiny than Luke, that's pretty good.) -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/19/2003 09:15:11 PM ----- BODY: OH, AND THIS JUST GOT VERY INTERESTING Saddam is in the crosshairs:
President Bush told the nation Wednesday night that the “opening stages” of Operation Iraqi Freedom were under way. U.S. forces stepped up what had been intended as an initial softening of the battlefield by launching an aerial bombardment of Baghdad in an attempt to kill Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. A senior U.S. official said the raids in and around Baghdad had been intended as “extensive prepping of the battlefield” in the no-fly zone in the south of the country. But the attack was ramped up after U.S. intelligence spotted what was termed a “target of opportunity,” described as a “senior or very senior member of the Iraqi regime.” U.S. officials told Miklaszewski that the target was Saddam himself. They would not say whether the attack, in which F-117s dropped mammoth GBU-27 “bunker buster” bombs, was successful.Of course, this was to be expected. But when it actually happens, it becomes incredibly serious, of course. Fox is reporting that Saddam is actually prepared to address the Iraqi people. It could be a double, of course, but who knows? In the meantime, if he isn't dead, it is needless to say that we will keep trying. We only have to get lucky once. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/19/2003 08:48:46 PM ----- BODY: ANOTHER UPDATE Fox is reporting that Reuters is reporting (this would be hearsay, for all you non-lawyers out there) that there is artillery fire being heard at the Iraqi-Kuwaiti border. Again, I will have a link as soon as I can find one. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/19/2003 08:25:05 PM ----- BODY: READ THIS No more need be said. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/19/2003 08:21:38 PM ----- BODY: WAR AND CIVILIAN CASUALTIES Unlike some people, the gentlemen-scholars at OxBlog have actually done their homework. Check them out. And I say "them," because while Josh Chafetz wrote the post, David Adesnik apparently did the research. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/19/2003 08:15:39 PM ----- BODY: I'M BEGGING THE TV PEOPLE . . . Could you please stop using the phrase "shock and awe"? I swear to God it is killing me. Think of another phrase for the love of Heaven. It can't be that hard. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/19/2003 07:56:44 PM ----- BODY: OPERATIONAL UPDATE I'm hearing on CNN that the air strikes at this time are selective, and that principals in the Administration--the President, the Vice President, and Dr. Rice--have retired for the evening. John King said that if there was to be a more massive military attack this evening, Rice may have stayed all night. We'll see what happens. I'll blog whenever I can, and whenever I hear something new and worth sharing. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/19/2003 07:24:26 PM ----- BODY: THE SPEECH Simple, direct, to the point, and very short. The President basically stated that we are in the early stages of the war, was sure to pay tribute to the culture of Baghdad and assure Iraqis that this war is being fought in large part to liberate them, stated that it was also being fought to protect Americans from terror, said that we are all praying for the soldiers and their families, and finally remarked that we won't be in Iraq any longer than we absolutely have to be. Once I find a link to the speech, I will post it. In the meantime, someone really needs to tell the television people that when they are counting down to the speech beginning, they shouldn't let other people hear them on air. UPDATE: Here is a link to a transcript of the speech. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/19/2003 06:41:11 PM ----- BODY: IT'S STARTING? There is a report on TV that Reuters is reporting that air raid sirens are sounding over Baghdad. Apparently, Ari Fleischer is going to give a briefing, and is standing by. No link yet. UPDATE: Ari Fleischer just said that the war has started. The President will speak to the nation at 10:15 pm, EST. ANOTHER UPDATE: I give unto you a link. It doesn't mention the remarks that Fleischer has just made, but I saw him make it on TV. It's starting. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/19/2003 05:22:08 PM ----- BODY: EXCELLENT While the antiwar Left has in large part sullied itself by its rhetoric and actions, the antiwar Right--the "paleoconservatives" have similarly besmirched themselves. In a magnificent essay, David Frum shows why. The essay is long, but it is superb--and shocking. It is also too good to excerpt just part of it. Read it all. And in the event that you believe Frum's argument is bunk, consider this post, which serves as Exhibit A in validating Frum's argument. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/19/2003 05:01:03 PM ----- BODY: H-HOUR HAS ARRIVED Don't say we didn't give warning. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/19/2003 04:52:15 PM ----- BODY: T MINUS TEN MINUTES Saddam, if you're not packed by now . . . -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/19/2003 04:48:28 PM ----- BODY: WHOOPS! Gentle readers, if you really must protest the war, be sure to do your homework on the most effective way to protest beforehand. This guy didn't. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/19/2003 04:38:42 PM ----- BODY: A TIMELY QUESTION Lawrence Kaplan asks how it came to be that Democrats oppose the idea of fostering democracy in the Middle East. It's interesting that the people who make the claim that democracy cannot be fostered in the region, only serve to reinforce their rhetoric by calling upon the United States to abandon any hopes of encouraging democratic reforms in the region. And by the way, I wonder if they ever heard of Turkey, and its democratic reforms in the post-Ottoman era. Why can't similar reforms take place in the Arab world, or in Iran? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/19/2003 04:32:57 PM ----- BODY: OH, AND BY THE WAY . . . we can't rely on the French after all:
France's ambassador in Washington, Jean-David Levitte, appeared to offer an olive branch to the United States on Tuesday when he told CNN that France could help the U.S.-led military coalition if Baghdad used biological or chemical arms. But French diplomats in Paris made clear this was not a change in France's refusal to join the war. "It is obvious we wouldn't sit back and not help if there was a chemical attack. But what we are talking about is medical assistance," one said.Translation: We won't be involved militarily. I don't suppose that this will surprise anyone. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/19/2003 04:28:12 PM ----- BODY: MAYBE NEXT . . . George Will can go after Hans Blix:
Chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix said on Tuesday he doubted Iraq would use chemical or biological weapons in a war with a U.S.-led coalition, or world opinion would turn against Baghdad. In answer to questions at a news conference, Blix said Iraq had the know-how to produce and deliver chemical weapons, although it had never utilized germ warfare. But he said, "I think it is unlikely they will do that because I think world public opinion, which they study quite a lot, is in large measure feeling that going to war is too early." "So there is a fair amount of skepticism about armed action," Blix said. "That skepticism would turn immediately around, if they used chemical weapons or biological weapons," he said. My guess is they would not."It's so sweet to see how trusting he is. But if the Iraqis don't use weapons of mass destruction, it will only be because (a) we will have destroyed them, or (b) enough people are scared of a massive American retaliatory response to defy Saddam's orders to use such weapons. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/19/2003 04:22:42 PM ----- BODY: MORE PREEMPTIVE BOMBING I speak this time of the rhetorical kind of bombing--George Will slams Tom Daschle;
Monday, a few hours before the president spoke, Daschle said the president had "failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to war." Well. Presumably Daschle meant that Bush has failed to secure the support of the French and a majority of other Security Council members for enforcing the plain meaning of Resolution 1441, which the French co-authored and which the Security Council unanimously adopted. But had the president succeeded, the result would have been the "serious consequences" that 1441 calls for: war. The French and everyone else, including Daschle -- the regime-change-endorsing, use-of-force-authorizing Daschle -- understood that. So Daschle's position is: America is "forced to war" because presidential diplomacy failed to produce a broader coalition for war. With that descent into absurdity, Daschle would have forfeited his reputation for seriousness, if he had one. There are many honorable exceptions -- although with varying degrees of clarity -- among the Democrats. Presidential candidates Joseph Lieberman and Dick Gephardt particularly stand out as plausible presidents. As for Daschle, he has become the Democrats' Trent Lott, with two differences. Lott was embarrassing about 1948, not 2003. And his fellow Republicans were embarrassed.Also, be sure to check out this link, which was kindly sent to me by Patrick Ruffini. It's a partisan response, but then again, Daschle's own comments were partisan--without the added benefit of being accurate. UPDATE: Jim Geraghty has more. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/19/2003 04:14:49 PM ----- BODY: NOTE TO EVERYONE Bay Area Democratic congressman Pete Stark thinks that George W. Bush is the real terrorist. Note to Democrats: Intemperate fools like Stark are the reason why you all are losing elections. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/19/2003 04:12:13 PM ----- BODY: IN THE AIR AND ON THE GROUND I guess that the Iraqis decided not to wait for the 48 hour period to come to an end. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/19/2003 04:10:42 PM ----- BODY: HAS IT BEGUN? Apparently, military engagements are already underway:
British and American warplanes have bombed targets in southern Iraq as the deadline for war approaches. Sky News correspondent James Forlong is on board the American aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk in the Persian Gulf, from where 10 warplanes involved in the attack took off. He said the aircraft - two 'Top Gun' F-14 Tomcats and eight F/A-18 Hornets - returned safely. Forlong spoke to one of the pilots, who said their targets included an Iraqi intelligence unit and surface-to-air missile sites.Just the beginning, Saddam. Just the beginning. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/19/2003 04:04:49 PM ----- BODY: IRANIAN REVOLUTION WATCH Via InstaPundit I find this piece where Iranian expatriates discuss their view of the impending war with Iraq. Like me, they hope that the liberation of Iraq could eventually lead to the liberation of Iran as well. I've stated before, however, that at the present time, I am not in favor of a war with Iran. For one thing, our forces are going to be extended fairly substantially given the impending Iraqi conflict, the reconstruction that will come after the conflict, and given the potentially important need for a robust American military presence near Korea. For another thing, as I have discussed before, there is a vibrant Iranian dissident movement that will hopefully bring about regime change. Can we help them? Certainly, and in the past, I have outlined how that could happen--in my posts, and in this article, this one, and this one. It may be that at some point on the future, a war with Iran might be necessary--if domestic reform finally reaches a stalemate (I remain enough of a chess fanatic to use a chess term, and besides, Persians helped invent and develop chess, so I figure that the term is useful). At this time, we have not done nearly enough to empower the Iranian pro-democracy forces, and we should augment those efforts before we contemplate war. Additionally, we should see whether the liberation of Iraq has a palliative effect on Iran--it very well might, and the Iranians quoted in the article seem to believe that it might--before we prepare to send in our own forces. Iran should be treated in the same manner that Eastern Europe was treated in the 1980s. American propaganda and psychological efforts, along with covert and overt political assistance, may be enough to soon bring about needed and positive change in Iran. In short, while there is no choice but to fight in Iraq, there are plenty of choices available for us to win without firing a shot in Iran. We should actively engage and pursue those choices and options--we may be pleasantly surprised where they lead us. And by the way, I don't appear to be the only "warblogger" to think that way. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/18/2003 10:42:11 PM ----- BODY: THOUGHT FOR THE DAY
. . . 11 September has changed the psychology of America. It should have changed the psychology of the world. Of course Iraq is not the only part of this threat. But it is the test of whether we treat the threat seriously. [. . .] There is fear of US unilateralism. People ask: do the US listen to us and our preoccupations? And there is perhaps a lack of full understanding of US preoccupations after 11th September. I know all of this. But the way to deal with it is not rivalry but partnership. Partners are not servants but neither are they rivals. I tell you what Europe should have said last September to the US. With one voice it should have said: we understand your strategic anxiety over terrorism and WMD and we will help you meet it.--Prime Minister Tony Blair
The next few weeks will yet again bring this region, our country and our people to the fear of war, that old enemy of mankind. However, our fear this time is pregnant with hope: that our Iraqi neighbors will be free at last from their yoke; and that our children will sleep their nights and go to their classrooms in peace, fearing no more. So, as we all pass the forthcoming dreadful hours, we pray that Almighty God showers the brave soldiers of the US, Britain and their allies with His blessings and covers them with His protection in every move and direction. For, they are the saviors of the future of this region's children. We salute them; and may God bless them all.--Dr. Ahmad Bishara, former vice dean of the College of Engineering and Petroleum at Kuwait University. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/18/2003 09:24:50 PM ----- BODY: THE JOYS OF BEING A PERSIAN JEW Today is the first full day of Purim--a holiday which commemorates the escape from destruction of Jews in ancient Persia--Jews who were liberated from the Babylonian Captivity by Cyrus the Great. For all of you who like me and my site, I guess you should be celebrating--without the mercy of King Ahasueres, the industry of Queen Esther, and the strength of character of Mordecai, there may not have been a Pejman to create a PejmanPundit. And as for everyone who hates me with a vengeance . . . well . . . I suppose all y'all should root for the rise and success of villains more capable than Haman. Of course, I trust you will understand if I don't share your sentiments. This link provides a very good account of the history of Persian Jews, and from it, it becomes clear that the most consistent acceptance of the Jewish community in Persian/Iran came as a result of the tolerance of the ancient Persian monarchs in the pre-Islamic period (see also this link and this one). Cyrus the Great is rightly renowned for the value that he placed on human rights, and his treatment of Jews was the clearest evidence of his tolerance for others. In the Islamic period, Jews did not fare nearly as well as they did under Zoroastrian Shahs. Indeed, as any Bible scholar knows, and as historical documents make clear, Cyrus revered the God of the Hebrews and deemed himself commanded by God. The Manichaean aspect of the Zoroastrian faith--with its emphasis on stark divisions between Good and Evil became an accepted viewpoint in Judaism--which had, until its fortuitous encounter with the Persian Empire, focused on the complete domination of the universe by the laws, precepts, and morals handed down by God, and fashioned into the Mosaic tradition with the popularization of the Ten Commandments. After being influenced by the Manichaeanism of Cyrus, his son Cambyses, and other pre-Islamic Persian Shahs, Jews--while not deviating from their acknowledgement of God as the Supreme Universal Power--also showed a greater understanding for Evil, and a greater belief in the existence of opposing moral visions--with the commensurate need to support Good, and fight Evil. I've always been quite proud of the fact that one of the defining characteristics of pre-Islamic Persia was its treatment of Jews. I don't particularly celebrate the occurrence of the Babylonian Captivity, but it is nice to consider that I can trace my roots to people who founded and practiced one of the world's three great religions, as well as to people who gave that religion succor, comfort and a helping hand. Indeed, you might say that I am a byproduct of Cyrus's tolerance towards Jews--living proof that enlightened thought and tolerance are not only possible to implement, but have been implemented in the past. To be a descendant of Jews who were--are--stubborn, resourceful and brilliant enough to survive and even thrive despite the hatred of so many different groups of people throughout history, and to also be a descendant of forward-thinking Persians who established their own magnificent legacy, and who made the survival of the Jews possible during a key point in their history, is something exceedingly special to me. In a strange convergence of events, the Persian New Year is coming up on March 21st. By that time, we may be engaged in a war that will bring down a tyrannical and malicious government that serves as the modern day successor to the Babylonians and Mesopotamians. At the very least, it occupies their former stomping grounds. As I have maintained in the past, liberation in Iraq could very well help bring about liberation in Iran as well. Is it too much to ask that the backward thinking ways practiced by the disciples of Khomeiniism give way to the forward-thinking ways practiced by Cyrus the Great and his contemporaries and successors? Is it too much to ask that the enlightenment that was set in place several millennia ago--enlightenment that helped bring about the existence and life of yours truly in at least a roundabout fashion--come back into fashion in the same place and among the same people from which it stemmed? I certainly hope not. After years of having Khomeini and his thugs be the public face of the Persians/Iranians, it would be good to adopt a new, more representative symbol of the kind of people Persians/Iranians truly are. The kind of people the Jews of the Babylonian Captivity found them to be when they were liberated by the Persians, when they lived among them in Persia, and when they must have intermarried--given the thousands of years that Jews have lived in Persia/Iran. It's an outcome to be devoutly wished for, especially when you have the emotional investment in it that I do. Happy Purim to all. Chag sameach. And finally, mobarak. Tabrik arz mikonam. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/18/2003 07:26:23 PM ----- BODY: *SHAKES HEAD* I just don't know what to make of this. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/18/2003 07:20:54 PM ----- BODY: HYPOCRISY NOTED Geoff Meltzer is exactly right. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/18/2003 06:12:13 PM ----- BODY: LAUGH OUT LOUD FUNNY Emily Jones catches Pravda putting out silly and uninformed commentary. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/18/2003 06:09:44 PM ----- BODY: WAR WITH IRAQ, THE SLIPPER SLOPE, AND PRECEDENT This article by Eugene Volokh is well worth your time. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/18/2003 05:55:51 PM ----- BODY: THE TRUE NATURE OF DIPLOMACY Lileks speaks:
. . . Just walked past the TV, and saw an ABC News Special Report: When Diplomacy Fails. Leaving aside the Fox-like nature of the title - tonight, after COPS, a full hour of When Diplomats Fail! - it reminds you that the definition of diplomacy is the achievement of consensus, regardless of what the parties are agreeing upon. The act of signing paper is more important than the text to which we affix our names. I remember as a child feeling a warm sense of relief when I saw officials inking treaties with that beetle-browed gouty hack Brezhnev - how could there ever be war? We’d signed papers in front of everyone. It’s as if the devotees of diplomacy think that international negotiations are like a mortgage closing. But if mortgage closings were like Security Council resolutions, we’d all be living on the lawn, waiting for the housing inspectors to verify that the previous owners not only didn’t fix the leaky gas line, they weren't still holed up in the attic with shotguns and canned food. I can see them through the window! They're still there! Well, send in some more inspectors. But I have the title, and the keys, and the movers are here with all my stuff. Let us not rush things; let the closing process run its course. But the movers will leave at the end of the day, and I'll still be stuck out here. There are still options yet unexplored; we are constructing a timetable that will let the previous occupants live in the storage closet for a month - Screw that! It's my house! I have the deed, right here, and my first payment is due in a week! We must not rush to evict. Remember, they have signed on to the house-transfer process, and we sincerly hope they live up to their obligations. Right. Fine. I'm calling the cops. No! That would destroy the legitimacy of Hank's Belgian Mortgage Collective! No one would get a mortgage from us again! For the sake of the international mortgage broker community, please consider sleeping on the lawn for 30 days.Also, for your reading pleasure, pre-Fisked comments from another site. That Lileks--he always serves up a smorgasboard of literary delights. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/18/2003 05:36:10 PM ----- BODY: SHOWING NO PITY . . . James Bowman excoriates the antiwar movement:
Let us speak plainly! Let us let those words of "beauty and precision" sink in for just a moment. Having said that he wishes to murder millions (I really must start reading the papers more carefully), Bush must resign in shame "lest otherwise" his evil will destroy everything and, as if that weren’t bad enough, love will quit the world. Mind you, once everything is destroyed, there doesn’t seem much point in love’s continuing to hang around anyway, does there? But though illogical, these are presumably the kinds of words that Martin Arnold hails for their beauty and precision. "Poets have been clearing away sloppy thoughts since the beginning of literature," he assures us happily. This is true enough. But as our contemporary anti-war bards remind us, they have also been committing more of their fair share of sloppy thinking, and for approximately as long. Carruth’s "political scholars" of "the near future" may find themselves shocked to discover that, in our time, it was the politicians who told the truth and the poets who lied.Bowman's scorn is well-placed. Read the whole article to find out why. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/18/2003 05:19:59 PM ----- BODY: DODGING A BULLET? Joshua Muravchik argues that we are better off without a new UN resolution:
In failing to secure a UN Security Council resolution explicitly authorizing war in Iraq, the U.S. dodged a bullet. Merci, Monsieur Chirac. To be sure, such a mandate would have ameliorated the anti-American sentiment bubbling up around the globe and would have made life easier for Britain's Tony Blair, Spain's Jose María Aznar and other faithful allies who have gone out on a limb to stand with us. But it would have created a presumption that Security Council approval is the necessary prerequisite for the use of American force abroad, and this would have posed incalculable dangers to world peace in the long term.He's right. Merely because the UN exists, many people believe that there is no longer any such thing as national sovereignty, or that it has been--or should be--completely surrendered to a transnational institution. There is simply no reason why America should be paralyzed in seeking its own security, or have to ask the approval of others to seek such security. As we have seen, the rest of the world cannot be counted on to take our interests seriously. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/18/2003 05:11:45 PM ----- BODY: NEO HE AIN'T Stephen Stanton argues that Jacques Chirac remains tragically plugged in the Matrix. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/18/2003 05:05:32 PM ----- BODY: IN PRAISE OF NEO-COLONIALISM Daniel Kruger is at his eloquent best:
Let there be no talk of ‘imposing’ ‘Western’ values here. As President Bush says, the values of liberty are universal, not Western. They only seem Western because the West has applied them most successfully, and grown rich on the proceeds. Liberty might just as easily have flourished in the Korean peninsula or at the junction of the Tigris and the Euphrates. Then it would be Koreans and Iraqis, to the dismay of limp do-gooders among them, exporting ‘Eastern’ values to us, the benighted nations of the world. Poor countries are poor because they don’t have property rights, independent banking systems and incorruptible judiciaries; because their governments are not subject to the rule of law and don’t pay their debts. Of course, the prescription is easier to write than to fulfil: as Russia found after 1990, rebuilding a country blighted by decades of totalitarianism takes more than a team of consultants from the World Bank. De Tocqueville, in his snapshot of American democracy, described a country which had been many years in the making. But as in America, as in Sierra Leone, the seeds of liberty can be planted; the natural instincts of all people for growth and prosperity and peace will flourish of their own accord. Why should the Left get to call themselves idealists? Why, more to the point, should they get to call themselves liberals? Pray that the doctrine of the hedgehog prevails, and we will see the realisation of Thomas Jefferson’s dream: an ‘empire of liberty’.Read it all. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/18/2003 04:54:03 PM ----- BODY: WHY DOESN'T THIS SURPRISE ME? (PART II) Hey, guess what: Eric Alterman embarrassed himself in public. Again. Oh, and by the way, he isn't repentant, either. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/18/2003 04:52:29 PM ----- BODY: WHY DOESN'T THIS SURPRISE ME? (PART I) The roots of the current antiwar movement are traced back to puppet organizations of the old Soviet Union by someone who knows. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/18/2003 04:32:57 PM ----- BODY: *SHUDDER* I cannot believe that a professor at my alma mater actually thinks like this. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/18/2003 04:29:37 PM ----- BODY: HE MAY HAVE LEFT THE PRESIDENCY, BUT NOTHING HAS CHANGED Jonah Goldberg points out Bill Clinton's contradictory statements on Iraq. Personally, I'm shocked, shocked that Clinton wouldn't hold to one stance. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/18/2003 04:25:13 PM ----- BODY: IF I HAD TO VOTE . . . I would support Senator Fred Thompson over President Martin Sheen any day of the week. At least the former actually occupied political office, instead of just playing a part. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/18/2003 03:47:18 PM ----- BODY: IF THE WAR IS DELAYED ANY LONGER . . . it will only be because of this:
With Turkey's financial markets plummeting and U.S. officials threatening to withdraw a $6 billion aid package, the country's military and civilian leaders indicated tonight that they are preparing to reverse course and let the Pentagon use Turkish airspace and territory in an attack on Iraq. But it was unclear when final authorization would come, meaning the last-minute change of heart could be too little and too late for the Bush administration. U.S. military officials have said that, even after Turkish authorization, it would take a few weeks for the Army's 4th Infantry Division to unload its heavy equipment from ships waiting offshore and move into position along Turkey's 218-mile border with northern Iraq.Well, we'll see whether this happens. But it seems to put the lie to at least one aspect of the "failed diplomacy" line, does it not? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/18/2003 03:44:34 PM ----- BODY: LIBERATION CAN'T COME FAST ENOUGH Read this chilling account of life in Iraq;
“There was a machine designed for shredding plastic. Men were dropped into it and we were again made to watch. Sometimes they went in head first and died quickly. Sometimes they went in feet first and died screaming. It was horrible. I saw 30 people die like this. Their remains would be placed in plastic bags and we were told they would be used as fish food . . . on one occasion, I saw Qusay [President Saddam Hussein’s youngest son] personally supervise these murders.”Do you really think that the Iraqis are complaining about a "rush to war"? And if so, isn't their complaint that we are not rushing? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/18/2003 03:41:45 PM ----- BODY: MOTHER REALLY DOES KNOW BEST Meet Susan Sarandon's mom:
Guests at Mark and Ali Russell's annual St. Patrick's Day house party were charmed Sunday by 79-year-old Lenora Tomalin, a feisty supporter of President Bush and his take-no-prisoners stance toward Iraq's Saddam Hussein. But they were shocked when Tomalin identified herself -- to the likes of Tim Russert and Maureen Orth, Chris and Kathleen Matthews, and Joe diGenovan and Victoria Toensing -- as the mother of Susan Sarandon. That Susan Sarandon -- who has been leading the charge of the Hollywood left against Bush and the pending military action (claiming it will simply further American imperial designs and appropriate Iraqi oil) and who shares three of Tomalin's 19 grandchildren with actor Tim Robbins. "I am a conservative. I voted for George W. Bush and I simply agree with most everything he has said," Tomalin told us yesterday from the Northern Virginia home of keyboardist John Carroll, her son-in-law, and daughter Meredith Carroll, one of Sarandon's eight siblings. "It's not that I'm pro-war. It's just that I think that I trust my government more than I would empathize with the government of Iraq." Of Sarandon's anti-Bush activism, Tomalin said: "That's a given. That's the way she thinks. That's what Hollywood thinks. We don't agree, but I respect her -- more than she does me." But surely, we suggested, Tomalin's 56-year-old eldest child respects her mother's opinions. "Wanna bet?" Tomalin scoffed. Sarandon's office didn't respond yesterday to our detailed message and fax. "When I visit Susan, I tread on eggs," Tomalin said. "The most difficult time was during the election of 2000. I live in Florida, and I was a Republican poll-watcher in Polk County. Afterward, I was sitting at the breakfast table with Jack Henry, my then-13-year-old grandson, and he looked over at me, with the sweetest little smile on his face, and said, 'I hear you voted for Bush.' I looked up at Susan, who's standing at the sink, and she says, 'All he wants to know is: How could you have voted for Bush?' And I thought, 'I'm not going to discuss my politics with a 13-year-old who has been brainwashed!' But I just let it go -- even though I have never been as rabid as I have been during the past few years." Tomalin -- a fan of Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Vice President Cheney -- added that she was bitterly disappointed last Christmas when she was visiting Washington and unable to arrange a tour of the White House decorations. "I tried everybody, and nothing could be done for me," she said. "I'll go to my grave angry about that." But she's planning a return trip in May, and somehow we think that the somebody at the White House -- Karl Rove, are you reading this? -- will find a way to make an old lady happy.Personally, I think that anyone who has to put up with Susan Sarandon as a daughter deserves a trip to Camp David, and a ride on Air Force One. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/18/2003 03:36:58 PM ----- BODY: JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY . . . is this supposed to be a joke?
France has announced it could assist any US-led military coalition if Iraq uses chemical and biological weapons. The turnaround comes after strong French opposition to a war in Iraq, including threats to veto a UN Security Council resolution paving the way for armed conflict.But gee, I thought Iraq doesn't have chemical or biological weapons. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/18/2003 03:34:36 PM ----- BODY: ABOUT SADDAM HUSSEIN'S DEATH WARRANT . . . consider it signed. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/18/2003 03:22:56 PM ----- BODY: COURAGE YIELDS RESULTS Apparently Tony Blair made the case as well:
Tony Blair has won Commons backing to send UK forces into battle with Saddam Hussein - but also suffered another major backbench rebellion. Amid dramatic scenes in the Commons on Tuesday night, 217 MPs - as many as 140 of them Labour backbenchers - backed a rebel amendment opposing the government's stance on Iraq, with 396 opposing the motion. A motion backing the government's position was passed by 412 votes to 149. There was relief for the government after fears that many more of Labour's backbenchers would oppose Tony Blair's line on Iraq.I've said it before, and I'll say it again--I never thought that I would root for a Labour Prime Minister. But Blair's courage and steadfastness deserves our support. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/18/2003 03:19:34 PM ----- BODY: I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE REST OF YOU . . . but this makes me think that President Bush made the case last night. And not just to Americans. And then there is also this. I think I sense a trend. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/17/2003 11:13:08 PM ----- BODY: THOUGHTS FOR THE DAY Alea jacta est. ("The die is cast.") --Julius Caesar, upon crossing the Rubicon. Their story is known to all of you. It is the story of the American man-at-arms. My estimate of him was formed on the battlefields many, many years ago, and has never changed. I regarded him then, as I regard him now, as one of the world's noblest figures-not only as one of the finest military characters, but also as one of the most stainless. His name and fame are the birthright of every American citizen. In his youth and strength, his love and loyalty, he gave all that mortality can give. He needs no eulogy from me, or from any other man. He has written his own history and written it in red on his enemy's breast. In twenty campaigns, on a hundred battlefields, around a thousand campfires, I have witnessed that enduring fortitude, that patriotic self-abnegation, and that invincible determination which have carved his statue in the hearts of his people. From one end of the world to the other, he has drained deep the chalice of courage. As I listened to those songs in memory's eye, I could see those staggering columns of the First World War, bending under soggy packs on many a weary march, from dripping dusk to drizzling dawn, slogging ankle deep through mire of shell-pocked roads; to form grimly for the attack, blue-lipped, covered with sludge and mud, chilled by the wind and rain, driving home to their objective, and for many, to the judgment seat of God. I do not know the dignity of their birth, but I do know the glory of their death. They died unquestioning, uncomplaining, with faith in their hearts, and on their lips the hope that we would go on to victory. --General Douglas MacArthur, Farewell Speech to West Point, May 12, 1962 -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/17/2003 11:06:50 PM ----- BODY: THE SPEECH I was worried that Bush might be tired again in this performance as he was in his press conference, but he handled matters quite well. The speech was simple, direct and elegant. It laid out the case for war clearly, and it reminded people of the history of the conflict with Iraq. It is amazing how many people still believe that we are engaged in a "rush to war." It was important for the President to remind people that we have been engaged in this conflict for twelve years, and that at long last, it is time to bring it to a conclusion. There was a weakness to the speech. In addition to demanding that Saddam and the Hussein boys leave the country, the President should have also demanded that high ranking Ba'ath party officials like Tariq Aziz, Vice President Ramadan, Foreign Minister Naji Sabri and others leave as well. There is a danger that if one of these Ba'athist leaders takes power, he will prove to be no better than Saddam. Additionally, I thought that Colin Powell made a good point in his briefing this morning when he stated that if Saddam left, the coalition forces would move in anyway in order to carry out peaceful disarmament and regime change. It would have been nice if the President had stated this as well. Still, the speech went well. France was rightly condemned. The UN was revealed to be spineless, with America having to supply its courage vicariously. And the threat of "fearful consequences" leveled against the Iraqi leadership had to concentrate their minds on the use of nuclear weapons in the event that our soldiers are subjected to chemical or biological weapons. I hope that the use of nuclear weapons will not be necessary, and I would be shocked if it was. But the credible threat is necessary to lessen the chance that Saddam will unleash weapons of mass destruction. I thought that the direct statement to members of the Iraqi armed forces--telling them not to fight and to disobey orders that compelled them to use weapons of mass destruction--was also effective. One of the surprises of this war may very well be the number of Iraqis that decide not to resist the American invasion. We have already heard some stories about preemptive surrenders. I don't think we have even scratched the surface on that issue. In any event, Saddam, Uday, and Qusay Hussein have approximately 42 hours as of the time of this writing to get out of Dodge. They won't, of course. Which means that we will have to bear the burden once more. And as will be the case once more, America--in addition to preserving its own security--will rid a portion of the world of a horrible tyrant, will provide food, medicine, relief supplies and the inestimably precious supply of freedom to an oppressed people, and will demand no recompense. I don't need a war to be waged in order to be proud of my country. But it is telling that even in the midst of the cataclysm of human conflict, the majesty and beneficence of American generosity and kindness comes through. Winston Churchill warned the Nazis to "do [their worst], and we shall do our best." Those are words that America and Americans live by. It should be added, however, that in addition to doing our best when others do their worst, we are at our best when the times are at their worst. We could become vicious along with the vicious times, but in spite of all the fears to the contrary, we have kept our character, our sense of humanity and self-worth, our fundamental goodness and decency as a people, and the sense of honor we have borne throughout our history--a sense of honor that allows Americans to look in a mirror and to tell ourselves truthfully and without fear of being contradicted by an objective posterity that when all is said and done, the world is better off for our presence. Much better off. May God bless my country and its heroic and valiant citizens. May those blessings spread soon and speedily to the people of ancient Mesopotamia, for they deserve to be free just as much as we do. And may their liberty not be the end, but be only the beginning of a campaign that states unequivocally that mass murder, fanaticism, and tyranny will no longer be winked and nodded at, but will be pursued to the ends of the earth by those who remember history and its lessons. No more September Elevenths. No more Halabjas. No more evil and totalitarian clerical regimes. Human beings deserve better than that. And it is high time that they--we--get it. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/17/2003 04:30:07 PM ----- BODY: APPALLING No matter what your disagreement with the President's policies, when it comes time to deploy the troops, all of us--all of us--are duty bound to support the action if only to ensure that a united American voice will help bring the conflict to a speedy and desirable end. If you continue to disagree with the policies of the Administration, that is certainly your right. But a vigorous and lengthy debate has been had, and at the very least, some degree of unanimity and some biting of the partisan tongue would be desirable at the beginning of the conflict so that the policy can be given a chance to work. This is especially true if you are a politician. Of course, Tom Daschle doesn't observe such time-honored niceties:
"I'm saddened," Daschle, D-South Dakota, said in a speech to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. "Saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to war. Saddened that we have to give up one life because this president couldn't create the kind of diplomatic effort that was so critical for our country. But we will work, and we will do all we can to get through this crisis like we've gotten through so many."Never mind the fact that the utter unwillingness of the French, the Russians and the Chinese to abide by a resolution that was virtually identical to Resolution 1441, their stubborn refusal to enforce 17 binding resolutions over 12 years, and Saddam Hussein's own perfidy were the factors that signalled the death of diplomacy. At this time of high crisis, Daschle can only think to be partisan. So much for politics stopping at the water's edge. So much for putting country over party. Daschle should be ashamed and embarrassed at his pettiness. Democrats--and all Americans--deserved better than this knee-jerk, Pavlovian engagement in rhetorical excess and selective amnesia. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/17/2003 04:16:52 PM ----- BODY: 48 HOURS We could be at war by Thursday. After all of the time that has been taken leading up to this conflict, it is hard to believe that it could be beginning. I just pray that it ends speedily and relatively bloodlessly. I wish I had something profound to say at this point, but I think that each side has pretty much expressed its views. So maybe a prayer is a good way with which to end this post. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/17/2003 04:12:08 PM ----- BODY: WHAT A SHOCKER The Iraqis are getting ready to use weapons they swore up and down that they never had. If a weapon is used whose existence you have denied, will it harm anyone? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/17/2003 04:09:57 PM ----- BODY: NOTE TO SELF: Stay in Orange County. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/17/2003 03:57:36 PM ----- BODY: HELP FROM THE CANADIANS? Andre, of the blog "Rants In Our Pants" reports. It's just a hunch on my part, but I think that his post may be facetious. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/17/2003 03:51:54 PM ----- BODY: WE CAN'T LIBERATE IRAQ SOON ENOUGH Joanne Jacobs reminds us why. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/17/2003 02:59:25 PM ----- BODY: MORE EVIDENCE . . . that the Iraqi people are likely to welcome liberation brought about by American military action. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/17/2003 01:33:03 PM ----- BODY: HEH! I found this post from Steven Den Beste most amusing:
David wrote to me, and in the course of several rather wry comments about the French, he asked rhetorically, "How do you say 'chutzpah' en Francais?" To which I replied: There's no such word; because fish have no word for water.To which I reply: That's actually one of the best insults I have come across in a long while. By the way, don't give me grief for linking to a post where Steven facetiously suggests having a Tomahawk cruise missile "accidentally" hit the Elysée Palace. I'm sure he's joking. None of us really want to see the Elysée Palace hit by a Tomahawk cruise missile. It would be tragic, it would be unfortunate, it would be a disproportionate response to the treachery of the French, and if none of that convinces you, it would also be a waste of a good Tomahawk cruise missile. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/17/2003 01:21:17 PM ----- BODY: BLOGROLLING Be sure to check out Diotima--a blog run by Sara Butler and Shonda Werry, two University of Chicago students which takes on the feminist Left and its arguments. (Link via Asparagirl.) I should note as well that Sara Butler is at the forefront of trying to preserve the Western Civilization sequence at the University of Chicago, and that she and Shonda Werry wrote an excellent article discussing the feminist treatment of Justice Priscilla Owen in her nomination for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (I referenced both projects in the past). Be sure to keep an eye on both Sara and Shonda--they appear to be going places, and I certainly hope they go far. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/17/2003 01:03:33 PM ----- BODY: HARDLY UNUSUAL Arnold Kling rightly points out that the concept of America instituting regime change is a fairly old one. His article is well worth reading, and should serve as an effective rebuttal to those who contend that the Bush Administration is somehow acting outside of tradition or accepted American practice through its insistence on regime change in Iraq. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/17/2003 12:35:43 PM ----- BODY: JUDGING THE DIPLOMACY I think that Glenn Reynolds has it pretty much right. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/17/2003 12:30:44 PM ----- BODY: A GOOD REVIEW Be sure to check out Nicole Tedesco's review of the book by former UNSCOM inspection head Richard Butler (no permalinks, so look for the posts entitled "Richard Butler and the Unfair West" Parts 1 and 2). -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/17/2003 12:22:46 PM ----- BODY: THE SCARY THING . . . is that this parody memo may not be too far removed from the real thing. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/17/2003 12:10:13 PM ----- BODY: THE TRUE COLORS OF THE ANTIWAR MOVEMENT Daniel Flynn recorded some of the "thoughts" of antiwar protestors at the A.N.S.W.E.R. event this past weekend. And as Flynn points out, it is hysterically funny to see that the people who complain about America's supposed descent into "fascism" are able to conduct their protest within sight of the White House, and with no interference whatsoever from the authorities. Some fascism, eh? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/17/2003 11:39:56 AM ----- BODY: OF RATS AND SINKING SHIPS Things don't look good for Saddam Hussein:
Saddam Hussein’s most important Kurdish ally has defected to Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq in what officials here say is an indication that the Iraqi president’s internal support is beginning to crumble. Jowhad Herki is chief of the powerful Herki tribe and since the 1960s has supported successive Baghdad regimes in putting down revolts by fellow Kurds. He arrived in northern Iraq via London after travelling there from Baghdad for medical treatment. He is a former member of the Iraqi parliament. "This is a major development that shows that they are abandoning the sinking ship," said Hoshyar Zebari, a Kurdish leader in the northern autonomous zone. "It will have a major influence on other tribal leaders to close ranks because they have nothing to hope for from Saddam."You're going to be reading about a lot more such stories in the coming days. And they will involve Saddam's military commanders as well. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/17/2003 11:36:06 AM ----- BODY: A SHOUTOUT TO ALL THE A.N.S.W.E.R. FOLKS Here is what at least one military man thinks of you:
[Marine General James T.] Conway told his troops not to worry about peace protests at home, pointing to a poll showing that 71 percent of Americans want to get the Iraq situation resolved now. "When we invade Iraq," he added, "that'll go up to 91 percent. And you know how I feel about it? Piss on everybody else."I'm sure General Conway is not the only person to feel that way. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/17/2003 11:06:32 AM ----- BODY: DISGUSTING It would seem that France is notable not only for its obstructionist tactics at the Security Council, but for continuing acts of anti-Semitism within its borders. I don't expect the government to take this seriously--they never do. The safety and security of Jews has never been a high priority for the French, after all. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/17/2003 11:01:30 AM ----- BODY: ENDGAME As just about everyone has heard, the US, Britain and Spain will not be pushing for a vote on the 18th resolution to come up in 12 years regarding Iraq. It appears that we are going to war. President Bush will be addressing the nation, and will apparently deliver an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein--leave the country in 72 hours along with close personnel, or face American military power. I wish this weren't necessary. Anyone who still believes and represents that "warbloggers" lusted for this war is silly and misinformed at best--dishonest at worst. Unfortunately, we are faced with no choice. Contrary to all the talk about a "rush to war," the international community has been trying to resolve this issue peacefully for the past 12 years. If this is a "rush," I would hate to see what a "slow crawl" to war is like. In any event, it looks like the end days for Saddam and his regime--an outcome to be devoutly wished for. I think that it will have a palliative effect both inside and outside of Iraq. And I think that the leaders who decided to defy the naïve and deluded calls of the antiwar activists will have an honored place in history as people of courage. Hopefully, there example will inspire others to stick to their principles over the politics of the day. Politics and political positions are fleeting. Noble principles last forever. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/16/2003 10:28:45 PM ----- BODY: THOUGHT FOR THE DAY For myself I am an optimist - it does not seem to be much use being anything else. --Winston Churchill -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/16/2003 07:34:03 PM ----- BODY: FISKING NEWSWEEK Eugene Volokh catches Newsweek looking befuddled over one of its own polls. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/16/2003 07:31:19 PM ----- BODY: AN ESTRADA PROFILE Read the following passages:
Estrada, who lives in Alexandria with his wife, Laury, also a lawyer, and his red Doberman pinschers, Zeus and Ruby, goes to his office every day at the firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher on Connecticut Avenue NW. To help keep his mind off the theatrics on the Hill, he has a numbingly complex case that he has been working on for four years. He represents Aetna in a federal class-action lawsuit filed in Miami by doctors against nearly a dozen managed-care companies over fees and other issues. "This process has required quite a bit of juggling on his part and our part," says Ed Neugebauer, head of litigation for Aetna. "We try to be as flexible as possible so we can keep Miguel as involved as much as possible." "This has been a distraction that has taken time, and he's been talking with senators and so forth," says Tom Hungar, a partner with Gibson Dunn. But Estrada is still busy with the practice. "He is well-known at the firm as about the brightest lawyer around. . . . There is no shortage of areas in which he is viewed as an excellent person to have on your team, if you can get some of his time." [. . .] "He's in the mainstream, but he's on the right side of the mainstream," says Paul Engelmayer, a New York lawyer and a Democrat, who knew Estrada at Harvard and as a Supreme Court clerk and served with him in the criminal division of the Solicitor General's office. Engelmayer says the critics might be disappointed if they ever get a chance to read Estrada's memos, the release of which the White House has blocked on grounds they are internal documents. "They were not ideological documents," Engelmayer recalls. They provided advice on whether the government should pursue criminal appeals. "The thing that made Miguel's memos different, they were more thorough and better. . . . They were sometimes jaw-droppingly comprehensive and impressive." While in the SG's office, Estrada convinced the Supreme Court that the National Organization for Women could sue abortion clinic blockaders under the racketeering statute. (That case was recently struck down by the court on different grounds with Estrada no longer involved.) In addition to his conservatism, he was also known for a near-photographic memory and for staying late at the office to pore over opinions while listening to classical music. His colleagues could ask a question on a technical point, and he'd reply something like, "If you look in 820 federal second on Page 630 on the left-hand side of the page, you will see the 8th Circuit has spoken to just that point." "The scary thing was he was almost always right," Engelmayer says.You'd think that a lawyer possessing such intellectual firepower and bringing such impressive legal credentials to the table would be a shoo-in for confirmation to a Court of Appeals. And he should be. The more I think about this filibuster, the more appalling and unjust it strikes me as being. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/16/2003 07:16:50 PM ----- BODY: STALINISTS ON PARADE Hysterically funny, or heartbreakingly sad? I report, you decide. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/16/2003 07:11:22 PM ----- BODY: FELICITATIONS ALL AROUND Be sure to go over and wish Dr. Weevil a very happy 50th birthday, and many more. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/16/2003 06:55:57 PM ----- BODY: IMITATION IS THE SINCEREST FORM OF FLATTERY But for understandable reasons, Steven Den Beste is not flattered. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/16/2003 06:50:31 PM ----- BODY: ENDGAME David Brooks sums matters up quite nicely:
Over the past 12 years the United States has sought to disarm or depose Saddam--more forcefully since September 11 than before. Throughout that time, France and Russia have sought to undermine sanctions and fend off the ousting of Saddam. They opposed Clinton's efforts to bomb Saddam, just as they oppose Bush's push for regime change. Through the fog and verbiage, that is the essential confrontation. Events will show who was right, George W. Bush or Jacques Chirac. We warned, when the administration first decided to take the U.N. route, that this could be a trap. In retrospect, things have gone better than we had any right to expect. Bush threw down a clear challenge before the body. Colin Powell was able to win unanimous support for Resolution 1441, which is a valuable document. The American people got to see their president giving a body he regards with skepticism a fair chance to confront Saddam. Many were impressed that Bush made the effort. They are less wary of his policy now than they were a few months ago. It's possible to second-guess the U.N. venture in any number of ways. Maybe the United States should have walked away from the U.N. after Saddam's insulting weapons report in December. Maybe Bush should have anticipated that Russia would remain intransigent regardless of Bush's relationship with Putin. But second-guessing the last-minute diplomatic maneuvers leading up to a war is hardly a useful way to spend one's time. What matters, and what ultimately sprang the U.N. trap, is American resolve. The administration simply wouldn't let up. It didn't matter how Hans Blix muddied the waters with his reports on this or that weapons system. Under the U.N. resolutions, it was up to Saddam to disarm, administration officials repeated ad nauseam, and he wasn't doing it. It was and is sheer relentlessness that has driven us to where we are today.All of which means that Calvin Coolidge was right--there is nothing more important than persistence. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/16/2003 06:07:50 PM ----- BODY: WHY DOESN'T THE REST OF THE WORLD UNDERSTAND THIS? This editorial by Bahram Salih, the Prime Minister of the Kurdish region in northern Iraq, is worth a million A.N.S.W.E.R. marches and speeches:
Watching the debate on Iraq, I am often perplexed, sometimes frustrated. As a Kurd, I know war is a devastating undertaking and should be questioned. But in the end a fundamental moral argument needs to be made for a war of liberation to save a people from tyranny. Many on the Left ignore the daily reign of terror the Baathist regime inflicts on Iraqis, yet the human rights of Iraqis should also be their cause. I came to Britain in 1979 as a young refugee. I had been imprisoned by the Iraqi security services for advocating human rights for the Kurds, thrown into the same jail and for the same reason as my father had been in 1963. Sadly, I found few people in Britain interested in the horrors of Baathist Iraq. The Baghdad regime was touted as a secular bulwark against radical Islamic Iran. The persecution of the Kurds was an embarrassment. But some principled people, mainly left-wing, understood our plight. While others funded Saddam, our allies pointed out the inconsistency of calling for democracy in eastern Europe while supporting a murderous dictator in the Middle East. Where are these friends now? Regrettably, many are denouncing a war that would liberate Iraq. Like those who shunned us in the Eighties, some of our former friends find the martyrdom of the Iraqi people to be an irritant. They avert their eyes from the grisly truth of our suffering, while claiming concern at the human cost of war.The thing I wonder about is whether those who oppose the war even have their minds open to being changed. I fear that no matter what horrible things are discovered in a post-Saddam Iraq, the antiwar contingent will continue in its obstinacy. I guess they believe that it is better to be consistent than it is to be right. Ever. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/16/2003 05:52:27 PM ----- BODY: IF THIS IS TRUE . . . then be sure not to do business with Pep Boys. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/16/2003 05:51:13 PM ----- BODY: TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE Sorry Jacques--the train is leaving the station without you. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/15/2003 11:00:55 PM ----- BODY: THOUGHT FOR THE DAY To be always fortunate, and to pass through life with a soul that has never known sorrow, is to be ignorant of one half of nature. --Seneca -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/15/2003 10:47:50 PM ----- BODY: QUERY FOR THE BLOGOSPHERE I'm interested in people who have had experience working with Blackberry personal data devices, and devices from Palm. Specifically, I would appreciate information on (a) costs associated with using each particular device (including price and whether subscription to a service is required--my understanding is that a subscription is required to work with the Blackberry), (b) user-friendliness, (c) whether one particular organizer has certain features that the other does not have, and (d) any other things that I would probably benefit from knowing about. Muse away, and thanks in advance for your help. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/15/2003 10:41:40 PM ----- BODY: AND VIA STUART BUCK . . . we have yet another reason to feel absolutely wonderful about the existence and occurrence of the Clinton Presidency. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/15/2003 10:40:14 PM ----- BODY: NOT FISKING, BUT FACT-CHECKING Stuart Buck fact-checks Atrios and catches him monkey-fishing. I guess this means that Stuart should join a long line of bloggers who have caught Atrios short on one post or another. Maybe we should all have jackets or something. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/15/2003 08:18:00 PM ----- BODY: SO IT IS A FISKING THAT YOU WANT Well then, it is a Fisking that you shall have, courtesy of the lovely Emily Jones. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/15/2003 08:16:00 PM ----- BODY: THE DECLINE AND FALL OF JIM MORAN I'm pleased to see that the House Democratic Leadership has decided to punish Moran for his anti-Semitic comments by ousting him from his post as one of the regional whips. Of course, as this story points out, Moran has had so many controversial moments that it may be that the Democrats finally decided they were tired of having him embarrass the party. It should be mentioned, however, that Moran's former position as a regional whip was nowhere near as important as his current assignments as a member of the House Appropriations Committee, where Moran is able to effect the transfer of large sums of money--and pork--to his district. It would be very meaningful if Moran were stripped of this extremely prestigious committee assignment--an assignment that other Representatives lust after. Let's see if his punishment extends this far, and actually means something. Losing a position as regional whip is not that big a deal. Losing a senior position on the Appropriations Committee is. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/15/2003 08:03:37 PM ----- BODY: RUMSFELD RULES Mark Steyn explain why. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/15/2003 07:59:40 PM ----- BODY: HAH! -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/15/2003 07:55:45 PM ----- BODY: ANOTHER SIGN . . . that we can fight Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda at the same time. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/15/2003 07:52:38 PM ----- BODY: SOUNDS FAMILIAR I suppose that I can sympathize with this problem having gone through somewhat similar aggravation in the past. Of course, I was never wounded to such an incredible degree in my personal little construction projects, but for all I know, the pain could be a'comin. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/15/2003 07:45:47 PM ----- BODY: AARON SORKIN: PREEMPTIVE, UNILATERALIST COWBOY Mindles* H. Dreck has the hilarious details. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/15/2003 07:40:10 PM ----- BODY: THE JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION WARS With all of the attention on the confirmation of Miguel Estrada nowadays, it is worth remembering that the Senate similarly slighted Justice Priscilla Owen in her confirmation to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Christopher Flannery has a very informative article discussing one particular aspect of the Owen confirmation. Be sure to take a look. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/15/2003 07:35:26 PM ----- BODY: VERY NICE A correspondent to Jay Nordlinger sent a story that is recorded in Nordlinger's most recent Impromptus. You'll like this:
"I saw something tonight that ought to interest you. I was watching a documentary on the making of the movie Amadeus, part of the two-DVD director's-cut release. The very first item in the documentary talks about how the crew was filming one of Mozart's opera sequences in Prague's Tyl Theatre on July 4, 1983, using a number of Prague citizens as extras. Just before the cameras rolled, without any prior warning, the folks from Prague unfurled a huge American flag and began to sing 'The Star-Spangled Banner.' All but about 30 or so Czech secret police joined in. The documentary shows pictures of the flag hanging from one of the theater's balconies. "A very moving tale, especially in light of the stories you've related recently of how Eastern Europeans haven't forgotten what we've always stood for and how we helped make them free."Don't you love New Europe? I know I do. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/15/2003 07:26:52 PM ----- BODY: BEETHOVEN AND THE PIANO This is a fascinating and interesting essay on Beethoven's relationship with the piano, and with piano composition. It is well worth your attention. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/15/2003 07:22:16 PM ----- BODY: IRANIAN REVOLUTION WATCH Kudos to Senators Sam Brownback and Ron Wyden, and Representative Tom Lantos for this courageous action supporting pro-democracy dissidents in Iran. It has already attracted the attention and gratitude of those dissidents. More like this please. (Thanks to Mike Daley and Joe Katzman for e-mailing me these links.) -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/15/2003 07:06:00 PM ----- BODY: OF ALL THE LABOR COMPLAINTS I HAVE EVER HEARD . . . this has to be the most ridiculous:
Hundreds of President Robert Mugabe's notorious youth militia – nicknamed the "Green Bombers" – are fleeing to South Africa because they say they are tired of "killing for nothing" and are being starved. Fourteen boys and men aged between 15 and 28 have provided testimonies about life in the youth wing of Zanu-PF, Zimbabwe's ruling party, to The Sunday Independent newspaper in South Africa. They say they were taught how to kill people in ways that "would be quick and silent and leave no evidence".Any commentary that I could provide to demonstrate just how absurd this situation is would be superfluous in the extreme. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/15/2003 07:02:09 PM ----- BODY: THE DIXIE CHICKS Reader John Young sends me the following e-mail:
It appears that the Dixie Chicks Message Forum was conveniently shut down for maintenance yesterday. I'm sure it had nothing to do with the hundreds of angry postings from (ex?) fans. A lesson learned Natalie, as you implied in your rationalization, in America "freedom of speech" is paramount; however in the Chick world, scrambling to protect your assets is Number 1.Yeah, that's what it looks like. Personally, I really don't care about what happens to the Dixie Chicks. They were never on my radar screen and I could take or leave them. But it is nice to see that people aren't letting celebrities use their fame to have the last word on the issues of the day. I have no problem with anyone speaking out on public issues--it is your right to do so. I just don't think that celebrities should be getting the free pass that they have been getting for the past few years, and it appears that they no longer are. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/15/2003 06:56:08 PM ----- BODY: ALREADY HAVING AN EFFECT Talk of war against Iraq has emboldened opponents of Saddam Hussein's regime to take action against his rule:
Open acts of defiance by opponents of Saddam Hussein's regime have intensified in the past week, with saboteurs carrying out attacks against Iraq's railway system and protesters openly calling for the overthrow of the Iraqi dictator. The most blatant act of sabotage took place 20 miles south of the north Iraqi city of Mosul when members of the Iraqi opposition blew up a stretch of track on the Mosul-Baghdad railway, causing the derailment of a train. Before fleeing back to their base in Kurdistan, they left piles of leaflets by the side of the track urging the Iraqi soldiers who were sent to investigate the explosion to join the "international alliance to liberate Iraq" from "Saddam the criminal". In a separate incident, a rocket-propelled grenade was fired at a train illegally transporting fuel from Baghdad to Syria. Demonstrations were also reported to have taken place in Kirkuk, where an estimated crowd of 20,000 marched on the Ba'ath party's main administrative headquarters demanding Saddam's overthrow. Three posters of the Iraqi leader were torn down and a grenade was thrown at the government building. One senior Ba'ath official was reported killed in the attack.Excellent. Hopefully, this will be just the beginning of a nationwide insurrection against Saddam, and assisting the incoming American and coalition forces. It will end the war more quickly, increase the chances that Saddam and other high Ba'ath party officials will be captured, and lessen bloodshed. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/15/2003 06:51:23 PM ----- BODY: WHOOPS! Not competent, guys. Not competent at all. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/15/2003 06:49:12 PM ----- BODY: TONIGHT I'LL HAVE A STEAK I don't want to be accused later on of killing a potential incarnation of God. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/15/2003 06:48:02 PM ----- BODY: SORRY FOR THE LIMITED POSTING I can't claim that I was in San Diego for the Reason conference. Rather, I just decided to take the morning and afternoon off. i can testify that the rain that is pummeling San Diego is also pouring down in Orange County. I would complain, but obviously, we get plenty of sun out here in California, so any complaints would be positively churlish. Besides, it is somewhat nice to have a change of weather. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/14/2003 10:51:20 PM ----- BODY: THOUGHT FOR THE DAY PRESS ON. Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing in the world is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. --Calvin Coolidge -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/14/2003 04:37:25 PM ----- BODY: AND NOW FOR A BIT OF LEGAL HUMOR I first learned about the typo in this memo from a law school friend of mine who read it to me over the phone. And now, it is famous blogwide. Have yourselves a good laugh over it, but before you click, remember that the typo is not exactly G-Rated. (Link via Howard Bashman.) -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/14/2003 04:17:48 PM ----- BODY: AFTER READING THIS POST . . . I can only wonder whether Gollum is writing posts for TAPPED. A split personality would be about the only way to explain the incongruity between the two posts written about. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/14/2003 04:11:29 PM ----- BODY: UTOPIAN RHETORIC RUNS AMOK Luckily, we have Stephen Green to counter it. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/14/2003 03:52:06 PM ----- BODY: GO HERE . . . and vote for option (h). Remember, option (h)! Otherwise I might just pull an option (b) on all y'all. UPDATE: What do you know, the permalinks aren't working. Go to the post that begins with the words "I'll look like I'll hit about 10,000 page views in a few days." And be sure to vote for option (h)--I'm not kidding people. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/14/2003 01:08:38 PM ----- BODY: MY TECH CENTRAL STATION COLUMN IS UP This week, I argue that democratization in the Middle East is not the only ingredient required for regional and international stability. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/14/2003 01:06:06 PM ----- BODY: ON A MORE HOPEFUL NOTE . . . perhaps the Times and other major media outlets are finally realizing the palliative effects of adult stem cell treatments. I don't understand why adult stem cells are not given more publicity as a promising treatment to all manners of diseases. They carry the same regenerative capabilities as embryonic stem cells, and yet because they are the very same stem cells of the patient seeking treatment, there is no chance whatsoever of tissue rejection. Moreover, the ethical concerns that surround the use of embryonic stem cells simply vanish. Why not take the path of least resistance in using adult stem cells to develop new medical treatments for paralysis, Parkinson's Disease, and other ailments--particularly when adult stem cells appear to be a more effective treatment in every way? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/14/2003 12:58:28 PM ----- BODY: ALL THE NEWS THAT'S FIT TO PAPER OVER Tom Gross reports on the New York Times's slanted and biased coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict. It's long, but well worth your time to see how the "paper of record" continues almost willfully to get the facts on the conflict completely wrong. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/14/2003 12:38:06 PM ----- BODY: THIS IS WHAT I MEAN . . . when I warn against opponents of American military action in Iraq spiting their own faces:
French and Russian oil and gas contracts signed with the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq "will not be honored," Kurdish Prime Minister Barhim Salih said in Washington Friday, just before a series of high-level meetings with Bush administration officials. "A new Iraqi government should not honor any of these contracts, signed against the interests of the Iraqi people. The new Iraqi government should respect those who stood by us, and not those who stood beside the dictator," Salih added.No one should be surprised by this. There is a limit to how much you can enrage a people with expressions of nonstop obstinacy. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/14/2003 12:14:38 PM ----- BODY: RUMSFELD RULES Here is why:
The anti-American demonstrations here have suddenly gone poof. U.S. soldiers are walking the streets of Seoul again without looking over their shoulders. The official line from the South Korean government is: Yankees stay here. Opposition to U.S. troops in South Korea that seemed to be boiling over has quieted dramatically in recent weeks, because of new threats from North Korea and a suggestion from Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that U.S. troops may be cut and repositioned.It's said that you never appreciate what you have until it is gone. Rumsfeld just succeeded in making the South Koreans appreciate the presence of American troops while they are still in South Korea. And this after months of anti-American protests that had some people questioning the state of the U.S.-South Korean relationship. Not bad for "cowboy" diplomacy, eh? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/14/2003 12:05:56 PM ----- BODY: HE MAY BE A NEIGHBOR OF MINE--PERHAPS I SHOULD GO OVER AND HAND HIM HIS SONTAG AWARD STRAIGHT AWAY Mark LeVine--a professor at the University of California, Irvine--has penned this unbelievable article, one that is astonishingly churlish in tone and one that evinces the most reprehensible of desires:
As the American-imposed deadline for Iraqi "disarmament" approaches, the antiwar movement seems to be counting on one of two scenarios to frustrate the plans of the Bush Administration. The first is an optimistic "We Win" scenario, which would result from massive protests and diplomatic pressure forcing President Bush to postpone an invasion indefinitely. (What has yet to be addressed is what exactly we win if Hussein remains indefinitely in power and the sanctions go on killing Iraqis.) With war seemingly imminent, the movement is being forced to fall back on a second scenario, "Everyone Loses," in which the warnings of a protracted and bloody war that destabilizes the Middle East and increases terrorism bear their bitter fruit. However unpalatable in terms of destroyed lives and infrastructure, this latter scenario would at least quash the Administration's imperial dreams and force the kind of soul searching of United States' policies that is a major goal of the movement. But this outcome is less likely than many assume, and the antiwar movement would be well advised to plan for a third scenario: "Bush Wins." In this third scenario, the war is over quickly with relatively low U.S. casualties, some sort of mechanism for transitional rule is put in place, and President Bush and his policies gain unprecedented power and prestige. From my recent conversations with organizers and their latest pronouncements, it is clear that this possibility has yet to be addressed. Waiting much longer could spell disaster for the antiwar movement. [. . .] In such a scenario, especially if there is no major upsurge in domestic terrorism, the antiwar movement will find itself publicly discredited and politically marginalized; remember the Y2K dooms-dayers?A "protracted and bloody war that destabilizes the Middle East and increases terrorism" is preferable to a war that "is over quickly with relatively low U.S. casualties, some sort of mechanism for transitional rule is put in place, and President Bush and his policies gain unprecedented power and prestige"? Really? And the only reason that this strikes LeVine as being preferable is that LeVine doesn't want to antiwar movement to be "publicly discredited and politically marginalized?" You have got to be kidding me. Even if I were an antiwar protestor, I would like to think that once the shooting started, I would hope for a war that "is over quickly with relatively low U.S. casualties." How on earth could anyone wish for LeVine's idealized "protracted and bloody war that destabilizes the Middle East and increases terrorism"? Is having LeVine's ideological camp emerge victorious in the debates of the day really so important to him that he would actively prefer such a nightmare scenario to a quick and relatively bloodless American military victory? And why is LeVine not willing to merely let the chips fall where they may? He stated his views on the war. Others--like me--have made arguments in opposition to LeVine's antiwar stance. If there indeed is a war, and it ends quickly with low American casualties, shouldn't LeVine be intellectually honest enough to admit that his side missed the boat, instead of merely--and blindly--arguing "My ideology, right or wrong"? LeVine's statement is a horrible one to make. Not only is he entirely closed-minded to the concept that he may be wrong about the war, not only does he fail to understand that the scenario he is afraid of will not only "marginalize" the antiwar side, it will prove that side to have been in fundamental error, he is so intent on being proven right that he actually wishes for the worst should the shooting start. All to feel good about his arguments. His sentiments are appalling in the extreme, and he should be ashamed to make them. And should there be any antiwar protestors of good faith, they should be appalled to have Mark LeVine in their ranks. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/14/2003 11:42:25 AM ----- BODY: QUESTION: WHAT UNITES THE TORIES AND LABOUR IN GREAT BRITAIN? Answer: The French:
Prime Minister Tony Blair said today that chances of passing a new Security Council resolution and avoiding imminent war were becoming increasingly remote, and he laid the responsibility for the failure of diplomacy on France. Iain Duncan Smith, leader of the Conservative opposition, which supports Mr. Blair's hardline on Iraq, emerged from a meeting with Mr. Blair to say that the prime minister had told him a diplomatic solution was "probably less likely than at any time" and the prospects of military action "more likely." "He made the reason for this as the fact that the French have become completely intransigent and literally threatened to veto anything that is put forward to the U.N. Security Council," the Tory leader said.The article goes on to reflect the shock and astonishment of the British at the fact that the French are foreclosing any and all diplomatic efforts at a new resolution--no matter what the content of that new resolution might be. I have to believe that there will be consequences for Chirac and his government regarding this spectacularly inept diplomacy. Increasingly, the French are putting themselves on the wrong side of history. And they cannot expect history to forget. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/14/2003 11:21:51 AM ----- BODY: SUPPORTING MIGUEL ESTRADA To the extent that online petitions are helpful, here is this one--forwarded to me by the omniscient Mike Daley. Be sure to affix your electronic John Hancock. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/14/2003 11:20:12 AM ----- BODY: IT'S ALMOST AS BIG AS THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY The latest addition to Winds of Change is a delightful one. I'm very pleased to see this development. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/14/2003 11:15:18 AM ----- BODY: BRING ME YOUR FINEST MEATS AND CHEESES! On second thought, hold the cheese, and just bring the meat. It's not often that I get to combine making a political statement with engaging in a gustatory delight. I won't pass up my opportunities to do so when I get them. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/14/2003 11:08:14 AM ----- BODY: THE DIXIE CHICKS AND PATRIOTISM Bill Hobbs believes the band is playing both ends towards the middle. What will they do when both ends meet? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/14/2003 11:06:22 AM ----- BODY: HE SPENT EIGHT YEARS AS THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT And yet, it is clear that Bill Clinton still doesn't understand geopolitics and international relations:
On the issue of Iraq, Clinton said he supports booting dictator Saddam Hussein out of Baghdad and destroying his weapons, but he said Bush has made it more difficult to line up international cooperation for a possible war. Right after winning UN Security Council support in November for weapons inspections, the White House "sent 150,000 troops to the gulf, which convinced everybody we weren't serious about UN inspections. That's how we got into this political mess." The U.S. should be strengthening the UN and other "mechanisms of cooperation," Clinton said. "We need to be creating a world that we would like to live in when we're not the biggest power on the block."So now the presence of American troops indicates that "we weren't serious about UN inspections"? The only reason UN inspections--albeit in limited and pathetic form--were agreed to by Saddam Hussein, is because of the presence of American troops. Or does Clinton believe that Hussein agreed to the inspections out of the goodness of his own heart? It wouldn't surprise me--at the beginning of his first term, Clinton said that he believed that Saddam could change his ways because Clinton's Baptist faith taught him to believe in "deathbed confessions." Such naïveté appears to be undiminished. Additionally, the United States has pretty much moved heaven and earth to "strengthen the UN." Resolution 1441 gave the UN every chance to prove its relevance. An 18th resolution now currently tabled before the Security Council challenges the UN to be relevant. But if an international body insists upon making itself obsolete, there really is little that the United States can do about it. I understand that for Clinton, and for other like-minded individuals, multilateralism, the UN, and other "mechanisms of cooperation" are a fetish that are hung onto in a manner more fervent than Linus Van Pelt's over-dependence on a security blanket. But that doesn't make the fetish justifiable, or make Clinton's reasoning intellectually coherent in any way. And finally, what is with the last sentence? "We need to be creating a world that we would like to live in when we're not the biggest power on the block." Someone should tell Clinton that when great powers fall, they are never treated with any semblance of indulgence. On the contrary, the fall is swift, the fall is certain, and the formerly great power takes its place in the ranks of middling nations that look up to a new Leviathan. Far better for us to concentrate upon remaining the Leviathan than to lay a false groundwork in the misguided hope--a hope that history and the behavior of nation-states put the lie to--that somehow, someway, if we should ever fall from power, we will be treated nicely by the new big kids on the block. Nation-states do not act out the stirrings of a kind and generous heart. They act in their self-interests. And if their self-interests mandate a certain course of action with a newly disempowered United States that is less than generous, all the strengthening of "mechanisms of cooperation" in the world won't stop it. Remember folks: The man was President of the United States for eight years. And he still believes this drivel. You really have to wonder what kind of latent international problems exist that will eventually crop up, and be traced back to bungling that occurred in the Clinton Administration. I don't know about the rest of you, but such a thought doesn't exactly leave me warm and fuzzy inside. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/14/2003 10:51:03 AM ----- BODY: PERHAPS BLIX WILL BESTIR HIMSELF OVER THIS REPORT It should concern him more than global warming:
Kurds are leaving Iraq's northern oil city of Kirkuk in increasing numbers and heading for the Kurdish-administered region outside the control of Baghdad, escaping Kirkuk residents said on Thursday. They said a temporary security clampdown on Kurdish quarters in Kirkuk, which were sealed off on Monday night while troops searched them for guns and weapons, had now been lifted, allowing them to leave. They added that they believed many strategic locations, including oilfields, oil pipelines and a bridge, had been mined ahead of a possible U.S. invasion of Iraq, although this could not be independently confirmed.Maybe Saddam Hussein can now be chastised in schoolmarmish fashion over his blatant disregard of the Kyoto Protocol. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/14/2003 10:48:20 AM ----- BODY: I'VE ALWAY BEEN CONCERNED . . . that Hans Blix would sugarcoat any reports of Iraqi violations of the terms of UN resolutions so as to ensure that he (Blix) would not be responsible for giving the go-ahead for war. This interview pretty much confirms my fears:
Norris: Speaking of multilateralism, do you notice, as many have suggested, that there's an increasing unilateralist bent in the United States government? Blix: Yeah. On big issues like war in Iraq, but in many other issues they simply must be multilateral. There's no other way around. You have the instances like the global warming convention, the Kyoto protocol, when the U.S. went its own way. I regret it. To me the question of the environment is more ominous than that of peace and war. We will have regional conflicts and use of force, but world conflicts I do not believe will happen any longer. But the environment, that is a creeping danger. I'm more worried about global warming than I am of any major military conflict.Given the fact that people like Blix see any American effort to preempt Iraq's development and use of weapons of mass destruction, as well as its support for terrorism, as "unilateral," it is a tremendous concern to see that Blix is, in effect, stacking the deck. He will continue to downplay Iraqi violation in the name of "multilateralism"--just as he did in failing to report the existence of an undeclared Iraqi drone aircraft that could disperse chemical or biological weapons. Any process with Hans Blix at its head is a process not to be trusted. And what, by the way, is with the kvetching over Kyoto and global warming? Is Blix now an environmental czar in addition to a weapons inspector? He's not that good at the latter task--which is supposed to be his specialty. Why should we trust him with the former task? Hans Blix can take up all the hobbies that he wants. Just don't let them involve issues of public policy. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/13/2003 11:34:43 PM ----- BODY: THOUGHT FOR THE DAY Interestingly, according to modern astronomers, space is finite. This is a very comforting thought---particularly for people who can never remember where they have left things. --Woody Allen -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/13/2003 06:07:02 PM ----- BODY: PUBLIC SERVICES RENDERED Reader Mike Daley sends me the following request regarding Senator Bob Graham's decision today to vote to continue the filibuster against Miguel Estrada:
Fox News just reported [Graham] needs more info from Estrada to ascertain if he's qualified. You should advise your readers/fans, (I'm both), of how to contact Graham and not only advise him of White House Counsel Al Gonzales' offer, but to castigate him for pandering to far-left activist groups, operating contrary to the Nation's best interests, in order to be considered as the Democratic nominee for President in '04.Consider it done, Mike. Senator Graham's website can be found here. His e-mail is bob_graham@graham.senate.gov. His DC office phone is (202) 224-3041, and his fax number is (202) 224-2237. Send him a very nice, very courteous message urging him to reconsider his position on Estrada--that's probably the best way to reach and to get his attention. And by all means, if you hear anything interesting, be sure to let me know. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/13/2003 05:28:22 PM ----- BODY: EUGENE VOLOKH URGES BUSH IMPEACHMENT EFFORT! No really, he does! I'm just not sure he isn't being facetious, that's all. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/13/2003 04:40:56 PM ----- BODY: DO THE VILLAGE PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT THIS? Damian Penny reports on a less-than-laudable association maintained by the YMCA in the Gaza Strip. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/13/2003 04:38:39 PM ----- BODY: POLL WATCHING Here is the latest poll I have found on the issues of the day. I like the fact that the poll actually reveals the questions that it asks--something not found in a number of public opinion surveys. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/13/2003 04:23:19 PM ----- BODY: "JEWS AND WAR" Jonah Goldberg puts matters in perspective:
There are Jews against invading Iraq, you know? The New York Times, long considered the in-house newsletter of the Zionists, has actually been editorializing against war for quite a while, while the WASPier Washington Post has boldly gone the other way. Thomas Friedman — America's most influential pundit on Middle East affairs — favors disarming Iraq, but certainly doesn't support George Bush's method of doing it. Eric Alterman, Todd Gitlin, Michael Lerner, Tony Kushner, and Robert Reich are just a few of the Jewish noses I've counted against war with Iraq. But I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find more. Why, just look here. You might notice from that small list that most of the Jews against war with Iraq are — surprise! — liberals. Funny thing, that. Liberals tend to be against the war and Jewish liberals tend to be against the war too. Weird. Weirder still: Jewish conservatives tend to be in favor of the war. Now that is bizarre. And, as I look around, it dawns on me that gay conservatives tend to be in favor of forcibly disarming Saddam if necessary, while gay liberals generally insist that inspection will do the trick. And, you know, tall conservatives also favor war but tall liberals tend to be against it. My God, it's true everywhere I look: left-handed conservatives, pro-war. Left-handed liberals, antiwar. Bald conservatives: pro, bald liberals, anti. It's almost like there's a pattern here.Yeah, there might be a pattern. And of course, it should be perfectly obvious to all that yours truly bolsters the contingent of bald conservatives who happen to be Jewish (as well as a bunch of other things as well). I wonder if anyone will come up with a conspiracy theory to explain my policy stances. Frankly, I would find it flattering if I got that much attention. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/13/2003 04:14:18 PM ----- BODY: THE WEIRDEST PLACE ON EARTH? Maybe. But it certainly makes for funny reading. Poor mosquitos. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/13/2003 04:07:19 PM ----- BODY: MORE ON MORAN David Frum is pithy and to the point:
Jim Moran’s remarks about Jewish control of American foreign policy were of course simultaneously dumb and disgusting. I certainly appreciate it that so many Democrats have bestirred themselves to mumble some kind of condemnation of them. It’s too bad that Moran’s leader, Nancy Pelosi, could not join them: She satisfied herself with a perfunctory, He’s apologized. It’s over. But here’s what puzzles me: If the Democrats condemn anti-semitism, why has not one of them had a word to say against the most extreme and the most visible anti-semite in their party, Al Sharpton? In 1995, Sharpton led a series of protests against a Harlem store owned by a Jewish merchant. Sharpton called the owner a “white interloper,” but his followers got the message – they responded to Sharpton’s speeches with chants of “Kill the Jews.” And sure enough, that’s just one what one of those followers tried to do. He entered the store and set a fire that killed seven people. Sharpton has never apologized, never expressed remorse, never even acknowledged the connection between his inflammatory words and the flames his followers set. And there he is now – an honored leader of the Democratic party. Which leads me to this suggestion: Why doesn’t Jim Moran run for Vice President? It would be a great ticket – “Sharpton-Moran: You Know What We Think – Even if We Don’t Dare Say It.” Pat Buchanan, who left the Republican Party in 1999, might even be induced to deliver the nominating address ....At the very least, we might have truth in advertising in that circumstance. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/13/2003 03:44:45 PM ----- BODY: HYPOCRISY, THY PROFESSION IS ENTERTAINMENT John Fund notes that many of the same celebrities who oppose a war with Iraq, supported various and sundry military operations under the Clinton Administration. The following passage explains why:
Some celebrities are at least honest about their hypocrisy. Comedian Janeane Garofalo was blunt in explaining why Hollywood types didn't protest any of Mr. Clinton's military ventures: "It wasn't very hip."Since when does foreign and national security policy have to be "hip"? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/13/2003 03:29:51 PM ----- BODY: QUOI?!?! Who saw this coming? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/13/2003 03:18:19 PM ----- BODY: NO CARDS ON THE TABLE? The US may dispense with a vote in the Security Council:
Secretary of State Colin Powell said on Thursday it was possible that there may not be a vote on a second U.N. Security Council resolution that could pave the way to war against Iraq. "The options remain, go for a vote and see what members say or not go for a vote," Powell told a U.S. congressional committee. "But ... all the options that you can imagine are before us and (we will) be examining them today, tomorrow and into the weekend." "We are still talking to the members of (the U.N. Security) Council to see what is possible with respect to coalescing around a position that wouldn't draw a veto," Powell said.I think that the vote should be had now that we have gone this far--Blair deserves as much for all of his steadfast support of the American position. Besides, perhaps it will be appropriate to have one vote for the road, before a coalition victory in Iraq reveals the emptiness of the institution, and the UN is adjudged to be completely irrelevant by the international community. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/13/2003 03:11:31 PM ----- BODY: NOT SO HARD Daniel Drezner makes the point that establishing democracy in Iraq is much easier than people think:
Current perceptions of how regimes democratize have largely been shaped by what Samuel Huntington has labeled the "third wave" of democratization, during which states--in Latin America, Eastern Europe and the Pacific Rim--democratized through the internal overthrow of autocratic regimes. But these perceptions aren't completely reliable. For one thing, they overlook the fact that external military force contributed to third-wave developments in Haiti, Panama, and the Balkans. More importantly, though, they ignore the main force behind Huntington's "second wave" of democratization (1943-1962): U.S. military occupation. Allied occupation contributed to a successful democratic transition not only in Japan, but in France, Italy, Austria, and West Germany; it pushed Greece, the Philippines, and South Korea toward democratization as well. As Notre Dame political scientist Guillermo O'Donnell, writing with European University Institute scholar Philippe Schmitter, concluded in 1986, "[T]he most frequent context within which a transition from authoritarian rule has begun in recent decades has been military defeat in an international conflict. Moreover, the factor which most probabilistically assured a democratic outcome was occupation by a foreign power which was itself a political democracy [emphasis added]."Drezner is certainly on to something. Be sure to read the entire article--it could very well serve as an intellectual basis for the postwar reconstruction of Iraq. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/13/2003 03:06:18 PM ----- BODY: APPLES AND ORANGES One of the arguments made by the antiwar faction in this country and abroad is that it is hypocritical for us to demand that resolutions against Saddam Hussein be enforced, when supposedly, the United States is lax in enforcing resolutions against Israel. But as this story points out, there is no comparison;
The UN distinguishes between two sorts of Security Council resolution. Those passed under Chapter Six deal with the peaceful resolution of disputes and entitle the council to make non-binding recommendations. Those under Chapter Seven give the council broad powers to take action, including warlike action, to deal with “threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of aggression”. Such resolutions, binding on all UN members, were rare during the cold war. But they were used against Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait. None of the resolutions relating to the Israeli-Arab conflict comes under Chapter Seven. By imposing sanctions—including military ones—against Iraq but not against Israel, the UN is merely acting in accordance with its own rules. The distinctiveness of Chapter Seven resolutions, and the fact that none has been passed in relation to Israel, is acknowledged by Palestinian diplomats. It is, indeed, one of their main complaints. A Palestine Liberation Organisation report, entitled “Double Standards” and published at the end of September, pointed out that, over the years, the UN has upheld the Palestinians' right to statehood, condemned Israel's settlements and called for Israel to withdraw. But “no enforcement action or any other action to implement UN resolutions and international law has been ordered by the Security Council.” But what if, for the sake of argument, the main Security Council resolutions on the Arab-Israeli conflict had been Chapter Seven resolutions? The problem would then arise that Resolution 242 of 1967, passed after the six-day war and frequently cited in the double-standards argument, does not say what a lot of the people who quote it think it says (see article). It does not instruct Israel to withdraw unilaterally from the territories occupied in 1967. It does not condemn Israel's conquest, for the good reason that most western powers at that time thought it the result of a justifiable pre-emptive war. It calls for a negotiated settlement, based on the principle of exchanging land for peace. This is a very different matter.So in fact, there is no comparison between resolutions passed affecting Israel, and those passed affecting Iraq. And with this, yet another fallacious antiwar claim should, by all rights, be dispensed with. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/13/2003 02:56:00 PM ----- BODY: THIS SHOULD SURPRISE NO ONE Steven Den Beste was kind enough to e-mail me a link to this court decision, which rejected an appeal to block a war with Iraq. You can read the story about the litigation here. I'm not surprised that this happened. As both the district court and the First Circuit pointed out, in order to bring a case such as this one, the issue must be "ripe," which basically means that the matter must have come to a head, thus indicating that it would be a good time for a court to intervene. In this case, the issue was not ripe for resolution, as the opinion pointed out. Even if it were, I doubt that war would be blocked. Courts have traditionally and uniformly viewed the warmaking power of the President as a political function, and have refused to get themselves involved in such matters. The President's powers as Commander-in-Chief have never been circumscribed, and it is a virtual certainty that the First Circuit would decide to obey precedent in this case even if the issue was ripe. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/13/2003 02:52:01 PM ----- BODY: GLENN REYNOLDS, CALL YOUR OFFICE The prospect of a Martian colony may have just become more viable:
Dark streaks on crater and valley walls may indicate that brackish water currently flows across the surface of Mars. New images and analysis suggest the slopes around the Red Planet's largest extinct volcano, Olympus Mons, contain dark stains caused by brine flowing down hill. The discovery indicates that the substantial underground ice deposits on Mars can sometimes melt and flow across the surface. It is bound to increase speculation that life may exist near to the surface of the planet.Anyone want to place bets on when we will have the first manned mission to Mars? I personally think that being able to launch a mission within a decade is not to optimistic a goal. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/13/2003 02:48:11 PM ----- BODY: MARCHING AS TO WAR The British aren't the only ones speeding up preparations. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/13/2003 02:46:42 PM ----- BODY: I HOPE WE SEE MORE OF THIS And I hope that the analysts whose statements led to the rally are right on the money. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/13/2003 02:45:09 PM ----- BODY: READY TO GO? The British appear to have sharpened the sword:
Britain's forces, including the biggest deployment of military aircraft since the Suez crisis, are "combat ready" and could go to war in a "very, very short time frame," military sources in the Gulf said on Thursday. Senior military officials indicated that UK troops could be ready for an attack as soon as this weekend if the order was given. The comments came after Tony Blair, UK prime minister, told Britain's opposition leader that it looked unlikely that the US and Britain would acheive a new UN mandate for a military strike. Iain Duncan Smith, Conservative leader, said this made it look more likely that an attack would be launched under existing UN resolution 1441, without going back for a vote on the 15-member Security Council.The best way to ensure Tony Blair's job security is to have a short and swift war, with a resounding victory. It seems that the British are well-prepared to bring that about. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/12/2003 11:38:14 PM ----- BODY: THOUGHT FOR THE DAY It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us the freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who gives us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag. --From a textbook used by the United States Air Force Academy. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/12/2003 11:27:06 PM ----- BODY: PREPARING TO BYPASS THE UN Tony Blair has been valiant in trying to secure a new resolution at the UN Security Council, and he has done his best at trying to make multilateralism into a viable option for the international community. But even Blair appears ready to ditch the UN, and cast his lot firmly with the United States, according to this story:
TONY BLAIR prepared his party and country for war without further approval from the United Nations yesterday. He served notice that he would defy scores of Labour MPs and millions of voters as he dismissed the idea that America could go it alone. He said for the first time that Britain and America already had legal authority for attacking Iraq. And he implied that if the UN could not bring itself to enforce its will, others would have to do so. Within hours of Mr Blair’s remarks, there were strong indications that Britain’s struggle to win a majority in the Security Council for authorising war is close to failure — leaving war likely within days. Frantic attempts to persuade wavering countries were continuing last night and an American diplomat said that as many as seven Security Council members were backing the new resolution — two fewer than required. But it was clear that the battle could end with Britain, America and Spain walking away from the process rather than face humiliation if the resolution were put to a vote.Should the war be as one-sided as I suspect it will be, the UN as a whole will be a completely discredited institution. And for that, it will have no one to blame but itself. When the body rejects the leaders most determined to help it work and be relevant, it cannot expect to be taken seriously in the future. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/12/2003 11:18:32 PM ----- BODY: DON'T LOOK NOW . . . but a war with Iraq may be more easily resolved than even the most optimistic among us have thought:
U.S. officials told CNN Wednesday that "secret surrender" negotiations have begun with key Iraqi military officials in hopes some military units will not fight U.S. and coalition forces should there be a war. Communications with these Iraqi military officials are not being handled by the Pentagon, but instead by other "elements" of the U.S. government, the officials said. One senior official said some elements of the Iraqi military may have already agreed not to fight. This underscores assessments by both the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency that the leadership around Saddam Hussein is "brittle." Officials have been making that assessment somewhat public as part of their effort to publicize Saddam's vulnerability.I really hope that this works. If it does, then we might see one of the least bloody, most consequential military victories in human history. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/12/2003 07:02:21 PM ----- BODY: FUN WITH CAPTIONS This post could be more accurate than any of us will actually ever find out. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/12/2003 07:00:48 PM ----- BODY: SMALL BUT TELLING SIGNS? Christopher Johnson takes a look at the aesthetics of the debate about war, and thinks that the antiwar side is losing the debate. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/12/2003 06:58:17 PM ----- BODY: NO LOGIC REQUIRED Karl Chang finds a news report on Iraq to be suffering from a logical disconnect. Rather funny, and unfortunately, all too common given the standards of modern journalism. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/12/2003 06:29:09 PM ----- BODY: I HAVE A BAD FEELING ABOUT THIS Here is Lileks on Jedi Knight 3 and the philosophical choices it presents:
One of the levels requires you to get your Force Powers back; our hero relinquished his mojo, and must pass a series of trials. It’s a big training exercise, really, with all the running and jumping and F-key stabbing that entails, but it’s set in a vast temple complex devoted to the Force. What’s missing? Well, imagine a huge church without icons or stained glass or any sort of religious symbolism, and you have the First Church of Force, Redeemer. It’s an ancient temple built by long-gone Force worshippers, I gather, and it just reminds you what a curiously inert concept of spirituality lies at the heart of the Star Wars saga. The character is reminded to feel the Force, use the Force, trust the Force, call the Force before midnight tonight, and that’s fine; if your bloodstream teems with those midichloridians - the Star Wars version of the Holy Ghost - you might as well learn how to make them march in formation. But as you might expect, my adversary is a fellow who’s given into the Dark Side, and that means he’s bad. Why? What’s bad about the Dark Side? Yes yes I know: as Master Big-Ear Troll Doll put it, pain leads to fear, fear leads to anger, anger leads to suffering, suffering leads to psoriasis, etc. But I don’t see any evidence that those who turn to the Dark Side are unhappy in any way. Say what you will about Darth Vader, the man loved his work. Count Dookoo was a merry old soul, in a grimly amused way; the Emperor has the gloaty aura of someone who’s got the universe right where he wants it. He’s having a ball, right up until the moment he gets tossed down the convenient electrified shaft all SuperEvil rulers have installed in their offices. So why is the Dark Side dark? Because it hurts other people! So?Watch out folks. Lileks wants to be a Sith Lord. The good news, of course, is that if he succeeds, we will finally have a competent Sith Lord to contend with. The bad news is . . . well . . . we will finally have a competent Sith Lord to contend with. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/12/2003 06:22:52 PM ----- BODY: I EXPECTED THIS COMPLETELY
Another suggestion comes from former Reagan administration National Security Council staffer Michael Ledeen. And that is to aid the overwhelming majority of Iranians who want to oust the ruling mullahs. George W. Bush has spoken clearly about the need for freedom in Iran. But his government, so far as I can determine, has done little to bring it about. Thousands of Iranians have taken to the streets to protest the regime, at great risk. We should be getting in touch with those who are fighting for freedom in Iran, and aid and encourage them overtly or covertly in any useful way we can. The goal should be to bring the mullahs down peacefully, through something on the order of a broad-based general strike. As Peter Ackerman and Jack Duvall point out in A Force More Powerful, concerted nonviolent action can often topple evil regimes--like those of Nicolae Ceausescu in Romania or Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia. With American forces in Baghdad, we can assist such action and help convince the mullahs that their days are numbered.This is precisely what I have been urging more times than I can count, and it is good to see that more influential people than I share the idea. Maybe some of them can persuade the White House--which at times has been distant from what is currently going on in Iran--of the soundness of the idea. We wouldn't regret it, that's for sure. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/12/2003 05:28:13 PM ----- BODY: BLOCKED BY "THE SISTERHOOD" Attorney Rochelle Tedesco neatly outlines the professional consequences faced by female attorneys if they oppose the political agenda of most feminist groups. Her observations are drawn from the confirmation hearings for Justice Priscilla Owen to join the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals:
The message to young women of my generation who have witnessed these confirmation hearings is clear: Women who do not subscribe to the political views of these few "women's organizations" will have stones cast in their path if they are nominated to the federal judiciary. One of the old mottos of the women's rights movement was "sisterhood is powerful." Yet for young women my age, the new message is that "the sisterhood" is powerful — and will block women jurists who try to disagree with them. Today women make up 50 percent of law-school students. Therefore, logically one would expect that over time, women will eventually come to comprise 50 percent of the federal judiciary. Yet if liberal women's groups are successful in blocking those women who disagree with them, there will be fewer women to select as judges, and 20 years from now, women will still be a minority in the federal bench. The irony will be there the under representation of women will have been caused by "select" women themselves. This is an unfortunate message to women of my generation. It is a message that the Senate could easily combat. The confirmation of Justice Owen would send a counter message to young women, one which tells them that if they are bright and hardworking they can aspire to any position — even the federal bench — regardless of whether "the sisterhood" endorses them.I've always thought that intellectual and ideological bigotry is one of the worst forms of discrimination practiced. It's sad to see that such discrimination shows few signs of going away. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/12/2003 05:10:58 PM ----- BODY: A HISTORY OF CONTROVERSY As I mentioned before, the comments mde by Virginia Congressman Jim Moran--stating that we wouldn't be going to war with Iraq if it weren't for the Jewish community in the United States--do not represent the first time the congressman has gotten into trouble. Jim Geraghty has the details on other egregious blunders committed by Moran. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/12/2003 04:47:23 PM ----- BODY: SIGNS THAT WAR MAY BE ON THE HORIZON This would seem to be a pretty good indicator that military action will likely begin soon. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/12/2003 04:45:15 PM ----- BODY: JIMMY CARTER, TAKE NOTE A Nobel Peace Prize winner backs the war with Iraq:
Former Polish President Lech Walesa, the winner of the 1983 Nobel Peace Prize, on Wednesday urged the U.N. Security Council to back a U.S.-led war on Iraq and criticized the United Nations' "ineffectiveness" so far. The United States and Britain are seeking support for a new resolution that would give Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) an ultimatum to disarm, or face war. They face opposition from France, Russia and other nations that argue U.N. weapons inspections should continue. "International authorization for the United States is today the only way to solve common problems," Walesa said in a statement. "In view of the ineffectiveness of U.N. actions, the international community must authorize the United States and its allies, as its representatives, to take the necessary action." "Otherwise, there will be further conflicts and mutual accusations will weaken cooperation between the nations of the democratic world," Walesa added.Walesa, of course, understands all too well the difference between freedom and tyranny. These words mean a great deal. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/12/2003 04:38:17 PM ----- BODY: WILL WONDERS NEVER CEASE? PART II More amazing science news:
For the first time, astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope have observed the atmosphere of an extrasolar planet evaporating off into space. Much of the planet may eventually disappear, leaving only a dense core. The planet is a type of extrasolar planet known as a "hot Jupiter." These giant gaseous planets orbit their parent stars very closely, drawn to them like moths to a flame.The picture in the story is just as dazzling as the story itself. Check it out. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/12/2003 04:34:39 PM ----- BODY: WILL WONDERS NEVER CEASE? A brain prosthesis? Amazing. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/12/2003 04:33:07 PM ----- BODY: THANK GOD. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/12/2003 03:55:45 PM ----- BODY: YET MORE EVIDENCE . . . that the Iraqis just can't wait to surrender:
U.S. officials said Wednesday that surrender negotiations have secretly begun with key Iraqi military officials in hopes that some military units will not fight in a possible war. One senior official said that some parts of the Iraqi military already may have agreed not to fight. These efforts underscore assessments by the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency that the leadership around Saddam Hussein is brittle. Officials have been making that view somewhat public as part of an effort to publicize what they say is Saddam's vulnerability.All of this is very good to hear. Hopefully, victory will be swift and relatively bloodless. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/12/2003 03:50:30 PM ----- BODY: BEHOLD THE EXTENT OF AMERICAN POWER Michael Kelly puts the issue succinctly:
The historian Paul Kennedy wrote awhile back that the immense disparity of power between the United States and the rest of the world, unique in degree in history, was remarkable enough, but that what was really extraordinary was that the United States was able to achieve this by spending less than 3 percent of gross domestic product annually. A similar sense strikes an observer here. It is remarkable enough that the United States is setting out to undertake the invasion of a nation, the destruction of a regime and the liberation of a people. But to do this with only one real military ally, with much of the world against it, with a war plan that is still, by necessity, in flux days before the advent, with an invasion force that contains only one fully deployed heavy armored division -- and to have, under these circumstances, the division's commander sleeping pretty good at night: Well, that is extraordinary. A victory on these terms will change the power dynamics of the world. And there will be a victory on these terms.Read it all. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/12/2003 03:45:02 PM ----- BODY: WITH ALL THE MACHINATIONS GOING ON IN THE UNITED NATIONS . . . it does us well to remember these words by John McCain:
Many also mistake where our government's primary allegiance lies, and should lie. The American people, not the United Nations, is the only body that President Bush has sworn to represent. Clearly, the administration cares more about the credibility of the Security Council than do other council members who demand the complete disarmament of the Iraqi regime yet shrink from the measures needed to enforce that demand. But their lack of resolve does not free an American president from his responsibility to protect the security of this country. Both houses of Congress, by substantial margins, granted the president authority to use force to disarm Saddam Hussein. That is all the authority he requires.Would that more people kept this simple concept in mind. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/12/2003 03:38:02 PM ----- BODY: DON'T FORGET ABOUT THE BALKANS Things just got worse there:
Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic died in hospital on Wednesday after he was shot in the chest in an apparent assassination, a source from his party told Reuters. "He's dead," the source from his Democratic Party said. Djindjic, 50, a reformer who played a large part in the downfall of former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, was shot in the chest by two large caliber sniper bullets fired from a distance, a police source said earlier.Not good. Not good at all. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/12/2003 03:33:22 PM ----- BODY: DEAN ESMAY KNOWS MY TASTES He told me that I would like this guy. And he was right. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/12/2003 03:29:01 PM ----- BODY: YOU'VE GOT QUESTIONS . . . and this time, John Hawkins has got answers. Personally, I feel like I have answered enough questions recently. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/12/2003 03:27:44 PM ----- BODY: AND SPEAKING OF BILL HOBBS . . . he has some more thoughts on Saddam's training of suicide bombers in an upcoming war with the United States. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/12/2003 03:25:44 PM ----- BODY: "HAPPY THOUGHTS" Bill Hobbs has something to brighten your day. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/11/2003 09:49:20 PM ----- BODY: THOUGHT FOR THE DAY Determine never to be idle...It is wonderful how much may be done if we are always doing. --Thomas Jefferson -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/11/2003 09:40:10 PM ----- BODY: YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, I HAVE ANSWERS, PART II In response to this post regarding the creation of camps of suicide bombers to assist the Iraqis in resisting American military action, Kevin Drum asks the following question:
It's not like I'm in favor of suicide bombings or anything, but.... The Post story makes it sound like these people would be used against U.S. military forces. Not exactly common practice, I admit, but they aren't targeting civilians, and this is a war after all. Is this really different from an American who charges a bunker knowing it's sure death? What am I missing here?There is a significant difference between a suicide bomber and an American soldier who charges a bunker. The first difference is behavioral in nature. If a tactical situation arises where one of the options is having American soldiers charge a bunker, the commander of those soldiers can potentially decide on other options. He may order the Americans to retreat, to lay siege, or to adopt a defensive position and wait for a change in the situation on the battlefield (better weather, increased air support, reinforcements, etc.). In the event that an American commander institutes an operation which may result in massive losses of life on his side, if that commander is worth his salt, he will ensure that such an option is only adopted because to the best of that commander's knowledge, no other option is available. In other words, American soldiers do not actively seek out a situation where they will face near certain death in an operation such as the one that Kevin describes. By contrast and by definition, suicide bombers actively seek out operations where they will be able to kill themselves and take the enemy with them. Suicide bombers do not seek alternative options that will enable them to save their own lives. George S. Patton famously said that "wars are not one by dying for your country. They are won by making the other poor dumb son-of-a-bitch die for his country." American soldiers adopt this philosophy in battle. Islamist suicide bombers adopt the latter portion of Patton's warfighting philosophy, but they also embrace the contrary of the first part of Patton's edict, since they believe that by dying in suicide operations, they will be martyred and will be able to spend eternal bliss in Paradise. In addition to the operational differences between American soldiers involved in a desperation situation, and Islamist suicide bombers whose deaths in battle are Standard Operating Procedure in the effort to kill as much of the enemy as possible, there are legal differences in the way each side is treated as well. Because suicide bombers have to blend in with their targets, they obviously do not wear any kind of distinguishing uniforms, adopting instead clothing that will allow them to pass unnoticed until they implement their plans. The lack of a uniform leads to different treatment for a combatant. In The Lieber Code and the Law of War, discussed to some degree here, General Order No. 63 states the following;
Troops who fight in the uniform of their enemies, without any plain, striking, and uniform mark of distinction of their own, can expect no quarter.An even more apposite commentary can be found in General Order No. 82--discussing the different treatment accorded to terrorists who use unlawful fighting means, and who are out of uniform and bear no other distinguishing characteristics:
Men, or squads of men, who commit hostilities, whether by fighting, or inroads for destruction or plunder, or by raids of any kind, without commission, without being part and portion of the organized hostile army, and without sharing continuously in the war, but who do so with intermitting returns to their homes and avocations, or with the occasional assumption of the semblance of peaceful pursuits, divesting themselves of the character or appearance of soldiers--such men, or squads of men, are not public enemies, and therefore, if captured, are not entitled to the privileges of prisoners of war, but shall be treated summarily as highway robbers or pirates.General Order No. 82 describes to near perfection the calling of the terrorist, as opposed to the description of a conscripted soldier in an organized army. An American soldier will not be fighting "for destruction or plunder," "without commission" (even non-commissioned officers have the possibility to gain a commission), or "without being part and portion of the organized hostile army." They do not change their character and appearance, and they share continuously in the war. Terrorists, on the other hand, are entirely without commission, they are not part of the organized hostile army, and they will, as I mentioned, change their character and appearance in order to blend into the environment prior to striking. Just look at the description of the suicide bombers that Saddam is reportedly preparing:
Most of the volunteers are Islamic activists who belong to pan-Arab groups that maintain close ties with Saddam's regime, the dissidents said on condition of anonymity. [. . .] An Egyptian volunteer who identified himself only as Abu Abd al-Rahman said he traveled to Iraq secretly, leaving behind his wife and children, to join the camp. He told Al-Jazeera his venture was a "God-blessed martyrdom-seeking mission." [. . .] Another volunteer identified as a Libyan called al-Sunusi told Al-Jazeera the volunteers hate the Bush administration, which he says, represents evil. "I am not afraid. I am not afraid. I came here to carry out jihad (holy war) against the U.S. arrogance," he said. A Syrian mosque preacher who gave his name as Abu Izz al-Din said he came to Iraq to attain his "goal of martyrdom."None of these descriptions fit the description of a regular soldier in the Iraqi army. General Order No. 82 clearly contemplates different treatment for these soldiers. And because of the likely lack of uniform in order to blend in, General Order No. 63 likely applies by analogy, thus ensuring that unlike American soldiers (or regular Iraqi soldiers), these suicide bombers would be entitled to no quarter under the Lieber Code. The Fourth Geneva Protocol applies as well, and also ensures that fighters who do not wear a uniform or bear other distinguishing characteristics are to be viewed as outside the protections of the laws of war. It is for this reason that when Taliban and al Qaeda fighers were taken prisoner, they were not afforded the status of prisoners of war, but were instead detained as unlawful combatants. Thus, the differences between suicide bombers and American soldiers in a desperation campaign are plentiful. The Americans do not seek operations where they will die--the suicide bombers actively seek death. The Americans are in uniform and are distinguished from other combatants--the suicide bombers eschew uniforms and seek to blend into the crowd before launching a terrorist operation. The Americans do not fight for plunder or destruction, they are commissioned in many cases and non-commissioned officers can gain a commission, they are part of an organized army, and they share continuously in the war. The suicide bombers aim to destroy (and perhaps pave the way for plunder of the enemy's position in order to gain valuable weapons), none of them are commissioned, none of them are part of an organized army, and they do not necessarily share continuously in the war--indeed, it is likely that there are terrorists in sleeper cells who give no hint of being terrorists in order to better hide themselves from any enemy operations. All of this mean that the American soldier and the suicide bomber do not share the same rank or distinction, not even if both are in a situation where death is imminent. There is simply no comparison between the two. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/11/2003 05:54:02 PM ----- BODY: YOU'VE GOT QUESTIONS, I'VE GOT ANSWERS Via Kevin Drum I learn that Mark Kleiman has some questions for us "warbloggers." Strictly speaking, I consider myself a chessblogger, lawblogger, politicsblogger, Chicagosportsblogger, baroqueclassicalandromanticmusicblogger, and flirtingblogger in addition to warblogging, but I figured that I would pitch in my two cents. Here goes:
1. Assume, as now seems at least plausible, that we can't get the next resolution through the Security Council. An invasion of Iraq without Security Council authorization (or, rather, in the teeth of the Security Council's refusal to authorize) would be a clear violation of the UN Charter, which is a treaty with binding force, and one that we virtually drafted as well as having signed. Is it really our position that treaties are mere scraps of paper? Is it really our position that it would be in the best long-term interests of the United States to discard the United Nations machinery? [Mickey Kaus is quite eloquent on this (12:51am Friday), as is Michael Kinsley; does William Saletan really reflect the views of the warblogger community?]Well, first of all, we would be responding pursuant to the "serious consequences" language in Resolution 1441 that is activated in the event of a material breach by Iraq (of which there have been many). Additionally, I haven't heard anyone state that treaties are "mere scraps of paper." I certainly don't hold that view. In the same vein, I don't think that 17 previous UN resolutions on Iraq should be considered "mere scraps of paper" and should be enforced. The question isn't so much whether the treaty regime as a whole is coming to an end. Rather, the question is whether the UN possesses the will and the ability to enforce its own resolutions. Additionally and similarly, the issue is not whether the United States is going to "discard the United Nations machinery," it is whether the UN will make itself irrelevant by demonstrating that it does not mean what it says. Remember: the current resolution before the Security Council is a virtual carbon copy of 1441. The only differences (as the resolution currently stands) is that there is a March 17th deadline for disarmament, and a declaration that Saddam Hussein has squandered his last chance to comply with pertinent resolutions. Other than those differences, the rest of the new resolution is a regurgitation of 1441. If the Security Council--which approved 1441 by a unanimous vote four months ago, can't stand by those same principles, then the United States will not have needed to "discard" the machinery of the United Nations. The UN will have discarded itself. I can't speak for the rest of the "warblogger community" in stating whether the Will Saletan piece Kleiman references reflects our views, but I can say that for my part, Saletan accurately and succinctly sums up the logical inconsistencies and internal contradictions that are replete in the French and German positions. These countries are not exactly standing on firm intellectual and policy grounds, and their positions are riddled with faulty assumptions, holes, and error. Saletan and others have neatly exposed them. I hope and trust that they will be further exposed once American and coalition troops reveal what they find in Iraq after hostilities have come to an end, and effective control of the country is established.
2. What are we supposed to say about what seems to be the fraudulent "evidence" about Iraq's attempt to buy fissile material from Niger? That story has been all over the anti-war part of the blogosphere, but I haven't seen any reference to it among the hawks except my own. Were US and British intelligence services taken in by a fairly gross set of forgeries, or was this part of a deliberate disinformation campaign? How much of the other evidence claimed by the administration about Iraqi WMD efforts rests on similarly shaky evidentiary bases?This just won't do as an inquiry, I'm afraid. Even assuming that Kleiman's cited story about "fraudulent 'evidence'" is true, that does not necessarily mean that the rest of the case against Iraq is untrue. To dispute the case, one has to go through and comprehensively dispute and disprove each of the allegations that have been made against the Iraqi weapons program and its support for terrorism. Certain individual reports may amount to less than what was once thought--people do make mistakes occasionally (assuming that the story is accurate and the evidence about the purchase of fissile material from Niger really is false)--but that does not mean that the entire case is wrong. On the contrary, the overwhelming majority of the case presented against Iraq has not been challenged in any serious fashion.
3. There's no question that we could conquer Iraq on the ground. But that would cost us a significant number of casualties. So instead the plan seems to be to start by raining bombs on Baghdad in hopes of so demoralizing the leadership that they just stop fighting. As we all know, the smartest of smart bombs is an idiot studying to be a moron: a large number of civilians are certain to die if we really use the "Shock and Awe" approach. Do we really think that's ok?The line about the smart bombs is cute, but it really does nothing to edify the debate. Moreover, Kleiman fails to note that smart bombs are now even more accurate than ever, and as such, the chances of accidentally killing civilians is significantly lessened. The article that Kleiman himself cited mentions that in the first Persian Gulf War, only 10% of the bombs that were used were smart bombs. In an impending conflict, that number would jump up to 80%. And on the likely outcome of the air campaign, Kleiman would do well to read Dale Franks's latest TCS article, which reinforces my point about the increased number and accuracy of smart bombs that will be used in any impending conflict.
4. The peace-bloggers have been making a fuss about the lack of follow-through in giving Afghanistan a workable government and a working economy. (Of course the crop of opium poppies came in nicely this year, making Afghanistan once again the leading heroin producer in the world, thanks to some of the Northern Alliance warlords we just put back in power. But that's not really going to feed the country long-term.) The Bush Administration budget proposed exactly zero for Afghanistani [sic] reconstruction. The previous Bush Administration left the Turks to pick up the pieces after the Kurdish exodus from Iraq that accompanied the last Gulf War. Why should we expect the coming reconstruction to go better? More than that: does anyone have any real idea about what the Administration plans for post-war Iraq? Lots of what I read seems to talk about an attempt to create a democratic Iraq, which (1) sounds like a sick joke made by someone who has no idea what democracy demands of the underlying society and (2) would have to presuppose, even to make the attempt, a fairly long period of occupation government similar to those that rebuilt Germany and Japan. Do we really think we can get away with an American or Anglo-American protectorate over Iraq? If not, what's Plan B? I assume the Saudi offer to take the place over for us will be politely refused. But what's the alternative? Replace SH with some sort of temporary viceroy and let the Baathist technocrats continue to actually run the place?Okay, first of all, this report would seem to suggest that the Afghans will receive plenty of aid from the Bush Administration ($650 million in foreign aid in total from the United States and other countries). I'm fairly sure that any failure to insert money was likely a bureaucratic oversight, which is a far different thing than the deliberate abandonment of Afghanistan. (For what it's worth, this report indicates that the reason for the failure to insert money was because USAID (US Agency for International Development) officials were not certain how much money they were going to request.) I don't know why Kleiman thinks that instituting democracy in Iraq would be a "sick joke." It wasn't a sick joke when the Turks were able to achieve democracy. It wasn't a sick joke when a semblance of democracy reached Jordan. Iraq has an educated and proficient population, and it is sitting on vast reserves of oil--which translates into wealth. There is no reason that Iraqis can't determine their freedom in a fashion that would lay waste to Kleiman's cynicism. In any event, the plans that I have read about intimate that the American armed forces will help ensure order and the continuation of basic supplies and services for the Iraqi people while elections are planned. As for whether we would have "an American viceroy" while the Ba'athists continue to run Iraq, I imagine that any American administration will be forceful and direct, with a great deal of power. It is clear, however, that we will not be kicking out every single person who has anything to do with the administration of Iraq. There may very well be administrators who have committed no crimes and are guilty of no acts of brutality that could remain in their positions and assist in the administration of Iraq (while higher-ups who have committed crimes and should be the targets of prosecution are removed and tried). This isn't exactly a problem, nor should it be. And I don't think that it is as serious an issue as Kleiman appears to make it out to be. And it doesn't mean that we are replacing one set of Ba'athists with another. There is a huge difference between Saddam Hussein, and the guy in charge of garbage disposal in Baghdad. Merely because the latter may technically be a Ba'athist does not mean that he absolutely, positively cannot be kept in to do his job. I hope these answers help clarify where I stand. And I hope they show that we "warbloggers" have considered carefully the consequences of keeping the peace. I thank Mark Kleiman for the invitation to an interesting debate. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/11/2003 04:32:07 PM ----- BODY: A LETTER FROM THE FRONT A Navy corpsman in the Persian Gulf wrote a letter to his antiwar mom explaining and defending his actions as a member of the military. It's excellent and timely reading. (Link via The Potentially Bitter, But Eminently Lovely Lady.) -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/11/2003 04:26:23 PM ----- BODY: TECHNOLOGY REFLECTS THE PEOPLE WHO MAKE IT Here's proof. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/11/2003 04:10:10 PM ----- BODY: NOT AN ISOLATED INCIDENT Remember how the kerfluffle about Trent Lott and his statements at Strom Thurmond's birthday party got really serious when it was found out that Lott had made similar comments at a campaign rally in 1980 where Thurmond was speaking? Well, Eugene Volokh has a post that suggests that James Moran's comments about Jews controlling the decision on whether or not we will go to war with Iraq wasn't exactly out of character for him. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/11/2003 04:04:09 PM ----- BODY: BLOGROLLING Be sure to check out Manifest Border, a new blog about immigration law. Very interesting stuff, and well-written too. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/11/2003 03:43:57 PM ----- BODY: EVERYONE IS FEELING WAR FATIGUE, AND WE HAVEN'T EVEN HAD A WAR YET Also sprach Lileks:
. . . We’ve been sitting at the top of the rollercoaster for about five months now. Today I saw a NEWS ALERT that suggested there might be another UN resolution that would extend inspections another three weeks, and I nearly shed my skin. No, please no. I cannot take another three weeks of UN maneuverings, another three weeks of haughty diplomats lecturing down to the rest of us, another three weeks of pretending Cameroon matters, another three weeks of ignoring the fact that Mexico - Mexico! - is holding out. And incidentally, isn’t that instructive? I don’t think Mexico is peeved that we haven’t signed Kyoto or the ICC, and I don’t think the Mexican population is ready to take to the streets to protest the withdrawal from the ABM treaty. I was under the impression that Bush and Fox had a warm relationship. Apparently not. Fine. Mine the borders. Just kidding. But really, it’s gotten to the point where there’s nothing to say. The needle’s in. I don’t care what the syringe contains- if you’re going to push the plunger, push it.There really isn't all that much more to say about an impending war with Iraq. We just react to news nowadays. And I wish the whole thing would be resolved already so that we will be able to move on to new, and hopefully better things. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/11/2003 03:39:49 PM ----- BODY: LARRY LESSIG IS BACK Go over, read, and say hello. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/11/2003 03:34:06 PM ----- BODY: BETTING POOL Steven Den Beste is a gambling man:
Seems like we ought to start a betting pool on three indictments. How long before charges are preferred against Ariel Sharon, George Bush or Tony Blair? Who gets it first? (I used to think that Sharon was a shoo-in for the first indictment, but I'm no longer certain.) A different betting pool would be on how soon before Arafat, Mugabe or Saddam gets indicted, but on that it might take so long to find out that half the bettors might be dead of old age and no longer able to settle up. ('Specially if they're old codgers like me and Bill Quick.) Of course, since you can't indict a dead man, I guess Saddam's going to be off the hook in a couple of weeks.Well then, maybe one thing will go right for Saddam. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/11/2003 03:29:26 PM ----- BODY: THANK HEAVEN FOR SUCH CLARION CALLS Scott Ganz on the upcoming war:
I hear people talk about how queasy [the war] makes them. I'm queasy too. Young Americans braver than myself are in a lot of danger. 22 million Iraqis are in a lot of danger. Millions of Israelis are in a lot of danger. Anyone who isn't afraid right now is a fool. But you can react to your fear in a number of ways. You can let it push you around, let it control your reason, your intellect, and your actions. Or, you can steer into your anxiety, confronting the source of your fear so that the danger is eliminated. We can't eliminate this danger by sucking up to the Chinese ambassador. We can't eliminate this fear by muttering a self-satisfied "Bush is a moron". We have to find the most dangerous weapons and keep them away from the most dangerous people. And when peaceful solutions have failed, you must make the terrible decision to engage in organized violence. And when you make these decisions, you have to think them through. You don't infantilize the debate and talk about your nappy rash.Well . . . no, you don't. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/11/2003 02:55:29 PM ----- BODY: REMEMBER WHEN THERE WAS BIPARTISAN CONSENSUS ON IRAQ? Stephen Hayes does. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/11/2003 02:49:45 PM ----- BODY: THE JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION WARS, PART II As mentioned before on this blog, Senator Blanche Lincoln is thus far the only Democrat to have taken the White House's offer to present follow-up questions to Miguel Estrada. The questions, along with Estrada's exceedingly well-informed, erudite and intellectually rigorous responses, can be found here on Howard Bashman's alternate blog space. I still wonder whether other Democrats will take up the White House offer to present questions to Estrada. Given the fact that Democrats have complained about Estrada's alleged "stealth" nature, one would think that such questions would have come up long ago. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/11/2003 02:41:28 PM ----- BODY: THE JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION WARS Senate Republicans are overloading the legislative calendar with judicial nominations to be considered by the Senate in order to break the logjam proposed by the Democratic strategy of using the filibuster extensively to block the President's nominees. Personally, I'm all for anything that will give these nominees the simple courtesy of an up or down vote. Hopefully, the Republican strategy will accomplish exactly that. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/11/2003 01:23:30 PM ----- BODY: FOR ALL THOSE WHO DOUBT IRAQ'S CONNECTIONS WITH TERRORISM . . . read this. And for anyone who is thinking of arguing that this sort of thing would not happen if only the United States would refrain from war against Iraq--save it. This violates any and all laws of war regarding acceptable tactics to be used in self-defense. Even if you assume arguendo that an American military operation against Iraq would constitute unwarranted aggression, setting up a suicide bomber camp is deplorable, and completely outside the laws of war. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/11/2003 12:56:16 PM ----- BODY: ANOTHER DAY . . . another flawed argument by Eric Alterman. In a post entitled "The Pope's Divisions," which he wrote for today, Alterman says the following:
Where are all those moralistic Catholic school boys and girls who never heard of anyone lying about a sexual encounter before, beating Bill Clinton to death with their Bibles? Hello, George Bush, Mr. “God IS On My Side Because I Quote Scriptures All the Time” is ignoring the pope’s most impassioned entreaties against the war.First of all, making a comparison between war on one hand, and Bill Clinton's sexual dalliances is tedious and tendentious at best. Secondly, "all those moralistic Catholic school boys and girls" have certainly heard of other people lying about sexual encounters before. The issue is whether one can lie about a sexual encounter under oath when the question of whether that sexual encounter actually occurred or not is directly relevant and material to the resolution of a sexual harassment lawsuit. I hate to break it to Alterman, but the law against perjury makes no distinctions between "lying about a sexual encounter" under oath, and other kinds of perjury. Thirdly--and this is yet another thing I hate to break to Alterman--George W. Bush is not Catholic. As such, he is not obliged in any way, shape or form to acknowledge the Pope's invocation against war as some sort of command. Indeed, even if Bush were Catholic, we would expect him, as President of the United States, to take an independent stance against the Vatican should the national security interests of the United States mandate such independence. Finally, to the extent that my opinions matter even a jot, I too am a religious person. And I believe that the Pope is wrong on this issue. Can I say that? Or does Alterman expect everyone who believes in God to fall in line with John Paul II on everything? And by the way, if Bush must obey the Pope on the issue of war, will Alterman swallow any objections that he might have if Bush also affirms his stance on abortion, euthanasia and cloning based on the teachings of the Vatican? How about opposing birth control because the Vatican opposes it as well? Is that allowable? Something tells me that Alterman would shriek with fury if this wholesale adoption of the Vatican's policies took place. So why bring them in the discussion anyway? Does Alterman fully think through the implications of his argument, or is it enough for him to merely make snide insults, and then scurry off to remind everyone just how much he adores Bruce Springsteen? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/11/2003 12:36:31 PM ----- BODY: MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING I really don't get why people are upset about this:
Students and faculty at California State University, Northridge, are campaigning to oust the Army ROTC because they say it targets Hispanic students and has no place on a college campus. "I don't agree with the militarizing of campus," said Jose Moreno, a CSUN Chicano/a studies graduate student who lives in Oxnard and co-founded The Committee on Raza Rights 10 years ago. "Having the ROTC (here) is militarizing the campus." Moreno is one of a number of students and faculty concerned about the Hispanic Access Initiative, which is part of CSUN's contract with the Army ROTC. They say the initiative allows the military to target a group of students by ethnicity.Are Hispanics being dragooned off into the military against their will? Clearly not. Do they have the right to refuse any inducements that they are given to join the ROTC? Clearly so. Do we really need to babysit one group of people to ensure that they do not join the military in numbers that may give a few hypersensitive souls pause? The concept is laughable on its face. So why the protest? Can't people individually work out whatever interactions they have with recruiters who represent various branches of the armed forces of the United States without someone seeking to turn the issue into yet another unneeded and inflammatory ethnic fight? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/11/2003 11:54:12 AM ----- BODY: *SHAKES HEAD IN DISBELIEF* This is no way to treat a head of state. And these are the same people who berate the Bush Administration for supposedly treating American allies in a shabby manner. I just can't get over the disconnect between word and deed that exists in some people. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/11/2003 11:41:11 AM ----- BODY: "YOUR THEORY OF A DOUGHNUT SHAPED UNIVERSE INTRIGUES ME, HOMER." Yet more proof that The Simpsons is a fount for wisdom, erudition and enlightenment. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/11/2003 11:38:08 AM ----- BODY: WHEW! I was quite worried when I read this report. I thought that I had become the subject of a court dispute. Thankfully, the dispute is about something else entirely--but you really can't blame me for being so concerned. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/11/2003 11:35:01 AM ----- BODY: THE PHRASE FOR THE DAY--EVERYDAY Say it with me: Material breach:
U.N. arms inspectors said Tuesday they had withdrawn two U-2 reconnaissance planes over Iraq for safety reasons after Baghdad complained both aircraft were in the air simultaneously. Ewen Buchanan, spokesman for the U.N. Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission, said he was unaware if the Iraqi air force had tried to intercept the planes. But a U.S. official said Iraq "informed us when the planes were in the air that only one was acceptable and the second would be viewed as 'hostile."' He said the inspectors asked Washington to temporarily suspend the flights, flown on behalf of the United Nations, until U.S. and U.N. officials could meet on the incident in New York. Iraq, the U.S. official said, had been told about the two two aircraft 48 hours in advance. Should Iraq be found to have interfered with the flights, chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix, executive chairman of UNMOVIC, is obligated to report the incident to the U.N. Security Council immediately.How many more of these instances need to occur? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/11/2003 11:30:08 AM ----- BODY: I SHOULD MENTION . . . I am writing this blog, and conducting my day in general with a great deal of energy and vigor. I had an excellent workout this morning--running 2 miles, weightlifting, and a relaxing little session in the sauna. I also received a grand and fantastic 4 and a half hours of sleep last night. In short, I feel like Dominique de Villepin. Make of that what you will. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/11/2003 11:16:25 AM ----- BODY: I DON'T CARE WHAT YOUR POSITION ON THE WAR IS This is inexcusable:
Antiwar protesters burned and ripped up flags, flowers and patriotic signs at a Sept. 11 memorial that residents erected on a fence along Whittier Boulevard days after the terrorist attacks in 2001 and have maintained ever since. However, although officers witnessed the vandalism Saturday afternoon, police did not arrest three people seen damaging the display because they were "exercising the same freedom of speech that the people who put up the flags were,' La Habra Police Capt. John Rees said Monday. "For this to be vandalism, there had to be an ill-will intent,' he said.You mean to tell me that there was no ill-will in ripping up a public display? Moreover, how dumb is it to enrage an entire community that worked to bring about a September 11th memorial by vandalizing it in order to protest a potential war with Iraq? If anything would cause a backlash against the protestors, this would be it. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/11/2003 11:13:15 AM ----- BODY: WELL, THAT DIDN'T TAKE LONG I missed the Clinton/Dole exchange on 60 Minutes this past Sunday, but I guess it must have been as bad as everyone says it was if even Don Hewitt is slamming it. I really don't predict this segment lasting long. Clinton is debasing himself as a former President by turning into a TV huckster, and quite frankly, Dole has better things to do with his time as well. Besides, 2 minutes of debate does no one any good whatsoever, and merely reinforces the current flaccid soundbite culture that we live in. I don't expect to see Lincoln and Douglas battling it out over the issues of the day, but can't anyone do better than this at giving us a debate whose quality we can really appreciate? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/11/2003 11:08:10 AM ----- BODY: I FEEL SORRY FOR ANYONE . . . who would have to face this:
The US has made a superbomb which could be used to frighten Iraq into submission. The giant device contains 21,000lb of high explosive and dwarfs the huge "daisy cutter" bombs used against the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Pentagon intends to test the bomb and videotape the results as a warning to Iraq of what the US could inflict. Military planners believe just the sight of the bomb exploding could frighten Iraqi soldiers into surrendering. Tape of a test of a superbomb was shown on American TV last night, the cloud of its explosion almost as large as a small atomic blast.Hopefully the deterrence capability of this bomb will cause Iraqis to surrender. I don't want Iraqi soldiers--many of whom have likely been conscripted at gunpoint and forced to fight with a bayonet at their backs--to die needlessly. I hope that any American military action will be swift and as bloodless as possible. And if this new weapon scares Iraqi soldiers into surrendering, it will be far better for them--and for us--to achieve such a victory through bloodless intimidation, than it will for us to be forced to kill for it. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/11/2003 11:02:09 AM ----- BODY: FIRST THE SPANISH, NOW THE PORTUGESE Everyone is piling on the French. I would dearly love to excerpt one part of the Portugese Foreign Minister's statements for you to savor, but if I did, that would fail to do justice to the rest of the commentary, which is delightful and to be savored. Go over and read now. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/11/2003 10:56:48 AM ----- BODY: MAKING MISCHIEF Jose Maria Aznar is asking the French, Russians and Chinese some uncomfortable questions:
Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, an active supporter of the United States on Iraq, on Monday linked the "material interests" of France, Russia and China in Iraq to their opposition to the use of force there. Spain, currently on the U.N. Security Council, has joined the United States and Britain in backing a tough new resolution giving Iraq little time to disarm or face military strikes. "We don't have any material interests in Iraq...France has material interests in Iraq. Russia has material interests in Iraq. China has material interests in Iraq. We don't have any," Aznar told Telecinco television in drawing a distinction between governments on opposing sides within the U.N. Security Council. Asked by the interviewer if those interests explained the French, Russian and Chinese positions on Iraq, Aznar said, "That's a question only they can answer.""A hit! A palpable hit!" -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/11/2003 10:53:11 AM ----- BODY: PERHAPS TONY BLAIR SHOULD BRING THIS UP One of Blair's ministers--Clare Short--is threatening to resign if the Prime Minister decides to join the United States in a war against Iraq. I think that the Prime Minister would be well-advised to remind Ms. Short about her support for another war in the past. And unlike the current crisis, in which the use of force has been authorized by the use of the phrase "serious consequences" in Resolution 1441, the war Ms. Short supported had absolutely no UN backing whatsoever. As I say, perhaps the Prime Minister would be kind enough to remind Clare Short about this inconsistency. It would be interesting to have her respond. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/10/2003 09:40:47 PM ----- BODY: THOUGHT FOR THE DAY Affection is responsible for nine-tenths of whatever solid and durable happiness there is in our lives. --C.S. Lewis -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/10/2003 09:39:47 PM ----- BODY: TRAFFIC UPDATE 3352 unique visitors, and 4203 pageviews for today--both of which are new records. Thanks to everyone who stopped by. I hope that you make this site a regular and frequent stop everyday. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/10/2003 09:15:24 PM ----- BODY: SO WHAT DO THE SOLDIERS SAY? Here is an op-ed by one member of the American military about the upcoming war with Iraq. It's simple, it's direct, it's too the point, and it shows that said military man has a much more profound understanding of geopolitics than the French, the Germans, Jimmy Carter and John Kerry--to name but a few people who need to read this article. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/10/2003 09:09:24 PM ----- BODY: CARTER-BASHING CAN BE LOADS OF FUN Jay Ambrose tries his hand at America's new favorite hobby. I'd say he does a pretty good job:
A New York Times oped piece by former President Jimmy Carter is so self-lovingly pious and unconscionably exaggerated in its claims that you would almost think it is a parody of his pretentiousness, something dreamed up by some merciless writer for "Saturday Night Live," had it not appeared where it did. The piece is about the Christian idea of a just war. It insists a U.S.-led war against Iraq would be unjust. Carter tells us he is a Christian and was a much-provoked president, that he has spent lots of time contemplating the subject of just wars, and that he has concluded that "the United States seems determined to carry out military and diplomatic action that is almost unprecedented in the history of civilized nations." This is an astonishing thought. It is astonishing because, even if you concur that a war with Iraq would be a terrible mistake, there are numerous instances of civilized nations launching wars against smaller nations that are not headed by genocidal maniacs holding weapons of mass destruction and in league with terrorists - instances of big civilized nations that went to war with small nations for no reason other than their own self-enrichment. And even as recently as 1998, the United States attacked Iraq without U.N. approval, which Carter believes imperative. That was during the Clinton administration, and while the attack was not as extensive as an attack would be this time around, it was no small thing, but included hundreds of bomber sorties and missile launchings. There's a precedent for you, Jimmy Carter. It was just five years ago.Given the quality--or lack thereof--of Carter's "arguments," I always get amused when people describe him as a great intellect. In truth, his forensic skills aere so bad, and his method of argument so specious, that it stuns me to see him even attempt to insert himself in the public debate. One would think that after a while, Carter would become sensitive to the fact that his opinions are viewed with scorn. Apparently, however, he is too much in love with the sound of his own voice to quit making a fool out of himself. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/10/2003 09:02:45 PM ----- BODY: DEMOCRATS BEHAVING BADLY This day has seen Rep. James Moran of Virginia state the following about a potential war with Iraq:
"If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq we would not be doing this," Moran said, in comments first reported by the Reston Connection and confirmed by Moran. "The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going and I think they should."Apparently, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are required reading in some quarters of Congress. Matching anti-Semitism with incredible stupidity, Democratic Presidential candidate Senator John Kerry said the following about American allies in any potential war with Iraq (link via InstaPundit):
"The greatest position of strength is by exercising the best judgement in the pursuit of diplomacy," he said, "not in some trumped-up, so-called coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought and the extorted, but in a genuine coalition."Apparently, according to Kerry's analysis, if your country is standing with the United States in the current crisis, it must mean that your country is either (a) corrupt, and thus susceptible to bribery; (b) wimpy, and thus susceptible to being coerced; (c) whorish, and thus susceptible to being bought; and/or (d) the victim of a crime as a result of being extorted (query: who, pray tell, did we "extort" to be part of the coalition?). Of course, Kerry misses the possibility that maybe the allies we have are with us because they see the dangers that we do (or at least the dangers that some of us do). And as Glenn pointed out, a potential President of the United States should perhaps have the wit to understand that diplomacy is not a tea party, and that American allies should not be insulted in so wanton a manner--especially when they are lining up to help us. Isn't this what George W. Bush is being criticized for in relation to the French and the Germans--with the difference being that the French and the Germans are anything but helpful nowadays? And who, by the way, determines what constitutes "a genuine coalition"? Kerry? How did this get to be so subjective anyway? So there you have it, gentle readers. Today, the Democratic Party was defined by a man who made an idiotic and anti-Semitic statement, and a Presidential candidate who is genuinely befuddled and in a mental fog. If you are a Democrat, you have to hope and pray that tomorrow might be better. Maybe it will. Then again, it might get worse. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/10/2003 06:05:31 PM ----- BODY: THE JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION WARS Looks like the White House may be raising the profile on the Estrada filibuster. This post seems to suggest the same. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/10/2003 05:42:27 PM ----- BODY: HUMOR BREAK Friedrich von Blowhard notes an apt translation of the French diplomatic position with regards to Iraq. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/10/2003 05:32:06 PM ----- BODY: TRASH-TALKING KIM JONG IL This is hilarious. Of course, the hilarity was to be expected, but still--very funny. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/10/2003 05:07:38 PM ----- BODY: POLITICAL JUJITSU Nick Schulz points out that the Bush economic plan is politically designed to deliver the majority of its benefits in states that Al Gore won in 2000:
Whatever the objective merits of the Bush economic proposal - and there's much one can quibble with - it is a striking bit of political jujitsu. It puts Democrats representing states that did not support Bush in 2000 in the awkward position of criticizing a proposal that will benefit their constituents more anyone else in the country. In fact, if Democratic critics go overboard in cutting up the White House's tax reduction plan, they risk cutting benefits for their constituents - and thus their own political necks."Midunderestimated" yet again? Stay tuned. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/10/2003 04:34:15 PM ----- BODY: BATTERING ABOUT THE KNOW-NOTHING Ramesh Ponnuru reveals Jimmy Carter's utter ignorance regarding just war theory. Josh Chafetz gets a very nice and well-deserved mention for his Fisking of Carter as well. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/10/2003 04:24:58 PM ----- BODY: NO CAESARS, THEY The Democrats are not as constant as the North Star. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/10/2003 04:22:09 PM ----- BODY: THANK GOD FOR SMALL FAVORS There is sanity in Ohio:
Talk show host Jerry Springer, who has said he might run for the U.S. Senate, scored the Ohio Poll's highest unfavorable rating in 14 years, the poll director said Monday. Springer, a Democrat and former Cincinnati mayor, was found unfavorable by 71 percent of those surveyed. Thirteen percent had a favorable opinion while 14 percent knew little about Springer and 2 percent had not heard of him, the poll found. Springer's unfavorable rating surpassed the 65 percent logged in 2000 by financier Donald Trump, who briefly considered a presidential run that year, poll director Eric Rademacher said. The Ohio Poll began tracking such numbers in 1989.Maybe there is hope for humanity after all. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/10/2003 04:19:08 PM ----- BODY: AAAAGGGGHHH!!!!! MY EYES!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/10/2003 04:15:42 PM ----- BODY: IN ANY NEW ABORTION DEBATE . . . this story and its contents ought to be seriously considered:
Foetuses may develop consciousness long before the legal age limit for abortions, one of Britain's leading brain scientists has said. Baroness Greenfield, a professor of neurology at Oxford University and the director of the Royal Institution, said there was evidence to suggest the conscious mind could develop before 24 weeks, the upper age where terminations are permitted. Although she fell short of calling for changes in the abortion laws, she urged doctors and society to be cautious when assuming unborn babies lacked consciousness. "Is the foetus conscious? The answer is yes, but up to a point," she said. "Given that we can't prove consciousness or not, we should be very cautious about being too gung ho and assuming something is not conscious. We should err on the side of caution."I suspect we are going to learn still more about this issue, and I wonder whether it will be enough to change the national consciousness on abortion. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/10/2003 04:08:38 PM ----- BODY: THE WHIP COUNT IN THE SECURITY COUNCIL So much for French or Russian cooperation. And in all likelihood, so much for any hope that they might have in being able to partake in serious decision making in a postwar Iraq. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/10/2003 03:53:16 PM ----- BODY: HELP Okay, due to extensive complaints, I tried to change the template for my blog to make it more readable. I downloaded a new code from Blogskins and inserted it into my template. For some reason, the changes are not taking. I'll keep working on this to try and institute the changes, but be advised that I am trying to make the change per the complaints. In the meantime, if anyone can offer technical advice, I would appreciate it. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/10/2003 03:43:38 PM ----- BODY: HOW FED UP IS THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WITH THE UNITED NATIONS? Perhaps this fed up:
Well-connected advisers tell me that if, as now seems likely, the UN refuses to back action against terror, Mr Bush will announce a "temporary" suspension of America's membership, to be accompanied by an offer: if the UN gets its act together and carries out long-overdue reforms, America (and its money) will return. But if there is no reform, the temporary withdrawal will, de facto, become permanent.I don't know if this would actually happen--I kind of doubt that it will. But the mere fact that it is being talked about demonstrates just how unpopular the UN has become with the United States. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/9/2003 11:40:52 PM ----- BODY: THOUGHT FOR THE DAY In all recorded history there has not been one economist who has had to worry about where the next meal would come from. --Peter Drucker -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/9/2003 11:21:16 PM ----- BODY: I'M SURE THAT YOU HAVE SEEN THIS ALREADY . . . but I couldn't not link to Josh Chafetz's marvelous Fisking of Jimmy Carter's most recent asinine whinefest . . . er . . . op-ed. Be sure to check it out--the OxBlog boys have given the world yet another piece of erudite analysis to chew over and consider. Would that Jimmy Carter did the same. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/9/2003 11:00:18 PM ----- BODY: YAY! -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/9/2003 10:59:40 PM ----- BODY: AND NOW FOR YOUR CHESS NEWS Robert Byrne takes a look back at the series between Garry Kasparov and Deep Junior--analyzing Junior's performance in Game 3. You can access the analysis here. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/9/2003 10:49:40 PM ----- BODY: THE PSYCHOLOGICAL WARS This link will direct you to a page where you can read about the leaflets that are currently being dropped in Iraq. Very interesting stuff--despite the fact that a lot of it is in Arabic (which I can't read). (Thanks to reader Debi Carter for the link.) -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/9/2003 10:46:43 PM ----- BODY: WAR AND CIVIL LIBERTIES Arthur Silber is concerned about the state of civil liberties in the current climate. I think that in the overwhelming majority of circumstances, such concerns are overblown, but it is always good to have intelligent and thoughtful people like Arthur around to keep all of us honest. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/9/2003 10:43:06 PM ----- BODY: "PHONEY, PHONEY, PHONEY" That's Israpundit's verdict on a story about the story of an atrocity allegedly committed by the Israel Defense Forces. Go over and check the story out for yourself. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/9/2003 07:50:40 PM ----- BODY: MORE ON THE JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION WARS Editorial cartoons can be so right on the money sometimes. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/9/2003 07:48:36 PM ----- BODY: AND SPEAKING OF SMACKDOWNS . . . this smackdown of Senator Charles Schumer was entirely well-deserved. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/9/2003 07:45:04 PM ----- BODY: A LOVELY FISKING Emily Jones administers a powerful smackdown. It hurts so good. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/9/2003 07:34:55 PM ----- BODY: THE HUMAN SHIELD PROJECT CONTINUES TO FALL APART And Tim Blair is there to poke fun. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/9/2003 07:30:12 PM ----- BODY: NO SURPRISE HERE Andrew Sullivan administers a rebuttal to the New York Times position on the impending war with Iraq. Too bad the Times fired Sullivan--he makes a lot more sense than they have on this issue. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/9/2003 07:17:18 PM ----- BODY: THE LEGALISMS OF WAR David Rivkin and Lee Casey refute the American Bar Association's incorrect assertions about the laws surrounding the capture and interrogation of unlawful combatants. I personally can't even believe that this debate is continuing--the terms of the debate are clearly cut in favor of Rivkin's and Casey's arguments. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/9/2003 07:05:43 PM ----- BODY: HERE'S HOPING THAT A REGIME CHANGE IN IRAQ WILL HELP BRING ABOUT A REGIME CHANGE IN IRAN I think that it will, as I have argued many times in the past, and I think that regime change in Iran is all the more crucial when you consider stories like this one. If--as I suspect--the American action in Iraq helps encourage the Iranian people to change their own political environment, then there is all the more imperative to go forward with that action. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/9/2003 06:53:27 PM ----- BODY: A PREVIEW OF THINGS TO COME? I wouldn't be surprised:
TERRIFIED Iraqi soldiers have crossed the Kuwait border and tried to surrender to British forces - because they thought the war had already started. The motley band of a dozen troops waved the white flag as British paratroopers tested their weapons during a routine exercise. The stunned Paras from 16 Air Assault Brigade were forced to tell the Iraqis they were not firing at them, and ordered them back to their home country telling them it was too early to surrender. The drama unfolded last Monday as the Para batallion tested mortars and artillery weapons to make sure they were working properly. The Iraqis found a way across the fortified border, which is sealed off with barbed-wire fencing, watchtowers and huge trenches. A British Army source in Kuwait contacted me to explain how the extraordinary surrender bid unfolded. The source said: "The British guys on the front-line could not believe what was happening. They were on pre-war exercises when all of a sudden these Iraqis turned up out of nowhere, with their hands in the air, saying they wanted to surrender.Wow. I bet the French would last even longer without giving in. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/9/2003 06:50:39 PM ----- BODY: HANS, HANS, HANS . . . You've been a naughty little liar, haven't you?
BRITAIN and the United States will today press the chief UN weapons inspector to admit that he has found a “smoking gun” in Iraq. Such an admission could persuade swing voters on the Security Council to back the March 17 ultimatum. The British and US ambassadors plan to demand that Hans Blix reveals more details of a huge undeclared Iraqi unmanned aircraft, the discovery of which he failed to mention in his oral report to Security Council foreign ministers on Friday. Its existence was only disclosed in a declassified 173-page document circulated by the inspectors at the end of the meeting — an apparent attempt by Dr Blix to hide the revelation to avoid triggering a war. The discovery of the drone, which has a wingspan of 7.45 metres, will make it much easier for waverers on the Security Council to accept US and British arguments that Iraq has failed to meet UN demands that it disarm. “It’s incredible,” a senior diplomat from a swing voter on the council said. “This report is going to have a clearly defined impact on the people who are wavering. It’s a biggie.”It certainly is. And if there is any sense on the part of other Security Council members, the publication of this story will serve to validate American and British arguments about the ineffective nature of the inspections. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/9/2003 06:47:22 PM ----- BODY: FUN WITH CAPTIONS Damian Penny is being mean. Be sure to help him out in the enterprise. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/8/2003 12:13:10 PM ----- BODY: THOUGHT FOR THE DAY True glory consists in doing what deserves to be written; in writing what deserves to be read; and in so living as to make the world happier for our living in it. --Pliny the Elder -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/8/2003 12:12:21 PM ----- BODY: NEXT YEAR'S FOOTBALL SEASON IS ALREADY LOOKING BAD My beloved Chicago Bears miss out on getting Jake Plummer from the Arizona Cardinals. So now they are going after Kordell Stewart and Jeff Blake? Dear God, we're in trouble. Especially if we have to put up with Kordell. The last thing the Bears need is a quarterback who cries on the sideline. George Halas must be turning over in his grave. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/8/2003 12:09:21 PM ----- BODY: PEJMANPUNDIT: FAIR AND BALANCED Never let it be said that I don't give Europe its props. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/8/2003 12:05:46 PM ----- BODY: THE DIFFICULTIES OF INTELLIGENCE ANALYSIS This article is quite comprehensive on the subject. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/8/2003 12:02:39 PM ----- BODY: THIS IS HEARTENING Perhaps people in the Arab world are beginning to recognize Saddam for the monster that he is. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/8/2003 11:50:19 AM ----- BODY: DOMINIQUE DE VILLEPIN: COWBOY If George W. Bush said anything like the following passage in this profile of de Villepin, he would have been showered with angry criticism:
If Mr. de Villepin has a vision, it is to revive the greatness of France — a romantic view he articulated in his book, "The Hundred Days," the first published volume of a biography of Napoleon that tells the story of the emperor's return from exile, his triumphant march across France and his final defeat at Waterloo. Describing Napoleon's philosophy as "Victory or death, but glory whatever happens," Mr. de Villepin added, "There is not a day that goes by without me feeling the imperious need to remember so as not to yield in the face of indifference, laughter or gibes" in order to "advance further in the name of a French ambition."So it is wrong for America to be a hyperpower, but it would be perfectly fine for France to aspire and reach such lofty heights? Once again, the hypocrisy is stunning. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/8/2003 11:43:45 AM ----- BODY: YOU MIGHT BE A DEMOCRAT IF . . . Joh Hawkins channels Jeff Foxworthy. A little humor for your weekend. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/8/2003 11:41:52 AM ----- BODY: TH INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT AND THE FAILURE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW This study of the ICC by the Federalist Society is long, but worth your time. (Thanks to Nicole Tedesco for e-mailing me the link.) -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/8/2003 11:36:21 AM ----- BODY: TELL ME AGAIN HOW WELL THOSE INSPECTIONS ARE WORKING This just boggles the mind:
A REPORT declassified by the United Nations yesterday contained a hidden bombshell with the revelation that inspectors have recently discovered an undeclared Iraqi drone with a wingspan of 7.45m, suggesting an illegal range that could threaten Iraq’s neighbours with chemical and biological weapons. US officials were outraged that Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector, did not inform the Security Council about the drone, or remotely piloted vehicle, in his oral presentation to Foreign Ministers and tried to bury it in a 173-page single-spaced report distributed later in the day. The omission raised serious questions about Dr Blix’s objectivity. “Recent inspections have also revealed the existence of a drone with a wingspan of 7.45m that has not been declared by Iraq,” the report said. “Officials at the inspection site stated that the drone had been test-flown. Further investigation is required to establish the actual specifications and capabilities of these RPV drones . . . (they) are restricted by the same UN rules as missiles, which limit their range to 150km (92.6 miles).This only serves to make the Iraqis look more and more like they are in material breach. And it is pretty hard to trust Blix if he won't even discuss serious evidence of violations on the Iraqi side in his verbal report to the Security Council. The news about the drone is a big deal, and it should have been mentioned explicitly by Blix in his discussions. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/7/2003 10:57:30 PM ----- BODY: THOUGHT FOR THE DAY If I were to wish for anything, I should not wish for wealth and power, but for the passionate sense of potential -- for the eye which, ever young and ardent, sees the possible. Pleasure disappoints; possibility never. --Søren Kierkegaard -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/7/2003 10:54:37 PM ----- BODY: GIVE THE TROOPS YOUR SUPPORT This site is terrific for supporting American soldiers--either through an electronic postcard, or even through a PayPal donation. Be sure to pay it a visit soon. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/7/2003 07:09:57 PM ----- BODY: THE BBC IS FULL OF IT Andrew Sullivan explains why. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/7/2003 06:26:42 PM ----- BODY: NOT-AT-ALL-SHOCKING NEWS It should surprise precisely no one that Lileks has a wrap-up of last night's press conference that he delivers with his usual precision and eloquence. And if you scroll down, you'll find that Gnat is a genius. Again, no surprise whatsoever. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/7/2003 06:09:31 PM ----- BODY: I REALLY DO FIND BOLLYWOOD TO BE INTERESTING And no one should think that I am providing this link in order to curry favor (pardon the pun) with a certain very attractive fan of Asian films. "Curry favor." I kill myself. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/7/2003 06:04:44 PM ----- BODY: THANK HEAVENS FOR SMALL FAVORS It's nice to find that from time to time, the legal world is capable of rational decisions. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/7/2003 05:38:16 PM ----- BODY: "SHOCK AND AWE" Dale Franks provides an informed preview of what a war with Iraq will look like. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/7/2003 05:30:05 PM ----- BODY: NAVEL GAZING James Miller discusses the relationship that may develop between blogging and Big Media now that Google has moved into the blogging world. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/7/2003 05:12:50 PM ----- BODY: THE JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION WARS, PART II And people complain about a conservative opinion-generating infrastructure? Check this out. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/7/2003 04:57:46 PM ----- BODY: A JUST WAR My former Constitutional law professor is pretty much right on the money. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/7/2003 04:42:35 PM ----- BODY: MATH JOKES The following is my favorite:
If you can solve a literal equation And rationalise denominator surds, Do grouping factors (with a transformation) And state the factor theorem in words; If you can plot the graph of any function And do a long division (with gaps), Or square binomials without compunction Or work cube roos with logs without mishaps. If you possess a sound and clear-cut notion Of interest sums with P and I unknown; If you can find the speed of trains in motion, Given some lengths and "passing-times" alone; If you can play with R (both big and little) And feel at home with l (or h) and Pi, And learn by cancellation how to whittle Your fractions down till they delight the eye. If you can recognise the segment angles Both at the centre and circumference; If you can spot equivalent triangles And Friend Pythagoras (his power's immmense); If you can see that equiangularity And congruence are two things and not one, You may pick up a mark or two in charity And, what is more, you may squeeze through, my son.I'm moved to tears. Rudyard Kipling, call your office. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/7/2003 04:35:11 PM ----- BODY: THE JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION WARS Well, duh. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/7/2003 03:58:38 PM ----- BODY: WHOEVER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS . . . should be killed slowly and painfully:
Shortly after three o'clock on a hot afternoon 37-year-old Nazif Mamik Tofik, an Iraqi Kurd, approached the border post carrying two five-gallon canisters of fuel. She hoped to cross to the Kurdish-controlled side and sell them for a pound or two, which would help feed her eight hungry children. As she stepped up to the Iraqi checkpoint, a military policeman suddenly pulled a knife, slashed open the flimsy plastic containers and splashed petrol all over her. Then the head of the Iraqi border guard casually walked up to her, pulled a lighter from his pocket and set her ablaze. Soaked in fuel, she began to burn like a torch. That was on Monday afternoon. Yesterday Nazif lay in Sulaimania emergency hospital, on the Iraqi side, whimpering with pain. She had third degree burns and doctors said she was lucky to be alive. A packet of blood hung on a metal stand above her ravaged body. The drip was inserted into her neck as her lower arms were too badly burnt to put it into her wrist. To ease the pain bedclothes would have caused, an aluminium cage had been placed over her body and covered by a blanket. In a faltering voice, she said: "They said absolutely nothing, just looked at me with hatred. Then they set me alight. My whole body was in flames. I can't describe the pain.Barbarians. Despicable, disgusting barbarians. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/7/2003 03:38:53 PM ----- BODY: WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' FREE EXPRESSION AROUND HERE! This report, which discusses the upcoming "Point/Counterpoint" section on 60 Minutes that will involve Bill Clinton and Bob Dole, carries the following passage:
Asked if it was unseemly for a former president to have such a high television profile -- and to criticize President Bush -- Clinton said that "it's a matter of public record" that he has "expressed my differences with the current administration" on such issues as the Kyoto global-warming treaty. "If I get up and tie my shoes in the morning, someone criticizes me. This will enable Rush Limbaugh to help raise another $45 million for groups I don't agree with." Limbaugh, who says he almost never engages in fundraising, was quick to slam Clinton on his radio show. "The stuff people really want to hear Bill Clinton address will not even be brought up -- Juanita Broaddrick (who accused him of a 1978 sexual assault), North Korea, contempt-of-court citations. . . . This is just more of the Bill Clinton rehabilitation legacy tour," Limbaugh said. Former Clinton spokesman Joe Lockhart said that Limbaugh should "keep his mouth shut" and that the debates are "just one way to continue being part of the public service system," in addition to Clinton's global work on AIDS and other issues.I hold no brief whatsoever for Rush Limbaugh. I never listen to him on the radio, and if I ever catch him on TV--which is rare--it is by accident. I just want to know who Joe Lockhart is to tell Limbaugh--or any other Clinton critic, for that matter--to shut up. Whiny Clinton allies should recall that it was Bill Clinton's idea--no one else's--to make him a public figure by running for, and winning the Presidency. As such, he is, and will remain fair game for commentary--whether that commentary comes from friends or foes. President Bush faces the same situation, and is not nearly as pathetic in complaining about it. It was Bill Clinton who decided to lie under oath, and decided to turn the Oval Office into something akin to a strip club. It was Bill Clinton who embarrassed himself, embarrassed the rest of us, and turned himself into a handy joke for late night comedians everywhere and for years. Rush Limbaugh would never have been as popular as he is if it weren't for the fact that Clinton consistently and stupidly gave Limbaugh material with which to work. Kenneth Starr would never have become an independent counsel if it weren't for the fact that Bill Clinton made his work possible. And Bill Clinton would still have an active law license, along with being licensed before the Bar of the United States Supreme Court if it weren't for his disregard for the law and legal ethics. No one else is responsible for Clinton's problems than Clinton himself. He should get used to the idea of personal responsibility--perhaps sometime before he hits sixty. In the meantime, since he is a public figure, Clinton will be commented upon, and even criticized from time to time. If he doesn't like it, that is his problem--no one else's. And in the meantime, perhaps Joe Lockhart would do well to keep his mouth shut. We have enough ignorance to deal with in the world. We don't need Lockhart adding to the pile. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/7/2003 03:25:22 PM ----- BODY: SAY IT ISN'T SO! You mean to tell me that there is evidence of French perfidy?
A French company has been selling spare parts to Iraq for its fighter jets and military helicopters during the past several months, according to U.S. intelligence officials. The unidentified company sold the parts to a trading company in the United Arab Emirates, which then shipped the parts through a third country into Iraq by truck. The spare parts included goods for Iraq's French-made Mirage F-1 jets and Gazelle attack helicopters. An intelligence official said the illegal spare-parts pipeline was discovered in the past two weeks and that sensitive intelligence about the transfers indicates that the parts were smuggled to Iraq as recently as January. Other intelligence reports indicate that Iraq had succeeded in acquiring French weaponry illegally for years, the official said.Will wonders never cease? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/7/2003 03:23:03 PM ----- BODY: I GUESS THE SOMBER TONE LAST NIGHT WAS FOR A REASON Yet another indication that war may be around the corner. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/6/2003 10:09:25 PM ----- BODY: THOUGHT FOR THE DAY All generalizations are dangerous, even this one. --Alexandre Dumas -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/6/2003 10:09:12 PM ----- BODY: THE PRESIDENTIAL NEWS CONFERENCE I just saw a replay of the press conference this evening. I agree with the people who think that Bush looked tired--considering the fact that he goes to bed at around 9:30 pm and gets up at about 5:00 am, I suppose that it shouldn't constitute a surprise that he was tired--perhaps the Administration would do well to schedule press conferences a bit earlier in the evening. They are going to be replayed anyway--why not have them occur when Bush is a bit less tired? Then again, the subdued tone seems to indicate just how close the country is to fighting Iraq. I don't doubt that the President toned things down rhetorically in order to ensure that he didn't appear too bellicose on the eve of a UN vote which the United States might still win. But war does have a capability of concentrating the mind, and anyone in Bush's position would regret the fact that force appears necessary. Note how many times the President spoke in the past tense. That, along with his tone, seems to indicate that military action is very close to being officially authorized--if it hasn't been authorized already. If we aren't at war by the end of next week, I'll be surprised. If not by the end of next month, I will be shocked. As expected, Glenn Reynolds has a repository of reactions--both positive and negative--on the press conference. Be sure to check it out. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/6/2003 09:51:49 PM ----- BODY: MORE CHESS NEWS I suppose that it was only proper that an Indian should win first place, and an Iranian should win second place at the Asian Championship in Doha. Given the fact that India and Persia took the lead in inventing chess, this strikes me as historically just. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/6/2003 09:49:39 PM ----- BODY: AND NOW FOR A BIT OF CHESS NEWS Behold the latest child prodigy. Beating Kasparov at the age of 12, while playing Black--wow. Very impressive indeed. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/6/2003 08:16:19 PM ----- BODY: OUR HERO GETS FAN MAIL From reader Bob Greene (no, not that one):
I thoroughly enjoyed your evisceration of that wingnut Eric Alterman and his, in Andrew Sullivan's memorable phase,attempt to prove the Earth is flat. I heard Eric last night on the Laura Ingraham show and did not know whether to laugh or cry. People like him give elitist snobs a bad name.We aim to please. And for those of you who are interested, my two latest Alterman posts can be found here and here. An older--and significantly longer--discussion on one of Alterman's columns can be found here. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/6/2003 08:11:43 PM ----- BODY: OUR HERO GETS INFORMATIVE E-MAIL, PART II Reader D. Shaw sends the following:
The purpose of this note is to point out a couple of salient issues regarding the current statist mentality of the Brits. They seem to ignore the fact that they dodged a bullet when the Terrorists manufacturing, Sarin, I think it was, north of London were captured. My brother-in-law, a new labor party supporter, seems to think any military action against Iraq will stir the hornets nest and subject the free world to a worse fate. He has no answer when I point out to him that he was one subway stop away from the cell manufacturing the toxin that likely would have been used on he and his wife. You see, they live one stop north and travel through the stop where the terrorists were perfecting their plan. I conclude they, like others, are frozen with fear of the unknown, much like Europe after Hitler's Blitz. As a result of this fear they chose to appease, which brings me to my second point. The most important issue to me regarding WWII was not the U.S. involvement, rather the appeasement and inaction that created the mess in the first place. The word "mess" is intentionally used to soften the fact that millions died and have died because righteous people were slow to act. That stick little detail seems to get lost in the debate. Had the world any backbone and acted earlier there likely would have been no need for the U.S. to enter. Churchill saw this unfolding early and was ousted from power because of his advocacy for a strong defense. This is especially important to me as my father spent a year in Italy, liberating Rome and pushing the Germans through the Italian Alps. He very nearly lost his life on many occasions and his unit had over a 100% casualty rate. I am fortunate to be involved in this discussion. In the end, this is really about a political thought that transcends borders, freedom vs.. statism (in it's many forms). We have a responsibility to defend ourselves and a duty to save those we can. It is the moral thing to do, it is the right thing to do and as the famous Texas Ranger Captain Bill McDonald said, "No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that's in the right and keeps on a comin."(Emphasis in the original.) What he said. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/6/2003 08:08:17 PM ----- BODY: OUR HERO GETS INFORMATIVE E-MAIL, PART I Reader Mike Daley sent the following e-mail to one of his Senators--Dianne Feinstein:
Senator Feinstein: Like the others on the Democratic side of the aisle in the Senate, you build a straw man and then demolish him in order to justify your undemocratic and, almost, unconstitutional filibuster preventing the entire Senate, including Democrats, to vote affirmatively on Mr. Estrada's nomination. A few of the distortions: Mr. Bender, during Mr. Estrada's tenure in the Solicitor General's office, gave him nothing but glowingly positive evaluations. Now, however, Mr. Bender, a partisan left wing Democrat, says that Mr. Estrada was an incompetent ideologue. I would put far less credence on Mr. Bender's post nomination statements than I would his evaluation comments at the time he was actually involved with and supervising Mr. Estrada. The private papers and opinions Mr. Estrada prepared for the Solicitor General are just that, private Executive Branch writings. Every living Solicitor General has publicly stated that those writings should remain private and the Minority Party, let alone the full Senate, have no right to them. This would include former President Clinton's Solicitor General. The web is full of Democratic nominees answering as few or fewer questions by Committee Senators, from both sides of the aisle. Additionally, there have been a number of offers in the last ten days from White House Counsel, Al Gonzales: ("He said senators who want more information can meet with him, pose written questions to him and ask questions of his former superiors in the Justice Department. "If the asserted basis for the filibuster -- the need for more information -- is the actual motivation, senators who have engaged in the filibuster should avail themselves of these existing sources of information," Gonzales said" Reuters March 5, 2003) With the exeption of Senator Blanche Lincoln, no Democratic party Senator has availed themselves of this opportunity to have their questions answered. The fact that Mr. Estrada has no Judicial experience as a judge is so off the wall I cannot fathom why you would advance that argument. A majority of the Judges now sitting on the D.C. Circuit had no prior Judicial experience, Democrat and Republican nominees. The Latino/Hispanic groups, whose opposition you use as evidence, are just the ones you'd expect to oppose a Republican President's nominee, ie: the far left activist groups. The largest, and most non-partisan, Latino/Hispanic group has come out in support of Mr. Estrada. Of course the Left wing groups are the ones you Democrat's count on each election cycle to, not only raise money, but to provide the talking heads and grass roots activists to demonize and condemn the Republican candidates. The Constitution, as you and Senator Daschle, are so fond of quoting on a daily basis says the Senate shall offer it's "advice and consent" regarding nominees, including the Judiciary. No where does it say that a minority party can thwart the will of the full Senate. The Senate's consent would be given by now were it not for the despicable filibuster now going on. In fact I find the current Democratic side of the Seante's position to exceed it's egregious conduct regarding Judge Pickering, including the scandalous lies and distortions from Senator Daschle and his cohorts. I realize your conduct has not be as partisan and ideologically biased as Senator Schumer and his lie of the day. But still, by allowing your partisan leadership to gull you into supporting this filibuster you act as an enabler acts with a drug addict. There is no rational excuse/reason for preventing the full Senate from voting on the Estrada nomination. The reasons you are using are the very ones you deny using. You are putting Party politics above the Nation's interests. Respectfully, Mike DaleyExcellent. More like this please. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/6/2003 07:53:52 PM ----- BODY: *SCRATCHES HEAD* These Lent traditions are rather strange. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/6/2003 07:48:45 PM ----- BODY: BRAINWASHING CHILDREN This is just sad. The Palestinian leadership is leading its people to hell in a handbasket, and all it appears to have the energy to do is arrange ridiculous mock trials. And this leadership is supposed to be a "partner for peace"? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/6/2003 07:45:13 PM ----- BODY: PRESIDENT CLINTON? No, not the old one. The potentially new one. David Carr has been worrying. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/6/2003 06:55:46 PM ----- BODY: HAVING TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SITUATION IN IRAQ AND THE ONE IN NORTH KOREA? Then perhaps this might help. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/6/2003 06:42:49 PM ----- BODY: WHAT CONSERVATIVE MEDIA? In news that should shock precisely no one, Andrew Sullivan makes a lot more sense than Eric Alterman. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/6/2003 06:20:18 PM ----- BODY: OPEN MOUTHES, INSERT FEET Steven Den Beste points out the Democrats' suicidal strategy regarding any impending war on Iraq:
After we fight and win, a lot is going to come out about just how dreadful and brutal Saddam's government truly is. Relieved of fear of Saddam's secret police, we're going to see a flood of reports coming out of Iraq containing interviews with individual Iraqis who will describe personal horror stories. We're going to see shambling hulks of men maimed and broken by torture; crying women describing how they had to watch their own children be tortured to death. We're going to see photographs of terrible scars and disfigurements. We're going to hear about people being "disappeared". We're going to hear about mass graves, and public executions, and a lot else. And Daschle and the rest of the Democrats who are now trying to take a stand against war are going to have to explain why it was that they opposed ending all that.As Steven points out, the Democrats haven't settled on a long term strategy of any kind except to loudly and repeatedly proclaim "we're not Republicans!" And to think that people got upset over my observation that the Left is dead. Doesn't this kind of thing just confirm it? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/6/2003 04:50:47 PM ----- BODY: AT LEAST REPUBLICANS HAD REASONS FOR IMPEACHMENT Utterly moronic. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/6/2003 04:27:18 PM ----- BODY: ALL ESTRADA, ALL THE TIME This editorial is exceedingly valuable in putting the filibuster against Estrada in the proper historical context. Check out the discussion on Senate precedent, and the chart at the bottom. It's a strong case that the filibuster is entirely out of order, and unprecedented. Note as well that merely because circuit court judges were subject to cloture votes, it does not mean that they were filibustered. Indeed, and as mentioned before, Estrada is the first nominee to a circuit court to have ever been filibustered, despite his sterling credentials. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/6/2003 04:21:28 PM ----- BODY: "WHAT LIBERAL MEDIA?" PART II Astonishing:
On May 9, 2001, President Bush nominated his first batch of nominees to the federal circuit courts in an East Room ceremony. One of the nominees standing on the risers was Miguel Estrada. Liberal groups quickly decided to fight this 41-year-old Honduran immigrant tooth and nail. People for the American Way thought they were insulting him by calling him the “Latino Clarence Thomas.” Today, the Senate failed to end the Democratic filibuster of Estrada by a vote of 55 to 44 (60 votes are needed to end debate). He could be confirmed (Thomas had 52 votes in 1991), but liberal Democrats won’t allow it. Like Thomas, the hostility isn’t because he’s a minority – it’s because he’s a conservative minority, a threat to the notion that minorities should only think and vote Democratic. This historic filibuster began a month ago. It’s the first time a cloture vote has denied a judicial nominee below the Supreme Court level. In 1968, the Senate filibustered ethically challenged Supreme Court justice Abe Fortas when Lyndon Johnson nominated him as chief justice in 1968. But ABC’s and CBS’s daily morning and evening news shows haven’t done a single story on the Estrada battle in the last two years. ABC’s This Week has covered it (see box).(Emphasis in the original.) Eric Alterman, call your office. Assuming that you are intellectually honest in any way, shape or form, that is. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/6/2003 04:17:06 PM ----- BODY: "WHAT LIBERAL MEDIA?" Well, try this one on for size. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/6/2003 04:10:26 PM ----- BODY: MARY, MARY, QUITE CONTRARY What a confused and incomprehensible little woman. And her readership doesn't seem all that sharp either. Maybe hate mail was directed McGrory's way by angry leftists. If so, I have my suspect on who might have directed the hate mail. Just call it a hunch. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/6/2003 04:06:30 PM ----- BODY: IF WE CAN'T HAVE JUDGE ESTRADA . . . the possibility of having Senator Estrada just grew a bit. I think that in the end, Estrada will be confirmed. At the very least, the President will likely make him a recess appointment if the Democrats don't act, and within a few months, I predict that the filibuster will finally collapse. The question, of course, is why time continues to be wasted on so intellectually disingenuous an activity. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/6/2003 04:04:39 PM ----- BODY: THE JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION WARS The first cloture vote failed to break the Senate Democratic filibuster against Estrada today--Republicans still need 5 votes to break the filibuster, even though they have enough to confirm Estrada (once again, so much for letting every vote count). As for finding out more about Estrada's position, we actually have one Democratic Senator who took up the White House's offer;
The White House has offered to allow Estrada to meet with senators one-on-one for questions. A Justice Department official told Fox News that Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., is the only Democrat to have submitted questions as of Thursday.At least Senator Lincoln gave the pretense of acting in good faith. As for the rest of the Senate Democrats . . . well . . . good faith abandoned their ranks long ago, it seems. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/6/2003 03:54:55 PM ----- BODY: BILL, YOU IGNORANT SLUT! The comic value of this story is just too much for words. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/6/2003 03:41:40 PM ----- BODY: IF THIS KEEPS UP . . . John Kerry's nose will be larger than the rest of his face:
S Senator John F. Kerry's insistence that he has been ''clear as a bell'' in never having claimed Irish ancestry is undercut by a statement introduced the day after St. Patrick's Day 17 years ago in which he identified himself as Irish-American. ''For those of us who are fortunate to share an Irish ancestory, we take great pride in the contributions that Irish-Americans, from the time of the Revolutionary War to the present, have made to building a strong and vibrant nation,'' Kerry told Senate colleagues in a March 18, 1986 statement. Kerry's remarks, recorded in the Congressional Record, were part of his introduction of a St. Patrick's Day message by then-Boston mayor Raymond L. Flynn that the senator wanted printed in the publication. Kelley Benander, a Kerry aide, said the senator did not make the statement in person, but rather his staff prepared a written statement that was submitted to the clerk for recording. She said Kerry never saw the statement.This isn't the biggest deal in the world, but it does lead to the question of why Kerry would allow himself to be tripped up by something so easily verifiable. Maybe this story doesn't show Kerry to be a congenital liar. But it certainly does show him to be stupid. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/6/2003 03:38:29 PM ----- BODY: MAYBE IT'S JUST ME . . . but I would not be surprised if somehow, it was found that this violates the laws of war. At the very least, it serves to demonstrate just how reprehensible the Iraqi regime really is. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/6/2003 03:34:58 PM ----- BODY: YET ANOTHER STORY I NEVER THOUGHT I WOULD LIVE TO SEE The U.S. is considering withdrawing troops from South Korea. Assuming that the South Koreans can actually defend their country, I wouldn't mind this move that much. I just doubt that they will be able to defend their country by themselves. I could be wrong, of course, and I don't know much about the defense issue on the Korean Peninsula, but something about Rumsfeld's claim that th South Koreans can provide front-end defense for their own country doesn't sit right with me. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/5/2003 11:42:59 PM ----- BODY: THOUGHT FOR THE DAY Look well into thyself; there is a source of strength which will always spring up if thou wilt always look there. --Marcus Aurelius Antoninus -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/5/2003 06:39:16 PM ----- BODY: THE JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION WARS Never let it be said that the White House hasn't given the Democrats plenty of opportunities to question Estrada about his views. Yet anoter opportunity was afforded today:
The Bush administration on Wednesday offered Senate Democrats another opportunity to ask questions of conservative lawyer Miguel Estrada a day ahead of a showdown vote on Capitol Hill aimed at breaking the deadlock on his nomination to a federal judgeship. Senate Democrats have not accepted repeated offers to ask questions of Estrada after they complained he had refused to answer a number of questions at a confirmation hearing in 2002, which they said made him a "stealth candidate." The Democrats are fighting Estrada's nomination through a vote-blocking filibuster in a battle that is seen as a possible dress rehearsal for Bush's first U.S. Supreme Court nominee, who could be Estrada, if he wins the seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. "We are deeply disappointed by and do not understand the near-uniform lack of response thus far to my suggestion of ways in which senators could gather more information about Mr. Estrada," White House counsel Al Gonzales told Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle in a letter.Needless to say, Gonzales isn't the only one puzzled. (Link via Howard Bashman.) -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/5/2003 06:34:14 PM ----- BODY: FUN WITH CAPTIONS! Go play now. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/5/2003 06:28:58 PM ----- BODY: THE DUMBEST MEMBER OF CONGRESS NEXT TO PATTY MURRAY Meet Marcy Kaptur:
When America "cast off monarchical Britain" in 1776, it involved the help of many religious people who had fled repression in other countries, the 11-term Toledo congressman said. Among the nontraditional American revolutionaries were the Green Mountain Boys, a patriot militia organized in 1770 in Bennington, Vt., to confront British forces, [Kaptur] said. "One could say that Osama bin Laden and these non-nation-state fighters with religious purpose are very similar to those kind of atypical revolutionaries that helped to cast off the British crown," Miss Kaptur said.Why? Because they both mentioned God at some point? Well then, let me demonstrate my "similarity" with Osama bin Laden: God Almighty, how stupid is Marcy Kaptur? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/5/2003 06:23:52 PM ----- BODY: IT'S HAPPENING God willing, it will be short, decisive, and involve as few lives lost as humanly possible. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/5/2003 06:09:20 PM ----- BODY: MORE HUMOR Once again, life imitates The Onion. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/5/2003 06:06:13 PM ----- BODY: HUMOR BREAK FOR THE DAY This is quite funny. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/5/2003 05:46:17 PM ----- BODY: MOST DISPLEASED A.C. Douglas is quite emphatically unhappy with the way in which the Bush Administration has managed war preparations with Iraq. As I've said before, I take a more optimistic view of how things have progressed. Besides, I'm not entirely sure that the Administration would have been able to go into Iraq "without so much as a single voice of serious (as opposed to pro forma) protest from our international friends, real or of the convenience sort, and not a single voice of serious protest from the Congress and the U.S. populace, lunatics of the Chomsky sort, and airheads of the Hollywood sort excepted." Almost immediately after September 11th, various factions both here and abroad began to try to make clear distinctions between any sort of action in Afghanistan (largely considered justified because that was where al Qaeda was basing its operations) and Iraq (which many people saw and still see as removed from the war on terrorism--a conclusion with which I heartily disagree). Additionally, I disagree with A.C.'s view that the decision to institute regime change in Iraq is "sinisterly Hitlerian." Hitler did not introduce the precedent of changing the regime of a country whose regime is a clear and present danger to another country's security. The Allies in World War II pursued this policy with the Axis powers. The European allies pursued this exact policy with Napoleon. The Romans pursued it with their enemies, and the Greeks pursued it with the Persian Empire (sad to say). This is well-trod ground, and it is my view that if a regime presents a clear and present danger, there are significant historical precedents above and beyond anything "Hitlerian" that could justify regime change. Indeed, the American policy is more Augustinian than Hitlerian, in that it invokes, as Jean Bethke Elshtain has eloquently argued, the concept of a just war, which contemplate both security concerns, and the liberation of the Iraqi people--the latter concept being viewed as equally "sinister" by A.C.:
What are the occasions when war becomes necessary? For St. Augustine, the most potent justification is the protection of innocents from certain harm. If one has compelling evidence that harm will come to noncombatants, and that this harm is grave and substantial, neighbor love may require a resort to arms. The potential harm might be directed at one's own civilians, or it might involve the noncombatants of another country. It is better to put one's own combatants in danger than to stand by as the innocent are slaughtered. All the people killed on Sept. 11, 2001, were innocents in the just war sense - noncombatants whose only crime was going to work or boarding an airplane on that horrible day. There is certainly no barrier within the just war tradition against trying to prevent future harm of that sort, for it is clear and it is imminent. [. . .] If, as some argue, the state is the sole arbiter of its own affairs, your stance is likely to be one of extreme caution when it comes to a preemptive strike. In my view, however, just war demands that we see a sovereign state as an actor that either does what states are supposed to do - provide basic civic peace, rule of law, and security for citizens - or does not. When a state destroys or is prepared to destroy its own citizens and to propel its violence outside its own borders, it becomes a criminal entity. Under just war theory, states themselves must often come under severe moral scrutiny. In other words, a state's right to direct its own affairs is not, and has never been, absolute. It may forfeit that right if it commits aggression against another state (as Saddam did against Kuwait), or if it harms in substantial and grave ways its own people or a group of its own people (as Saddam did when he used chemical weapons against the Iraqi Kurds), or if it provides substantial and essential material support to others who wish to inflict such harms (as Saddam allegedly did by supporting Osama bin Laden, whose ''fatwas'' call for the murder of all Americans, wherever they are found). [. . .] When critics bemoan the current administration's alleged unilateralism, they seem to be operating under a peculiar double standard. The United States, working around the clock to secure support for the preventive use of force to disarm the Iraqi regime, is accused of egregious unilateralism. But a state -Iraq - that has behaved and continues to behave unilaterally in defiance of the international community's various and repeated resolutions is let off the hook. Why? Here America's responsibility as the world's great superpower comes in to play. We look back, as we should, with shame at our inaction (and that of the international community) while Bosnian Muslims and Rwandan Tutsis were being slaughtered. In violation of the just war framework, the cries of the innocent went unheard or unheeded. Of course, no administration can protect all Americans everywhere at every point in time. No country or international body can protect all civilians everywhere at every point in time from being preyed upon by the ruthless. That is utopian, and the just war tradition cautions against such utopianism and overreach. But it also insists that those who have the power to stop the mass killing of innocents may well be obliged to do so. In the days and weeks ahead these are the considerations I will weigh as I reflect on the use of force against Iraq - should Iraq defy the UN, and history suggests it will. Our great power brings with it a solemn responsibility. That responsibility isn't limited to protecting the citizens of the United States alone. There is an underlying strain of isolationism in much of the current debate. Again and again an image of ''Fortress America'' emerges as we are enjoined not to meddle abroad. Much of this discussion is partisan, of course, as the argument turns on which administration is doing the alleged meddling. But much of it implies a retreat within our borders. Sovereignty trumps other concerns for those who espouse a kind of quasi-isolationism. Justice falls by the wayside in such preachments. The Iraqi victims of Saddam Hussein are not considered worthy of serious consideration. But just war theory demands that we consider them, as well as Saddam's potential victims outside Iraq. That is why we must put relentless pressure on him to conform to UN resolutions, and, if he fails to do so, insist that he pay the consequences - not because we want a war but because force can sometimes be put at the behest of a more just international order.(Emphasis mine). Note that Elshtain accurately and justifiably brings up Augustine's melding of security concerns along with concerns about human rights in discussing the Augustinian concept of just war, and arguing that it applies in this situation. Note as well her statement that states cannot merely conduct their affairs heedless of certain basic international norms. Saddam Hussein has violated those norms. Indeed, while I am concerned about invoking Godwin's Law, I'll point out, as long as Hitler has been brought into the argument, that he would have been empathetic to those violations committed by Saddam. Augustine would have been shocked and appalled, and it is Augustine's philosophy that leaves many fingerprints across the Bush Administration's foreign policy. I know that A.C. is as disgusted as I am with the human rights violations and violations of international sovereignty that have been engaged in by Saddam's regime, but I bring all of this up in order to counter his argument that current Administration goals do not have an honorable history. On the contrary, they are quite well sanctified by the intellectual history of the Western World. Finally, I don't particularly think, as A.C. does, that the United States has "unnecessarily made more enemies along the way." Robert Kagan has been particularly good at demonstrating that the differences between the United States and some of its ostensible European allies are the result not of specific Bush Administration policies, but rather because of the macro-level relations between the countries. His words are worth heeding:
. . . The United States and Europe are fundamentally different today. Powell and Rumsfeld have more in common than do Powell and Hubert Védrine or even Jack Straw. When it comes to the use of force, mainstream American Democrats have more in common with Republicans than they do with most European Socialists and Social Democrats. During the 1990s even American liberals were more willing to resort to force and were more Manichean in their perception of the world than most of their European counterparts. The Clinton administration bombed Iraq, as well as Afghanistan and Sudan. European governments, it is safe to say, would not have done so. Whether they would have bombed even Belgrade in 1999, had the U.S. not forced their hand, is an interesting question. What is the source of these differing strategic perspectives? The question has received too little attention in recent years, either because foreign policy intellectuals and policymakers on both sides of the Atlantic have denied the existence of a genuine difference or because those who have pointed to the difference, especially in Europe, have been more interested in assailing the United States than in understanding why the United States acts as it does —or, for that matter, why Europe acts as it does. It is past time to move beyond the denial and the insults and to face the problem head-on. Despite what many Europeans and some Americans believe, these differences in strategic culture do not spring naturally from the national characters of Americans and Europeans. After all, what Europeans now consider their more peaceful strategic culture is, historically speaking, quite new. It represents an evolution away from the very different strategic culture that dominated Europe for hundreds of years and at least until World War I. The European governments — and peoples — who enthusiastically launched themselves into that continental war believed in machtpolitik. While the roots of the present European worldview, like the roots of the European Union itself, can be traced back to the Enlightenment, Europe’s great-power politics for the past 300 years did not follow the visionary designs of the philosophes and the physiocrats. As for the United States, there is nothing timeless about the present heavy reliance on force as a tool of international relations, nor about the tilt toward unilateralism and away from a devotion to international law. Americans are children of the Enlightenment, too, and in the early years of the republic were more faithful apostles of its creed. America’s eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century statesmen sounded much like the European statesmen of today, extolling the virtues of commerce as the soothing balm of international strife and appealing to international law and international opinion over brute force. The young United States wielded power against weaker peoples on the North American continent, but when it came to dealing with the European giants, it claimed to abjure power and assailed as atavistic the power politics of the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century European empires. Two centuries later, Americans and Europeans have traded places — and perspectives. Partly this is because in those 200 years, but especially in recent decades, the power equation has shifted dramatically: When the United States was weak, it practiced the strategies of indirection, the strategies of weakness; now that the United States is powerful, it behaves as powerful nations do. When the European great powers were strong, they believed in strength and martial glory. Now, they see the world through the eyes of weaker powers. These very different points of view, weak versus strong, have naturally produced differing strategic judgments, differing assessments of threats and of the proper means of addressing threats, and even differing calculations of interest. But this is only part of the answer. For along with these natural consequences of the transatlantic power gap, there has also opened a broad ideological gap. Europe, because of its unique historical experience of the past half-century — culminating in the past decade with the creation of the European Union — has developed a set of ideals and principles regarding the utility and morality of power different from the ideals and principles of Americans, who have not shared that experience. If the strategic chasm between the United States and Europe appears greater than ever today, and grows still wider at a worrying pace, it is because these material and ideological differences reinforce one another. The divisive trend they together produce may be impossible to reverse.Kagan goes on to point out the following:
Today’s transatlantic problem, in short, is not a George Bush problem. It is a power problem. American military strength has produced a propensity to use that strength. Europe’s military weakness has produced a perfectly understandable aversion to the exercise of military power. Indeed, it has produced a powerful European interest in inhabiting a world where strength doesn’t matter, where international law and international institutions predominate, where unilateral action by powerful nations is forbidden, where all nations regardless of their strength have equal rights and are equally protected by commonly agreed-upon international rules of behavior. Europeans have a deep interest in devaluing and eventually eradicating the brutal laws of an anarchic, Hobbesian world where power is the ultimate determinant of national security and success. This is no reproach. It is what weaker powers have wanted from time immemorial. It was what Americans wanted in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, when the brutality of a European system of power politics run by the global giants of France, Britain, and Russia left Americans constantly vulnerable to imperial thrashing. It was what the other small powers of Europe wanted in those years, too, only to be sneered at by Bourbon kings and other powerful monarchs, who spoke instead of raison d’état. The great proponent of international law on the high seas in the eighteenth century was the United States; the great opponent was Britain’s navy, the “Mistress of the Seas.” In an anarchic world, small powers always fear they will be victims. Great powers, on the other hand, often fear rules that may constrain them more than they fear the anarchy in which their power brings security and prosperity.As Kagan makes clear, the fundamental imbalance in the power relationship between the United States and European countries is more responsible for the differences that exist between the United States on one hand, and Germany, France and Russia on the other than are any specific policies of the Bush Administration--policies which A.C. blames for having "unnecessarily made more enemies along the way." Additionally, it should be recalled that the European adversaries of the current Administration policy regarding Iraq are in a clear and distinct minority, and that 18 European countries have supported our position on Iraq (the support is reflected here and here). So in the end, I feel quite differently about the Administration's handling of the issue than does A.C.. I believe that American policy is winning friends, putting foes in a minority, and justified by the Augustinian just war tradition. Not a bad place to be, policywise. And hopefully, I will be able either through this post, and through a discussion on future actions, to be able to convince my friend A.C. of my viewpoint. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/5/2003 04:57:57 PM ----- BODY: THE JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION WARS Jane Galt has an excellent analysis of the Estrada confirmation fight that all y'all should go over and read posthaste. I hope that her analysis is right, and I suspect that it might be. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/5/2003 04:15:48 PM ----- BODY: THERE ARE MORE APT QUOTATIONS IN HEAVEN AND EARTH . . . than are dreamt of in your philosophy, gentle readers. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/5/2003 04:00:42 PM ----- BODY: AN OVERLOOKED PRO-WAR CONSTITUENCY . . . is discussed here:
IRBIL, Northern Iraq--It is hard to imagine another place where Americans are more popular these days. "We like the son of 'Haji Bush,' because he will fight Saddam for us," a young Kurdish driver tells me plain and simple. Others--young and old, Kurdish or Turkmen, shopkeepers and politicians--echo similar sentiments about ending the reign of brutality in Baghdad. Iraqis inside government-controlled areas have quietly nicknamed President Bush "Abu Abdallah," an endearing name, or "Abu Jinan"--a pun on "Father of Jenna"--meaning "Father of Paradises." A well-known religious leader at the central mosque in the regional capital, Suleimaniyah, says "I welcome even the Jew Sharon if he can liberate us from Saddam." In fact, just about the only people who oppose a war on the Iraqi dictator here seem to be the Western journalists who have flocked to the Irbil Towers Hotel to await its arrival. Why are the Iraqi voices still so distant for the chattering classes in the West? [. . .] This is not simple rhetoric. After all, these people were effectively fighting Saddam Hussein and designing a democratic transition long before Washington warmed to the idea. The roughly seven million Iraqis who live outside the regime's control--in exile, or in the Kurdish safe havens in the north--have developed strong democratic traditions which they now want to transplant inside the country. In the smoke-filled meeting rooms, conferences and workshops in London, Washington or northern liberated Iraq, they have been discussing Iraq's new constitution, the "de-Baathification" of its institutions, truth and reconciliation, and disarmament. One exile admits that they are looking at Germany's de-Nazification, and even at the Federalist papers.No wonder the antiwar protestors try to deny them a voice at mass protests. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/5/2003 03:15:30 PM ----- BODY: IF DEMOCRATS REALLY LOVE JOHN McCAIN AS MUCH AS THEY CLAIM . . . maybe they will be willing to take his advice. Somehow, I doubt they will do it. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/5/2003 03:11:15 PM ----- BODY: YOU HAVE GOT TO LOVE THE BRITS They are the best allies anyone could ask for. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/5/2003 03:07:25 PM ----- BODY: YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING This was the obituary written by the New York Times on the occasion of Joseph Stalin's death 50 years ago today. Note the absolute lack of any moral condemnation of Stalin's barbaric crimes--at the very worst, he is characterized as having carried forward [the Soviet Union's] socialization and industrialization with vigor and ruthlessness." And I thought that the Times was once respectable. Maybe the truth is that the newspaper has always had problems with confronting reality. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/5/2003 02:58:57 PM ----- BODY: VIVA CHARLIE DANIELS! Telling it like it is. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/5/2003 02:56:00 PM ----- BODY: ANOTHER ARTICLE ON STALIN'S LEGACY How there could be any debate about the monstrous nature of Stalin's regime is utterly beyond my comprehension. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/5/2003 02:43:05 PM ----- BODY: TWO WORDS APPLY IN COMMENTING ON THIS STORY One is "drama." The other is "queen." -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/5/2003 02:40:27 PM ----- BODY: DISGUSTING, EVIL, MALICIOUS, REPREHENSIBLE, INHUMANE AND UTTERLY BARBARIC I could use worse language, but this is a family blog. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/5/2003 02:37:01 PM ----- BODY: AH, THE FRENCH . . . Once again, a day late and a dollar short. Thanks for the help, mes amis, but we're already on top of the matter. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/5/2003 02:34:19 PM ----- BODY: YOU CAN JUDGE A MAN BY HIS HEROES So how are we to judge this?
. . . According to his biographer Con Coughlin, Saddam Hussein became obsessed with Stalin's political theories during his time in exile in Egypt in the early 1960s. After the 1968 revolution, Saddam embarked on the "Stalinization of Iraq" by ruthlessly building a one-party state based on hierarchy, secrecy and discipline. He borrowed Stalin's vicious tactic of staging show-trials, and began to discover "Zionist spy-rings" across the country. Coughlin explains that "the only significant difference between Saddam's purges and Stalin's terror is that in Iraq there were no gulags; with a few exceptions, Saddam's intended victims stood no chance of survival".Read the whole article to get a sense of how Stalinism has continued somehow to avoid the opprobrium that it deserves. And of course, certain American groups have not succeeded in the past at disavowing Stalinism--a fact that is clear at every major "peace" demonstration--an issue "peace" activists are never willing to confront. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/5/2003 02:28:07 PM ----- BODY: WE MAY GET THAT SECOND FRONT IN THE NORTH AFTER ALL At least if the influential Turkish military has anything to say about the matter:
Turkey's powerful armed forces on Wednesday backed a tentative government move to submit a fresh motion to parliament allowing U.S. troops to open a "northern front" against Iraq from Muslim Turkey. Chief of the General Staff Hilmi Ozkok said Turkey would be better off in any war than out of it, and argued that opening an extra front against Iraq from Turkey would mean a short war. The rare public statement from the influential general could boost U.S. hopes for a deal with its NATO ally after a pledge of billions of dollars in aid failed to convince parliament last weekend to allow 62,000 U.S. soldiers to deploy. The government has signaled it may table a second motion after its first was narrowly defeated in a stunning vote that upset U.S. military planning. A northern front from Turkey could shorten any war and cut the number of U.S. casualties. "The Turkish armed forces' view is the same as the government's and is reflected in the motion our government sent to parliament," Ozkok told reporters. "The war will be short if a second front is opened from the north."Hope springs eternal. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/5/2003 02:26:27 PM ----- BODY: MILITARY TRIBUNALS FOR KHALID SHEIKH MOHAMMAD That's what this report is suggesting the American plan will be. It's about time the tribunals were used, and they should have been used with previous terrorist defendants (Zacarias Moussaoui and John Walker Lindh--I'm looking your way). -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/5/2003 02:18:58 PM ----- BODY: BREAKING THE LOGJAM ON PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS It's not often that actual legislative measures are enacted regarding the issue of abortion--most of the time, the debate merely involves emotional rhetoric. However, that appears to be changing. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/5/2003 02:15:48 PM ----- BODY: FROM TIME TO TIME, I GET FRUSTRATED WITH MY COMPUTER SYSTEM But I've never been driven to do this. The last line of the story is the funniest by far. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/5/2003 02:12:46 PM ----- BODY: CAN WE HAVE MORE ISLAMIC SUMMITS, PLEASE? They are just so funny:
Bitter enmity between Iraq and Kuwait erupted in a vitriolic name-calling match on Wednesday at an Islamic summit meant to unite the voices of the world's one billion Muslims against war. In a clash caught on live television before the Qatar state broadcaster shut down transmission, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's top aide Izzat Ibrahim departed from his text to zero in on the Kuwaitis sitting across the conference chamber. "Shut up you minion, you (U.S.) agent, you monkey. You are addressing Iraq," Ibrahim said. "You are insolent. You are a traitor to the Islamic nation," he spat out as Qatar's Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani tried to shut him up. A Kuwaiti delegate responded that the insults were "the words of an infidel and a charlatan," as the two sides shouted and gesticulated angrily at each other.I wonder if "yo mama" jokes were exchanged. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/5/2003 12:25:56 AM ----- BODY: SO WHICH IS IT? Now there are indications that the Russians won't use their veto after all:
As a U.N. war vote approaches, Russia is loudly talking up the need to safeguard peace, international stability and the integrity of the United Nations — while leaving the way open for a quiet retreat from using its veto. President Vladimir Putin, ever cautious but determined that Russia's voice must count, is hedging between the United States, which is pushing the Kremlin to back war against Iraq, and France and Germany, which want more time for U.N. inspectors to disarm Baghdad. [. . .] . . . senior officials in the Bush administration do not think a Russian veto is at hand. If Russia backs, or at least does not impede, the United States, Putin could be at the winners' table if all goes well for Washington, which says it will take Moscow's interests in Iraq into account. Russia wants to recover old Iraqi debts and make good on oil contracts on hold because of current U.N. sanctions. Russia appears to have far less to gain if France and Germany thwart the United States in the U.N. Security Council. Top officials who still regard the United States as a foe would be gratified at embarrassing the Americans, but Russia needs Washington's goodwill in a wide range of areas, including trade and security cooperation.I'm not ready to count my chickens before they hatch, but I'm thinking that it is less and less likely that the Russians will abstain. The article is right on point--what can the French and the Germans offer Russia to side with them over the United States? I wonder if we will see yet another impressive showing in the Security Council for the American-backed resolution. And if so, will we finally be able to bury the "unilateralist cowboy-failed foreign policy" canard? It should have been put to the grave long ago as a diminished and unsupportable thesis. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/4/2003 10:39:48 PM ----- BODY: THOUGHT FOR THE DAY Shamelessly stolen from Jonah Goldberg: I’d like to have allies, too, but what’s happening in this world right now is we’ve got a competency chasm – we’re getting really good at what we do, and the whole rest of the world is going to hell in a handbasket. As that gap gets wider, they’re going to hate us more, and more, and more. You have to remember, we are simultaneously the most hated, feared, loved and admired nation on this planet. In short, we’re Frank Sinatra – and the chairman didn’t get to be chairman lying down for punks. --Dennis Miller -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/4/2003 10:08:15 PM ----- BODY: "PARLEZ VOUS ANTI-AMERICAN?" Steyn speaks, and he has a message for the Canadians:
But here's the thing: Suppose those damn Americans aren't "morons." Suppose they really are "bastards." If they're morons, they'll be too moronic to notice the ever widening gap between the U.S. and its northern neighbour these last 18 months. But, if they're bastards, they might do something about it. They might, say, remove the uniquely privileged rights of entry Canadians presently enjoy to the United States, an arrangement that dates back before the invention of Canadian citizenship to our status as British subjects and which is arguably not reflective of our present Ducrosian disposition. If the damn Americans were bastards, they might require Commonwealth citizens resident in Canada, who hitherto have been able to cross back and forth at will, to undergo a 60-day visa application process which obliges them to travel hundreds of miles to the nearest U.S. consulate to be interviewed in person. What's that? They've already begun introducing these things? Oh, my! In Canada, the border is the economy. So, if the border slows down, the economy is sure to follow. Our economic well-being hinges on those damn Americans being morons not bastards.Quite so. Anti-Americanism is not only stupid, it's particularly self-defeating for some countries. Like Canada, for instance. Why they bite the hand that feeds them is very difficult to comprehend. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/4/2003 04:33:23 PM ----- BODY: TROLLING FOR HITS GETS RESULTS I may not be InstaPundit, but I wield whatever power I can. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/4/2003 04:20:26 PM ----- BODY: "MAKE LOVE AND WAR" I urge all women to follow this lovely lady's example. And hey, if you need a conduit for your political expression . . . well . . . you know what I'm going to say. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/4/2003 03:51:44 PM ----- BODY: WANT TO FIGHT HOLOCAUST REVISIONISM TODAY? You can do so by signing this petition, which has to do with the following press release:
For decades, German-born, Toronto resident Ernst Zundel, has been a leading voice for Holocaust deniers and antisemites. From his home in Canada, Zundel distributed Nazi, neo-Nazi, and Holocaust denial materials throughout the world. In 1996, he was declared a national security threat by Canada's intelligence agency. After inciting hate in Canada for 43 years, he relocated to the United States in 2001. Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies in Canada, together with other groups, were responsible for obtaining a ruling from the Canadian Human Rights Commission prohibiting Zundel from operating any hate sites in Canada. Thus, his move to the U.S. Recently, he was arrested by U.S. immigration authorities for overstaying his U.S. visitors' visa and was deported back to Canada. Zundel is now seeking 'refugee' status in Canada because if he is deported to his native Germany, he awaits possible prosecution for illegal distribution of Holocaust denial materials into Germany. The Simon Wiesenthal Center and Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies in Canada are urging authorities in Berlin to suspend pending charges against Zundel. This would remove any foundation for his claim of refugee status and would enable his swift removal from Canada. It would not block prosecution for any future hate activity. At the same time, the Center is also urging Canadian authorities to act swiftly to bar Zundel from re-entering Canada. Join the Simon Wiesenthal Center and Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies' campaign to banish Zundel from North America forever by joining us in urging Canadian and German authorities to work together to deny his outrageous attempt to renew his hate activities by gaining refugee status.(Thanks to the lovely Emily Jones for forwarding the link.) -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/4/2003 03:32:06 PM ----- BODY: WHO NEEDS TO SUPPORT WHOM? Kevin Drum says that three reports indicating White House disagreement with the actions of Cabinet officials and Republicans in Congress show that "President Bush is willing to double-cross just about anyone he deals with if it suits his partisan needs, but now it looks like he can't even be trusted to support his own people." (Emphasis in the original.) Well, it bears pointing out that it is the obligation of the President's people to support the President. He nominated them, and they serve at his pleasure. And so long as they serve, when the White House gives an order, they have to either act on it, or resign in protest. They only deserve and get support when they are carrying out the President's wishes. This is the case for any Administration, and for that matter, it is the case in any boss-employee relationship. As for conflicts between the White House and Cabinet officials/Congressional Republicans, quite frankly, these kinds of reports are written for every single administration--whether Democratic or Republican. It would tend to support my thesis that the primary bias in the media is in favor of conflict. As such, I guess I don't really read as much into these stories as Kevin does. Considering the fact that Republicans are in the majority in both chambers of Congress as a result of the President's campaigning, I highly doubt there is all that much ill-will between the sides there. That's my take, anyway. I report, you decide. Or something like that. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/4/2003 03:07:29 PM ----- BODY: THE JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION WARS Byron York has a twofer today. This report discusses the Senate Republicans' new legislative strategy on the Estrada nomination:
Republican Sen. Rick Santorum has just announced a major change in the party's strategy in the Miguel Estrada confirmation fight. Santorum told reporters minutes ago that Republicans will file for cloture today, which will lead to a vote on Thursday. So far, Republicans can count on just four Democratic votes in favor of Estrada, which will leave them short of the 60 votes needed to stop the Democratic filibuster. "We've sort of hit a wall now," Santorum said. "We haven't had anybody come forward in a week and a half, and at some point, you're going to have to change strategies to make this happen." Santorum said the Republican strategy now "will be to put people on the record" through a cloture vote. Anticipating that Republicans will at first fail to reach 60 votes, Santorum added, "This will be one of many cloture votes."And then, there is this report which discusses the efforts--or lack thereof--of Democrats to actually question Estrada when given a chance to do so by the White House:
For weeks now, Senate Democrats have complained that appeals-court nominee Miguel Estrada has failed to answer questions about his legal views, leaving senators without enough information to make a decision on whether or not he should be confirmed. In an effort to address those concerns, the White House last week invited any senator who has doubts about Estrada's views to send him written questions. The White House asked that questions be sent by the close of business last Friday, and pledged that Estrada would answer them by today. "He would answer the questions forthrightly, appropriately, and in a manner consistent with the traditional practice and obligations of judicial nominees, as he has before," wrote White House counsel Alberto Gonzales in a letter to all 100 senators. So far, the administration has not received any questions from any senators, according to administration sources.No takers on additional questions to Estrada? Gee, what a shock. So much for being interested in "more information." -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/4/2003 02:43:27 PM ----- BODY: HUH? I usually like Michael Ledeen's reporting on Iran, but this column is flat wrong. The Iranian people may have meant to send a message by abstaining from the recent voting in huge numbers, but that doesn't mean that it was a blow for the reactionaries. On the contrary, the reactionaries did rather well in the balloting, and would take wins like this one every day of the week and twice on Sundays--low turnout notwithstanding. Why does Ledeen somehow think that is a good thing? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/4/2003 01:58:19 PM ----- BODY: VERY INTERESTING Behold the latest news from France:
France has all but ruled out using its veto in the U.N. Security Council to block a U.S.-backed resolution paving the way for war on Iraq, a weekly newspaper reported in its Wednesday edition. Le Canard enchaine quoted President Jacques Chirac as telling a small private gathering on Feb. 26 that a veto would be pointless because it would not stop U.S. President George W. Bush from launching military action. "France is doing everything it can, but the problem is that it is impossible to stop Bush from pursuing his logic of war to the end," Chirac was quoted as saying by Le Canard, a satirical newspaper that is known to have well-informed sources.Of course, it should surprise no one that the French decided to be whiny about this issue even as they declared that they won't use a veto. And it is certainly possible that France decided not to use a veto because it already has a stalking horse that will do France's dirty work for it. Doing dirty work for the French? Gee, what a concept. Wonder if it's been done before. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/4/2003 12:55:50 PM ----- BODY: IS IT JUST ME? Or do most other people believe that Arnold Wesker wiped the floor with Harold Pinter? Oh, and would someone tell Pinter that a poem is not the same as policy analysis? It would be very helpful for future debates. Thanks. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/4/2003 12:53:26 PM ----- BODY: THE LATEST IN POLITICAL DEMAGOGUERY John Fund has the details. Good Lord, now demanding that people bring something as common as a photo ID to the polls constitutes the equivalent of a poll tax? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/4/2003 12:39:34 PM ----- BODY: AND NOW FOR YOUR DAILY DOSE OF SCHADENFREUDE Things are getting rather bad for Gerhard Schröder. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/4/2003 12:15:14 PM ----- BODY: BLOGROLLING Be sure to check out two excellent blogs: PeakTalk and Analyst at AcePilots. Both offer excellent commentary, and are well-worth your time. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/4/2003 12:12:08 PM ----- BODY: THE REAL STORY . . . behind the downfall of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad. Sounds plausible to me. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/4/2003 11:53:16 AM ----- BODY: BOOK REPORT The Author of Much has an excellent critique of Naomi Klein's No Logo, with a number of very pertinent points. Be sure to take a look at her review. And don't wait for me to direct you to Jessica's blog before checking it out--it's one of the few places on the web where the writing helps people grow brain cells. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/4/2003 11:45:22 AM ----- BODY: AND SPEAKING OF THE PHILIPPINES . . . Hey, guess what:
Islamist terrorists in the southern Philippines who have killed two American hostages in recent years say they are receiving money from Iraqis close to President Saddam Hussein. Top Stories Hamsiraji Sali, a local commander of the terrorist group Abu Sayyaf on the remote southern island of Basilan, says he is getting nearly $20,000 a year from supporters in Iraq. "It's so we would have something to spend on chemicals for bomb-making and for the movement of our people," Sali told a reporter this week, renewing earlier claims of support from Iraq. The payments, while small, provide additional evidence of a link between Iraq and the Abu Sayyaf — a group with long-standing ties to al Qaeda and its global terror network.Our phrase for the day is casus belli. Say it with me. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/4/2003 11:41:24 AM ----- BODY: WHILE WE MAY HAVE TO WORRY LESS ABOUT TERRORIST ATTACKS IN NEW YORK . . . terrorist attacks in the Philippines remind us that the war isn't over yet:
A bomb hidden in a backpack exploded Tuesday at an airport in the southern Philippines, killing at least 19 people, including an American missionary, and wounding nearly 150, authorities said. The government called it a "brazen act of terrorism." Three Americans — a Southern Baptist missionary and her two children — were among the wounded. Many of the injured were in serious condition, and officials feared the death toll could rise. The dead included a boy, a girl, 10 men and seven women. The attack came at a time of debate over the mandate of 1,000 troops the United States has offered to send to the Philippines to help fight another violent Muslim group. The deployment was put on hold after many Filipinos objected to the troops having a combat role.Perhaps now the troops will be given a combat role--if only to lessen the possibility that this sort of horror could again be repeated. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/4/2003 11:30:07 AM ----- BODY: I REALLY HOPE . . . that this report is correct:
A terrorism expert who has studied Al Qaeda for nearly 10 years lectured hundreds of senior New York City police officials yesterday about the group, providing his view of how it operates and how it has adapted to changes in counterterrorism strategies in recent years, several of the officials said. The expert, Rohan Gunaratna, who flew to New York from Singapore on Sunday night to deliver the lecture at 1 Police Plaza, also provided a more detailed briefing to Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly, his senior aides and three top aides to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, one official said. In the smaller session, he described what he said was the terrorist group's efforts to encourage its operatives to use poisons to kill large numbers of people. He also displayed photos of specialized boats that Al Qaeda had designed for suicide attacks against ships. But Mr. Gunaratna, a research fellow at the Center for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence at the University of St. Andrews in Fife, Scotland, contended that increased information flowing from intelligence agencies and the F.B.I. to the Police Department combined with greater public awareness had made it more difficult for Al Qaeda to launch an attack in New York, officials at the larger meeting said. He also said that he thought large attacks in the United States anytime soon were unlikely, and that the arrest of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed on Saturday in Pakistan was a significant setback for the terrorists.Whether this is the case or not, it doesn't give any of us reason to slacken at this point in time. Eternal vigilance remains the price of liberty, even when that vigilance is working in frustrating the plans of liberty's enemies. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/4/2003 11:26:22 AM ----- BODY: WHILE THE TURKS FLOUNDER ABOUT . . . the Kuwaitis may step in:
Kuwait said yesterday it would consider accepting US troops which Washington intended to deploy in Turkey after the Turkish parliament refused to allow them into the country. "If they (US) present a formal request we are willing," said Defence Minister Shaikh Jaber Al Hamad Al Jaber Al Sabah. "There has been no formal request. If they present a formal request it will be presented to the leadership and if they agree then there will be no problem."The thing I want to know is how a Turkish rejection--assuming that it is final--will affect American military operations at the airbase in Incirlik. If anyone knows, feel free to drop a comment and enlighten the rest of us. No one appears to have addressed this issue in the media. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/4/2003 11:23:06 AM ----- BODY: ALMOST THERE The requisite number of troops to conduct military operations against Iraq appear to be in place:
The Pentagon ordered about 60,000 more troops to the region, bringing to over 250,000 the number of American forces deployed on land, sea and at airfields within striking distance of Iraq, officials said today. That has long been considered a magic number — the quarter-million troops the military would like in place before any invasion begins.I don't think the lack of a UN resolution is going to hold these people back. Nor should it. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/4/2003 11:20:48 AM ----- BODY: HAS IT REALLY BEEN THAT LONG? Seventy years ago today, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was inaugurated as President of the United States for his first term. Just thought I would point that out. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/3/2003 10:37:01 PM ----- BODY: THOUGHT FOR THE DAY As human beings, we are endowed with freedom of choice, and we cannot shuffle off our responsibility upon the shoulders of God or nature. We must shoulder it ourselves. It is up to us. --A.J. Toynbee -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/3/2003 09:07:54 PM ----- BODY: THIS STORY SOUNDS ABOUT RIGHT And now I'm homesick. (Thanks to reader "d2ns" for the link.) -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/3/2003 08:50:51 PM ----- BODY: GUILTY PLEASURES I admit to finding this post utterly hysterical. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/3/2003 08:48:42 PM ----- BODY: IN NOT-SO-WEIRD NEWS . . . the United States appears to be irrevocably committed to regime change in Iraq:
The United States said Monday that if U.S. forces entered Iraq, they would not stop until Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was removed from power. "Nobody should think -- not even for a second -- that military action could be possibly taken to disarm Saddam Hussein that would leave Saddam Hussein at the helm for him to re-arm up later. No, that's not an option," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer told reporters Monday.The sound you hear is doubtless the wailing and gnashing of teeth in Paris and Berlin. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/3/2003 08:46:08 PM ----- BODY: I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS POSSIBLE . . . but Michael Jackson just got weirder. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/3/2003 06:52:01 PM ----- BODY: A VALUABLE ESTRADA PROFILE . . . can be found here. The worst thing the article can say about Estrada is that while he is a very nice person to most of his co-workers and associates, he doesn't exactly suffer fools gladly and can be outspoken. This is a problem . . . why, exactly? With regard to the outspokenness, don't we want judicial candidates to be outspoken in their views? Don't we want them to have the intellectual courage to state their beliefs, and the intellectual firepower to defend them no matter what the circumstances? Explain to me what the problem is with this set of personality traits. And by the way, explain to me how a judicial nominee who is as habitually outspoken as Estrada appears to be can still be called a "cipher" and a "stealth nominee" by Democrats who oppose his nomination. And as for not suffering fools gladly--well, it may be hard for me to criticize on this score simply because I myself have a very low tolerance for what I perceive to be dimwits and dimwitted commentary. Maybe that's a fault of mine. And maybe I sympathize somewhat with Estrada if he looks down his nose on people who make preternaturally dumb arguments. The point is, however, that no one who knows Estrada well says that his supposed intellectual arrogance prevents him from exhibiting fairness to all sides, and a respectable and honorable judicial temperament that would serve him well on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The article mentions the fact that Estrada defended the National Organization for Women in its lawsuit against pro-life protestors. He did that while working at the Solicitor General's office, despite the fact that he--Estrada--is himself pro-life, and mentioned to NOW members his different opinion on the issue. Clearly, this is a man who can see both sides of an issue, and who can even muster up excellent and cogent arguments in favor of a side with which he totally disagrees. This is the kind of fair-mindedness that we want of our judges, and it is fair-mindedness that Estrada possesses and exhibits in spades. Which makes the continuing filibuster all the more ridiculous and all the more of a travesty. I personally would be proud to work with a lawyer like Miguel Estrada. He's the kind of person who could help give lawyers a good and honorable name. He would give the judiciary a good and honorable name as well if obstructionists in the Senate ever gave him the mere courtesy of a vote on his nomination. Of course, if the 45 Democrats who are bottling up Estrada's nomination refuse to let the Senate vote, Estrada's habit for not suffering fools gladly will be understandably reinforced. After all, he will then have 45 more such fools to look down upon. And deservedly so. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/3/2003 06:14:07 PM ----- BODY: MORE ON IRAN This is not good news:
Local elections in Iran have delivered a major boost to Islamic conservatives in the country, initial results show. According to partial counts, conservative candidates are set to win 14 out of 15 council seats in the capital Tehran, Iran's state IRNA news agency quoted the city's governor as saying. This would be a blow to reformist President Mohammad Khatami, for whom the nationwide city and village council elections have been seen as a test of his six years in office. However the turnout in Tehran was low, only around 25 percent, indicating disillusionment with politics and the slow pace of change in the country. One electoral official quoted by IRNA said turnout in the city may have been as little as 15 percent.Given the fact that Iranians take their electoral responsibilities very seriously, the low turnout is amazing. And it could signal the fact that not only is the reformist movement frustrated with the electoral process, it may be looking more and more to street demonstrations to flex its political muscle. Of course, this kind of a result can hardly be considered a surprise given the tentative support (at best) that has been lent to the reformist movement by its supposed champion, Mohammad Khatami, the President of Iran. If there is a silver lining to this debacle, it should be that Khatami has been a disastrous leader for the reformists, and they would be well-served to shop around for a more competent and inspiring person to address their concerns, change the nature of the regime, and help free the Iranian people. (Thanks to reader Mike Daley for the link.) -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/3/2003 05:58:51 PM ----- BODY: THE KHALID SHEIKH MOHAMMAD ARREST . . . is already paying off:
The names of possible al Qaeda operatives, including some believed to be in Washington and other U.S. cities, were found among a "treasure trove" of material recovered during the capture of al Qaeda operations chief Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in Pakistan on Saturday, sources said Monday. Mohammed is the suspected mastermind behind the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Government sources would not say in how many cities the suspected operatives might be living. FBI agents are trying to track them down, an effort that includes keeping people with possible links to al Qaeda under surveillance, the sources said.I've heard some commentators state that if given the choice between getting bin Laden and getting Mohammad, they would go for the latter. This serves to show just how crucial this capture was. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/3/2003 05:51:41 PM ----- BODY: JUST WONDERING . . . Would I lose money as a result of this tax proposal? I hope that I would get an audit for being smart, but be found non-slacking, and not have to pay anymore than I have to under the current tax system. But who knows? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/3/2003 05:33:25 PM ----- BODY: STEVEN DEN BESTE CALLS OUT HIS PERSONAL TROLL . . . and the results are a must read. I just have one question, and it is a question that I asked in reference to this post: What gives anyone the right to appoint themselves the Grand Emotional Arbiter charged with the responsibility of deciding whose feelings are, and are not genuine--and as a result, whose feelings deserve to have a voice in the public debate? The arrogance and condescension inherent in this kind of argument is mind-boggling in the extreme. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/3/2003 05:13:25 PM ----- BODY: DENNIS KUCINICH IS AS CONSTANT AS THE NORTH STAR! Actually, maybe not. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/3/2003 05:00:50 PM ----- BODY: IT'S A NEW MONTH . . . which means that it is time for a fresh edition of The New Criterion. Be sure to check out their site for new goodies. This month's Notes & Comments discuss the impending war with Iraq, vexatious litigation, and the state to which the art world appears to have descended. The writing is funny, poignant, and quite on-point. Go over and read it now. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/3/2003 04:44:15 PM ----- BODY: MAYBE HE LEARNED AT THE KNEE OF JESSE JACKSON Meet Ralph Nader: shakedown artist. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/3/2003 04:36:02 PM ----- BODY: WE ALL CRINGE AT STUPID THINGS WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST Gerald Posner is different because he writes an article about the stupid things he did in his past. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/3/2003 03:51:21 PM ----- BODY: I'M GOING TO MISS VACLAV HAVEL . . . but Vaclav Klaus, his replacement, sounds like an outstanding choice as the next Czech President. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/3/2003 03:45:57 PM ----- BODY: HYPOCRISY, THY PARTY IS DEMOCRATIC Here's why. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/3/2003 02:17:53 PM ----- BODY: IRANIAN REVOLUTION WATCH Yet another reason why the Islamic regime needs to go:
Dozens of young Iranians have been detained for "unlawful actions" after using a website to arrange dates, officials say. A militia commander said 68 men and women were arrested in the capital Tehran, according to a report by Iran's official Islamic Republic News Agency (Irna). The Basij militia also detained the operators of the dating website, Irna said. Correspondents say the Basij enforce Iran's strict morality laws and often raid mixed parties and gatherings, but this is the first time an operation against internet users has been reported.A potentially very prosperous country with a talented and decent populace is being run into the ground by reactionary and incompetent clerics, and online dating is the subject that gets the attention of the authorities. If that isn't evidence of the Islamic regime's misplaced priorities and utter inability to lead, I don't know what is. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/3/2003 02:14:18 PM ----- BODY: THE JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION WARS The Washington Post is increasingly proving itself indispensable to understanding the nature of the Estrada confirmation fight:
The question at stake in the Democratic filibuster of Mr. Estrada's nomination ultimately has nothing to do with race or with Mr. Estrada's allegedly inadequate answers. It is simply whether a conservative president can reliably place on an appeals court a qualified conservative against whom no serious complaint has been made. The answer must be yes; for if he cannot, the courts will become the province of those anodyne centrists whose views don't offend anyone with power. Former Clinton Justice Department official Walter Dellinger noted in a recent op-ed article that the Democrats' problem is not really Mr. Estrada but the monochromatically conservative nature of the larger slate of nominees this administration has advanced. But while it is tempting to attach a name and a face to the problem, it is also wrong. Democrats should, as Mr. Dellinger suggests, make recommendations, and President Bush should listen and accommodate. The future of the judiciary is certainly a legitimate electoral issue. But a presidential election does not take place each time the Senate must vote on a judge.As another pundit might say, read the whole thing. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/3/2003 02:09:16 PM ----- BODY: IN A RARE AND SHOCKING DEVELOPMENT . . . one particular U.S. Senator is not running for President:
Four-term Sen. Christopher Dodd has ruled out a run for the White House, announcing on Monday that he would not join Connecticut's other senator in the crowded field of Democratic aspirants. The 58-year-old Dodd had given serious thought to a presidential bid, but he said he could be more effective opposing Republican policies now as a lawmaker rather than waiting 23 months for a long-shot chance at chief executive.Of course, there might have been concerns in the Dodd camp that had he run for President, stories like this one (warning: You might want to shoo away the kids before reading this) would have gotten lots of attention. I guess this would have also served to make a Dodd-Kennedy ticket impossible. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/3/2003 02:03:47 PM ----- BODY: MOMMAS . . . don't let your babies read Madonna. Good Lord, what's next? Marilyn Manson writing bedtime stories? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/3/2003 02:02:14 PM ----- BODY: WELL, HERE IS ONE WAY IN WHICH TO ASSIST THE ANTIWAR EFFORT All one has to do is have Hillary Clinton come out in favor of the war:
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton "fully supports" President Bush's Iraq policy, her office said last night - on the eve of her visit today to an upstate arsenal that makes military hardware like mortars and howitzers for U.S. troops. "Sen. Clinton fully supports the steps the president has taken to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction," said Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines.If this indeed is an antiwar plan, it is a diabolically clever one. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/3/2003 01:57:11 PM ----- BODY: LIBERATE IRAQ . . . and the Iraqi economy will benefit:
Iraq is enjoying an unexpected property boom as canny Arabs snap up undeveloped sites in the most desirable areas of Baghdad and Basra. Iraqis, and their neighbours in Kuwait, are gambling that when Saddam Hussein has been deposed the sites will become prime development sites for hotels, clubs and luxury homes. Last week, empty plots in Baghdad were selling for $250 a square metre (£15 a square foot) - an increase of 20 per cent in recent months - as hopes rise that the wars and sanctions that have crippled the economy will come to an end after more than two decades. In the past year, prices in some of the city's more upmarket suburbs, where foreign diplomats, businessmen and United Nations officials would live in a post-Saddam Iraq, have risen by up to 50 per cent. A six-bed villa in the Mansour district now costs up to $250,000.Never forget--the Iraqi people will benefit the most from liberation. It will certainly help augment American national security, but any fair-minded person who somehow believes that regime change will make us hated in the Middle East will be proved wrong by throngs of cheering Iraqis greeting American soldiers, and by a dramatic upturn in the quality of life in Iraq after liberation takes place. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/3/2003 01:51:51 PM ----- BODY: FIGHTING IN THE MIDDLE EAST . . . and before the war has started, even. Check out the verbal spat that occurred between Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, and Moammar Qaddafi at the Arab League summit:
The acrimonious exchange, which was broadcast live across the region, began when Colonel Gaddafi addressed the delegates. He said Saudi Arabia's King Fahd had been ready to "strike an alliance with the devil" when American troops were deployed to protect the kingdom after Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. Crown Prince Abdullah interrupted, retorting: "Saudi Arabia is not an agent of colonialism". "Who exactly brought you to power?" he asked the Libyan leader. "You are a liar and your grave awaits you," he said, before Egyptian state television pulled the plug on the broadcast.I don't quite know who to root for in this one. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/3/2003 01:48:10 PM ----- BODY: BEHOLD ROBERT FISK . . . who continues to make a fool out of himself. I'm not even going to bother debating whether or not Khalid Sheikh Mohammad has been captured. When even al Qaeda acknowledges the capture of one of its people, and then has to bother to spin to the press that the capture somehow "makes no difference" to their operations, it would seem to suggest that the capture actually did take place. It's funny watching Fisk continue to twist and turn in trying desperately to prove that the war on terrorism is failing. Yet another inadvertent court jester for our amusement. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/2/2003 11:54:41 PM ----- BODY: THOUGHT FOR THE DAY Dear God, give me chastity and constancy. But not just yet. --St. Augustine -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/2/2003 11:54:29 PM ----- BODY: AND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT This evening, I went for the first time to a Persian restaurant that is in my area. I rather liked it, and would recommend it. The food was quite good, the service was excellent, and the decor was rather impressive as well. Unlike just about every Persian restaurant that I have ever been to in my life, this one has live entertainment most nights of the week. Tonight, a singer was there with his band, and regaled the audience with renditions of old and new favorites. He got upstaged when two little girls--aged not more than three years as far as I could tell--came up to the stage and gave a rendition of "'Till There Was You." The rendition was utterly charming, and the audience gave the diminutive ladies an appropriate ovation. The entertainment was different in another way as well: There were belly dancers. Not just any belly dancers either. These ladies went to every table and spent a minute gyrating for the patrons, after which they would be rewarded with dollars. Some of the nubile dancers even caroused with the patrons. Many of the carousing patrons weren't even male. And even the "'Till There Was You" troup danced with one of the entertainers, and rewarded her with Washingtons. Mind you, the dancers were showing some skin--as one would expect--and accepted dollars in . . . er . . . a number of places. None of this was obscene by any stretch of the imagination. But it was at least somewhat risqué. And that surprised me. I guess I missed the memo which directed Persian restaurants to lurch ever so tentatively into the realm occupied by strip clubs. I suppose I would understand this a bit more if a Persian restaurant was located in an area that is not heavily dominated by ethnic Persians. In such a circumstance, it wouldn't surprise me if the owners of a restaurant decided to present the audience with an image of Iran with which they would be comfortable. Belly dancing would be a useful schtick in those circumstances. But that situation, as many of you know, does not apply in southern California. Here, the landscape is heavily populated with Persians--the largest such population center outside of Iran itself. As such, I didn't think that it would be necessary to have the belly dancer schtick going on for an overwhelmingly Persian group of patrons. Guess I was wrong. And as I say, I was certainly surprised. Of course, none of this should suggest in the slightest that I abstained from the festivities. Far from it. When I was presented with a . . . um . . . stirring exhibition of getting one's groove on by each of the two belly dancers and the . . . er . . . lush landscape that each of them displayed, I made sure to present them with a proper token of my appreciation. And while I perhaps took more time than was necessary in ensuring that said token was safely ensconced upon the belly dancers' persons, I feel that such tireless and selfless efforts were necessary to convey my hearty approval of their efforts. After all, what kind of aspiring Shahanshah would I be if I didn't demonstrate my gratitude fully and completely for such a lovely demonstration of the glories of Persian culture? Far be it from me to forget my responsibilities towards the greater good. Besides, I certainly didn't want to offend the good gentleladies by ignoring them, did I? That would have been unseemly. And we can't have that, can we? And so what if said responsibilities neatly intersected with more intensely personal enjoyment? Wouldn't Cyrus the Great still have approved? I think he would have. In fact, I'm sure of it, and will continue to operate on that assumption. After all, who says cultural diversity and staying true to one's roots can't be somewhat fun? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/2/2003 11:21:40 PM ----- BODY: IF I WERE THE TURKISH PRIME MINISTER . . . I'd be trying to arrange a re-vote too. Too much is at stake for the Turks not to. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/2/2003 10:36:31 PM ----- BODY: WOW . . . If this is true, then we may safely conclude two things: (1) the United States is going to war fairly quickly, and (2) George W. Bush absolutely despises Jacques Chirac:
One of the first casualties of the conflict — apart from Saddam — is likely to be French President Jacques “The Worm” Chirac. Relations between America and France are icy after Chirac’s attempts to sabotage UN moves to disarm Saddam. In a blistering phone call last week, President George Bush told the posturing Frenchman: “President Chirac, we will not forgive and we will not forget.”And just in case you think all of the pressure is on France:
Leaders are being reminded of the huge sums in US aid which could be at risk if they vote with France. Others who have stashed billions of corruptly-gained dollars in Swiss banks have been warned that American intelligence agencies know their account numbers. Chirac faces a humiliating climbdown in front of the world — or risks total isolation by using his veto at the UN. If he votes against action, America will sweep his protest aside and go to war immediately. A senior diplomat said: “More sophisticated French politicians are appalled with the way Chirac has gone out on a limb. “They are desperate to avoid a vote of any sort in the UN. “Chirac is hitting the phones, piling pressure on Russia and the African states to give the weapons inspectors more time.”(Link via InstaPundit) -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/2/2003 04:58:24 PM ----- BODY: SO MUCH FOR SUFFERING FOOLS GLADLY Some people seem to believe that they shouldn't be suffered at all:
Fifty years to the day from the discovery of the structure of DNA, one of its co-discoverers has caused a storm by suggesting that stupidity is a genetic disease that should be cured. On 28 February 1953 biologists James Watson and Francis Crick discovered the structure of DNA - the chemical code for all life. The breakthrough revealed how genetic information is passed from one generation to the next and revolutionised biology and medicine. But in a documentary series to be screened in the UK on Channel 4, Watson says that low intelligence is an inherited disorder and that molecular biologists have a duty to devise gene therapies or screening tests to tackle stupidity. "If you are really stupid, I would call that a disease," says Watson, now president of the Cold Spring Harbour Laboratory, New York. "The lower 10 per cent who really have difficulty, even in elementary school, what's the cause of it? A lot of people would like to say, 'Well, poverty, things like that.' It probably isn't. So I'd like to get rid of that, to help the lower 10 per cent."I don't know if anyone is actually going to go through with this treatment, but if they are, and if the treatment can feasibly be accomplished, may I nominate Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Schröder, and many of the people who went out to support A.N.S.W.E.R.-sponsored protests to receive expedited care? Their individual situations are most critical. (Thanks to reader Mike Daley for the link.) IMMEDIATE UPDATE: Misha aptly points out that there are others who will also require this kind of treatment. And posthaste, no less. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/2/2003 04:51:47 PM ----- BODY: MORE ON THE TRUE SITUATION IN AFGHANISTAN Dean Esmay has some very valuable thoughts:
Afghanistan is a shattered nation. It is finally starting to get back to where it was before the communists destroyed it. Indeed, as this Washington Post article on development in Afghanistan shows, the people there are immeasurably better off today. It's starting to, finally, become a functioning society again. It's still got problems. There are still some rebel warlords in the badlands. It's still poverty-stricken and has a long, long way to go. But I wish more people would realize just how much good we've done for the people of that country, while simultaneously cleaning out a hotbed of murdering terrorist thugs.Unfortunately, this truth inherent in this commentary is seldom-emphasized when it comes to discussing Afghanistan. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/2/2003 03:04:18 PM ----- BODY: EXCELLENT! It's ba-ack! Now, I just have to ensure that I move up from the "Playful Primates" section. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/2/2003 11:56:21 AM ----- BODY: MORE ON ERIC ALTERMAN A while back, Kevin Drum was able to snag an interview with Alterman to discuss the issues that Alterman raised in his book. Kudos should go to Kevin for having gotten the interview--it was quite a scoop (especially since it doesn't seem as if Kevin is a professional journalist). Alterman's answers to Kevin's questions pretty much reflected the kinds of things he said yesterday, so I'm not going to repeat my analysis of those comments. Instead, I just want to direct your attention to the following passage, where Alterman answers Kevin's question as to why there is supposedly a shortage of combative liberals on television. Alterman's response is as follows:
I think that if you’re going to be a liberal today, it’s a really complicated case to make, and you have to respect that complexity. And TV just has no use for complexity. There’s just no way to do it. I mean, here I was on Crossfire the other night and Tucker Carlson quoted something I said about myself on Altercation, and he asked, do you really think it’s a conspiracy against you? I mean, fucking Tucker, I have a PhD in American history, I know how complicated it is, I was just making a point that one person, Ann Coulter, had written a totally useless, dishonest book, whereas I’ve written a serious book that has 40 or 50 pages of footnotes, and one of us gets booked on television, on the Today show, and one of us doesn’t. I’m not saying it’s a conspiracy, but I’m raising the issue: is this about journalistic self flagellation or is it about the fact that she’s blond and has good legs? But I’m not drawing any conclusions based on my own example. Anyway, here I was in the position of being accused of being overly simplistic by Tucker Carlson, which strikes me as ridiculous. But that’s how you win on television, you take something out of context and you beat it into the ground. If any of the members of my dissertation committee had heard me on Crossfire they’d be ashamed to have approved my doctorate.Once again, note the kind of condescending and insulting rhetoric that Alterman is so fond of using in place of an actual argument. Apparently, the only reason aren't combative liberals is because "if you’re going to be a liberal today, it’s a really complicated case to make, and you have to respect that complexity"? This assertion is as nonsensical and self-aggrandizing as Mario Cuomo's ridiculous comment that conservatives do better on talk radio because "You see, look, they [conservatives] write their message with crayons. We use fine-point quills. We get a little bit more, I think — intellectual is not the right word…." a comment which Jonah Goldberg rightly skewered. And it's very convenient rhetoric too--after all, if you are losing arguments left, right and center, what better way is there to diminish the scope and magnitude of your losses than to argue that the reason for those losses is that you are saddled with making "a complicated case" which the "stupid American public" (and yes, that is the implication) just doesn't get, unfortunately? How much more self-serving can this commentary get? And while I respect Kevin Drum, and was generally impressed with the quality of his questions, I wish he called Alterman on this self-serving rhetoric. I know that Kevin is a kindred spirit with Eric Alterman, but I think he would have been well-served to play devil's advocate on this one. And then, of course, there was the manifestation of Alterman's personal arrogance--a constant in any of his polemics. Simpsons fans will recall the episode where Homer gets a crayon removed from his brain that had been lodged there since childhood, and which had served to reduce his IQ by 50 points. With an IQ that had shot up to 105 (post-crayon removal), Homer goes around and demonstrates that he is the town intellectual in Springfield. Even his performance at the nuclear power plant improves--so much so that the plant shuts down after Homer reports safety violations to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The downside is that the shut down costs Homer's friends--Lenny and Carl--their jobs. When they angrily abandon him, Homer denounces their perfidy and ingratitude for his newfound intellectual prowess, announcing "I am your better! Your better!" Well, Kevin Drum documented Eric Alterman's Homer Simpson moment. Remember, you miserable little peons, Alterman has "a PhD in American history"! Who in hell is Tucker Carlson . . . oops, I'm sorry . . . f***ing Tucker Carlson to ask a question that might serve to undermine the context of Alterman's argument (if such infantile raving can really be considered an "argument")? In fact, who are any of us American-history-PhD-deprived people to question Eric Alterman on anything that may be tangentially related to his American history PhD? Remember folks, Eric Alterman is your better! Your better! Of course, I guess this means that since I have a JD and an MA in International Relations, I should be unchallenged on issues of law and world politics by people who are deprived of the same. And surely, people like Glenn Reynolds and Eugene Volokh should similarly enjoy unchallenged intellectual supremacy on legal issues. We may fight amongst ourselves on legal issues since we are lawyers, but all of you non-lawyers aren't allowed to pick fights with us at all. And when it comes to world politics, I can smack around Glenn and Eugene at will. I am their better! Their better! Then again, maybe if I was serious about adopting this silly idea, I would be as insufferable as Alterman is. Yes . . . yes . . . the potential insufferability would be pretty nauseating, eh? Perhaps I should drop the idea. After all, someone has to serve as a role model to the misguided Eric Alterman. And why not me? I am Eric's bet---no . . . I won't say it. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/2/2003 11:28:10 AM ----- BODY: QUOI? Anyone know why I can't access VodkaPundit? I've been getting error messages since yesterday. Maybe the people who are responsible for maintaining Stephen's site have been swilling his Benadryl as well. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/2/2003 11:24:43 AM ----- BODY: UNDERMINING THE ISLAMIC REGIME IN IRAN I don't imagine that the mullahs are all too happy about a new fashion magazine springing up on their watch. When traditional Persian costumes are hyped and celebrated over the Islamic hejab (the long cloaklike clothing women are obliged to use in order to cover themselves), it tends to undermine the theocrats' power. Remember that the Islamic Revolution was supposed to suppress Persian and Iranian nationalism. The fact that such nationalism appears to be coming back bodes ill for the regime. (Thanks to Nima Arian for e-mailing me the link.) -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/2/2003 11:15:48 AM ----- BODY: WHILE THE POSSIBILITY OF REVENGE APPEALS TO ME . . . I'm with Eugene Volokh on this issue. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/2/2003 11:10:47 AM ----- BODY: HOW TO SPOT BOGUS SCIENCE This article is quite good, and would have come in handy a long time ago. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/2/2003 11:08:35 AM ----- BODY: THINGS THAT MAKE YOU GO "HMMM" Could Saddam Hussein be blackmailing the French? And is that the reason behind French resistance to a war with Iraq? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/2/2003 11:04:43 AM ----- BODY: WHEN YOU ARE WRONG, ADMIT IT Lee Bockhorn has some advice for new converts to the need to take military action against Iraq. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/2/2003 10:49:21 AM ----- BODY: SHOULD WE START CALLING THEM "CHICKENDOVES" NOW? This was to be expected:
Some of the peace activists who went to Iraq to serve as human shields in the event of war returned home, fearing for their safety, a spokesman said Sunday. The human shields are mostly European activists who drove from London to Baghdad in two double-decker buses last month, intending to guard civilian sites from a U.S.-led military attack. Those who returned home had safety or financial concerns, spokesman Christiaan Briggs said. "The aim was always a mass migration and if we had had five to ten thousand people here there would never be a war," he said. "We do not have those numbers."Just out of curiosity, did the people who went off to be human shields not realize that in the interim, their finances would suffer as a result of neglect or not working? And as for the safety issue, well, gee, there's a shocker! I guess it must have absolutely stunned some people to find out that being a human shield during wartime is inherently unsafe. Whatever will we discover next--the fact that it's cold in the North Pole? God, how stupid are these people? And that's a serious question, by the way. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/2/2003 10:40:26 AM ----- BODY: CATCHING HIM JUST IN TIME . . . Looks like Khalid Sheikh Mohammad was captured with very little time to spare:
According to a Feb. 26 intelligence report obtained by NEWSWEEK, “KSM is actively involved in Al Qaeda attack planning in CONUS [continental United States]. He has directed operatives to target bridges, gas stations, and power plants in a number of locations, including New York City.” Some of this intel came from a Qaeda operative now in custody, who told investigators that at one point Mohammed had planned to blow up bridges and gas stations in New York and Washington as part of the 9-11 attacks. Though those attacks never came off, Mohammed intended to return to finish the job. His plan: Qaeda operatives would steal or hijack tanker trucks and crash them into fuel pumps at filling stations, while other terror operatives would slash the suspension cables on bridges. These threats, as well as other leads from electronic intercepts and suspicious financial transactions, led Bush-administration officials to raise the threat level to Code Orange three weeks ago. The danger signal was reduced to Code Yellow last week, the day before Mohammed was snatched, but administration officials predicted that the country would revert to Code Orange if the United States goes to war with Iraq.I'm still waiting for the same people who accused the Bush Administration of distracting from a war on terrorism by proposing a war with Iraq to admit that they might have been in error. You would think this most recent capture would afford them the opportunity to do so, and yet, thus far, no one has stepped forward with a mea culpa. Some people never learn, do they? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/1/2003 11:28:10 PM ----- BODY: THOUGHTS FOR THE DAY For Eric Alterman, in the hope that there may be some way to augment his forensic and reasoning skills: He who establishes his argument by noise and command, shows that his reason is weak. --Michel de Montaigne It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument. --William G. McAdoo He draweth out the thread of his verbosity finer than the staple of his argument. --William Shakespeare, Love's Labour's Lost -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/1/2003 08:40:55 PM ----- BODY: "WHAT LOGICAL CONSISTENCY AND INTELLECTUAL CONTENT?" Being offline, I failed to catch Glenn Reynolds's announcement that Eric Alterman would be on C-Span while hawking his book What Liberal Media?. I tuned into the broadcast somewhat belatedly and quite by accident, but always interested in what the other side of the ideological divide has to say, I listened while performing some household chores. I wanted to give Alterman, an individual I generally find to be disingenuous and unpersuasive in the extreme, a chance to impress me. I am thoroughly unimpressed. One of the reasons I am turned off by Alterman's arguments is that when you listen to them, you realize that there is so much of the X-Files about them in terms of Alterman's description of the rise of the so-called "conservative media." Alterman argues that much of the so-called conservative media (and conservative think-tanks) arose thanks to the financial contributions of people like Richard Mellon Scaife. Scaife was mentioned by Alterman as the primary progenitor of a conservative media and think-tank establishment. In his talk, Alterman called Scaife "an oddball and a loser" who had one shining insight--that it is better to found the creation of a conservative media and conservative think-tanks than it is to give money to politicians (more on Alterman's generally snide and insufferable tone towards those he dislikes a little later). Apparently, in Alterman's world, thanks to Scaife, an entire conservative media and think-tank establishment arose and took its place in American society. Indeed, one would have been forgiven for thinking at times that Alterman was literally creating a Book of Genesis that described how the supposed conservative media and think-tank establishment came to be. You can just imagine The Gospel According to Eric: In the Beginning, there was Scaife. And Scaife said "Let there be the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and FoxNews." And yea, verily, there was created the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation and FoxNews, and conservative commentators spread throughout the land. And Scaife saw this and said that it was good. And Scaife told the conservative commentators "Be fruitful and multiply, and impose your dominion over the legal and media establishment." And on, and on, and on. Alterman's commentary about the supposed insidiousness and diabolical cleverness of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, and its alleged evil genius-like hegemony over the manufacturing of opinion was at times so over-the-top and Oliver Stone-ish in its conspiratorial nature that I found myself laughing out loud while listening. I find it generally and genuinely peculiar that in the ongoing debate over whether there is a conservative or a liberal-dominated media, each side claims that it is getting the short end of the stick as far as representation goes, and that the other side holds the whip in hand when it comes to influencing public opinion. I think that the media generally is liberal, but I also think that the primary media bias that exists is a bias that favors the manufacture of conflict--whether that conflict involves liberals fighting conservatives, or infighting that occurs within the camps of each group. Now Alterman may hold a different view--it's certainly his right to do so. But to continue to spread the canard that some Vast Right Wing Conspiracy imposed its thoughts S.P.E.C.T.R.E.-like on a compliant world is incredibly simplistic and patently nonsensical. It only serves as a propaganda shibboleth--one that satisfies the dark suspicions and paranoid fantasies of the very choir that Alterman is largely preaching to. Haven't such conspiracy theories bored people yet? Alterman went on to admit that most reporters are liberal when it comes to social issues. However, he claims that those same reporters are conservative when it comes to economic issues. This, Alterman claims, is because those reporters must satisfy the financial interests of the media conglomerates that they work for. As such, economic news gets a conservative spin, as far as Alterman is concerned. But there is no logic to this assertion. First of all, the primary financial interest of any media conglomerate is ratings for its news broadcasts. Not tax cuts, not Social Security privatization, not ending the double-taxation on dividends. Ratings. And if ratings demand that a tax cut proposed by the Bush Administration, or the prospect of private Social Security accounts be slammed and criticized, they will be slammed and criticized as surely as night follows day. Alterman failed completely to discuss the fact that the media is all too willing to accept and propagate the liberal meme that Bush tax cuts are somehow illegitimate because they are "directed towards the richest portion of the population" (which should surprise no one, as the richest members of society are the ones that pay the overwhelming share of taxes). He failed completely to discuss the fact that the media is all too willing to accept and propagate the liberal meme that private Social Security investment accounts would somehow cost those dependent on Social Security their life investments (private investment accounts offer a higher rate of return over the long term, and are entirely voluntary--meaning that if for whatever reason, one is happy with the current system, one can remain in that system). This is "conservative bias" on economic issues? Other Altermanesque assertions fall by the wayside in equally easy fashion. Alterman's assertion that the only two people on ABC News who express their political opinions on television are George Will (a conservative) and John Stossel (a libertarian)--an assertion made both in the book and in Alterman's talk--does precisely nothing whatsoever to demonstrate the absence of a liberal media, or the existence of a conservative one. In making this assertion, Alterman employs the logical fallacies of exclusion and hasty generalization. I can just as easily claim that because liberal commentators Al Hunt, Mark Shields, Margaret Carlson, James Carville, Paul Begala, and Julianne Malveaux outnumber conservative commentators Tucker Carlson, Jonah Goldberg and Robert Novak (assuming that one finds Novak to be genuinely representative of the conservative movement) on CNN, or that because Bill Moyers is the only commentator on PBS who expresses his political opinions, there is a liberal bias in the media. Such an assertion would be nonsensical, of course. Yet Alterman makes exactly that kind of assertion in trying to demonstrate the validity of his argument. It just doesn't wash. The fallacious assertions don't stop there. Not wanting to prejudge Alterman even on the basis of having heard him on C-Span, and as indicated above, I went to a local Barnes & Noble this afternoon during my sojourns in the magical land of "outside", found Alterman's book, and picked through it (no, I didn't buy it--I have better things to do with my money, and more interesting things to read). I read through a number of passages, but was particularly interested in whether Alterman discusses weblogs in his book. So I looked up "Glenn Reynolds" in the index. Lo and behold, on p. 77 of his book, Alterman discusses weblogs, and mentions InstaPundit as the most popular of the blogs. While he acknowledges Glenn's label as a libertarian, Alterman assures us that Glenn really is in the conservative camp. No proof or evidence is given for this assertion, and it will surely come as a surprise to Glenn, or to anyone else who thinks that most conservatives are pro-abortion rights, pro-gay marriage, and pro-cloning, among other things. Indeed, Alterman mentions in passing that much of the Blogosphere is conservative. What this has to do with disproving the presence of a liberal media is beyond me. Weren't we talking about Big Media in discussing Alterman's thesis? Did we right-wing bloggers also get copious amounts of money from Richard Mellon Scaife in order to establish a conservative media paradigm and to ensure that conservative thought becomes hegemonic? I must have missed the check in the mail. Either that, or my Amazon tip jar is ill-suited to handle such large sums of money (though all of you lovely people are certainly encouraged to disprove that latter suspicion). And just out of curiosity, what medium will Alterman turn to next to prove his thesis about the existence of a conservative media and the absence of a liberal one? High school newspapers? Beyond the specious arguments and the disingenuous and intellectually flaccid assertions, Alterman is to be criticized severely for his arrogant and condescending tone to all those with whom he disagrees, which I alluded to earlier. The condescension came through in both Alterman's talk and in the book. As I mentioned, Alterman calls Scaife "an oddball and a loser." Lest anyone think that I am just trying to stick up for one of the benefactors of my law school, I want to state here and now that I don't know Richard Mellon Scaife from a cord of wood. I have no opinion on him. His existence affects me not a jot, and I have no emotional stake in defending or attacking him. But "oddball"? And "loser"? It may be attractive to Alterman to pepper his argument with these kinds of playground remarks, but considering the fact that the actual substance (if one can call Alterman's evidence and reasoning "substantive") of What Liberal Media? is shaky at best, perhaps Alterman would have been well-served in both the book and his talk to try to buttress his argument instead of bandying about insults. And the insults don't stop there. Both Michael Kelly and Andrew Sullivan are called "McCarthyite" in the book--which perhaps helps prove Jonah Goldberg's point that "McCarthyite" and "McCarthyism" has come to mean "anything liberals or leftists consider to be unfair, unjust, un-nice." (Query: What exactly accounts for Alterman's all-consuming hatred for Andrew Sullivan? Did "Born to Run" get an unfavorable review from Sullivan at some point in time? Has Alterman sworn eternal vengeance as a result? Someone tell me. I'm dying to know.) A whole bunch of conservatives--I lost count--are called "nutty" in both the book, and in Alterman's talk on C-Span. George W. Bush is the "selected" President of the United States--a "witticism" so utterly and completely predictable and banal that in uttering it, Alterman wandered off into Maureen Dowdesque realms of meaningless and unoriginal rhetoric. And--get this--according to Alterman's talk, conservative think-tanks and media outlets have even less ideological diversity than the Soviet Politburo of Stalin's day. Bear in mind that Alterman is an educated fellow--B.A. from Cornell, M.A. in International Relations from Yale, and Ph.D. in American history from Stanford. One would think that someone with this kind of educational pedigree could make an argument and write a book without resorting to this kind of inflammatory and bitter rhetoric. Apparently, that is impossible. And the presence of such rhetoric makes Alterman's arguments laughable. Conservatives are as uniform and monolithic in their thinking as Stalin-era apparatchiks? This is an argument? Does such a gratuitous and unsubstantiated comment really deserve to be dignified with any kind of response? Is the silliness inherent in such an aside not utterly obvious and transparent to any fair-minded individual? If there is such a thing as a corollary to Godwin's Law that frowns upon absurd analogies to Stalinist Russia, Alterman violated it in spades. In any event, one should easily be able to see this kind of assertion for what it is--pure demagoguery and waving the bloody shirt. I don't find Alterman to be an intelligent commentator in the slightest. At best he is glib and facile, snide and arrogant, contentious and bitter. Doubtless, some people look at all of those qualities, and figure that the sum total, along with Alterman's educational pedigree, would indicate that there is a formidable intellect in there somewhere. And hey, he wrote a book, so he must be smart. But at the very best, the copious logical fallacies and specious arguments that Alterman advances in support of his thesis demonstrates a mind that is incapable of serious critical thinking. At the very worst, Alterman is flat-out dishonest in his claims. Either way, it reflects poorly on him. It reflects poorly on his book. And it leaves me with the eternal question: Can't the Left do better than this? If not, woe will surely be visited upon the movement. And it will be woe well-deserved. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/1/2003 07:24:00 PM ----- BODY: THE OLD ALMA MATER A couple of days ago, reader Mike Daley alerted me to instances of antiwar sentiment at the University of Chicago, and asked for my comment. I suppose I am late in offering it, but it's a good thing that (a) Jacob Levy addressed the issue, and (b) there appear to be voices of sanity on the Chicago campus. Incidentally, if you are or will be a Chicago student, you would do well indeed to take an introduction to international relations course taught by Professor Charles Lipson, whom Jacob references. He is exceedingly knowledgeable, an excellent lecturer, and quite funny (one of his best bits was mocking the idea of EuroDisney by imitating a befuddled and French (is that redundant?) Mickey Mouse). Lipson is a superb teacher, and comes highly recommended by this alum. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/1/2003 07:14:59 PM ----- BODY: NO PRECEDENT HERE, MOVE ALONG A number of people appear to be claiming that the filibuster of Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas's nomination to be Chief Justice after Earl Warren announced his retirement, serves as a precedent for the filibuster of Miguel Estrada's nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Juan Non-Volokh points out that the circumstances in each case differ completely from one another. Indeed, it would be obvious to just about anyone who took the time to research the circumstances of Fortas's and Estrada's respective nominations that there is a world of difference between the two. As Juan mentioned, in addition to the ethical charges swirling around Fortas (charges which have not been made in the slightest against Estrada), the filibuster in Fortas's case was bipartisan--Republicans and southern Democrats were opposed to the nomination (when one considers that southern Democrats decided to filibuster a nomination made by a southern Democratic President (Lyndon Johnson), this makes the Fortas comparison to the Estrada filibuster even more inapposite). In Estrada's case, the filibuster is entirely partisan and one-sided, in addition to being without any semblance of intellectual respectability. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/1/2003 06:52:24 PM ----- BODY: I DON'T KNOW IF I BELIEVE THIS STORY . . . but it certainly is interesting. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/1/2003 06:48:28 PM ----- BODY: AND FOR ALL OF YOU WHO ARE ANTIWAR . . . Perhaps you would be well-served by reading this:
"Do you know when?" It is the question on all minds these days--those of stockbrokers, journalists, financiers, world leaders, soldiers and their families. When will the United States lead a coalition to end Saddam Hussein's tyranny over Iraq? The answer matters most to the tyrant's subjects--like the man who asked the question of his friend in an early-morning phone conversation on Monday, February 24. The call came from Nasiriyah, in southern Iraq, to the home of an Iraqi exile in suburban Detroit. It used to be that Iraqis trapped inside their country would speak to each other and to friends outside in veiled language. For years, Saddam's regime has tapped the phone lines of all those suspected of disloyalty, so an inquiry about the timing of a possible attack would be concealed behind seemingly unrelated questions. On what date will you sell your business? When does school end? When are you expecting your next child? But few Iraqis speak in puzzles anymore. They ask direct questions. Here is the rest of that Monday morning conversation: "Do you know when?" "I'm not sure." "Are you coming?" "Yes. I am coming. We will . . . " The second speaker, an Iraqi in Michigan, began to provide details but quickly reconsidered, ending his thought in mid-sentence. He says he was shocked by the candor coming from Iraq. "Never in the history of Iraq do people talk like this," he said later. "Why are you silent?" "I'm afraid that you'll be in danger." "Don't be afraid. We are not afraid. This time is serious." "I am coming with the American Army." "Is there a way that we can register our names with the American forces to work with them when they arrive? Will you call my house at the first moment you arrive? I will help."It is worth pointing out yet again that in fighting and winning a war with Iraq, we will at once remove a threat to the national security of the United States, and liberate the Iraqi people. Why in the name of God would anyone be against that? And the piece carries even more indications that the Iraqi people out-and-out love the advocates of their freedom--officials in the Bush Administration:
THE DAY AFTER my meeting in Dearborn Heights, some 300 Iraqi Americans gathered at the Fairlane Club in suburban Detroit to hear from Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and, finally, tell their stories in the presence of a high U.S. official. Wolfowitz had been invited by the Iraqi Forum for Democracy, a nonaligned, anti-Saddam, pro-democracy association of Iraqis in America. Television cameras--I counted nearly 20--lined the room. A handful of print reporters were there, too. Signs on the wall declared "Iraq United Will Never Be Divided" and "Saddam Must Go--Iraqis Need Human Rights." Wolfowitz is viewed as something of a hero here. Several Iraqi Americans I spoke to were aware that he was wary of Saddam Hussein as far back as the late '70s, and remained so even as the U.S. government embraced the Iraqi dictator in the '80s. Others credited Wolfowitz with expediting U.S. rescue operations when the Iraqi government put down the 1991 uprising. "The U.S. Army had orders to leave Basra," recalls Ahmed Shulaiba. "We were going to be crushed by the Iraqi Army, and we heard that one man from the press--we don't know who he is--he called Paul Wolfowitz and told him about 30,000 people will be crushed if the American military leave them. And he [Wolfowitz] called [Secretary of Defense] Dick Cheney and they helped move us to the camp of Rafha [in Saudi Arabia]." [. . .] Now, addressing those gathered in suburban Detroit, Wolfowitz spoke of the coming liberation of their country. It was a well-crafted speech, packed with details about the expected conflict and postwar Iraq (available on the web at http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2003/t02272003_t0223ifd.html). He was interrupted repeatedly by enthusiastic applause, including several standing ovations. At one point, the audience broke into song, in Arabic, to celebrate the imminent end of Saddam's rule. The Iraqi farmers who the night before had handed me photographs of their dead relatives were dancing with local religious leaders.Mind you, this is the reception that is given to the Deputy Secretary of Defense--a thoroughly brilliant, but entirely uncharismatic man. Imagine the reception that will be given to liberating American soldiers. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/1/2003 06:30:37 PM ----- BODY: NOT-SO-SPECTACULAR-NEWS The Turks continue to prove themselves intransigent:
Turkey's parliament dealt a stunning blow to U.S. war planning Saturday by failing to approve a bill allowing in American combat troops to open a northern front against Iraq. The decision was likely to seriously strain ties with Washington and marked a setback to U.S. efforts to show Saddam Hussein that he is surrounded and his neighbors support a U.S.-led coalition. Prime Minister Abdullah Gul hastily called a meeting with his top ministers. It was not immediately clear if his Islamic-influenced ruling Justice and Development party would resubmit the motion. "We will assess all this," said Gul, looking shaken and angry. The parliament vote was 264-250 in favor, with 19 abstentions. But speaker Bulent Arinc nullified the decision because it was four short of the simple majority required by the constitution. He then closed parliament until Tuesday.At some point, one has to be amused by a story like this. Whether or not Turkey decides to assist the United States, it will have to deal with two serious problems at the end of a war with Iraq: (1) the influx of Kurdish refugees, and (2) the potential that an autonomous Kurdish state will be created (something Turkey is dead-set against). These problems are going to be financially costly to deal with. Given the high probability that they will have to be dealt with, why not take American aid in return for assisting the United States? The decision just makes no sense whatsoever. I imagine that there are a number of antiwar Americans who are glad about this news (preliminary as it appears to be). If so, their attitude is equally stupid and self-serving. Whether or not the US is able to base its troops in Turkey, it will go to war with Iraq. 250,000 troops and a plethora of military equipment are not in the Gulf region just to carouse and cavort in the sand. In order to open a second front against the Iraqis in the north, the US will have to swiftly establish bases of operations in the Kurdish-controlled northern part of Iraq--assuming that the Turks decide that they will not help us at all. This can be done, and I believe that it will be done successfully. However, it will involve greater risk than if the United States was able to base troops in Turkey. Now, as I say, even if you are antiwar and an American citizen, you must know that the existing US military presence in the Middle East is serious enough to demonstrate that war is coming. You might cheer the nullified Turkish vote, but ask yourself this question: If a war is likely to happen anyway, why on earth would you cheer and wish for a tactical situation on the ground that could lead to additional deaths and injuries for American troops? I might have opposed the war, but if it appeared to be a certainty, as it does, then I would have prayed for Turkish acceptance of American troops to ensure that there would exist a very beneficial tactical situation on the ground for American soldiers to finish their jobs quickly, and with as few casualties as possible. But then, I suppose that for some, the importance of taking a particular policy stance outweighs actually considering the consequences of that stance. And it's exactly that kind of one-dimensional thinking that I have such scorn and contempt for. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/1/2003 06:14:59 PM ----- BODY: SPECTACULAR NEWS American Vengeance™: Coming soon to a terrorist near you:
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the suspected mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, was captured Saturday in a raid in Pakistan involving U.S. agents, officials told The Associated Press. The arrest is a major coup in the war against terrorism and could provide new clues in the search for Osama bin Laden. Mohammed, 37, is perhaps the most senior member of the al-Qaida terrorist network after bin Laden and Egyptian Ayman al-Zawahiri. "It's hard to overstate how significant this is," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said. "It's a wonderful blow to inflict on al-Qaida." A naturalized Pakistani who was born in Kuwait, Mohammed is on the FBI's most-wanted list and allegedly had a hand in many of al-Qaida's most notorious attacks. The U.S. government had offered a reward of up to $25 million for information leading to his capture. Mohammed was arrested along with two other men in Rawalpindi, a city near the Pakistani capital of Islamabad, Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed said. The raid was the work of both U.S. and Pakistani agents, according to U.S. and Pakistani officials who requested anonymity.So much for the canard that preparing for a war against Iraq somehow "distracts" from a war on terrorism in general. I doubt that we will hear Administration critics admit their error anytime soon, but some things are so obvious that perhaps an explicit admission would only be superfluous. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/1/2003 06:10:07 PM ----- BODY: AS DRUDGE POINTED OUT . . . why would Americans at the National Security Agency write "favourable" for "favorable," and "recognize" for "recognise" in an e-mail allegedly designed to lay the groundwork for spying on UN Security Council members? I think the Guardian just got duped in a major way. And I appreciate the commensurate chuckles the joke brings. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 3/1/2003 06:05:43 PM ----- BODY: I'M NOT DEAD . . . I just decided to take a break from blogging and from sitting at a computer for the morning and afternoon. Instead, I went to this magical and wondrous world that I am told is called "outside." When one visits "outside," one finds a whole host of interesting and fascinating places to visit and linger in. I'm amazed beyond measure, and may even repeat the experience at some point in the near future. For now, however, I am back and blogging. I love all y'all too much not to. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/28/2003 10:53:19 PM ----- BODY: THOUGHTS FOR THE DAY I'd like to know why the following principles can be practiced by past judicial nominees, but apparently cannot be practiced by Miguel Estrada: I do not think you want me to be in a position of giving you a statement on the Fifth Amendment and then, if I am confirmed and sit on the Court, when a Fifth Amendment case comes up, I will have to disqualify myself. --Thurgood Marshall, in confirmation hearings to become an Associate Justice of the United States. [C]andidates should decline to reply when efforts are made to find out how they would decide a particular case. --Lloyd Cutler, White House Counsel to Presidents Carter and Clinton Although recognizing the constitutional dilemma which appears to exist when the Senate is asked to advise and consent on a judicial nominee without examining him on legal questions, the Committee is of the view that Justice Fortas wisely and correctly declined to answer questions in this area. To require a Justice to state his views on legal questions or to discuss his past decisions before the Committee would threaten the independence of the judiciary and the integrity of the judicial system itself. It would also impinge on the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers among the three branches of Government as required by the Constitution. --Statement of the Senate Judiciary Committee in the context of the nomination of Justice Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice of the United States (1968). It is offensive to suggest that a potential Justice of the Supreme Court must pass some presumed test of judicial philosophy. It is even more offensive to suggest that a potential justice must pass the litmus test of any single-issue interest group. --Senator Edward M. Kennedy in the contect of the nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor to serve as Associate Justice of the United States (1981). Because I am and hope to continue to be a judge, it would be wrong for me to say or to preview in this legislative chamber how I would cast my vote on questions the Supreme Court may be called upon to decide. Were I to rehearse here what I would say and how I would reason on such questions, I would act injudiciously. --Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the context of being nominated to serve as Associate Justice of the United States (1993). I don't mean to be unresponsive but in all candor I must say that there have been many times in my experience in the last five years where I found that my first reaction to a problem was not the same as the reaction I had when I had the responsibility of decisions and I think that if I were to make comments that were not carefully thought through they might be given significance that they really did not merit. --Then-Judge John Paul Stevens in the context of his nomination hearing to serve as Associate Justice of the United States. In the context of the federal system, how a prospective nominee for the bench would resolve particular contentious issues would certainly be "on interest" to the President and the Senate . . . . But in accord with a longstanding norm, every Member of this Court declined to furnish such information to the Senate, and presumably to the President as well. --Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 122 S. Ct. 2528, 2552 n.1 (2002) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting). Nor do we assert that candidates for judicial office should be compelled to announce their views on disputed legal issues. --Justice Antonin Scalia, Id. at 2539, n. 11. Until [an issue] comes up, I don't really think it through with the depth that it would require. . . . So often, when you decide a matter for real, in a court or elsewhere, it turns out to be very different after you've become informed and think it through for real than what you would have said at a cocktail party answering a question. --Justice Stephen Breyer, 34 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 425, 462. As witnesses not of our intentions but of our conduct, we can be true or false, and the hypocrite's crime is that he bears false witness against himself. What makes it so plausible to assume that hypocrisy is the vice of vices is that integrity can indeed exist under the cover of all other vices except this one. Only crime and the criminal, it is true, confront us with the perplexity of radical evil; but only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core. --Hannah Arendt Hypocrisy can afford to be magnificent in its promises; for never intending to go beyond promises; it costs nothing. --Edmund Burke -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/28/2003 06:56:53 PM ----- BODY: MARK STEYN: TOURIST EXTRAORDINAIRE Welcome to PilgerWorld! -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/28/2003 06:44:34 PM ----- BODY: LOOKS LIKE MINE IS NOT THE ONLY SITE . . . to be doing so well reader-wise. I don't know about me, but with the OxBlog gang, cream quite clearly rises to the top. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/28/2003 06:36:44 PM ----- BODY: NEVER FORGET, PART II Steven Den Beste certainly hasn't. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/28/2003 04:55:14 PM ----- BODY: NEVER FORGET This story is just beautiful. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/28/2003 04:46:23 PM ----- BODY: IS HARVARD FULLY AND COMPLETELY INSANE? Perhaps so. Don't people have better and more important things to do than to waste time with this kind of drivel? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/28/2003 03:53:35 PM ----- BODY: WHILE THEIR PEOPLE LIVE IN SQUALOR . . . Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat, and Fidel Casto are some of the richest people in the world. That's justice for you, eh? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/28/2003 03:51:30 PM ----- BODY: DEAR GOD . . . I would have just hated it if this happened to me when I was applying for college. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/28/2003 03:47:35 PM ----- BODY: CHANGING THE SUBJECT Perhaps it should now be clear that the Iraqis possess weapons of mass destruction. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/28/2003 03:44:45 PM ----- BODY: WE'RE NOT DONE ON THIS ISSUE I came up with idea that could supplement the offer currently being made by the White House to resolve the Estrada controversy (which Byron York reported on and which I linked to below). To repeat: Democrats are demanding privileged interoffice legal memos that Estrada wrote while an employee of the Solicitor General's office. As mentioned before, the memos are protected by the attorney-client and work-product privileges, which Estrada, as the attorney, cannot violate. Additionally, if the memos are made public, and if a precedent is established for making interoffice memos public, it will institute a chilling effect on future attorney work-product, as any attorney with political ambitions may pull his/her punches in a memo, and write them in a completely vanilla-like and intellectually flaccid manner, so as to avoid any controversy whatsoever. This will clearly diminish the quality of attorney work-product, and the legal analysis that is contained in that work-product. Of course, there are writings that Estrada has authored that the Democrats could get, if they really are serious about finding out more about Estrada's ideology. Legal briefs. Think about it: Estrada is an appellate litigator. He has written stacks of legal briefs on a wide variety of appellate cases which he argued. Given the fact that those briefs were filed with the respective courts hearing those cases, that means the briefs are part of the public record. There is absolutely no attorney-client or work-product privilege associated with the briefs whatsoever (after all, the briefs were meant to be public). It can't be difficult at all for the Democrats to find legal briefs that Estrada has written, and that have been filed and made public, while Estrada was working in Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, the U.S. Attorney's office in New York, the Solicitor General's office, and as a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. Indeed, it should be noted that the kind of legal research Estrada wrote as an employee of the Solicitor General's office (memos the Democrats have made such a big deal about seeking) are in all likelihood rather dry and emotionless in nature. This is as it should be. Any attorney will tell you that interoffice legal research memos are supposed to be devoid of argument, and contain only dispassionate analysis. When an attorney is writing a legal research memo (for either the case file, or for direct review by a superior), he/she is supposed to avoid argument in the memo. Instead, the memo should be filled with analysis to resolve a legal question that has been posed by the case. Both sides are supposed to be presented in full and fairly, in order for there to be a fully informed decision and conclusion as to what the answer is to the particular legal question being addressed by the legal research memo. To put it colloquially, interoffice legal research memos are supposed to be "on-this-hand, on-the-other-hand" kinds of documents. A brief, on the other hand, is an argument that is decidedly in favor of one side. Unlike a legal research memo, a brief is not a dry document, but is quite emphatic in supporting one particular argument, and stating that argument forcefully. Given this fact, it should be clear that briefs will provide a greater insight into the legal philosophy held by Miguel Estrada than will interoffice memos. And because briefs are public documents, there is, as I mentioned, no problem whatsoever with attorney-client privilege and/or work-product privilege. Again, if the Democrats are really serious about finding out more about Estrada's thinking, they will forego the interoffice memos, and go directly after the briefs. Estrada made 15 arguments before the United States Supreme Court (winning 10 of them). Surely, the briefs for those arguments can be found fairly easily. Additionally, the Supreme Court makes available transcripts of oral arguments made before it. You can find a wide variety of briefs and oral arguments made before the Supreme Court here, here, and here. It took me all of ten seconds to find all of this on Google. Again, if Democrats are really serious about finding out what Estrada thinks, they don't need to wait for interoffice memos from the Solicitor General's office to do it. Now, I am completely and totally unaware of anyone else offering this idea as a way to resolve the filibuster that is preventing a vote on Miguel Estrada's confirmation from taking place. Being the intellectually vain and egotistical individual that I am, I would love to think that my Promethean brainpower was simply able to conjure up a brilliant idea that occurred to no one else. And since I am intellectually vain and egotistical, I think that I will indeed cherish the idea of possessing Promethean brainpower. Then again, perhaps my intellectual vanity shouldn't allow me to be positively deluded. And you know, the more I think about it, the more I have trouble believing that during the nearly two years that Estrada's nomination has been before the United States Senate, among the 45 Democratic Senators currently filibustering the Estrada nomination, all of their personal staffs, the minority staff on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the people that are employed by the various liberal interest groups who actively oppose the Estrada nomination, not a single person among that group ever considered the possibility of bypassing the privileged interoffice memos that Estrada wrote while a member of the Solicitor General's office, and instead going after public briefs and oral argument transcripts that would reveal Estrada's thinking on legal issues. And indeed, if someone involved in opposing Estrada's nomination actually did come up with my idea of checking briefs and oral argument transcripts, and nothing was done, it will simply confirm my suspicion, and the suspicion of others, that there was never any interest in finding out what Estrada's judicial philosophy was, and that instead, Democrats were and are looking for any reason to oppose his nomination. There are many words with which one can characterize that latter kind of suspected behavior. For now, I'll choose "dishonest." I could think of worse words, but this is, after all, a family blog. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/28/2003 02:59:11 PM ----- BODY: IT'S GONNA BE AN ESTRADA KIND OF DAY AROUND HERE Terry Eastland is very on-point with regards to the Estrada nomination. I know that his statements have been repeated ad infinitum for the past few weeks, but so long as Democrats continue to ignore the facts, those facts will unfortunately have to be repeated over and over again:
The question their filibuster raises is its justification, especially since, in the long history of the republic, the tactic never has been used against a circuit court nominee. Indeed, not that long ago, leading Democrats explicitly opposed judicial filibusters. Here are some famous last words, uttered by Sen. Patrick Leahy in 1998: "I would object and fight against any filibuster of a judge, whether somebody I opposed or supported. If we don't like somebody the president nominates, vote him or her down." The Democrats' stated reason for their filibuster is that Estrada, whose legal brilliance they don't dispute, has failed to provide enough information about his legal views. "If we get that information," Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle said earlier this month, "we will let every senator make his or her decision." To "get that information," Daschle wants (1) President Bush to release memos written by Estrada when he served in the 1990s as a career attorney in the solicitor general's office and (2) Estrada to "answer questions he refused to answer during his [confirmation] hearing." Daschle won't be given those memos. And for a reason that transcends partisanship: The confidentiality and integrity of internal deliberations by government litigators must be ensured. Every living former solicitor general--including four Democrats--signed a joint letter to the Senate making that compelling point. Nor can it be seriously maintained that the memos would reveal Estrada as some right-wing ideologue out to twist the law. Consider the testimony of Seth Waxman, who served as solicitor general under Bill Clinton. In a letter supporting the nominee, Waxman says Estrada was "a model of professionalism and competence" during the time the two men worked together. And: "in no way did I ever discern that the recommendations Mr. Estrada made or the analyses he propounded were colored in any way by his personal views."Has the dishonesty of the debate disgusted you yet? I know I'm nauseated. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/28/2003 02:55:30 PM ----- BODY: SO LONG AS DEMOCRATS CONTINUE TO OBSTRUCT JUDICIAL NOMINEES . . . actions like this one will be entirely necessary. And note the fact that Orrin Hatch's procedural move was considered kosher by the committee parliamentarian. Would that the Democrats' actions have as much grounding in precedent. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/28/2003 02:53:44 PM ----- BODY: I WENT TO BED PRETTY ANGRY LAST NIGHT . . . in large part because of this story, which was written in an even more pessimistic tone last night than it was when I saw it today:
Debate continues on the fate of President Bush's judicial nominee Miguel Estrada after Senate Republicans and the White House wrestled Thursday with a fateful choice — whether to call for a vote to break the Democratic filibuster or string out debate with no-near term hope of victory. Calling for a vote is fraught with peril, but GOP Senate leaders say they plan to do it, they just aren't sure when. The vote will be legislative history. The decision to call for a "cloture" vote on an appellate court nominee would overturn more than two centuries of Senate precedent and rewrite the constitutional definition of "advise and consent." Republicans would need 60 votes to break the filibuster and they know they don't have them. The move toward a defeat on the floor next week could doom Estrada, one of Bush's lawyers in the Supreme Court case that determined his presidency. In an exclusive interview with Fox News, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said he sees no other options but to press for a vote to break the Democrats' filibuster. A decision is expected Monday and a vote could come as early as mid-week next week.The fact that any cloture vote could potentially set a dangerous predecedent completely at variance with the Constitution's commands regarding the Senate's advice and consent authority enraged me. There is simply no language, no precedent, and no basis whatsoever to demand that court nominees get at least 60 votes to get confirmed. When Democrats complain that Republicans send up "strict constructionist" judges, perhaps Republicans should remind them that the reason strict constructionist judges are needed is to prevent abuses of power committed by constitutional illiterates like the Democrats who are filibustering the Estrada nomination on such flimsy grounds. Now, as I said, this story was more depressing when I read it last night. It has changed since then. According to Howard Bashman, who apparently has a highly placed source, no cloture vote has been scheduled, and no cloture vote may ever be scheduled. And Byron York provides this:
In perhaps its most forceful effort yet to break the stalemate over the appeals-court nomination of Miguel Estrada, the White House has now invited every member of the Senate who has doubts about Estrada's legal views to submit written questions to Estrada by the close of business Friday. In a letter delivered Thursday to all 100 senators, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales said Estrada will respond by next Tuesday. "He would answer the questions forthrightly, appropriately, and in a manner consistent with the traditional practice and obligations of judicial nominees, as he has before," Gonzales wrote. Gonzales also renewed a White House offer to set up personal meetings between Estrada and any senator who wants to have a one-on-one talk. "We continue to believe that such meetings could be very useful to senators who wish to learn more about Mr. Estrada's record and character," Gonzales wrote. Finally, Gonzales asked that Democrats with questions about Estrada's work "immediately ask in writing for the views of the Solicitors General, United States Attorney, and judges for whom Mr. Estrada worked and ask them to respond by Tuesday, March 4." Gonzales specifically named appeals-court judge Amalya Kearse, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, former United States Attorney Otto Obermaier, and former Solicitors General Ken Starr, Drew Days, Walter Dellinger, and Seth Waxman.As York points out, if the Democrats are really serious about getting more information about Estrada, they will take up the White House's offer. If they don't, we'll know that their complaints were disingenuous from the outset. Furthermore, if York's sources are correct, there are no plans on the part of the White House or Republicans to back down on Estrada:
Meanwhile, the Democratic filibuster goes on. Sources say the Republican leadership has still made no decision on whether or when to call for a vote to cut off debate and force an up-or-down vote on the nomination. At the moment, Republicans, who have all 51 of their own votes plus four Democrats, would fall five votes short of the 60 needed to cut off debate. But Republicans believe they are making progress and that the filibuster is beginning to take a political toll on moderate Democrats who are so far supporting the filibuster. Thus, the talking will continue. "We are on this next week," one Republican says. "We're committed to it."This, along with Howard Bashman's source, makes me believe that a cloture vote may not be scheduled after all, and that the fight may continue. Additionally, even if a cloture vote is scheduled, the Republicans have made clear that they do not view a loss on that vote as the end of the process, according to the FoxNews story cited above:
"The ball is in the Democrats' court and they've chosen to play in a way that to get a filibuster to be broken, our only procedural move can be a cloture vote," [Senate Majority Leader Bill] Frist said. "Our goal is to have him confirmed and we will continue to use every procedural tool we possibly can. We certainly won't be voting on cloture tomorrow we may early part of next week." But Frist emphasized that a vote to break the filibuster would not mark the end of the Estrada struggle. "I would think the battle is just beginning. At that juncture, we would know who we need to talk to. I've got a feeling, I've got a sense that Democrats are entrenched, and our goal is to pull them out of those trenches. It may take a few days. It may take a few weeks — it may take months — but it's my goal to pull them out of those trenches," Frist said.Needless to say, if the Republicans really are going to fight on and continue to make the Democrats pay a political price for their obstruction, this news likely upsets some ignorant demagogues. We'll see what happens. As far as I'm concerned, however, people like Teddy Kennedy (cheated in Harvard Law School) Hillary Clinton (who, as Dennis Miller pointed out, hangs on the coattails of her husband since there is no room at the front of the garment) and Patrick "I won't filibuster or blue-slip any judicial nominees" Leahy aren't worthy to carry Miguel Estrada's briefcase--much less deem him unqualified to serve as a judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/28/2003 02:33:28 PM ----- BODY: CELEBRATE GOOD TIMES, COME ON!
Thanks to everyone of my readers who made this possible. On to half a million page views!
--------
AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh
DATE: 2/27/2003 10:25:57 PM
-----
BODY:
THOUGHT FOR THE DAY This one is courtesy of reader and fellow attorney Douglas Amedeo, who wrote in with some very kind words about my blog:
The life of a thinking man will probably be divided into two parts-- the first in which he desires to exterminate modern thinkers, and the second in which he desires to watch them exterminating each other . . .
--G.K. Chesterton
--------
AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh
DATE: 2/27/2003 04:04:30 PM
-----
BODY:
WHITHER AFGHANISTAN? Contrary to reports that the country may be slipping back into anarchy, things actually seem to be going rather well:
Although countries around the world have promised more than $4 billion in aid to rebuild Afghanistan, there are today very few visible signs of the planned roads and schools and infrastructure projects. There are, however, signs throughout the capital, and in many provinces, of fast and dramatic change as Afghans and some intrepid foreigners open shops, businesses and even factories, quickly put up buildings to house them, and buy enough cars to create daily traffic jams. In a city that had a handful of shopworn eating places two years ago, a new Chinese or Italian or American hamburger restaurant opens almost weekly, as well as kebab shops by the score. Small hotels have sprung up, and a $40 million Hyatt is on the way. The food bazaars are bustling and there are downtown blocks filled almost entirely with bridal shops. Rebuilt homes are rising from the ruins, and every little storefront seems to be stuffed with bathtubs or fans or with men building and carving things to be sold.Obviously, Afghanistan still has a ways to go before it can finally be said to have joined the civilized world, and put nearly two millennia of tribalism and conflict behind it. But this is a tremendous start--one that was brought about thanks to the very "American imperialism" that so many now deride when it comes to addressing the issue of Iraq. Indeed considering what has been accomplished in Afghanistan, imagine just how much could be done in a country with an educated and relatively modern population and society such as Iraq. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/27/2003 03:53:44 PM ----- BODY: OUT OF THE MOUTHES OF BABES . . . comes copious wisdom. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/27/2003 03:26:10 PM ----- BODY: SANITY IN FRANCE? Perhaps:
Key lawmakers from President Jacques Chirac's party have voiced growing concern over the damage France's anti-war stance is having on relations with the United States and the future of the United Nations. Herve de Charette, a former foreign minister and lawmaker with the ruling center-right UMP party, was the latest to add his voice to a string of warnings about the consequences of an eventual French veto in the Security Council. Saying he believes war on Iraq is inevitable, de Charette told LCI television that any veto blocking a U.S-backed resolution seeking authorization for war "is a decision that has great ramifications, of great gravity." He noted that France, one of five permanent members of the Security Council that holds a veto, has not used one against the United States since the crisis over the Suez Canal in 1956.I don't know whether these voices will ultimately be successful in bringing the government to its senses. But it is good to see that the voices exist, and that they appear to belong to some French politicians with influence. Perhaps that will help re-orient French priorities. As Elie Wiesel said today after a meeting with the President, if the French put as much pressure on Iraq as they have on the United States over the prospect of a war with Iraq, we may not have the problems with Saddam Hussein that we have now. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/27/2003 01:41:18 PM ----- BODY: WANT TO HELP PUSH MIGUEL ESTRADA THROUGH THE SENATE? Here's what you can do: Find your Senator listed on this page and either call or e-mail them to urge that if they haven't done so already, they should drop their opposition to allowing a final vote on Estrada's nomination to take place. Remember: The Estrada opponents believe that no one really cares about this issue. One of the chief opponents--Senator Charles Schumer of New York--has specifically cited the supposed apathy of the American people in arguing to his Democratic colleagues that they should continue to filibuster Estrada's nomination. Prove him wrong by showing that you aren't apathetic. Call or e-mail your Senator. Either urge them to drop their support for the filibuster, or urge them to continue their support for Estrada in order to finally break the filibuster and give Estrada the minimal decency of an up or down vote. If you have any love or regard for me and my blog, you'll do this. Call or e-mail now! -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/27/2003 01:35:46 PM ----- BODY: HOW CHARMING Behold the measure of tolerance extended by the Michigan Education Association (a teachers' lobby group) to a conservative think-tank:
The prize for intimidation has to go to the Michigan Education Association. The Wolverine State's teachers union is suing the Mackinac Center, a state-level free-market group, claiming it "misappropriated" the "likeness" of NEA president Lu Battaglieri by quoting him in a fundraising letter. The offending quote? "Quite frankly, I admire what they have done," Mr. Battaglieri said of the Mackinac center, as he announced the creation of the MEA's own research group to counter Mackinac's pro-choice efforts. The Mackinac Center used that quote and then commented: "Mr. Battaglieri, whose union is generally at odds with the Mackinac Center, said this with respect to how Mackinac Center research has shaped education reform in Michigan and around the nation." Mackinac plainly is exercising its constitutionally protected right of free speech. But MEA is demanding that the think tank turn over to the union all funds that the letter raised. It also demands a copy of Mackinac's mailing list and a gag order baring the group from ever mentioning MEA or Mr. Battaglieri again in a solicitation letter. MEA not only claims "misappropriation" but that Mackinac placed Mr. Battaglieri in a "false light" by insinuating that he admires the center in a different way than the way he actually admires it. The MEA has itself used names of outsiders in fund-raising letters. Last year, it sent out a letter that began "because [Arnold] Palmer, [Jack] Nicklaus and [Tiger] Woods aren't available to play in MEA's Scholarship Fund golf outing on June 20 . . . Battaglieri is looking for three players to fill out his foursome" by bidding for the right to join him on the links. Maybe Tiger should sue.And this, gentle readers, is what happens when you can't beat an argument: You try to stifle the debate as a whole through strategies like vexatious litigation, knowing--as the article points out--that such litigation, even if unsuccessful, will hurt the pocketbooks of non-profit think-tanks. One wishes that the teachers would set a good intellectual example and just try to out-debate their opposition. But then, I suppose there is a reason why the education in public schools is so bad nowadays. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/27/2003 01:30:04 PM ----- BODY: THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE ESTRADA FILIBUSTER It would seem that the Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot when it comes to the prospect of attracting Hispanic voters to their side in the future, given their conduct in the Estrada confirmation fight:
Members of both parties say it is unclear whether the nomination fight would aid Republicans and Mr. Bush, who has made courting Hispanic voters a central element of his political strategy. But Bush allies like their chances. "It never hurts a Republican president to be seen battling on the side of talented Latinos getting jobs in his administration," said Bill McInturff, a Republican pollster. The national executive director of the League of United Latin American Citizens, a major Hispanic membership organization that has endorsed Mr. Estrada, said he believes Hispanic voters are paying attention. "I would be surprised if those that are engaged with this debate are not disappointed with the Democratic Party for not giving this nominee a chance to be confirmed," the director, Brent Wilkes, said. He said similar "diversity" issues have drawn traditionally Democratic Hispanic voters to Republicans in recent elections in New York and Texas. Sergio Bendixen, a veteran Hispanic pollster in Miami who was at first uncertain what impact the issue would have on Latino voters, said he had seen an escalation of the coverage in Spanish-language news media and that Republicans might be scoring points.Any price that the Democrats pay on this issue would be well-deserved. The filibuster has no intellectual integrity behind it whatsoever. It deserves to go down in flames, as do the electoral chances of any party or person who supports it. (Link via Howard Bashman) -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/27/2003 01:25:34 PM ----- BODY: THE JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION WARS George Will excoriates Senate Democrats over their conduct in the Estrada confirmation battle:
The president, preoccupied with regime change elsewhere, will occupy a substantially diminished presidency unless he defeats the current attempt to alter the constitutional regime here. If at least 41 Senate Democrats succeed in blocking a vote on the confirmation of Miguel Estrada to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the Constitution effectively will be amended.Exactly. And whatever happened to "counting every vote" and "letting every vote count"? That certainly seems to have fallen by the wayside, hasn't it? (Link via Howard Bashman) -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/27/2003 01:16:52 PM ----- BODY: VERBAL ABUSE OF KIDS OF DEPLOYED SOLDIERS An update. (Thanks to reader John Johnston for this link.) -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/27/2003 01:04:52 PM ----- BODY: AN UGLY UNIVERSE? Could be. Read on. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/27/2003 12:57:14 PM ----- BODY: FOR YOUR REQUISITE BABA WAWA BASHING . . . go here posthaste. And while Baba Wawa may not be a goddess, Emily most certainly is. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/27/2003 12:53:43 PM ----- BODY: ANTI-SEMITISM WATCH Rod Dreher has the goods on the habitual anti-Semitism that is displayed and expressed by Malaysia's dictatorial Prime Minister, Mahathir Mohammad. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/27/2003 12:48:29 PM ----- BODY: YET ANOTHER STUDENT PROTEST . . . that I can support completely. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/27/2003 12:40:52 PM ----- BODY: A PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS The President's speech to the American Enterprise Institute can be found here. (Link via Barry Kaplovitz.) I'm happy that it speaks not only of disarmament when it comes to Iraq, but of regime change in the country. There has been some back and forth as to whether or not regime change was going to be an actual goal of the impending military action, or whether the Administration would be happy with disarmament alone. The President appears to have answered the question in favor of the former option--the right way to go. A disarmed Saddam Hussein would merely try to rearm again. Only when Saddam and his cronies are gone will we be given cause to hope that Iraq will finally live up to its responsibilities under the many Security Council resolutions that have been applied towards it. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/27/2003 12:28:43 PM ----- BODY: LOVE IS A MANY-SPLENDORED THING . . . which is the reason that a lifelong New York City gal like Asparagirl will eventually leave The City That Never Sleeps to come to the Twilight Zone that is the State of California to have and to hold her hubby-to-be. And given the many positive attributes of the estimable Mr. Ganz, Brooke's self-imposed command to "Go West, young lady," is entirely understandable. Still, while I don't know how it would be possible to attract the Legume Lady to the Golden State any more than to have her man here, there may perhaps be ways to sweeten the pot still further. So consider it sweetened. The things I do to bring young lovers together. I had better get good karma for this. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/27/2003 12:18:45 PM ----- BODY: LIKE HUSBAND, LIKE WIFE It appears that the worst kind of day for a politician with the surname "Clinton" is one without any wind whatsoever. After all, on those days, a Clinton can't lick his or her finger, put it in the air, and decide which position to take on a crucial issue of national importance:
ANTI-WAR fever is all the rage in the Democratic Party these days, but candidate-in-waiting Hillary Clinton is carefully sidestepping it, even though the left is often seen as her natural base. Sen. Clinton (D-N.Y.) voted to authorize an Iraq attack last fall but she's just about invisible on the issue lately, not speaking out for or against military action even though she's on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Her office last night declined to say if she feels Bush has made the case for war now. It's eerily reminiscent of the ambiguous stand that one of the smartest Dem pols of her generation - that would be her husband - took on the 1991 Gulf War run by Bush's dad, leaving all his options open. Quoth Bill Clinton: "I guess I would have voted with the majority [for war] if it was a close vote. But I agree with the arguments the minority made."What a motto for responsibility. What a motto for leadership. Maybe we can complete the imitation and call in Dick Morris to play Hillary Clinton's Svengali. It would perhaps be the only way that we might flush out, at least a little, her position on the most consequential issue of the day. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/27/2003 12:14:25 PM ----- BODY: *SIGH* I guess this means that I have officially become old. It's a downcast day in the neighborhood. Rest in peace, Mr. Rogers. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/27/2003 12:12:01 PM ----- BODY: PERSONALLY, I WOULD VOTE FOR PRESIDENT THOMPSON Anything would be better than President Bartlet. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/26/2003 11:41:10 PM ----- BODY: THOUGHT FOR THE DAY Politics are a lousy way for a free man to get things done. Politics are, like God's infinite mercy, a last resort. --P.J. O'Rourke, Parliament of Whores -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/26/2003 06:39:28 PM ----- BODY: STIRRING UP A LITTLE TROUBLE There are few things on earth more ridiculously embarrassing than having a poorly constructed joke turned back against its originator. Within the past few days, Max Sawicky has proven this truism anew. As everyone now knows, Max wrote a little post where he managed to pull off the unique trick of pleading for "civility" and calling Glenn Reynolds, Steven Den Beste, Andrew Sullivan and Charles Johnson "The Four Horseman of the Ablogalypse." Doubtless, after having typed this remark, Max then went off and patted himself on the back for supposedly being gifted with the kind of withering wit that most people would sell their souls to Lucifer for (pardon the additional Biblical and apocalyptic reference). Unfortunately, as things turn out, just about everyone is laughing at Max, instead of with him. Den Beste made fun of the comment. Sullivan got a good laugh out of it. Glenn actively embraced the term and likely also got a chuckle or ten out of Max's incoherent fury, Charles Johnson was delighted to hear that he was enraging Max so much, and Sean Kirby was even kind enough to provide a graphic for the newfound Four Horsemen to use as a battle-banner. Now, one would think that when a joke has backfired to such a tremendous degree, the person who authored the joke in the first place would retire to the sidelines and let the storm pass. That would be the smart thing to do. Unfortunately, Max just kept stepping in his own mess and compounding his humiliation in front of the masses. First he posted a long, self-important comment whereby he accused the Four Horsemen and their many fans of having "sad and dreary lives," forgetting perhaps that a sine qua non of having a sad and dreary life is for a person to sit around and think up lame insults like "Four Horsemen of the Ablogalypse," and then not have the intellect to recognize that not only has the joke fallen flat, it has been turned against the one who thought it up. Then, not having his rage and fury properly satiated, Max made up a poster of his own. In his comments section, he apologizes for the poor artistic quality of the poster, stating that "I'm no tyro with graphics, if it isn't obvious." A commentator noted, helpfully, that in addition to being artistically challenged, Max also has a poor command of the English language, stating that "Actually, Max, you apparently ARE a tyro with graphics (logic, too, for that matter). 'tyro: a beginner in learning : NOVICE synonym see AMATEUR.'" Really, it's impossible to make up this grand and pathetic comedy of errors. Not finished with embarrassing himself, Max then stated that all of the comments he got laughing at him actually justified his sense of self-importance. I'm sure he thinks it did. I'm equally sure that when other people make fools of themselves in public, they try to comfort themselves with this desperate rationalization as well. Here is a free clue for Max from a conservative who cares: Dude, give it up. Your joke didn't work in insulting anyone. Every one of the four bloggers you aimed your "Ablogalypse" comment ended up proudly embracing the term, and there are plenty of other "warbloggers" who aspire to the honor of pissing you off to no end. All you're doing is giving the rest of us ammunition to use against you in future conflicts--as well as a valuable insight to how profoundly emotionally and intellectually insecure you really are. Believe me, nothing would please me more than if you decided to try to come up with yet another ostensibly-clever-yet-ultimately-self-defeating attempt to put down your opponents, but there comes a point where even hard hearts like mine take pity. That point has arrived. Max, you inadvertently gave everyone a good and wonderful laugh at your expense. We thank you for that--it isn't often that people appear so willing to play court jester, even if accidentally. The "Ablogalypse" comment will be long remembered as failing and self-destructing in a manner worse and more egregiously than any attempt at a witticism in recent memory. It produced much mirth for the rest of us. But for the love of all that is good and holy, stop destroying yourself in front of the entire world, will you? The Internet is a public place. Self-immolation on it may be interesting and fascinating to watch in the manner that a car wreck inevitably attracts the usual crop of rubber-neckers. But at some point, the carnage really does get too much. Hasn't it gotten to be a bit too much for you yet? Or do you have some kind of fond desire for drenching yourself with horrendous publicity? I really hope you're ready to stop the self-immolation. I really hope that you won't try for the umpteenth time to explain how you really were funny and clever, and how the warbloggers just didn't get it, and how all of this demonstrates just how important you are in the blogging world. Because if you do, the laughter will begin anew. And since I know that you might need a reminder, please recall, we're laughing at you. Remember: At you. That's not a good thing for you. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/26/2003 02:51:22 PM ----- BODY: LIMITING RICO Next to the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) has to be one of the most overused and overextended legal precepts. Today, the United States Supreme Court finally decided that enough was enough, and curbed RICO's influence. And lest you think that this case represents nothing more than the traditional Left-Right divide over abortion, bear in mind the fact that groups like PETA and activists like Martin Sheen were opposing NOW's argument that RICO should be construed as banning the rights of pro-life groups to protest abortion activities. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/26/2003 02:20:53 PM ----- BODY: ALL HAIL THE AMERICAN HERO. (Link via InstaPundit) -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/26/2003 02:16:38 PM ----- BODY: ON THE INTELLECTUAL AND MORAL BANKRUPTCY OF THE ANTIWAR PROTESTORS Amir Taheri has the details. It's stunning that people could be as blindn and disinterested in actual human suffering as the people Taheri rightly castigates appear to be. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/26/2003 02:05:06 PM ----- BODY: YALE'S SHAME Yale student James Kirchick denounces his school's shockingly warm welcome of the racist poet Amiri Baraka:
It was not Baraka's ranting which upset me most. Having read his work, I was thoroughly prepared for whatever was bound to come out of his mouth. It was the response he received from my fellow Yalies that shocked me. Following a reading of his notorious poem "Somebody Blew Up America," the puerile verses of which are now well known to the Yale community, Baraka launched into a paranoid tirade. As he cited "evidence" of Israeli complicity in the World Trade Center attacks, many Yale students vigorously nodded their heads in approval and erupted into cheering. At the end of the event, the crowd leapt to its feet to give the former poet laureate of New Jersey a rousing standing ovation. While Dean George wrote yesterday that "we do not endorse the extreme statements by Amiri Baraka that have occasioned concern in the Yale community" ("In defense of inviting Amiri Baraka," 2/25), nearly everyone at the event that day seemed to agree with Baraka's theories. His recent favorite is that on Sept. 11, 2001, the Jewish state warned its citizens working in New York to stay home. Midway through his diatribe he singled me out upon viewing my skeptical expression, loudly announcing that I had "constipation of the face," and thus required a "brain enema." Baraka, an avowed Communist, got a laugh from the crowd when he affectionately quoted Mao Zedong on the topic of public integrity, chanting "No investigation, no right to speak." The audience loudly joined him in unison, repeating the words of a Chinese dictator responsible for the death of millions of his own people.There are no words . . . -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/26/2003 01:49:14 PM ----- BODY: DOING SOME DIRTY WORK John Hawkins is refuting antiwar clichés all over the place. It's amazing that this stuff actually has to be done, but kudos to John for doing it. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/26/2003 01:45:59 PM ----- BODY: IRAN WATCH Nima Arian has some interesting sociopolitical observations on Iran--including a discussion of the genesis of the Iranian revolution. Be sure to take a look. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/26/2003 12:51:53 PM ----- BODY: SPEAKING OF HOWARD BASHMAN . . . I have good news for him: He has much more hair than I do. Surely, that must comfort him somewhat. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/26/2003 12:45:51 PM ----- BODY: THE JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION WARS This editorial neatly dispenses with the canard tht Miguel Estrada is outside the mainstream of legal thought. Note the many Democrats who have spoken in favor of Estrada's confirmation. This should tell you something about how suspect Estrada's opponents are in terms of intellectual honesty. (Link via Howard Bashman) -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/26/2003 12:32:18 PM ----- BODY: THE REDEMPTIVE POWERS OF CHESS I imagine that there may be a lot of stories like this one out there. It wouldn't surprise me a bit. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/26/2003 12:29:51 PM ----- BODY: CHESS NEWS Read all about the tournament considered to be "the Wimbledon of chess." -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/26/2003 12:17:41 PM ----- BODY: COURAGE WINS VOTES It certainly has in Tony Blair's case. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/26/2003 12:10:14 PM ----- BODY: I HASTEN TO ADD . . . that Tony Blair is far from the only foreign leader to show intelligence and courage in this crisis. Another spectacular source of assistance has been Australia's Prime Minister, John Howard. His editorial is instructive in detailing the reason why containment won't work as an option here as it did during the Cold War:
Moscow was "contained" because of the possession of atomic/nuclear weapons by both the West and the Soviets. The doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction guaranteed the maintenance of the status quo delivered by containment, until the internal implosion of the old Soviet empire. The view, validly held, was that because both sides had weapons of mass destruction, the potential human cost of military action by the West and the Soviet Union at the time of Hungary in 1956, or Czechoslovakia in 1968, would have been infinitely greater than the human cost (bad though it was) in leaving dictatorial Soviet-backed regimes in power there. Then, the potential cost of doing something was greater than the cost of doing nothing. Now, in the case of Iraq, the potential cost of doing nothing is clearly much greater than the cost of doing something.Exactly, and an excellent way to put matters. Would that more people understood this and other simple truths. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/26/2003 12:04:07 PM ----- BODY: I KNOW YOU'RE JUST DYING . . . for me to give you my expert analysis on the latest draft resolution regarding Iraq that has been proposed by the U.S., Britain and Spain, as well as the memorandum that has been proposed in the alternative by the French, the Germans and the Russians. Or maybe, you really don't care what I think of the entire situation. Oh well. I think I'll tell you anyway. The American resolution is very simple and direct in nature. Much of it is a verbatim copy of Resolution 1441, and the decision to copy Resolution 1441 was a deliberate one. Given that Resolution 1441 was able to garner a unanimous vote in favor of its passage, it would seem quite strange indeed if countries like France, Germany and Russia, which supported Resolution 1441, now voted against its near identical copy. The American strategy is to dare them to do exactly that, and to look inconsistent and ridiculous in the process. Of course, there is one difference between the latest resolution, and Resolution 1441. That difference is encapsulated in the following line from the latest resolution: "Decides that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it in resolution 1441 (2002)." To avoid looking inconsistent, I'm guessing that the French, Germans and Russians will seize on the words "final opportunity" on which to anchor their objections, and to argue that Iraq should indeed have more opportunities to disarm. That is what I would do, anyway, if I were charged with the responsibility of opposing the American policy. Because the French, Germans and Russians have maintained that a new resolution is not necessary, they have instead offered, as I mentioned above, a memorandum to address the situation in Iraq. Note that the memorandum demands the existence of a clear timeline for the inspections to be finished and for Iraq to disarm. However, this demand was undercut by the joint press conference held a few days ago by Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schröder, in which both leaders stated that they would not take any sort of position on a firm deadline, and that deadlines really need to be up to the inspectors. Since the inspectors are the last people who want to have the responsibility of stating that inspections have failed, and that the military option is the only option left, this virtually guarantees that the inspections will proceed indefinitely. And needless to say, this cop-out on the part of the French and Germans demonstrates quite clearly why they are not respected as great powers in their own rights. It is bad enough that the French and German militaries are unimpressive and that their economies are sclerotic at best. It is worse still that they think the essence of "leadership" constitutes passing the buck on the determination of a deadline. Whatever concrete demands they have made for a deadline are not included in a resolution--a memorandum has no binding force on the Security Council, and even that nebulous document has been undercut by the public statements of Chirac and Schröder. Hardly impressive. Of course, the only real reason a new resolution is being pushed is as a favor to Prime Minister Tony Blair for his Churchillian support of the Bush Administration's policies regarding Iraq. Given the courage that Blair has shown in facing down many members of his own party, I suppose that it is only fair to give his political circumstances some consideration. It should be noted as well that no information has come to light to suggest that the failure to pass this latest resolution will make Blair shrink from what needs to be done. That is a testament to Blair's courage, and serves as a useful comparison to the cowardice of Chirac, Schröder, and company. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/26/2003 11:38:32 AM ----- BODY: THE LATEST THREAT TO FREE TRADE Read about how trade sanctions based on environmental grounds are harming the vitality and spread of free trade. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/26/2003 11:25:05 AM ----- BODY: ISN'T THERE ANYONE MORE WORTHY . . . to speak to University of Chicago students? And surely there were some students who thought that Jesse Jackson's call for Saddam Hussein to institute "transparency" was a load of hot air. Why weren't they interviewed on the value--or lack thereof--of Jackson's comments? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/26/2003 11:21:45 AM ----- BODY: GIVING PROPS TO THE HAND THAT PUBLICIZES ME Since Michael Kelly was so good as to give my site a little publicity, it would be entirely unfair if I did not direct you to his latest excellent editorial on the impending war with Iraq and how the first Persian Gulf War helped liberate the Kuwaiti people. Another excellent read. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/26/2003 11:16:02 AM ----- BODY: MORE INDICATIONS . . . that the antiwar movement is out of step with the Iraqi people. Be sure to read this editorial, if you read nothing else today. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/26/2003 11:14:07 AM ----- BODY: THE VIRTUES OF COERCION Perhaps sensing how strongly disliked they were becoming in the United States, the Saudis have suddenly become very helpful:
The United States and Saudi Arabia have reached new agreements that will allow expanded U.S. air operations from Saudi territory, including full use of Prince Sultan Air Base as an air operations center, in the event of war against Iraq, according to senior U.S. officials and diplomatic sources. "We've had talks over the past three weeks that have been very productive, and both we and the Saudis are satisfied," an administration official said yesterday. "We've reached agreements that affect facilities inside Saudi Arabia and a broad array of military operations that could happen in the event of hostilities with Iraq." In addition to the use of the air command and control center at Prince Sultan, 70 miles southeast of Riyadh, the Saudi capital, the agreements will allow the United States to fly refueling aircraft, AWACS surveillance planes and JSTARS battlefield radar aircraft from Saudi airfields, the sources said. The United States also will be permitted to use Saudi airfields to base fighter jets that undertake interception missions against Iraqi aircraft and that enforce the "no-fly" zone over southern Iraq. A source said there also is a tacit agreement that will allow the United States to conduct bombing missions from Saudi Arabia in the days after an initial wave of U.S. air attacks as long as no public announcement was made. Asked about the possibility of launching combat strike aircraft from Saudi bases, a senior Defense Department official declined comment. The official said the Saudis "have allowed us to base additional aircraft in the kingdom and the personnel" they require. But he declined to characterize the aircraft except to say, "These are defensive, not to use for offensive purposes."I still think that the kind of Wahhabi fundamentalism and outright hatred that emanates from Saudi Arabia needs to be dealt with eventually. But it's good to see that we will have their help in the coming fight against Iraq. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/26/2003 11:06:47 AM ----- BODY: YET ANOTHER REASON . . . why I love Dennis Miller. Somebody please get the man a show. We would all do well to hear from the Thinking Man's Celebrity more often. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/26/2003 11:01:17 AM ----- BODY: NEVER FORGET Just as we should always remember September 11, 2001, we should also remember February 26, 1993. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/26/2003 10:58:51 AM ----- BODY: I'LL NEVER UNDERSTAND . . . why Benjamin Netanyahu's talents are not more fully utilized. I know that he and Sharon are rivals, but Sharon just won an election thanks in large part to Netanyahu's support after the Likud Party's leadership challenge was resolved. One would think that Sharon could have afforded to be somewhat magnanimous to his rival. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/26/2003 10:55:35 AM ----- BODY: HEH! Looks like Helen Thomas has worn out her welcome with the White House. Kathyn Jean Lopez reports on Ari Fleischer's statement as he called on Thomas to ask a question. Quite frankly, I'm surprised that Fleischer was able to hold his tongue for so long. I would have been making snide and sarcastic comments directed against Helen Thomas from the moment it became clear that she was more interested in pontificating than in being a good journalist. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/26/2003 10:40:48 AM ----- BODY: HOW DO YOU CLASSIFY THIS STORY? Personally, I would classify it as "tempting fate":
Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein said he would refuse any offer of exile, even to avoid a war, telling CBS's "60 Minutes II" that he will die in his country to "maintain our honor." Saddam's comments were made during a three-hour interview with Dan Rather. The network, which termed the conversations between Saddam and Rather as wide-ranging, planned to air many of the Iraqi president's comments Wednesday on "60 Minutes II." The network provided excerpts of the interview. "I have taught my children the value of history and the value of human stands. ... Whoever decides to forsake his nation from whoever requests is not true to the principles," Saddam said after being asked if he would go into exile. "We will die here. We will die in this country and we will maintain our honor."Needless to say, all of this can, and should be arranged. Far be it from history to record that Americans are anything but an accommodating people. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/26/2003 10:35:30 AM ----- BODY: DIPLOMATIC WAR The United States appears to have had quite enough of Jacques Chirac:
AMERICA last night dramatically warned French President Jacques “Le Worm” Chirac not to veto UN moves to disarm Saddam Hussein. In an astonishing slap-down, the US envoy to France said any attempt by France to scupper military action would be seen as “very unfriendly”. Ambassador Howard Leach said in Paris: “France and the United States can do many things together. I hope we will continue to work together. “I hope there won’t be a veto because a veto would be very unfriendly and we wouldn’t look kindly upon it.” The ambassador’s blunt public warning, authorised by President George Bush, was the nearest thing to a declaration of diplomatic war.Considering how decidedly unhelpful the French have been--especially for a country that still likes to consider itself an ally of the United States, I suppose that it should come as no surprise that this kind of warning has been given. Nevertheless, the force behind it is quite stunning, and shows that the United States means business when it comes to the disarmament of, and regime change in Iraq. All positive signs, as far as I'm concerned. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/25/2003 11:27:24 PM ----- BODY: THOUGHT FOR THE DAY Sweet are the uses of adversity, which, like a toad, though ugly and venomous, wears yet a precious jewel in its head. --William Shakespeare -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/25/2003 08:58:13 PM ----- BODY: CLASS WARFARE AND THE ESTRADA NOMINATION The always-superb Howard Bashman has a superb rebuttal to an utterly specious argument made by Senate Minority Whip Harry Reid in the course of Reid's work to filibuster the Estrada nomination. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/25/2003 08:53:04 PM ----- BODY: CHESS NEWS Indian grandmaster Viswanathan Anand recently won the Corus International Tournament in the Netherlands. Included in Anand's tournament triumph was a victory over Russian grandmaster Anatoly Karpov. You can access the breakdown of the game between Anand and Karpov, as well as the final standings for the tournament here. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/25/2003 07:14:15 PM ----- BODY: I MEANT TO LINK TO THIS EARLIER Check out John Hawkins's interview with Mona Charen. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/25/2003 07:11:46 PM ----- BODY: "KEEPING A STIFF UPPER LIP" Stoicism and emotional self-control has its virtues. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/25/2003 06:48:27 PM ----- BODY: A LEGAL GIANT HE AIN'T Stuart Buck has a delightfully funny post recalling Senator Edward Kennedy's utter confusion regarding the different standards of review that are applied in reviewing gender and race discrimination cases that arise under the Equal Protection Clause to the Constitution. Go over and read, and have yourself a nice little laugh. Of course, considering Kennedy's past academic escapades, it should perhaps surprise no one that he isn't exactly the most booksmart person in the world. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/25/2003 06:39:58 PM ----- BODY: REMEMBER THE ANTI-CHOMSKY BRIGADES? They have a new recruit. (Link via Instapundit) -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/25/2003 06:22:34 PM ----- BODY: WHERE ARE WE OFF TO, AND WHAT'S WITH THIS HANDBASKET? Yet more evidence that the end is near. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/25/2003 06:20:23 PM ----- BODY: NEVER FORGET Steyn speaks:
The other day the Independent’s Joan Smith wrote a column headlined ‘It’s About Time the US Got Over 9/11’. That presupposes 9/11 is itself over — that it was just a one-off, a freak, like a bad tornado or the record-breaking snowstorms that hit New York and Washington this week. The storm has passed and normal life resumes. That’s more or less what happened after the first attempt to take out the World Trade Center in 1993: America got over it, very quickly. So they bombed it again.The man does have an impressive capacity for devastating responses to idiotarians, doesn't he? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/25/2003 05:56:26 PM ----- BODY: MORE COOL TOYS Noah Schachtman has this report on the latest in military surveillance technology. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/25/2003 05:24:20 PM ----- BODY: IS THERE HOPE FOR EUROPE? Perhaps. Ricard Miniter has the details. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/25/2003 05:10:56 PM ----- BODY: MORE ON THE JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION WARS This letter, which was sent by Judge Alberto Gonzales, the White House Counsel, to Senator Charles Schumer in response to Schumer's statements regarding the Estrada nomination this past weekend, is an excellent and comprehensive rebuttal of the Democratic position on the Estrada nomination. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/25/2003 04:43:34 PM ----- BODY: MORE ON JOSH CHAFETZ'S NEWFOUND FAME . . . can be found here. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/25/2003 04:27:34 PM ----- BODY: MYSTERY SOLVED In the event that you are wondering how Dan Rather was able to land an interview with Saddam Hussein, this report should help answer your questions:
CBS acknowledged that former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, who is prominent in the global anti-war movement and met with Saddam on Sunday, put in a good word for Rather in helping secure the interview. Clark has known Rather for a long time, said CBS News spokeswoman Sandra Genelius. In a competitive situation seeking an interview, journalists call on many different resources, she said.And in the event that you know nothing about Ramsey Clark beyond the description given above, want to find out more, and have no particular objection to having your stomach turned, click here. Note as well Clark's close connections with A.N.S.W.E.R., the group that is responsible for organizing antiwar protests. Birds of a feather, and all that. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/25/2003 04:17:06 PM ----- BODY: THE JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION WARS Benjamin Wittes has some very interesting and pertinent thoughts on the confirmation battle surrounding Miguel Estrada:
Asked whether the Constitution evolves over time, the nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit told the Senate Judiciary Committee that, while such debates were interesting, "as an appellate judge, my obligation is to apply precedent." Asked whether he favored capital punishment, a nominee said only that the death penalty's constitutionality was "settled law now" and that he didn't "see any way in which [his] views would be inconsistent with the law in this area." Miguel Estrada, one of President Bush's nominees to the D.C. Circuit, is facing a filibuster by Democratic senators who claim that his refusal to address their questions at his hearing -- combined with the White House's refusal to release his memos from his days at the solicitor general's office -- makes him an unreadable sphinx. Yet the careful answers quoted above are not Estrada's. The first was given by Judge Judith Rogers at her hearing in 1994, the second by Judge Merrick Garland the following year. Both were named to the bench by President Clinton. Neither was ever accused of stonewalling the committee. And both were confirmed. But the rules they are a-changin', and answers barely distinguishable from these are no longer adequate. Asked whether he thought the Constitution contained a right to privacy, Estrada said that "the Supreme Court has so held and I have no view of any nature whatsoever . . . that would keep me from apply[ing] that case law faithfully." Asked whether he believed Roe v. Wade was correctly decided, he declined to answer. While he has personal views on abortion, he said, he had not done the work a judge would do before pronouncing on the subject. Roe "is there," he said. "It is the law . . . and I will follow it."And as Wittes points out, Estrada is being punished for doing exactly what Rogers and Garland were able to do without penalty at their confirmation hearings. The hypocrisy is fairly stunning. It would be bad enough if any Senator who voted for Rogers and Garland were to choose to vote against Estrada for alleged "non-responsiveness." Even worse, because of this absurd filibuster, no one is actually being allowed to vote. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/25/2003 04:11:33 PM ----- BODY: FRAUD GETS A SECOND ACT You have got to be kidding me:
A disputed book about guns in the United States that was stripped of the prestigious Bancroft Prize and discontinued by its original publisher will be reissued this fall in a revised edition. Michael Bellesiles' "Arming America," first published in 2000 by Alfred A. Knopf, has been acquired by Soft Skull Press, which has a history of taking on controversial books. "We believe in allowing readers to evaluate for themselves," Soft Skull publisher Richard Nash said.Evaluate what, precisely? The extent to which Bellesiles lied about his research and sources? The extent to which he falsified evidence? The plausibility of his ridiculous excuses for the many instances of prevarication found in the book? What exactly is the point of this? UPDATE: Joyce Malcolm's account of the genesis and progression of the Bellesiles controversy is tremendously valuable. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/25/2003 04:08:15 PM ----- BODY: OF LOVELY STEWARDESSES AND CHICKEN WINGS AT 30,000 FEET Did anyone actually know that this company is in existence? And why haven't I flown on it yet? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/25/2003 03:56:39 PM ----- BODY: IF YOU WANT TO PROTEST THE WAR AGAINST IRAQ, THAT IS YOUR RIGHT But this is utterly and completely reprehensible. Trent Telenko has more on this issue. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/25/2003 03:48:15 PM ----- BODY: FODDER FOR ERIC ALTERMAN? I'm sure that liberal pundits will note the cancellation of Phil Donahue's show as proof that there is no liberal bias in the media. I'll cite it to merely suggest that when a show stinks on ice, it will not have a long life on television. Donahue was full of clichés in the questions he asked and the comments he made, and his personal style (whiny and singsongy) was annoying beyond measure. The only surprise is that he wasn't cancelled sooner. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/24/2003 11:42:56 PM ----- BODY: THOUGHT FOR THE DAY Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art...It has no survival value; rather it is one of those things that give value to survival. --C.S. Lewis -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/24/2003 08:10:58 PM ----- BODY: THE POWER OF THE BLOGOSPHERE I just heard Michael Barone on C-Span discussing the natural bias of the media to believe that the European view of the United States is somehow correct and well-founded. One of the statements Barone made referred to Josh Chafetz's "Immutable Laws of Dowd," which states in part that "Europeans are always right." Barone's statement got an appreciative response from the audience. A mighty thing, the Blogosphere. It's incredible how mainstream and valuable blogs have become. Kudos to Josh for continuing to impress and dazzle the cognescenti with his erudite writing and insightful analysis. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/24/2003 06:00:23 PM ----- BODY: HOMER SIMPSON WOULD LOVE ME
I am p Everyone loves pi _ |
Iran would seem to be an unlikely corner of the Middle East to find support for Washington's plans to unseat Saddam Hussein. But despite decades of poor relations with the U.S. and their pique at being labeled part of an "axis of evil," most Iranians are eager to see the Iraqi dictator's demise. Those who fought in Iran's war with Iraq in the 1980s and those for whom that war is little more than a childhood memory equally want to see Hussein's regime toppled. Few doubt that he is dangerous, armed with terrible weapons and a bane to the region. "The day Saddam Hussein is arrested, killed or exiled, Iranians will pass out sweets in the streets," said Mehdi Ansari, a newspaper vendor. His clapboard kiosk on Vali Asr, Tehran's main boulevard, does brisker business these days as Iranians follow the latest twists in the U.N. inspection effort that they expect will eventually lead to war.And lest you think that the Iranian desire to see Saddam expelled from power is motivated solely by vengeance for the war started by Saddam against Iran in 1980, consider the following:
Some Iranians, particularly the young, say they would actually welcome a U.S. presence in Iraq because it would increase pressure on both their country's conservative Islamic regime and the fractured reformers who oppose it. The regime's efforts to portray the U.S. as the "Great Satan" have failed to sway young people, who are a clear majority of Iranians. About 70% of the country's 70 million people are younger than 30. Young people in particular associate the U.S. with the opportunities and freedoms that Iran, with its sluggish economy and stern moral code, lacks. They believe that better relations with the U.S. would revitalize Iranian life and help the country shed its pariah status. According to a poll conducted in September, 75% of Iranians support dialogue with the U.S., and some believe that a long-term U.S. military presence next door could accelerate the process of change in Iran. Others, who despair of the clerical regime's capacity for reform, even hope that after Iraq, the U.S. will take on Iran. The fantasy that the U.S. could swoop in and remove Iran's hard-line regime, as it did the Taliban in Afghanistan and threatens to do to Hussein, bespeaks the depth of frustration at the pace of internal reforms. When newspaper headlines suggest that Washington's resolve may be wavering, anxiety sets in. "Are they changing their mind?" Goli Afshar, a 23-year-old student, asked as she alternately tightened and loosened her grip on a mug at a cafe on Gandhi Street. "Can they hurry up with Iraq already, so they can get on with attacking us?"I have said before, and I will say again that I am not currently in favor of a war with Iran because I believe that the reformist movement can be motivated to bring about internal reforms on its own. But it says something about the degree to which the Islamic regime is loathed in Iran that young Iranians would actually welcome an American invasion of their country. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/24/2003 02:08:22 PM ----- BODY: WHY WE NEED REVOLUTION IN IRAN Because we will have reformists who will help undo the damage done to the country after nearly a quarter century of reactionary Islamist rule. And because we will have an Iran represented by leaders who are firmly on our side. Check the first entry, and you will see what I mean. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/24/2003 02:05:20 PM ----- BODY: AS FAR AS MONDAYS GO, THIS HAS BEEN A GOOD ONE After all, it's not every day that Lileks Fisks the French. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/24/2003 01:54:47 PM ----- BODY: THIS OUGHT TO PROVIDE FODDER FOR SOMEONE
Iraq could be planning a chemical or biological attack on American cities through the use of remote-controlled "drone" planes equipped with GPS tracking maps, according to U.S. intelligence. The information about Iraq's unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) program has caused a "real concern" among defense personnel, senior U.S. officials tell Fox News. They're worried that these vehicles have already been, or could be, transported inside the United States to be used in an attack, although there is no proof that this has happened. Secretary of State Colin Powell showed a picture of a small drone plane during his presentation to the U.N. Security Council earlier this month. "UAVs outfitted with spray tanks constitute an ideal method for launching a terrorist attack using biological weapons," Powell said during his speech. "Iraq could use these small UAVs, which have a wingspan of only a few meters, to deliver biological agents to its neighbors or, if transported, to other countries, including the United States." Powell said there is "ample evidence" that Iraq has dedicated much time and effort to developing and testing spray devices that could be adapted for UAVs. "And of the little that Saddam Hussein told us about UAVs, he has not told the truth," Powell said.So now, if this is true, can we finally come to the realization that Saddam Hussein will strike at us if we don't strike at him first? Or do people actually have to die before that fact is understood? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/24/2003 01:38:30 PM ----- BODY: IF MONTY PYTHON EVER GETS BACK TOGETHER . . . then I want Chris Newman to replace Terry Jones. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/23/2003 01:56:03 PM ----- BODY: YAY! Eric Lindholm strikes again! -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/23/2003 01:45:39 PM ----- BODY: ON WAGNER Gregory Hlatky wonders whether one can fully enjoy Wagner's operas only when attending their performances, and whether enjoyment is diminished if one only listens to recordings. He asks, in part for my advice on this issue. My answer is yes. Wagner's productions are, as A.C. Douglas so aptly describes them, "music-dramas," and as such, are best enjoyed when one actually attends the opera house to watch them. Indeed, I highly encourage people to attend productions in order to get a full sense of Wagner's genius. Recordings are wonderful, and I treasure mine. But nothing beats a live performance when it comes to Wagner. Nothing whatsoever. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/23/2003 01:38:25 PM ----- BODY: ONE IRAQI THE WEAPONS INSPECTORS CANNOT INTERVIEW Read the story of Hussein Kamel. Lots of interesting and not-too-surprising information found here. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/23/2003 01:34:02 PM ----- BODY: STUPIDITY LOVES COMPANY And George Clooney has plenty of company:
Tonight's Grammy awards could turn into one long anti-war protest, judging by the parties leading up to the event. "Tell Mr. President we don't want war," Wyclef Jean told a cheering crowd during a rendition of Bob Marley's "No Woman, No Cry," at Friday's "Tinseltown to Gotham" party at Cipriani 42nd Street. Asked why American soldiers shouldn't oust Saddam, since they rid Wyclef's Haitian homeland of "Baby Doc" Duvalier, the singer told us: "The United States and Haiti always had a relationship." At the pre-Grammy bash thrown by designer Nicole Miller, Faith Evans boldly declared, "War is the pits. I just pray that everything is okay soon.""The United States and Haiti always had a relationship." Ah, so we have to have a relationship with a country before we wage war against it. Doesn't the first Persian Gulf War and the 12 years of monitoring by coalition forces qualify as a relationship? And "war is the pits." Now there is some deep thought. And I was under the impression that Tom Cruise had married Kidman for her body. Silly me. UPDATE: Okay, apparently I was delirious when I wrote this post, since I somehow confused Nicole Miller and Faith Evans with Nicole Kidman. I have no idea how I did that, or why. Sorry. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/23/2003 01:29:26 PM ----- BODY: MEMO TO THE REST OF THE PLANET George Clooney is a defense policy expert:
Clooney, 41, said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was making a mistake to think a war against Iraq would be an easy win for the United States. "I believe he thinks this is a war that can be won, but there is no such thing anymore," said Clooney, who starred in a film about the 1991 Gulf War "Three Kings" that took a dark look at the war to drive Iraq out of Kuwait. "We can't beat anyone anymore," added Clooney, who has called it unfair that Americans opposed to war are being branded unpatriotic.We can't beat anyone anymore? I think the Taliban and the Afghan-based al Qaeda would beg to differ. Perhaps someone will inform this latter day Clausewitz of that fact. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/23/2003 01:26:25 PM ----- BODY: PLEADING MODE ACTIVATED Can I be a Horseman of the Ablogalypse too? I would love to have a leftist blogger make analogies between me and figures that bring about The End Of The World. It would really make my day. Where do I have to go to sign up? What do I have to do in order to qualify? Someone let me know. And who on earth is Max Sawicky supposed to be in this bizarre and convoluted scenario? The Lamb of God? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/23/2003 01:23:42 PM ----- BODY: LOOK AT ME! I told you I'm famous. Now to get Michael Kelly to throw me a link in future columns . . . -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/23/2003 01:22:42 PM ----- BODY: I READ TOO Not everything done yesterday was movie-related. I also bought two books that I have had my eye on for quite some time. The first was The Decameron by Boccaccio, which I was attracted to since it serves as an irreverent response to Dante Alighieri's Divina Commedia. I look forward to reading it, but that would assume that I will soon and swiftly be caught up on all the reading that I want to do. Truth be told, I still haven't finished Gibbon yet, and that remains priority number one on my reading list. The other book is The Nibelungenlied, which promises to be superb, and which will likely give me a better understanding of Wagner's Ring Cycle. I rather like reading about monumental myths and legends, and have liked it since I was a little boy. I became something of an expert on Greek and Roman mythology when I was but a little boy in elementary school, and the fascination has remained with me. I'm sure that the Nibelungenlied will only serve to augment that fascination. And just in case you are wondering about my taste in books, music, and other such trinkets, all you really have to do is visit this page, which should tell you all you need to know about what I like. As for what you choose to do with this knowledge . . . well . . . I leave that up to you. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/23/2003 12:43:06 PM ----- BODY: SO HOW DID YOU SPEND YOUR SATURDAY? I went to LA to see a friend and to see the movie Gods and Generals with said friend in the evening. I had been looking forward to seeing the movie since as soon as I heard about it, and was delighted that I could take the time out to do so. The first thing that you need to know about the movie is that it is long. Four hours long, to be precise--there is a 12 minute intermission built into the movie, which makes it closer to an opera in some ways (and a Wagnerian opera at that). The movie focuses on the battle of Fredericksburg and closes with the battle of Chancellorsville, where General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson was wounded by his own men in a case of friendly fire, had to get his left arm amputated, and later ended up dying of pneumonia. Stephen Lang gives a good performance as Jackson--who was the central figure in the movie. Given the fact that Jackson was a devoutly religious man during his life, it should surprise no one to know that there are a number of scenes in which Jackson is praying. In fact, there are a lot of prayers in the movie, so much so that when it appeared that Jackson was about to offer up another one, I inadvertently and reflexively muttered under my breath "Please God, don't make him pray again," causing my friend to chuckle, and a number of other people around me to start giggling. And I'm a religious fellow myself. Robert Duvall does well as Robert E. Lee, although it surprised me that relatively little attention was given to him throughout the movie. Jeff Daniels, who was never one of my favorite actors, also puts in a respectable performance as a Union officer, and through his eyes, we see the Union side of the war. There were, however, two things that annoyed me about the movie. One was the incredible amount of pontificating that was done my the characters. I know that people in the 19th century spoke differently than people do nowadays, but it got a little ridiculous at times to hear one mini-speech after another. The dialogue needs to have more punch and fire, lest the audience is bored and lost. The music arrangement was awful. The same theme (which was very much based on Beethoven Pathétique Sonata) was played over and over and over throughout the movie. The one time that the music rose to the occasion was in the scene where the Confederates attacked Union positions in Chancellorsville. Otherwise, it got tremendously tiresome. In fact, I would say that the musical arrangement (or lack thereof) was the absolute weakest part of the movie by far. To the producers of the movie: Please, for the love of God (and here comes the praying again), can we get some variety in the music played in the soundtrack? I was about to sever my own head. Overall, the movie was a good one, especially if you are a history buff like me. It does have palpable weaknesses however, which I hope will be addressed when the next two installments of the trilogy (yes, this is a trilogy, and in all likelihood, the other two movies will be just as long as this one) are released. Failing to do so will only turn off the audience, and will ensure that the only people who show up for the movie are serious students of the Civil War. And that won't be enough to make such a huge and expensive production profitable. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/22/2003 12:43:44 PM ----- BODY: THOUGHT FOR THE DAY It is folly for an eminent person to think of escaping censure, and a weakness to be affected by it. All the illustrious persons of antiquity, and indeed of every age, have passed through this fiery persecution. There is no defense against reproach but obscurity; it is a kind of concomitant to greatness, as satires and invectives were an essential part of a Roman triumph. --Joseph Addison -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/22/2003 12:39:40 PM ----- BODY: WATCH OUT SADDAM! You've got some competition. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/22/2003 12:35:52 PM ----- BODY: YET ANOTHER USEFUL IDIOT Andrew Sullivan has the scoop. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/22/2003 12:33:44 PM ----- BODY: PLEASE HELP Arthur Silber has been having a rough time of it lately. If you can spare a donation to his tip jar, I'm sure that he would appreciate it a great deal. Given the excellent and thoughtful quality of his writing, a monetary demonstration of your appreciation would not be entirely out of order. Thanks. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/22/2003 12:30:20 PM ----- BODY: MAKING THE WRONG KIND OF FRIENDS Look who's Jacques Chirac's supporter:
ROBERT MUGABE fuelled controversy over his invitation to the Franco-African summit in Paris yesterday when he heaped praise on President Chirac for the “tremendous hospitality” he had received. His words appeared to discredit M Chirac’s claims to have given the Zimbabwean President a dressing-down over his human rights record at a private meeting on Thursday night. They added to speculation that M Chirac’s real aim in issuing the invitation had been to woo Zimbabwe’s President as part of his attempt to extend French influence into Anglophone Africa. Mr Mugabe, who was put up with his wife and entourage in a luxurious Paris hotel at the French Government’s expense, said: “We felt at home here. . . .” Mr Mugabe, who celebrated his 79th birthday yesterday, concluded: “All I can say is that all the European Union should behave like France.”Birds of a feather? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/22/2003 12:27:23 PM ----- BODY: I PLAN ON LIVING PAST 88 YEARS OF AGE . . . no matter what Isaac Newton might have said. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/22/2003 12:23:57 PM ----- BODY: LOOKS LIKE THE ANTIWAR PROTESTS MAY NOT HAVE BEEN AS POPULAR AS ONCE THOUGHT At least not in San Francisco:
A newspaper's aerial survey of last weekend's massive anti-war rally in San Francisco determined Friday that the size of the crowd was less than half of what police and protest organizers had originally estimated. The San Francisco Chronicle said high-resolution aerial photographs commissioned by the newspaper showed that around 65,000 people took part in last Sunday's march through downtown rather than the 200,000 announced originally. Media reports in the aftermath of last weekend's marches around the world declared that the large crowds at the anti-war rallies indicated tangible opposition to a war in Iraq.I don't know whether this is true. I could care less, quite frankly. As far as I'm concerned, if only one person shows up at an antiwar rally and repeats the same hackneyed and tired slogans from the 1960s, the whole event loses any semblance of intellectual respectability. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/22/2003 12:19:03 PM ----- BODY: IN THE EVENT THAT YOU ARE WONDERING . . . Yes, I did feel this. It woke me up in the morning, and while, for a moment, I entertained the lovely thought that a lovely lady might have been shaking the bed while expressing her . . . um . . . affection for me, I quickly realized that it was an earthquake. I suppose that I should have gone to stand under a door frame. But I was too tired to care. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/21/2003 11:46:53 PM ----- BODY: THOUGHT FOR THE DAY Reflect on your present blessings, of which every man has many; not on your past misfortunes, of which all men have some. --Charles Dickens -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/21/2003 07:32:28 PM ----- BODY: THIS EXPLAINS EVERYTHING Behold the inside scoop on "the Jacquesbot." -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/21/2003 07:24:56 PM ----- BODY: IRANIAN REVOLUTION WATCH This is a very heartening read. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/21/2003 07:15:22 PM ----- BODY: CONTRARY TO POPULAR FEARS . . . Eric Raymond is still alive. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/21/2003 07:12:16 PM ----- BODY: THIS IS HYSTERICAL (Link via Sara Rimensnyder). -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/21/2003 06:46:07 PM ----- BODY: HATE SPEECH IN THE MIDDLE EAST Lileks speaks. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/21/2003 06:43:05 PM ----- BODY: WHITHER EUROPE? Josh Chafetz and Guglielmo Verdirame have some thoughts. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/21/2003 06:38:29 PM ----- BODY: CASUS BELLI Also sprach Kenneth Pollack. His editorial is very much worth a read. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/21/2003 06:07:49 PM ----- BODY: POLITICS MAKE STRANGE BEDFELLOWS Read on. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/21/2003 06:03:47 PM ----- BODY: OLD EUROPE/NEW EUROPE Krauthammer speaks, and reminds us that the recent case of Jacques Chirac bullying Eastern European countries was not an isolated incident:
Chirac's outburst made headlines. It was clumsy, impolitic and revealing. But the bullying of New Europe by Old Europe is not new. Last August, for example, Romania signed an agreement with the United States promising not to extradite Americans to the International Criminal Court. Romania is applying to join the European Union, and the European Union, for which the ICC is a pet project, was not amused. It registered its displeasure with Romania and then warned "other candidate countries which have also been approached by the United States" not to "make any more moves to agree to sign such an accord." A few months earlier, the prime minister of the Czech Republic was attacked for making highly ungenerous statements about Yasser Arafat. "Such language is not what we expect from a future member state," declared the European Union, an unsubtle threat to the Czech application for EU membership. The division between the New Europe (newly liberated Eastern Europe) and the Old Europe (centered on France and Germany) has long been visible. As the center of gravity of American influence in Europe has shifted east to the Iron Curtain countries, it is no accident, comrade, that the only state dinner President Bush has hosted (apart from the traditional one for the president of Mexico) was for the president of Poland. Europe did not take to the streets against America last weekend; only Western Europe did. The streets of Eastern Europe were silent. The Poles, and their Eastern European neighbors, have an immediate personal experience of life under tyranny -- and of being liberated from that tyranny by American power. The French and their neighbors are six decades removed from their liberation. They think freedom is as natural as the air they breathe, rather than purchased at the price of blood -- American blood in no small measure.The surest route towards ingratitude is the possession of a short memory, after all. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/21/2003 05:36:08 PM ----- BODY: TO ALL THOSE PEOPLE . . . who assure us that the Germans are reliable allies because they are helping out in Afghanistan, consider this:
The German government has warned that a US-led military attack on Iraq could inflame radical Islamist feeling in Afghanistan, endangering the security of its troops in the multinational International Security Assistance Force (Isaf). According to a confidential document from the German foreign office, "hostility towards the leading role of western countries" is already mounting even among the Afghan government's security forces. The report says German troops may have to be withdrawn if the situation deteriorates seriously.Meaning what? That the Afghans, who were so happy to have American forces liberate them from oppression, would be upset if anyone else was liberated, and would turn against the German peacekeepers as a result? And that the German peacekeepers will cut and run at the first sign of trouble, and can only serve if there are absolutely no dangers whatsoever? Give me a break. This is being used as blackmail material to try and prevent military action against Iraq. And it will serve as yet another fault line between Germany and the United States. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/21/2003 05:32:11 PM ----- BODY: WOOHOO! Jane Galt is back. And she's posting up a storm. Go and tell her how much she was missed. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/21/2003 05:22:40 PM ----- BODY: WHY AN IRANIAN REVOLUTION IS NEEDED Just look here for a whole host of good reasons. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/21/2003 05:20:57 PM ----- BODY: WAR FOR OIL! There is nothing inherently wrong with such a rallying cry, as Nicholas Boles makes clear. I think that the war is primarly about stopping a terrorist-sponsoring state from pursuing weapons of mass destruction, and from supporting terrorism in the first place, with the liberation of the Iraqi people also serving as an important goal. But Boles does a very good job at demolishing the shibboleth that somehow, fighting for access to oil reserves is illegitimate. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/21/2003 05:07:47 PM ----- BODY: STOP THE PRESSES! Susan Sontag believes that there is such a thing as a just war, and that war should be an option in some circumstances. This link is of an editorial backing the use of force in Kosovo. Consider the following passage:
Another argument against intervening in Kosovo is that the war is -- wonderful word -- illegal," because NATO is violating the borders of a sovereign state. Kosovo is, after all, part of the new Greater Serbia called Yugoslavia. Tough luck for the Kosovars that Milosevic revoked their autonomous status in 1989. Inconvenient that 90 percent of Kosovars are Albanians -- ethnic Albanians" as they are called, to distinguish them from the citizens of Albania. Empires reconfigure. But are national borders, which have been altered so many times in the last hundred years, really to be the ultimate criterion? You can murder your wife in your own house, but not outdoors on the street. Imagine that Nazi Germany had had no expansionist ambitions but had simply made it a policy in the late 1930's and early 1940's to slaughter all the German Jews. Do we think a government has the right to do whatever it wants on its own territory? Maybe the governments of Europe would have said that 60 years ago. But would we approve now of their decision? Push the supposition into the present. What if the French Government began slaughtering large numbers of Corsicans and driving the rest out of Corsica ... or the Italian Government began emptying out Sicily or Sardinia, creating a million refugees ... or Spain decided to apply a final solution to its rebellious Basque population. Wouldn't we agree that a consortium of powers on the continent had the right to use military force to make the French (or Italian, or Spanish) Government reverse its actions, which would probably mean overthrowing that Government?All noble words. All stirring words. All moralistic words. Why can't they be applied to Iraq, which poses the added danger of threatening the United States and its allies with weapons of mass destruction, and which actually has exhibited expansionist ambitions in the past? Just curious. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/21/2003 04:56:27 PM ----- BODY: SMART PEOPLE ARE DEBATING Trent Telenko responds to a Steven Den Beste post about European politics. Be sure to check out both posts and the arguments they make. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/21/2003 04:54:20 PM ----- BODY: SPEAKING OF CELEBRITIES AND POLITICS . . . Avocare has the rundown on the wise and the clueless. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/21/2003 04:52:08 PM ----- BODY: SHE FITS RIGHT IN Nancy Pelosi is such a natural Democratic leader:
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco has pushed through $1 million in federal funds for a think tank started by her longtime adviser and campaign treasurer, former Lt. Gov. Leo T. McCarthy, sparking concerns that she is rewarding a supporter with taxpayer money. The $1 million appropriation for the Center for Public Service and the Common Good at the University of San Francisco was among thousands of items buried in the 3,000-page, $397.4 billion omnibus appropriations bill that Congress passed last week after just a few hours of debate. The White House says President Bush will sign the bill. McCarthy, who serves as treasurer of Pelosi's powerful political action committee, PAC to the Future, is a USF alumnus who gave $1 million to start the center. In all, he hopes to raise $7 million to $8 million to fund the academic center. Pelosi's office confirmed Thursday that the San Francisco Democrat, who was elected House minority leader in November, obtained the $1 million for the USF center, without requiring McCarthy and USF to go through the normal application process for such grants. But Pelosi said the program got the money on its merits, not because of any political ties to the congresswoman.I guess, to paraphrase Mel Brooks, it's good to be the House Democratic Leader. Whether it is good to be a taxpayer remains an open question. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/21/2003 04:48:36 PM ----- BODY: 21ST CENTURY POLITICS Democratic Party Chairman Terry McAuliffe is out to modernize his party's technological functions:
After disappointing elections like the Democrats had in 2002, it might be expected that their national chairman would already be gone or fighting off a challenge. But Terry McAuliffe is in the midst of pushing the party through a critical transition in its technology and fund-raising techniques. And there appeared to be little sentiment among those attending the party's winter meeting this week for interrupting his task. Democrats lost the Senate in 2002, fell further behind in the House and didn't win as many governorships as they expected. "We have too much to do," said former Florida Democratic chairman Bob Poe. "Right now is not the time to change." The 46-year-old McAuliffe outlined his efforts to the media Thursday, including the party's 18-month effort to build a computer database of direct-mail donors, verify 158 million voter records and increase its e-mail list. And he promised Friday that those new tools would be available for the eventual nominee - and asked the candidates to agree to work together for the winner.No word yet on whether McAuliffe will also push to modernize the party's outdated and antiquated rhetoric. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/21/2003 04:46:06 PM ----- BODY: 21ST CENTURY EDUCATION I can assure you that I have never had classes like this one. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/21/2003 04:45:15 PM ----- BODY: THANKFULLY THIS DOESN'T APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN TERRORIST-RELATED . . . But it's a sign of the times when terrorism is the first thing that springs to mind when reading about or hearing about a story such as this one. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/21/2003 04:43:39 PM ----- BODY: DO I EVEN HAVE TO SAY IT? This story is nightmarish. My prayers are with the wounded, and with the families of the dead. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/21/2003 04:42:42 PM ----- BODY: THE INEFFICACY OF HANS BLIX What is the point of demanding that Iraq destroy banned missiles, but not setting a deadline for them to do so? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/21/2003 04:38:43 PM ----- BODY: POLITICS AND THE GRAMMYS CBS executives are warning artists not to engage in antiwar rhetoric during the Grammy ceremonies. I think this is unfortunate. I fully support and believe in the artists' right to make fools out of themselves in front of millions of viewers by demonstrating that the know next to nothing about geopolitics. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/21/2003 04:26:23 PM ----- BODY: APOLOGIES ALL AROUND . . . for the late posting today. You really don't want to know how the day has been for me. And yes, I know that it is free ice cream, and that I am under no obligation to deliver it. Still, I like delivering it. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/20/2003 11:44:36 PM ----- BODY: THOUGHT FOR THE DAY Frisbeetarianism is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck. --George Carlin -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/20/2003 08:08:17 PM ----- BODY: A LITTLE CHESS NEWS OF MY OWN Last night, I played a game against the "Kasparov" setting in my own computer chess program, and actually drove it to an end game where only pawns and kings were on the board. I felt very good that I was able to hold my own against a very tough setting. Of course, I did end up losing, which lends this entire story a glass-half-full/glass-half-empty air. But still, I count it as a sort of moral victory that in the game, I didn't get completely slaughtered and actually put up a decent fight against a tremendously advanced program. Go me . . . sort of. Now if only I could actually win against the Kasparov setting. It's blissful to even contemplate the possibility . . . -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/20/2003 08:01:50 PM ----- BODY: MORE CHESS NEWS For those of you who want to examine how games between Garry Kasparov and Deep Junior went in their recent match against one another, here you go: Game 1 (Kasparov wins). Game 2 (Draw). Game 3 (Deep Junior wins). Game 4 (Draw). Game 5 (Draw). Game 6 (Draw). -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/20/2003 07:37:09 PM ----- BODY: SPEAKING OF CHILD PRODIGIES . . . This makes for fascinating reading. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/20/2003 06:52:57 PM ----- BODY: CHESS NEWS A game in the United States Championship tournament between Boris Gulko and Hikaru Nakamura is covered here by the estimable chess columnist Robert Byrne. IMMEDIATE UPDATE: Despite Nakamura's loss, he clearly has a bright future in the chess world, given that he broke Bobby Fischer's record to become the youngest American grandmaster in history. Kudos and best wishes to him as he pursues his chess career. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/20/2003 06:47:21 PM ----- BODY: "YOU WANT FRIES WITH THAT?" Andrea Harris has had quite enough of "freedom fries." -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/20/2003 06:38:17 PM ----- BODY: SAY IT WITH ME NOW . . . "Material breach":
When the first Iraqi scientist agreed to sit for a private interview with weapons inspectors without any official "minder" present, U.N. officials hoped that it was the beginning of an end to the dispute over interviews that had called into question Iraq's willingness to cooperate with the United Nations. But now, nearly two weeks later, U.N. officials are becoming increasingly frustrated that Iraq is paying only lip service to the demand for private interviews. In fact, they say, they have not had one successful interview with any of the scientists that they had asked to speak to about Iraq's alleged biological and chemical weapons programs. "There were roughly 30 attempts made to interview Iraqis in private, and three such interviews took place," Hiro Ueki, spokesman for the inspection teams in Baghdad, said Tuesday. Each of those three individuals had been suggested by the Iraqis, he said. On the other hand, none of the scientists that the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, or UNMOVIC, has proposed for questioning have agreed to private interviews. Instead, most insisted on making a tape recording of the interview or on having a relative or friend present.(Link via The Volokh Conspiracy) -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/20/2003 06:18:04 PM ----- BODY: WE ALL NEED A LAUGH Fortunately, Mindles H. Dreck is kind enough to provide one. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/20/2003 06:01:23 PM ----- BODY: I'M A DOG PERSON, MYSELF But this is charming. Too bad I'm allergic to cats, otherwise, I may have gotten one by now. As for dogs . . . well . . . let's wait until I have a house and a backyard. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/20/2003 05:31:54 PM ----- BODY: THE POWER OF PROTEST Via reader J.M Heinrichs, I stumbled across this excellent post about the ability of oppressed people to protest their oppression. Be sure to give it a read. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/20/2003 05:30:12 PM ----- BODY: ACHTUNG! To all the antiwar protestors out there: Lee Harris has some excellent remarks for you to consider. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/20/2003 03:54:53 PM ----- BODY: NEVER FORGET Tomorrow marks the anniversary of Daniel Pearl's death. Today, his father remembers. And so should we all. Be sure to visit the website for the Daniel Pearl Foundation to find out how you can help and support his legacy. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/20/2003 03:18:49 PM ----- BODY: THE ANTIWAR PROTESTS They're cropping up everywhere. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/20/2003 03:15:25 PM ----- BODY: THE DEPRAVITY OF THE IRAQI REGIME It's widespread and all-consuming:
With a looming and globally divisive war in Iraq as backdrop to its deliberations, the executive board for the International Olympic Committee will meet Thursday to hear a report on allegations that athletes from that nation have been tortured on orders of Uday Hussein. The IOC Ethics Committee will present the results of its preliminary investigation into the matter. At its meeting in Lausanne, Switzerland, the executive board could, among other options, order a full investigation, delay moving forward with any probe, or dismiss the matter altogether. The complexity of moving forward with a full investigation appears to be weighing on the minds of board members, who will consider allegations that involve serious violations of the Olympic charter and its mission to protect athletes.Stories like this just continue to appall and disgust. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/20/2003 03:12:14 PM ----- BODY: TERRORIST ROUND-UP It's been a rather big day for law enforcement:
A Florida computer engineering professor and seven other men were charged Thursday with overseeing and financing the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist group, which has been blamed for killing more than 100 people in Israel and adjacent territories. The University of South Florida professor, 45-year-old Sami Amin Al-Arian, and three other U.S. residents were arrested after the 50-count indictment was returned by a federal grand jury in Tampa, Fla. The indictment describes Al-Arian as the Islamic Jihad's U.S. leader, head of a terrorist cell in Tampa and secretary of the group's worldwide council.I wonder how many, if any of these arrests are coming as a result of information that Americans are receiving from the prisoners at Gitmo. I'd like to think that after all this time, valuable intelligence is still being collected from there. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/20/2003 03:07:10 PM ----- BODY: HELL HATH NO FURY . . . like New Europe insulted. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/20/2003 03:03:25 PM ----- BODY: BEING A WEASEL HAS ITS REWARDS Here is the evidence:
France and Germany, the two countries at the forefront of opposition to the U.S. hard line against Iraq, have a long history of commercial and other contacts with the regime of Saddam Hussein. TotalFinaElf, France's huge oil firm, holds the contract to develop Iraq's southern Majnoon and Nahr Umar oil fields, which could contain as much as 25 percent of the country's reserves. German firms were the market leaders in supplying sensitive dual-use technology to Iraq in the years before the 1991 Persian Gulf war, and they have been trying to boost civilian commercial contracts in more recent times. Khidir Hamza, an Iraqi defector who once headed Saddam's nuclear weapons program, recently called Germany "the hub of Iraq's military purchases in the 1980s."There is a reason why the French and Germans are so vigorously antiwar. They don't want the full extent of their support for Saddam to be exposed to the world. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/20/2003 02:53:10 PM ----- BODY: SOMEHOW, THIS MAKES ME FEEL OLD Jane Pauley is leaving the Today Show. What's next? Is Dick Clark going to stop covering New Year's? Sheesh . . . CORRECTION: Jane Pauley is leaving NBC as a whole, not the Today Show. She announced her departure from NBC on the Today Show. Now I feel even older. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/20/2003 02:47:52 PM ----- BODY: GLENN REYNOLDS, CALL YOUR OFFICE This ought to make Instapundit's day. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/20/2003 02:46:05 PM ----- BODY: FROM WEASEL TO WORM . . . it just gets worse and worse for Jacques Chirac. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/20/2003 02:42:35 PM ----- BODY: MARCHING AS TO WAR The United States and Britain will push for yet another resolution on Iraq sometime next week in the Security Council:
The United States will submit a new resolution to a split U.N. Security Council next week, paving the way for a possible war against Iraq that President Bush on Thursday predicted America and its allies would win decisively. A senior U.S. official said Washington would offer a second resolution despite pressure from Security Council members France, Russia and China for more time for U.N. weapons inspectors to search for chemical and biological arms, even as the inspectors complain that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has not followed through on promises of increased cooperation. "The tabling of the second resolution will take place next week," said the official traveling with Bush on a visit to Georgia.I guess the idea is to dare countries like France to veto the resolution, and thus irrevocably place them against the United States, Britain, and the majority of countries in Europe. While it somewhat annoys me that we have to go through this entire process for the eighteenth time, it may be worth forcing the French to take a stand, and thus reap the consequences of that stand--whatever it may be. In any event, it is now clear that the U.S. and Britain are preparing to go to war against the Iraqi regime, and that the United Nations has indeed proven itself to be irrelevant and unreliable. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/19/2003 10:55:32 PM ----- BODY: THOUGHT FOR THE DAY The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. --Thomas Jefferson -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/19/2003 10:54:13 PM ----- BODY: NAVEL GAZING Here's the latest article on weblogs and blogging. Or at the very least, the latest article that I have been able to find. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/19/2003 07:05:46 PM ----- BODY: THE TRENT LOTT AFFAIR: A RETROSPECTIVE James Bowman looks at the way the media covered the Lott affair, and what it signifies for the power of the media in general. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/19/2003 06:45:10 PM ----- BODY: I HAVE A NEW HERO Ladies and gentlemen, meet Robert Conquest. The man is a fierce anti-communist, witty and clever, close to Margaret Thatcher and Condi Rice, and a lover of Dante and Persian poetry. What's not to like? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/19/2003 06:32:12 PM ----- BODY: THE LATEST INCREDIBLE VIOLATION OF CIVIL LIBERTIES I'm not kidding when I tell you that I find that the story Stuart Buck has reported outrages me beyond measure. Is there no limit to how much our privacy can be invaded? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/19/2003 06:27:41 PM ----- BODY: JACQUES CHIRAC: BLACKMAIL ARTIST Paul Aligica has some interesting observations on Chirac's recent bout of foot-in-mouth disease. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/19/2003 06:23:57 PM ----- BODY: FLOOD RELIEF Damian Penny has some information on how you can donate to help the citizens of the town of Badger in Newfoundland, as they work to overcome a rather nasty flood. Please help out and give what you can. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/19/2003 06:13:42 PM ----- BODY: WHAT WILL BE THE FATE OF TONY BLAIR? John O'Sullivan's article is quite informative on this issue. I still can't believe that I am in a situation where I am hoping for Tony Blair's political survival. Good grief. I mean, sure, Gordon Brown is awful beyond imagining, but still . . . -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/19/2003 06:07:16 PM ----- BODY: INTELLIGENCE AND TERRORISM In discussing the general inability of bureaucracies to relate correct and accurate intelligence due to built-in biases, Laurie Mylroie reveals some rather shocking information:
George Bush inherited a difficult situation. He understands Iraq was probably involved in 9/11. Already on September 17, Bush affirmed, "I believe Iraq was involved, but I'm not going to strike them now," as Bob Woodward's Bush at War reveals (this is not a criminal trial; there is no presumption of innocence; and the requisite standard is much lower than "beyond a reasonable doubt.") That is why Bush is so fixed on removing Saddam. The war, however, was split in two: al Qaeda and then Iraq. But the administration is inhibited from fully explaining the reasons for the war's second phase. Under Bill Clinton, the notion was developed that a new form of highly lethal terrorism had come into existence that did not involve states. The bureaucrats who formulated that concept remain committed to it. Indeed, that concept — which contravenes previous assumptions about major terrorist attacks directed at U.S. targets — was challenged even during the Clinton years. According to former White House staffers, Steve Simon and David Benjamin, their boss, Richard Clarke, ordered an inquiry then into whether any state was involved with al Qaeda. "No evidence" was found. "No evidence" is an easy evasion. If you don't look vigorously for such information, you may not find it. Writing about the debate within the CIA, Washington Post columnist Jim Hoagland explains that information does indeed exist linking Iraq and al Qaeda, but it was "quietly buried during the Clinton years, when the need not to know very much about Iraq and terrorism was very strong."Between that and the missed chance to take Osama bin Laden into custody after the Sudanese offered him up to the United States, can anyone tell me what positive steps the Clinton Administration did take in reducing the terrorist threat? Because in retrospect, it appears that whatever anti-terrorism steps they did take seem utterly and completely ineffective and useless. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/19/2003 04:53:37 PM ----- BODY: SO WHAT DO THE IRAQIS WANT? Claudia Rosett has one Iraqi correspondent who wishes we would get on with overthrowing Saddam Hussein already:
Now, this UN business is really depressing me. Why can't they do the right thing? Many nations contributed to building this monstrous regime. Why not help to undo the damage inflicted on us? The "No Blood for Oil" signs are particularly galling. Loads of Iraqi blood has already been spilled. At least half a million in the Iraq-Iran war, a couple of hundred thousand are estimated to have died in the Gulf War, a couple of hundred thousand Kurds disappeared in the 1980s, I have no idea how many Shias and Marsh Arabs and other Arabs against the regime have been murdered. Thousands of prisoners have also disappeared or been executed. The list goes on. It is enough. Please send help. Everyone here wants this to be over. It is hard to imagine anything but celebrations if this monster is overthrown at long last.No wonder regular Iraqis weren't featured at the antiwar protests. They would have undermined the message of the protestors. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/19/2003 03:27:51 PM ----- BODY: THE LEFT IS DEAD Just look. (QuickTime plug-in required.) You just gotta love these people. They're geniuses. Geniuses, I tell ya. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/19/2003 03:18:11 PM ----- BODY: SCHADENFREUDE It's a wonderful thing:
It began as a modest idea: a series of small seminars by Democratic Party lawyers for elected officials, political consultants and Congressional aides on the intricacies of the new McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. Party officials reserved a dining room at the Democratic Club on Capitol Hill and sent out invitations across Washington. By the end of last week, that low-key undertaking had drawn more than 400 people over the course of a month, a turnout that has astonished its organizers. The crowd came first for a three-hour introductory course on a statute that is upending the fund-raising culture of Washington, and many have returned for specialized weekly three-hour classes at what has become known, none too fondly, as McCain-Feingold School. "We sometimes leave our audiences in a state of complete shock" at what they hear, said Robert F. Bauer, a lawyer for the Democrats' House and Senate campaign committees. "A sort of slack-jawed amazement at how far this thing reached" is not uncommon at the seminars, Mr. Bauer said. Nor are "a lot of very anxious questions." Benjamin L. Ginsberg, a Republican Party lawyer who has conducted seminars for the other side of the aisle, said lawmakers were startled to hear that once-standard practices like acting as host at a fund-raiser for a home-state governor might now be illegal. "There's an initial stage where the reaction is, 'This can't be true,' " Mr. Ginsberg said. "And then there's the actual anger stage."This is hysterical. Read the rest. (Link via Jacob Sullum) -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/19/2003 03:12:33 PM ----- BODY: THAT'S IT? Just fifteen years for mass murder? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/19/2003 03:02:29 PM ----- BODY: I'M MORE AND MORE CONVINCED . . . that the Democratic primaries are going to be fun to watch:
Al Gore's presidential campaign manager yesterday said Democrats cannot take black voters for granted in 2004 and must stop attacking civil rights activist Al Sharpton because Republicans are making "inroads" into one of the party's most loyal voting blocs. Top Stories Donna Brazile, a top minority voter outreach adviser to the Democratic National Committee, said Democrats must step up their efforts to court black voters, more of whom are registering as independents and Republicans. "The GOP is making inroads in the black vote. It's trending away. Groups of [minority] voters are hearing the Republican message," Miss Brazile said in an interview with The Washington Times.A well-known tax cheat, defamer and demagogue is going to hold the entire party hostage. This ought to be good for several hundred laughs during primary season. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/19/2003 02:53:27 PM ----- BODY: COOL MILITARY TOYS And they might save American lives as well. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/19/2003 02:51:30 PM ----- BODY: HOW TO EXPLAIN THE FRENCH AND GERMANS? Perhaps this will help:
It used to be said that declaring war was a convenient way for failing governments to distract attention from their domestic problems. But declaring non-war, as it turns out, is almost as good. What better way for Gerhard Schröder and M Chirac to divert attention from their failure to get to grips with the reform of their economies, than to snub the United States and lecture the world on the value of peace? Militant pacificism, it seems, can be as effective a strategy for propping up weak national leaders as invasion of an enemy. But if M Chirac and Mr Schröder have bolstered their standing at home with all this grandstanding, poor Mr Blair is sinking like a stone. For once, he is acting with unblinking courage on a deeply-felt point of principle and it has put him in the most vulnerable political position he has yet encountered.Prop up the French and German political positions while undermining Tony Blair--the most powerful European ally George W. Bush has. Sounds like the Axis of Weasels, all right. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/19/2003 02:48:08 PM ----- BODY: NO PLAN TO DEVELOP WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, EH? Yet another sign that the Iraqi regime has nefarious motives:
Three giant cargo ships are being tracked by US and British intelligence on suspicion that they might be carrying Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Each with a deadweight of 35,000 to 40,000 tonnes, the ships have been sailing around the world's oceans for the past three months while maintaining radio silence in clear violation of international maritime law, say authoritative shipping industry sources. The vessels left port in late November, just a few days after UN weapons inspectors led by Hans Blix began their search for the alleged Iraqi arsenal on their return to the country.Does this mean that UNMOVIC and the IAEA need their own navies? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/19/2003 02:42:49 PM ----- BODY: DEAR GOD This is horrible beyond measure. I have no idea whether any of my family members were on the plane--I doubt it since they live in Tehran, but still, I'll have to make a phone call to my parents to see whether they have heard anything. In the meantime, my thoughts and prayers are with the families of the Iranians who died. This is a terrible tragedy for a tragic and beautiful country that deserves better than what it constantly seems to get. UPDATE: It looks as if all of the passengers on the plane were members of the Revolutionary Guard. That would tend to rule out my family members. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/18/2003 11:51:31 PM ----- BODY: THOUGHT FOR THE DAY One more cogent thought from Jane's comments section (WARNING FOR THE HUMOR IMPAIRED: This comment is facetious, but its barbs towards those who have sent Jane hate mail are well-deserved): Let me get this straight. Jane says to use force to protect your property if violence erupts from the protesters. Some cracker in Georgia chucks a rock and hits a kid, ergo it's Jane's fault. Who was that that accused the Left of poor or no logic?? How dare you!! And people bitching about a 'call to violence' when they have no problem supporting Stalinists is pretty fucking amusing. Who said irony died on 9/11?? . . . I would like to be the first to call for an invasion of Canada to secure a steady supply of 2X4s to ensure that the pogrom started by Jane Galt is successful. It is time to bring the evil hegemony down on those that would challenge its authority, and bring to power those loyal members of the VRWC that have toiled so long, especially our secret plants in the media. Howell Raines, your hard work is about to be rewarded. Eric Alterman will suffer mightily for his efforts to expose our plants. We are breaking out the dreaded 4X4 on him. Crushing dissent one board foot at a time. I'm working on copyright protection on that, so no one steal it. Jane or Mindles, you are free to put that as a header on your blog though. Really, I just want to see the protest sign, 'It's all about the WOOD'. --Some Guy Named Joe. (Wherever you are, Joe--someone owes you a cold beer, or thirteen.) -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/18/2003 11:50:35 PM ----- BODY: THE JANE GALT CONTROVERSY (CONT'D) Before I begin, please consider the following advisory: WARNING: This post is going to be extremely long. If you haven't the patience to sit through and read all of it, or if you are one of the people I castigate in this post, and thus likely have the attention span of a fruit fly, please feel free to skip the post. Now, for the rest of you, let's begin: Today, in explaining his connection to the sending of hate mail to Jane Galt, and in trying to counter Mark Kleiman's accusation that Atrios intimated that Jane Galt advocated violence against antiwar protestors by referring to Jane's supposed "good squad," Atrios states the following:
Well, whatever. I don't condone sending pointlessly obscene emails to anyone, and nor did I ask anyone to. But I find it a bit odd that someone has a problem with my linking of Galt's calls for inappropriate vigilante violence to (admittedly different) vigilante violence on the grounds that doing so might cause some inappropriate emails. If my words are somehow irresponsible for that reason, then so were hers, which was the point of the 'goon squad' comment in the first place.I like to call this the "Little Ol' Me?" defense. As in "how on earth could Little Ol' Me be responsible for the fact that Jane Galt got tons and tons of hate mail which employed pornographic suggestions and expressions of pure bile as substitutes for reasoned argument?" The "Little Ol' Me" defense is most prevalent in the use of Atrios's casual dismissal of Kleiman's charge. Well, whatever. "Whatever," indeed. It's tempting to appreciate the fact that Atrios is trying to put on pretenses to humility--after all, he has much to be humble about. The most overrated and one of the most demagogic bloggers on the Internet, Atrios is clearly no thinking person's epitome of opinion-dispensing talent. Basically, the vast majority of his posts are made up of the same kind of throwaway invective that he used to attack Jane, and that he used to dismiss Kleiman's charges without answering them. It doesn't take more than two brain cells to put out this kind of puerile output for the unthinking and knuckle-dragging masses that frequent Atrios's site and nod approvingly at any and every inane and asinine thing he has to say--it certainly is a hell of a lot easier than actually constructing an argument (and God forbid that anyone should call on Atrios to do something like that--assuming that there even exists a brain inside the anony-blogger's head, we wouldn't want to be responsible for inducing either an aneurysm or an inadvertent and embarrassing bowel movement by making the poor little sap do anything as complicated and stress-inducing as thinking). But Atrios's sudden embrace of the "Little Ol' Me" defense belies the fact that in perhaps one of the greatest instances of shame to afflict the human race since the French swore off bathing on a regular basis, Atrios is a popular fella in the Blogosphere. And that means that when Atrios decides to smear someone, the unfortunate target of his infantile rage is sure to receive a storm of idiotic and intemperate commentary--much as Jane Galt has found out. Since April 18, 2002, the day on which the hellspawn that is "Eschaton" was thrust onto the Blogosphere in much the same way that "you might send a phial containing a culture of typhoid or cholera to be poured in the water supply of a great city," Atrios has garnered 1,073,269 suckers . . . er . . . visitors to his blog. This averages out to nearly 120,000 visitors on a monthly basis. If his current page is anything like what he has consistently written over the past nine months, those 120,000 per month have been treated to the following examples of reasoned rhetoric: 1. "Jane Galt's goon squad"; 2. [Miguel] Estrada is an exceedingly nasty character. And, his non-answers to the committee make him either a liar or unqualified for the job. Any partisan warrior with a drop of ethics would be horrified that the Republicans are enabling and condoning this behavior. So, spare me your pious appeals for "fairness."; 3. Jeff Jacoby is a liar (a charge which was proven wrong, by the way); 4. Idiots. I hate sanctimonious Republicans. Go clean out your own closet you hypocritical thugs. 5. Does wartime justify the suspension of the basic American right to a presumption of innocence? Civil libertarian Glenn Reynolds has said yes. Civil libertarian Atrios says no.; 6. Stupid Conservatives Are having a bake sale.; 7. A reader writes in and says: "This picture of Bush looks exactly like my cat when he wants tuna and we give him turkey with giblets." You can find more such hateful rhetoric if you scour the archives (I don't have the stomach to do that, quite frankly). And of course, Atrios's favorite epithet--"conservative a**holes"--is found quite easily with a Google search. (Hey, he even called me one--which I bear as a badge of honor, by the way.) Now, why do I go through all of this? Well, let's think about it. Atrios gets 120,000 visitors to your website each month, and he feeds them a steady diet of bile and invective against an ideology that he disagrees with, and people who adhere to that ideology. He shows absolutely no respect whatsoever to his opponents, but instead labels them with the worst kind of innuendo and insults, not excluding the kind of childish name-calling that was in vogue only when we were in a scholastic environment where "milk time" and "nap time" were daily academic occurrences. His readers eagerly latch on to each and every bit of nasty invective that he tosses their way, and oftentimes struggle with each other and themselves to try and outdo the latest, most vicious insult with something even more disgusting and despicable. This process is repeated ad infinitum. Gee, what are the chances that someone was finally going to take matters to the next level, and not only bitch about their ideological opponents in Atrios's comments section, but actually go ahead and lace those ideological opponents with hate mail that seeks to offend and insult in the most puerile and disgusting manner possible? It's bad enough if Atrios, as an influential blogger helped encourage that sort of thing by constantly throwing hate rhetoric to your unwashed masses for them to revel in. Anyone who plays Palpatine to a legion of Vaders is hardly appealing in my book. But when he then plays innocent and gets a shocked look on his face when someone calls him on his bulls**t, and then claims "how on earth could Little Ol' Me be responsible for this breakdown in civil rhetoric," that's when those of us who aren't fooled by his con game finally blow our tops. Atrios's habit of waving the bloody shirt on a regular basis is sufficiently disgusting. But when he lies about having done that, when he insults our intelligence by asking "how could Little Ol' Me be at fault here" . . . well . . . "whatever," as the little dimwit might say. Of course, not being content with the "Little Ol' Me" defense, Atrios then goes to the "Pot Calling the Kettle Black" defense when he accuses Jane of lying about getting hate mail:
. . . Jane has deliberately left an exaggerated impression of the number and content of the emails to turn martyr. Some sympathetic paternalistic lefties fell for her little game, and Jane no longer has to talk about her calls for pre-emptive violence and instead she can go on lying about Brad DeLong or making up "facts" and being incredibly rude to Nathan Newman in debates.Now, when all of you contact me and ask why it is that I think Atrios is dumber than a colony of decapitated cockroaches who suffered from a particularly agonizing insect variant of Creutzfeld-Jakob Disease at the end of their lives, I will point to this line of "thinking" as but one reason for my scorn: 1. How does Atrios know that Jane "has deliberately left an exaggerated impression of the number and content of the e-mails"? Did Atrios read the e-mails one by one? Did he have access to them? How did he get access to them? What evidence (other than Atrios's transparently self-serving hunch) does he have to back up his claim? I thought Atrios had nothing to do with the sending of hate mail to Jane Galt. Now, all of the sudden, he knows their number and content? Who's bulls**ting whom here? 2. Why on earth would Jane lie about getting hate mail in order to go on hiatus? What is the point or motivation behind that, anyway? If Jane wanted to lie about the kind of mail she was getting, wouldn't she be more apt to wax falsely ecstatic and claim that she is getting a million pieces of e-mail that unanimously state that she is a combination of Marie Curie, Florence Nightingale and Helen of Troy? 3. Furthering the conclusion that Atrios is employing the "Pot Calling the Kettle Black" defense, consider this post from Glenn, which alerted most of us to Jane's blogging hiatus, and the development of this entire controversy. In the last update to the post, Glenn quotes from an e-mail that he received from Oliver Willis, where Oliver says the following:
FYI, I've been receiving my fair share of it from the right (someone thought I was a treasonous leftist for not supporting Patriot II). Jesse of Pandagon.net got an email blizzard this past week that almost killed his email, and Atrios has gotten slammed too. So it isn't some vast left-wing conspiracy.(Emphasis mine.) Well, just for the record, I believe that "Atrios has deliberately left an exaggerated impression of the number and content of the emails to turn martyr. Some sympathetic paternalistic righties fell for his little game, and Atrios no longer has to talk about his juvenile invective about 'conservative a**holes' and instead he can go on lying about Jane Galt or making up 'facts' and being incredibly rude to anyone who disagrees with him in debates." See? I can play this game too. And indeed, when one considers the amount of invective that Jane is receiving in her comments section to the post announcing her hiatus--invective that is coming from Atrios's rabid, Kool-Aid drinking fan base, it is hardly difficult to believe that she is getting the worst and most vituperative kind of hate mail. Consider the following commentary:
1. One thing about moronic wingnut fucks - they can dish it out, but they sure can't take it. Piss off, twit...
2. Golly, "Jane," I didn't realize there was a gun to your head forcing you to blog -- especially forcing you to suggest using weapons on people you disagree with. I didn't realize there was a gun to your head when you appeared on TV not long ago to discuss blogging, thus exposing you to the danger of (eek!) being read by even more people who might happen to disagree with you. Can't stand the heat? Kitchen door's that way. Damn, you liberal-haters really do think you qualify for a categorical exemption from other people's anger, don't you?
3. You have no problem suggesting that felony assualt and battery is a proper way to deal with someone whom you disagree with, but then you go running under your bedcovers when you get vitriolic emails from peoplee [sic] who disagree with you. Just be glad that those people who emailed you didn't decide to express their disagreement with a piece of southern yellow pine.
4. Any one who tells people to throw bricks or swing 2x4s at protestors needs a break, and perhaps institutionalization. Either you are a sicko or a wacko.
5. . . . I suspect you are misrepresenting the level of obscenity and threatened violence. One only needs to spend time at Free Repubic and Lucianne.com to discover how abundant the threats of violence against the left are. That's what you joined with - the extra-chromosome crowd. Congratulations. You now belong to a fine tradition that includes Lee Harvey Oswald, Bull Connor, Byron De La Beckwith, James Earl Ray, Timothy McVeigh and Sirhan Sirhan.And on, and on, and on. The comments to the Atrios post that I linked to at the very beginning are even more hateful and despicable. And you know what? They are also totally wrong. Jane never advocated violence against anyone. An intelligent and intellectually honest commentator in Jane's comment box named Phil actually took the time to research and read the comments that started this entire brouhaha (note to Atrios and his band of Uruk-hai: Reading helps when trying to construct an argument about the reading in question. Of course, it would also help if you all were honest and literate, but while we're wishing for impossible things, I would like a Rolls-Royce please). He pulled out the pertinent comments by Jane and put emphases in the appropriate sections. I'm reproducing those remarks exactly as emphasized by Phil:
Anti-war protesters are great. I disagree with them, and I really, really disagree with letting ANSWER organize their rallies, but I think having people who are willing to stand out in the cold to show their feelings about something as important as war is vital to the health of our nation. I share most New Yorkers' distaste for parades we're not in, because any largish event pretty much shuts down the entire city, but I certainly think they should be afforded every consideration that other groups get. Period, full stop. Peaceful protesters should be allowed to march in peace, and I'll applaud their willingness to take a day and stand up for what they believe in. Violent protesters, I have no sympathy for. Do I think that if some thug is about to smash someone's window to show -- whatever -- that bystanders are justified in beating him up to prevent it? Yup. That goes for frat boys on a drunken tear, anti-war protesters, pro-war protesters, or anyone else who wants to take out his personal feelings on the property or person of bystanders. Real libertarians believe in property rights. They also believe that the kind of juvenile destructiveness displayed by a growing segment of the anti-globos is profoundly antithetical to a healthy society, and that members of that society are justified in mounting a forceful response. Am I advocating that they be torn apart by a mob of angry New Yorkers? No.Now, could it be clearer that Jane made a definite and obvious distinction between peaceful protest, which she called "great" and "vital to the health of our nation" on one hand, and protest of a violent and reprehensible nature on the other? If not, then consider the following:
Diane E. has a link seeming to indicate that the scruffier element of Saturday's peace rally is planning on demonstrating for peace by, er, wreaking mayhem. Nothing says "Stop the Madness of Western Imperialism" like a white college student from Winnetka opening a can of whup-ass on some Korean vegetable stand! So I was chatting about this with a friend of mine, a propos of the fact that everyone I know in New York is a) more frightened than they've been since mid-September 2001 and b) madly working on keeping up the who-the-hell-cares-if-I-get-hit-by-a-truck? insouciance that New Yorkers feel is their sole civic obligation. Said friend was, two short years ago, an avowed pacifist and also a little bit to the left of Ho Chi Minh. And do you know what he said? "Bring it on." I can't be mad at these little dweebs. I'm too busy laughing. And I think some in New York are going to laugh even harder when they try to unleash some civil disobedience, Lenin style, and some New Yorker who understands the horrors of war all too well picks up a two-by-four and teaches them how very effective violence can be when it's applied in a firm, pre-emptive manner.As Phil pointed out in commenting on these passages, "I think the original post and the amplification clearly, unequivocally refer only to the kind of protestor that would be committing vandalism and violence. There is no way that a reasonable person could read it otherwise, but then again, I don't expect reason from Atrios or his readers. I doubt he can even spell it." I doubt it too. And at some point, both Atrios and his readership will have to decide whether they are just too stupid to understand Jane's point, or whether they do understand it, and have just decided that it is a far, far better thing to go on a rampage against "conservative a**holes" (never mind the fact that Jane is a libertarian) than to tell the truth. Either way, it's a damning indictment of their side, their ethics, their tactics, and indeed, their entire movement. And the reason that I have written a big, giant thesis on this issue is that it demonstrates quite perfectly the pure and simple fact that Atrios's movement is dead. Oh sure, there were protests out this past weekend reflecting the Left's point of view. And we all know how serious and respectable those protests were. And sure, there is a lot of angry and vicious talk on the Left these days. But anger doesn't equate life for a political and ideological movement. All it equates is one of the stages of denial--denial that the movement is wrecked and destroyed. You know, headless chickens still run around in circles for a good long while before they finally flop over. But a scampering, headless chicken isn't alive and well, now is it? I have blogged constantly about my desire for a decent Left to enhance the current level of intellectual and political discourse, and to therefore enhance and strengthen the democratic and republican process (note that I used a small "d" and a small "r") in this country. And I suppose that I thought that someday, the Left could take its broken but living movement and transform it into something worthy of respect, something worth taking seriously. Well, it can't. At least not now. Because the Left is dead and its adherents haven't realized that simple fact. They can't move on and reconstruct their movement into something new, fresh and vibrant, because they are hopelessly wedded to an ideology that is six feet under. The Left can't claim anymore that it speaks for the majority of the American people. Not anymore. The comforting thought that George W. Bush was "selected, not elected" by a "partisan" Supreme Court went out the window when the same "selected, not elected" President helped his party defy the midterm blues, increase its majority in the House of Representatives, and recapture the Senate (a Senate that would not have had to have been recaptured were it not for the convenient defection of one Senator). The comforting notion that George W. Bush is somehow illegitimate and unloved is belied by consistently high approval ratings. The warm and fuzzy thought that the Left is on the march worldwide was undercut by the electoral loss of Socialist Lionel Jospin in the French presidential election (to the fatuously nonsensical Jean-Marie Le Pen, no less) and the record unpopularity of Gerhard Schröder only months after winning a very close election. After years of dominating the media, the Left now has to put up with a largely conservative and libertarian Blogosphere that is rapidly setting itself up as an alternative to the usual agitprop that we hear from the New York Times, NPR, and the other usual suspects. It is being outclassed in terms of putting out interesting and vibrant policy proposals by conservative think-tanks all over the place. In short, it is not a good time to be a Leftist. So what is left to the Left (pardon the pun)? Shouting. Screaming. Lying. Moaning. Whining. And hate mail. Let's not forget the loads of hate mail being sent to the members of the winning political camp in order to try to tarnish the taste of that victory to the greatest degree possible. In the final spasms before ideological rigor mortis finally sets in, we witness demagogues and idiots like Atrios seeking intellectual (*chortle*, *snicker*, *loud guffaw*) leadership of a decaying movement for one last massive bitching session based on one false premise after another, before "the rest is silence," finally, and mercifully. None of this should impress or awe anyone (except for Atrios and his followers, who wouldn't know a decaying ideology even if it literally started to overwhelm their olfactory senses with the putrid stench of its rot). For all of the fireworks surrounding what Jane Galt might have said, or might not have said, the final nails are being pounded into the coffin of a movement that needed a mercy killing--if only to speed up the time when it might perhaps arise, Phoenix-like from the ashes and resemble something that people could look to with respect, if not with a profound and well-deserved sense of allegiance. The Left doesn't have much to talk about nowadays. So it just goes on the hunt for villains, and then seeks to damn them--regardless of the facts. And people wonder why a leftist like Christopher Hitchens has grown disenchanted, left his magazine, and pretty much left the movement he was a loud and proud part of for so many years? As Jane herself put it in addressing her critics, "I'm generally suspicious of people who say "The [left/right] is a bunch of [hypocrites/malefactors/loonies], while the [right/left] is all that is finest in humanity", but if y'all are representative of what the left has been producing since we parted ways, I can honestly report to the right half of my readership that y'all are going to be in power for a long, long time." Or, to put it another way, the Left wouldn't "voom" if you put four million volts through it. It's bleeding demised. It's not pining, it's passed on. This political movement is no more. It has ceased to be. It has expired, and gone to meet its Maker. It's a stiff. Bereft of life, may it rest in peace. If it hadn't been nailed to the public consciousness, it would be pushing up the daisies. It's intellectual processes are now history. It's off the twig. It's kicked the bucket. It's shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain, and joined the bleeding choir invisible. It's f***ing snuffed it. All statements to the effect that this political movement is a going concern are hereby inoperative. This is an ex-movement. And considering the state of affairs in its final days, and the lack of grace with which the modern Left met its end, good riddance to lousy rubbish. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/18/2003 09:07:23 PM ----- BODY: ALSO VIA EUGENE VOLOKH . . . Here is your chance to find out how your name is represented within the binary digits of pi. For the record, "Pejman" is represented in the following manner ( I couldn't do my full name, since the search is limited to ten characters): binary pi: 1110111110000001010101001101000010111001110100010001101000110110 binary string: 100000010101010011010000101110 character pi: d-l:yamsatlzoopejmannqch-ay:,hmnrzaa_; So there you go. Now, if only I could find the same information for the Golden Ratio, which I find infinitely more fascinating . . . -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/18/2003 08:59:36 PM ----- BODY: HAH! Now this is funny. (Link via Eugene Volokh.) -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/18/2003 07:47:34 PM ----- BODY: CORROSIVE LITIGATION Bruce Fein aptly points out that the current litigation fad in the United States is undercutting the very American character:
The lofty and virile culture bequeathed to posterity by our Founding Fathers has dangerously corroded, casting doubt on Darwin's theory of evolution. Cultural degradation finds expression in tort law, the moral deposit of the times. Suits for negligence or strict liability pivot on community assignments of responsibility between the plaintiff and defendant. If prevailing orthodoxies celebrate freedom to choose and individual accountability - man as Prometheus, not a hapless cog -- then tort suits will encounter stiff resistance. On the other hand, if contemporary moral gospel insists that free choice is spurious and overwhelmed by the allures of vice, sensual gratification and environmental influences, then even the most outlandish tort suits will find smooth sailing.At the risk of tooting my own horn, I wrote about the need to reform the litigation culture before. It is to be hoped that tort reform will eventually become a serious legislative priority of the Bush Administration. Not only will it set the nation's legal priorities back in order, it will help the economy overcome the hidden costs of litigation--costs that inhibit economic growth. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/18/2003 07:39:49 PM ----- BODY: WHITHER ASIAN INVESTMENT? James Glassman discusses the relative lack of invedstment by American companies in Asia, and what course should be followed regarding investment in the future. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/18/2003 05:22:44 PM ----- BODY: CONGRATULATIONS TO THE OXBLOGGERS Josh Chafetz and David Adesnik get some well-deserved publicity for a most worthy cause. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/18/2003 05:10:30 PM ----- BODY: AND FOLLOWING FRED BARNES . . . Amir Taheri's piece contains a great deal of truth:
Watching the marchers here one could not help feeling that larger demonstrations could have been organized by the estimated 1.2 million people, mostly Iraqis and Iranians, who have died as a direct result of the tyrant's policy of repression and war in the past 25 years. Others might have joined them: the four million Iraqis driven into exile and the 1.5 million Iraqis and Iranians disabled during eight years of war. If the "Arab street," and the "Muslim street" in general, have refused to "explode" it is because most Arabs and Muslims know what Saddam Hussein has done to his peoples, and to his neighbors. In this conflict there are only two sides: On the one side stand Saddam and his regime, on the other the peoples of Iraq. When you stand with one you necessarily stand against the other. The "antiwar" label doesn't change that fact. Let us recall that the same label was used, by the same naïve souls misled by the same scoundrels, when the world was debating the use of force to liberate the peoples of Bosnia and Kosovo. And the same trick themes, used then, are used now. "Let's give diplomacy another chance," Francois Mitterrand urged for much of the 1990s. During that time a quarter million Bosnian Muslims were massacred, and a million driven out of their homes. Diplomacy was also given "another chance" while the Rambouillet Treaty was negotiated with Slobodan Milosevic. The price? Up to 10,000 Kosovar Muslims dead.And perhaps it is worth asking how many thousands still need to die before the antiwar Left begins to understand the true gravity of the crisis Saddam Hussein has thrust the world into. Another 3,000 like on September 11th? 30,000? 300,000? Give us a number so that we will know. Only don't deny the fact that people will die if we do nothing. It's bad enough to appease tyrants. But it is insult heaped on injury to denigrate and underestimate the intelligence of others by denying the clear consequences of such appeasement. Incidentally, I first learned of Amir Taheri when I read his splendid biography of Ayatollah Khomeini back when I was 14 years old. Considering the dearth of material that is available on Khomeini's life, the fact that Taheri was able to piece together as much as he did about his subject ranks as a journalistic and literary achievement that is unfortunately not afforded the credit it deserves. If you want to learn more about Khomeini and the roots of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, I cannot recommend the book highly enough. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/18/2003 05:01:32 PM ----- BODY: THE SHAME OF THE ANTIWAR PROTESTORS Fred Barnes is exactly right:
THERE WAS A TIME--the 1960s, 1970s--when the political left in America favored wars of national liberation in countries ruled by dictators, some of them fascist dictators. True, the left would have installed communist dictatorships in their place. But at least leftists targeted enemies who were corrupt, brutal abusers of human rights. Now the left has flipped. The effect of its crusade against war in Iraq would be the survival--indeed, the strengthening--of Saddam Hussein's oppressive regime. The left has brushed aside the pleas of Iraqi exiles, Kurds, and Shiite Muslims who are seeking liberation from Saddam's cruelty. Instead, leftists have targeted those who would aid the Iraqi dissidents, particularly the Bush administration. The corruption of the left has deepened in recent years. At no time was this more evident than last Saturday when large antiwar protests were staged in New York, San Francisco, and other cities in the United States and around the world, including London. Did the demonstrators march on the Iraqi consulate in New York to demand an end to Saddam's murderous practices? No. Did they spend time condemning him in their speeches and placards? Nope. Did they come to the defense of Saddam's victims? No. The left now gives fascist dictators a pass. Its enemy is the United States.Read it all. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/18/2003 04:25:30 PM ----- BODY: SPEAKING OF JUST WAR THEORY . . . Andrew Sullivan received a letter pointing out how Augustine's beliefs are being perverted by the antiwar crowd and by compliant portions of the media:
Two Sundays ago, as my wife and I were traveling, I tuned into BBC America on my XM Satellite Radio. It was indeed a love-fest for the anti-war movement. They interviewed an Anglican Bishop who found it appropriate to single-handedly changed the tenets of just war theory without any indication that it was, in fact, a very new interpretation. For instance, the tenet of 'right authority' was changed to 'highest authority' in an effort to remove a sovereign nation as a proper decision-maker in security matters and make those decisions exclusive to the UN. He also said that the tenet of 'proportionality' prevents ANY war at all in modern warfare, because the brutality of modern warfare was so 'indiscriminate' that any use of force would automatically fail the test of proportionality. The reporter did ask, 'Well, doesn't that invalidate just war theory as a whole?' The Bishop replied, 'Not at all. It validates it.' The only just war, it now appears, is the one that is not fought. Augustine and Aquinas, I'm sure, are very upset to hear that their theory has been co-opted in such a way. The host then turned to America 'for another view' and interviewed an employee of 'The Nation,' who then decried the use of force in Iraq as imperialism, an attack for oil, etc. Yes, that's right, 'The Nation,' is now the view from America. They never introduced a single person with a differing viewpoint.Unbelievable. And yet, somehow, not surprising in the slightest. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/18/2003 04:18:59 PM ----- BODY: SCANNING HUMAN INTELLIGENCE This article is very interesting and well worth a read. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/18/2003 04:10:00 PM ----- BODY: THE JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION WARS This editorial is worth heeding. It's short and sweet, and right on the money. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/18/2003 04:07:22 PM ----- BODY: YOU KNOW THAT THE FRENCH MUST BE WIMPY . . . when you read things like this and this. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/18/2003 04:05:05 PM ----- BODY: FIRST JIMMY CARTER . . . Now this? Considering the fact that the Committee would not likely choose two Americans in a row, the overwhelming and outstanding choice should be Vaclav Havel. But hell, I can even take Bono over Jacques Chirac. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/18/2003 03:59:56 PM ----- BODY: I COULDA BEEN SOMEBODY. I COULDA BEEN A CONTENDAH . . . if only I started this website. (Warning--some nasty language found here.) -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/18/2003 03:50:11 PM ----- BODY: I LUST IN MY HEART FOR HIS PERMANENT RETIREMENT FROM WORLD AFFAIRS Over twenty-two years ago, disgusted in large part with his naïve and ineffective approach to international diplomacy--an approach which emboldened the Soviet Union to invade Afghanistan and place troops in Cuba, and which emboldened the Islamic Republic of Iran to take American hostages (after the imbecilic idea to undercut an authoritarian but pro-Western Iranian dictator by failing to take a firm stance against an even more repressive totalitarian, anti-American mullah), 57% of the American people, and 489 of the existing 538 American electoral votes carried the day in an effort to throw President Jimmy Carter the hell out of the Oval Office. Over twenty-two years later, it is clear that Carter has learned nothing from his overwhelming and humiliating electoral defeat:
FORMER US President Jimmy Carter is backing the Daily Mirror's Not in My Name campaign. The Nobel Peace Prize winner, and the only US president since 1945 never to order American soldiers into war, endorsed our stance on war with Iraq, saying: "You're doing a good job. I am glad about that. War is evil."Really? As a devout Christian and a self-styled theologian who prides himself on his knowledge of matters theological, perhaps Carter needs to read up on St. Augustine's concept of a just war, explained brilliantly by University of Chicago professor Jean Bethke Elshtain:
What are the occasions when war becomes necessary? For St. Augustine, the most potent justification is the protection of innocents from certain harm. If one has compelling evidence that harm will come to noncombatants, and that this harm is grave and substantial, neighbor love may require a resort to arms. The potential harm might be directed at one's own civilians, or it might involve the noncombatants of another country. It is better to put one's own combatants in danger than to stand by as the innocent are slaughtered. All the people killed on Sept. 11, 2001, were innocents in the just war sense - noncombatants whose only crime was going to work or boarding an airplane on that horrible day. There is certainly no barrier within the just war tradition against trying to prevent future harm of that sort, for it is clear and it is imminent. . . . Of course, deterrence of Iraq would be preferable. Under the terms of just war, force should only be used after other options have been explored. But can deterrence work against Iraq? Clearly, Saddam Hussein has used the period since inspections ceased in 1998 to build up weapons of mass destruction. His previous use of those weapons and his ongoing efforts to violate UN agreements give little reason to have faith in deterrence. To be sure, it might be possible to keep Iraq contained within its borders. Saddam's army may not be sent anywhere at all. But even so, his weapons of mass destruction may well do a lot of traveling, whether through overt or covert use, whether at the hands of the Iraqis or of international terrorists. Therefore, deterrence must involve - as the UN itself has repeatedly agreed - keeping Saddam from acquiring weapons of mass destruction.A just war is not an evil one, and only the far Left or the hopelessly deluded continue to argue that the United States is seeking this war for imperialistic purposes. The simple and unremarkable fact is that when a regime such as Saddam Hussein's has had 12 years to manufacture weapons of mass destruction, with little to no interference from the outside world, the American people are right to wonder and worry about their safety and security. Augustine's concept of a just war clearly countenances and sanctions preemptive military action in order to prevent the kind of catastrophe inflicted on the United States on September 11, 2001 from being replicated, and perhaps even augmented in its horrific power. Later on, we get this passage about Carter:
Carter, who will be 79 this year, is a pariah among hawkish Republicans and a hero for doveish Democrats, frequently denouncing wars and conflict whenever they flare. He said: "There has been a virtual declaration of war but a case for pre-emptive action against Iraq has not been made. We want Saddam Hussein to disarm but we want to achieve this through peaceful means. "He obviously has the capability and desire to build prohibited weapons and probably has some hidden in his country. "A sustained and enlarged UN inspection team is required."You can put in a million UN inspectors in Iraq, but it won't amount to a damn thing unless Saddam's regime cooperates. And we have no indication whatsoever that it will.
Carter said an opinion poll which rated the US as the country posing greatest danger to world peace was a "very embarrassing thing". It was "sobering" to realise the degree of doubt that has been raised about his country's motives for war in the absence of convincing proof of a genuine Iraqi threat. Looking at a copy of the Mirror he said: "I know the Daily Mirror, of course. I know it well. It's getting the message across."I'm sure that Carter must be entirely uncomfortable with a style and system of governance that puts courage over public opinion. But that must have been why he was a one-term President, no? And someone should tell the former President that the Daily Mirror is on record as saying that the Bush Administration is a "gang of criminals" and that Tony Blair has "blood on his hands." Is this what a former President of the United States really wants to say about one of his successors, and about the leader of his nation's closest ally? If so, then perhaps it is best that we are rid of Carter's clumsy and ineffective brand of diplomacy.
[Carter] said: "The issue that concerns everybody is Iraq. "The news this morning is that all over the world, including this country and Britain, there are massive demonstrations against the starting of a pre-emptive war. "Obviously Saddam Hussein will have to comply with the revelation and destruction of all weapons of mass destruction. "But there is a growing consensus, among other countries at least, that we should let the UN inspectors do their thing first before we start a pre-emptive war against Iraq."Exactly what will it take to cause Carter to realize that only the palpable and credible threat of war will have any hope of causing Saddam to cooperate? Aren't two decades of thought on this issue enough? Has Carter devoted two decades of thought on this issue? Has he devoted two minutes? And finally, we get this from Carter:
"Time magazine in Europe did a public opinion poll on its website and over 350,000 people responded to the question, 'Which country poses the greatest threat to world peace?' "North Korea received seven per cent of the votes, Iraq received eight per cent and the United States received 84 per cent. "We have lost the ability apparently in our country to convince other nations to stand side by side with us."(Emphasis mine.) The idiot is citing an online poll to buttress his "arguments." Need he really be taken seriously anymore? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/18/2003 03:26:09 PM ----- BODY: GETTING A LITTLE PARANOID, EH? Here is one sign that Saddam Hussein is having sleepless nights:
Saddam Hussein was last night reported to have placed his defence minister and close relative under house arrest in an extraordinary move apparently designed to prevent a coup. Iraqi opposition newspapers, citing sources in Baghdad, yesterday claimed that the head of the Iraqi military, Lieutenant-General Sultan Hashim Ahmad al-Jabburi Tai, was now effectively a prisoner in his home in the capital. The minister's apparent detention, also reported by Cairo-based al-Ahram newspaper, is surprising. He is not only a member of President Saddam's inner circle, but also a close relative by marriage. His daughter is married to Qusay Hussein, the dictator's 36-year-old younger son - considered by many as his heir apparent. Reports of the general's arrest came amid signs of growing apprehension in Baghdad that the Iraqi army, including the elite Republican Guard, might desert in the event of an attack on Iraq.I'm sure that Stalin would approve. But I doubt that Saddam will be afforded the luxury of Stalin's peaceful demise. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/18/2003 03:22:25 PM ----- BODY: THEY ARE NOT EU MEMBERS! THEY ARE VERY NAUGHTY NATIONS! More on Jacques Chirac's asinine temper tantrum against European countries which disagree with him on the issue of what to do about Iraq:
Chirac said: "These countries have been not very well behaved and rather reckless of the danger of aligning themselves too rapidly with the American position." "It is not really responsible behavior. It is not well brought-up behavior. They missed a good opportunity to keep quiet." "I felt they acted frivolously because entry into the European Union implies a minimum of understanding for the others," Chirac said. Chirac called the letters "infantile" and "dangerous," adding: "They missed a great opportunity to shut up."And Bush is arrogant? Good Lord . . . -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/18/2003 03:13:08 PM ----- BODY: AND MORE ON THE HYPOCRISY OF THE ANTIWAR LEFT Steyn speaks:
The "peace" marches? Oh, I've nothing to say. Can't improve on Tony Blair, looking out of his window and observing: "If there are 500,000 on that march, that is still less than the number of people whose deaths Saddam has been responsible for. "If there are one million, that is still less than the number of people who died in the wars he started." In other words, if it's a numbers game, those are the ones that matter. I'm tempted to leave it there and go skiing, but let me come back to it in a roundabout sort of way. The other day I got a copy of Andrew Roberts' new book, Hitler And Churchill: Secrets Of Leadership, which sounds like some lame-o management techniques cash-in, but is, in fact, a very useful take on very familiar material. Most of us have read a gazillion books about the Second World War (when I say "most of us," I exclude the fellow in Hyde Park on Saturday holding a placard with the words "PEACE IN OUR TIME," and even then I kind of hope he was some waggish saboteur, since the notion that the peaceniks, though deluded, are that ignorant is a little mind-boggling). But, comparing Britain's and Germany's wartime leaders directly, you can't help feeling that victory and defeat were predetermined: As Philip Hensher neatly put it in his review of Roberts' essay, "Churchill knew very well what Hitler was like, but Hitler had no idea what sort of man Churchill was."Well, actually, Steyn does have something to say--his opening disclaimer notwithstanding:
The new Universal Theory, to which 99% of Saturday's speakers and placards enthusiastically subscribed, is that, whatever the problem, American imperialist cowboy aggression is to blame. In fact, it's not so different from the old Universal Theory, in that the international Zionist conspiracy is assumed to be behind the scenes controlling the cowboys: Bush is a "puppet of Jewry," just like Churchill was -- notwithstanding the fact that America's Jews voted overwhelmingly for Gore. But, if you believe that the first non-imperialist great power in modern history is the source of all the world's woes, then logic is irrelevant. "It's all about oil"? Yes, for the French, whose stake in Iraqi oil is far more of a determining factor than America's ever has been or will be. "America created Saddam"? No, not really, the French and Germans and Russians have sold him far more stuff, and Paris built him that reactor which would have made him a nuclear power by now, if the Israelis hadn't destroyed it in the Eighties. But, as Colin Powell and Jack Straw have surely learned by now, there's no real point doing the patient line-by-line rebuttal: Nobody's interested in French oil contracts or German arms sales or even Saddamite corpse tallies because it doesn't fit into the Universal Theory which insists that everything can be explained by the Evil of America. On the other hand, the indestructible belief that "over 4,000" civilians were killed by U.S. bombs in Afghanistan is impervious to scientific evidence because it accords perfectly with the Universal Theory. How far are the "peace" crowd prepared to go? Well, they've stopped talking about their little pet cause of the Nineties, East Timor, ever since the guys who blew up that Bali nightclub and whoever's putting together those "Osama" audio tapes started listing support for East Timor's independence as one of the Islamist grievances against the West. But why be surprised? In fall 2001, being pro-gay and pro-feminist didn't stop the left defending an Afghan regime that disenfranchised women and executed homosexuals. Yet these are the same fellows who insist that a secular regime like Iraq's would never make common cause with Islamic fundamentalists, apparently requiring a higher degree of intellectual coherence of Saddam than of themselves.I await with bated breath any attempt whatsoever at addressing the charges of hypocrisy that Steyn has so neatly presented. I won't get it, of course, as his presentation is as near to being irrefutable as it is possible to be. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/18/2003 03:07:22 PM ----- BODY: WHETHER THE ANTIWAR PROTESTORS LIKE TO ADMIT IT OR NOT . . . David Pryce-Jones is exactly right:
Ignorance, fear and lack of respect for Arabs - these were the most obvious traits on display in yesterday's demonstration against a war in Iraq. Could so many people really think that it is better to leave Iraqis under Saddam Hussein's vicious tyranny than to liberate them from it? Their protests suggest that it is not worth risking anything at all to free Arabs. To risk spilling a single drop of blood to liberate Iraq would be futile - not merely because it would be "destabilising" or "kill children", but because the Arabs have no capacity for "Western" freedom anyway. Behind the demonstrators' slogans lies the assumption that Arabs should be left alone: they don't mind being brutalised, tortured and murdered by a fascist thug like Saddam. Where they come from, it is the natural order of things. That line of thought is nonsense. More than that - it is racist nonsense. No one knows better than the Arabs the horror of being oppressed. No one knows better than they that tyrannical oppression is all that they will get so long as Saddam and his family are in power. Saddam's despotism is not a denial of "Western" freedom: it's a denial of the freedom that every person needs to be able to live a worthwhile life. To imagine that the Iraqis don't want to be freed, or are not entitled to it, is simply to suppose that they are less human than us.Exactly so. It is a pity that the antiwar protestors seem to ignore this very fact, but I've long ago given up on their ability to reason cogently. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/18/2003 02:51:38 PM ----- BODY: GOLLY GEE . . . This certainly is interesting:
Iranian-backed Iraqi opposition forces have crossed into northern Iraq from Iran with the aim of securing the frontier in the event of war, according to senior Iranian officials. The forces, numbering up to 5,000 troops, with some heavy equipment, are nominally under the command of Ayatollah Mohammad Baqir al-Hakim, a prominent Iraqi Shia Muslim opposition leader who has been based in Iran since 1980 and lives in Tehran. A US State Department official said he was aware of reports that part of Ayatollah Hakim's Badr brigade had crossed into northern Iraq but declined further comment. Analysts close to the administration of President George W. Bush said the US was concerned about the intentions of this new element in an increasingly complicated patchwork of forces in northern Iraq.Despite the Administration's concerns, I don't think that the Iranians will do anything to try to gain power--yet. They may in the future, but at this point, my bet is that the Iranians will behave exactly as they did in the first Persian Gulf War. They will lie back, allow their longtime rival Saddam Hussein to suffer under the hammer blows of the American military, and surreptitiously cooperate with the United States by confiscating any Iraqi planes, materiel, or personnel that make their way across the border. Of course, this does not mean the Iranian regime won't try a power play later on. Which is yet another reason why the Iranian regime itself should be changed and altered. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/17/2003 10:48:51 PM ----- BODY: THOUGHT FOR THE DAY I noticed the following in Jane Galt's comments section. I think it is appropriate to share: When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. -Jonathan Swift Or "her" in this case. Come back soon, Jane. We miss you. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/17/2003 07:08:20 PM ----- BODY: A DECENT LEFT Jason Rylander realizes that there is a need to be addressed:
. . . How can I stand with the Marxist, pro-Palestinian A.N.S.W.E.R. coalition and their ilk (which has been organizing many of the marches), when so much of what they advocate is incoherent if not flatly wrong? There is such a need for an alternative voice in foreign policy right now, but a reflexive anti-war position is not enough. The Democratic Party and the Left in general must begin to develop a doctine that will guide our foreign policy positions now and in the future. Only then will we have the moral standing to critique America's foreign policy credibly and effectively. In my view such a doctine must--at a minimum--address the following: The role of international institutions like the UN, NATO, and the World Court; the case for and against preemption in foreign policy; standards for humanitarian intervention; consistency in policy toward despotic regimes; the limits and possibility of shared values in a multicultural, multi-religious world; new policies on nuclear proliferation; the effects of energy policy, natural resource use, famine and religion on international relations and stability; and the desirability of nation-building after conflict. I don't believe it's possible to decide properly whether to invade Iraq (and what to do afterwards) without mastering these issues. Until we do, our foreign policy will continue to be fractured, unfocused, and inconsistent. That undermines our credibility at home and abroad. The decision to invade Iraq will be made without addressing these issues, and as a result, the outcome is necessarily uncertain. I do not doubt America's military might. When I say the result is uncertain, I speak of the place of such an action in the context of these larger issues. I cannot answer whether and how invasion will advance these goals--and that's what the Left needs to address. I'm not saying that action in Iraq must necessarily wait until we've settled these questions. But think how much more focused and credible our stance would be if we could justify it in this broader context.It's a pity that there aren't more serious thinkers on the Left like Jason. His contribution is very much appreciated by those of us who are interested in having a serious debate, but it feels as if one has to search high and low for such intelligent commentary to keep us conservatives honest. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/17/2003 06:52:05 PM ----- BODY: WHY WERE THERE NO IRAQIS AT THE ANTIWAR PROTESTS? Joanne Jacobs covers this issue. And I'm surprised that more people aren't asking this question when it comes to commenting on the antiwar protests. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/17/2003 06:40:46 PM ----- BODY: IRANIAN REVOLUTION WATCH This is excellent news, and proof that a powerful student movement in Iran can indeed bring about positive change. Now, it remains for Aghajari to be freed, and for the reformist movement in Iran to win other victories that will help further modernize the country's social and political environment. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/17/2003 06:37:31 PM ----- BODY: WHAT'S YOUR BIQ? Mine is currently at 19, which is pretty good, considering that I am just behind Drudge. Yay. I just do this stuff for the fun of it, but to the extent that it brings me fame and glory, I'm happy with it. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/17/2003 06:11:25 PM ----- BODY: HEH! Excellent. (Link via OxBlog) -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/17/2003 06:08:02 PM ----- BODY: WANNA READ SOMETHING FUNNY? Behold a Frenchman threatening the non-French. What's next? Will the English learn to cook? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/17/2003 06:06:47 PM ----- BODY: POLITICAL MOXIE! She makes sense. And lots of it too. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/17/2003 03:53:11 PM ----- BODY: MAN v. MACHINE A postmortem and reflection on chess between humans and computers from Garry Kasparov. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/17/2003 03:51:42 PM ----- BODY: PROTEST-RELATED VIOLENCE Avocare's thoughts are well worth considering. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/17/2003 01:47:12 PM ----- BODY: ANOTHER SCHRÖDER SCANDAL? Andrew Sullivan has the scoop. And if true, the current Social Democrat government shouldn't last another nanosecond if there is any justice in the world. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/17/2003 01:29:57 PM ----- BODY: WORSE AND WORSE Eric Alterman grows increasingly hysterical:
With Bin-Laden and company still at large, al-Qaida regrouping, and both the NATO alliance and homeland security in chaos, the attack against Iraq is one of single most irresponsible acts ever perpetrated by an American president, (and an unelected and increasingly unpopular one at that). When the Iraqis attack innocent Americans at home and abroad in response, I can only hope the nation knows just who should be held responsible.First of all, we don't know that bin Laden is still alive. At the very best, he is likely to be severely injured and weakened (thus the refusal to send in videotapes of himself). And much of his "company" has been either captured or, in many cases, killed (including Mohammad Atef--bin Laden's right hand man). While al Qaeda may be "regrouping," that is what the enemy does from time to time. It doesn't change the fact that they are still reeling from the hammer blows that landed on them in Afghanistan. But forget all of that for a moment. Just consider the following line: "When the Iraqis attack innocent Americans at home and abroad in response, I can only hope the nation knows just who should be held responsible." I'm sure the nation will know that Saddam Hussein would be responsible in that circumstance. But thanks to Eric for pointing it out anyway. Wait a minute . . . you don't think that Eric meant President Bush would be responsible if Saddam Hussein decided of his own volition to launch terrorist attacks against innocent American citizens, do you? I mean, that would just be idiotic, deluded, and morally blind, wouldn't it? Does that mean that President Clinton was "responsible" for the 1993 attack of the World Trade Center, the Oklahoma City bombing, the Khobar Towers bombing, the embassy attacks in Kenya and Tanzania, and the bombing of the USS Cole--not to mention the Iraqi assassination attempt on President Bush the Elder? Because if you can't blame Clinton for those things, how can you blame Bush if Saddam Hussein decided to engage in terrorism himself? I mean, I know that Alterman can blame Bush, but I guess I'm directing my question to more intelligent, informed, and intellectually consistent people. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/17/2003 01:19:38 PM ----- BODY: DOING THE RIGHT THING I'm sure that it must feel somewhat strange for NATO to have finally grown a spine, but its newfound courage is welcome nonetheless. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/17/2003 01:18:35 PM ----- BODY: [INSERT EVIL,MANIACAL LAUGH HERE] Hmmm . . . maybe I should take out an ad in The Nation. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/17/2003 12:58:59 PM ----- BODY: WOW, WHAT A SHOCK This weekend's protests turned violent at times. I'm sure this just stuns everyone. Consider this report (Link via Right-Thinking):
A group of protesters broke away from the massive peace demonstration in downtown San Francisco Sunday and began throwing rocks and facing off with police. Officers closed the entrances to some downtown stores to prevent looting -- but demonstrators threw rocks, food and other objects. Protesters smashed the window of at least one car driving past.Now, if there are antiwar readers out there who are getting ready to protest my post by saying that "this was an isolated incident," let me say that if you are right, I'm glad it was isolated. This means that the most recent protests appear to have learned that the tactics of previous protests in smashing up stores, cars and people doesn't help persuade anyone. And that's a good thing. Perhaps it means that we are slowly and haltingly lurching our way towards a decent Left. The progress is too slow for my tastes, but if it is progress, I'll take it--no matter how slow. Perhaps now our friends on the Left will be willing to keep the progress up. And perhaps they will take it a step further by denouncing past acts of protest-related violence that occurred in previous antiwar demonstrations, and anti-globalization marches as well. I'm sure that many people would find that acknowledgment most welcome and most helpful towards forming a more rational discourse. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/17/2003 12:45:07 PM ----- BODY: OUR HERO GETS FUNNY E-MAIL John Kneeland sends the following pithy remark in reference to French posters depicting George W. Bush as Hitler:
Clearly George W. Bush is not Hitler, for, if he were, France would have surrendered by now. (zing!) Just a nice one-liner I thought could use some more exposure.Consider it exposed. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/17/2003 12:42:18 PM ----- BODY: MAYBE WE WON'T HAVE TO BOYCOTT THE GERMANS THOUGH Germany has declared that it will not block a common European position that states the use of force must remain an option when dealing with Iraq. The statement doesn't exactly ring with Churchillian resolve, but I suppose that it is an improvement over recent German actions. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/17/2003 12:35:35 PM ----- BODY: ANY CHANCE OF THE BOYCOTT AGAINST FRANCE BEING CANCELLED . . . has effectively gone out the window. For the record, I am not boycotting French products. I'm not actively purchasing them either, but the fact is that with the globally integrated economy that we have, boycotting French wines or German cars could very well put American workers out of business. And I just don't believe in cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. However, the whole situation reminds me of a Chris Rock standup routine on the OJ Simpson case. Rock kept saying that while he didn't condone OJ killing Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman, for a variety of reasons (mostly racially related reasons) "I understand." Well, this ain't a murder case, and I certainly don't understand cold-bloodedly murdering anyone. And like I said, I don't think that a boycott of French and German products is going to do anything. But if someone wants to boycott, I understand. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/17/2003 12:28:03 PM ----- BODY: TYPECASTING? One hopes not. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/17/2003 12:26:35 PM ----- BODY: WE'LL SEE . . . if the Left can be civilized when they get yet another public forum to express their views. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/17/2003 12:21:27 PM ----- BODY: ON THE UPSIDE . . . Maybe during her blogging break, Jane can go out and make snow angels. In fact, there are probably enough snow angels to be made to construct a winter-like Paradiso for a latter day Dante Alighieri to wax poetic about. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/17/2003 12:10:22 PM ----- BODY: THE JANE GALT CONTROVERSY Via Instapundit I find out that the great and glorious Jane Galt has had her fill of idiotic and hate filled mail that has been flowing her way ever since she made the not-at-all-extraordinary statement that if protestors at this weekend's antiwar protests turned violent, they might very well witness outraged citizenry fighting back (gasp!) against the kind of anarchy and nihilistic chaos they have exhibited in the past. I want to express several thoughts on this issue: 1. To Jane: You are one of the select few who inspired me to blog in the first place. If you are silent for even five minutes, it will be five minutes where I am deprived of exceedingly intelligent commentary on the issues of the day by someone who has thought long and hard about those issues, and whose brainpower is such that its application in full to addressing those issues makes for posts that are a wonder and delight to read. I know that it must infuriate and enrage you to have to put up with the kind of mindless drivel that I can only imagine you had to put up with for the past few days, but as others have stated, the many people who think you to be a worthy and valuable commentator far outweigh those whose criticisms can only be expressed in kindergarten style insults. Don't let the idiots get you down. Fight back and post anew. Just imagine how happy some of them might be if they think that they have shut you up, and how enraged and frustrated they would be if they see you blogging undaunted. 2. For General Information: I noticed the following passage in Jane's remarks:
I grew up in a political family, and I spent what felt like a long time on the left, and more time in the libertarian wing. I don't get angry about politics, and I don't succumb to the tempting belief that my opponents are venal and/or stupid, but in the case of my correspondants, I'll make an exception. Many of you seem to have come via a few high-profile lefty blogs, and all I can say is, to the folks who sent them, your readership is certainly something special. And I never, ever want to hear another lefty blogger talking about how the reason the left is special is that they're nicer human beings, okay? I haven't heard language like that used by your readership since my youthful infatuation with Henry Miller. And at least Miller could spell. If any of y'all are reading this: a handy rule to use with four-letter rules is that when you're done writing them, they should only have four letters.(Emphasis mine) Now, while I can't be sure,it is a safe bet that one of the "high-profile lefty blogs" that Jane was referring to was Atrios's blog. In the slimy, disingenuous, transcendentally and incandescently stupid fashion that Atrios has patented all for himself he refers to "Jane Galt's good squad" here, and here. And having argued with commentators on Atrios's blog in the past, I can testify to their own goonish and thuggish behavior. These people never engage the substance of one's argument, they never show even a modicum of respect for their interlocutors, and what's more--they keep screwing up facts and argumentative premises in order to suit their side. And when all else fails, they engage in insults and invective that only serves to demonstrate their idiocy to all but the most blind. That's the way the Left appears to be nowadays. They can't win arguments, so they try to start fights instead. And in these fights, hitting below the belt is certainly fair game as far as the Left is concerned. I suppose that the entire situation is the reverse of how Bill Clinton described it when he was President. He used to delight ( and delude) partisan audiences by stating that "they [the Right] win all the fights, but we win all the arguments." If it was true before, it certainly does not appear to be true now. If your best "argument" is that Jane Galt is a latter day Bull Connor, then you are pretty much deprived of a snowball's chance in hell of making any clear and intellectually respectable points for your side. I've said it before, and I will say it again--I wish we had a decent Left in this country. Democratic discourse prospers when we have two ideological camps capable of making strong and potent arguments that win respect, if not converts. But we don't have that now. With conservatives ensconced in power in all branches of government, the Left is now feeling isolated, besieged, and as a result, outraged. To an extent, that is understandable. Back in the 1990s, I woke up many days and went to bed many nights apoplectic with disbelief over the fact that William Jefferson Clinton was President of the United States. It is natural to want your side in power so that the programs that you believe in can be enacted, and the policies that you hold dear can be implemented. At the same time, I was mature enough to understand that we live in a democratic republic, and that sometimes, in a democratic republic, you lose elections and popular arguments, and the pendulum swings to the other side. What tempers this frustration is the realization that in a democratic republic, the pendulum can swing back to your side, and you can enjoy the privileges and responsibilities of having your side in power. Every dog has its day in a democratic republic. Too bad some dogs seem to forget this very simple fact, and go on rabid rampages as a result. It is tempting to go on a rampage as well in retaliation. It is tempting to urge my readership to flood egregiously offensive left wing bloggers with hate mail so that they can feel what it is like to be attacked for the crime of holding a differing opinion. Lord knows, I've been attacked and victimized in some of the most inane and childish ways possible by people who hold differing views. Don't believe me? Check out www.pejmanpundit.com, www.pejmanpundit.org, and www.pejmanpundit.net, and you will be directed to a site where the domain names are parked. Scroll down and check the availability of those domain names, and you will find that they are registered by a lefty blogger with whom I have tangled in the past, and who apparently believes that the only way to win an argument with me is to try to take away my soapbox when and if I ever move to my own domain server, or at the very least, to make the import of my soapbox to my own server as difficult and inconvenient as possible. It is surely tempting to retaliate against this kind of mindless and nonsensical behavior, and needless to say, legal options remain open for me due to provisions against cybersquatting. But if that retaliation spreads to the point where you inundate people with whom you disagree with hatemail, or to the point where someone takes out a website called "NormJensonSucks.com," then remember that you are descending to their level. It's been said before, but it deserves to be said again that you should never engage in an argument with an idiot. The idiot drags you down to his own level, and wins because of long years of experience in his chosen intellectual station. The only thing that you can do is to keep on keeping on. So what if people are made upset? And so what if they send hatemail? I know it is upsetting to receive, and I sympathize fully with Jane's frustrations. But in the end, you must show that you are better than the people trying to drag you down to their level of idiocy. If you do, in the end, you will win out--no matter what the level of invective on the other side. I'm sure that Jane will be back in short order, although she should only come back when blogging becomes fun for her again. I'll miss her while she is gone. I think she deserved better than what she got, and it is more than a little disconcerting that a blog as excellent as hers would somehow still attract trolls and foolish commentators. But in the end, cream rises to the top. So shall it be the case with the female half of Asymmetrical Information. And she'll rise above her whining and carping trolls as well. When she does, I'm sure that more than a few of us will breathe sighs of relief, and welcome her back to blogging. In the meantime, although you have already been prompted to do so by the all-powerful Glenn, please do go over to Jane's site and lend your support and kind words. She deserves to hear them more than most people I can think of. UPDATE: I see that lying and desperate post hoc rationalizations have reached new heights. What a laugh. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/16/2003 10:32:01 PM ----- BODY: THOUGHT FOR THE DAY I can assure you that this saying does not apply to me. Still, in light of tonight's movie lineup, I couldn't resist: A lawyer with his briefcase can steal more than a hundred men with guns. --Don Vito Corleone -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/16/2003 10:29:00 PM ----- BODY: I WAS GOING TO BLOG MORE THIS EVENING . . . But Godfather I is on AMC right now, and instead, I am going to watch that because Godfather I is a spectacular movie, and I love it beyond reason. Very weird--last night I was watching Godfather II on videotape, and now the first movie is on TV. And yes, it is edited for adult content, but still, it's the Godfather, and very much worth watching. Happy Sunday evening, gentle readers. See you tomorrow. And if you still want to hang around this blog, be sure to cast your vote on which Godfather movie you like best--the first one or the second one. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/16/2003 03:43:04 PM ----- BODY: HEH! A close call indeed. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/16/2003 03:30:13 PM ----- BODY: AND NOW, FOR YOUR HUMOR BREAK OF THE DAY Found right here. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/16/2003 03:22:50 PM ----- BODY: NEITHER RAIN, NOR SNOW, NOR SLEET . . . shall slow the National Security Advisor down.
Washington usually shuts down at the slightest hint of snow (remember John F. Kennedy's famous comment that Washington is a city of southern efficiency and northern charm). But with the seriousness of this snowstorm, I guess I can be understanding if DC residents feel a little bit besieged by the elements.
--------
AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh
DATE: 2/16/2003 02:24:11 PM
-----
BODY:
UTTERLY APPALLING Need more really be said?
(Kudos to Damian Penny for trudging through the swamp of anti-Semitism yet again in order to debunk it. The man deserves a medal or something.)
--------
AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh
DATE: 2/16/2003 02:16:09 PM
-----
BODY:
SURPRISE, SURPRISE Yet another alarmist environmental study has been trashed.
--------
AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh
DATE: 2/16/2003 02:09:06 PM
-----
BODY:
ALL OF THESE BARBS ARE WELL-DESERVED Catherine Sepp annihilates Maureen Dowd:
I suppose we all have our own time-to-stop-throwing- the-newspaper-across-the-room-and-just-cancel- the-damned-thing moments. For me it was November 14, 2001, when I encountered five little words in Maureen Dowd’s New York Times column about the wrongness of invading Afghanistan. “The world’s in a swirl,” wrote Dowd, “and things are changing at a dizzying pace.” Yes, things have a way of doing that. But the world’s in a swirl? There was something so quintessentially girlish and inane about the phrase—so quintessentially Dowd, with its rhymey, fashion-runway language. Her point, if she had one, was that war is unpleasant and the Northern Alliance is mean. P.S.: President George W. Bush was becoming “chummy” with Russian President Vladimir Putin. “When Mr. Bush called Mr. Putin to invite him to the ranch,” Dowd wrote, fluttering toward her conclusion, “the Russian president said he was looking forward to riding horses with the American president. Mr. Bush had to explain that he doesn’t ride. He prefers to saddle up his jeep or his golf cart, Gator, around the ranch.” And this meant . . . what? Nothing, but in a Maureen Dowd column, meaning has become unnecessary. It was just another schoolgirl spitball lobbed at Bush: Screw you and the horse you didn’t ride in on.It gets even more devastating (and funny) as you read the rest of the column. I encourage you to do so--Sepp speaks truth. And hey--Josh Chafetz gets a well-deserved mention too. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/16/2003 02:02:39 PM ----- BODY: ONCE AGAIN . . . Tony Blair comes through:
Yes, there are consequences of war. If we remove Saddam by force, people will die and some will be innocent. And we must live with the consequences of our actions, even the unintended ones. But there are also consequences of "stop the war". If I took that advice, and did not insist on disarmament, yes, there would be no war. But there would still be Saddam. Many of the people marching will say they hate Saddam. But the consequences of taking their advice is that he stays in charge of Iraq, ruling the Iraqi people. A country that in 1978, the year before he seized power, was richer than Malaysia or Portugal. A country where today, 135 out of every 1000 Iraqi children die before the age of five - 70% of these deaths are from diarrhoea and respiratory infections that are easily preventable. Where almost a third of children born in the centre and south of Iraq have chronic malnutrition. Where 60% of the people depend on Food Aid. Where half the population of rural areas have no safe water. Where every year and now, as we speak, tens of thousands of political prisoners languish in appalling conditions in Saddam's jails and are routinely executed. Where in the past 15 years over 150,000 Shia Moslems in Southern Iraq and Moslem Kurds in Northern Iraq have been butchered; with up to four million Iraqis in exile round the world, including 350,000 now in Britain. This isn't a regime with Weapons of Mass Destruction that is otherwise benign. This is a regime that contravenes every single principle or value anyone of our politics believes in. There will be no march for the victims of Saddam, no protests about the thousands of children that die needlessly every year under his rule, no righteous anger over the torture chambers which if he is left in power, will be left in being. I rejoice that we live in a country where peaceful protest is a natural part of our democratic process. But I ask the marchers to understand this. I do not seek unpopularity as a badge of honour. But sometimes it is the price of leadership. And the cost of conviction. But as you watch your TV pictures of the march, ponder this: If there are 500,000 on that march, that is still less than the number of people whose deaths Saddam has been responsible for. If there are one million, that is still less than the number of people who died in the wars he started.And yes, I know that both Andrew Sullivan and Glenn have linked to, and cited this passage. I don't care. It's so good, so pertinent and so apposite that it deserves the widest circulation possible. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/16/2003 01:31:07 PM ----- BODY: POOR CAROL Al Sharpton would have turned them out:
If Carol Moseley-Braun means what she says about campaigning for president in Iowa one voter at a time, Tom Hanson had all of her attention Saturday. Hanson was the only soul - besides a dozen members of the local news media and half as many event coordinators - to brave a foot of fresh snow to hear the former U.S. senator from Illinois speak in Des Moines on Saturday afternoon.Will Carol Moseley-Braun even make it to the Iowa caucuses? Somehow, I have my doubts. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/16/2003 01:26:10 PM ----- BODY: SO WHAT WILL THE UNITED STATES DO NEXT? This report may give the clues. I don't think that a second resolution is needed, as Resolution 1441 already threatens Iraq with "serious consequences." Why repeat the threat of "serious consequences" in a second resolution? The whole thing strikes me as dilatory. Indeed, dealing with the United Nations itself is a gigantic waste of time. It has sullied itself beyond compare in this entire episode. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/16/2003 01:18:20 PM ----- BODY: THE AMAZING JACQUES CHIRAC Arguing that "France is not a pacifist country," as Chirac does, is perhaps the surest way to garner laughs and giggles throughout the world. And trying to place the entire Western world in the illogical conundrum that fighting terrorists somehow breeds more terrorism is nothing short of ridiculous. The scary thing is that Chirac is relatively conservative in the context of French politics. Imagine the fatuous nonsense we would have had to endure from President Lionel Jospin. Oh, and you have to love the following bit, where Chirac actually tries to explain what circumstances would justify war:
It's up to the inspectors to decide. We gave them our confidence. They were given a mission, and we trust them. If we have to give them greater means, we'll do so. It's up to them to come before the Security Council and say, "We won. It's over. There are no more weapons of mass destruction," or "It's impossible for us to fulfill our mission. We're coming up against Iraqi ill will and impediments." At that point, the Security Council would have to discuss this report and decide what to do. In that case, France would naturally exclude no option.The problem with this analysis is that the inspectors will never put themselves out of work and assume the responsibility for pronouncing the need for war by stating that the inspections are not working. They will continue to demand "more time" to get that elusive last bit of cooperation from Saddam Hussein--which will never come. In the meantime, Saddam will have more time to develop his weapons program, and to contemplate doing real damage to the United States, and to American interests. If Chirac knows this, he is treacherous. If he is unaware, he is a fool. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/16/2003 01:13:24 PM ----- BODY: SPEAKING OF THE GODFATHER SERIES . . . I'm interested in knowing whether readers prefer the first or the second movie (I presume that no one out there likes the third movie). Personally, while the second movie is nothing short of excellent, I prefer the first one--in large part because it helped establish the story, and because I felt that New York was a more appealing locale for a mob story than Tahoe. Indeed, while the entire second movie was terrific, my favorite scenes in the second movie had to do with the flashbacks to Vito Corleone's life in New York--I found that aspect of the movie to be the most interesting and fascinating. But that's just me. Muse away and tell me what you think. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/15/2003 10:05:45 PM ----- BODY: THOUGHT FOR THE DAY Courtesy of two excellent movies which I had the pleasure of seeing this evening: Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in awhile, you could miss it. --Ferris Bueller, Ferris Bueller's Day Off Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer. --Don Michael Corleone (via Don Vito Corleone), The Godfather, Part II -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/15/2003 06:11:03 PM ----- BODY: ATTENTION ANTIWAR PROTESTORS: Emily Jones double-dog dares ya to put up or shut up. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/15/2003 06:10:09 PM ----- BODY: HELPING AFGHANISTAN Joshua Claybourn dispels the lie that the United States has abandoned Afghanistan in the wake of the American military victory there. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/15/2003 05:59:26 PM ----- BODY: YET MORE UNBELIEVABLE IGNORANCE Citing this article and its report that the Bush Administration intends to deal with Iran differently than with Iraq or North Korea, Atrios sarcastically comments "Grownups in charge! Moral Clarity!" While there is little thought expressed in this post (which is par for the course when it comes to Atrios), our befuddled little friend appears to be attempting to criticize the Bush Administration for not treating Iran in the exact same manner as it treats Iraq and North Korea (especially given the report that there may be al Qaeda in Iran, which I linked to earlier). Of course, if Atrios bothered to read the story he posted to, he would find out why there is a difference between the American approach to Iran, and its approach to Iraq and North Korea:
Despite growing concern about Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program, its assistance in the "war on terrorism" and the evolution of liberal thought there put it in a different category from Iraq or North Korea, the Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage, said. "The axis of evil was a valid comment [but] I would note there's one dramatic difference between Iran and the other two axes of evil, and that would be its democracy. [And] you approach a democracy differently," he said. "I wouldn't think they were next at all."(Emphasis mine) Now, of course there is a problem in Iran in that the reformist impulses that have been overwhelmingly and democratically expressed in two consecutive presidential elections and in a whole host of reformist newspapers and media outlets are being battled and frustrated by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Religious Guide, and the reactionary Council of Guardians. But thanks to the election results, and the overwhelming support they have in the Iranian Majlis (Parliament), as well as the fact that the Iranian President is (ostensibly) a reformer, there is indeed a great deal more democracy in Iran than there is in Iraq and North Korea. In fact, there is no comparison at all. Political freedoms certainly need to improve in Iran, as do civil liberties. But at least they do exist there in some form--which Armitage rightly pointed out. The struggle is to improve and increase political and civil liberties in Iran, as well as to effect a regime change so that Iran will no longer be so hellbent on sponsoring terrorism. And the nascent democracy that exists in Iran is important here, because it provides a vibrant dissident culture that can take the fight to the reactionary clerics and institute widespread and meaningful reforms. Again, it bears repeating (especially for dimwits like Atrios) that this domestic situation does not exist in Iraq or North Korea--thus the need for a different approach. Additionally, I think I am on safe ground in stating that if the Bush Administration did decide to treat Iran the same as it does Iraq and North Korea, Atrios would be the first to hypocritically castigate the Administration for "a simplistic approach" to diplomacy, or some other such argument. Which would be funny, of course, given the simplistic nature of Atrios's own thinking. Indeed, one cannot help but wonder why the Administration's plan to treat Iran differently is news to Atrios. Perhaps if he were paying close attention to the most recent State of the Union, he would have found out about the Administration's plans earlier:
Different threats require different strategies. In Iran, we continue to see a government that represses its people, pursues weapons of mass destruction, and supports terror. We also see Iranian citizens risking intimidation and death as they speak out for liberty and human rights and democracy. Iranians, like all people, have a right to choose their own government and determine their own destiny -- and the United States supports their aspirations to live in freedom.(Emphasis mine) Is the distinction not clear to even the dullest intellect? The Iranian people are resisting their regime, and so long as that resistance remains viable, there is no need to treat Iran the same way the Administration is treating Iraq and North Korea. Should Khamenei and the reactionary mullahs crack down on the dissident movement, and make the country as repressive as Iraq and North Korea currently are, US policy will likely have to change--at that point, the Administration will not be able to rely on Iranians to help effect regime change, and Iranians will likely look towards American military intervention and liberation with a great deal of enthusiasm. But we have not reached that point, and it is my opinion, backed up by the opinions of others that the Iranian people will likely be the agents of their own liberation--and will be helped by a successful American liberation of Iraq. Of course, all of these facts will continue to be lost on Atrios, whose one-trick pony fulminations are as mind-numbingly stupid as they are comical. It's more important for him to attack the Bush Administration than it is to get his facts right, or his thoughts in order. But then, I suppose that this is what I should expect. After all, when subtle and complicated distinctions are lost on what is, at best, a cluttered mindscape, the results are usually equivalent to the intellectual disasters that make up Atrios's post here, and on other subjects. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/15/2003 05:27:12 PM ----- BODY: THAT LYING LOUISIANAN Robert Alt has the goods on Senator Mary Landrieu. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/15/2003 05:23:38 PM ----- BODY: THOSE PEACEFUL PROTESTORS Check out just how peaceful a few of them have been. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/15/2003 05:20:27 PM ----- BODY: MORE ON THE PERFIDY OF THE FRENCH Apparently, Saddam Hussein is not the only tyrant they love:
The European Union is putting off a fully fledged summit with African countries because it cannot find a way of excluding the Zimbabwean leader, Robert Mugabe. EU ambassadors meeting in Brussels yesterday decided that the Lisbon summit, originally scheduled for April 5, would have to be postponed indefinitely. "In the present circumstances it would not be possible to achieve the broadest participation at the highest-level by both sides," a statement said. "It would therefore be in the best interests of EU-African relations to postpone the summit." The decision coincided with the long-delayed renewal of EU sanctions against the Mugabe regime, targeted because of democratic and human rights abuses, the seizure of white farms and a crackdown on the media. The punitive measures were rolled over only after weeks of embarrassing public disarray in Europe. The price was reluctant acquiescence in a controversial visit by the Zimbabwean president to a Franco-African summit in Paris next week. President Jacques Chirac had insisted that the invitation was justified because of the need for dialogue with Mr Mugabe. But his many critics, including a furious Tony Blair, said he was making a mockery of EU attempts to forge a common foreign policy. France made clear, however, that it would block the renewal of the sanctions if it did not get its way. The measures include a visa ban on Mr Mugabe, and some 70 of his ministers and senior aides, a freeze on their financial assets, and an arms embargo. Greece, holder of the EU's rotating presidency, made a last-ditch effort to salvage the Lisbon summit by seeking a guarantee that Mr Mugabe would stay away. But with several African countries, led by South Africa and Nigeria calling for an end to Commonwealth sanctions against Zimbabwe, this was always a fairly slim prospect. Several EU member states, led by Britain, had threatened to boycott the Lisbon meeting if the Zimbabwean leader attended. But African states made clear they would refuse to attend if Mr Mugabe was not invited.No wonder Hitler had it so easy with those people. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/15/2003 05:10:14 PM ----- BODY: GIVING PEACE A CHANCE David Warren has some well-worded thoughts to share. (Thanks to reader Barry Kaplovitz for the link) -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/15/2003 04:59:19 PM ----- BODY: MORE WORTHY PROTESTS Check this out and lend your support. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/15/2003 04:58:00 PM ----- BODY: JUST IN CASE YOU WERE WONDERING . . . Chances are that you can pretty much kiss your hopes of playing Bruce Willis, Ben Affleck, or Owen Wilson goodbye. Which may not be the worst thing in the world, by the way. After all, who would want to play Owen Wilson? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/15/2003 04:51:25 PM ----- BODY: PICTURES FROM THE ANTIWAR RALLY IN NEW YORK Asparagirl is on the ball. Check out the pictures she has posted here and here. It really looks as if I didn't miss much. The protestors used the same tired rhetoric they have been employing against just about any American action for over the past three decades. Indeed, I couldn't tell much of a difference between any of the protests today, and the protests that occurred prior to the first Gulf War. There were crypto-communists in attendance trying desperately to promote an ideology that has been eviscerated by the movement of history. There were the disgusting moral equivalence advocates who seemed to believe that Israel is as much, if not more of a threat to world peace than Iraq (note to the dimwits trying to draw an analogy to Israel's possession of nuclear weapons: If your nation were surrounded by 22 large and hostile nations that have been seeking your destruction ever since your nation declared independence 55 years ago, you would be carrying nuclear weapons as well. And Iraq could have had an infinitely more secure existence in its region of the world had it decided not to pick a fight with the United States and the rest of the international community.). And there were people whose sole "contribution" to the debate was to argue that "Bush is dumb!" Yawn. Of course, these people will eventually shut up when the United States wins in Iraq--a victory I believe will come about fairly easily, despite the horrible defensive measures Saddam appears to be prepared to take. And they will be made to shut up as well by the damning evidence that comes out of Iraq once it is pacified. The sad thing, however, is that in the time of the next great geopolitical crisis (and don't you worry, there will be another geopolitical crisis for us to deal with within short order after the business with Iraq is relatively cleared up), these same people will come out and make the same shopworn "arguments" against American action. I'm reconciled to the fact that some people will just never learn. That doesn't make their stupidity and ignorance any less painful to behold. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/15/2003 04:34:49 PM ----- BODY: FOR MORE ON IRAN . . . as well as commentary on a whole host of other issues, be sure to check out longtime commentator Nima Arian's new and excellent weblog. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/15/2003 04:24:35 PM ----- BODY: AND IN OTHER NEWS . . . Saddam Hussein plans on wrecking his country. What a shock. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/15/2003 04:23:11 PM ----- BODY: YET ANOTHER REASON . . . why the dissident movement in Iran should be supported in its quest for peaceful revolution:
U.S. intelligence agencies say Osama bin Laden's oldest son, Sad, is in Iran along with other senior al Qaeda terrorists, as Iranian military forces have been placed on their highest state of alert in anticipation of a U.S. attack on Iraq, according to intelligence officials. Sad bin Laden was spotted in Iran last month, according to officials familiar with intelligence reports. Sad is believed to be a key leader of the al Qaeda terrorist network since U.S. and allied forces ousted the ruling Taliban militia in Afghanistan.Would the phrase "faster, please" be inappropriate here? I think not. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/15/2003 04:18:57 PM ----- BODY: IN CASE YOU CARE . . . Morons went out to protest the impending military action in Iraq. And InstaPundit is right--this picture may indeed be worth several thousand words. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/15/2003 04:15:54 PM ----- BODY: SORRY FOR THE LATE POSTING I was vegging for much of the day. Even PejmanPundit needs something of a break. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/14/2003 09:33:27 PM ----- BODY: THOUGHTS FOR THE DAY Nothing takes the taste out of peanut butter quite like unrequited love. --Charles M. Schultz Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come. --Matt Groening -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/14/2003 08:17:59 PM ----- BODY: YES, I REMEMBER Today, of course, is Valentine's Day, which means that there are a whole host of couples snuggling, kissing, hugging, and getting romantic together. For all those who have found such perfect loves, I offer my sincere, heartfelt, and fulsome congratulations. Of course, there are those of us who are single. For single people like me, who fall within a specific demographic, Valentine's Day brings up a number of emotions, and can be analogized to a great many other special events. Without further ado, here is a list of such events that I feel as strongly about as I do about Valentine's Day this year: 1. Pentecost. 2. Green Bay Packers Rabid and Unstinting Fan Appreciation Week. 3. "Have You Hugged Your Hair Stylist" Day. 4. Tet. 5. Marathon, Salamis and Thermopylae Commemoration Month. 6. Free Ham, Pork and Sausages Week. 7. "Have You Slugged a Chess Player" Day. 6. Keynote address day at the Green Party Convention. 7. Bastille Day. 8. Cinco de Mayo. 9. Year of the Tall Man. 10. Practition of Humility Day. Valentine' Day, eh? Bah. Humbug. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/14/2003 07:22:24 PM ----- BODY: SOMETIMES THE MOST OBVIOUS QUESTIONS . . . are the ones most worth asking. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/14/2003 07:17:56 PM ----- BODY: MUST READ FOR THE DAY Go here. Now. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/14/2003 07:00:10 PM ----- BODY: WHO'S ISOLATED NOW? Steyn speaks:
. . . To the dozy "experts" on this side of the Atlantic, the notion of a "split" between America and "Europe" is so appealing they don't seem to care that the only real split is between Chirac, Schroeder and Belgium's Manekin Pis, on the one hand, and everybody else. America has never been isolated. Oh, sure, concede the cynics, Bush's Anglosphere poodles in Britain and Australia are snuffling his gusset, but no one else. Well, there's those seven Continental countries that signed that letter to The Wall Street Journal. Hah! scoffed Robert Scheer of The Los Angeles Times, nothing but a bunch of nations "you can buy on eBay." Really? Italy? Spain? Next, the Vilnius Group got on board: That's pretty much every country in the Baltic and Eastern Europe. "Everyone's feeling better. Albania signed on," sneered Mark Shields on CNN. Oh, dear, oh, dear. Are there no foreigners good enough for Shields, Scheer and the other "multilateralists"? Brits, Aussies, Italians, Poles, Lithuanians: none of 'em count. During the Great War, Irving Berlin wrote a song about a proud mother watching her son march in the parade: They Were All Out Of Step But Jim. In this war, according to the picky multilateralists, they're all out of step but Jacques. Well, President Chirac can do the math: On the Continent of Europe, the majority of nations support the Anglo-American position; Belgium supports the Franco-German position, and the rapid crumbling of support for the Schroeder government at home suggests, if he's not careful, that the axis of weasels is going to be down to Paris and Brussels, Monsieur Evil et Mini-Moi. Chirac is playing a high-stakes game -- Schroeder is merely the dumb moll who's along for the ride and way out of her league -- and it's important to understand that the swaggering Texan gunslinger is a mere proxy for his real target: Tony Blair.Steyn goes on to make an important and interesting point--that Chirac is angling to get Blair thrown out of the premiership of Great Britain so that the United States may be absent its most important ally. It's a reasonable hypothesis, and should properly make us even less trusting of the French. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/14/2003 06:40:34 PM ----- BODY: SIMPLE, DIRECT, AND TO THE POINT That's the description of Steven Den Beste's message to President Bush. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/14/2003 06:25:31 PM ----- BODY: I GUESS THE HYPOCRISY WAS TOO MUCH FOR THEM Iraq has abandoned plans to chair the United Nations Conference on Disarmament. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/14/2003 06:14:38 PM ----- BODY: "SMART MOBS" This is an excellent idea, and the most effective way for citizens to counter the threat of terrorism. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/14/2003 06:12:48 PM ----- BODY: AT LEAST SOME PEOPLE HAVEN'T LOST THEIR NERVE Thank God for Tony Blair. And who thought I would ever thank God for a British Labour Prime Minister? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/14/2003 05:30:18 PM ----- BODY: NO SURPRISE AT ALL A former high ranking official in Nicolae Ceaucescu's intelligence services states that Joschka Fischer's anti-Americanism was to be entirely expected:
On February 10, 2003, the government of Germany began building a new, anti-American Berlin-Moscow-Paris Axis. As one of the former Soviet bloc experts on German matters (and chief of a bloc intelligence station in West Germany), I had been waiting for something like that to happen ever since October 1998, when Joschka Fischer became Germany's foreign minister. Fischer is an indirect product of the old anti-American intelligence community to which I once belonged. In 1975 Libya's dictator, Colonel Muammar Qaddafi, informed Romania's tyrant, Nicolae Ceausescu — through me — that he was preparing a terrorist attack against the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), and asked my boss to provide him with blueprints of OPEC's temporary headquarters in Vienna. Ceausescu agreed, and the Romanian espionage service (the DIE) complied. The December 1975 takeover of OPEC's headquarters in Vienna resulted in the seizure of 60 OPEC officials and staff members as hostages. The kidnapping was organized by Qaddafi and the infamous Ilich Ramírez Sánchez — "Carlos" or "the Jackal." Twenty-two years later, Carlos was arrested in Khartoum, Sudan, by the French counterintelligence service (DST), with whose director, Yves Bonnet, I had earlier cooperated after leaving Romania. Carlos was immediately taken to Paris, where he was charged with killing two French police officers in 1979; he was sentenced to life in prison. During interrogation, Carlos asserted that his deputy for the OPEC operation had been German terrorist Hans Joachim Klein, codenamed "Angie," who had killed an OPEC security man and an Austrian policeman during that attack. Carlos also testified that the weapons used for the OPEC operation had been kept in an apartment in Frankfurt/Main, where Klein was then living with two other "red revolutionaries" of those days, Daniel Cohn-Bendit and Joschka Fischer.This is amazing material. Be sure to read it. And while it certainly was nonsensical to compare George Bush with Adolf Hitler, it may not be so ridiculous to compare Joschka Fischer with some of the world's worst terrorists. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/14/2003 04:51:43 PM ----- BODY: BIRDS OF A FEATHER This editorial points out that Osama bin Laden has received a great deal of support from the Iraqi media for his terrorism against the United States:
As long ago as the bombing of the U.S. military offices in Riyadh in 1995, a November 14 Agence France Presse report from Baghdad quoted an official Iraq newspaper as saying, "The Tigers of the Gulf have shaken the Saudi throne and made Washington tremble." It praised the emergence of a "secret Saudi opposition movement" and predicted "dramatic events" in the country. A core bin Laden goal is of course to oust the U.S. from Saudi Arabia and topple its monarchy. More recently, and eerily, a July 21, 2001, commentary in the Iraqi publication Al-Nasiriya praised bin Laden: "In this man's heart you'll find an insistence, a strange determination that he will reach one day the tunnels of the White House and will bomb it with everything that is in it." The article recounts bin Laden's attacks on U.S. targets and U.S. efforts "to pressure the Taliban movement so that it would hand them bin Laden, while he continues to smile and still thinks seriously, with the seriousness of the Bedouin of the desert about the way he will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House." The commentary is ominously prescient, especially since it could never have appeared without official sanction. "Bin Laden is a healthy phenomenon in the Arab spirit," it continues, speaking about his goal to "drive off the Marines" from Arabia. Most eerily of all, the writer adds that those Marines "will be going away because the revolutionary bin Laden is insisting very convincingly that he will strike America on the arm that is already hurting. That the man . . . will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs." Is that a reference to Sinatra's "New York, New York"? Did Saddam know what would happen two months later?Very interesting. And we all know who runs the Iraqi media, don't we? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/14/2003 03:48:19 PM ----- BODY: NOT ONLY IS THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT FILLED WITH A BUNCH OF LIARS, MURDERERS AND TERRORISTS . . . it is filled with a bunch of jerks as well. Tariq, you coward you. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/14/2003 03:38:23 PM ----- BODY: IF ONLY HE WERE ON THE SECURITY COUNCIL Also sprach John McCain:
War is horrible. But the past century and 9/11 have taught us that there are things worse than war: accommodating international criminals implacably hostile to our interests and values. Failing to act to prevent another attack could make one inevitable. Standing by while an odious regime with a history of support for terrorism and hostility to America develops weapons whose use by terrorists could kill millions of Americans is not a choice. It is an abdication. Who would not have attacked al-Qaeda before 9/11 had we known their plans? Who would not have heeded British Prime Minister Winston Churchill's call to stand up to Adolf Hitler when Nazi Germany was still weak and millions of lives could have been saved by acting first? It is in the nature of democracies to be patient. But as history has shown, they can delay to their peril. Placing faith in containing Saddam today recalls Churchill's admonition in the 1930s about a collective defense that lacked teeth or will. As Churchill said of the League of Nations' failure to respond to Italian aggression in Abyssinia, there is not much collective security in a flock of sheep on the way to the butcher.Someone send a copy of this article to Schröder and Chirac. It's high time they actually learned something about international relations. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/14/2003 03:24:52 PM ----- BODY: THANKS, BUT NO THANKS Bill Clinton suggests that we should follow Hans Blix's lead on the issue of Iraq. I'll begin posting again once I stop laughing. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/14/2003 03:20:48 PM ----- BODY: AND NOW FOR YOUR PICTURE OF THE DAY
Pretty much says it all, eh?
--------
AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh
DATE: 2/14/2003 03:14:15 PM
-----
BODY:
TRAGEDY REPEATS ITSELF AS FARCE The Kabuki theater that UN deliberations now resemble has become more than a little ridiculous:
A significant number of U.N. Security Council members said today that weapons inspectors in Iraq should be given more time before the world body considers authorizing force to strip Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein of his weapons of mass destruction. The series of statements, which followed a measured presentation of pluses and minuses in recent Iraqi behavior by chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix, dealt a blow to the Bush administration’s hopes of gaining early Security Council support for a U.S.-led invasion. Blix criticized the Iraqis for failing to comply with U.N. demands, but he credited the Hussein government for several steps that he said could yield results. In addition, Blix challenged several conclusions presented to the United Nations earlier this month by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and said the U.S. administration continues to withhold intelligence information.What is most absurd about all of this is that after all the violations listed, after all the examples of material breach, the UN still believes that it can continue to go down a road that only serves to encourage more such violations by the Iraqi government--without ever setting down a time or a circumstance where they will finally come to the conclusion that enough really is enough. The surest sign of an open mind is for the French, Germans and Russians to state under what circumstances they would change their minds about what needs to be done with Iraq. They haven't done so, and are not likely to do so anytime soon. And this, more than anything else, reveals their intellectual dishonesty. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/14/2003 03:07:30 PM ----- BODY: AND SPEAKING OF CLINTONESQUE . . . it would appear that there are problems with Senator John Kerry's reputation as an honest man:
Whether or not Kerry is the frontrunner in any meaningful way, the perception that he is the man to beat means that all the campaigns have thought about ways to bring him down. Fair or not, there is one criticism you hear over and over again. "He wants to make you believe one thing, but if you look at the fine print, it's not true," says an aide to one candidate. "It feeds into that sense that I don't know who this guy is." An official from another campaign, noting two scathing columns in The Boston Globe last week that ripped Kerry for exploiting his recently announced Jewish ancestry, says, "These attacks are coming from the people who know him best. He's too calculated in everything he does. It plays into the myth of him filming his exploits in Vietnam or having his jaw fixed"--two longtime criticisms that, it should be noted, Kerry has explained as hyperbole (many soldiers brought cameras to Vietnam, and his jaw required surgery for medical, not cosmetic, reasons). Says a senior adviser to a third campaign, "Flip-flop is the wrong word. He just tries to have it all ways on all issues. And people want straight answers." Fair or not, the combination of his front-runnerdom and reputation means that, like Gore in 2000, Kerry will be able to get away with a lot less than the other candidates when it comes to issues of accuracy and consistency. Edwards, for instance, has largely been given a pass on the rather ludicrous claim that he personally will abide by the NAACP's economic boycott of South Carolina while his campaign will not. Kerry would have been skewered if he'd done this. (Instead, he was one of the first candidates to make the argument that it was ridiculous to try to abide by the boycott while simultaneously trying to win the state's primary.) Similarly, Dean has been able to fudge his view on the war with Iraq--attacking his congressional rivals on the narrow question of whether they should have voted for the war resolution last year but largely failing to tell the antiwar activists he courts that he favors a multilateral attack on Iraq if Saddam Hussein doesn't disarm. During the months in which Kerry bobbed and weaved on Iraq, by contrast, he was clobbered by the media (including this magazine) on a regular basis. Lieberman has reversed himself on affirmative action, and Gephardt has flipped his position on the Bush tax cut, but the media has still treated Kerry's Jewish-heritage pander to the American Israel Political Affairs Committee as the crassest political stunt of the campaign.This will be interesting to watch, and it appears that the press has a bead on questions of Kerry's honesty. It won't be the last we hear about whether or not John Kerry can be trusted to tell the truth. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/14/2003 03:01:37 PM ----- BODY: IF ONLY HE WERE PRESIDENT, HE MIGHT HAVE GOTTEN AWAY WITH THIS A Navy Admiral has been dismissed for having engaged in an "inappropriate relationship" with a female officer. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/13/2003 11:20:57 PM ----- BODY: THOUGHT FOR THE DAY . . . if it be a sin to covet honour, I am the most offending soul alive. --William Shakespeare, Henry V -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/13/2003 11:17:02 PM ----- BODY: OUR HERO HAS BECOME FAMOUS Last night I went to my local Barnes & Noble, and found an issue of The Atlantic Monthly for the month of March. This was in conjunction with information I received indicating that PejmanPundit was mentioned in an article in the issue. And indeed, it is true. Michael Kelly wrote a piece that discussed the variety of opinion that could be found on public issues via the Internet, and in addition to a whole host of other worthy bloggers, he saw fit to mention my little site. The mention really didn't amount to much--it was a pre-blog version of blogrolling, with Kelly just running down a list of certain blogs that he visited (this post, helpfully provided for me by the good A.C. Douglas, details all of the bloggers mentioned). After listing a number of blogs that he can visit for news, he wrote "Or I might check in with PejmanPundit, The American Times, Michael Barone, Media Life . . ." etc. As such, it was a brief mention. Nevertheless, it shocks me that one year after I started this site, it would be mentioned in The Atlantic Monthly by a writer as excellent as Michael Kelly--who apparently sees fit to stop by and read my rantings from time to time. Of course, it is a pleasant and delightful shock to see all of this. Which is why I am basking a bit in my triumph. Of course, it doesn't take much to make an egomaniac like me bask, but hey--I'll take all the basking that I can get my hands on. And should I someday put up a list of testimonials extolling the greatness that is this site, I might very well cite Michael Kelly's fulsome endorsement "Or I might check in with PejmanPundit . . ." In all seriousness, it is an honor and a privilege to be mentioned along with so many great blogs--blogs that serve as an inspiration for me. And whatever glory comes out of this little bit of attention, it is due in large part to the valuable contributions made here by the best readers in the world. Thank you once again for enriching my little home on the Web. It means a great deal. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/13/2003 11:00:55 PM ----- BODY: IT'S MILLER TIME Or at the very least, it was Miller Time on Donahue last night, when Dennis Miller ran rings around the pompous and overly dramatic Phil Donahue (will someone please tell Phil that waving his hands, speaking in a sing-songy voice and making it appear that his eyes are about to bug out of his head are not exactly telegenic?). Miller is one of the smartest celebs around, and it was no surprise that he made short and quick work of Donahue. He gave specific and detailed reasons why he felt that George W. Bush was "my President" (Miller's words), and he showed justified and justifiable outrage when Donahue spent the early parts of the broadcast whining about the "marginalization" of liberals (a self-inflicted wound, if ever there was one). It was excellent, and it almost served to make me weep with frustration over the fact that Miller's show on HBO was cancelled. How a celebrity like Miller gets his show shot down while an idiot like Donahue continues to embarrass himself and MSNBC with poor ratings and pitiful debate, is beyond me. The only real problem that I had with Miller's argument was that he was telling Donahue that being against a war on Iraq was right "for Donahue" and being in favor of one was right "for [Miller]." This kind of subjectivity is more than a little off-putting. Look, different positions about the war can certainly be held in good faith. But in the end, one side is right, and the other side is wrong. While there is certainly a personal aspect to opinions, there does reach a point where one is proven objectively more rigorous and accurate than the other. I can't understand why Miller didn't acknowledge this simple fact, and why he chose the path of rhetorical retreat in saying that you can be right "for yourself." But when compared with the vast majority of excellent points that Miller made, this is a minor quibble. Can we please have more of Dennis in the future? It would be a tremendous improvement over the current inane chatter on many television shows. (Incidentally, I searched Donahue's site, and a transcript is not yet available. When one shows up, I will be sure to link to it.) -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/13/2003 07:18:18 PM ----- BODY: HITCH RULES Read his latest no-holds-barred interview here. I have serious problems believing that Bill Clinton was a CIA plant (God forbid that the agency should be so lacking in talent to have to look to him for covert assistance), but Hitch's comments in comparing the Clinton and Bush Administration are entirely appropriate. Consider the following exchange with his interlocutor, in which Hitch explains how he would vote in 2004 (interviewer's questions are in bold):
I’d vote for Bush. The important thing is this: Is a candidate completely serious about prosecuting the war on theocratic terrorism to the fullest extent? Only Bush is. Even though he says to the Turkish president, You believe in God, so we understand each other? Well, he says that. But he has people around him who are absolutely determined to destroy the terrorists, and they’re smart. That’s another liberal snig that annoys me a lot these days—Bush is stupid, the administration is stupid. The fact has to be faced: The intellectual candle power of this administration is a great deal brighter than the Clinton administration. David Frum, in his book, says there’s not much original thought in the administration. So did John DiIulio, who is himself someone I am amazed can find his own way to work without a minder. And he took it back under pressure, which shows he’s not got much character, either. The level of intellect in the Bush administration is not stellar, but it’s higher than the Clinton administration. The level of professionalism is very much higher. But mostly they are deadly serious about winning this war and are willing to be ruthless about it. There’s no Democrat I think that can be said of.Well, what are you waiting for? Read the whole thing. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/13/2003 07:13:10 PM ----- BODY: WHAT ORIGINAL THOUGHT? Then again, perhaps we should stop expecting Alterman to come up with intelligent and intellectually respectable arguments on his own. After all, he appears to need to rip off thoughts from others. (Link via VodkaPundit) -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/13/2003 07:09:17 PM ----- BODY: ALL HAT AND NO CATTLE A few nights ago, I caught Eric Alterman on Bill O'Reilly's show promoting his new book, and trying to argue that the media was dominated by conservatives. I've never had a root canal, much less one performed without anesthetic, but the viewing experience was akin to what that must be like. First of all, I should point out that I don't particularly like O'Reilly. I think that he is a rather pompous bore, who hasn't mastered how to be inquisitive and inquisitorial without being rude and offensive at the same time. I'm rather spoiled by master interlocutors like Tim Russert, and next to Russert, O'Reilly pales. As such, I generally avoid his show. And I have seen Alterman a few times on TV, and he strikes me as being similarly boorish, whiny and offensive in the extreme. In addition. Alterman's ridiculously overwrought hostility towards anyone who does not share his opinions (manifested most clearly here) makes him an even less attractive public figure to listen to or take seriously. Still, I was interested in seeing how Alterman would defend his thesis that contrary to public opinion, conservatives dominate the media, so I tuned in and watched. Right away, I wished I hadn't. Alterman started out by pointing out to O'Reilly that his program had made factual mistakes in its 6 year span. On one issue, Alterman got Bill to concede error (and to point out that O'Reilly had sought to correct the error immediately). On the other two, Alterman and O'Reilly basically talked past one another, and the issue came to no resolution whatsoever. Alterman seemed to backtrack rather quickly after making his claims, and O'Reilly demonstrated, once again, the lack of forensic skill a Russert would have used to nail Alterman and demonstrate his error quite clearly. But what really aroused my contempt was the following line from Alterman:
The not-so-nice thing I've got to say, Bill, is that I think you're not very careful about your facts, and I think that when you're not very careful about your facts, it's almost always in the direction of your ideology.And this was Alterman's startlingly original thought--the fact that oftentimes, people make mistakes in a manner that tends to justify and absolve their ideologies and opinions. Yeah . . . so? This criticism can be directed to just about every single person with an opinion. Does anyone really believe that Alterman, when engaged in a fundamental error about facts, figures, or the nature of a particular argument, does not consciously or subconsciously skew the error in a manner that is "in the direction of [his] ideology"? I mean, after all, if Eric Alterman is fed incorrect numbers on welfare, will he suddenly take up Mickey Kaus's position on the issue? If he gets a fact on the debate regarding the use of force in Iraq wrong, will Alterman find himself in sudden (if temporary) agreement with Andrew Sullivan? Or will it be more likely that Alterman will, like most humans with an axe to grind, skew the facts in a manner that justifies his ideology and arguments? Mind you, I'm not blaming Alterman for this. All of us make this error. But it is fundamentally ridiculous for Alterman to claim that O'Reilly is the only one who does it. And it is disingenuous as well. And then, of course, at the end of the interview, Alterman revealed the kind of snarky and arrogant tone that he has become known for:
O'REILLY: Mr. Alterman, you have just left the building -- with Elvis -- and gone to the -- if you don't think NPR is as liberal as FOX News -- and I don't buy the FOX is conservative argument. I say FOX leans a little right. ALTERMAN: Bill, everybody on earth finds that FOX is conservative except you and Roger Ailes. O'REILLY: Okay. But perhaps we're right because we have the highest ratings in the country. ALTERMAN: Well... O'REILLY: There you go. ALTERMAN: ... a lot of people in Arab countries think that, if they blow themselves up in Tel Aviv, they'll be visited by 72 virgins. O'REILLY: Not... ALTERMAN: Doesn't make them right.Now, Alterman is correct to point out that O'Reilly engaged in argumentum ad populorum and that this constitutes an unacceptable logical fallacy. But note that in making that argument, Alterman had to compare people who like FoxNews to Arab suicide bombers, and suicide bomber wannabes. This is not only nonsensical, it is insulting. And one would think that Alterman knew better. Unfortunately, in addition to his specious arguments, Alterman had to employ insults because he was not able to advance his argument against as forensically weak an interlocutor as O'Reilly. Makes you really eager to buy that book of his eh? No? Well, me neither. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/13/2003 06:36:20 PM ----- BODY: LIKE SHOOTING FISH IN A . . . WELL . . . YOU KNOW Christopher Johnson Fisks Ramsey Clark. Someone should tell Chris not to pick on intellectual cripples like that. But it sure won't be me. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/13/2003 05:37:39 PM ----- BODY: JANE GALT NEEDS READER SUBMISSIONS Go over and input yours. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/13/2003 05:30:06 PM ----- BODY: "WHAT IS 'MULTILATERAL'?" A long and comprehensive discussion of multilateralism that you should check out. (Thanks to Mike Daley for the link) -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/13/2003 04:22:38 PM ----- BODY: GEORGE W. BUSH--BLOGGER? Arnold Kling proposes a new addition to the Blogosphere. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/13/2003 04:11:47 PM ----- BODY: HYPOCRISY, THY NATION OF ORIGIN IS BELGIUM Nissan Ratzlav-Katz is more than a little amazed at the Belgian desire to try Ariel Sharon for war crimes once he departs the premiership of Israel:
Well, if Belgium is to be a "judge of history," let it begin at home. While it is unlikely that anyone who was involved in the genocidal exploitation of the Congo Free State by the Belgian monarch is still alive, the fact is that the Congo remained an oppressed Belgian colony until 1960. In another Belgian colony, Rwanda, Hutu resistance in the first half of the 1900s was brutally suppressed by the ruling Tutsis, under the watchful eye of the Belgian authorities. Then, in the 1950s, when a rebellion of Hutu agricultural laborers broke out, the Belgian colonialists encouraged a new campaign of incitement against the Tutsis, to divert attention from themselves. Meanwhile, back home, during World War II, Belgian collaborationist authorities deported 35,000 Jews — fully half of the Belgian Jewish population at the time — to German gas chambers.Yeah, it's funny how those who purport to judge oftentimes deserve to stand in the dock themselves, eh? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/13/2003 03:14:43 PM ----- BODY: IRANIAN REVOLUTION WATCH Fouad Ajami shares my view that a successful war with Iraq will help liberate Iran:
Iran and Iraq are different, and the Bush administration knows the difference. Iran has the elements of change within it; Iraq will have to be changed by force. U.S. policy has been more subtle on Iran than its critics would have us believe. No credible American scenario envisages a war against Iran once the dust of battle settles in Iraq. The Iranians must know this, even as their clerical rulers protest their inclusion in the "axis of evil." Patience, deadly and dangerous in dealing with Iraq (in my view), could work in Iran's case. In this regard, the policy of the Bush administration has been on the mark. There has been no urge to court Iran. The zeal with which the Clinton administration pursued an accommodation with Iran's rulers has been cast aside. This has been one of the lessons of Sept. 11: Why court hated rulers if this only gets you the enmity of their resentful populations? It was in this vein that President Bush pitched his policy on Iran in his State of the Union address. A distinction was made between the Iranian theocracy and Iraq: "Different threats require different strategies." The regime in Iran was put on notice for its support of terror and its pursuit of weapons of destruction. But the people of Iran and their "aspirations to live in freedom" were embraced. A silent revolution is under way in Iran; it lacks the fury of what played out in 1978-79. It is the imploding of the theocratic edifice, the aging of a revolution that has lost the consent of its children. A young Iranian-American author, Afshin Molavi, in a compelling new book, "Persian Pilgrimages," has just brought us fragments of that burdened land. It is of green cards and visas to foreign lands that the young of Iran now dream; in the year 2000, some 200,000 Iranian professionals quit their native land for Western shores. In a recent public-opinion survey, three out of four Iranians said they favored restoring relations with Washington. Iran is at the crossroads. In one vision of things, Tehran would barter the influence it has in Lebanon, through its sponsorship of Hezbollah, for a deal with Israel and a return to that covert understanding that once bound the Jewish state to Iran. In this vision, there would be a gradual accommodation with the U.S., an acceptance of America's primacy in the Persian Gulf. In the rival vision, Iran would continue to muddle through, alternating terror and diplomacy, hinting at moderation and then pulling back, offering its betrayed people more sterility, and a diet of anti-Americanism at odds with the fixation of young Iranians. . . . It is in the nature of things today, in an Iranian society deeply divided between those who would bury the revolution and join the world, and others hell-bent on keeping the theocracy, and their own dominion, intact, that the American drive against Iraq would be defined by that chasm. For those who want to normalize Iran, the thunder of war against Iraq is the coming of a blessed rain. The Americans would be nearby, but what of it? Liberty is rarely a foreigner's gift, and no American war in Iran's neighborhood will settle the fight between theocratic zealots and those in Iran who have twice, in presidential elections, cast their votes for a reform that never came. But the "contagion effect" of a liberated Iraq will no doubt have a role to play in the fight for Iran's future. In Persia, there will be multitudes hoping that the foreigner's storm will be mighty enough to clear their foul sky.I wish that more people would emphasize the benefits of a "regime change two-fer." It will build support for military action against Iraq, and it will highlight Iran's own efforts towards liberating itself. I've tried to do this myself. It's good to see that Ajami is helping in the effort. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/13/2003 02:44:25 PM ----- BODY: THE JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION WARS, PART III A link to a very good pro-Estrada commercial can be found here. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/13/2003 02:42:18 PM ----- BODY: THE JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION WARS, PART II Democratic Senator, and anti-Estrada zealot Charles Schumer gets righteously and deservedly slammed. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/13/2003 02:38:40 PM ----- BODY: THE JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION WARS, PART I The Boston Globe has the following to say about Miguel Estrada's nomination fight:
The truth is that Democrats want to make an example of Miguel Estrada, whose appointment to the bench could make Hispanic voters look more favorably on the Bush administration. They also want to send a message to the White House that when it comes to confirming federal judges, there are some things they simply will not tolerate. Apparently at the top of the list: Independent-minded Hispanic hotshots who don't go around thanking liberals for everything that the nominees have accomplished on their own.Precisely so. Which is why the current filibuster must be outlasted and defeated. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/13/2003 01:59:49 PM ----- BODY: FOR YOUR EXCELLENT FISKING OF THE DAY Go here. I'm so glad that housebuying is no longer an obstacle to blogging. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/13/2003 01:40:36 PM ----- BODY: IT'S OFFICIAL We're going to Hell as a species. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/13/2003 01:24:06 PM ----- BODY: AND NOW, WITHOUT ANY FURTHER DELAY . . . I present unto you the American street:
THE French embassy in Washington counted the cost of its country’s break with US policy this week. Angry Americans flooded its telephone lines to send a message to France’s diplomatic emissaries that could be summed up in two words: you suck. On the day after Colin Powell’s speech to the United Nations, that verdict was delivered 1,124 times. By the end of it French diplomats felt as though they were under siege. "It never stopped. It was crazy. Unbelievable," said one French diplomat. Officials on both sides are keen to stress that the current dispute between the US and some of its traditional allies is temporary, but there is no disguising the animosity felt in Washington towards the French in particular. When Charles de Gaulle called for the United States to withdraw its troops from Europe, the then US secretary of state, Dean Rusk, famously responded with the withering question, "Does that include the dead Americans in military cemeteries too?" That was in 1966: today, right-wing talk radio shows and tabloid newspapers, openly call for repatriation of America’s war dead. The message of "if it weren’t for us you’d be speaking German" has become a favourite refrain.Have you made your call today? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/13/2003 01:13:46 PM ----- BODY: POST-WAR IRAQ Plans are bing made to have the United States run Iraq for about two years, before ultimately handing over authority to a civilian government. This will obviously be the most tricky aspect of the upcoming American military action in Iraq. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/13/2003 01:09:59 PM ----- BODY: SCHADENFREUDE--IT'S A WONDERFUL THING I am truly going to enjoy the Democratic presidential primaries. And here is why:
Ever since Democrats gathered in Washington Jan. 21 to celebrate the 30th anniversary of legalized abortion, the party's deep thinkers have been brooding. The Rev. Al Sharpton, who preached before he could read or write, made five white opponents for the presidential nomination look prosaic. In the three weeks since, more prominent Democrats have come to regard the 48-year-old Pentecostal minister from Harlem as their worst nightmare. How could the world's oldest political party be threatened by a professional troublemaker accused of not paying his taxes and found guilty of defaming innocent public officials? The answer is found in two independent polls. Zogby shows Sharpton with 20 percent of the African-American vote for president, and InsiderAdvantage gives him 28 percent. These startling numbers come in advance of Sharpton's campaign to extend his presence beyond the boundaries of New York City.There will be more contortions than one normally sees at a gymnastics tournament to explain Sharpton away by the Democrats. And they will have to be exceedingly careful lest they enrage the black base and fail to give African-Americans a reason for turning out in the general election. At the same time, how exactly do you play nice with a tax cheat and professional defamer? Like I said: much fun to be had. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/13/2003 01:00:52 PM ----- BODY: AH, THE GERMANS Truly isolated. Th feeling must be familiar by now. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/13/2003 12:31:31 PM ----- BODY: MY POWER GROWS BY LEAPS AND BOUNDS Alan Henderson asks whether this person is an agent of the Glorious Pejmanesque Empire. Truth be told, he isn't. Yet. [Insert evil laugh here.] -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/13/2003 12:29:52 PM ----- BODY: CASTING CHANGES Apparently, one benefit for the British in being on our side in the war on terrorism is that they will no longer be cast as villains in Hollywood movies. Rather, that honor will go to others:
In the wake of Paris-led defiance of the United States' war plans, it is Britain's neighbours across the Channel who have now been earmarked as all-purpose villains. The news from Beverly Hills is that producers are telling scriptwriters to "think French". This is a relief. For years a British accent in a mainstream movie served as cinematic shorthand for shiftiness or downright evil. Now we can at least hope for a return to an older cinematic tradition in which the British are loyal sidekicks, either chirpy corporals or colonels in the mould of David Niven, uptight but basically charming. It is France's turn now. The tide of Francophobia is steadily rising. It was always present in the rightwing radio talk-shows, a world in which being foreign is reason enough for suspicion. It has risen through the tabloids - the New York Post labelled France and Germany "The Axis of Weasel". There is nothing particularly unusual about this either. British tabloids are often more xenophobic over nothing more serious than a football game.You do, of course, realize that this means that Grand Admiral Clouseau of the Super Star Destroyer Nous n'avons pas de savon will now be the right hand military commander for Emperor Palpatine and Darth Vader, don't you? Puts that whole bit about Imperial incompetence in a whole new, and explanatory light, doesn't it? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/12/2003 11:40:06 PM ----- BODY: THOUGHT FOR THE DAY Fortune can, for her pleasure, fools advance, And toss them on the wheels of Chance. --Juvenal -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/12/2003 07:58:18 PM ----- BODY: YET MORE ON THE JOHN LOTT CONTROVERSY Eugene Volokh has some interesting information. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/12/2003 07:13:32 PM ----- BODY: MAYBE THIS IS JUST BORING TO EVERYONE ELSE . . . but we have yet another material breach. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/12/2003 07:02:48 PM ----- BODY: I CALLED THIS ONE Not that it makes me Nostradamus or anything, but it was perfectly obvious that Scott Ganz would take umbrage to the anti-MST3K piece I linked to yesterday. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/12/2003 05:14:41 PM ----- BODY: THE JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION WARS Byron York has some important updates on the continuing (and nearly interminable) battle to get Miguel Estrada confirmed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. And the following is worth noting regarding Democratic complaints that (a) the White House has not made available Estrada's inter-office memoranda written at the time he was a lawyer in the Solicitor General's office, and (b) Estrada has not revealed enough about his judicial philosophy to merit confirmation:
Although not surprised by the demands, some Republicans are amazed at the audacity of Democrats to keep making them. As far as the documents are concerned, the Justice Department has maintained that the papers are "highly privileged." While some Democrats might attribute that position to politics, it is supported by all seven living former Solicitors General, who last June sent Leahy a letter saying that "we do not think that the confidentiality and integrity of internal deliberations should be sacrificed in the [confirmation] process." The letter was written by Seth Waxman, who served as Solicitor General under President Clinton, and it was signed by not only Waxman but by Walter Dellinger and Drew Days III, who also held the post under Clinton; Kenneth Starr, who held it under the first President Bush; Charles Fried, who was Solicitor General under President Reagan; Robert Bork, who served under President Nixon; and Archibald Cox, who served under President Kennedy. As for Estrada's alleged refusal to answer questions, Republicans point out that if Democrats were unhappy with his performance at his hearing last September, they could have held another hearing or at least announced their intention to do so. They did not. In addition, it is normal practice for senators who are unsatisfied with a nominee's answers to send the nominee written follow-up questions after a hearing. Nominees take such questions very seriously and take care to answer promptly. But in the case of Estrada, only two of the ten Democrats then on the Judiciary Committee sent follow-up questions. New York Sen. Charles Schumer, who has complained loudly that Estrada has not answered questions, did not bother to send Estrada any follow-up queries. Now Schumer cites the allegedly unanswered questions about Estrada as a reason for opposing the nomination.Just to put matters in perspective, let's recap what we know about Miguel Estrada: 1. He came to the United States from Honduras at the age of 17, speaking almost no English. 2. He gained admittance to, and graduated from Columbia College magna cum laude. 3. He gained admittance to, and graduated from Harvard Law School magna cum laude, having served as Editor-in-Chief of the Harvard Law Review, and having been admitted to the Order of the Coif. 4. He clerked for Judge Amalya L. Kearse of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and Justice Anthony Kennedy of the United States Supreme Court. 5. He worked as an Assistant United States Attorney for two years, and then worked, as I mentioned, in the Solicitor General's office during the Clinton Administration, where he was able to show a clear and distinct judicial temperament by putting aside whatever conservative ideology he may possess and arguing a case before the United States Supreme Court that successfully helped shut down the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue. 6. He has argued 15 cases before the United States Supreme Court, and won ten of them. 7. Despite complaints that he has not revealed enough about his judicial ideology to merit confirmation, as York points out, Democrats are not interested enough to submit to the time-honored practice of sending Estrada written questions that would further flush out any answers that they might want to have. 8. Despite complaints that the Justice Department has not revealed Estrada's inter-office memoranda from his days as an attorney in the Solicitor General's office, the seven living former Solicitors General (four of them Democrats) have endorsed Estrada's nomination, and have argued against having Estrada's inter-office memoranda released (not that Estrada is even really involved in this fight--the release of inter-office memoranda can only be permitted by the Justice Department, since the United States, as represented by the Justice Department, operates as Estrada's "client" from his days in the Solicitor General's office, and since Estrada, as the United States's "attorney" can not waive attorney-client privilege and work-product confidentiality on behalf of the Justice Department and the United States). 9. Estrada is currently a highly respected partner in an extremely well-respected law firm. Estrada has received a unanimous appraisal of "well-qualified" from the American Bar Association--the highest grade given by that group to judicial nominees, and formerly, the gold standard for Democrats when considering judicial nominees. His resumé is one of which just about any lawyer would be envious. He represents the first opportunity for a Hispanic to be nominated to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and could potentially be the first Hispanic nominated to the United States Supreme Court. Those honors are, and would be well-deserved no matter what Estrada's ethnic background. And yet somehow, he is deemed worthy of a filibuster so that the majority of United States Senators cannot vote--as they would--to confirm his nomination to the Circuit Court? Unbelievable. Just unbelievable. If this guy doesn't deserve to be a judge, who does? INSTANTANEOUS UPDATE: As is to be expected, Howard Bashman has recorded White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales's comprehensive and thorough response to the letter sent to President Bush by Senators Daschle and Leahy--which York referenced in his article. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/12/2003 04:40:33 PM ----- BODY: MICHAEL LERNER ON A.N.S.W.E.R. He's shocked, shocked! to find that the group is anti-Semitic and banned him from attending their next march due to anti-Semitism. Me? I'm just shocked that Lerner is shocked. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/12/2003 03:21:38 PM ----- BODY: WHAT MULTILATERAL COALITION WOULD WANT HIS SUPPORT? Michael Kelly's portrait of German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer is damning. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/12/2003 03:13:18 PM ----- BODY: GIVE TOM DeLAY HIS DUE The following story, reported here, is positively splendid:
"I was at a celebration of India's Independence Day," [DeLay] told reporters, "and a Frenchman came walking up to me and started talking to me about Iraq, and it was obvious we were not going to agree. And I said, 'Wait a minute. Do you speak German?' And he looked at me kind of funny and said, 'No, I don't speak German.' And I said, 'You're welcome,' turned around and walked off."More like this, please. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/12/2003 03:10:11 PM ----- BODY: THE BEGINNING OF THE END? One certainly hopes so:
Chancellor Gerhard Schröder faced heated calls to resign yesterday after being exposed as the source behind a secret Franco-German peace plan for Iraq. The usually deferential German press rounded on him after the Berlin newspaper Der Tagesspiegel disclosed that he invited a group of journalists to discuss the plans over red wine last Thursday. The disclosure is hugely embarrassing for Mr Schröder as the leak sparked outrage in Washington and fuelled the crisis in Nato. Coming after a dire few weeks on the domestic political and economic fronts, his embarrassment was compounded as reports showed a growing rift between Mr Schröder and Joschka Fischer, his foreign minister. Two papers, one from the Left and the other from the Right, called for his resignation in a demonstration of anger not seen since the political demise of Willy Brandt almost 30 years ago.Take the hint, Gerhard. No one takes you seriously anymore. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/12/2003 03:07:47 PM ----- BODY: DID WILL WARREN START THIS? Poets For The War! You've gotta love their statement of principles:
Poets for the War has been created out of pure frustration at seeing a bunch of bad poets get publicity for being whiney wimps who do not understand human nature. I am not a war monger. I have had good friends go and not come back. The story of one of them is here. He died as a result of going back into his country’s military after September 11, 2001. So, I understand that war, in general, is a bad thing in the short-term for all involved. Nobody comes out unscathed. But that does not mean there is never a reason for war, or more properly stated, there are reasons to defend a country. I’m a firm believer that it is better to defend your country on the other fellow’s real estate and destroy threats before they get too big to deal with. Europe waited too long to deal with Hitler. The U. N. would do the same with Saddam Hussein al Tikriti. I believe that Saddam is not just misunderstood. He is a man who believes only in his own power and will not stop trying to increase it through any means possible until he is dead. The man’s first job was as an apprentice assassin. The only thing that will work with Saddam is confrontation, just as is true with a schoolyard bully. The psychology is no different.Excellent. And just what is needed to convince the literati that they need not adopt the leftist position on domestic and international affairs in knee-jerk fashion. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/12/2003 02:52:33 PM ----- BODY: VICTORY ACHIEVED? Perhaps. It appears that a death blow may have been dealt against the likely ineffective Total Information Awareness Program (TIAP). As readers may recall, I opined against the program myself. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/12/2003 02:48:25 PM ----- BODY: AS IF WE DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH TO WORRY ABOUT . . . Now we have this. I suppose that we should wait until the missile is tested before we officially worry, but still, this can't be a promising development. The only good I can see coming out of this is that it might give added impetus to the development of an anti-ballistic missile defense system--something that is desperately needed against rogue states that possess no understanding whatsoever of deterrence theory and nuclear wargaming. ALMOST INSTANTANEOUS UPDATE: It appears that we have known about the North Korean missile threat for a while. Check out this CIA estimate from December, 2001:
Taepo Dong-2. The multiple-stage Taepo Dong-2—capable of reaching parts of the United States with a nuclear weapon-sized payload—may be ready for flight-testing. The North probably also is working on improvements to its current design. The Taepo Dong-2 in a two-stage ballistic missile configuration could deliver a several-hundred-kg payload up to 10,000 km—sufficient to strike Alaska, Hawaii, and parts of the continental United States. If the North uses a third stage similar to the one used on the Taepo Dong-1 in 1998 in a ballistic missile configuration, then the Taepo Dong-2 could deliver a several-hundred-kg payload up to 15,000 km—sufficient to strike all of North America. A Taepo Dong-2 flight test probably would be conducted as an SLV with a third stage to place a small payload into the same orbit the North Koreans tried to achieve in 1998.So I ask again: Missile defense, anyone? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/12/2003 02:44:34 PM ----- BODY: HOW DOES HE DO IT? John Hawkins lands another excellent interview--this one with Mark Steyn. Don't miss it. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/12/2003 12:41:18 AM ----- BODY: ANSWERING READER E-MAIL I received an e-mail recently asking about the story of my great-grandfather, and the title of haji (pilgrim) that he gained by making the pilgrimage to Jerusalem. My correspondent asked whether the title could be claimed by Jews who are not Persian, and who make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem. I really don't know about that sort of thing. I would presume that other Jews could claim the title if they wanted to, but claiming the title of haji for a pilgrimage to Jerusalem is something that Persian Jews decided to do in imitation of Persian Muslims claiming the title for pilgrimages to Mecca. I don't think that Ashkenazi Jews have that kind of tradition, and I don't know whether other Middle Eastern Jews do either. If someone does know, feel free to leave your comments in the Musings section. I would be very interested to learn myself. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/11/2003 11:39:22 PM ----- BODY: THOUGHT FOR THE DAY The second half of a man's life is made up of nothing but the habits he has acquired during the first half. --Fyodor Dostoevsky -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/11/2003 08:36:53 PM ----- BODY: HEY LOOK! Someone else is celebrating a Blogiversary. Congratulations and many more. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/11/2003 08:26:40 PM ----- BODY: ALWAYS LOOK ON THE BRIGHT SIDE OF LIFE That's what Flit does. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/11/2003 08:12:21 PM ----- BODY: VEXATIOUS LITIGATION Found here. What will people think of to gripe about next? Stay tuned . . . -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/11/2003 07:17:05 PM ----- BODY: NOW THIS IS CHEAP HUMOR It's also stark raving hysterical. (Link via OxBlog) -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/11/2003 06:53:36 PM ----- BODY: HOO BOY! I'm guessing that Scott Ganz would not particularly care for this enraged screed which denounces Mystery Science Theater 3000. For the record, after being exposed to the many Mistings that have recently become the rage in the Blogosphere, I have become a fan of MST3K. I find the remarks not only very funny, but rather intelligent as well--I don't know where the writer gets off denouncing some of the lines as "toilet humor." On the contrary, one has to be rather erudite to get a number of the jokes on the show. Incidentally, I should note that when I informed the estimable Mr. Ganz that I had become a fan, via an Internet chat, he responded by typing something along the lines of "BWAHAHAHAHA!" as a response. And when I informed Brooke of my newfound interest in the show via telephone, she responded with a laugh that sounded suspiciously like "BWAHAHAHAHA!" I guess we now know why they're going to get married--the two are completely on the same mental wavelength. Nevertheless, I fear that the multitude of evil laughs is a sign of some form of dark and malicious conspiracy. Which kinda worries me, truth be told. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/11/2003 06:37:49 PM ----- BODY: AN OPEN PLEA TO READERS Please stop me before I ever become this cheesy. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/11/2003 06:23:22 PM ----- BODY: GUN CONTROL AND ECONOMIC RATIONALITY Pierre Lemieux points out the reasons economists should be interested in, and support the right to bear arms. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/11/2003 05:28:56 PM ----- BODY: MANY PROPS TO JOHN McCAIN He tells the French and the Germans to shove it:
The French and German objection, for reasons of calculated self-interest--a very flawed calculation, I fear--to a routine American request to the North Atlantic Council to upgrade Turkey's defenses against the military threat from Iraq was a terrible injury to an Alliance that has served their broader interests well. For nearly three weeks, the United States, with fourteen of our eighteen European allies in the North Atlantic Council, has supported this necessary action, but has confronted a new unilateralism conceived in Paris and Berlin, a unilateralism that exposed the sneering in those capitals about the impulsive cowboy in the White House for the vacuous posturing and obvious misdirection it is. Whatever NATO decides, Franco-German unilateralism will have a lasting impact on trans-Atlantic security calculations. If this minority French-German obstruction is not overcome by NATO's deadline of Monday, France and Germany will have to answer to those who argue that Iraq could be to NATO what Abyssinia was to the League of Nations. The United Nations Security Council risks that same fate should it not hold Iraq to account for its defiance. Patient American and British diplomacy at the U.N. delivered a unanimous vote in favor of Council Resolution 1441. France played a key role in negotiating the resolution and knew what they were voting for; Germany was fully aware of the debate as it prepared to assume the Council presidency in January. Americans, and many Europeans, were therefore astonished when France and Germany announced in advance of further consideration of the problem of Iraq that under no circumstances would they support enforcing the resolution's terms against Iraq. Recent actions by Paris and Berlin in the most important international fora--the Security Council, the North Atlantic Council, and the European Union--raise serious doubts among nations on both sides of the Atlantic about their commitment to multilateral diplomacy and cause real damage to those institutions. The behavior of France and Germany has set back European unity and created a divided front that makes Iraq's peaceful disarmament less likely. Nations across Europe that have recently expressed a different view of multilateral obligations, including some of our oldest allies and our newest friends, expose the myth that France and Germany speak for Europe. Those who deign to speak for Europe, notwithstanding the objections of elected governments across Europe, confuse consensus with effectiveness and appear to give priority to achieving a lowest-common-denominator result that preserves the illusion of unity at the expense of action to protect our security. Many Americans who support the historic project of European integration worry that rather than enhancing Europe's power in the world, the rush to integrate, and a cynical desire to define differences with America rather than meet common challenges together, reduces Europe's influence by turning the attention of European leaders inward, away from grave challenges to European security itself, and channeling their hostility toward the United States rather than our common enemies. Foreign Minister Fischer recently warned against "primitive anti-Americanism." I thank and commend him for his statement. But I am concerned, we should all be concerned, not only with the "primitive" anti-Americanism of the street that resents America's successes, exults in our misfortunes, and ascribes to us motives that one must be a fool or delusional to believe. We should also be concerned with the "sophisticated" anti-Americanism, or perhaps more aptly, the "cynical" anti-Americanism of political leaders who exploit for their own ends the disinformed, "primitive" hostility to America voiced in some quarters of their societies; to further their ambitions to govern or to inflate perceptions of their international influence. Just as some Arab governments fuel anti-American sentiment among their people to divert them from problems at home, so a distinct minority of Western European leaders appears to engage in America-bashing to rally their people and other European elites to the call of European unity. Some European politicians speak of pressure from their "street" for peaceful solutions to international conflict and for resisting American power regardless of its purpose. But statements emanating from Europe that seem to endorse pacifism in the face of evil, and anti-Semitic recidivism in some quarters, provoke an equal and opposite reaction in America. There is an American "street," too, and it strongly supports disarming Iraq, accepts the necessity of an expansive American role in the world to ensure we never wake up to another September 11th, is perplexed that nations with whom we have long enjoyed common cause do not share our urgency and sense of threat in time of war, and that considers reflexive hostility toward Israel as the root of all problems in the Middle East as irrational as it is morally offensive.Excellent, and well-merited. Read the whole speech. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/11/2003 04:29:07 PM ----- BODY: IRAN: BEFORE AND AFTER THE REVOLUTION These pictures are very powerful and revealing. Thanks to reader Jonathan Buch and MommaBear for alerting me to this site. I should note that, of course, the Shah was a very authoritarian ruler with a poor record on human rights. But at the very least, he was a modernizing ruler whose human rights violations never reached the depravity that Khomeini and the mullahs descended to. Moreover, he was a staunch friend of the United States, and would have been an implacable foe against Islamic fascism instead of supporting it. In other words, it would be much nicer if we could be dealing with a Pahlavi Shah in Iran than with an Islamic mullah. It may not be perfect, but at this point, the Iranian people are the last people on earth who would make the perfect the enemy of the good. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/11/2003 03:55:50 PM ----- BODY: I ALWAYS LIKE TO BE HELPFUL TO THE IGNORANT . . . thus this post. Atrios appears to be having problems comprehending the conntent of the audiotape that was released by al Jazeera today. He says the following in this post:
The story so far... Near as I can figure out: Powell announces al-Jazeera has a tape which demonstrates a nexus of al Qaeda and Saddam. al-Jazeera says they don't. Then Powell claims they'll have the tape soon. They get the tape. They run it. Far from it demonstrating a link between OBL and Saddam, OBL says they should overthrow Saddam. that [sic] about right?Later on, even when confronted with a comprehensive account of the playing of the audiotape, which says the following:
THE STATEMENT also calls Iraqi President Saddam Hussein an “infidel,” but stresses that the paramount battle for Muslims is with the United States and its allies. (An initial, extemporaneous translation mistakenly quoted the speaker as calling on Iraqis to overthrow Saddam Hussein.)Atrios still clings to the desperate hope that "bin Laden" called on Iraqis to overthrow Saddam Hussein in order to be able to dispute evidence of ties between the Iraqi regime and al Qaeda, such as that which was presented by Colin Powell at the Security Council last week when he plaintively requests "Mebbe someone can get the original audio." Now, as I mentioned earlier, I don't know whether Osama bin Laden is alive. I think he may very well be dead. He does not appear on videotapes anymore, we do not appear to be certain that the voice on the audiotape was bin Laden's, and we don't even know how old the audiotape is (the speaker did not cite any recent events to make us believe that this was a recent audiotape). But let's assume arguendo that the voice on the audiotape indeed was bin Laden's, and let's assume that the audiotape was recent. Alan Nelson recorded what bin Laden said on the audiotape regarding his feelings for Saddam Hussein:
It doesn't matter whether the communist party or Saddam [join to fight] ... they should go for Jihad against this crusade... they should take arms, because this is their duty as Muslims...God said they should pick up their arms and should kill all those who are infidels and who do not believe ... Muslims should have a clear ideology when they fight for God. The prophet said those who fight so that the word of God is the highest .. that is who will end up in heaven ... if the Muslims and communists get together to fight the crusaders, that's OK.(Emphasis mine) If somehow, the United States and Israel were magically removed from the scene, and the conflict in the Middle East was set up as one between Islamic fundamentalists and secular Arab nationalists, I am certain the Osama bin Laden would be more than willing to wage total war against leaders like Saddam Hussein. And for that matter, bin Laden would also wage war against Bashar al-Assad, Hosni Mubarak, Muammar Qaddafi, and other leaders of secular Arab nationalism. Indeed, if Gamal Abdel Nasser, the paramount secular Arab nationalist in Middle Eastern history, somehow came back from the dead and ruled Egypt, I feel comfortable in saying that bin Laden would oppose him as well. But the situation in the Middle East is not that way, and no matter how much Atrios might wish (out of ignorance and desperation) to cast the conflict between radical Islam and secular Arab nationalism as a conflict that would prevent an alliance between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, the logic does not support Atrios's arguments. As the quote Alan Nelson recorded makes clear, bin Laden (if that is really the person on the audiotape) believes that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." He realizes that any conflict between radical Islam and secular Arab nationalism must take a backseat to defeating the United States, forcing it to abandon military bases in Saudi Arabia and the other Persian Gulf states, and terminally crippling Israel (a secondary issue for bin Laden, a primary one for Saddam). If Iraq and al Qaeda ever achieve those aims, they may then turn against one another. But prior to doing that, defeating America and Israel are the first priorities, and those priorities will bind Iraq and al Qaeda together until either (a) those priorities are achieved, or (b) Saddam and al Qaeda are comprehensively defeated. Incidentally--and this might surprise someone with as poor a grasp on the facts as Atrios--this is not the first time that strange political bedfellows have joined together to defeat a common enemy. The United States and Great Britain worked with and assisted the Soviet Union to defeat Nazi Germany. When Winston Churchill--a staunch anti-communist--was questioned in Parliament as to why he supported the Soviets against the Nazis when Hitler instituted Operation Barbarossa and invaded the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, Churchill famously replied "If Hitler had invaded Hell, I would make at least a favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons." I'm certain that if Atrios had been alive back in 1941, these events would have confused him to the point of a terrible migraine headache, but just about everyone else seems to understand that strange political bedfellows are made to abandon conflicts with one another in order to ally against a common and potentially greater threat. Of course, I don't expect that overnight, Atrios will come to the startling realization that a sure and comprehensive grasp of the facts is far more important than rabid and unthinking Bush-hatred. As Emily Jones rightly and helpfully pointed out, Atrios primarily runs his site in order to provide outrage for his unthinking fan base against politicians and ideas that they do not share. The debate there is disingenuous, the tone is hostile and hateful, and the intellectual quality is woefully lacking. And I fully expect that the status quo at Atrios's site will remain for the forseeable future. Far be it from him, or from his fans, to demand intellectual rigor and honesty from themselves, or from each other. But the seeming permanence of the pathetic status quo does not mean that Atrios's drivel and nonsense should not be disputed. On the contrary, it becomes all the more important to acquaint the poor man with the facts--even if those facts run against his deeply held political prejudices. Ideology is only helpful and respectable when it stems from the facts. It is contemptible and absurd when it flies in the face of the facts. And sadly, Atrios has decided to court contempt instead of respect. Which means that Fiskings such as this one should be more common to set the facts straight. Just because Atrios chooses to delude himself, it does not mean that he should be freely permitted to delude and bamboozle others. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/11/2003 03:02:13 PM ----- BODY: WHY ARE GERMANY, FRANCE AND RUSSIA OBSTRUCTING THE UNITED STATES? Khidir Hamza, who used to run Iraq's bomb-making program and who defected, advises us to follow the money:
My 20 years of work in Iraq's nuclear-weapons program and military industry were partly a training course in methods of deception and camouflage to keep the program secret. Given what I know about Saddam Hussein's commitment to developing and using weapons of mass destruction, the following two points are abundantly clear to me: First, the U.N. weapons inspectors will not find anything Saddam does not want them to find. Second, France, Germany, and to a degree, Russia, are opposed to U.S. military action in Iraq mainly because they maintain lucrative trade deals with Baghdad, many of which are arms-related. Since the passage of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 we have witnessed a tiny team of inspectors with a supposedly stronger mandate begging Iraq to disclose its weapons stockpiles and commence disarmament. The question that nags me is: How can a team of 200 inspectors "disarm" Iraq when 6,000 inspectors could not do so in the previous seven years of inspection?Given the fact that German, French and Russian weaponry has such overwhelming representation in the Iraqi arsenal, why is it that antiwar activists are not outraged over the fact that the positions of the three countries are driven by monetary intnerests? They are more than willing to denounce America for "waging a war for oil." Why aren't Germany, France and Russia not denounced for "obstructing in order to further pursue business interests"? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/11/2003 01:54:52 PM ----- BODY: OH, HELL YES Cool picture found here. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/11/2003 01:43:59 PM ----- BODY: WEASELS FIGHT AMONGST THEMSELVES Details here. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/11/2003 01:29:14 PM ----- BODY: YOU KNEW THAT I WOULD LINK TO THIS Crime and punishment, according to Dante Alighieri. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/11/2003 01:23:04 PM ----- BODY: MORE ON THE "BIN LADEN" AUDIOTAPE Alan Nelson has recorded a fair amount of the transcript. Start at the top and scroll down. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/11/2003 01:20:28 PM ----- BODY: A.N.S.W.E.R. AND THE JEWS E. Nough has some very intelligent thoughts on the issue. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/11/2003 01:10:39 PM ----- BODY: AT LAST . . . A television program I could really enjoy. Think of it: A Vice President from the University of Chicago, and democratic revolution in Iran. What's not to like? Although, I am somewhat wary of the following passage:
1.21. The March of Liberty and Progress. Prescott declares at the United Nations that “Even in this dark hour, with the fate of so many uncertain, the march of liberty and progress continues in Iran.” Reports confirm that the fundamentalist backlash has been beaten back and demonstrators have shut down Tehran. Prescott personally fires a State Department careerist undersecretary who had condemned the Iranian protests. Senator No: “This is a key opportunity to engage moderate elements in Iran, in order to ensure stability and to prevent this contagion from spreading to other Arab nations,” adding, “American empire must be avoided at all costs.” At the end of the episode, news arrives in Washington that the entire Iranian government has submitted its resignation and has that the key leadership has departed for exile in Paris and Cap Ferrat.(Emphasis mine) If you are going to run this episode, someone should point out to "Senator No" that contrary to the implication in his remark, Iran is not an Arab nation! It is Persian. There is a difference. But other than that, I am totally down with this show. And per Ben Domenech's update, noted by Patrick, which calls for the inclusion of "the hot chick who happens to be a crackerjack policy wonk," I strongly suggest that there also be included a powerful and brilliant short, bald, Persian-Jewish staffer who charms and seduces said "hot chick" like the smooth-talking rascal that he is. All in the name of storyline authenticity, of course. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/11/2003 12:56:52 PM ----- BODY: YAY! Jonah Goldberg and the fair Jessica Gavora have had a baby girl--Lucy Tighe Goldberg. The youngest Goldberg appears to be quite healthy, and wealth and wisdom are sure to follow. The post has an e-mail address where you can send your congratulations--I encourage you to do so. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/11/2003 12:50:50 PM ----- BODY: FROM HUMBLE BEGINNINGS . . . the Glorious Pejmanesque Empire could finally be established! -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/11/2003 12:42:25 PM ----- BODY: USEFUL IDIOTS GET ENTRY VISAS Who really is surprised? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/11/2003 12:39:15 PM ----- BODY: I'M SURE THAT JUST ABOUT EVERYONE HAS SEEN THIS . . . but in the event that you haven't heard, Colin Powell announced today that there was a new audiotape from Osama bin Laden that demonstrated ties between al Qaeda and Iraq. I just finished hearing the tape myself, and found it to be the usual bluster, blather and vitriol. I don't know whether bin Laden is even alive (my guess is still that he isn't--otherwise, why wouldn't he make a videotape of himself as he did in the past?), but the connection between Iraq and bin Laden was satisfactorily and overwhelmingly made in Powell's Security Council presentation. After Powell presented that information, all the rest is mere gravy in my view. INSTANTANEOUS UPDATE: Here is a story on the contents of the audiotape. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/11/2003 12:34:41 PM ----- BODY: THIS IS WHAT SUCKS ABOUT BEING A MAN Best wishes to Senator John Kerry, as he undergoes surgery for prostate cancer. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/10/2003 11:27:35 PM ----- BODY: THOUGHT FOR THE DAY Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia. --Charles M. Schulz -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/10/2003 08:29:48 PM ----- BODY: HMMM . . . This could be very interesting -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/10/2003 07:42:38 PM ----- BODY: BLOGROLLING Legendary commentator-in-other-people's-blogs, E. Nough, finally has a blog of his own. This is going to be one of the great ones, folks. Be sure to visit early and often. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/10/2003 07:34:50 PM ----- BODY: ON IRAQ'S INTIMIDATION OF SCIENTISTS Read Eugene Volokh now. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/10/2003 07:09:56 PM ----- BODY: THE BOYCOTT IS ON! And don't miss the apt editorial cartoon at the top of the post. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/10/2003 07:07:52 PM ----- BODY: CELEBRATING ANSEL ADAMS A.C. Douglas is his usual eloquent self in commemorating the 101st anniversary of Adams's birth. And the following quote encapsulates my sentiments exactly:
I've never met a serious photographer, myself included, who, for the first time ensorcelled by an Adams's print, did not initially imagine he could exactly match its qualities if he worked assiduously at learning all the necessary techniques. Indeed, Adams himself fostered and encouraged such an idea, and enthusiastically shared his methods and techniques with others, wrote detailed books on the subject that are still earnestly studied classics in the field, and was generous almost to a fault with his time in giving personal help and guidance to other serious photographers. Thousands -- again, myself included -- have benefited from his teaching, but none -- not one -- has ever succeeded in producing a finished print of a landscape subject that could be mistaken by an experienced eye for a genuine Adams-visualized and -made print.I'd like to get a digital camera soon and embark on the hobby of photography, perhaps sharing some of my work on this here blog. But I'll do it with more than a fair degree of trepidation, considering all of the brilliant photographers that have graced the world with their pictures. That kind of talent is intimidating to consider matching. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/10/2003 07:00:52 PM ----- BODY: ANOTHER STAR WARS RANT And this time, it's not by me. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/10/2003 06:47:02 PM ----- BODY: OH, COME ON! START A BLOG! You know you want to. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/10/2003 06:41:47 PM ----- BODY: AND NOW FOR YOUR CHESS FIX, PART II A reflection on the recent chess battle between Garry Kasparov and Deep Junior, which included the following statement from American grandmaster Maurice Ashley on talk that soon, computers would dominate chess games against humans:
Mr. Ashley said he was tired of such speculation. "Cars can outrun us," he said, "but that hasn't stopped us from having foot races. Even if a computer is the best player on the planet, I'll still want to go around the corner, set up the chess pieces and try to kick your butt."Exactly. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/10/2003 06:37:24 PM ----- BODY: AND NOW FOR YOUR CHESS FIX, PART I Robert Byrne analyzes a recent game between Gregory Kaidanov and Tegshuren Enhbat at the United States Championships. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/10/2003 06:21:15 PM ----- BODY: THE FILIBUSTER, AND HOW TO BEAT IT Kate O'Beirne is a lady after my own heart:
So when Democrats take to the floor to block consideration of Miguel Estrada or Priscilla Owen or any of the other Bush nominees, Bill Frist must be prepared to make the Dems stay there, for as long as it takes. By calling their bluff, Frist will have set a good precedent: that under his management, 51 votes represents a Senate majority. And, an opening act that focuses public attention on a Democratic filibuster of a Hispanic or a female nominee will set the stage for the coming acrimonious battles over nominees for the Supreme Court.I couldn't agree more. And if Byron York is correct, neither can the Senate Republican caucus. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/10/2003 04:36:14 PM ----- BODY: THE JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION WARS Byron York details the latest strategy on the part of Republicans to get Miguel Estrada confirmed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/10/2003 04:17:23 PM ----- BODY: AND SPEAKING OF THE LOVELY SEKIMORI . . . this post of hers is worth checking out. Truer words were never said. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/10/2003 03:15:34 PM ----- BODY: FROM POSTREL TO REYNOLDS . . . to me. Consider the tip jar mentioned. Hey, consider it an investment! Perhaps some donations will finally inspire me to get off my lazy gluteus and afford that extravagant Sekimori-inspired redesign that I want to get eventually. (Now I'll see how much all y'all love me!) -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/10/2003 03:01:37 PM ----- BODY: THIS SURPRISES ME NOT A WHIT
Which OS Are You?
Now, let the flirting begin, especially given the fact that we have such a delightful musical accompaniment to the courting game.
--------
AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh
DATE: 2/10/2003 02:32:38 PM
-----
BODY:
HUH? Is this some kind of surreptitious Onion spoof?
--------
AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh
DATE: 2/10/2003 02:24:34 PM
-----
BODY:
MILITARY TOYS This is amazingly cool:
They loiter. They sleep. They hide. And when an enemy sticks his neck out, they kill. The Department of Defense is preparing new weapons that can loiter over a battlefield or sneak into enemy territory and "sleep" until an appropriate military target blunders into their sights. Some weapons envisioned are mere concepts and may never be produced. Others, like Lockheed Martin's 5-foot-long Loitering Attack Missile, are already being tested. The idea, developers and contractors say, is that the best way to hit an elusive target is to hide a weapon inside enemy territory ahead of time.Coming soon to a terrorist leader or a dictator near you? We'll find out, I guess. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/10/2003 02:18:08 PM ----- BODY: HOW MUCH DO YOU WANT TO BET . . . that if the plan detailed in this report is actually implemented, the Germans will be the first to complain about it?
A potentially divisive new element arose, meanwhile, as the commander of American forces in Europe, Gen. James L. Jones, told members of Congress of a plan under study to scale back American forces in Germany. During a briefing to a visiting Congressional delegation last week, General Jones, who also is supreme commander of NATO forces, said the plan envisioned scattering the forces to bases in several countries, those closer to the Persian Gulf. According to a Senate aide familiar with the briefing, the plan is still preliminary, but in the context of the United Nations deliberations, it is sure to be contentious.Forcing Germans to finally confront security issues and provide for their own defense needs without the protection of the United States--oh my! For the record, I think that it would be good for the U.S. to have a military presence in Europe, as it would assist in the further projection of American power. But it would be nice to make the Germans fret and worry some. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/10/2003 02:09:31 PM ----- BODY: OF ALL THE RIDICULOUS THINGS I HAVE EVER HEARD IN MY LIFE . . . Disowning your relatives for political disagreements? How intolerant and immature can you get? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/10/2003 01:59:57 PM ----- BODY: AND NOW FOR YOUR DAILY DOSE OF SCHADENFREUDE I really shouldn't be laughing about this. But what the hell . . . -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/10/2003 01:56:34 PM ----- BODY: AND SPEAKING OF ANDREW SULLIVAN . . . Great--now there is something else for Eric Alterman to whine about in tedious fashion. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/10/2003 01:50:39 PM ----- BODY: "UNILATERALISM FOR ME, BUT NOT FOR THEE" That appears to be the position of France, Germany and Belgium in a serious NATO dispute:
France, Germany and Belgium split NATO Monday by blocking a plan to boost Turkish defenses in case of a U.S.-led war on Iraq -- an action Washington charged faced the alliance with a credibility crisis. The three NATO rebels, trying to slow the rush to war, say moves to defend Turkey would signal that a conflict had begun. Turkey, which borders Iraq, promptly invoked NATO's founding treaty to seek consultations for the defense of its territory. . . . Turkey responded by invoking NATO's Article IV, which says "parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the parties is threatened." NATO ambassadors were due to meet at 3:30 p.m. GMT. The U.S. ambassador to NATO denounced what he called "a most unfortunate decision by three allies to prevent NATO from assisting the legitimate defense needs of Turkey," which fears reprisals if U.S. forces invade Iraq from its territory.Why the French, Germans and Belgians have decided to violate their treaty obligations to Turkey is beyond me. However, it appears clear that they are standing alone within NATO on this issue. And it is more and more clear, as Andrew Sullivan points out, that it is the French and the Germans who are cutting themselves outside the mainstream of Western opinion and thought. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/10/2003 01:44:05 PM ----- BODY: CREATING A NATION OF HUNTERS Let's hope that this effort works. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/10/2003 01:40:49 PM ----- BODY: THINGS THAT MAKE YOU GO "HMMM" Suman Palit believes that there may be a surreptitious effort afoot to increase ties between Iran on one hand, and Israel and the United States on the other. So long as this arrangement helps facilitate the destruction of the Islamic regime, I am all for it. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/10/2003 01:38:57 PM ----- BODY: I LOVE EDITORIAL CARTOONS Here is why. The only downside is that the cartoon appears to mock German Shepherds--my favorite breed of dog. I am growing more and more determined that when I finally get a house and a backyard, I will get a German Shepherd as a canine companion. Fun and enjoyment should be had. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/10/2003 01:35:23 PM ----- BODY: "THE DANCE IN FRANCE" More good stuff at Winds of Change. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/10/2003 01:33:47 PM ----- BODY: IRANIAN REVOLUTION WATCH Perhaps beauty will vanquish the beast. At the very least, this seems to be one of those cultural rebellions that drive the mullahs crazy. The more such rebellions there are, the shakier become the foundations of the Islamic Republic--which is precisely what totalitarians and terrorists in the Iranian regime do not want. (Thanks to reader Mike Daley for the link) -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/10/2003 01:31:10 PM ----- BODY: MORE CHURCHILL In the wake of yesterday's Thought for the Day, Alan Nelson has his own Churchillian rhetoric to share with us. The season for those words may have passed, but the words themselves are eternally pertinent. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/10/2003 01:27:38 PM ----- BODY: THOSE OXBLOGGERS ARE OMNIPOTENT! Both Josh Chafetz and David Adesnik have written an editorial that calls attention to the Oxford Democracy Forum, discussed at length here. I'm glad to see this movement getting off the ground. Would that all student activists were so inclined and intelligent about their purposes. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/10/2003 01:24:04 PM ----- BODY: CONTINUING BLOGIVERSARY COVERAGE Thanks to the many people who wrote in with kind and generous comments commemorating my first Blogiversary. Your support and compliments are very much appreciated. And thanks to the many people who were kind enough to commemorate my Blogiversary on their blogs. I haven't the time to cite them all, but you have my appreciation. The following posts particularly caught my eye: 1. Getting praise from Rhodes Scholars is cool indeed. Thanks to Josh for playing to my intellectual vanity, something I always welcome. My apologies for not mentioning him in my post--I figured I would do it now. In the event that there are one or two of you out there who have not availed yourself of the brilliance that is OxBlog, you are missing out in a major way. Get thee hence instantly and constantly for some of the best blogging around. 2. One certainly does not have to be a lawyer to appreciate the blogging goodness that is Howard Bashman's "How Appealing." His very nice words about my not-so-humble site are also very much appreciated. I should point out, however, that the PejmanParents do not necessarily lack belief in the Internet. Rather, they just don't practice that belief very often. I guess that is somewhat frustrating at times, given the fact that it would be a great deal easier to communicate with the PejmanParents if they made use of the magic that is e-mail, but they do have skills that I don't have. In addition to her many other wonderful qualities, the PejmanMother is an invincible Iron Chef when it comes to the preparation of lip-smackingly good Persian food. And as for the PejmanFather, he taught himself how to use a Doppler Ultrasound machine, and is one of the best physicians in the country, if not the world at using the machine for diagnostic purposes. You just have to give props to that kind of technological savvy. 3. Finally, the estimable Scott Ganz was kind enough to write up a commemorative post that combined a Fiddler on the Roof lede, with . . . well . . . the kind of Blogiversary wish that I would be delighted to accept. Don't click on the link if you don't want to have . . . er . . . interesting images show up on your computer, and/or in front of children. The rest of you: link away, and pray that the link constitutes reality sometime very soon.* * Note to Scott: Does she have like-minded and similarly lovely female friends? Please arrange an introduction. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/9/2003 10:34:18 PM ----- BODY: THOUGHT FOR THE DAY This is entirely appropriate: Virtuous motives, trammeled by inertia and timidity, are no match for armed and resolute wickedness. A sincere love of peace is no excuse for muddling hundreds of millions of humble folk into total war. The cheers of the weak, well-meaning assemblies soon cease to count. Doom marches on. --Winston Churchill (March, 1936--arguing for British rearmament) -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/9/2003 05:23:26 PM ----- BODY: "VOTE FRANCE OFF THE ISLAND" Thomas Friedman believes that France should give up its seat on the UN Security Council to India. Perhaps it is just spite talking, but I am hard pressed to disagree. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/9/2003 05:18:34 PM ----- BODY: ANOTHER RED HERRING DISPENSED WITH Juan Non-Volokh counters the widespread meme that Miguel Estrada somehow "benefited" from affirmative action. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/9/2003 05:15:14 PM ----- BODY: EUGENE VOLOKH IS PRECISELY CORRECT The censorship he denounces is ridiculous and self-defeating. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/9/2003 05:09:02 PM ----- BODY: DEAR CHRIS PATTEN: Thanks for nothing. Consider the EU foreign affairs commissioner's conduct at a recent visit to Iran:
Now Mr. [Ali Akbar Hashemi] Rafsanjani (the former president of Iran) seems to be consolidating power once again and is much more visible on the political scene. He shares in many of the ceremonial functions of both President Mohammad Khatami and Ayatollah Khamenei. Earlier this week, for example, Chris Patten, the European Union's foreign affairs commissioner, met with Mr. Rafsanjani during a three-day tour of Iran, much to the consternation of reformists who view him with suspicion, even loathing.The loathing is well-deserved. Rafsanjani did even less for the reform movement than Khatami is currently doing as president of Iran, and any increase in his political power will harm the process of liberalization in Iran. Why Patten chose to give Rafsanjani increased credence is beyond me. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/9/2003 05:01:40 PM ----- BODY: BLOGROLLING Be sure to check out this blog by Alan Nelson, which is very well-written and interesting. Nicely done, Alan. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/9/2003 04:59:59 PM ----- BODY: ALL YOU EVER WANTED TO KNOW . . . about Jacques Chirac. The following struck me as being the most interesting passage:
It's nothing new for politicians to be facing in several directions at once but Chirac has done so many turns he has to screw his socks on. Once a Eurosceptic, he now embraces the idea of a powerful, seamlessly-integrated EU - run by France and Germany. Once in favour of concentrating power in Paris, he now thinks it should all be handed out to the regions. Having once begged the far-Right National Front leader Jean-Marie Le Pen to help him out of an electoral fix, he now says: "Confronted with hatred and intolerance, no deals, no debates are possible." Typically French, we might say - but there is nothing typical and only so much that is French about Chirac. "All his life," says Eric Zemmour, a Figaro journalist and author of a new presidential biography, "he has dreamed of being someone else." For everyone who has worked with, for or around Chirac, this is the core of the problem. Propelled into politics by a domineering father, he has spent more than 30 years holding high public offices he isn't really interested in on behalf of people who don't particularly like him. The requirement of being in power is all that Chirac understands, and the loss of power is all that worries him. Somewhere on his long climb up the greasy pole, Chirac began to dislike himself as much as the voters do, and he became - as the title of Zemmour's book has it - L'Homme qui ne s'aimait pas. It shouldn't have been like this.Read the whole article--it is quite interesting. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/9/2003 04:53:42 PM ----- BODY: OH MY . . . Maybe Rumsfeld is getting a bit out of control. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/9/2003 03:58:09 PM ----- BODY: THE SUPREME COURT WATCH Speculation is increasing that Chief Justice Rehnquist may retire this year, and the White House appears to be feverishly preparing for a confirmation battle. This report gives the details of the preparation for whatever confirmation battle may occur, with one particularly tantalizing comment:
Bush could take another approach, appointing California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown instead. Brown is a conservative African-American who’s ruled against affirmative action and abortion rights. Her nomination would let Bush add the court’s third woman and second African-American in one swoop. And White House lawyers have already interviewed her. Tom Goldstein, a Washington lawyer who argues cases before the court, believes Brown could even get the nod for chief justice. “An African-American female nominee is not going to be filibustered,” he says. “She doesn’t have a record that will stop Democrats in their tracks.” And after months of bitter Senate fights over nominations to lower courts, that could have an appeal all its own.Very interesting. The plot thickens. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/9/2003 03:51:41 PM ----- BODY: ANOTHER REASON . . . to seek regime change in Iran:
President Mohammad Khatami said on Sunday Iran had mined uranium for nuclear energy, and insisted its nuclear program was solely for civilian use, the official news agency IRNA said. The surprise announcement -- the first time an Iranian leader has acknowledged possession of uranium ore reserves -- may alarm Washington, which accuses the Islamic Republic of harboring secret plans to develop nuclear weapons.Unlike the situation in Iraq, I don't think that military action against Iran is warranted at this time. The reason is that there still remains a vibrant dissident culture that is working for regime change on a domestic level. But at the risk of repeating myself--these people need help. We have to give it. When we help the Iranian people gain their own freedom and achieve their desires of closer ties with the West, we will also help ourselves preserve and enhance our national security. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/9/2003 03:47:54 PM ----- BODY: SORRY FOR THE LACK OF POSTING I spent the morning engaged in further cleaning of the PejmanApartment, and then went to the gym to work out and sweat at the sauna. While jogging, I took the opportunity to watch . . . sumo wrestling. Strangely enough, I find this fascinating and enjoyable to watch. I suppose it has much to do with the novelty of the sport, and the fact that it represents something new and interesting to pay attention to. In the event that you are wondering, the contest was for the Emperor's Cup, and was won in overwhelming fashion by the first Mongolian to have won the Cup. Perhaps this means that the wrestler has the mysterious Y chromosome of his infamous ancestor. Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what the ceremony is that the winner of a sumo match engages in immediately after the win? From what I perceive, the wrestler kneels, takes something from the referee, and then moves his hand in some form of ceremonial fashion. Anyone know what this signifies? Also, what is with the rhythmic chatter the referee engages in as soon as a match begins? For those of you who are interested, there is a form of wrestling in Persian culture. Wrestling houses were called zurkhanehah, and train wrestlers to take on one another in individual matches. The origin of the zurkhaneh was to help Persians learn fighting techniques to eventually throw off the rule of their Muslim and Arab conquerors. So there is a rich history behind Persian wrestling. If I could find a suitable instructor, I would be very interested in taking up the art, although I doubt that my slight build will makie me the most formidable opponent. Still, some grappling holds might be interesting to learn. Who knows--they might come in useful. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/9/2003 03:38:06 PM ----- BODY: MATERIAL MORON I suppose that I could wax sarcastic over this report about Madonna's planned antiwar activities. But Emily Jones beat me to the punch. And did so quite well too. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/9/2003 01:23:30 AM ----- BODY: IT'S MY BLOGIVERSARY AND I'LL PARTY IF I WANT TO One year ago today, the magic that is PejmanPundit began to impose its will on the world with a Fisking of the Guardian that in retrospect seems rather raw and excited (what on earth was I thinking inserting all those exclamation marks?), a detailing of what I ate for dinner that probably would have enraged Eric Alterman for having burdened him with too much information about my personal life, and the Chicago Blackhawks' first victory in four years over the Colorado Avalanche while playing in Colorado. There were only three posts the day that this blog began. Nowadays I am posting so much that I don't know how to stop myself--after all, why else would I be up past midnight if I didn't feel the need to post like a maniac? How much has changed! In the beginning, I sent out e-mails to various bloggers begging them to be my friends and to give me attention so that I could begin to get traffic. To sweeten the deal, I paid obsequious homage to all of the bloggers on my correspondence list. Damian Penny and John Cole were the most susceptible to this ridiculously transparent form of flattery, and quickly gave me permalinks on their sites--for which I am most grateful. Other bloggers took a while longer to win over. Some of them still have not been won over. But I haven't given up hope. Eventually, the readership began to arrive--helped in large part by this post, which attracted links from Glenn Reynolds and Andrew Sullivan (Andrew Sullivan!!!), and which helped a number of people finally cross my path--including Michael Barone, who was kind enough to make a generous donation in my tip jar, and who flattered--and stunned--me by letting me know that he had bookmarked my site. For those, and other acts of kindness--acts which helped me reach a larger audience and which caused me to be confident in the fact that people appreciated my writing and work--I will be forever grateful. I will be grateful as well for the personal interactions that have come about as a result of this blog. Being able to meet several of the bloggers in the flesh was an excellent and delightful experience. Being able to talk to Andrew Stuttaford on the phone during a New York Blogger Bash was similarly spectacular (thank you Brooke for arranging that--I'll try to repay the favor by getting to know Condi one of these days so that I can introduce you to her). And being able to interact with extremely smart and talented readers who always help me in gaining a new and fresh perspective on the issues of the day has been a particular treat. Many thanks go as well to Nick Schulz of TechCentralStation, who noticed my blog after Sullivan linked to it, and who offered me the opportunity to write for his excellent magazine on a weekly basis--a practice that I have enjoyed tremendously. One specific blogger deserves special mention for the many kindnesses that she has shown me, and for the friendship that she has established with me--a friendship that honors me because of the esteem in which I hold it, and the esteem in which I hold the friend who helped establish it. Of course, I speak of the lovely Emily Jones--who responded to my obsequious suck-up e-mail--mentioned earlier--with praise that would have embarrassed me were I not the egotistical creature that I am. Emily deserves thanks for the splendid advice she has given me, for the many times when she helped me see sides of an issue that I wasn't able to see, for trying valiantly--and perhaps against all hope--to keep my monumental sense of self-worth in check, and for the marvelously funny and pithy blog that she runs--a blog that gives her readers one hell of a good time every time they visit her delightful site. You know you have a good friend when in good times and in bad times, you go to them first. And Emily is a good friend by that, and many other standards. Emily: I love you DollFace. But you knew that already, didn't you? So, after one year of opining on issues of war and peace, commenting on domestic and international politics, rooting in vain for the Chicago Bears, Bulls, Cubs and Blackhawks, as well as for the revival of the Star Wars franchise, expounding on the glories of baroque, classical and romantic music, chess, conservatism, and lovely women everywhere (preferably lovely women who may have a thing for short, bald, bespectacled Persian Jews with puppy dog brown eyes that can melt both their hearts and their inhibitions), what can we look forward to for the next year? Well, I imagine that there will be different topics to be addressed as well, and this blog will do its level best to keep itself fresh and interesting. At the same time, domestic and international politics will still require commenting upon, Chicago sports teams will need all the moral support they can get, George Lucas would really benefit from someone who won't play "Yes Man" to all his cockamamie ideas about having Darth Vader personify the Peter Principle, Bach, Mozart, Handel and others would probably appreciate a vocal fan base, the magic of moving wooden pieces on a quadrate board will still inspire prose and poetry, the eschaton must still not be immanentized, and . . . well . . . I'm still single and there are delightful ladies out there who might trade their hearts and inhibitions for a prolonged peek into puppy dog brown eyes (and if there are, Lord knows it'll be worth the effort to win them over). So the motto for the day is Onward! Ever onward! It'll be fun to make the journey for yet another year. And it will be great fun indeed to have you, gentle readers, as companions. Thanks for visiting. Thanks for commenting. Thanks for e-mailing. Thanks for linking. In short, thanks for everything. This blog would be nothing without you. And I will never forget that. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/8/2003 11:38:40 PM ----- BODY: THOUGHT FOR THE DAY Yesterday I was a dog. Today I'm a dog. Tomorrow I'll probably still be a dog. Sigh! There's so little hope for advancement. --Snoopy -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/8/2003 11:29:54 PM ----- BODY: NEVER MIND "OLD EUROPE" How about "untrustworthy Europe"? Here is more on the Franco-German sandbagging of the United States that I posted to earlier:
In comments to reporters, a senior U.S. government official said, "In diplomacy, if you are trying to win friends and influence people the last thing in the world you want to do is to lay on the U.S. government -- on the most important issue facing us -- a major diplomatic proposal through the press. That's not exactly the way to go." The official pointed out that Rumsfeld, in Munich for the 39th annual Wehrkunde security conference of defense ministers, had met with European officials throughout the day and the matter never was brought up. "That furthered suspicions on our side," the official said. Rumsfeld raised the issue with German Defense Minister Peter Struck in a one-on-one meeting Saturday. "And the response we got was, 'We're talking about that with the French, but we're not ready to talk to you about it; it's not fully done,'" the senior official said, "which to say the least was a highly inadequate response."Once again, it bears asking--are we really the unilateralists around here? Or is this a case of the pot calling the kettle black? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/8/2003 11:17:57 PM ----- BODY: HANDICAPPING THE 2008 PRESIDENTIAL RACE While engaging in a fervent cleaning of the PejmanApartment this evening (apparently, I'm not the only one engaged in a little early spring cleaning) I was watching/listening to C-Span's broadcast of the recent Prayer Breakfast that occurred this past Thursday (a video for the breakfast can be found here). The President of the United States is always a featured speaker at these breakfasts, but another speaker was Condoleezza Rice. I think she may very well be the next President of the United States. I know that there has been a lot of talk about this in the Blogosphere, and that perhaps I am revisiting an old subject. But I just wanted to mention how impressed I was. Rice can deliver a joke and a witticism very well, and at the same time, she can speak quite movingly about her religious faith, and how religion can serve to increase a sense of community and togetherness in America. Her theme was based on the issue of struggle, and how it can ennoble us, and she did an excellent job of using religion to help explain September 11th and its aftermath, as well as the aftermath of the accident with the Columbia. Given the fact that her father and uncle were preachers, I suppose that it should have come as no surprise that Rice could speak so knowledgeably and so eloquently about religion. But I was so impressed because this was the first time that I listened to her speak on an issue that had nothing to do with the traditional national security issues that she deals with. And I could just imagine how capably she would deal with campaigning in America--working rope lines like a pro, charming the electorate with her grace and personality, while impressing the skeptical with her cool and powerful intellect. Sure, she's not conservative enough for me on some issues--namely affirmative action and abortion. But she is so good on so many other issues--especially national security, the preeminent issue of our day (and perhaps of our lifetime)--that I can't help but reflect on how potent and powerful a candidate she would be. I suppose there are other candidates as well that will be serious competitors in 2008--Bill Frist continues to impress with his swift rise, his own very powerful intellect, and his personal story--but if Condi wants the top job, she will be very tough to beat. And deservedly so. The lady is a star, and has earned her stardom. To see her become President someday would perhaps constitute the ultimate triumph of meritocracy. And that would be justice indeed. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/8/2003 11:01:41 PM ----- BODY: MARCHING AS TO WAR This is getting really serious:
Britain and America are drawing up plans to give Saddam Hussein as little as 48 hours to flee Baghdad or face war, if UN weapons inspectors report this week that the Iraqi dictator is still refusing to disarm fully. The proposals will form the framework of a long-awaited second resolution, which could be put before the Security Council by next weekend. The deadline would be just long enough for Arab neighbours to make a last effort to persuade Saddam to leave the country, according to US officials, or for a coup to take place. The shortest timeframe to emerge from private diplomatic discussions has been two days.I'm not guessing that Saddam will take the offer. Which means that there is only one alternative left. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/8/2003 06:18:14 PM ----- BODY: A MUSIC RECOMMENDATION My most recent CD purchase was a copy of Arthur Rubinstein's recording of Chopin's Ballades and Scherzos--along with the Tarantelle in A Flat Major, which appears to have been included as a bonus track. As with my previous Rubinstein purchases, I can heartily recommend this one as well. Rubinstein plays Chopin brilliantly--with a great deal of passion, and yet in a manner that allows the listener to fully appreciate the skill and craftsmanship of Chopin's compositional powers. The recording is of excellent quality as well, and is most enjoyable. My personal favorite is the very first track--the Ballade No. 1 in G Minor, a piece which is intensely powerful and very haunting as well. Rubinstein does not go overboard in evincing the emotion inherent in Chopin's compositions, while at the same time moving the listener deeply with his renditions. The Ballade No. 3 in A Flat serves to lighten the mood somewhat, and is one of the more triumphal pieces on the CD--indeed, one of the more triumphal piano pieces that I have heard. And the Tarantelle is an excellent way to round out the CD--a beautiful composition which ends the recording on a light and beautiful note (pardon the pun). All in all, the selections are well-varied in tone, in emotion, in tempo, and in structure, which means that the listener is not bored. Once again, if you are a fan of Chopin, this CD is excellent, and has fast become one of my favorites. It will probably be one of yours as well. I consider it an auditorial indulgence--one that I will happily partake of over and over. I imagine that other Chopin aficionados will feel the same way. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/8/2003 05:52:53 PM ----- BODY: QUESTION FOR "GO" PLAYERS This article raises concerns about the influence that computers and computer analysis have had on chess--suggesting that perhaps "human mastery of a game valued for centuries as a benchmark of intelligence is being irrevocably diluted." The article also states the following:
More to the point, some chess experts say, computers have taken some of the fun out of the game, designated the "touchstone of the intellect" by Goethe and seen by Benjamin Franklin as a metaphor for life. While chess is still one of the few games where physical prowess and chance play no role (except in choosing who goes first), players can no longer rely solely on their singular intellects to succeed. They must also be much more adept at memorization and manipulating information. "What's happening with chess is it's gradually losing its place as the par excellence intellectual activity," said Hans Berliner, a former world correspondence chess champion and professor emeritus of computer science at Carnegie Mellon. "You don't have to be really good anymore to get good results. Chess is winding down."Now, this is not a problem with me, as I do not engage in the kind of intense computer analysis of chess games that grandmasters like Garry Kasparov traditionally do. On the contrary, I still play chess by thinking through my moves instead of memorizing lines and variations and playing the game by rote. As such, I am not likely to abandon my love for my favorite game anytime soon, and I highly suspect that I will be as fascinated with the game of chess throughout my life as I am now. But I also came across this passage:
Mr. Berliner, whose work on computer chess helped lead to Deep Blue and its descendants, said smart people in search of a challenging board game might try a game called go, which is popular in Asia and played with black stones and white stones. The possible combinations are far greater than those in chess, which come to about 10 to the 40th power.I've never played Go, but I have heard some good things about it. I'm always looking for more mental stimulation, so I was wondering if any of my brilliant readers (and I have so many) are as devoted to the game of Go as I am to chess. If so, please tell me about the game, how you like it, what it involves, its similarities to, and differences with chess, and whether there are good computer programs that I could use to play at home. Feel free to Muse away--it would be much appreciated. Thanks. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/8/2003 05:42:59 PM ----- BODY: IRAN WATCH Well, this would appear to be significant:
Bush administration officials held a rare private meeting with Iranian envoys in Europe last month to seek a promise of humanitarian help and an assurance that the Tehran government would not interfere in military operations if the United States goes to war against Iraq, U.S. officials said yesterday. U.S. diplomats carrying a carefully designed message also asked Iran to join search-and-rescue missions for downed U.S. air crews, officials reported. They further requested that the Iranian government deny haven to fleeing Iraqis who might try to cross into Iran and regroup against a U.S.-supported government in Baghdad. A senior administration official said the White House hopes the Iranians "will stay out of the way" if U.S.-led forces topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in favor of a pro-Western government. U.S. and U.N. officials report that signals from Tehran have been encouraging, although the Iranian government opposes military action.I think that it is entirely proper and intelligent to try to garner the Iranian regime's cooperation. I just hope that it will not forget the fact that one of the key benefits from the liberation of Iraq could be the further encouragement of Iranians to overthrow their own repressive regime. They need and deserve help from the United States, and President Bush's remarks in support of the Iranian people's freedoms in his State of the Union are welcomed. But those words need to be converted to actions. And the Iranian regime should receive no respite whatsoever from the actions that would remove its heavy hand from the back of the Iranian people. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/8/2003 05:37:46 PM ----- BODY: YOU GOTTA LOVE RUMSFELD He doesn't back down:
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld issued uncompromising challenges to both the United Nations and NATO over Iraq today, warning that the global body risked ridicule and discredit and cautioning three of America's European partners that delaying plans to defend Turkey weakened the Atlantic alliance. . . . Mr. Rumsfeld said the United Nations, by allowing Iraq to violate 17 Security Council resolutions over more than a decade, appeared to be following the League of Nations in choosing bluff over action. Allowing Iraq to become chairman of the United Nations Commission on Disarmament and selecting Libya to lead its Commission on Human Rights showed that the institution "seems not to be even struggling to regain credibility," he said. "That these acts of irresponsibility could happen now, at this moment in history, is breathtaking," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "Those acts will be marked in the history of the U.N. as either the low point of that institution in retreat, or the turning point when the U.N. woke up, took hold of itself, and moved away from a path of ridicule to a path of responsibility." Turning to America's NATO partners, Mr. Rumsfeld was critical of France, Germany and Belgium for what he said were "inexcusable" actions to postpone alliance planning to defend Turkey in the event of war with Iraq. "Turkey will not be hurt," he said. "The United States and the countries in NATO will go right ahead and do it. What will be hurt will be NATO, not Turkey."And indeed, Rumsfeld has every reason to be angry at the French and Germans, according to a passage buried further down in the story:
The influential Der Spiegel weekly, in advance copies released today, reported that France and Germany were considering a plan to deploy thousands of United Nations peacekeepers and hundreds more weapons inspectors to prevent military conflict in Iraq. Livid American officials denounced the fact that they first heard of the possible plan from reporters. "That's not the way to have a winning hand with the United States," said a senior American official. In fact, the official said, Mr. Rumsfeld asked the German defense minister, Peter Struck, about the report, and was told, "We're not ready to talk yet." The American official indicated that the United States would not support the plan, citing the failure of United Nations forces to prevent massacres in Bosnia.Can we condemn the French and Germans for "unilateralism" in deciding to insert more peacekeepers and weapons inspectors without consulting the United States and Britain--whose military plans may be compromised by this act of obstruction? And can we condemn the French and Germans for continuing naïveté and mass stupidity while we are at it? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/8/2003 05:27:51 PM ----- BODY: LINKING TO ARTHUR SILBER, PART II In this post, Arthur argues that ideology should matter when it comes to judicial nominees, and that he would actively seek out the ideology of nominees to determine if he would be comfortable in voting for those nominees. I have to disagree. I think that the reason the judicial confirmation process is so bogged down is that too many people are paying attention to ideology. The most important aspects of a judicial nomination are (1) whether the nominee has a distinguished record in the law, (2) whether the nominee is intelligent and competent, (3) whether the nominee has shown himself/herself to be fair-minded and open to argument, and (4) whether the nominee has proven his/her sense of ethics and propriety in the practice of law. Should a President decide that he/she wants to nominate a strict constructionist, or someone who believes in a more elastic interpretation of the Constitution and the laws, that would be the President's perogative. Should a Senator decide that he/she will only vote for nominees that meet that Senator's ideology, that would be the Senator's perogative. Ideological questions cannot, of course, be fully divorced from the process. But to say that one can quiz a nominee on his/her views, and thus put the nominee in danger of prejudging cases strikes me as tremendously wrong--an activity that could potentially invite the nominee to engage in ethical impropriety by indeed prejudging cases. It would also encourage lawyers and judges to be as intellectually inactive as possible so as to ensure that they do not build a paper trail that could later be used to obstruct their professional advancement. Similarly, to filibuster or "blue-slip" a nominee merely for ideological considerations is similarly dangerous for the process. If we want to cut the Gordian knot that has become the judicial confirmation process, the issue of ideology should be lessened, not increased in importance. Otherwise, the current judicial crisis will not only continue, it will get far worse. The process will be more politicized, and the debate will become far more bitter. And no one gains by that. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/8/2003 05:16:14 PM ----- BODY: LINKING TO ARTHUR SILBER, PART I Arthur has a post up where he takes me to task for seeming to suggest that John Edwards should be condemned for having decided to hold a campaign event at the home of a Confederate party sympathizer in South Carolina. Arthur states the following:
First, as I understand it (although the story doesn't say this explicitly), Edwards is holding the meeting at a "public" facility precisely to avoid providing financial support to a hotel, for example. In this way, he seems to be abiding by the terms of the NAACP's economic boycott (at least, as those terms are set forth by the NAACP itself). And on a related point: at this point, long after the Civil War, the Aiken House has, in effect, morphed into a "general" historical landmark -- and obviously, many (if not most) of the historical landmarks in South Carolina are likely to be associated with the Confederacy. Second, and I think this is the far more important point, the location of an event is of much less significance than the ideas espoused by any given candidate. If Edwards were to attend this event -- and praise Strom Thurmond and wish that Thurmond had been elected in 1948 -- well, I think it is safe to say that would be an entirely different matter, and Edwards would cease to have the support of the NAACP or any other black organization. Consider the opposite case: if Trent Lott had attended Thurmond's birthday party, praised Thurmond for whatever personal traits he considered admirable, but had then gone on to say that it was a wonderful thing for the country that Thurmond had not been elected -- and then gone on to enunciate a program for "reaching out" to African Americans along the lines of the ideas supported by Edwards -- there never would have been an outcry against Lott of the kind that did ensue.I think that this analysis is precisely correct. I agree with every word. And it was never my point to argue that Edwards should be condemned. Rather, my point is that if a Republican had engaged in this kind of activity, he/she would have been condemned without any hesitation whatsoever. I don't think that the locale of Edwards's campaign event makes him a racist or a neo-Confederate in any way, shape or form. I have no reason whatsoever to think him a racist or neo-Confederate. But a Republican who decided to throw a campaign event at the home of a famous Confederate supporter and sympathizer would have immediately been thought a racist or neo-Confederate. Don't believe me? Consider the fact that a whole host of Democrats have given speeches at Bob Jones University, but it is only Republicans who get attacked for attending university events. Trent Lott's subtle invocation of racism was rightly condemned, but there is no similar outrage for the race-baiting tactics of people like Al Sharpton. In the wake of the controversy about Confederate flags flying over various state capitols in the South, no one thinks of confronting former South Carolina Governor (and now, Senator) Ernest "Fritz" Hollings for his decision to fly the Confederate flag when he was Governor of the Palmetto State. And finally, while Lott's remarks deserved to be condemned, so did the "white n***er" remarks of Senator Robert C. Byrd (D., W. Va.)--a former member of the Ku Klux Klan who once said that he would rather defy the Flag of the United States than obey government mandates that outlawed segregation. So while I agree with Arthur that Edwards should not be condemned, I can't help but believe that if Edwards had an "R" next to his name, he would have been condemned. As I mentioned from the beginning, I don't think this story is a big deal. Nor should it be. But the hypocrisy that surrounds stories such as this one is a big deal. And attention should at long last be paid to that hypocrisy in order to resolve it. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/8/2003 01:24:24 AM ----- BODY: A HEARTFELT PLEA Could someone tell the good folks over at FoxNews that contrary to the belief that some of their anchors occasionally (and perhaps merely accidentally) verbalize, the haj is not "the Muslim holy month." The haj is the pilgrimage to Mecca that a Muslim is obligated to make at least once in his/her lifetime. When the Muslim makes the pilgrimage, he/she is called a haji, which means--surprise!--"pilgrim." The Muslim holy month that the FoxNews folks appear to be confusing the haj with is Ramadan. There is no pilgrimage involved in Ramadan. Rather, during Ramadan, Muslims who are physically able to, fast for most of the day--getting up very early in the morning for prayers and a quick breakfast, going back to sleep, and then not eating or drinking again until the evening. This goes on for the entire month of Ramadan. If someone, anyone could tell the nice employees of Ailes and Murdoch about the distinction so I don't have to hear this screwup again on TV, I would be most grateful. Thank you. Nota Bene: I should note that Iranian Jews who make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem are also called haji. The PejmanMother and one of the PejmanSiblings has achieved this fine distinction. I hope to as well. And of course, the most famous haji in our family was Haji Yousef Khan--my great-grandfather, and the man from whom we derive our last name. I wrote about him at some length--and quite obviously with a great deal of pride as well--here. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/8/2003 12:49:33 AM ----- BODY: EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW Kevin Drum of CalPundit landed the opportunity to pick the brain of Josh Marshall--who gave his viewpoints about the future of blogging, and how blogging affects his own writing. It's a very interesting read, and one that you should check out. Indeed, despite the fact that I almost never agree with a single thing he says, I encourage people to check Kevin's blog on a regular basis. He thinks very seriously about his subjects, he presents arguments in a coherent and interesting fashion, and he takes issues seriously. One of these days, I'll get off my lazy gluteus and permalink him, along with other smart leftist bloggers who I have in mind to feature on the Alighieriesque blogroll. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/8/2003 12:33:59 AM ----- BODY: AND SPEAKING OF ATRIOS . . . I have to say that Stuart Buck's assessment is pretty much on target:
Do I read Atrios? Occasionally, but only because his site is mentioned so often elsewhere, which is a source of bafflement to me. Unlike many other liberal bloggers (e.g., Brad DeLong, Jeff Cooper, CalPundit), he never says anything intelligent or thoughtful, and indeed doesn't appear to try. His schtick is to link to some story about conservatives along with about a sentence of commentary that usually features some curse word or another. I suppose there are people who find this entertaining.There certainly are. But it is only entertaining for about five minutes, max. Then one begins to yearn for a bit more substance. And that is something that Atrios just can't seem to deliver. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/8/2003 12:30:55 AM ----- BODY: A QUESTION FOR ALL Does anyone want to start placing bets on how long it might take for bloggers like Atrios and Hesiod Theogeny [sic] to evince outrage and fury over the fact that John Edwards is having a fundraiser at the historic home of of a Confederate sympathizer? Again, it bears repeating that if a Republican had done something like this, we would never hear the end of the wailing and the fury from the Left over "neo-Confederates" and people who "sympathize with traitors." Why the double standard? Why the deafening silence when it is a Democrat who ends up using the symbols of the Confederacy for his own benefit? And when will that deafening silence finally be shattered--if it ever is? I don't know if the "whole world wonders" about this kind of question. But I certainly do. And I can't imagine that I am the only one. Anyone want to address the hypocrisy? Anyone? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/8/2003 12:26:12 AM ----- BODY: LIKE KISSING YOUR SISTER The match between Garry Kasparov and Dep Junior ended in a 3-3 tie, with Friday's game drawn after 55 moves. I suppose that Kasparov is happy not to have lost, given the fact that he was playing Black, but it appears that he may have missed on a winning chance in the game, and agreed to the draw for psychological reasons more than anything else. Many of the commentators believed that he had a chance to win the game outright. On the one hand, Kasparov must be clearly displeased over the fact that he was unable to prove man's superiority over machine. On the other hand, as the story point out, Deep Junior was better than Deep Blue, which defeated Kasparov in 1997. Perhaps this means that Kasparov's game has grown even stronger since then. And perhaps that will bode at least somewhat well for the human mind in its battles with computer chess programs. Oh, and how mad do you think I am that I missed the television coverage of the final game (scroll down for information on the coverage)? One of the few times that chess is given TV attention, and it ends up passing me by. Figures. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/7/2003 11:03:22 PM ----- BODY: THOUGHT FOR THE DAY I can't listen to that much Wagner. I start getting the urge to conquer Poland. --Woody Allen -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/7/2003 07:17:08 PM ----- BODY: JACKO IS WACKO Also sprach Damian Penny:
At the risk of widespread humiliation in the blogosphere, I'll admit it: I watched that Michael Jackson documentary. Good lord. It's like This is Spinal Tap directed by David Cronenberg and produced by Aaron Spelling. Before I saw it, I thought Michael Jackson was weird. Now, especially after seeing that young cancer survivor cuddle up to him on the couch and hearing Jacko talk about sharing a bed with the Culkin brothers, I think he's dangerous. And the masks. The masks he makes his poor children wear, wherever they go. I'm absolutely speechless.Yeah. So are the rest of us. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/7/2003 07:13:14 PM ----- BODY: HE'S NOT THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS . . . but NZ Bear wants to have a debate that is very much worth having. I think that the debate has been settled, myself. Still, it would be interesting to see the Blogosphere tackle it in some organized fashion. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/7/2003 07:09:37 PM ----- BODY: A NEW POLL . . . for your perusal and enjoyment. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/7/2003 07:04:03 PM ----- BODY: POST-COLUMBIA . . . this is the proper approach to space exploration for us to remember. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/7/2003 07:00:45 PM ----- BODY: MORE INDICATIONS . . . that war with Iraq is likely to result in an overwhelming American victory:
For Private Abass Shomail the war in Iraq ended before it had even begun. Two days ago Abass slipped away from his sentry post and started running in darkness across the muddy frontline. He stumbled past the newly dug trenches designed to protect Iraq's conscript army from American bombardment. He kept going. Eventually he found himself in a rolling landscape of green hills and pine trees, the Kurdish self-rule enclave in the north of Iraq. Abass was the first deserter from the Iraqi military to cross into Kurdistan for several months. Yesterday, in an interview with the Guardian, he gave a unique insight into the condition of the Iraqi army on the eve of an imminent and massive US attack. Though defectors are a notoriously unreliable source of intelligence, the fact that he had crossed the border into Kurdish-held territory only days earlier, together with his lowly rank and the lack of any apparent incentives to embellish his story, all point to the credibility of his account. Morale was very low, he said, both among his fellow conscripts and among civilians. "We want America to attack because of the bad situation in our country. But we don't want America to launch air strikes against Iraqi soldiers because we are forced to shoot and defend. We are also victims in this situation."There is more information in the article that bodes badly, morale-wise for the Iraqi army. Truth be told, I feel sorry for a lot of these guys. Basically, they are fighting with bayonets in their backs, when they would rather be welcoming American liberation. It must not be the best of feelings, to say the least. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/7/2003 06:56:54 PM ----- BODY: MORE ON EDWARDS AND THE CONFEDERACY As expected, the very same people who would have excoriated a Republican candidate for Edwards's plans, have no problems when a Democrat does what Edwards is planning to do:
The NAACP said the move is not likely to hurt [Edwards's] support among black voters. "What he's doing meets our guidelines," said James Gallman, president of the group's South Carolina branch, adding "I'm very pleased with the efforts he has made and the support he has given our boycott."Is there any further doubt that the NAACP is an arm of the Democratic party? Edwards should be slammed for this as any Republican no doubt would be--along with the NAACP for its blatant hypocrisy. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/7/2003 06:27:56 PM ----- BODY: THE NATIONAL POST IS ROCKIN' TODAY Steyn speaks:
There will now be war. Not just because the only reason to burn those intelligence sources is if you're planning on strolling in to those facilities openly within a few weeks. Yesterday's presentation was also for the benefit of posterity: When Saddam's skeletons come tumbling out of the post-liberation closet, it will not be possible to claim, "Quelle surprise! If only we'd known!" The French have intelligence services, too. When the Americans and British say "This is what we know," the subtext is: The French and the Russians know at least some of this stuff, too. They just don't think it matters. It won't have changed minds, and it wasn't intended to. If you're the sort of person who thinks Colin Powell has a troupe of Arabic-speaking radio actors on staff to fake audio transcripts, or who genuinely believes there's a perfectly innocent explanation for all that chit-chat about deleting all references to "nerve agents," then nothing will change your mind. There's been an interesting ratchet effect in recent weeks: The left has increasingly given up on even pro forma denunciations of Saddam -- "Of course, I want to see him gone, but ..." As Tony Benn's Monica-style interviewing technique illustrated, the old butcher's becoming a turn-on to them, another Ho, another Fidel.I guess this means that Steyn's pessimism about American action is now dissipating. First Colin Powell becomes a hawk, and now Steyn is a relative optimist regarding the state of the world. Will wonders never cease? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/7/2003 06:21:41 PM ----- BODY: THE MILITARY POINT OF VIEW An excellent and profound commentary on the crisis with Iraq. The following passage really stuck out at me:
Under the klieg lights of the hard stands -- which are huge concrete grids for staging and issueing the vehicles -- I've had the opportunity to ponder the nature of things. The work is physical, and I'm reminded how old and out of shape this retired Marine has gotten. As I compare my own plight with that of the young Americans headed off to do what needs to be done, I can't help but wish I was young again and feeling the vitality and camaraderie that are inherent to the deadly mission of combat. This is not nostalgia for war. It's nostalgia for the ranks; for the 'campfire'; for doing something important. The chatter about verification and smoking guns and coalitions are mildly annoying to me. I sense in the determined young faces that America's soldiers have no patience for the discussion. Though they might be uneasy trying to articulate it, I believe our men feel righteous indignation that anyone would challenge their purpose. This is a volunteer Army. The sons of liberal elites, and peace protesters are nowhere to be found. It is interesting that the Germans and the Canadians are lagered here, enmeshed in the high command alongside Czechs and the ever-reliable Brits. But it is America that is under attack, and we need wait for no nation's participation or approval to do what has to be done. The French, of course, are nowhere to be found.Good luck, people. And good hunting. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/7/2003 06:17:49 PM ----- BODY: IT WAS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME . . . before national security crossed the line into out-and-out pornography. I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you! -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/7/2003 06:11:14 PM ----- BODY: MORE SCHADENFREUDE Steven Den Beste is perfectly delighted with Don Rumsfeld's mischief-making ways. And I, quite frankly, find it hard not to be sympathetic myself. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/7/2003 06:07:04 PM ----- BODY: HE FISKS TOO Scott Ganz takes on a student journalist from his alma mater. His forensic victory is clear and convincing. Be sure to check it out. And if you haven't offered your congratulations, go and do so, already! -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/7/2003 05:59:22 PM ----- BODY: JOHN KERRY: JEWISH? Asparagirl has the details. [Note to self: Self, if you ever need a private detective, hire Brooke.] -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/7/2003 05:50:38 PM ----- BODY: HUZZAH! Vexatious litigation suffers a setback. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/7/2003 05:43:25 PM ----- BODY: I THOUGHT I WAS DONE WITH STATE OF THE UNION COVERAGE Then I ran across this article by Michael Barone and figured that I would bring it to your attention--along with highlighting the following passage:
George W. Bush has done it again. Attacked by his political adversaries, misunderestimated (his word, now standard English) by most in the media, scorned by supposedly sophisticated foreign leaders, and said to be plummeting in the polls, he took to the podium last week and delivered a speech that has reframed the issues and placed most Americans on his side. The difference between Bush and his predecessor is much like the difference between the quantum and wave theories of light. Bill Clinton was all wave theory, forever oscillating, forever in motion, never focusing on one fixed place, always adapting skillfully to circumstances and settings, never really changing the way we see things. Bush is all quantum theory: no motion for what seems like a long time, then a sudden pulse of energy that puts everything in a new light. We have seen him do it again and again--on Sept. 20, 2001, in his first State of the Union address, on foreign policy and the Middle East last June, at the United Nations in September, and now, again, in his second State of the Union speech last week.Well, what are you waiting for? Read on! -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/7/2003 05:39:32 PM ----- BODY: COMMENTARY ON SARBANES-OXLEY I fear that this article may be precisely right. And it's not like I didn't try to warn all y'all either. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/7/2003 05:25:23 PM ----- BODY: HAWKS VINDICATED If you do nothing else today, be sure to read Charles Moore's piece in the National Post. It is brilliant and on the money in every way. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/7/2003 05:05:09 PM ----- BODY: CHESS NEWS The United States Championships were held in Seattle from January 9-18, and were won by Pittsburgh-based grandmaster Alexander Shabalov. His game with Varuzhan Akobian is notated here, along with expert commentary from Robert Byrne. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/7/2003 04:57:30 PM ----- BODY: IRANIAN REVOLUTION WATCH Mohammad Parvin makes some excellent points about special interest groups that are obstructing freedom in Iran:
The Gary Sicks, Robin Wrights, and Hooshang Amirahmadis of the world — proponents of engagement, dialogue, and the so-called "Track II" process — are actively undermining democracy. The Islamic regime uses the statement of lobby groups such as the American Iranian Council to convince democrats and political prisoners in Iran that even the Americans are against them. White House pronouncements promising to side with the Iranian people are few and far between. Zalmay Khalilzad, the president's National Security Council point man on Iran, hardly has time to address the Iranian situation, overburdened as he is with the Afghanistan and Iraq portfolios. Meanwhile, the Islamic regime's lobby seeks to fill the policy vacuum with calls to normalize relations.It is to be hoped that the White House will soon see fit to transcend the special interest groups that are seeking only to accommodate the Iranian regime instead of replacing it. As I have said before, I imagine that a victory in Iraq over one repressive regime will further embolden Iranians to help overthrow another. The key is, however, not to lose this one particular opportunity to bring about positive change in Iran. Such an opportunity may not come about again for a very long time. And in the meantime, Iranians will continue to be repressed, and terrorism will continue to flourish as a result of the support the Islamic regime renders to it--an unacceptable outcome by any measure. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/7/2003 04:28:51 PM ----- BODY: SUBVERSION . . . It's a delightful thing. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/7/2003 03:49:15 PM ----- BODY: ALL HAIL DENNIS MILLER And may there be more like him. By the way, I think that the cancellation of the Dennis Miller Show on HBO was a cultural calamity. Any word on whether Miller will get a similar gig somewhere else? They'll have my viewership. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/7/2003 02:16:25 PM ----- BODY: MY TECH CENTRAL STATION COLUMN IS UP This week, I acknowledge the phenomenon that is Scott Ott. Incidentally, I should note that while watching FoxNews's "Special Report" last night, I heard Fred Barnes address the issue of Donald Rumsfeld's grouping of Germany with Libya and Cuba as nations that are going to be of no help whatsoever to the United States regarding military action in Iraq. Barnes denounced Germany as being "part of the 'Axis of Weasel'" on the show. Ott struck again! -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/7/2003 02:07:13 PM ----- BODY: OUR HERO GETS FAN MAIL, PART II Dave Roberts writes the following:
If Bush could write half as well as you, I'd be a lot happier about his tenure in office. Your dismantling of Alterman was crisp and eloquent, but Bush is still a disappointingly foolish meddler. Nobody takes his economic plans seriously. Nobody thinks he has a firm grip on the situation in North Korea. His environmental policies, excluding Kyoto, are regrettably retrograde in acknowledging broadly accepted scientific thought, and his views on stem cell research will delay effective treatments for millions of people. I happen to think he's right on Iraq's long term threat so I'm happy to be a booster for his plans there, but in so much else he really is a silly cowboy. I would seriously much rather have you in his office. I'd at least have the feeling that a chess-level mind was at work. Unlike Tora Bora. Unlike North Korea. Unlike tax policy. Pejman for Pres-man.Well, it's always nice to receive mail that appeals to my intellectual vanity and lust for power. However, I do have some comments: First of all, I don't think that the mark of an effective leader is solely determined on communication skills. They certainly are important, but they are not the whole package. I don't know how well Bush "writes" since I haven't seen any memos that he has written, but if we are talking about speaking skills, I'm not terribly concerned about the occasional mangling of the English language. I much prefer the implementation of policies that I believe in, and that I think will help the nation, and by extension, the world. And here, given that Bush shares my political philosophy, I am fairly well-satisfied. Besides, while Bush may not be eloquent, he certainly has a capacity to utter memorable phrases, like "Axis of Evil," like his consignment of Islamofascism to "the graveyard of discarded lies," and other such statements. Clinton was certainly more eloquent and silver-tongued than Bush will ever be, but he is not exactly known for any famous or memorable phrases during his term in office. Communicative ability should be measured in terms of issuing memorable phrases, as well as in terms of actual speaking ability. Secondly, there are plenty of people who believe that ending the double-taxation of dividends is a "serious" economic policy--if only because it will cease penalizing companies for saving money, and will cease rewarding them for taking out debt-financing. Additionally, I think it is a rather serious proposal to demand that people be able to keep more of their money at all income levels. I happen to believe that I can do a better job managing my money than can the federal government, and the Administration's tax policy is happily based on that assumption. It was a mistake to backload all of the tax cuts passed in 2001. It is good to see that the Administration is seeking to undo that mistake, and instead accelerating tax relief across the board. Ultimately, that will stimulate the economy, bring in more revenue, and help on the fiscal side of the equation as well. As for North Korea, that situation fell into Bush's lap as a result of the Clinton Administration's desire to "kick the can" down the road and delay dealing with the problem that North Korea posed. Everyone knows by now that North Korea began violating the 1994 Agreed Framework that was negotiated between Kim Il Sung and former President Jimmy Carter (and approved by the Clinton Administration) almost immediately after that framework was finalized. Now, the Bush Administration faces a situation where North Korea may already have one or two nuclear weapons, and has a massive amount of artillery fixed on Seoul. I believe that the problem must be dealt with, but let us not forget that the problem began long before President Bush took office, and metastasized to the current situation under the watch of a different administration. Right now, the Bush Administration is doing the only thing that it can do--refusing to be blackmailed, and seeking further diplomatic and economic isolation for North Korea. For all of the complaints about Administration policy, I have yet to hear a better plan. Certainly, no one is suggesting war against a nation which potentially has nuclear weapons (although the Administration should rule nothing off the table), and no one seriously thinks that we should give in to yet another round of North Korean demands--only to be blackmailed anew in the future. On environmental policy, I only wish that some of the statist and regressive policies implemented by the previous Administration would have been reversed. But truth be told, there has not been much change in environmental policy since the advent of the Bush Administration (with the exception of the Administration's decision not to ratify Kyoto, as Dave points out and supports). And with regard to stem cell research, I think that it is important to note that there is a fair and respectable position to be taken that is skeptical of the drive to use embryonic stem cells--particularly when adult stem cells could likely perform the same medical miracles without the side effect of tissue rejection that comes around when a foreign organ is inserted into the human body. Indeed, I am disappointed that the Administration has not emphasized the potential of adult stem cells enough, and it would be good to see the President, the Vice President, or HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson discuss this matter in detail in speeches, and in press releases. The "cowboy" stuff can rather easily be dispensed with, in my view, especially considering the fact that Bush is actually enjoying success in rounding up an international coalition to take on Saddam--something I have been noting on my blog throughout the week, and something I noted in my discussion of Alterman's latest Nation piece. And as for Tora Bora--take that argument up with Tommy Franks. He was the one who drew up the specific tactics regarding the attack on Tora Bora. The President--who does not wish to micromanage the war--had nothing to do with drafting and implementing those tactics. Besides, it does appear that Osama bin Laden is dead--we certainly have not heard anything verifiable from him recently--and overall, the Afghan operation was an overwhelming and stunning success. All of that said, I do appreciate Dave's e-mail. And should "Yousefzadeh for President" ever come about, I will be sure to hit him up for a campaign contribution. You take your friends where you can find them. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/7/2003 01:37:42 PM ----- BODY: OUR HERO GETS FAN MAIL, PART I Reader "T. Dahlgren" sends the following about my discussion of Eric Alterman's Nation piece:
That statement by Robert Toscano reminded me of nothing more than a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon that went something like this. C: "Hobbes, do you believe our morality is defined by our actions or what's in our hearts?" H: "I believe our actions show what's in our hearts." C: "I resent that." Nuff said.Yup. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/7/2003 01:24:53 PM ----- BODY: CONSIDERING THE FACT . . . that the Mongol Empire ransacked and ravaged ancient Persia, and that the Mongol bloodline was intermixed with the Persian one, I would not be surprised if this story didn't have at least some bearing on the genetic makeup of Persian men. Does this mean that I could also be a lover and fighter of epic proportions? Perhaps. Lord knows, I have aspirations to establish and raise up the Glorious Pejmanesque Empire for all to behold and genuflect towards. But I will try to be somewhat more civilized than Temujin was. After all, we Persians have standards to uphold. And charm is a weapon too, is it not? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/7/2003 01:14:55 PM ----- BODY: NOW THIS . . . is a political movement I can support wholeheartedly. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/7/2003 01:10:12 PM ----- BODY: EXCEEDINGLY GOOD NEWS The U.S. unemployment rate dropped three-tenths of a percentage point. Hopefully, the good news will continue. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/7/2003 01:07:51 PM ----- BODY: I DEMAND . . . that the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights investigate this outrage:
Vice-President Al Gore may have won the 2000 New Hampshire primary — and subsequent primaries, which fed on the New Hampshire–generated momentum — thanks to a traffic jam. At least that’s what many Democratic operatives with experience in New Hampshire seem to think. Today, when people look back at the 2000 Democratic-primary season, the prevailing memory is of Gore trouncing former New Jersey senator Bill Bradley. But he beat Bradley in New Hampshire by just four points, a relatively narrow margin of 6395 votes. The bulk of these votes — more than 3000 — came from Hillsborough County, home to Nashua and Manchester, as well as abutting suburbs like Bedford, Goffstown, and Merrimack. This is a small, relatively compact area where political foot soldiers can provide the margin of victory. And, many believe, during the last New Hampshire primary, they did. As late as 3 p.m. that day, Gore operatives had access to exit polls showing the vice-president being defeated by Bradley. They also learned that while Democratic voters were voting in large numbers for Gore, independents, many of them upscale suburban voters, were voting for Bradley’s sophisticated brand of liberalism. Knowing that Bradley’s strength came from tony tech havens such as Bedford, the Gore team organized a caravan to clog highway I-93 with traffic so as to discourage potential Bradley voters from getting to the polls. (Michael Whouley, a chief Gore strategist, recounted the Gore team’s Election Day field efforts at a Harvard Kennedy School Institute of Politics symposium, and his comments are included in a book compiled by the Institute titled Campaign for President: The Managers Look at 2000. He knocked down the rumor that they considered overturning an 18-wheeler to clog up traffic.) The caravan — spoken of with awe by operatives who worked on the campaign — had the desired effect. It was harder for Bradley voters to get the polls.Does this mean that Al Gore was "selected, not elected" as the Democratic nominee for President? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/7/2003 01:01:18 PM ----- BODY: WILL THE FRENCH COME AROUND? Perhaps:
With a swerve in language that acknowledges the possibility of the use force in Iraq and emphasizes Feb. 14 as a due-date for Iraqi compliance with disarmament requirements, France seems to be recalibrating its position on steps that could lead to a war. Much of the French official comment opposing a conflict remained the same after Secretary of State Colin Powell’s statement Wednesday before the UN Security Council that the United States believed it had all the proof it needed to justify a strike against Iraq. The French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, even called Powell’s appearance a demonstration of ‘‘suspicions’’ rather than one of evidence. But after weeks of seeking to project France and Germany as being on what President Jacques Chirac called an ‘‘identical’’ anti-war wavelength, de Villepin returned late Wednesday and again Thursday to a kind of language France had abandoned. After disappearing for weeks, France was again saying war was an alternative.Are we multilateralists yet? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/7/2003 12:59:15 PM ----- BODY: HUH? Of all the complaints about the police that I have come across, this one is the most utterly bizarre yet:
Protesters settled in front of Democratic U.S. Sen. John Edwards' Raleigh office Tuesday awaiting arrest for their efforts to make a statement that the senator has not gone far enough to oppose war with Iraq. But despite the fact that protesters were breaking the law by blocking an entrance into a government building, the police on site chose not to intervene. Three participating UNC students, Anna Carson-Dewitt and Sascha Bollag, both freshmen, and senior Scott O'Day, said they were disappointed when the police refused to arrest them. All three have prior arrests for civil disobedience. O'Day said the police response undermined the protest. "I am disappointed that the police de-escalated the situation to the point that we were not able to continue with the protest," he said. "We were more or less sure that we would be arrested, but the police weren't cooperating."So the police are to be condemned for having "de-escalated the situation" and brought the confrontation to a peaceful resolution? Does that mean that the protestors wanted to have violence for violence's sake? I don't get it. Does anyone else? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/7/2003 12:52:05 PM ----- BODY: MEMO TO SADDAM HUSSEIN: You can't claim on the one hand that you have no weapons of mass destruction, and then at the same time order your troops to use them. Somehow, that just does not make sense. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/7/2003 12:39:01 PM ----- BODY: SECRET SERVICE? WHAT SECRET SERVICE? This is both embarrassing and frightening at the same time. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/7/2003 12:36:50 PM ----- BODY: QUESTION: The estimable Zionblogger e-mailed me today to inform me that he believes that David Brooks mentioned me in a recent article in The Atlantic Monthly. I Googled myself (that really sounds dirty) and checked The Atlantic's website, but could find nothing. Anyone know what is going on? Please either Muse or send me an e-mail. Thanks. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/7/2003 12:31:52 PM ----- BODY: NO REST FOR THE VIGILANT I guess that this story should come as no surprise whatsoever. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/7/2003 12:30:34 PM ----- BODY: WHAT'S GOOD FOR THE GOOSE . . . Some weeks ago, a firestorm developed over whether the Bush Administration had resuscitated the practice of sending a wreath to the Confederate Memorial at Arlington National Cemetery. Liberals like Atrios jumped all over the controversy, and insinuated that it revealed the Administration's racist and Confederate sympathies. Now we have this:
Presidential hopeful Sen. John Edwards [D-NC] is preparing to throw caution to the wind in confederate flag-sensitive South Carolina this weekend when he celebrates his White House ambition with a political gathering at the house of a Confederate hero, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal! MORE Edwards has quietly set a Saturday afternoon meet 'n greet at the William Aiken House in Charleston, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. The controversial meeting at the Aiken House, sponsored by the South Carolina Democratic Leadership Council, comes as the NAACP continues its call for an economic boycott of South Carolina to protest the flying of the Confederate battle flag on the State House grounds. South Carolina is the first Southern primary in which African-Americans are expected to make up half of the voters. Aiken, once the South's largest slaveholder [he owned a rice plantation on Jehossee Island worked by more than 700 slaves], supported the Confederate cause by donating supplies and large bond subscriptions. Aiken turned his house over to Confederate Brigadier General Beauregard for use as a temporary headquarters during the Union shelling of lower Charleston.If this story is true, will there be any condemnation or controversy surrounding Edwards like that which surrounded Trent Lott? The whole world wonders. I personally don't think that the story is a big deal, but if you are going to condemn Republican associations with the Confederacy, shouldn't you condemn Democratic associations as well? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/7/2003 12:26:06 PM ----- BODY: THE JOYS OF AN INSTALANCHE Over 2000 pageviews in the morning alone. Much obliged, Professor. As for all the Instapundit readers, welcome and salutations. Hope you stick around for a while and that you will come back for the content. And there is a tip jar to the left that I haven't mentioned in a while. If you wish to show your appreciation in a monetary fashion, I will try my level best not to object too vociferously. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/6/2003 11:44:03 PM ----- BODY: THOUGHT FOR THE DAY I'm going to memorize your name and throw my head away. --Oscar Levant -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/6/2003 10:22:04 PM ----- BODY: AND MSNBC PAYS HIM HOW MUCH? Eric Alterman has written a piece for The Nation that is designed to show that while Europeans may be anti-Bush, they are not necessarily anti-American in their attitudes. The piece is rather long, and I am not going to take the time to Fisk every single paragraph (even I wish to have a life outside of blogging). But some of the assertions in this piece cry out to be rebutted, and . . . well . . . I guess I have volunteered for the task. As with so many Alterman pieces, this one starts out with Eric playing his accustomed role as High Priest of the Universal Springsteen Church:
Twenty-four hours or so after landing in Paris for a five-city tour in search of the new European anti-Americanism, I found myself in one of the coolest places on the planet: a big old ugly hockey arena on the outskirts of town, surrounded by 15,000 people waiting for Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band to come onstage. The concert turned out to be a pretty standard Springsteen concert. But it's always interesting to see him play abroad, and Paris enjoys a special place in Springsteen lore. It was here, back in 1980, that Bruce first talked politics with his fans. Largely self-educated, Springsteen had been given a copy of Allan Nevins and Henry Steele Commager's A Short History of the United States. He read it and told the crowd that America "held out a promise and it was a promise that gets broken every day in the most violent way. But it's a promise that never, ever dies, and it's always inside of you." You can tell a lot about a continent by the way it reacts to Bruce Springsteen. Tonight, at the Bercy Stadium, the typically multigenerational, sold-out Springsteen audience could be from Anytown, USA. Everybody knows all the lyrics, even to the new songs. Toward the end of the evening, Bruce announces, in French, "I wrote this song about the Vietnam War. I want to do it for you tonight for peace," and 15,000 Parisians, standing in the historic home of cultural anti-Americanism, scream out at the top of their collective lungs, "I was born in the USA," fists in the air. You can't be anti-American if you love Bruce Springsteen. You can criticize America. You can march against America's actions in the world. You can take issue with the policies of its unelected, unusually aggressive and unthinking Administration, and you can even get annoyed with its ubiquitous cultural and commercial presence in your life. But you can't be anti-American. George W. Bush is "like a cartoon stereotype" representing "the worst side of the US culture," Jordi Beleta, 45, told Phil Kuntz of the Wall Street Journal, outside Barcelona's Palau Sant Jordi two nights after Paris. "Bruce is real. He's a street man." A Reuters reporter found a similar story in Berlin: "America can keep Bush but Springsteen can come back here as often as he wants," said Rumen Milkov, 36.Sometime ago, Alterman wrote a bedwetting rant assailing Andrew Sullivan for burdening poor Eric with stories of food poisoning, seeing Tina Brown, and the overflowing of Sullivan's toilet (I Fisked Alterman's rant here). Now, apparently out of a desire for vengeance, Alterman is burdening the rest of us for the umpteenth time with yet another rendition of his "I Love Bruce Springsteen" spiel. I suppose that I shouldn't get too worked up about Alterman paying homage to Springsteen. After all, that is totally predictable on his part--that, and the "Slacker Fridays" that appear on a constant basis on his blog (I guess in the Altermanesque week, every day is Friday). And besides, Heaven knows that I have my own personal likes that I pay homage to from time to time on this here blog. I'm sure that people are now well aware of my love for chess, the delight I take in classical music, and my fervent hope that someday, the Chicago Bears will rule the football world with an iron fist. Still, I've never written anything like this: You can't be anti-American if you love Garry Kasparov. You can criticize America. You can march against America's actions in the world. You can take issue with the policies of its unelected, unusually aggressive and unthinking Administration, and you can even get annoyed with its ubiquitous cultural and commercial presence in your life. But you can't be anti-American. Bill Clinton is "like a cartoon stereotype" representing "the worst side of the US culture," Jordi Beleta, 45, told Phil Kuntz of the Wall Street Journal, outside Barcelona's Palau Sant Jordi two nights after Paris. "Garry is real. He's a street man." A Reuters reporter found a similar story in Berlin: "America can keep Clinton but Kasparov can come back here as often as he wants," said Rumen Milkov, 36. Or this: You can't be anti-American if you love Johann Sebastian Bach. You can criticize America. You can march against America's actions in the world. You can take issue with the policies of its unelected, unusually aggressive and unthinking Administration, and you can even get annoyed with its ubiquitous cultural and commercial presence in your life. But you can't be anti-American. Bill Clinton is "like a cartoon stereotype" representing "the worst side of the US culture," Jordi Beleta, 45, told Phil Kuntz of the Wall Street Journal, outside Barcelona's Palau Sant Jordi two nights after Paris. "Johann is real. He's a street man." A Reuters reporter found a similar story in Berlin: "America can keep Clinton but Bach can come back here as often as he wants," said Rumen Milkov, 36. Or this: You can't be anti-American if you love George Halas. You can criticize America. You can march against America's actions in the world. You can take issue with the policies of its unelected, unusually aggressive and unthinking Administration, and you can even get annoyed with its ubiquitous cultural and commercial presence in your life. But you can't be anti-American. Bill Clinton is "like a cartoon stereotype" representing "the worst side of the US culture," Jordi Beleta, 45, told Phil Kuntz of the Wall Street Journal, outside Barcelona's Palau Sant Jordi two nights after Paris. "Papa Bear is real. He's a street man." A Reuters reporter found a similar story in Berlin: "America can keep Clinton but Papa Bear can come back here as often as he wants," said Rumen Milkov, 36. And there is a reason why I have never written such things: Because Alterman's passage, and my perversions of them are prime examples of the logical fallacy of begging the question. Alterman assures us that people who love Springsteen can't be anti-American, without explaining why that would be the case. He just assumes that it is so. It is silly, it is illogical, and it is an argument so fallacious that one could drive a Humvee through the holes in it. And it is important to point this out, because Alterman sets up Springsteen as the über--American to help prove his point that while Europeans are anti-Bush, they are not anti-American because they love Springsteen. Right away, Alterman's argument is off to a manifestly poor start. Alterman then goes on to define "anti-Americanism":
To be genuinely anti-American, as the Italian political scientist Robert Toscano points out, is to disapprove of the United States "for what it is, rather than what it does." Bush Administration officials and their supporters in the media would like to confuse this point in order to dismiss or delegitimize widespread concern and anger about the course of US foreign policy. To listen to their words, Europe has become a smoldering caldron of anti-Americanism, in which even our best qualities are held against us by a jealous, frustrated and xenophobic population led by cowardly, pacifistic politicians. The picture painted in the US media is one of almost relentless resentment.Toscano's definition, which Alterman adopts, is absurd. What exactly is the difference between hating something "for what it is" rather than "for what it does"? And additionally, if we take this definition and expand it, would we not conclude that the Europeans are not really "anti-Bush"? After all, they don't hate him for who he is (in other words, they don't hate him for his mere existence). Rather, they hate him for what he does (he is unilateralist, he is a cowboy, he refuses to sign the Kyoto Treaty, etc.). Of course, Alterman never makes the distinction between hating Bush for who he is, and hating him for what he does. It is enough that he found someone who hates Bush in the first place. Distinctions be damned in that event, eh? Alterman then goes on to cite numerous instances of European denigration directed towards President Bush, including the following paragraph:
Even such famously pro-American voices as Chris Patten, the much-admired conservative former governor of Hong Kong--now EU Commissioner for External Relations--have taken to complaining about the Bush Administration's launch into "unilateralist overdrive," with its "absolutist" approach to world affairs. These views, moreover, are mirrored almost perfectly by those of Frankfurt University philosopher Jürgen Habermas, the titanic figure of the European democratic (and pro-American) left, who warns, "Many Americans do not yet realize the extent and the character of the growing rejection of, if not resentment against, the policy of the present American Administration throughout Europe, including in Great Britain. The emotional gap may well become deeper than it has ever been since the end of World War II."It is, of course, tremendously funny to hear that Chris Patten is "famously pro-American." But as long as we are quoting Patten, let us also consider the quote that was recorded by Frits Bolkestein, where Patten remarks that "There is a tendency on this side of the ocean of condescension masquerading as sophistication." Patten should know, as the quote that Alterman provides demonstrates that he has mastered the art of taking condescension and dressing it up as sophistication. And not only does Patten, by his own example, help make the point that the Europeans are more condescending than sophisticated, Alterman helps do it for him. Neat trick there. Not to worry, Alterman assures us. Further down in the article he once again tries to allay our fears with his argument that the Europeans really like us, they just hate our President:
It should go without saying that such critical views of US political behavior hardly constitute "anti-Americanism." And perhaps I'm a lousy reporter, but aside from the odd bit of graffiti, I couldn't find much evidence of this allegedly new strain of anti-Americanism anywhere. You could even argue that Europeans demonstrate better taste in American culture than Americans do. Everywhere I went--Paris, Madrid, Barcelona, Rome, Berlin--I found a surprising embrace of things American. The schedule for the jazz festival I just missed in Madrid would shame any American city save New York. It's not just Springsteen shooting to number one in eleven separate countries. Woody Allen, Michael Moore and Steven Spielberg rule the cinema advertisements. Tony Soprano and Carrie Bradshaw are the talk at office water coolers. Jonathan Franzen, Jonathan Safran Foer and Colson Whitehead burn up the bestseller lists. I spied a copy of Michael Dobbs's already-forgotten biography of Madeleine Albright in the window of a Barcelona bookstore, next to Philip Roth's The Human Stain and Joseph Stiglitz's attack on the World Bank and the IMF. Just try finding it on Fifth Avenue.Where to begin? Well, first of all, someone should explain to Alterman that merely because Europeans are frequenting American film showings and jazz clubs, and merely because there are some American books available in European stores, that does not necessarily make the Europeans "pro-American." American entertainment is pre-eminent throughout the world, and in many cases, it is the only game in town. Of course it is going to receive attention from the Europeans. Hollywood and Broadway are powerhouses--it is virtually impossible to escape their influence. Jazz is worldwide--you can't quite run and hide from it. But merely because America has established something of a semi-monopoly on the entertainment scale, does not mean that people are frequenting jazz clubs and American movies because they are "pro-American." When Willie Sutton was asked why he robbed banks, he responded "That's where the money is." When Europeans are asked why they listen to American music, and watch American movies, they are likely to answer "That's where the vast sources of our entertainment are, whether we like it or not. Paris and Madrid can't compete with Tinseltown." But many Europeans don't like that fact. Long before George W. Bush arrived on the scene, French Minister Jean-Pierre Chevenement argued that the United States was committed to "the organized cretinization of our people." Long before George W. Bush became President, fugitive Ira Einhorn became a hero in France because of the way in which he insulted and denigrated the United States. And the list can go on. Alterman may be relieved by the packed houses he finds at jazz clubs and movie theaters. But there is a vibrant and visible culture of anti-Americanism that exists in Europe, and all the jazz and movies in the world cannot wish it away. From the peaks of illogic, Alterman then descends into the depths of incoherence:
It is not that there is no anti-Americanism at all in Europe. Virtually every European nation can point to some tradition of anti-Americanism in almost every aspect of its political and cultural life. More recently, though, leftist anti-Americanism, initially associated with powerful Marxist parties and, later, with opposition to the Vietnam War, has all but disappeared, with the partial and complicated exception of the antiglobalization movement. Anti-Bushism, yes. There's plenty of that. Europe is a continent whose political center of gravity remains almost as far to the left of center as America's is to the right. The current German government governs from Wellstone/Feingold country. Even most of the conservative parties in Europe are to the left of the Democrats in this country. Cultural issues also divide; the negative reaction to Bush in Europe feels quite visceral. It's not as if Europeans can't stand the idea of a conservative Republican President. To a surprising degree, they warmed to Ronald Reagan, as Alain Frachon, who writes about foreign affairs on the editorial page of Le Monde, explains. "When Reagan was President, we never had the impression he was motivated by fundamentalism. He was divorced. He had worked in Hollywood. But this George Bush is totally foreign to us. He quotes the Bible every two or three sentences. He is surrounded by Christian fundamentalists. He says he has no problem sleeping after sending someone to death. There was a dose of charm, humor, of Hollywood to Reagan. But not to Bush. It's another world and one we find extraordinarily hypocritical. No one told us that the Republicans had moved this far to the right."First of all, what is so "complicated" about the anti-globalization movement? It had its real heyday during the Clinton Administration--nowadays, an anti-globalization rally is as remarkable as a sunny day in southern California. And anti-globalization rallies were clearly anti-American. The United States, as the world's only superpower, and as the strongest economic power in the world received the overwhelming portion of criticism and calumny from anti-globalization protestors. Alterman never even tries to explain why this should not be considered "anti-Americanism." And you really have to love the second paragraph. Alterman must really despise Bush, as he even embraces Ronald Reagan to try to slam the current President. The quote he pulls from from Frachon is disingenuous in the extreme. Reagan was not considered as being "motivated by fundamentalism"? Come on. I remember the 1980s well enough to know that critics of Reagan--including Europeans--accused him of fundamentalism all the time--from establishing political alliances with the Moral Majority, to demanding prayer in schools, to arguing for an end to abortion, to denouncing the Soviet Union as an "evil empire" and consigning it to the "ash heap of history"--all of these Reaganesque arguments were cited as evidence of the 40th President's supposed "fundamentalism." And now we are supposed to believe that the Europeans never really thought that Reagan was a fundamentalist because ""he was divorced" and "he had worked in Hollywood"? The insincerity of this argument, the crass convenience of it, the utter disconnect it has with the actual history of criticisms of the Reagan Administration are so overwhelming, that I wonder if Alterman actually wrote that passage with a straight face. You would think that the assertions could not get more laughable. Alas, you would be wrong. Get a load of the following:
Things were quite different under Bill Clinton. As Serge Halimi, the leftist editor of Le Monde diplomatique, the publication that is frequently accused of being the intellectual home of the anti-American worldview, argues, "The hostility to US policy would be lessened with Clinton in the White House, even assuming that these policies were exactly the same as Bush's. Clinton's 'I feel your pain' worked well in the international arena too, much better in any case than Bush's 'I don't give a damn what you think.' I assume people prefer to be lied to than they do being overtly despised." Susan Neiman, an American who heads the Einstein Forum in Potsdam and has lived there on and off for twenty years, also draws a distinction between the European reactions to Clinton and Bush. "American leftists don't appreciate what Clinton did," she says. "He was the thinking person's American Dream. Alive, unpretentious, he played the sax. For seven years in Europe, it was suddenly unbelievably cool to be American. Bush, on the other hand, is the American nightmare: a spoiled frat boy who doesn't know or care about the rest of the world."In any argument between Americans and Europeans, each side cherishes a certain image it may have about itself. We Americans cherish our image as the superpower, the moral and righteous nation that does what is good and right, and does not bother itself with over-intellectualizing issues to the point of "analysis-paralysis." Europeans, on the other hand, view themselves as smart, subtle, sophisticated and savvy. They supposedly take a nuanced view of the world--a view that can only be attained by those who are clever and cunning, those whose long and prodigious experience makes them more worldly and wiser than their contemporaries. Well, apparently the Europeans ought to rethink their self-image, and replace all of the above adjectives they feel apply to them with adjectives like "superficial" and "simplistic." If the European viewpoint on Bill Clinton really is as Alterman reports it, then contrary to the European self-image as a continent of sophisticates, they are, in fact, some of the most naïve and pliable people around. Imagine the lack of self-respect, the utter dearth of savvy one must contain to actually admit that one would prefer being flattered and lied to by Clinton, then told the painful truth by Bush. A flattering lie may feel good for a moment. But it is still a lie. The truth may hurt. But at least one is being given the respect of being dealt with honestly. And one would think that the Europeans, who pride themselves on their sophistication and maturity, would appreciate the difference between a lie and the truth, that they would respect the latter and damn the former. Alas not. Our friends across the Atlantic are not as sophisticated as they would like to think. Indeed, their superficiality is evident in their explanation for why the Europeans liked Clinton. He played the sax! Oooh, how special! I stopped taking piano lessons about seven years ago, but I'm sure that I can tickle the ivories anew if I just apply myself. Will the Europeans like President Pejman Yousefzadeh if I play them a few Scott Joplin rags? How 'bout Chopin? I used to play a mean Chopin! And do the Europeans like chess? Because President Yousefzadeh could show off and be "the thinking person's American Dream" by playing the thinking person's game, no? I'm certainly "alive" and some people even think I'm "unpretentious." Will a Yousefzadeh Administration therefore get the French and Germans on board for a war with Iraq? Will I get Eric Alterman's vote in the general election if I campaign on a platform that promises a newfound friendship with Europe based on Joplin, Chopin, the Royal Game, the maintenance of a pulse, and the perceived (by some) lack of pretension? Well, I would like to think so--then I could form the exploratory committee posthaste. But it is far more likely that Alterman's analysis is stretched beyond any boundaries of credibility--so desperate is he to label any and all America-bashing as "Bush-bashing." And as such, we just can't take it seriously. Better put off that Presidential run for now. After Alterman again tries to explain away globalization and downgrade its importance (while hyping the supposedly positive attitudes that Europeans have towards Starbucks, McDonald's, et al.,) we then get this:
Even though the alleged outbreak of a new anti-Americanism turns out to be a kind of journalistic mirage, the differences in the worldviews of European and US elites could still create enough friction to cause an explosion. The globalization of economic, environmental and security issues is making it more and more difficult for Europe to defend its welfare state against US efforts to impose its model on the rest of the democratic world. In its enormously controversial National Security Strategy, the Bush Administration proclaimed that the United States stood for "a single sustainable model for national success: freedom, democracy and free enterprise." In other words: World, it's our way or the highway.First of all, I don't know how Alterman gets "World, it's our way or the highway" from "the United States stood for 'a single sustainable model for national success: freedom, democracy and free enterprise.'" Is Alterman suggesting that those are singularly American traits? It seems to me that the National Security Strategy paper that Alterman quotes celebrates the ideas of "freedom, democracy and free enterprise" in and of themselves, without ascribing those values to particular nation-states. But forget that. Concentrate instead on the following snippet from the paragraph I just quoted. Alterman says that "The globalization of economic, environmental and security issues is making it more and more difficult for Europe to defend its welfare state against US efforts to impose its model on the rest of the democratic world." Really? So globalization is "making it more and more difficult" for the Europeans to defend their conception of the welfare state? But Eric, I thought that you said the following about globalization in the immediately preceding paragraphs:
In Germany, US-led globalization is barely an issue at all, despite the power and influence of the Greens. As one Bundestag staff member explained to me, "We do not even consider McDonald's, Starbucks or these Hollywood studios to be American anymore. They are world companies that are bigger than any nation." What's more, the Germans could not be more different from the French in their discomfort with the notion of preserving their "culture." Given the catastrophe of the Nazi period, one observer notes, "We don't think German culture is something that needs to be preserved from outside influence." Liberal and leftist Spanish intellectuals seem to have an attitude of understanding of, if not admiration for, American capitalism. When I met Pedro Sorela, a novelist and frequent contributor to the liberal Spanish literary/political journal Letras Libres, in a fancy hotel bar in Madrid that is abutted on one side by a Starbucks and on the other by Planet Hollywood, he spoke rather ruefully of America's so-called masters of the universe as "bastards, but bastards who have to support their investments. Myself, I admire the United States. I don't want to marry the United States--I would like to see other films and other TV shows. Still, it's a very effective foreign-affairs policy. I like Julia Roberts and Mel Gibson."(Emphasis mine) First Alterman says that globalization is not an issue. Then he says that it is such a serious issue that it is complicating European efforts to preserve the European welfare state. Just curious: Which is it? And sadly, we are not done:
. . . The Bush Administration was able to thumb its collective nose at Europe (and most of the world) regarding Kyoto, the ICC, the ABM and CBW conventions, etc., and it paid no domestic price whatsoever, despite the fact that most of these treaties and agreements enjoyed either majority or plurality support at home. The sad fact is that most Americans do not care enough about foreign policy to make their views matter to elites, and elites are more than happy to keep it that way. They may care more about global warming, international cooperation and multilateral intervention than Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Perle, but they don't vote on the issue. Hence, their concerns don't, in any material sense, really matter.Note to Alterman: The refusal to ratify the Kyoto Treaty was not designed to "thumb" the Bush Administration's "nose" at Europe. It was designed to prevent the United States from signing on to bad environmental policy. Not everything can be reduced to a "USA v. Europe" struggle. Additionally, it was under the sax-playing, alive, and unpretentious Clinton Administration that the United States Senate passed a resolution 95-0 (a vote count which included some live, unpretentious, and potentially sax-playing Senators of Clinton's own party) stating that it would approve no treaty that did not have developing countries reducing their own carbon emissions. And as for the ABM treaty and its abrogation, Alterman cares about that much more than the other party to the treaty, Russia, whose President, Vladimir Putin, essentially shrugged off America's abrogation of the treaty (an abrogation that was allowed by the terms of the treaty--which demanded six month's notice for withdrawal, and which didn't even involve the Europeans as parties to the treaty in the first place). This horse is dead, Eric. Move on.
Alessandro Martelli, a professor of American literature at the University of Rome, told me that in the wake of 9/11 many Europeans yearned to see Americans develop some empathy for the suffering of the rest of the world as a result of their own tragic experience. "You can hear this in The Rising," explains Martelli, who is one of Italy's resident Springsteen experts, "as Bruce looks beyond the boundaries of the United States with moral courage and intelligence. But instead of Bruce we have Bush. And the dominant rhetoric has been of the exceptionalism of American sorrow."Back to Springsteen, eh? One wishes Eric stuck with the treaties and their abrogation after all. Well, it doesn't take much of a stretch of memory to realize that the United States is just about always first with offers of aid and assistance whenever any country suffers--whether that suffering comes at the hands of nature, or due to the malevolence of mankind. But perhaps both Alterman and Professor Martelli will excuse Americans if they strike him as being a little wrapped up with "the exceptionalism of American sorrow." For I suspect that if 3000 Italians died in one single day thanks to a terrorist attack, we would hear a great deal about "the exceptionalism of Italian sorrow." And understandably as well, unless another nation suffered a similar attack on a similar scale--in which case, the sorrow would no longer be "exceptional." Alterman then goes on at some lengthe to basically argue that the United States is being--surprise!--unilateralist in its approach to global affairs. To which I respond: Consider this. And this. And this. And this. And this. Now tell me that we are being unilateralists. In the end, Alterman's thesis is laid bare as contradictory in its claims, specious in its logic, and superficial in its preferences. Much like his portrayal of modern Europe. One can't help but take some pity on a writer whose utter hatred and rage at the Bush Administration is so pronounced and so fervent that he would write such meandering and nonsensical drivel. Then again, maybe someone should take pity on Alterman's readers. After all, if Bush gets re-elected, we'll probably be treated to more such ill-constructed diatribes. Over at Alterman's blog, he has as his tagline, Monty Python's famous query "Is this the right room for an argument?" Very snappy. Very clever. Very hip and with-it. Unfortunately, the proper answer to Alterman's Pythonesque question must resemble the one given by Graham Chapman in the "Argument Clinic" sketch: "No. I'm sorry, this is abuse." Quite so. Indeed, Alterman appears to be capable only of abuse, not argument. And it isn't even well-executed abuse either. More's the pity. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/6/2003 07:13:18 PM ----- BODY: PILLORYING HILLARY Hillary Clinton expressed her displeasure with the Bush Administration's work on homeland security. Mickey Kaus expresses displeasure with Hillary (the piece is titled "Hillary-Skipper"--will no one introduce Kaus to the magic that is a permalink?):
Sen. Clinton's criticism of Bush's homeland security department isn't that it's too big to work, or that it doesn't include the FBI, or that it does include a whole bunch of employees who, judging from their pre-9/11 performance, need to be fired, or that Tom Ridge isn't on the ball and things aren't getting done -- all of which might be valid arguments. Her entire criticism is that Bush hasn't dribbled enough pork-barrel block grants to "our cities and towns." Bush is proposing to spend $36.2 billion for h------d security (sorry, I can't bring myself to type that word again) -- a more-than-seven percent increase -- but Clinton attacks him for not also backing a Byrd amendment to spend an additional "$585 million for port security, $150 million to purchase interoperable radios ... another $83 million to protect our borders" etc. "Congress settled for less," she thunders. "Yes, you heard correctly, Congress settled for less." The cynicism is clear -- if there's another terrorist strike, Hillary can say it was because the Republicans didn't earmark that extra $150 million for interoperable radios. (New York can't fix its radio problem if there's no federal grant?) But mainly what comes through is state-of-the-art lack of imagination. It's Robo-Senatoring. All the mechanicals are in place: 1) The pervasive partisan disingenuousness (hasn't Bush done anything right? Maybe he's done some things right and some things wrong?); 2) The empty stridency and pathetic speechwriting flourishes ("the frontlines are at our front doors ... rhetoric won't stop the spread of anthrax"); 3) The bogus survey, in which New York mayors, shockingly, complain that they're not getting enough federal money; 4) The for-show legislation, with a "Public Private Task Force" and a "Counter-Terror Technology Fund." ... There's not a glimmer of humanity or wit in the whole thing. And I was just warming to Hillary for her sensible position on welfare reform. ...I am horrified that people seriously suggest Hillary Clinton as a possible President of the United States. All of the unscrupulousness of her husband without even a tenth of the charm would be the hallmark of that Presidency. God save us from such calamities--lest we have to put up with State of the Union Addresses with the kind of flaccid and kitschy rhetoric that Kaus so rightly denounces. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/6/2003 06:29:23 PM ----- BODY: THE STATE OF HAPPYFUNPUNDIT I won't even try to give commentary for this. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/6/2003 06:15:15 PM ----- BODY: MORE ON THE USELESSNESS OF THE UNITED NATIONS Lileks speaks:
The United States does not need additional resolutions; 1441 said that "false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq ... and failure to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations." Well, Iraq has been in material breach since it dumped 12,000 pages of obfuscating gobbledegook on everyone's desks. Iraq was in material breach before the inspectors showed up. Every day the inspectors are not driven to a dump and shown the remains of warheads, or empty canisters, or bones of all the lab monkeys who perished in Saddam Hussein's quest to weaponize spoiled potato salad, Iraq is in material breach. It's a breach-o-rama. It's breacherrific. Cue the Madonna song: The U.N. is immaterial now, and this is a material breach.Needless to say, there is more. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/6/2003 06:09:35 PM ----- BODY: AND IN OTHER CHESS NEWS Michael von Blowhard reports that computers may be moving chess inexorably towards "draw death." I have something of a hard time believing this, myself, as 30 years ago, the complaints were that the high quality of play evinced by the grandmasters was killing chess in a similar manner as well. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/6/2003 06:07:13 PM ----- BODY: MAN v. MACHINE, CONT'D A stunning bishop sacrifice on White's kingside forced Garry Kasparov to settle for a draw in his latest battle with Deep Junior. Kasparov now has to play Black in Friday's game. He may be worried, as he was dead-set on winning this latest battle. It'll be very interesting to see whether Kasparov can hold it together on Friday and garner an acceptable outcome in the next game. I personally think that Junior may have the momentum now. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/6/2003 05:59:12 PM ----- BODY: STEYN SPEAKS . . . and he has had about enough with the United Nations:
There’s a farmer not far from me, on Route 10 between Lisbon and Littleton, who for over a decade has had painted in huge letters filling the entire side of his barn the slogan ‘US out of UN now’. It never seems to fade, so I figure he re-touches it every few years, which I guess means this isn’t just some passing political bugbear. When I first saw it, circa 1990, I believe I gave a wry chuckle positively Pattenesque in its amused sophistication: to be sure, the UN contains its share of rum coves but no serious person would entertain the notion of US withdrawal. Now I think he’s dead right, and that it’s only smug conventional-wisdom laziness that stops the idea being up for grabs. What should replace the UN? Well, some people talk about a ‘caucus of the democracies’. But I’d like to propose a more radical suggestion: Nothing. In the war on terror, America’s most important relationships have been bilateral: John Howard hasn’t dispatched troops to the Gulf because the Aussies and the Yanks belong to the same international talking shop; Mr Blair’s helpfulness isn’t because of the EU but, if anything, in spite of it. These relationships are meaningful precisely because they’re not the product of formal transnational bureaucracies. Promoters of the ‘Anglosphere’ — a popular concept in the US since 9/11 — must surely realise there’d be little to gain in putting the Anglo-Aussie-American relationship through the wringer of a joint secretariat. In fact, the whole idea of multilateral organisations feels a bit last millennium. With hindsight, institutions like the UN seem to have more to do with the Congress of Vienna than with the modern world, a hangover from the pre-democratic age when contact between nations was limited to the potentates’ emissaries. That’s why it so appeals to both the Euro-statists and the dictators, but, in the era of the Internet and five-cents-per-minute international phone rates and instant financial transfers and cheap vacations in the Maldives, the bloated UN bureaucracy seems at best irrelevant and at worst an obstruction to the progress of international relations. I’m all in favour of the Universal Postal Union and the Berne Copyright Convention (America was a bit late signing that one), but they work precisely because Sy Kottik and his chums weren’t involved. The non-nutcake jurisdictions came together, and others were invited to sign on as they saw fit. That’s why they work and that’s why they endure. But if I’ve learned anything since September 11, it’s that the nation state is the only thing that’s there for you in the end. I’m a Canadian who’s spent much of his life in the United Kingdom and the United States, and I never really considered these countries as foreign to each other. But they are, in very profound ways. The 49th parallel is both the longest undefended border in the world and also the busiest, in terms of cross-border trade. But the line is real nonetheless. Transnational institutions should reflect points of agreement: Americans don’t mind the Toronto Blue Jays playing in the same baseball league because they’re agreed on the rules; a joint North American Public Health Commission, on the other hand, would be a bureaucratic boondoggle seeking to reconcile two incompatible systems. That’s what happens when you put America, Denmark, Libya and Syria on a human rights committee, and that’s why it’s wrong for the US to seek the endorsement of the Security Council when it’s acting in its vital national interest.It is in the UN's interest to counter this kind of sentiment. Thus far, it does not appear to be doing a very good job. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/6/2003 05:50:44 PM ----- BODY: PICTURES . . . A THOUSAND WORDS . . . You know what to do. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/6/2003 05:30:35 PM ----- BODY: OH NO! Does this mean that my Star Wars rants may be at an end? -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/6/2003 04:51:14 PM ----- BODY: ON BEETHOVEN An excellent read. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/6/2003 04:23:04 PM ----- BODY: WHY WE NEED TORT REFORM Duane Freese has the details. And just for the record, I wrote on this subject about a year ago. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/6/2003 03:53:50 PM ----- BODY: DOES THIS NOT QUALIFY AS RACISM? Apparently, opposition to Miguel Estrada is based on the most specious of charges:
. . . to hear representatives from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, and others tell it, the Estrada nomination should be killed not because of Estrada's alleged refusal to answer questions or because of constitutional obligations but because Estrada, who was born and raised in Honduras before coming to the United States and learning English at the age of 17, is simply not authentically Hispanic. "Being Hispanic for us means much more than having a surname," said New Jersey Rep. Bob Menendez, a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. "It means having some relationship with the reality of what it is to live in this country as a Hispanic American." Even though Estrada is of Hispanic origin, and even though he lives in this country, Menendez argued, he falls short of being a true Hispanic. "Mr. Estrada told us that him being Hispanic he sees having absolutely nothing to do with his experience or his role as a federal court judge. That's what he said to us." Menendez found that deeply troubling. But Menendez was relatively kind to Estrada compared to the representatives of Hispanic interest groups. Angelo Falcon, an official of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, railed about the "Latino Horatio Alger story that's been concocted" about Estrada's success and, more generally, about the "concocted, invented Latino imagery" of Estrada's life. "As the Latino community becomes larger and larger in the country, as we gain more political influence, as we become more diverse, the issue of what is a Hispanic becomes more problematic," Falcon explained. "It's not good enough to simply say that because of someone's genetics or surname that they should be considered Hispanic."If this is the best that opponents of Estrada can do, it is high time that they throw in the towel on this nomination as soon as possible. And it is high time as well that their rhetoric be condemned as tremendously divisive and disgusting. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/6/2003 03:10:05 PM ----- BODY: MULTILATERALISTS 'R US John Miller explains. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/6/2003 03:06:24 PM ----- BODY: I HAVE NO IDEA WHETHER THIS EFFORT WILL WORK But I certainly hope it does. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/6/2003 03:01:40 PM ----- BODY: THE DOWNSIDE OF HAVING BEEN IN THE MIDWEST THIS PAST WEEK . . . is that I missed the mini-LA Blogger Bash described in this post and involving the estimable Scott Ganz, the lovely Asparagirl, and the sinfully charming Emily Jones. I assume that when Scott mentions the discussion about "other bloggers," he is referring to the hours of praise and genuflection that was directed by all to the Glorious Pejmanesque Empire, and its noble progenitor. After all, that would be only natural, right? Now, in the post you will also notice that Scott has bought a rock for his lady to wear on her finger. I imagine this means that my chances for successfully flirting with Brooke have dissipated somewhat, and that now, the odds are only 60-40 in favor of a full-fledged seduction, as opposed to the 99-1 odds I enjoyed before. Still, if I must be vanquished in this battle, I couldn't cede my claim to the crown to a nicer guy. So go over and congratulate Mr. Ganz for his purchase, and for the lady who will wear it. I certainly do. May their lives be long and happy. May their future be bright and endlessly promising. And may the Trojan Company be able to meet the crushing demand that is soon to face them. Good Lord, those people will have to work double-time just to keep up. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/6/2003 02:05:57 PM ----- BODY: IT'S OFFICIAL Harvard has gone to hell. (Link via Andrew Sullivan) -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/6/2003 02:04:34 PM ----- BODY: SHE HAS TO BE DRAGGED KICKING, SCREAMING, AND SNARKIER THAN MAUREEN DOWD . . . But Mary McGrory is convinced by the Powell presentation. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/6/2003 02:00:46 PM ----- BODY: AT THE RISK OF INUNDATING YOU WITH COVERAGE OF THE POWELL PRESENTATION . . . Also sprach George Will:
In estimating the impact of Colin Powell's U.N. presentation on persons who believe that there is no justification for a military response to Iraq's behavior, remember the human capacity for willful suspension of disbelief. Remember this: People determined to believe that a vast conspiracy assassinated President Kennedy believe that the absence of evidence of the conspiracy proves the vastness and cleverness of the conspiracy. People committed to a particular conclusion will get to it and will stay there. So the facts that Powell deployed, and the pattern they form, will not persuade people determined to be unpersuaded. But Powell's presentation, its power enhanced by his avoidance of histrionics, will change all minds open to evidence.Well, there is already evidence of that. Which is reassuring, to say the least. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/6/2003 01:48:07 PM ----- BODY: MAKES ME GLAD I VOTED FOR THE MAN This story discusses President Bush's meeting with the family of Ilan Ramon, the Israeli astronaut who perished in the Columbia tragedy, and who in 1981 helped destroy an Iraqi nuclear reactor in Osirak:
NASA informed the Ramon family early this morning that remains of astronaut Col. Ilan Ramon had been found and identified with certainty. IDF Rabbi Lt.-Col. Tzvi Black, in Houston for the purpose of taking part in the identification process, confirmed the findings. Ilan Ramon will be buried in Israel next week in a military ceremony, after which his family will observe the traditional seven-day mourning period. The Israel Air Force flag that Ramon took along with him to space was also found in its entirety. U.S. President George Bush, who took part in the memorial ceremony for the seven astronauts yesterday, approached the Ramon family afterwards and told them [paraphrased], "Ilan blew up the Iraqi nuclear reactor [in 1981], and I will finish the job."(Emphasis mine) Excellent. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/6/2003 01:43:02 PM ----- BODY: HEH! A few more presentations by Secretary Powell and we may be able to win a war with Iraq without even fielding an army:
[Powell's] speech may even be a death sentence for those officers unlucky enough to have been heard by the world chatting on the telephone about "forbidden ammo," hidden weapons and nerve agents, analysts said. "I have great certainty that those guys are either dead or not in their former jobs," said Daniel Goure, a former Pentagon official now at the Lexington Institute, a Washington think tank whose specialties include national security.The downside, of course, is that we have probably burned a lot of our own intelligence sources in revealing the material that we did yesterday at the Security Council. I suppose that the Administration believes that since the Iraqi government is going to fall soon, it can afford to do what it did. Let's hope that they are right. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/6/2003 01:32:27 PM ----- BODY: POLL WATCHING In the wake of a successful State of the Union Address, and yesterday's excellent presentation by Secretary Powell to the UN Security Council, I guess it should surprise no one to read stories like this. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/6/2003 01:28:52 PM ----- BODY: AND NOW, FOR YOUR RIDICULOUS ITEM OF THE DAY It would be rather hard to beat this. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/6/2003 01:03:19 PM ----- BODY: SCHADENFREUDE: IT'S A BEAUTIFUL THING I take no pleasure in seeing ordinary Germans losing their jobs. But I will take immense delight in seeing Gerhard Schröder lose his. -------- AUTHOR: Pejman Yousefzadeh DATE: 2/6/2003 01:01:10 PM ----- BODY: BORING Dustin Hoffman has decided to jump on the celebrity bandwagon and denounce plans for a war with Iraq. Sayeth Tootsie:
"I believe - though I may wrong because I am no expert - that this war is about what most wars are about: hegemony, money, power and oil".He's right. He is no expert. --------
