Le Sabot Post-Moderne

Democratic Buyer's Remorse?

Resisting the most basic inclination of Liberalism, Dems followed the lead of reason this year rather than emotion -- picking the stolid but seemingly-electable Kerry over the true love of their heart, Dean. At the time, a lot of Republicans predicted buyer's remorse. Such was the Dems' desire for victory that they've kept grousing to a minimum, keeping their focus on Bush. But the brave front seems to be cracking in the face of poll after depressing poll.

"It’s too late to make a difference, with President Bush cruising toward re-election and rolling over the pathetic, disorganized Kerry “campaign,”. . ."

"How I wish that John Kerry had grown up in my old neighborhood in the Bronx. It drives me crazy that he doesn't have the street smarts to call those GOP bums out. . ."

"John Kerry is in trouble because the Bush campaign has seized control of what psychologists call the "frame" of this year's presidential contest. . . Kerry has about two weeks to break the frame before the election freezes into a lock."

" Spirit-crushing foolishness from my candidate, John Kerry. The nation is trying to figure out how to fight global terrorism and he's talking about having "not just a Department of Health and Human Services, but a Department of Wellness." How about a Department of F***ing Perspective?"

Toss in the Democratic sources chatting up reporters about campaign infighting; Clinton attempting a resucitation of Kerry's campaign from his own hospital bed; and the fact that more Kerry voters say they're voting against Bush than actually FOR the Democrat. This is a party which is souring on its nominee.

The recriminations and rationalizations are starting early this year. If Kerry loses, as he's poised to do, Dems will blame his loss on a lackluster candidacy, just like they did with Mondale, Dukakis, and Gore. "Weak campaign skills" is a lot easier to swallow than "party-wide intellectual bankruptcy."

Polishing Brass. . .

. . .on a sinking ship of State.

The WaPo has a bleak article today on Russia's demographic future that places Putin's posturing in sad context. Reading the data, the question isn't one of greatness, but survival. The country is currently experiencing 170 deaths for every 100 births. The UN is estimating a 21 million person loss over the next 20 years as its "median variant."

I looked for an abortion tie-in, and wasn't surprised to find it. Back in the days of the Soviet Union, the UN estimates an average of 6 abortions per woman. So an infertility rate approaching 13% is comprehensible, though tragic.

The birth rate is no more suicidal than the rest of dying Europe's, but an incredibly high death rate exacerbates the problem. Putin would do better working toward an economic climate that allows young couples to marry and not live with their parents and a medical system that gets the incredibly high rates of STDs and heart attacks down to normal levels than worrying about Russia's "greatness." There's nothing "great" about a nation-sized graveyard.

The Kerry Bounce

It's been interesting watching the "shock polls" showing Kerry with a slim lead over Bush. They're anything but shocking. Let's examine:

1. Kerry just received a HUGE bounce with his comeback over Dean. Anyone want to bet on the American attention span sustaining this bounce until the general election?

2. Bush hasn't started to campaign yet, staying above the fray. In other words, his huge reserve of campaign funds hasn't begun to fight. Meanwhile, 9 Dem candidates have been bashing him with untold millions in paid and earned media through ad, press release and countless debates.

3. Kerry is still unknown to the American people. He's more the equivalen of the "generic Dem" on an opinion poll. Generics almost always beat live candidates in polls, because people know the warts of the real candidate. The more that is known of Kerry, the less most parts of the country will like him.

This bounce is ephemeral. Kerry WILL be tougher to beat than Dean, but he's still not positioned to defeat Bush.

Sign That Bam Petition. . .

You can go here to sign a petition on the government of Iran that'll be sent to the President, the UN, the ICC, the Queen, the Rothschilds and Colonel Sanders. . . Actually, I'm not sure about the last three, but the rest will definitely be sent a copy.

The petition calls on these international bodies to hold the Iranian government accountable both for its ongoing human rights atrocities, but also for its criminal negligence with the Bam earthquake.

Michael Moore: Famous in Iran

You can tell a lot about people by their friends. One of my Iranian buddies asked me the other day about Michael Moore. It turns out, he hears the name often in the hard-line Islamist papers from Tehran. Moore has a huge following among the jihadist in Iran. Anyone popular with both the chattering classes of France and the Islamists of Iran must be a giant tub of wasted chemicals.

Speaking of which, I just remembered a fun factoid from my days in the Army. An anti-tank landmine requires 300 pounds of pressure to explode. Weighing in at 320 pounds, Michael Moore has enough lard packed into him to detonate an anti-tank mine. Isn't that what the Left calls "conspicuous consumption"?

Forget the "Royal We". . .

. . .and worry about the Orwellian We.

Policy Magazine has a piece on the tendentious use of the word "we" in political rhetoric. While the point may be a small one, it has a lot of truth to it -- politicians use collective words to create a false sense of group identity and need in the electorate.

"The central word here is 'society', which of course refers to a group of people but which is often used, tacitly and even unconsciously, to refer to more than that-namely, to a group that has an overriding, collective goal and therefore has to make central decisions, even though societies can and do exist without having collective goals and without central decision-making. . .

Another term that has been almost completely emptied of meaning by being called social is 'right'. A right properly means a sphere of freedom that is protected by law, or a just claim. But nowadays, by being prefixed with 'social' or related words like 'welfare', a right is taken to mean a claim to redistribution that the law enforces."

It's Fun to Serve in the A-R-M-Y!

Clark a Centrist?

Maybe If He's Standing Between Kucinich and Gephardt. . .

For whatever reason, the CW gave him a centrist label from the early days of Draft Clark buzz. Likely this stems from two causes -- he was the DLC's chosen assassination instrument against Dean and he's retired military.

Well, he's not wearing the uniform these days. Instead he's sporting mufti and hanging out with those gay lads at The Advocate, coming out in favor of homosexual marriage and gays in the military.

Not only is he parroting all of the standard liberal pieties on economic and social policy, he's running to the LEFT of most candidates on several high-profile issues: abortion, the War and gay marriage. And far from turning out to be Clinton's ideological lifepartner, he's chosen strange bedfellows, and is swinging ever farther to the Left.

It's only too bad he didn't wear his uniform for this cover shoot, it would have really won over the Village People vote.

Left Coast Conservative, The Great Separation, and Evangelical Outpost also spare a straight eye for the Clark guy.

The Hayek I Didn't Know

I read Friedrich Hayek's Road to Serfdom in high school, along with plenty of Orwell, Bastiat and Rand. It's a wonder I wasn't seeing Collectivists under every rock. But seriously, he did a lot to form my views on economics and political theory, and caused me to think more deeply about the preservation of liberty.

So it was great to come across an overview of his life and work on the Boston Globe's ideas page. I hadn't known, for instance, of his contributions to cognitive science and information technology or that he'd been an influence on Foucault and post-modernism (nobody's perfect.)

It was also encouraging to look back at a time when advocates of freedom were embattled and the forces of collectivization quite nearly ruled the day.

"Caldwell, who is editing Hayek's collected works for the University of Chicago Press, is currently working on the project's edition of "The Road to Serfdom," a task that entails reading the largely forgotten contemporary works with which Hayek was contending.

"It's almost chilling to read some of these books. They were willing to accept fairly massive interventions in the economy -- directing labor, who should be working at what jobs and that kind of thing," says Caldwell. He adds, "'The Road to Serfdom' today reads reasonably, most of it.

You read these other books and you feel like you're on another planet."

We now live in a time when free markets and free societies have become the ideal, thanks to the brave fight men like Hayek fought during the uncertain days of the Cold War.

The Big Rock Candy Republic

I'm probably not the first to suggest it, but I think the Democratic Party should make Harry McLintock's Big Rock Candy Mountain their official theme song. Harry was, after all, a Wobbly organizer, and the song captures so much of their worldview.

Those who work hard support those who don't:

"Where the handouts grow on bushes/ And you sleep out every night. . . The farmers' trees are full of fruit/ And the barns are full of hay"

You've got revolving-door justice:

"The jails are made of tin./ And you can walk right out again,/ As soon as you are in."

A belief in spontaneous wealth-generation:

"There's a lake of stew/ And of whiskey too/ You can paddle all around it/ In a big canoe/"

Global Warming:

"Oh I'm bound to go/ Where there ain't no snow/ Where the rain don't fall/ The winds don't blow. . ."

Work is for people who can't get a grant, disability payment or subsidy:

"Where you sleep all day,/ Where they hung the jerk/ That invented work/ In the Big Rock Candy Mountains."

The only hitch in the song is the part about "cigarette trees." Maybe they can change that. What rhymes with "medicinal cannabis"?

The State of the State of the Union

Just read the text of the State of the Union, and came away with a B+ sort of good feeling. It doesn't have the rhetorical sweep of some of his earlier speeches, but it isn't a Clintonesque laundry list of promises to fix potholes in individual Pennsylvania towns, either. While not particularly lovely, the text read like George -- down to earth and purposeful.

A few of the promises annoyed me -- his attempts to steal the march against the Dems on health care and education are intrusive and expensive.

On the whole though, some good red-meat for conservatives, and one promise I dearly hope he keeps: holding spending inceases to 4%. Given mandatory funding of entitlements, this isn't easy even without new programs, so we'll have to see how resolved he really is.

A few of the Good Things:

1. Increasing Persian and Arabic VOA broadcasts.

2. A strong emphasis on and defense of abstinence programs.

3. This:

"Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our Nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.

4. Fishmonger-slapping those calling for "internationalizing Iraq":

"This particular criticism is hard to explain to our partners in Britain, Australia, Japan, etc. . . and the 17 other countries that have committed troops to Iraq."

5. Progress in the WoT:

"We are tracking al-Qaida around the world - and nearly two-thirds of their known leaders have now been captured or killed."

6. And lastly, George Bush is a mensch:

"After the chaos and carnage of September 11th, it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers. The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States - and war is what they got."

Update: I missed one of the best lines in the speech, but The Rough Woodsman caught it:

"America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country."

Unbalanced Journalism

With the exception of our friend, The Liberal Media, Reuters journalists seem to be the most gleefully biased of any outside the New York Times. If you want a good example of their approach to "objective journalism", here's one:

Reuters refuses to use the word terrorist, because it isn't for them to judge one man's terrorist from another man's freedom fighter. On the other hand, they had this to say about the Confederate flag:

"Earlier, Dean had called for security to remove a couple of protesters who were shouting and waving the Confederate flag, a divisive symbol of racism and slavery in the South. As they were hustled out, Dean requested they not be "manhandled."

So they aren't qualified to diagnose 9/11 as a terrorist act, but they're fully capable of unravelling America's complicated relationship with its Confederate heritage and boil it all down to "a divisive symbol of racism and slavery."

Remember this the next time some anemic liberal is whining to you about Foxnews bias.

A Practical Role for the Constitution Party

If I were Terry McAuliffe, I would bankroll the Constitution Party. What better way to weaken an opponent? It's like buying an electoral desert island and encouraging many of the brightest, most articulate people in the opposing camp to go into self-exile there. The Party expends itself on symbolic gestures, and marginalizes conservatives in day-to-day politics by removing them from the centers of power.

But there is a way the Connies could have a positive impact -- by organizing at the state and local level as the Conservative Party in NY has. The Conservatives are a genuine force there (they're one of the few 3rd parties to elect a US senator), and candidates eagerly seek their endorsement. In States with open primaries, such an organization would allow Connies to remain outside of the Republican Party (as some believe their conscience dictates), and still allow them to pull the Republican Party to the right. They could endorse and vote for Rs that they liked, and run independent candidates when the Rs put up a Rockefeller-Winger.

Such an organization would be wooed by the Republican establishment, and help keep conservatives from being taken for granted.

I know some Connies read my blog. What's your opinion?

Doubly Foolish

Not only is the bloating of the Federal budget a betrayal of Republican principles, it's electorally stupid. Yes, in the short-term voters appreciate having new services and the like. But with increased budgets comes increased government payrolls. And these new employees have a vested interest in MORE government growth.

While the overall percentage of unionized workers continues to drop (from 36% in the 50's to 13.6% today,) the number of unionized government workers grows and grows. Their unionized percentage stands at 37.5%. So when we grow the size of the federal government, we also grow the Democrat's get-out-the-vote storm troopers, and the constituency of people who want to bloat the government even further. Duh?

Be sure to also check out John Fund's thoughts on the issue.

Why Are We Even In South Korea?

The Stars and Stripes is reporting that US troops will be pulling out of Seoul by 2007, in order to reduce tensions with local inhabitants. "Tensions" being a euphemism for protests and hatred. Apparently, the 8,000 Americans defending them cause the sensitive residents of Seoul more tension than the 10,000-odd in-range artillery pieces the North Koreans have on the border.

Remind me again, why are we even there?

How many hundreds of thousands of Americans have, for decades now, given up 1-2 years of their life freezing their butts off and away from their family to keep these ingrates safe?

North Korea is an economic basketcase whose primary occupation is starvation. South Korea is an economic powerhouse. Why can't they simply convert a few of their Kia, DaeWoo or Hyundai plants to tank factories and let us go home? For the same reason the Europeans don't -- it's cheaper to let the Americans underwrite their defense. And then hate them for it and stab them in the back whenever possible. South Korea has been undercutting our disarmament initiatives with the North for some time now. And we just take it and ask for more.

If they want to hate us and play kissy-face with a madman like Kim, we should pull out and let them do it.

Recess Appointments: History and Hypocrites

Dems are caterwauling that Bush's recess appointment of Charles Pickering is radical, mean and destroying the bipartisan spirit in D.C. I'm assuming they mean the ranting about miserable failures and conspiracy theories coming from the Democratic front-runners when they talk about bipartisanship. Language and definitions are somewhat subjective, after all.

Here's what Howard Dean's blog had to say:

"This is a polarizing move showing the President's utter disdain for constitutional checks and balances. . . Today's egregious appointment is another reason why we need a President and an administration in Washington that stands up for all Americans."

But is it really such a novel thing to make a recess appointment? Here's a press release, dated 27 December, 2000, from a Clinton, governmental website:

"Today, President Clinton appointed Roger Gregory to serve on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. This appointment is historic. . . The President's power to make recess appointments is embedded in the Constitution. Presidents have made more than 300 recess appointments to the federal judiciary since 1789, the year of the first judicial recess appointment."

Clinton made recess appointments for everything from the judiciary, to a controversial ambassador, to three seats on a library commission and others. The Dems are either lying, or have less than four years of historical memory and no access to the internet. I'll let you decide which.

Update: Mark Byron is also posting on Pickering.

Time for an Amendment.

The last time I posted on this subject, I wrote the title with a question mark. Not any more. It really is time for a Marriage Amendment that will clearly state what marriage is, and who can enter it.

A few commenters scoffed when I mentioned that gay marriage would open the door to polygamy. The logic of the Supremes' recent decision on sodomy laws and the Lawrence decision both trend us strongly toward gay marriage, so my prediction takes on added relevance.

Read Jeff Jacoby'slatest column:

"Three adults who want to live together as a husband and two wives asked a federal court this week to strike down Utah's ban on polygamy as a violation of their constitutional rights."

If the court follows Lawrence's logic, I don't see how they can deny these people their "right" to polygamy. The court system is just dogmatic and whacked enough to do it. We need a Marriage Amendment.

Evangelical Outpost has a good substitute idea for an amendment. And World Magazine's Blog is running regular commentary on the marriage issue.

Why Do I Razz Democrats?

Someone asked me not long ago why exactly I tease the Democrats so much. It's a fair question.

The reason is simple -- I love politics the way other guys love baseball or football. Some guys can rattle off Mickey Mantle's stats for every year he played. I once named every Senator by state on a bet. I root for my team, and love when they win and hate when they lose. And I joke about the other team in the same spirit my buddy, a devout Cowboys fan, used to call the Redskins the world's "toughest gay football team." It's done in fun, and generally without any real animosity toward them. Most Democrats and liberals are decent people who live their lives, pay their taxes, and have different politics than I do. But we're both Americans, and I joke about them lightheartedly.

There is an exception to this -- the AINO (American In Name Only) crowd. On the Hard Left exists a section of people who have truly earned the name traitor. Those who make signs saying "We support our troops when they shoot their officers." Those who go to enemy countries and run-down the United States. Those practically salivating for high casualty counts in Iraq and Afghanistan to "teach us a lesson." Those who blame America for the 9/11 attacks.

In the household of America, these people are termites. For these people my pen is dipped in acid. America would benefit if they followed Alec Baldwin to one of the Marxist paradises they claim to love, and stayed there.

So please read any teasing of normal human beings in the lightest possible vein, and my words for the termites with serious intent. That should keep feelings from being unnecessarily ruffled. :-)

Are Saudis Facing Reality?

The UPI has published a possibly encouraging analysis of Saudi Arabian politics. I say possibly because the Saudis have for decades kept a spin machine going that makes the Clinton "War Room" look like a gang of dissembling toddlers. K Street has nothing on them. You have to admire any group that can be perceived by world jihadism as their best friend and at the same time be viewed as a "critical ally" by the West. An ally of such worthiness that we would sell them F-15s and AWACs.

Nevertheless, it does seem as if the Saudis have decided that the Frankenstein monster of jihadism, which they helped to create, needs to be put down. Or at least suppressed.

"Over 2,000 imams whose preaching advocated militancy have been removed from the pulpit, and 1500 have been sent for reeducation or to jail. . . In December, two prominent Saudi Islamic militant imams publicly recanted their fatwas in which they had called for militancy. At the same time, there has been renewed vigor in tracking down militants and in cooperating with U.S. authorities in the war on terrorism. . . In October, the Saudi authorities announced that they would prepare for elections for half the members of each municipal council within one year. . . Girls' education was removed from control of the religious authorities. Textbooks have been reviewed and egregious statements excised."

Posted by Discoshaman at 12:11 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Key Factors for 2004

Will. . .

-- Sharpton support the eventual Democratic nominee?

-- Sharpton run as an independent?

-- Bush's base remain 91% supportive, or will conservatives get restive?

-- Rove's 4 million missing Evangelicals from 2000 come to the polls this time?

-- Bush maintain the 31% support he has among Jewish voters?

-- there be a major act of terrorism on US soil?

-- the Dem nominee be able to credibly tack to the middle? Will he want to?

-- Bush continue to make inroads with Hispanic voters?

-- California's new Governator help Bush?

-- the Democratic party remain fractured after a vicious primary?

-- the impact of Soros and the 527s be as heavy as some think?

What other factors would you add to the list?

Vaulting Centuries

The WaPo points out a small, but hopeful sign of change in the Middle East. For anyone despairing that Islamic countries are incapable of making the transition to modernity, read up on Dubai's leap from the 13th to the 21st century.

"Dubai's prosperity is about free trade. Foreign companies are allowed to operate tax-free and without trade barriers or foreign-exchange controls. This wide-open market has produced a roaring boom, in which Dubai's non-oil sector now produces more than 90 percent of its gross domestic product. An "Internet City" has attracted such giants as Microsoft, Oracle, Hewlett-Packard and IBM; a 'Media City' has drawn Reuters, Sony and CNN."

Capitalists: Smarter Than Fleas

I read once that if you put a flea into an enclosed space, he'll only hit his head twice before accepting the reality of his situation. This makes fleas smarter than your average Leftist. How so, you ask? I'll explain.

Heritage has just posted the 2004 Index of Economic Freedom. Take a moment and peruse the list. You'll notice a pretty tight correlation between countries with economic freedom, and countries where you're likely to have running water in your hotel. There's also a strong level of coincidence between countries where you have economic freedom, and ones where you can criticize the government without losing an extremity. People live better and freer with the Free Market.

This has been the case since, I don't know. . . forever.

And yet the Left continues to hold up socialist strongmen like Castro, Chavez and Ortega as examples of enlightened 3rd World leadership. Look over the museum of history's losers at the bottom of the list. Virtually every one of them subscribes to some form of Marxism -- whether Latin liberationism, pan-Arab socialism or the outright Communism of Burma and North Korea.

No matter how many countries Leftism destroys, they never learn.

Some Partisan Red Meat!

The Duchess found some great photoshopped pics over at MakeThemAccountable.Org (not to be confused with the Leftist .com site.) Warning: Some funny stuff, but some over the top as well. Be cautioned.

On the DeanWatch front, Duchess also found evidence to prove that great minds really DO think alike. Both Captain's Quarters and Bush News have DeanWatch features.

The Only Good Mexican is a Dem Mexican?

Imagine if a politician today were to say, "All (insert minority group) look alike." Can you imagine the hue and cry that would arise? He'd find himself in Trent Lott's shoes before you could say "Jimmy the Greek."

If it's considered insulting to say that a group looks alike, consider how much uglier it is to say they all THINK alike. But this is how liberal activists operate.

Liberal activists in the modern era remind me of nothing so much as Southern sheriffs during the Civil Rights Era. Any minority person who chooses to think as an individual has the attack dogs loosed upon them. Firehoses of vicious invective are turned on them until they retreat from their positions. The leadership of the Democratic Party seems to view their party as a plantation -- and no minority leaves without permission.

This can most easily be seen in the vicious, demeaning attacks on Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice and Colin Powell. They're called Uncle Toms, House Slaves, and worse. Any sane advocate of black advancement would rejoice in their accomplishments. But left-wing ideology trumps the desire to see African-American progress in society.

Now in California we have Rosario Marin, a woman of Mexican descent, running for Senate. The slurs are already starting. In fact, a milestone in racial demogoguery was marked as a Howard Dean supporter coined the term "House Mexican" to describe her. The Deanite claims that by being a Republican, Marin isn't being "true to her race." Apparently, the only good Mexican is a Dem Mexican.

Deport Bush's Immigration Plan

Reading through the particulars of Bush's new immigration "reform" plan, I feel my inner Earl Pitts, Uhmerikun coming out. He plans to increase the level of legal immigration past the million mark where it already resides. I feel like smacking the entire immigration lobby up alongside the head and asking, "Are you in any way aware that it isn't 1925?"

Let's recap the events of the past 75-odd years. Back then, there were two areas of the economy that were perpetually hungry for low-skilled labor -- factories and agriculture. History has progressed a bit since then.

For starters, we're in a POST-industrial era. New factories aren't springing up everywhere and hungering for workers to robotically install cogs on assembly lines. Secondly, they have real robots to do that now, so even existing factories are cutting their workforces.

Further, agriculture is becoming increasingly mechanized, and the percentage of the population engaged in it continues to drop. Do we really need more than a million unskilled laborers a year to fulfill demand? Of course not. This isn't about rationality, it's about buying votes.

The cavil constantly heard from immigration enthusiasts is that there are simply a lot of jobs that Americans won't do. It's equivalent to the "socialization" argument when discussing homeschooling -- it seems to arise by an automated process. National Review has a good article debunking this argument, and also detailing how massive immigration lowers wages for unskilled labor.

An Apologist Gets Froggy With Us!

A French apologist found his way to Le Sabot. He objects to our veni, vidi, Vichy post, and points us to a site that declares animosity toward the French to be a "kind of racist campaign."

" The Vichy regime was an abomination; this goes without saying. But to advance any correlation between Vichy and the Chirac administration is simply outrageous."

This statement, I assume, is predicated on 2 things -- a really, really strong wish that it were true, and a belief that Vichy wasn't a "real" government in the way that Chirac's is. If that were true, you might have a point. But the facts say otherwise. Vichy WAS a legitimate government.

The Vichy PM, Pétain, was appointed by the duly elected French president. He was instructed to negotiate an Armistice. This document divided France into 2 sections -- occupied and Vichy. Your legitimately appointed PM also signed off on the deportation of all Jews in France to the Germans. Your own French National Assembly voted out the Third Republic on July 10th, 1940, and the very next day the Vichy regime was installed, with Pétain as head of state. The Vichy government went on to fight against the Allies in Oran, Senegal, Syria and North Africa.

While it may not be soothing to French sympathies, we can't just pretend that the pockets of Free French resistance fighters tell the whole story of France in WWII. It's a good subplot, but the central themes run more towards dictatorial concubinism, collaboration with genocide, and flipping between Axis and Allies with pragmatic amorality.

There is one sense in which our friend is correct. It took an invading army to make the Vichy toady to Hitler. Chirac plays the lackey to dictators half a world away.

Tort Reform: Sexier than Michael Moore. . .

. . .but not much else.

Nevertheless, I wanted to point out a good, concise analysis of the cost of lawsuits to our economy. For example, "Unreasonable jury awards cost an estimated $70-126 billion extra in health care costs every year, says the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services."

The Dems talk a good game about reigning in health care costs, but they throw a tantrum anytime someone tried to control costs by reforming torts. They use the fat campaign checks written by trial lawyers to wipe away the tears they shed for the poor.

Republicans should make tort reform a priority. It's good for the economy, good for health care, and it gives a well-deserved poke to one of the DNC's cash cows.

The Battle of Algiers Meme.

Christopher Hitchens, a recent convert to hawkishness, has a brilliant article in Slate today. It demolishes the 'America in Iraq=France in Algeria' meme. For anyone who hasn't followed it, the thesis centers around the film The Battle of Algiers and tries to make the case that we'll be chased out with similar ignominy.

Hitchens has seen the Left from the inside -- he first saw The Battle of Algiers in Cuba at a workers' camp. This gives the article a fascinating perspective. In a convincing bit of historical akido he flips the meme on its head, and shows that the Ba'athists are the ones who should learn from the film. And, as he points out, the only guerrillas as effective as the Algerians are on OUR side -- the Kurdish peshmurga.

He also draws parallels between Iraq and the recent victory of the Algerian government over Islamist terrorists.

That "Battle of Algiers," not Pontecorvo's outdated masterpiece, is replete with examples and parallels that ought to be of great interest and relevance to ourselves. Can an Arab and Muslim state with a large non-Arab minority and many confessional differences defeat the challenge of a totalitarian and medieval ideology? In this outcome, we and our Arab and Kurdish friends have a stake, whereas in the battles of the past (as of the present) one can only applaud the humiliation of French unilateralism and neocolonialism, whether it occurs on-screen or off.

Progress in Afghanistan!

Good news continues to roll in from all sides. Afghanistan's Loya Jirga has signed off on the new constitution. While I have no illusions that this will be a panacea, or that a Afghani democracy will emerge immediately in full flower, it's a HUGE step forward. The presidency has been given some real teeth, and he'll have a rough tribal consensus backing him.

Over the Mullahs' Heads, Part Deux

While the Shah himself was a pretty unsavory guy, his exiled son Reza has become one of the more influential voices in the pro-democracy movement, and is a better man than his father. He recently gave an interview on American television, and made some decent points.

I wrote the other day about how happy I was to see President Bush talking directly to the Iranian people, rather than just speaking to their gaolers. Here are Reza's thoughts:

""Engagement and dialogue is much better than containment and isolation," said Mr. Pahlavi. "What is important for the people of Iran, however, is, after so many years of suffering, they would love to see the international community, for a change, shift their focus on them [their aspirations], rather than trying to cut a deal with the current regime. . ."

Mr. Pahlavi said President Bush has always taken care to distinguish between his criticism of Iran's leaders and his feelings toward the country as a whole. He said that has not gone unnoticed by the people of Iran.

Update: A Bloated Reputation. . .

Michael Moore has a corpulently big lead over his competitors in Little Green Football's contest for the Robert Fisk Award. He's actually leading France and Paul Krugman, and seems poised to be 2003's Idiotarian of the Year. Couldn't happen to a nicer Stupid White Man.

A Bloated Reputation. . .

As if enough oxygen, dead trees and electrons hadn't already been wasted on his lies and inanities, Michael Moore has just topped himself.

"Moore went into a rant about how the (9/11 aircraft) passengers were scaredy-cats because they were mostly white," Yasmin Alibhai-Brown wrote in the Jan. 6 Independent. "If the passengers had included black men, he claimed, those killers. . .would have been crushed by the dudes."

It's appropos that his portrait looms large on the cover of his screed "Stupid White Men." He is, well, the biggest one of all. He is also, as Al Franken might say, a lying liar.

For a verbatim look at how he doctored Charlton Heston's speech for his docmockumentary, Bowling for Columbine, check out this side-by-side comparison.

For a comprehensive deconstruction of Moore's large body of work, check out this site.

It systematically shows the duplicity in each of his productions, and also points up the disconnect between his alleged principles and his own lifestyle -- a faux populist limousine liberal who lives in a multi-million-dollar Manhattan flat and sends his daughter to an expensive private school.

It's a site that dares to ask the tough questions like: Should a 320-pound man advise us on the evils of overconsumption?

Karl Rove Reads Le Sabot. You Should Too!

Mere days after I posted about the need for Republicans to reign in spending, the NYT is reporting that Bush's 2005 budget will get serious about the mushrooming budget. While the follow-through remains to be seen, I was gratified to see such a swift response to my critique.

This is reminiscent of events of last April, when there was great speculation about the status of Saddam's pulse and respiration. I pointed out that he was handing us a HUGE psy ops advantage by allowing these doubts to linger. And lo, two days later he reappeared!

Get the UN Involved. . .

. . .in Chicago!

No matter what's happened in Iraq, the knee-jerk response of the Democratic candidates has been to call for the UN's involvement (despite the fact that the UN has no desire to do any such thing.)

James Taranto makes a good point today in the Journal. Military deaths in Iraq are now down to 38 a month. The murder rate in Chicago is 50 a month.

"America must send in the U.N. and pull out of the quagmire that is Illinois!"

And Now For Something Completely Different. . .

. . . the Tories re-discover principles!

While I certainly think Blair is prefereable to Red Ken or the ghosts of Labour past, I've been in a state of grief ever since Dame Thatcher stepped down. It was as if all the testosterone bled from the Party when she left (which has interesting implications for British manhood, but I digress. . .)

My beloved Tories have for some time been acting like our Democratic Party here in the States. Rather than laying out a positive agenda of their own, they've been trying to bring down Labour through attacks. And failing badly. So I'm SO glad to hear that they've published a "set of 15 Conservative beliefs that will form the basis of policy initiatives to be developed in the run-up to the election expected next year."

We'll have to see if these go anywhere, but it would be great if it focused conservative energies the way our Contract With America did.

Over the Mullahs' Heads

One thing I try always to emphasize to people here in Ukraine is that America never, ever viewed the citizens of Ukraine as our enemy. We rather saw them as victims of a monstrous evil. Ronald Reagan was always careful to make the distinction between the people and the system. And he was brilliant at talking past hostile intermediaries and directly to the people he wanted to reach -- whether the hostiles were liberal reporters or the organs of the Soviet government.

So I was cheered to see Bush doing the same with the people of Iran. As the AP has it:

" Appealing directly to pro-democracy forces in Iran, President Bush (news - web sites) on Thursday said that U.S. humanitarian aid to earthquake victims there should prove that America is compassionate even though it lists Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism."

This is exactly what we should be doing. And it should be taken a step further -- the Farsi-language satellite channels in Los Angeles shouldn't be worrying about staying on the air, but should be taken under wing instead.

It's Only Right. . .

German President Gerhard Schroeder will be joining Chirac at the D-Day commemoration this year. It seems only appropriate for Chirac to be with Schroeder for the event, as the French government was with Germany at the time of the invasion itself.

While most people know the French motto, Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité, a slightly less-well-known national slogan is veni, vidi, Vichy -- I came, I saw, I collaborated with the Nazis.