Hubbub over Haifa Street

Interesting doings over at Belmont Club, where Wretchard has gotten into a shooting war with the Associated Press over the photos of the three Iraqi election officials who were killed on Haifa St, Baghdad. Wretchard noted the oddity that the cameraman was able to witness the event at all, given that he should not have known about it beforehand, and took several steady pictures from a standing position while thirty or so terrorists were firing machine-guns and throwing grenades. He drew no explicit conclusion, leaving that to the excellent community of Comments-denizens: that the cameraman was tipped off by the terrorists, and was furthermore assured of safe conduct during the hit.

So far, so good. This would hardly be the first time something like this has happened. But then sources at the AP chose to respond to Wretchard in print, which only gave him more ammunition.

Silly AP people. You have violated the cardinal rule of public-relations: NEVER let them see you bleed.

Check it out.

Global Warming and Kyoto

The problem of enviromentalism in an industrial world is already tricky enough when we restrict the debate to the realm of fact. The world's transportation, and much of its power generation, is based on the consumption of fossil-fuels. These fuels must be extracted from the earth, which causes a certain amount of damage to the surroundings; more importantly, when they are burned in power plants or automobiles, they produce various waste-products which detract from human health, and perhaps contribute to global climate-change (though this last point is hotly disputed).

Obviously, the world would be much improved if an alternate energy-source such as hydrogen could be put into place, and the private-sector is furiously researching technologies for producing and storing hydrogen. But the technology will come when it comes, and in the meanwhile many enviromentalist groups have arisen calling for sharp cutbacks in the use of fossil-fuels. This must be done, they say, to avert the spectre of "global warming" (never mind that two decades ago, everyone was worried about a new Ice Age).

A major step in this fight against global warming was the creation of the Kyoto Accords, which mandates steep cuts in the production of greenhouse gases, relative to the 1990-level, by the year 2012. In all probability, that time-frame is too short to allow for the significant influence of new technologies—consider the massive effort required to convert every gas station in the world to a hydrogen-pumping station, even if it were feasible today—so the only ways to cut emissions in time are to deploy expensive "scrubbing" equipment, or reduce the use of fossil-fuels.

At this point we must ask the obvious question: is it worth it?

For my premise, I assume that we will transition over to a hydrogen-based economy within thirty years, which is being generous. The hydrogen will be refined using power generated by solar power, fission power, and perhaps even fusion power (there are plans for the construction of an experimental fusion reactor in Japan by 2009). Additionally, solar technology will progress to the point that many homes generate their own power. In other words, greenhouse gases will cease to be a problem.

How much damage can the modern economy do to the world in thirty years? I submit that the answer is negligible. How much damage can the poorly-designed Kyoto Accords do to the people of the world? It depends.

First, it is important to realize that at present, fuel use is proportional to energy use. Hence, as China and India continue industrializing, their use of oil will skyrocket. China is not a signatory to the Kyoto Accords. Therefore, the ability of the Kyoto Accords to really limit greenhouse-gas production is limited at best.

Second, at present oil is the cheapest, most portable and energy-dense form of power that we possess. Until the technology exists to replace it, oil is the only thing allowing the modern world to have easy transportation and manufacturing, which have been the cause of so much good for humanity. Granted that there is significant room for more efficient use of oil, particularly with respect to American cars; but to push this process to the point where it is no longer economical translates into wasted money, that could have otherwise gone towards easing human suffering.

Finally, it is hardly certain that global warming is in fact a problem at all. (As I sit here in New York City, I devoutly wish that the temperature would rise a few degrees.) Atmospheric data collected by NASA have shown time and again that the temperature-changes in the Earth have slowed to a crawl; moreover, the polar ice caps are actually growing. Environmentalists tend to disregard atmospheric data, preferring instead to use surface-data. But such data is tainted by the Heat-Island Effect, which is simply a byproduct of urban crowding and construction. Perhaps this is why this data is preferred by environmentalists…

There are many good reasons to transition away from fossil-fuels, and I will applaud the day when it happens (and if I get access to the capital, I intend to work to bring that day closer). But we cannot allow our analysis of the costs and benefits of fossil-fuels to be skewed by questionable science, no matter how many people believe in it. There was a time when everybody was convinced that the world was flat, in spite of compelling evidence to the contrary. In many ways, we have regressed to that time.

Weimar Russia?

Ex-KGB boss Vladimir Putin has spent years quietly eroding the newly-established democratic framework of Russia. Now, it seems he is no longer being quiet about it.

Presently, Russia's governors are chosen by popular election. Under the new law that Putin just got rubberstamped by the feckless Federation Council, all governors will henceforth be appointed by Putin directly, and confirmed by the regional parliaments. Should a parliament refuse to confirm Putin's candidate, it could be dissolved and a "temporary" governor will be set up in its absence.

Equally alarming is a second law that has yet to be voted on, which would end the direct election of national legislatures.

With this stroke, Putin has for all practical purposes ended democracy in Russia. President Bush is tolerating this development for the moment because he has a full plate already; besides, it is difficult to dictate terms to a former superpower with a large nuclear arsenal. But I suspect that Bush is paying very close attention to the recent developments. Condoleeza Rice, incoming Secretary of State and a long-time advisor to the President, has been a specialist in Soviet affairs for all of her academic career, and much of her professional career as well. I have speculated before that Rice's appointment to SecState implies that our policy is going to reorient towards Russia. These latest moves by Putin have me totally convinced. We can no longer afford to assume that Russia will take care of itself.

One could ask, granted that a reemerging dictatorship is not a good thing; but why is it such a huge problem now? After all, Putin shows no inclination of returning to Communism, and is apparently an ally in the War on Terror. So long as we remain on civil terms, can't we just focus on the Middle East and let Russia alone?

Unfortunately, Russia is not as much of an ally as some think. Remember that the Iranian nuclear reactor in Busheir is being built by Russia. In fact, the project began even while Boris Yeltsin was still in power. It is claimed that the reactor is intended for power-generation; this statement is absurd, given that Iran is sitting on massive reserves of oil, and is not especially known for its eco-friendly attitudes. More likely is that the reactor is meant to curb the expansion of American influence in the Middle East.

Russia has not yet come to terms with its declining power. It still hopes to regain its former status as a superpower by building alliances with other nations, particularly in the Middle East. Also vital would be an alliance with China against the United States. Such an alliance is the single greatest danger facing the United States today, terrorism notwithstanding, bcause a Sino-Russian alliance could quite possibly expel the United States from Southeast Asia, leaving exposed the island of Taiwan (among other things). If you don't consider this important, consider that many of the components inside your computer are produced in Taiwan.

Putin's authoritarian plans are incredibly dangerous. If the Russian people cannot secure their own rights and freedoms, then it is imperative that the United States work to prevent an alliance between Russia and China. If we can keep those two seperate (or even, be still my beating heart, hostile to each other!), then it would be difficult for Putin to mount a serious challenge to our interests. Russia today is weaker than the Soviet Union ever was, though that could change as they build up their economy. Of course, Putin's actions are quickly driving away foreign investment.

On the other hand, Putin expended a huge amount of political capital in his ill-fated attempt to rule Ukraine by proxy, through his stooge Yankovitch. If Yuschenko ends up defeating Yankovitch in the new balloting, Putin may never recover. It would be nice, anyway.

Trouble in Venezuela?

Powerline posted a letter from a Venezuelan blogger who claims that the police in Caracas performed a sweep of a Jewish dayschool at 6:30 AM, just as kids were arriving. The blogger, Daniel Duquenal, termed this "our very first anti-semitic incident." Free Republic confirms this with a news report, adding that the state-run television network Venezolana de Television has been claiming for weeks that the Mossad assassinated a state prosecutor, Danilo Anderson. Anderson had been "investigating" 400 people accused of accepting funding from the U.S.-based National Endowment for Democracy during the election debacle.

Hugo Chavez has spent the last few years turning a once-proud state into a virtual dictatorship. He has instituted a massive military buildup, nationalized many key industries, and become a close partner of Fidel Castro, importing many thousands of Cuban "advisors" to help him in rigging the elections. But a descent into Jew-baiting crosses the final red-line (if any more were necessary). The Jews have always been the bellweather for how moral a society was: if the Jews are treated fairly, then all peoples could expect fair treatment (eventually) because the society is fundamentally inclusive. But the reverse is also true: a society that will abuse its Jews, will abuse anyone they can get away with.

Columbia has accused Chavez of providing support for the many guerrilla forces terrorizing that country, and Chavez has likewise ratcheted up the rhetoric towards Columbia. It has become clear that Chavez is the greatest threat to the stability of South America today; acts of anti-semitism only confirm the danger. Besides, the Venezuelan government has now made this very personal. An attack on one Jew should be seen as an attack on all, and we have a duty to our brethren in Venezuela to help remove this would-be Simon Bolivar from power.

[EDIT: I just heard rumors that Chavez is presently on a state-visit to Iran, where the mullahs erected a statue of him. It would not surprise me one bit. ]

Support Israel: Buy Amazon!

I'm starting a new program with my Amazon ad in the sidebar. I will be donating 2% of all purchases made through the link on my site to charities in Israel.

How can you participate? When you want to shop on Amazon.com, simply start from this site, click on the Amazon ad, and then shop normally. Two percent of every purchase will go to aid worthy causes in Israel; Amazon issues payments quarterly, and I will post how much charity-money I received and where it was sent. This is possibly the easiest way for you to give to charity: you pay zero extra money, and the only effort required is one extra mouseclick.

At present I am considering donating to the JNF, Od Yosef Chai (which distributes food to the needy), and youth centers for cancer patients. Other charities will be considered, funds permitting.

So if you have anything you were planning to buy from Amazon, whether books, or software, or clothes, start from this site and two percent of your purchases will go to worthy causes in Israel. You pay nothing extra. It's that simple.

Please spread the word, and help make this drive a success. Thank you, and happy Chanuka!

Europe, Free-Riding, and the Kantian Peace

Robert Kagan has stirred up a great deal of controversy in recent years for arguing in his book "Of Paradise and Power," that Europe and America have developed fundamentally different worldviews of international relations and the use of force. While America is largely operating in a realist world where force is necessary to preserve security, Europe has entered the world of the Kantian Peace, in which international norms and polite diplomacy determine states' behavior.

Kagan attributes this to two factors. First, the two world wars took place on European soil, and it was mainly to prevent a third war that the European Economic Community was formed, later to become the European Union. Second, Europe has been placed under the American security umbrella, making it unnecessary for European states to maintain large militaries of their own. Thus, Europe no longer has a military option; it must rely on diplomacy, foreign aid, and economic power to achieve its foreign-policy goals. This has shaped their thinking to a great extent.

This divergence of viewpoints has caused significant problems for the United States. Aside from the cost of maintaining the security umbrella, and of cleaning up European messes like in Bosnia and Kosovo when the Europeans are unable to, the United States can no longer expect Europe to support its foreign-policy. A sort of militant pacifism has taken root in Germany especially, but other places in Europe as well, that sees the realist behavior of the United States as an evil as great as that of her enemies.

But Europe's demilitarization is useful to America as well. First, it removes the possibility of yet another European war, particularly in the case of Germany, which would be extremely threatened by any military buildup in surrounding countries. Germany, in turn, is the most powerful economy in Europe and has no natural borders; if she chose to build up a military, Germany may well feel like she could expand at will. Nobody wants to go through all that again.

Second, a disarmed Europe increases American power. If the American military dwarfs that of Europe, the United States will be less constrained in its actions. Some in Europe, particularly the French, seek to build up a European army for the express purpose of balancing the United States, but I doubt they will get anywhere soon. Even during the Cold War, European countries fell chronically short of their military obligations under the NATO alliance. Moreover, the whole continent is struggling under the weight of their social programs, which are putting them deep into debt. A rebuilt military is out of the question, at least for the moment.

But that does not address Old Europe's increasingly-strong pacifism and lack of backbone. This should be worrying to all of us. Consider the difference between our response to the World Trade Center attack, and the Spanish response to the Madrid train-bombing. Our attitude went from complacency to a thirst for vengeance; the Spanish, on the other hand, responded by retracting their foreign involvements. Granted, the situation was different in a few ways, but there was no sense of national anger and resolve such as was found in America. The Spanish government persists in viewing the attack as a criminal act, not as an act of war.

If this corrosive pacifism will not be counteracted by the governments, it is up to the individual citizens of Old Europe to rediscover their will to survive. Much of the problem can also be found on the micro level, and is created by government regulation: in Britain, as is often reported in Samizdata, citizens are forbidden to defend themselves against armed robbery or burglary, and most firearms are likewise forbidden. Naturally, violent crime is skyrocketing, as the criminals are given free rein. Similar situations are found in much of Old Europe.

I believe the best way for Europeans to rediscover their courage would be if the governments lifted their restrictions on the ownership and use of firearms. It would do much to reverse the culture of powerlessness and fear, and accustom citizens to the use of force to defend against evil and threats to life and liberty. This new attitude would perhaps spill over into the national arena as well, giving European leaders a badly-needed jolt of fortitude.

Sadly, the governments like their citizens to be disarmed and quiescent. The official hostility to firearms use will likely persist for a long time, and with it, the unfortunate brand of European delusion and pacifism.

The United Nations: Graft 101

An fascinating blog, "The Diplomad" (so called because its posters are current and former diplomats with the State Department), has posted an excellent article on the U.N. which dovetails nicely with the news coming out about the Oil-for-Bureaucrats scandal.

Also note the discussion taking place in the Comments section.

One idea raised in class recently, which I think has a lot of merit, is that we should attempt to set up parallel and competing international organizations, that would give nations an alternative to the increasingly sclerotic and corrupt U.N. (In particular, I believe that one of these organizations should be made up solely of liberal democracies.) The basic argument is that the United States and other nations benefit if they have a number of channels of communication, so that they could choose the most advantageous method for any given need. To lump everything together under one roof leads to bloat.

The other issue is that the U.N. presents, in theory, the danger of a true world government. (I doubt they could achieve it in practice, because the U.N. has shown itself to be breathtakingly incompetent for all of its history.) A world government would have its power completely unchecked, leading inexorably to tyranny, especially if it is begun from such flawed material as the U.N. By creating multiple parallel organizations, this threat is mitigated.

The first step, of course, is to recognize that the United Nations is truly an evil. Many people still base their views of the U.N. on its professed mission to bring about world peace and alleviate human suffering. Such goals are laudible; but we must see clearly that the U.N. is not actually working to accomplish them, and has not been for some time. It has instead become a mechanism for autocracies and illiberal democracies to gain access to world legitimacy, international (largely American) money, and a club with which to strike America.

America founded the U.N. in large part to make the rest of the world comfortable with its hegemony, by artificially constraining American power under the rules of the U.N. Charter. Now other member-nations hostile to the U.S. have been exploiting the U.N. in order to tie down the American giant with chains of paper. This in itself makes many question why we should remain a member ourselves. But for this to be compounded with such naked greed, corruption, and callous disregard for the people who need U.N. support (such as the people of Iraq during the Oil-for-Food program) is an abomination.

It is in the interest of the world to construct many, many international organizations which can compete directly with this sinkhole of evil, so that the U.N. will either be forced to reform itself or die a miserable, and richly-deserved, death.

The Palestinian Authority: Endgame

Those of us observing the aftermath of Arafat's passing got our first taste of what is to come when Mahmoud Abbas, acting head of the Palestinian Authority, was nearly assassinated while he and Muhammad Dahlan were visiting Arafat's mourning-tent. Two bodyguards were killed and several mourners wounded. The attackers were apparently from the al-Aksa Martyrs Brigades (recently renamed the Arafat Martyrs Brigades).

Abbas had announced plans for an election to be held on January 9. That date will mark a fundamental breakdown in the Palestinian government, no matter what happens, for the simple reason that any free and fair election will almost certainly be won by Hamas, the local branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Hamas has a great deal of popular support in the PA, and is hostile to the PLO and utterly opposed to Israel's existence.

Abbas is tremendously unpopular even among the PLO. He is tagged as an American lapdog, and is rumored to have poisoned Arafat himself. Even before the election he faces the opposition of several prominent PLO members, notably Farouk Kaddoumi, who publicly rejected the Oslo Accords and remained outside of the Territories in protest. Assuming Abbas stays alive and in power long enough to reach the January 9 elections, he is faced with several bad options if Hamas looks like it will win:

1. Accept the outcome of the elections and transfer power peacefully.

Given past history, the chances of this happening are nil. Not only does Abbas want power, but if Hamas ever does take over the leadership Israel will be forced to crush the PA once and for all. Israel cannot afford to let Hamas, who didn't even go through the charade of negotiations as did the PLO, gain international legitimacy in any way.

2. Declare Hamas an invalid participant in the elections.

Political (and literal) suicide.

3. Declare a state of emergency and pospone the elections for trumped-up reasons.

Almost as bad as option 2.

The most likely scenario is that we will see a rash of assassinations of leaders on all sides; I doubt Abbas will live long, and eventually things will settle down with a strong dictator taking power. That's the "best-case" scenario. The other thing we could see is all-out civil war between Hamas and the PLO, with street battles and casualties in the thousands. That's assuming that Iran doesn't begin thinking that it could take control, and bringing their proxy Hizbullah into the mix.

What can America and Israel do about it? Not much. The man they would prefer to see in power, Abbas, is a condemned man. I believe the most prudent course of action would be to stay out of the way and hope the fighting ends quickly.

Red vs. Blue

I don't usually do this, but this post on Orthodox & Heterodox is a wonderful picture of how conservative America views the various hypocrasies of liberal America. (Yes, I know that conservative America has its own hypocrasies. But unless you point me to an equally funny piece on that topic, you're out of luck.)

[Edit: broken link repaired.]

Free Speech

Yesterday, my college had the honor of hosting Salman Rushdie, who held a private Q&A session with a small number of students and faculty (myself among them), before giving a public lecture. It was utterly fascinating in many respects; I will restrict this post to one issue in particular that he brought up.

In the public lecture, Mr. Rushdie said that the defense of free speech is most important when it is speech that disgusts you. He then related the story of a movie which was made after Khomeini had issued the fatwa against him. This movie, called International Guerrillas or something similar, told the story of a group of "guerrillas" (i.e. terrorists) who were determined to hunt down Mr. Rushdie and kill him. Rushdie was portrayed as living a debauched life in a palace in the Philippines, protected by the Israeli secret services. After several acts of cruelty against the guerrillas (not least, reading to them from the Satanic Verses), Rushdie is finally struck down by Allah himself, and thus justice is served.

A copy of this movie was brought over to Britain, and was submitted for certification. The certifying board was advised by their lawyers that this film was inflammatory, and that if Rushdie was attacked as a result of it, he could sue the board. They therefore were set to declare the film banned. Rushdie was placed in the unusual situation of protesting on behalf of a movie that advocated his murder, to ensure that it would stand or fall on its own merits, and not become a "hot item" simply because of the public opposition. (Cf. The Passion.) In the end, the movie opened to empty houses even in the predominantly Muslim areas, because it was a lousy movie.

I found this interesting most of all in light of a comment he had made in the private session about quiesence in the face of extremism. Speaking of the many protests in Britain where public figures called for his murder, Rushdie said with some agitation, "Not one of them was ever arrested."

Apparently, if you make a public statement calling for the death of another, you should be arrested. But if you make a work of art (or something approximating art) calling for the death of another, that art is legitimate and should be allowed.

I am not sure how to respond to this. One could argue this position on practical grounds, i.e. that a banned movie becomes much more powerful because it can remain underground, while public speech is in any event public speech. But I wonder how much of this comes from a poorly-justified elevation of "art" over simple speech. Conceptually, there is very little difference between the two, as far as incitement to murder goes. As an aspiring writer, I can understand why artists and intellectuals would want to secure a special status for their work. But I am skeptical that such a status should automatically exempt art from the "crowded theater" rule.

But I remain undecided on this point.

In other news, David Carr of Samizdata reports in his incomparable style:

Reports from Paris indicate that there has been a marked improvement in the condition of Yasser Arafat.

He's dead.

Small Arms Balance

The United States armed forces are getting to use their new capabilities to the fullest in the Falluja assault. Networked units, night-vision capability, close air and artillery support are flattening the irregular forces who have no good way to defend against the punishing firepower.

US troops are much safer now as well, thanks to the next generation of Kevlar and ceramic technology found in the new Interceptor Vests, the first body armor capable of stopping a 7.62mm round (used by the AK-47, AK-74, and many types of heavy machine guns favored by guerrilla and terror groups because they are cheap and plentiful).

A friend of mine noted that the present trend in military weapons manufacturing is to develop rounds with less and less power. He theorized that this was to ensure that the advantage stays with the side with the body armor, which is prohibitively expensive for guerrilla-type organizations. (The Interceptor costs over a thousand dollars, while the AK-47 can be bought in some areas of Iraq for less than a hundred.) At the moment, there are some rounds that can still penetrate body armor. These include hunting rounds like the 30-.06, and the .50 Barrett round; but both of these are expensive, and neither of them can produce fully-automatic fire, a necessity against a regular army.

In short, the irregular enemies of the modern army are overwhelmingly outgunned, and are much less capable of injuring their target.

How do they adjust? When possible, they attack easier targets such as the Iraqi police or National Guard, who are not as well equipped as American forces. This is a temporary situation, however, and in any event it does not prevent American troops from counterattacking. Irregulars also rely heavily on roadside bombs and other types of explosives, but the roads are coming under increasing surveillance, making it harder to plant the bombs safely. Moreover, the same advanced Kevlar is now armoring American Humvees and other vehicles, reducing the bombs' effectiveness.

It seems that the weapons-balance has returned to the days of the armored knight, pre-longbow. The army with the greatest budget and support structure is unstoppable.

Of course, nothing will stop the enemy from developing their own capabilities. Hizbullah apparently has developed an unmanned aerial drone, which flew over the Lebanese border a few days ago…

[UPDATE: I have been informed that there are indeed 30-06 and .50 rifles capable of automatic fire. But they remain much less common than the AK family of assault-rifles.]

Party hack?

I had a fascinating conversation with a friend of mine from Boston today, this friend being one of the few liberals at my college. (The majority of the students here are conservative, though not Republican; in a voter registration drive held recently, over 95% of the new voters registered independent.) The content of the conversation itself was boring enough, rehashing talking-points about the election. What was fascinating was a comment he made at the end of the discussion, after I said that nationalized health-care would be terrible for the country.

He said, "I hate talking politics with party hacks."

Now, I appreciate the general sentiment, having felt that way myself often enough. But I had told him at least three times in the previous hour or so that I am an independent. He still identified me as a "party hack," presumably for the Republican party. As I understand it, a party hack is loyal to his party above all, regardless of the ideology that the party should be advancing at the time. He will defend policies that he knows to be flawed, simply because they are proposed by his party.

I was almost immediately reminded of a story my father often tells. I no longer remember if the story happened to him, or to a friend of his, but in either event it is instructive. The subject was having a political conversation of some sort with a friend of his, who was considerably more liberal. He was making some point in opposition to the liberal program. The friend grew agitated and said, "You don't really believe that!"

My father took from this the following insight: a liberal believes that his worldview is completely self-evident, and that all people really know deep down that the liberal agenda is the right thing to do. Therefore, nobody can honestly oppose liberalism out of principle, since liberalism is right. Therefore, anyone who opposes liberalism must be doing so selfishly or dishonestly. It is impossible to legitimately hold a philosophical viewpoint opposed to liberalism, and to advocate action based on this philosophy, because such a philosophy is manifestly wrong.

Examples: the Laffer Curve is a fabrication to excuse Tax-Cuts for the Rich™; opposition to Affirmative Action makes you a racist; et cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum.

Therefore, for me to be advocating ideas opposed to liberalism to my liberal friend, I was by definition doing so not because I thought they were right, but because I was a "party hack."

This attitude is disturbing. I, and most conservatives, can readily accept that most liberals genuinely believe in the validity and righteousness of their views. This allows us to acknowledge that even if their methods are flawed, their hearts are in the right place, and they are generally good people in their way. But if the converse is not true—if the average liberal believes that anyone disagreeing with him is doing so from base motives—then it justifies extreme actions taken against the opposition. Stealing political signs and barricading campaign headquarters, and perhaps worse, are justified because the actions impede the advance of a dishonest agenda.

I am not a party hack. I genuinely believe that capitalism is preferable to government control, that personal responsibility is better in general than dependence on others and the growth of moral hazard, and that people exist in the world who need to be killed for the benefit of all. I do not tie these beliefs to a party platform. Republicans are just as capable of being scum as anyone else; consider Bush the Elder, who incited the Iraqi Shia and Kurds to rebellion and then hung them out to dry, to be slaughtered by Saddam. But Bush the Younger, for all his numerous flaws, has got the essentials right as far as I am concerned. And I honestly believe that too.

Hiatus

With my workload picking up, I have not been able to devote the time necessary to keep this blog up to date. Moreover, I have spent a great deal of time looking at other blogs, detracting from my work. So I'm taking a break, probably for the next month or two. I may end up posting anyway if a subject is of burning interest, so please check back every so often if you like.

I shall use this opportunity to pontificate on matters near to my heart. Take these commands as worth the price of admission:

1. Self-reliance. Learn First Aid and CPR. Know how to cook. Keep disaster-preparedness supplies in your home, especially if you live in earthquake or hurricane country. Do not rely on the availability of fresh water, electricity, or plentiful supplies of gasoline. Ask yourself the following: if basic services were all shut down for a week, would you be able to take care of yourself and your family?

2. Financial Prudence. As Einstein said, the most powerful force in the universe is compound interest. If you have savings, this works for you in a big way. Start early. The biggest edge you can get in the savings game is by starting early. If you sock away a little money in Treasury bonds every year from age 25, you will be well ahead of someone who starts investing in nanotech stocks at age 40. But if you are in debt, compound interest works against you. Pay down your credit cards! You are effectively getting a guaranteed return of 12% or more, which is pretty good by any standard. Pay down your other debt too, if you have the free capital—assuming that it doesn't make more sense to invest the money.

3. Charity. Charity is one of the best investments you can make. You are investing in other people's lives, your own soul, and your continued moral refinement. Plus, you can be assured that all the money you give will find its way back to you in the end, only more so.

4. Resolve. Like it or not, we are in the middle stages of a conflict which began generations ago and will last generations more. (Read John Loftus's article on the Muslim Brotherhood for a full account of the Nazi origins of al-Qa'ida.) We cannot allow our innate feelings of mercy to weaken our determination or cloud our judgement. The murder of innocents for political gain must be ended by the systematic annihilation of all who would do such a thing. I am sick of sharing the Earth with these vampires.

And to those who believe that "violence begets violence," and would therefore abstain from this war: to say that we cannot take arms against murderers is to strip human life of its value. It is to say that the evil powers of the world can have their way with the rest of us, killing whoever they wish, because we will not resist. Not this Jew. Not now. The millions who perished in the Holocaust for want of a few brave souls willing to do violence, and the millions who were saved from death because prisoners rose up and destroyed Treblinka and Sobibor, stand before me in my heart and cry warning against submission. A moral nation must only kill others when there can be no other way, but when that moment comes we CANNOT do anything besides bloodying our hands in hopes of saving more than we destroy.

Stay well, and may God bless you in all of your handiwork.

Election Turmoil

In Afghanistan, millions of people voted for the first time in defiance of threats from the Taliban (which turned out to be relatively toothless). But it seems that people closer to home are not taking this to heart. Some Americans apparently believe that violence against your political enemies will yield dividends for your cause. Or else, they have stopped caring anymore.

In several cases, Republican campaign offices have been shot at. Others were broken into, with only the computers containing voter data being stolen. Reports of vandalized Bush signs or cars bearing Bush bumper-stickers are numerous. (Kerry signs have also been vandalized, but in far fewer numbers.) These cases, though unprecedented in my living memory, could perhaps be dismissed as the acts of individuals. More troubling are the cases of AFL-CIO thugs attacking Republican campaign offices, with the support and approval of the national organization.

Here we have a dangerous development. A high-profile national organization has carried out acts of violence against a political party espousing differing views. Moreover, the acts are praised and held up as exampes of "voter advocacy." In some of the more noxious corners of the Internet, such as Democratic Underground (I will not link to them out of principle), people post of plans for violent outbreaks should Bush win reelection. We are beginning to see the lawless wing of the Left emerge in all of its rancid glory.

It is telling that despite all of the caterwauling about "right-wing gun nuts," not a single Democratic campaign office has been shot at. Nor have Democratic offices been mobbed by violent crowds sent by the Christian Coalition/Karl Rove/the Evil Neocons. You know things are getting lopsided when even the New York Times attributes the most vileness to the Left.

I wonder at the Democratic Party's wisdom in letting slip the dogs of war in this fashion. I don't see how they expect to convince the American people that they are the best party to run the country this way. Besides, the extremists had better hope that they don't provoke a reaction from the Right. They are, after all, heavily outgunned...

The Modern "Debate"

Having just watched the Vice-Presidential Debate this evening, my thoughts naturally turn to the merits and flaws of the debate structure presently favored in America. I should say that tonight's debate was unusually good in that it largely turned on real policy differences, and every time Edwards tried to bring up Haliburton, Cheney's voting record from decades ago, and other irrelevancies, he was properly smacked down for it. But the debate still suffered from the usual systemic flaws.

Back in the Good Old Days™ (say, Lincoln-Douglas), debates lasted several hours. The cadidates had the time to lay out comprehensive, structured arguments on their policies and those of their opponents. Statements would often be longer than two hours, as would be the rebuttals. This was all to the good, as we are in theory electing officials to construct policy.

Tonight, the longest either candidate was allowed to speak was two minutes. (Though there were a few blatant violations which the moderator did not interrupt.) Rebuttals were ninety seconds, then thirty seconds. Questions were not known in advance, requiring answers to be entirely off-the-cuff, or else stock answers that had little relevance to the question.

Now I have a little exercise for the reader. Take a stopwatch, set it to two minutes, and within that time do an oral presentation to a friend on why we [should/should not] be in Iraq. You may repeat this exercise for any major policy issue such as Social Security reform, taxes or the lack of same, or why every citizen should own an M1-A Abrams tank. You will quickly find that two minutes is insufficient for presenting anything more than key phrases, broad generalizations, and the bare outlines of any complex topic.

The conventional logic is that the modern debate is intended not to be about policy, but about the candidates. The viewers can see how the candidates react to unscripted situations, and develop a "feel" for who the candidate really is. This logic is partly undermined by artificial debate formats, for example in the first presidential debate where the candidates could not rebut each other. But let us take the argument at face-value.

What skills are being tested by the present format?

1. Proper speaking method and style.
2. Memorization of talking points and key phrases.
3. Rapidly formulating new arguments in response to the question or the opponent's statement.
4. Mastery of the cutting remark.
5. Quick thinking, wit, and self-control.

While these can be valuable to an elected official, it is less important to think quickly than it is to think deeply. Truly deep thinkers pause when they are thinking. They need to examine the subject carefully before formulating a response to it. Deep thought is penalized by the two-minute format in favor of glib speech (which will not always be backed up by coherent thought). More than that, the skills listed above are largely superficial, having little bearing on questions of policy. Modern debates are testing the wrong skills; they should be testing the ability to explain and defend an agenda.

The simplest thing to do would be to allow more time for statements, so that real policy matters can be discussed. Ten minutes per segment would be nice; most college courses on speechmaking, including the one I took, require the student to give a detailed presentation with citations in ten minutes. This simple rule change would get us away from the usual fluff and back on the solid ground of the things that really matter.

For that reason, I think the two-minute segment isn't going away soon. Both parties are pursuing miserable policies and try desperately to divert the attention of the electorate from the long-term trend. Neither side wants to face unpleasant truths such as the looming implosion of Medicare and Social Security, or the failure of the War on Drugs, or the ease with which enemies could circumvent security at the U.S. border or elsewhere. "Policy bad, sound-bite good" seems to be the order of the day.

Oil for Graft Program

The news from the Times of London is not especially shocking, except for the sheer scale of corruption in the Oil for Food Program that it reveals. Benon Seven, director of the program, received almost a million dollars from sales of Iraqi oil contracts, provided to him by Saddam at cut-rate prices. A French oil firm linked to Jacques Chirac bribed U.N. inspectors to forge documents. Members of Vladimir Putin's staff were also on the take. Et cetera.

Two thoughts:

1. Well, this explains a lot! I can only imagine how terrified the corrupt officials throughout the U.N. and Europe were that their venal ways would come to light after Saddam's overthrow. I hope that the rule of law will now prevail, and these crawling toads will be thrown out of office (and perhaps in jail?). Of all the crimes that are commited by government officials, accepting bribes is possibly the worst.

2. No leader of a free nation should submit his country's safety to the demands of these clowns. I am in favor of an organization like the United Nations in principle, but episodes such as this prove that the present organization must either clean up its act or be dismantled like any other organization of lawbreakers. This is also a warning against forming a "global government" in which the states would give up sovereignty. Immanuel Kant, in his essay "Perpetual Peace," advocated a federation of independent states, and warned that a true world government would become a "soulless despotism." There is no way to check the power of a world government, which will inevitably encroach on its citizens until it becomes a true tyranny.

In other news...

This essay by Radek Sikorski provides some needed perspective on the reconstruction of Afghanistan. My favorite quote:

Tens of thousands of people died in this country every month in the 1980s during the war with the Soviet Union and it wasn't news. Hundreds died every month in the 1990s from mines and the civil war and that wasn't really news either. Today, casualties are in the dozens most months, and suddenly it is news, taken by some as evidence of imminent collapse. For the first time in a quarter century, more Afghans are now dying in car accidents than in politically motivated violence--a miracle, even allowing for atrocious Afghan driving.

Read the rest, it's quite good.

Iran: the board is set, the pieces are moving

Iran appears dead-set on constructing a nuclear weapon. The agreement to suspend uranium enrichment has been broken off, and Iranian officials are stonewalling the international community in classic Middle-East fashion. They claim that their nuclear program is for civilian purposes, and therefore the world has no right to interfere. The absurdity of that claim is obvious when one considers that Iran is sitting on huge oil reserves, which would be far cheaper and easier to use for electricity than nuclear power. One need only recall the December 13, 2001 speech by former president Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani in which he said:

"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world…. Jews shall expect to be once again scattered and wandering around the globe the day when this appendix [i.e. Israel] is extracted from the region and the Muslim world." (www.iran-press-service.com)

So much for Iranian intentions. The United States and especially Israel have no intention of letting this come to pass. At the moment the United States is in a poor position to deal with the threat directly; not only would they have serious political and diplomatic fallout to deal with, but they do not appear to have the necessary troops free. This leaves Israel, which already has one destroyed nuke program to its credit (the Osirak project in Iraq). Israel has stated that it intends to destroy Iran's reactors, to which Iran reacted by threatening a "very strong" response.

There are three possible avenues for a response that I can see. First, a direct attack via the latest version of the Shahab medium-range missile. Second, a series of coordinated terror attacks in Israel by Hizb'Allah, Iran's proxy. Third, Hizb'Allah launching the 15,000-plus rockets in place on the Lebanese frontier (delivered by Iran) toward Tel-Aviv.

Israel and the United States appear to be dealing with each of these threats. To defend against rocket or missile attack Israel has the jointly-developed Arrow-3, derived from the Patriot missile. The United States and Israel are also cooperating on a ground-based laser system designed to destroy rockets and mortar shells, currently being tested at White Sands, NM. This would likely be deployed behind the Lebanese border against Hizb'Allah weapons.

The United States and Germany have also called for Syria to withdraw its forces from Lebanon, and secured a UN resolution to that effect. (Break out the champagne, the UN did something right for once!) Syria seems to be flinching, and has withdrawn 3,000 troops as of this writing, leaving 15,000 to go. A Syrian withdrawal, laudable on its own, would also serve to weaken Hizb'Allah by removing some of its "institutional" protection, easing the way for the inevitable Israeli air strikes on the rocket positions.

Israel is also striking hard against Hizb'Allah cells in Israel and the Territories. Many of the recent assassinations have targeted Hamas terrorists linked to Hizb'Allah, in an attempt to disrupt cooperation between the two groups. (Cf. www.debka.com) Several Hizb'Allah agents in Israel proper have also been arrested in recent weeks. It remains to be seen how effectively Israel can shut down Hizb'Allah's terror operations.

Israeli intelligence is doubtless working overtime to find all of the Iranian nuclear installations. Israel just purchased 500 bunker-buster munitions from the United States, which seem earmarked for Iran. And the Israeli Air Force (IAF) has been working for over three years to try to extend the range of Israel's planes to bring all of Iran in range, without refueling. As we begin moving into the endgame, questions remain. First: Will the MTHEL laser system be ready in time for the fireworks in the north? Second: will the Mossad find all of the critical nuclear sites? Third: Will Syria stand aside and let Hizb'Allah be crippled? Fourth: will the IAF be capable of the mission?

Whether you are a partisan of Israel, Iran, or neither, pray that Israel can succeed with its bombing mission. If not, Israel may well decide to fire its own nuclear weapons rather than allow its existence to be subject to the whim of Iran.

Citizen's Militias

Today's polisci classes were interesting. Among other things, we discussed the Offensive-Defensive Arms Balance component of defensive neorealist theory. Jargon aside, the basic idea is that a given weapon system is has an inherent value for defense and a value for offense. Minefields, for example, are almost completely defensive. Tanks, though capable of both offense and defense, generally are intended for offense; in WWI, the tank was the weapon that cracked Germany's trench-network.

Two theories are proposed. First, that the state of technology will favor either defense or offense. (At the beginning of WWI, trench warfare and the machine-gun made offensives bloody and generally futile. By WWII, warfighting technology had shifted far enough to the offense to permit the success of the German Blitzkrieg, and later the D-Day landing, in the face of every conventional defense available. Today the balance is even more towards the offense, I believe.) If the balance is toward defense, so goes the theory, states will find it too costly to go to war and will generally tend toward peace. If the balance is toward offense, no state will dare risk falling victim to a surprise attack, and will have an incentive to attack first, thus tending toward war. (The theory failed disastrously in WWI and before WWII because Europe's leadership didn't take the new technology into account, except for Nazi Germany.)

The second theory, which I think is more interesting practically, is that states send signals with their armaments. If a state has a military that is primarily defensive, surrounding states will understand that the first state does not mean to attack them. They will thus refrain from needless arms buildups which may increase the chance of war. Conversely, states with an offensive military will tip off their neighbors to prepare for war.

In essence: All else being equal, the presence of purely defensive weapons will influence a region towards peace.

Which brings me to the citizen's militia.

I believe in the benefits of private ownership of weapons. It acts as a check on tyranny, inspires self-reliance, and makes violent crime much more dangerous and less attractive. Many have argued that in an age of standing armies, private gun ownership is superfluous. (Never mind that standing armies tend to produce tyrannies...) But defensive neorealist theory would indicate that it is to the benefit of the state to have an armed populace, since citizen's militias are relatively cheap and easy to set up and are entirely defensive in character. They create a powerful deterrant to invasion, and thus allow the conventional military to be kept small and non-threatening. (Consider the case of Switzerland, where every household has a SIG Sauer assault-rifle.)

It is in the interest of world peace that I argue that every state should arm all of their citizens. It would also restrain corrupt governments quite effectively; unfortunately, we will see very few militias for that very reason.

If you want to get worried, think about the criminalization in the U.S. of private militia groups.

Workshopping in Creative Writing class

I'm in two creative writing classes this semester, so I've been doing quite a bit of writing so far. A few of my smaller pieces were presented in Screenwriting, but tonight the Fiction class got a look at the first written chapter of my "baby". It was a really good session. Some weaknesses were identified, and much good advice was given, and I think the piece stood up well overall. Once I sit down and rework it, it's going to get much stronger. I'm in a good mood!

Why must the Israeli labor unions strike every two weeks? Bunch of socialist sponges who are scared out of their wits by Bibi Netanyahu's recognizing that Israel's economy needs to become more open, or else the country will pull a Europe. The unions don't want an open economy, they want to stick it to everyone else in the country.

This could only happen to us. We finally get our home back, and it's founded by socialist statist loons. (Meaning no disrespect to Ben Gurion, just to his political party and everyone to his Left.)

Where teachers send their children...

The Drudge Report is carrying an article saying that 25% of Washington D.C. public school teachers send their children to private school. This is utterly unsurprising to me. If I remember correctly, D.C. public schools pay the highest and score the lowest in the country. Any sane parent would run in the opposite direction.

The problem, of course, is that the public school system is a government-subsidized monopoly, and works about as well as any other government-subsidized monopoly. You aren't even allowed to go to a public school outside of your district in most cases. If there is a single public school in the district, it has absolutely no incentive to do any better than the bare minimum. Moreover, the public school system is the favorite breeding-ground of the worst kinds of historical revisionism, absurd teaching philosophies with flashy booklets and powerful patrons, lowest common denominator teaching, and general incompetence.

Please note, there are quite a few excellent public schools out there. They should all be commended for struggling so mightily against the overwhelming tide of idiocy coming from the system. But they are exceptions to the rule.

More ominous, many people are reporting that the history books distributed by public schools place the Constitution in the appendices, devote more time to the Japanese-American internment in WWII than to the war itself, and do their best to promulgate very specific ideological frameworks which are more appropriate to Sweden than to America. As Orwell put it, "He who controls the past, controls the future…"

Send your kids to private schools. If you can, homeschool them. Count your lucky stars if you actually can take advantage of a decent public school, but even then watch over your children's education constantly. The bottom line is that the public school system, once the secret to our success, will end up destroying America… if we let it.