Hockum's Razor

Songs around the camp fire.

2006-09-10T14:08:00.000-04:00

Well, sounds like Wretchard is feeling rather wretched.

The Belmont Club: The shadow of our hand

Our tools have converged but our souls have diverged. And intentionally too, for if the multicultural policies of the last century meant anything it was that we got to keep our own prejudices. The result is that while we all have cell phones some use them to call their friends and others use them to set off IEDs; where we can all fly but some to earn a living and others to make a religious statement. And no way to judge between. Nor does the problem consist simply of Infidels versus Muslims. The years since 9/11 have exploded the idea of a monolithic West and a single complaisant Ummah; a Muslim Shi'ite might prefer an American infidel over a Sunni and an American liberal an Iranian Mullah over a conservative countryman. We have equal opportunity everything; including equal opportunity hostility. If the Christian hell is defined as a place devoid of love, then welcome to the 21st century, where the watchword, if not "hate your neighbor" is at least "a neighbor you can hate".

Thirty years ago when I saw the movie "Little Big Man" they had a scene where the members of the Lakota tribe spoke of the themselves as "human beings." Those outside the tribe were not. Somehow this made them wiser than us. I couldn't figure out how or why. But that was a movie, and in the real world the less human the "other" is, the easier it is to kill him. In terms of the modern world the tribal view is not wiser, it is more atavistic. But when you tell the Lakota to accept all men as their brothers, are you asking them to become more human -- or less? Their world, extending beyond the far horizon, was vast and familiar -- and suddenly becomes puny and confusing.

It happened to the West first. The adjustment was difficult -- it's still difficult now that whales and bears are people, too. It's happening to everyone else now. Perhaps as they travel down the trail we blazed they will meet us coming back. Then we can build camp fires and sing songs. Amen.

I'm using Firefox "Performancing" to write this and just realized it don't have spellcheck. My world has suddenly become puny and confusing -- or is it my brain?.

The Bugs Bunny Democrats

2006-08-12T16:57:00.000-04:00

Bill Kristol quotes Richard Holbrooke in The Bugs Bunny Democrats:

Instead, there should be three U.S. foreign policy priorities: "containing the violence, finding a stable and secure solution that protects Israel," and "unwinding America's disastrous entanglement in Iraq in a manner that is not a complete humiliation and does not lead to even greater turmoil."

During the Vietnam protests they would say, "Declare victory and withdraw!" Now it is: "Declare we have not been humiliated!"

Muslim powers stage Mideast summit | Jerusalem Post

2006-08-03T12:58:00.000-04:00

Muslim powers stage Mideast summit | Jerusalem Post:

"Pakistani Foreign Minister Khursheed Kasuri said Israel's actions took the world 'back to the laws of the jungle.'

'It's a massacre,' Kasuri said. 'I wouldn't even call it a war, it's so one-sided.'

About 100 Malaysian Muslim activists demonstrated outside the summit venue as the leaders arrived, chanting anti-Israeli slogans and holding banners that read, 'Israelis are real terrorists' and 'Don't allow Muslims to be slaughtered.'"

Only 100?

Of course Pakistan sponsors terrorist who blow up commuter trains. But they don't call that war, do they?

Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference

2006-08-02T10:59:00.000-04:00

"The world of Islam and Muslim youth in all Islamic countries must know that the way to confront the wild wolf of Zionism [Israel] and aggression by the Great Satan [U.S.] is nothing but resistance. Surrender to the adventurist and seditionist America will add to their greed and impudence and will make things worse for nations,"

said the BBC Reporter. Oops, it was Top Turban Ali Khamenei of Iran. More jewels of wisdom from TT Khamenei (my spell check says, "Replace with Shaman" -- but only after he works his way through the ranks) can be found in Iran's top leader pledges to stand with Lebanon in fight against Israel , Haaretz.

Some one should tell TT that his allies on the left think wild wolves are misunderstood and deserve our sympathy and, of course, that Sympathy for Satan -- as well as all other devils -- is a given. If he really wants to get the juices flowing I would suggest calling them the "Entrepreneurs of Zionism" and "The Great Hunters, Fishermen and Sportsmen of America, United Statse of!"

Who's Responsible?

2006-08-01T07:39:00.000-04:00

BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Qana bombs an Israeli 'war crime':

"The Israeli military seems to consider anyone left in the area a combatant who is fair game for attack," said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch.

"Such consistent failure to distinguish combatants and civilians is a war crime."

Hezbollah, you see, doesn't fail. They don't even try.

The UN's emergency relief co-ordinator was highly critical of Israel's strike in Qana, calling it "indiscriminate and excessive".

But Jan Egeland refused to absolve Hezbollah of a share of the blame, reminding the group that using civilian areas as a base for military operations had long been "illegal and immoral".

"It has been so for 100 years, simply for the very reason that you make the women and children as much a target as you are yourself," Mr Egeland said.

However, Human Rights Watch said responsibility for Qana rested "squarely with the Israeli military".

Jan Egeland, at least, has some guts. He is not afraid of the Hezbollah enemies list or getting slighted at Continental cocktail parties.

Apparently, he's a Chaplain

2006-07-30T14:10:00.000-04:00

Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | As the shells fall around them, Hizbullah men await the Israelis:

"For the last five years he has been finishing his theology studies in Tehran. A month ago, he was asked by Hizbullah to return to southern Lebanon. He arrived a week before the fighting began.

Standing at the window, he points to the banana plantations between us and the blue Mediterranean. 'I have fought for years in these groves. We used to sit and wait for them [the Israelis] to make a move and then we would hit. They always moved too quickly, too soon.'"

One wonders, what happened to all the Palestinian refugees in South Lebanon? Is the term "Palestinian Refugee" refugee to redundant? So we just call them Lebanese refugees and dead Lebanese resistance fighters. Do they achieve in suffering what is denied them in life and good health? And does becoming Lebanese mean they give up the "right of return" to Israel? Hardly.

I think in the US we will soon see a new category on the Census form: Fifth Generation Palestinian Refugee American.

Just when I thought the IP was on his summer break...

2006-07-30T13:01:00.000-04:00

Blogger: Post a Comment: "Iranian president says, 'US and Britain must pay the bill for the Zionist regime's crimes' "

I don't know. This sounds rather tame for the Iranian President, whose name I will now try to spell: Ahmadinajad, I think (the spell check said "replace with handiness" -- but that is up to the Mullahs, who will no doubt replace the IP when he is no longer "handy"). In any case, the guy is a regular Pez dispenser for apocalyptic threats -- every time he opens his mouth out comes a new graven tablet -- so this seems rather mild. It comes via a What is "occupation" comment at the Belmont club.

I was wondering if the Mullahs had told him to put a sock into it. And maybe they have. Then you got to wonder, "What's he really thinking?"

Politics in Tehran

2006-07-24T14:35:00.000-04:00

What will happen next? - Haaretz - Israel News: "'It was a strategic miscalculation. Hezbollah didn't internalize changes in the broader strategic climate. The top regional issue today is Iran's nuclear drive, not the fate of Hamas or the Palestinian issue. If Hezbollah had understood this fully, it would have laid very low until needed by Iran in a mega-crisis with the United States. At that point, its threats against Israel would have been added to the overall deterrent capabilities of Iran, and might have caused the United States to think twice.

'Hezbollah apparently didn't understand this. If Iran was directly involved in the decision, it also shows an erosion of discipline in Iran's own decision-making process. Iran had nothing to gain from this little adventure, and a lot to lose. It may well be that President Ahmadinejad's rhetoric is beginning to cloud judgment in Tehran. "

Thus Spake Professor Martin Kramer, a research fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

In fact all this may relate to an internal Mullah political operation in Iran. The regime has two elements: a moderate element and a radical element. The radicals want to attack Israel using 24 nukes. The moderates want to only use twelve.

The radical element was pushed forward to take care of the Iranian Democrats (a crack down at home) and get the regime over the "nuclear bomb" threshold through the success of a policy of intimidation of the international community--or to trigger a reaction from the international community (say, a bombing campaign).

The reaction would allow the mullah's to turn on the radical element (which had suppressed the "Democracy Movement," thus serving its purpose) and reinstate faux moderation as official policy while reconstructing it's A-bomb program. By this time the world would have (from the Mullah point of view) tired of the struggle and would allow them to succeed, with the "moderate" haters in charge.

Personally, I think the US showed hold out for a bombing campaign they involves multiple actors (France, Britain, and Germany). If we have multiple actors, then everyone will have an incentive to "revisit the issue" in the future, as necessary.

Appetizing?

2006-07-18T12:20:00.000-04:00

The other day I watched the movie "Grizzly Man" about Timothy Treadwell, a fellow who lived closed to Grizzly Bears -- filming himself with them -- until one ate him. His girl friend was desert. Ok, I shouldn't joke about it.

But it did make me think of Daniel Pearl while I watched the movie. He surely knew the true nature of the animals he wanted to circulate among, but didn't think they would eat him. After all, he only wanted to get their story out--but the messenger became the message and being killed, delivered it. But you have to be able to see to read it. This from the NRO about how Brad Pitt is willing to make the same mistake -- though at a safe distance, I'm sure (Abby Wisse Schachter on Daniel Pearl & Hollywood):

"Angelina [Jolie] is going to play Marianne [Daniel Pearls widow], while Brad is making insulting proclamations about how important the film is going to be. To wit, last week Pitt characterized the goal of the film thusly: Ã“We hope the film can increase understanding between people of all faiths and portray the story and the people involved as honestly as possible without anger or judgment.Ã”

Just to clarify: Daniel Pearl was a young investigative journalist writing for the Wall Street Journal from Pakistan, who in 2002 was lured to an interview, kidnapped by Islamic fundamentalists, bound, beaten, terrorized and finally beheaded Ã— all with cameras rolling. In the last moments before Daniel Pearl was brutally decapitated, his killers demanded that he identify himself. Not as an American, not as an infidel, not as a journalist. He was forced to define himself one way and one way only Ã— as a Jew Ã— and then his head was removed from his body. There are tapes of this gruesome scene Ã— and theyÃ’re going cheap."

Grizzly Man did film the Bear that ate him a few hours before he came over for dinner. He got quite close. Werner Herzog, the veteran nature filmmaker who wrote and narrated the documentary talked of the Bear looking at Treadwell with cold eyes. Like he was his next satisfying meal.

A Pimp too Far

2006-07-18T09:24:00.000-04:00

The Belmont Club: The Dark Crossroads

I'll try to be optimistic for a moment.

I wonder what new "steady state" for geo-politics could emerge from all this (short of wide spread war).

The Regime in Iran looks less and less like a cult and more and more like a suicide pact willing to take the rest of the world with it when it goes.

This is resulting in a surprisingly diverse "coalition of forces" emerging against it. Regime survival may force it to seek protection.

Who can protect it? China and Russia. I don't think either one of them would try to do it alone -- you've acquired a millstone, not an ally.

But together they could form a block that stretches from North Korea to the Ukraine. Russia would bring in the Central Asian Republics and China would bring in Pakistan. Nato would be squeezed from Afghanistan (but the new government could remain).

As a condition Russia and China must denuke Korea and Iran -- they would have to be clients, not nuke armed allies that will get you all killed.

Syria would go Sunni, regime wise. The Sunnis would align with the West -- but quite loosely. The Islamic world would be split for a time (in historic terms), but this "Islam on the March thing" must be making even Muslims nervous (they could march off the cliff).

What about the Palestinians? Well, they've whored themselves to every trouble maker in the world but in the Iranian regime they may have gone a pimp to far. So they will accept whatever settlement they are offered -- for decade or two, anyways.

Iraq becomes a buffer state with a US presence, perhaps allied with Turkey. Nato becomes relevant as a defensive alliance once more. And so on.

The Mullahs will survive but their ambitions will be set back at least a decade (they will tell themselves) but probably much more.

The French will continue.

International terrorism will return to being "a diplomatic note delivered by other means" as it was during the cold war. No more mega attacks that will get you all killed.

This is sounding like a "realist" wet dream. Sorry.

The Belmont Club: The International Force For Lebanon

2006-07-17T13:48:00.000-04:00

The Belmont Club: The International Force For Lebanon

Folks, ain't it obvious, the International Peace Keeping Force should come from the African Union. They have decades of experience at Peace Keeping and that special "Keep your head down while accepting every bribe on offer" approach is just what the situation needs. As for their running around raping the local population: are you kidding? They'd all be killed.

I think Israel could work around them effectively enough.

I know it is a bit out of area for them, but the UN should always be willing to call on the best troops to handle the job no matter where they come from. And the AU has prevented the destruction of Muslim Arab populations in the Sudan. That was their job, wasn't it? Ah, let me go back and check the BBC reports again, but that was their job -- wasn't it?

So, have the Security Council Nations swap out with the AU in the Sudan and send the AU troops to Lebanon. Hell? They are halfway there already.

What's Diplomatic Speak for "You and what army?"

2006-07-15T19:20:00.000-04:00

From The Daily Star (Arab states take dim view of 'adventurism' by Hizbullah):

"The Zionist regime does not dare to cast a look with bad intentions at Iran," the president [Ahmadinejad of Iran] was quoted as saying by state television.

"If Israel commits another act of idiocy and aggresses Syria, this will be the same as an aggression against the entire Islamic world and it will receive a stinging response," he said in a phone conversation with his Syrian counterpart Bashar Assad.

"The Israeli aggressions are a result of the weakness of a puppet regime that is on its way toward disappearing," state television quoted him as saying.

I wonder what President Assad said in reply. "Thank you, mine Fuhrer?"

Tomorrow, the Iranian President will say, "I double dare Israel to attack Syria. I double dare them with chocolate and peanuts on top!"

The Day after he'll be saying "If the Israelis weren't such craven cowards, they would attack Syria! They would march to Damascus and drag President what's-his-name out of the presidential palace by his nose hairs! But they don't. Why? 'Cause they be scared of me, that's why. For I will certainly chastise them again, silly Hebrew persons that they are!"

Has President Ahmadinejad showed off his prison tattoos lately?

The Root Causes Are Showing

2006-07-15T15:03:00.000-04:00

Rami G. Khouri writes in The Daily Star of Lebanon (The 4 pairs in the Middle East's Death Dance):

"You need to understand the relationship among four pairs of actors to grasp the meaning of the escalating attacks by Hamas, Hizbullah and Israel in recent days. The four pairs are Hamas and Hizbullah, the Palestinian and Lebanese governments, Syria and Iran, and Israel and the United States.

Simplistically, US President George W. Bush has depicted this latest round of war as a clash between good and evil, while the Israeli government has tried to blame Palestinians and Lebanese who only want to make war against a peace-loving Israel. The more nuanced and complex reality is that all the actors in the four pairs collectively play a role in the ongoing fighting, as we witness the culmination of four decades of failed policies that have kept the Middle East tense, angry and violent."

I wasn't aware that GWB was speaking simplistically, but it could be a case of familiarity failing to breed contempt. Of course, I think Complaining that a war is being fought "disproportionately," in the manner of President Chirac, is simplistic. Perhaps he was thinking of how his man in the World Cup tournament got tossed from the game when he "head butted" his opponent: it was a disproportionate act and the "red card" was the proportionate response.

But in this case the other team is a bunch of terrorists. They are allowed to blow up your team bus, with you on it. This is a different game entirely (and, of course, France is a player).

Now, this is interesting article, but it suffers from the "disproportionate" assigning of blame common among Europeans and the unbalanced analysis one might expect from your basic "60 Minutes" Middle East expert.

For instance, Mr. Khouri writes of "four decades of failed policies that have kept the Middle East tense, angry and violent." But if your goal is to keep the Middle East tense, angry and violent, then how can the policies be termed a failure? So the question to ask is "who wants to keep the Middle East at high boil?" And the next question: "who wants it to cool off?" Now, if your a sincere European Leftist, don't worry, I expect you to come up with the wrong answer. And don't worry, I know enough not to argue with a Leftist about imperialism: they only start quoting scripture. "Verily, look upon the work of the capitalist pig-dog and you will see: It is blood for oil! Blood for oil!"

Actually, it is dollars for oil. Quite a lot of them, as a matter of fact. When the pots at boil, the price of oil goes way up. If you buy oil you want calm so you can pay less for it. If you sell oil, instability has its uses (especially if you are removed from the scene -- Russia has much to gain from instability in the region while Saudi Arabia has much to gain but much more to loose). But let's move on.

Mr. Khouri writes, "Hizbullah and Hamas emerged in the past decade as the main Arab political forces resisting Israeli occupation in Lebanon and Palestine." Now, this is where your basic Middle East expert would often confuse me. You see, is Mr. Khouri speaking about the Israeli occupation of "Palestine?" Or the Israeli occupation of Israel? Because that is what Hamas and Hezbollah are talking about. Since 1948, the policy of Israel's enemies is its destruction (excuse me, "the annihilation of the Zionist entity.") The sole contribution of the League of Middle East Experts to this debate was a change of terminology: Don't speak of the annihilation of Israel, but of the end to Israeli occupation (of Israel). Admittedly, this was a rhetorical advance for the annihilation side of the argument.

Another rhetorical advance was the concept of Balance. They use to say, "The US helped create the Zionist Entity and must help us annihilate it or else will kill your ambassadors and hijack your planes and bring your nation to utter destruction and ruin." This has been replaced with, "The US should adopt a more balanced approach."

While the new terminology is an admitted rhetorical advance, it is emotionally much less satisfying -- so there are the occasional "slip-ups."

You see, for several decades I wrongly believed that Middle East experts were promoting a failed set of policies, and I would marvel that 60 Minutes or the News Hour on PBS would have these failures on the air year after year. But I was wrong. In fact, I owe the whole tribe of Middle East experts an apology. I failed to understand the policies that they, in the main, promote.

I thought they wanted Israel living in peace with its neighbors as the "end state" for Middle East states. But actually, they want the end of Israel's occupation of Israel: not Israel living in peace but leaving in bloody pieces -- as dead as Lincoln's Dog (that's the dog that crossed the wrong person and got himself blowed up). So, I was unfair when I judged their policy prescriptions a failure. They would, if followed, inevitably lead to success.

Let's return to Mr Khouri, "...the US and Israel, find themselves in the bizarre position of repeating policies that have consistently failed for the past 40 years."

Let's see, forty years ago was 1966. The policy of one side in the conflict was, and remains, the annihilation of the Zionist entity, i.e. the end of the Israeli occupation of Israel. Have their policies succeeded in the intervening 40 years? No. But they also sought to keep the Middle East tense, angry and violent. In that they have been successful.

The policy of the United States and Israel is that Israel should continue to exist. In that they have been successful. They also sought to bring peace and stability to the region. In that they have not been successful but, please, give them a break--much of the world, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, have been pimping on the other side of the street -- and calling it "balance."

Rudy's Route to the Heart of the GOP: Federalism

2006-07-14T12:10:00.000-04:00

This via instapundit.com, quoting HOWARD KURTZ ON RUDY GIULIANI:

Those who think that the 9/11 hero would be a formidable candidate are forgetting about the 9/10 Rudy. Meaning, this is a guy who is pro-choice on abortion, pro-gay rights and moved in with a gay couple after a messy breakup with his wife that came as he was dating another woman. None of that is likely to sit well with Republican primary voters (although Giuliani would be a strong general-election candidate with appeal to Democrats if he could ever win the GOP nod).

And then Glen Reynolds adds, "He's polled very, very well among InstaPundit readers, who probably aren't typical Republican primary voters. But he's also polled very, very well among Hugh Hewitt's readers, who probably are."

I would suggest that Rudy take two positions:

1. He likes the judges GWB has appointed.

2. That he would support an amendment to the Constitution that would allow the people of the State to define marriage rather than the judges.

3. Ditto on abortion: allow the state legislatures to decide. Abortion is not a human right, but he believes it should be legal, regulated and rare -- and outlawed, if the people of a state so choose.

OK. That's three positions.

The Terrorists are Winning!

2006-07-11T17:05:00.000-04:00

That is what I thought when I first read the Headline in the WP:

Rethinking Embattled Tactics in Terror War: "Five years after the attacks on the United States, the Bush administration faces the prospect of reworking key elements of its anti-terrorism effort in light of challenges from the courts, Congress and European allies crucial to counterterrorism operations."

Well, maybe the Terrorists are winning. With a little help from our friends.

International Law is an Ass

2006-07-11T13:02:00.000-04:00

I guess the Spaniards are honorary brown people. Tony Horowitz writes in the NYT (Immigration and the Curse of the Black Legend):

"COURSING through the immigration debate is the unexamined faith that American history rests on English bedrock, or Plymouth Rock to be specific. Jamestown also gets a nod, particularly in the run-up to its 400th birthday, but John Smith was English, too (he even coined the name New England)."

I can certainly believe the faith is unexamined--at least by Tony. He might have come across the Mayflower Compact if he had bothered to examine it. But allow him to continue.

So amid the din over border control, the Senate affirms the self-evident truth that English is our national language; 'It is part of our blood,' Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee, says. Border vigilantes call themselves Minutemen, summoning colonial Massachusetts as they apprehend Hispanics in the desert Southwest. Even undocumented immigrants invoke our Anglo founders, waving placards that read, 'The Pilgrims didn't have papers.'

Tony got a point here. The only authentic Minutemen are found in the Sunni Triangle blowing up our troops--whose coats are red whenever the Muslim Minutemen are successful.

These newcomers are well indoctrinated; four of the sample questions on our naturalization test ask about Pilgrims. Nothing in the sample exam suggests that prospective citizens need know anything that occurred on this continent before the Mayflower landed in 1620. Few Americans do, after all.

This national amnesia isn't new, but it's glaring and supremely paradoxical at a moment when politicians warn of the threat posed to our culture and identity by an invasion of immigrants from across the Mexican border. If Americans hit the books, they'd find what Al Gore would call an inconvenient truth. The early history of what is now the United States was Spanish, not English, and our denial of this heritage is rooted in age-old stereotypes that still entangle today's immigration debate.

Forget for a moment the millions of Indians who occupied this continent for 13,000 or more years before anyone else arrived, and start the clock with Europeans' presence on present-day United States soil. The first confirmed landing wasn't by Vikings, who reached Canada in about 1000, or by Columbus, who reached the Bahamas in 1492. It was by a Spaniard, Juan Ponce de Leon, who landed in 1513 at a lush shore he christened La Florida."

Talk about inconvenient truths. Apparently, one guy with a flag can claim an entire continent for King and Country. Or is he claiming it for Mexico before the Spanish even arrived in Mexico? And if the descendents of the Spaniards can forget about the Indians, why can't the descendents of the English forget about the descendents of the Spaniards?

Of course, Columbus was Italian, which kind of steps on Tony's argument (why do Italians need Passports to visit the New World? And why do they have to learn Spanish? Don't Spanish speakers know history?)

Of course, they've been excavating Viking Villages in Canada. So how come the Vikings being in America is undocumented (undocumented explorers are the worst kind!). What'd they do, send the village ahead? And what about St. Brendan the Navigator? Perhaps the Irish belong here after all!

The fact is we bought Florida from Spain, the central US from France, the Southwest from Mexico (Texas had won its independence) and Alaska from Russia. All by Treaty. All recognized by international law. Is Tony's point that we can all ignore international Law whenever we find it convenient? Does the NYT agree?

Then Tony tells us the Spanish Imperialists were misunderstood:

"Anglo Americans," writes David J. Weber, the pre-eminent historian of Spanish North America, "inherited the view that Spaniards were unusually cruel, avaricious, treacherous, fanatical, superstitious, cowardly, corrupt, decadent, indolent and authoritarian."

I don't know. They sound kind of French.

The Cult of the Multi-Culti

2006-07-03T17:53:00.000-04:00

I think good drama makes for mighty poor reality--the movie adaptations of The Lord of the Rings come to mind. I've known a few orcs in my day, and found them to be basically misunderstood, like the lead characters in Never Cry Wolf or the Ogre in Shrek. The orcs I've met will buy a round of drinks and then peacefully contest which one could bury his forehead the deepest into the bar's pine paneling. And, though I've never knowingly communed with an ogre, I suppose ogres are witty, and would eat you in only the most delightfully figurative manner--should they literally eat you it's probably your own damned fault ("blowback" is the technical term). And let's face it, wolves are cute--unless they're ripping out someones throat, though perhaps that depends on who that someone is.

Twenty years ago the new understanding of the misunderstanding of ogres and wolves was counter intuitive, the original intuition being the product of minds intoxicated by Western Civilization and thus alienated from nature, where goblins can truly be turned away with candy.

But recently the Western Mind said never mind. Now we have new intuitions, which equate staying safe with wearing a condom and, of course, better airbags for our various hybrids. Alright, you do have to avoid the occasional IED attack launched by other Civilizations -- Civilizations less intoxicated than ours or perhaps intoxicated in some other way. These Civilizations are right to be upset about -- about what? Well, it's not very clear--unless, of course, you listen to what they say. But let's move on.

Because the planet's other cultures have much to teach us. And we, them. Especially if we write the script and chose what to produce.

I found the DVD of Whale Rider (2002) lurking on the shelf of my local library, waiting for me to finish the Thin Man series (Ah, Myrna Loy on celluloid!) and move from the T's to the double-u's.

Ralph Michael Stein made the following comment on the movie at IMBD.

"Serious attempts to sustain Maori values and culture in the face of assimilative pressures meet with varied degrees of success (in Koro's Maori school the kids wear t-shirts with rock themes and one has a shirt advertising an upstate New York resort area if I saw correctly). New Zealand's most internationally renowned Maori is the opera diva Kiri te Kanawa who is now dedicated to Maori cultural restoration projects. 'Whale Rider' can only give a boost to such efforts which, as this film shows, makes not only New Zealand but the world richer."

This is a movie that looks a Maori values and culture and says, "it's all very nice, but could use with some improvements." In truth, it stayed silent on the T-shirts, perhaps because they were made in Pakistan and the plant foreman's own shirt advertised a jihadist training camp in the tribal belt.

But the movie did suggest that Maori culture needs such innovations as Woman Chiefs (I gather it was formerly a man's job) with -- given the flick's basic thrust -- gay marriage to follow closely. I won't say a movie promoting these cultural innovations is bad, just that it's like the traditional story of putting paws on snakes: Once you draw a snake with paws you no longer have drawn a snake because snakes, you see, don't have paws. Or something.

Towards the end of the movie a pod of whales beach themselves. The Maori respond the way members of the tribe that grew up privileged on Long Island would--the Maori try to move the whales back out to sea. Later I learned that Witi Ihimaera, who wrote the novel, was inspired by the response of New York City to a whale lost in the Hudson River. So perhaps this is not far off the mark.

I figure a couple hundred years ago a couple of hundred traditional Maori who found these mounds of high quality protein laying on the beach would say, "Let's carve one up!" And, when finished, they'd say, "That wasn't so bad, let's carve up another one!"

But apparently a Green Peace preacher from Laguna Beach had passed through, so they try, unsuccessfully, to haul the pod leader out to sea. This was organized by Koro, the less than tolerant--and fading--patriarch. Eventually, the girl who should be Chief rides the whale out to sea. In this way nature and plot become one. Would it be too much to say that at this moment a new culture was born? Yes. Because, remember, it's only a movie.

Another movie I found in the Double-u's is the Woodsman. More on that later.

When the Supreme Court makes up new law, do the Ex Post Facto provisions apply?

2006-06-30T10:39:00.000-04:00

I believe there is a tendency in our courts to grant the protections of American Citizenship to everyone in the world, including Monk Seals. Monk Seals, I don't mind, but terrorists?

Rosa Brooks: Did Bush commit war crimes? - Los Angeles Times:

"THE SUPREME Court on Thursday dealt the Bush administration a stinging rebuke, declaring in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld that military commissions for trying terrorist suspects violate both U.S. military law and the Geneva Convention.

But the real blockbuster in the Hamdan decision is the court's holding that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention applies to the conflict with Al Qaeda — a holding that makes high-ranking Bush administration officials potentially subject to prosecution under the federal War Crimes Act."

Rosa is confusing a law with a contract. You can not murder a person who wants to murder you. That is against the law, and the fact that the other person will not follow the law himself is not an excuse.

A contract applies to only those who sign it. And there are, of course, deal breakers.

As for the question: Do the Ex Post Facto provisions of the Constitution apply to the Supreme Court, well, only the Supreme Court can decide, and they will have to recuse themselves.

Help Wanted In Iraq: Really?

2006-06-29T10:34:00.000-04:00

I wonder what the Iraqis would say: replace the US presence with, basically, the UN? Put it to a vote. Right now they associate the international community with "the bigger, better IED" and the jihadi suicide bomber at the local mosque (as well as support for the Baathist insurrection in general).

Success must be near in Iraq if the international community wants to show up and take credit. But I think the Iraqis have decided they will have to sort it out for themselves. Which may be the best foundation for building a representative Republic.

This (Help Wanted In Iraq) is from the Washington Post. The author is John Kornblum, chairman of Lazard Freres Germany and a former U.S. ambassador to Germany. Wait a second. Was he the German ambassador to America or the American ambassador to Germany? Doesn't matter.

"By largely going it alone in Iraq, we rapidly transformed ourselves from liberator to occupying power. All burdens have fallen on the Americans, but our credibility is too tarnished to handle them. Neither world public opinion nor American political dynamics will allow us to stay there long enough to stabilize Iraqi society, even if we could. No one country has either the resources or the credibility to do the job alone. We need direct and long-term engagement by other major countries, including a credible multilateral military force, and we need it fast.

To organize such help the administration would need to accept three painful truths: (1) that neither George W. Bush nor his successor will be able to finish the job in Iraq; (2) that the current 'coalition' is not close to being the serious international presence needed to stabilize Iraq in the coming years; and, perhaps most difficult, (3) that even for the United States some sort of international legitimacy is essential to maintain viability, both domestic and international, for the long term.

Experience in the Balkans and elsewhere shows that this sort of political-military engagement takes years to complete. Ten years later, we are still in Bosnia and are far from dealing with the tensions in Kosovo."

So the international community is still mucking around in the Balkans. Hmmm.

Comments on the Comments

2006-06-28T12:32:00.000-04:00

The Belmont Club: All We Are Saying Is Give Peace A Chance

1. Keep in mind, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. In the case of suicidal terror groups that blow up school busses, this is a sobering thought.

2. Yassar Arafat and Hamas were the product of real politic, not an emphasis (however fleeting) on democracy. Hamas was useful to make Arafat the "moderate." The same game is being played today (see point one).

3. The way in which democracy functions is often misunderstood. You have governing elites that offer their services and the voters (the customers) choose between them. As the elites compete for customer "votes," services will hopefully improve. In fact, the elites are competing -- in their own special way -- in the PA. But obviously violence has its uses in PA politics.

4. If the US gives Hamas money it will be used for good--because we will audit it. The much greater amounts that everyone else will then give them will be used for evil. When we object they will say "but you give them money, too!"

Therefore it will be stupid beyond belief to give them money. Period. But, we'll do it anyway.

See point one.

5. If the US voter elected a pack of thieves and terrorist (real thieves and terrorist) would the world keep sending money here, or run for the exits? After all, it was our democratic choice--

6. Voting should always mean you are willing to say, "I'm sorry."

The latest from the Left: If we don't give money to terrorist it is an "embargo," and a "boycott" and "sanctions." File this under "apartheid wall."

And what produced the conditions that produced the politician?

2006-06-26T11:36:00.000-04:00

They hate him, but they made him - Los Angeles Times:

"MANY MEXICANS VIEW presidential candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador as a dangerous man. 'He's a fiery populist,' they say. 'He'll destroy the country,' they argue. 'He's a false messiah,' they insist. But the efforts to portray the left-wing leader as the Mexican version of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez miss the point. Lopez Obrador is a symptom of deep problems that Mexico needs to address. Inciting hatred toward a man who is perceived as close to the dispossessed won't eliminate their legitimate grievances.

And that's the real danger for Mexico; that in their efforts to disavow Lopez Obrador, Mexico's ruling elites disregard the conditions that produced him."

I've noticed that in Latin America revolutionary movements , in their hopeful early years, "succeed" on the Left and then fail on the right. The coup of the reforming Socialist Colonels becomes the regime of the Right Wing Generals. In Mexico's case, it was the revolution of 1911 and then the nationalization of US oil companies (creating Pemex) and other such "socialist" innovations which created the problems that created the guy who will no doubt make those problems worse--and blame them on the US.

BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Iraq PM unveils unity proposals

2006-06-25T10:54:00.000-04:00

Hmmmm.

BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Iraq PM unveils unity proposals: "But the BBC's Jim Muir in Baghdad says there are concerns that the plan will not work as it does not seek reconciliation with those at the heart of the insurgency - the radical Islamists, many of them foreigners, who want Iraq to be the centre of a new Islamic empire."

Gee, I wonder who would be concerned about that? I love the fact that the radical Islamist are now at the heart of the insurgency. A couple weeks ago--when we nailed their leader--they were on the periphery. Them Islamist sure move around!

Counterterrorism Blog

2006-06-24T20:56:00.000-04:00

From the Counterterrorism Blog:

U.S. Government Terrorist Financing Initiative Involving SWIFT (updated)
By Dennis Lormel

This morning, media reports disclosed the U.S. Government’s use of the SWIFT network in furtherance of its terrorist financing initiative. My initial reaction is one of pride and despair. As a former government official, I was involved in this program. On one hand, I’m proud of the notable work performed and what has been accomplished. On the other hand, I’m disappointed and concerned that the media felt compelled to run another story that undermines National Security in the fight on terrorism by disrupting and diminishing an important investigative tool."

Here's hoping the following remains theoretical.

I'm not a Lawyer, but seems to me if Saudi Arabia could be sued after the 9-11 attacks, then the NYT and the LAT might be nailed with a suit after the next big one. After all, their publication of classified information is both illegal and systematic. It could be argued the attack would have been prevented if they had simply obeyed the law and not received the "stolen goods."

Would it not be ironic if, at the very time they are trying to blame President Bush for not stopping an attack, they get hit with a widows and orphans suit blaming them?

Hopefully, none of it will come to pass.

The left is so anxious to prevent GWB from getting credit for preventing attacks they end up convincing themselves there is no threat. Since there is no threat, everything done to counteract it is an overreaction. So they look like they don't take terrorism seriously--and they don't. So maybe the next group of victims will end up owning the NYT.

Ask.com News Results

2006-06-17T13:06:00.000-04:00

I wondered why I don't come down with more colds. Via Ask.com News:

"WASHINGTON (AP) - Gritty rats and mice living in sewers and farms seem to have healthier immune systems than their squeaky clean cousins that frolic..."

I do not frolic. Period.

From Instapundit--Fake but Inaccurate?

2006-06-17T10:09:00.000-04:00

Personally, I lean towards "disinformation." From Instapundit.com:

Meanwhile, Michael Ledeen thinks the Zarqawi documents are fake. "I think the Iranians put out this sort of nonsense so that we'll have trouble figuring out what's real. And by the way, it wasn't found in Zarqawi's house, contrary to the triumphant announcement from the office of the Iraqi prime minister. So it's certainly not a Last Testament. ItÂ's just nonsense."

ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader Marc Landers emails:

Glenn, if the documents are fake, as some are now claiming, how do we account for the over 700 terrorists captured, 140 killed and 28 weapons caches discovered since the Zarqawi documents were found? Not the mention the near 500 raids mounted as a result of capturing those documents.

One could take each ÂinaccuracyÂ in the documents that Leeden points out and argue that Zarqawi was writing to his audience, not us, and was using his arguments to rally his troops. Zaraqwi could have been saying to his troops, look attacks are down, more countries are starting to support the US and therefore we need to do a better job of increasing attacks, infiltrating the National Guard and stop countries from supporting the US.

Then again, the documents could be both fake and real. The real parts led us to a lot of terrorists and weapons caches and our side could have inserted the fake parts, which makes us look good. ItÂs baffling though, that if the ÂinaccuraciesÂ are as blatant as Leeden asserts, why did someone do such a poor job of faking them?

I blame Dan Rather."

Oh, My God?

2006-06-15T14:45:00.000-04:00

Stephen Hawking said "New observational results and theoretical advances are coming in rapidly; cosmology is a very exciting subject. We are getting close to answering these old questions: why are we here, where did we come from? And we're not going to like the answers!"

oops, I added the last bit.

The Belmont Club: Liberal Internationalism

2006-06-15T11:43:00.000-04:00

The Belmont Club: Liberal Internationalism

Democrats fought the Cold War, not the left. The left opposed fighting the Cold War. The whole debate is nothing but a crock. The intellectual heirs of Alger Hiss are now taking the credit for what Democrats did, at a time they considered three quarters of the party (i.e. the voters) racist hicks. Only half of them were.

Harry Truman went into Korea with UN backing because he quickly called a vote while Stalin was boycotting the Security Council (the Commies never made that mistake again). Gee, does that make it an illegal war? Who was Secretary General, Ken Blackwell? So much for Liberal Internationalism!

As for Kerry, to call for a negotiated defeat in Iraq -- and then suggest we hang around to have our faces rubbed in it -- would be contemptible if wasn't so nutty.

A Media Synopsis of Zarqawi's Career

2006-06-14T12:07:00.000-04:00

Zarqman and the Magic Cave of the Truly Independent Operator

Hockum

The June 19 issue of Newsweek informed me that when American soldiers found Abu Musab al-Zarqawi he was on a stretcher muttering prayers and "turned away from his captors, imagining, perhaps, what awaited him in paradise." So I had to ask myself: where does a man of such abiding faith come from? And certainly I could understand Mr. Thomas and Nordland's disdain when they reported:

The jingoes exulted [in Zarqawi's death]. GOTCHA! screamed the New York Post, showing a blowup of Zarqawi's face, bruised and puffy (the tabloid couldn't resist a cartoon bubble from the dead terrorist's mouth uttering the command "Warm up the virgins").

Once I learned Manhattan is overrun by jingoes, I wondered if that fact could effect Newsweek's reporting--serve to tone it down. I've heard in the past they sometimes trim the coverage in their American edition while providing the French and Arabs with the unvarnished truth of American perfidy (apparently Zarqawi was a reader). So where, I asked myself, might I find the true story of this Terrorist so-called?

On the Internet, of course. I patched together his biography by consulting many sources, including Reuters, CBS, C-More BS, C-Yet More BS and finally BBC the BS until you PBS. Also, I consulted the Hollywood screenplay "The Caliphate Kid or Andalusia Soon," a movie which could do for Brad Pitt what "The Motorcycle Diaries" did for what's his face.

It's from sources like these you learn the "humanizing details" about the man -- that his life wasn't all about being a monster. For instance, Zarqawi was often called "Zarqman" by his comrades, even though (or because) the name annoyed him--he thought it sounded Jewish. One night they were binge drinking (this was part of their cover) and they kept calling him "Zarqman! Zarqman! Rhymes with Zionist!" even though it doesn't rhyme with Zionist. Finally, he got so mad he cut someone's head off (in this case, the Korean gardener). It's touches like these that bring the guy to life (Zarqman, not the gardener).

Zarqman was of noble lineage. His family line are the rightful rulers not only of Jordan, but the area currently occupied by Israel and Syria and much of Saudi Arabia -- and while you're about it, throw in the rest of the world.

Unfortunately, the royal line hit some bumps in the road and ended up in a ditch. This was in 1485. BC. So by the time of his birth his parents were little more than dispossessed Bedouins wandering the banks of the River Jordan. Yet there were portentous omens along with the pretentious ones: for at the moment of his birth Zarqman had a fully formed beard, wore a stylish skull cap on his shaved head, and had prominent prison gang tattoos of prominent prison gangs. To come out of the womb this way was considered a sign. Indeed, his birth parents decided the infant was the spawn of Satan. So they put him in a basket and they floated him down The River Jordan.

He was found by some washerwomen-persons. They looked at him and said, "This baby is obviously the Spawn of Satan!" Others said, "Yes, but he's cute." Still, no one wanted to take him home. So they strapped him to an ass and kicked the ass in the butt and drove the ass and the infant into the wilderness.

Now as fortune would have it, the bindings were not tied fast. Zarqman slipped to the underside of the ass and was able to suckle the ass as he wandered the wilderness. He grew strong on the ass's protein rich excretions. Then one day the ass was spotted by a mason -- a brick layer who also belonged to a secret brotherhood. And the mason saw that the ass carried a bearded baby wearing a stylish skull cap while lapping the protein rich excretions from its underside. And the mason thought that surely the baby was a spawn of Satan. But then he thought, "Given the current Geopolitical situation, and given this is the Middle East, the spawn of Satan surely has a bright future." So he took Zarqman home and sold the ass at great profit to a pair of stranded British Trotskyites on pilgrimage to a Black September Terror Training Camp.

Zarqman's new dad named him "Hockerpuke al Scrotum," which means "Damien" in ancient movie language. He raised Hockerpuke as if he was his own son, beating him several times a day. Hockerpuke always wished his parents had named him Jim. It was a difficult childhood because Hockerpuke was the only kid at school with a full beard and a shaved head and a stylish skull cap welded permanently to his scalp. And when the other kids learned his true parentage, and started calling him "Ass Suckle," he almost wished they would call him Hockerpuke al Scrotum.

It wasn't until the Iceman Infidels invaded "The Land of the Tall Mountains" that Zarqman found his mission in life. He decided to fight The Iceman Infidels and turned to petty theft to finance the journey. Unfortunately, he wasn't a good thief (he was, in fact, a very bad--horribly bad--thief. A disgusting thief. A simply awful, even as thieves go, thief). Soon he found himself in prison, were he learned to become a thug and a good Muslim -- err, that doesn't sound right. Let's turn to Newsweek: "Memorizing passages from the Qur'an, he became an infidel-hating Salafist and a successful prison bully." Better. Point is, he was a success.

By the time he made it to Afghanistan the Iceman Infidels had left (obviously, they heard he was coming). Still, Zarqman's willingness to kill anything--beetles, goats, pigeons, you name it--really impressed the guys in the Land of the Really Tall Mountains. They also liked his stylish skullcap and pious ways. He was happy here because no one knew his nickname was "ass suckle." He threw himself into his training. He got an "A" in Public Executions and an "A+" (before grade inflation!) in Blowing up Harmless NGO Infant and Mother Feeding Stations in Hard Hit Famine Areas. Soon, he was voted Terrorist Most Likely to Succeed and made the "All al Qaeda" team.

He was so impressive they decided to give him a Genius Grant. Al Qaeda Genius Grants were hotly sought after. While a Terrorist would literally kill for one, real people die (that being the point). In his meeting with Osama bin Laden, the terror leader gave him the application forms and emphasized the funds--a truly vast sum, more than Zarqman could steal in a lifetime--came with no strings attached. "You can do anything you wish with the money," said Osama. "You can write poetry for the rest of your life or open a research hospital to find a cure for childhood leukemia. Anything at all. There are no strings attached."

And then he added, in that quiet way of his, "Or perhaps you might wish to sow terror--become a truly independent operator. A terrorist so heinous and independent of me that I seem reasonable by comparison--a moderate in the mode of Yassar Arafat. Someone the Europeans would love to negotiate with. But it's up to you. There are no strings attached. You will truly be an independent operator. "

Such a grant of money would be a cause of great rejoicing for most people. But not for Zarqman. He took the application into the wilderness to fast and think. He drank only brackish water for a week. Then one day bags of Oreo Cookies and Meals Ready to Eat miraculously fell from the sky. Mistakenly, he ate the Oreo Cookies first (several bags!) and during the resulting convulsions he had a vision. In the vision he saw a burning President Bush, who told him through the flames that in the world outside the one described in Newsweek, "there is no such thing as money for aspiring terrorists that comes with no strings attached." Only instead of aspiring terrorist he mistakenly said "perspiring terrorist"-- and Zarqman was perspiring!

Later, when he recovered some, he built a fire to roast an MRE. He used his al Qaeda Genius Grant brochures and paperwork (stacks of it) to fuel that fire. And by the light of the fire he saw the opening to a secret cave--a cave that otherwise would have remained unknown to him.

In the cave he found a magic substance that could be turned into food, or clothing, or weapons. Place this magical substance in the palm of someone's hand and it would greatly influence them to do your bidding. The substance is called "dollars," and there were more of them in this cave then he could steal in a hundred lifetimes. He also found in this cave a magic wormhole. Step through this magic wormhole and you would be transported from "The Land of the Really Tall Mountains" to "The Land between the Two Rivers but in the bit Outside the Control of Saddam Hussein because of the Child Killing Sanctions Imposed by the US Imperialists." Use this hole and you don't have to pass through Iran to get to Iraq or fill out visa applications or use your contacts with the Iraqi Secret Police or go through passenger screening.

And in this cave he also found a very big sack of Dragon's Teeth.

He took a Dragon's tooth outside the cave and threw it as far as he could. And up out of the ground sprang a fully formed Jihadi dressed in a suit with a suicide vest (pin stripped). And Zarqman called to the Jihadi, "Show me what you can do!" And the Jihadi blew himself up, launching his head over the hill and clear into the next valley. And Zarqman saw that the Dragon's teeth were very good. And he named the cave "The Magical Cave of the Truly Independent Operator."

And so he used some magic dollars to independently open his independent terror training camp in the Land of the Tall Mountains. He even borrowed a stencil machine and hand cranked his brochures (Camp Ricin, he called it). When he held the camp's open house he prepared the Couscous himself.

Alas, the cowardly Americans bombed his camp from 50,000 Ft. So Zarqman went to The Magical Cave of the Truly Independent Operator and took his sack of Dragon's Teeth and all his bags of dollars and jumped through the magic wormhole to Iraq, where he could sow his Dragons Teeth and spread his magic dollars and have the world blame the resulting chaos on the President who burns but is not consumed.

The End