Fucking Moron

Dubya, that is. After last week's blackout, he stopped spreading his legs for the wealthy republicans of Orange County long enough to go on the air and reassure us all. Trouble is, he's so fucking stupid that no one with half a brain winds up reassured. On Thursday, in his first comments, he repeatedly referred to the blackout as a "rolling blackout." Then he did it again the next day suggesting either that the people who prep him aren't very smart themselves (not true, sadly), or that he's simply unteachable. Unlike last week's blackout, George, rolling blackouts are planned. They're a method, albeit a shitty one, to deal with demand for electricity that exceeds supply. You could have asked any of the Californians you met last week about this. They're very familiar with them.

And what galls me about this more than Bush's stupidity itself (he delegates most important functions to people smarter, if no less evil than he, anyway) is the fact that he gets a free pass from the media. If you've seen a reference to this glaring error in a newspaper or mainstream media outlet (or even in a blog more widely read than this one) let me know.

11. Thou shalt not force thy religion

down the throats of thy fellow citizens. And yet, in the proud tradition of Missibamiana government officials, Chief Justice Roy Moore has announced his intention to defy a federal court order, and force his religion down the throats of his fellow Missibamianans. To be fair, Moore has announced only that he will take his case to the Supreme Court, after losing in the District Court and the Court of Appeals. Of course, unless Moore applies for and receives a stay of the district court's order pending the Supreme Court's ruling -- or decision not to take the case, he's courting a contempt citation. And there can be little doubt that he'd disobey the Supreme Court as well. Federal marshals forcibly restraining Moore while they remove his theses from the wall for him? I hope it doesn't come to that.

UPDATE 8/19: The trial court denied Moore's request for a stay. Moore's applied to the Eleventh Circuit for a stay, but I think they'll deny it too, having already upheld the trial court on the merits. And unfortunately, there won't be any showdown with federal marshals. Moore will simply be fined for contempt, and the taxpayers of Missibamiana will be poorer by $5,000 a day than they already are -- unless, as is apparently the case, other state officials simply remove the monument in compliance with the order, Moore be damned. Thanks to appellateblog for the links.

Everybody's doing it . . .

Fair and Balanced . . . It's the new black. Not only are Lord Voldemort's minions smug and nasty, they're also humorless.

Passion Fruit

I haven’t seen the film. But I’ve read enough of the frothing criticism to know that the Anti-Defamation League has gone seriously, seriously wrong by calling for Gibson to modify his film before releasing it.

To demonstrate, let’s assume that every factual allegation Abe Foxman has made is true. That is, let’s assume for the sake of argument that Gibson’s film:

(1) ”portrays Jewish authorities and the Jewish "mob" as forcing the decision to torture and execute Jesus, thus assuming responsibility for the crucifixion.”

(2) “relies on sinister medieval stereotypes, portraying Jews as blood-thirsty, sadistic and money-hungry enemies of God who lack compassion and humanity.”

(3) “relies on historical errors, chief among them its depiction of the Jewish high priest controlling Pontius Pilate.”

(4) “uses an anti-Jewish account of a 19th century mystical anti-Semitic nun, distorts New Testament interpretation by selectively citing passages to weave a narrative that oversimplifies history, and is hostile to Jews and Judaism.” and

(5) “portrays Jews who adhere to their Jewish faith as enemies of God and the locus of evil.”

Let’s also assume that each of the above flaws is compounded by the fact that they contradict the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church, as Paula Fredriksen argued at length last month in the New Republic. Let’s assume that these contradictions of the Church’s teaching were deliberate: that Gibson believes, and wishes to propagate, these anti-Semitic canards. Let’s even go a step further, and suppose for the sake of argument that Gibson shares the loony, well documented, white supremacist and holocaust-denying beliefs of his evil father.

So what? To whom would this message appeal? Is the film so powerful that it would win converts to anti-Semitism who are not already inclined to hate? Or does the ADL believe people so weak-minded that despite the best intentions they would be manipulated by the film into becoming anti-Semites? I think not. Indeed, by producing the film in Aramaic and Latin (the latter, Fredriksen argues, being historically inaccurate, despite Mel’s claim to historical accuracy), Mel has already weeded out most of the weak-minded: Americans, effete intellectuals aside, are notoriously hostile to films with subtitles. Of the people in this country fluent in Aramaic, and thus able to understand the film without subtitles, 98% (or more) are observant Jews (who must know Aramaic because it is the principal language of the Talmud), and they are unlikely to join the ranks of the right-wing fringe.

Like would-be speech suppressers the world over, Foxman only does his cause harm with his jeremiad, giving Gibson publicity and prompting people to see the flick out of curiosity.

Foxman doesn’t see this. Today, the ADL put out a new press release, disclosing some of the – wait for it – anti-Semitic hate mail that was generated by its first press release. I’m not sure what Foxman’s purpose is in releasing the hate mail. It certainly proves nothing about any harm the film would do. All it does is drag some of the audience into the light of day. That’s good information to have. But at any rate, Foxman claims not to be calling for censorship of the film: “The League has not called for ‘censorship’ of the Gibson film, but rather asked for sensitivity to the dangerous implications of a conspiracy-oriented, historically false caricature of the Jews which has been repudiated by the Catholic Church itself.” Oh, I see: It’s not censorship Foxman wants it’s sensitivity. How should Mel show his sensitivity, though? Why, by “modifying” his film, of course. Abe, bubbeleh, if you talk like a censor and you smell like a censor, you’re a censor.

The country’s rapidly approaching the point where we enshrine in law a right not to be offended. In other places, like Australia, it’s already happened. When it happens here, God help us all (with, of course, no offense intended to you atheists and agnostics).

Legal Tender

This isn't an earth shattering topic (or even, truth be told, a particularly interesting one), but there's just enough of the would-be law professor in me to offer a gloss on Volokh's post today about people miffed because they can't use a c-note to pay for their $4 latte. Volokh thinks that once the merchant gives you the goods (e.g., you pump your gas, then go to pay), the merchant is obliged to accept whatever legal tender you proffer. I think it's somewhat different. A merchant offers goods, and it's up to her on what terms she'll sell them. So if she puts up a sign that says "no bills larger than $20", she's simply stating "I'll sell you guess, if you agree to pay me in full, using no bill larger than a $20 bill." You take the gas, you've accepted her offer, you pay like she asks. If she doesn't have a sign, so you're not on notice of her terms, different result. No time to research it, but I'm pretty sure that's how it plays (and it may be that's what Volokh meant, but I didn't read his post that way).

President Hatred

Josh Marshall over at Talking Points posits that the dynamics of the Bush-hating and Clinton-hating phenomena are remarkably similar. Drezner's given him partial props, agreeing that the animus is parallel.

Marshall and Drezner are a lot smarter than I, but I have to disagree. Bush-hatred and Clinton-hatred differ fundamentally in their genesis and their manifestations. The jihad against President Clinton was a revanchiste movement. The species of Republican politicos that ran it never accepted that what Richard Nixon did was wrong -- criminally, historically, constitution-destroyingly wrong. They saw Watergate as nothing more than a garden variety political witchhunt. When they seized control of Congress, they were bound and determined to get their own pound of flesh. Clinton could have shown them bloody holes in his palms, and they'd still have gone after him. It was sheer dumb luck that their victim was flawed enough in character to make their work easy.

The media, for their part, were forever changed by Watergate. For the first time in history, Watergate made the media players, not just reporters. It was like a first hit of heroin to them. There hasn't been a so much as a six-inch snowstorm since 1973 that the press hasn't used to try to feed its addiction to power. So when something as juicy as the anti-Clinton jihad came along, they could no more resist it than Janis Joplin could a bag of smack. Sadly, Janis succumbed, and the press (in their ugly, senseless-addict incarnation) are still with us.

And of course, they had a ready-made audience. If the Republican politicos felt a political animal's need to get back at their enemies for Watergate, they were not some mutant, inside-the-beltway species. From 1965 until 1995, Democrats controlled the Congress and the political agenda. (No matter that for 20 of those of those 30 years we had Republican presidents. It is by now commonly acknowledged that Nixon's policies were in the main far more liberal than anything today's conservatives would countenance, or anythign today's Democrats would dare propose). And the Supreme Court, despite not having a single new justice appointed by a democrat between Thurgood Marshall in 1967 and Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993, left largely undisturbed, and in many senses extended the work of the Warren Court. So resentment and a feeling of disenfranchisement among the most conservative elements in our polity had been brewing before Clinton -- whether rightly or wrongly -- for more than a generation.

Turn now to Bush-hatred. It shares none of these characteristics. For one thing, Democrats in Congress and other positions of power don't really feel it, or if they do, don't express it. For another, although our hatred of Bush (and for that matter, Ronald Reagan, Henry Hyde, Asa Hutchison, and the rest) is quite intense, it has never had to fester all that long without correction. We had the Carter administration, eight years of Clinton, and even against the backdrop of a Supreme Court we're, er, not fond of, key victories in cases like Romer, Casey, Lawrence, Dickerson, and Grutter. And, as others have noted, Democrats simply do not have the same ability as Republicans to focus ruthlessly on the goal of destroying a man. They have Bob Barr and TomDeLay, Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter. We have Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt, MoDo and Anna Qundlen. No contest.

Drezner is right about one thing though: Clinton-hatred was not a powerful weapon for Republicans at the polls, and it won't win for Democrats in '04. Not that I know what will . . .

I'll Be Back Soon

May, June and July were busy months: getting married, moving, starting a new job, euthanizing a beloved pet (I'm still in heavy-duty denial on that one). We're temporarily at my wife's in-laws' place while we wait for our apartment to be ready, and my home computer is in storage, so it'll likely be late in July before my first new post -- which will no doubt be a mea culpa for my naivete in believing the liar-in-chief. Ciao for now.

More Depravity from the Press

Another day, another Palestinian murders innocents. The Guardian (as well as the Austin American Statesman and other papers that didn't bother to edit the AP's vicious headline) presents the news in this way: Bomb Mars Historic Day for Palestinians. Seems to me (and I'm just spitballing here) that the dead and injured Israelis and their families perhaps had their day marred just a tad more than the Palestinians, who were probably feting the "martyr" and rejoicing at the shedding of Jewish blood, as is their wont. Dollars to donuts, the murder was more important to this hideous people than the cosmetic change in their "government." permalink

So Long, Neighbor

What with all the turmoil in the world, I forgot to mention this. Saddest news in a quite a while. The themes were obvious, and they get a little repetitive, but I doubt you can read through all six pages of cartoonists' Tributes to Mr. Rogers on Slate without a lump in your throat. I know I couldn't. May his soul be bound up in the bond of life.

Jingo Bells, Jingo Bells

I'm in favor of a war to depose Saddam and bring to an end Iraq's quest to achieve regional hegemony. And I'm no friend of the Arab world. But when pro war bloggers cross the line into jingoistic ad hominem attack, I have to call bullshit on them. In the linked item on Little Green Footballs, Charles Johnson cites the insulting remark of the Iraqi delegate to an Arab summit to his Kuwaiti counterpart, which has been translated, no doubt word for word, from Arabic as "Shut up you monkey. Curse be upon your mustache, you traitor." Now if one were to criticize diplomats acting like children, fair enough. One ought to expect high public officials, even when in high dudgeon, to carry themselves with a bit more dignity than that. But Johnson's criticism goes farther. He says:"These are the leaders of the Islamic world. When they get angry, the worst, nastiest insult that pops out of them is a frickin’ curse upon their opponent’s facial hair." Here, Johnson shows his own ignorance about the about the nature of language, and the perils of literal translation. My knowledge of Arabic is limited to a very few phrases, but I think it fairly obvious from the reaction it engendered that the insult, although odd to English ears, hit a nerve in Arabic. Hell, even the New York Post managed to report the incident accurately without being snide. And if you think the LGF post was bad, you see the string of comments he got.

Bye bye, Judgeship

Oh well, my chances of ever being nominated or elected to the bench were pretty slim anyway, so I'll just call this one as I see it. John Ashcroft is out of his mind. Not just content with depriving suspects of lawyers, or covering up naked breasts on statues, he's now focusing on another "peril": pot smokers. (thanks to Instapundit for the link). Ashcroft is hardly the first public official to waste precious public moneys waging "the war on drugs." But to focus on marijuna is particularly absurd. According to Lancet, one of the most respected medical journals in the world, "moderate indulgence in cannabis has little ill-effect on health." Perhaps more to the point, the Lancet editorial stated "it would be reasonable to judge cannabis less of a threat to health than alcohol or tobacco, products that i[n] many countries are not only tolerated and advertised, but are also a useful source of tax revenue." Are there non-health based justifications for criminalising marijuana use? The only one ever proffered is that marijuana is a "gateway drug." Only problem is, the gateway theory is pretty much a load of crap. Assistant United States Attorneys are some of the most talented lawyers in America, and they're paid pretty handsomely (albeit less than private sector lawyers), with your tax dollars and mine. Aren't their talents (and those of the FBI and DEA, for that matter) better used for more important matters?

Ashcroft Running Amok?

The war on terrorism is being used as an excuse for eroding the right to counsel. I'm no fan of Matt Hale, the white supremacist at issue in the news story. And the crime of which he's accused -- conspiring to murder a federal judge -- is one that strikes at the very heart of our system of justice. But if we, on the flimsiest of grounds, restrict the right to counsel, then we do Hale's work for him. The Tribune article says that the restrictions on access to counsel are used rarely. Perhaps so, but restrictions on the right to counsel, whether the administrative rules used in Hale's case, or the "emeny combatant" designations at issue in the Hamdi and Padilla cases,are being used more frequently now, as best I can tell, than ever before. Less than two months ago, the Fourth Circuit ruled that the government could hold suspected terrorist Yaser Hamdi incommunicado indefintely and without access to counsel. Phillippe de Croy, on the Volokh Conspiracy correctly pointed out at the time that Hamdi was an easier case -- because Hamdi was not a US citizen -- than the Padilla case, where General Ashcroft is arguing that he can name an American citizen an "enemy combatant", a designation that under the Fourth Circuit's holding would essentially be beyond judicial review, and use that designation to strip the poor sod of his right to counsel, his right to a speedy and public -- or indeed, any -- trial, holding the "enemy combatant" incommunicado until hell freezes over. "While expeditious, and
certainly painless, [that] might not be in a manner of speaking,
the American way."

The Hale case takes Ashcroft's diabolical heavy-handedness to a new level. Hale, vile though he may be, neither represents nor is connected to a terrorist threat of any magnitude. He is part of a fringe movement best contained not by suppression, by exposure to the broad light of day. If rodents like Hale can't be defeated without subverting the Constitution, then what's the good of having the thing at all? Hale's lawyer plans to appeal Ashcroft's decision. Here's hoping he wins, and promptly. UPDATE: According to today's (i.e., 3/5/03) Chicago Tribune, the Special Administrative Measures have not been used, in Hale's case, to block his access to his lawyer -- yet. Instead, he has simply been cut off from virtually all contact with other outsiders, including incoming and outgoing mail and phone calls, and visits with his family. I still have a few issues with special administrative measures (especially since they may limit his counsel's ability toprepare for his defense), but as currently applied in Hale's case, they don't yet implicate his right to counsel, and I concede that prosecutors are entitled to more discretion in such matters than they are on access to counsel.permalink

This Ain't Vietnam

Instapundit links to this column by Gerald Posner, a supporter of the war against Iraq, who is now embarrassed by his participation in protests against the Vietnam War. His embarrassment reflects the same misunderstanding of history demonstrated by the AWIBs, who see themselves as the proud heirs of the anti-Vietnam War movement. So I'll say it again: This Ain't Vietnam. Posner has a point when he says that he, and others in the anti-war movement, were naive about the nature of the Ho Chi Minh and his cohorts. History has proved that like all Marxists, they were brutal, tyrannical, vile. But in the 1950's and 1960s, they were also genuinely popular among their own people. The regime in South Vietnam that we were propping up was no better -- it too was a cruel, autocratic regime. And had we packed up our troubles in our old kit bag in 1964, instead of having our own President swindle us with the Tonkin "crisis", the true impact -- on Indochina and on the eventual course of the Cold War -- would have been negligible, and the impact on our own polity immeasurably positive. Johnson and Nixon's war was indefensible, and we who stood against it (even as precocious pre-teens) should always be proud of having done so. (That doesn't mean that those who spit on soldiers should be proud. That is repulsive behavior in any context, and attacked entirely the wrong targets. That doesn't mean that Jane Fonda was right to have gone to North Vietnam. But the entire anti-war movement was not wrong for those excesses, any more than John McCain, John Kerry, and thousands of others who served honorably and heroically in Vietnam should be tarred with the same brush as Calley and the butchers of My Lai.). Understanding history is vital to understanding the present, but we have got to get beyond seeing every international crisis through the lens of Vietnam. permalink

Be Not Idle Spectators

"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution." Barbara Jordan, of blessed memory, said that nearly thirty years ago at the House Judiciary Committee hearings on the impeachment of Richard Nixon. That is what each and every one of us must be saying to General Ashcroft, every day, loud and clear. My support for the war should in no way be construed as support for the wholesale destruction of civil liberties in which the administration is engaged. Nat Hentoff, though sometimes bordering on hysteria, has been keeping close tabs. His latest column is a must read, and a call to action. Let your senators and congressmen know how you feel. Send the Hentoff link to your friends, and tell them to act, too. And if you weren't old enough to hear Barbara Jordan live in 1974 (I was a nerdy enough sixth grader that I spent more of my summer vacation than I perhaps should have watching the hearings), you really should listen to the mp3 clip at the site above. permalink

When We Build It, They Will Come

This post is not as timely as a blog should be, but I'm posting it anyway. So it's Libeskind for Lower Manhattan. I think that's the wiser choice from the two finalists, and an inspiring vision, although I was rooting for Norman Foster and crew. I thought it crucial that the design chosen incorporate a twin towers element, and that those twin towers be as architecturally audacious in our day as the WTC towers were in theirs. This would be a deliberate "fuck you" to the Islamofascists, a testament not only to our greater economic strength, but to our superior conception of the human heart, mind, and soul -- the very source of that greater economic strength. I thought the Foster towers did that beautifully. I'm content with the Libeskind design, though, because although it does not do the obvious homage with twinned towers, it is still breathtaking in its audacity. The THINK plan, the second finalist, failed that test. While it had a twin towers element, they were mostly empty, functionless latticework, and openly derivative of the Eiffel Tower, a photo of which THINK actually included in their slide show. The Eiffel Tower was the WTC of its day, but boldness, not imitation, is what's called for here. I also disliked THINK's decision to place the 9/11 memorial at the apex of their Eiffel knock-offs. Foster's memorial, by contrast, planned voids, on the footprints of the WTC, that I thought much more appropriate. See today's New York Times for a commentary about descending to memorials, rather than ascending. I think this article sums up the point nicely. Libeskind, like Foster, sees the memorial in the same way.

A good friend and I had a dialogue about the choices back when the current group of plans was unveiled last fall. We both agreed that they represented an improvement on the sterile, uninspired choices from the first attempt earlier in 2002, but he felt that we had an opportunity, in the wake of the horror of 9/11, to reclaim the historic character of the neighborhood that the WTC itself had destroyed. Like me, my friend can have no real memory of that character -- we were 9 when the WTC opened in 1971; I lived in Boston, he in sunny California. And although I agree that we are generally too quick to shed old buildings in this country (Steve Martin exclaiming to Victoria Tennant that "some of these buildings are over twenty years old in L.A. Story is one of the funniest lines in film), you can't go home again. The WTC had a transformational effect on Lower Manhattan. It is no more possible to restore the old character of the neighborhood than it is to make Hester, Rivington, and Delancey once again the center of the American-Jewish experience. My friend also pointed out that it took 12 years for the WTC to reach full occupancy after it was built, and that we don't need that much office in lower Manhattan. I respond to that argument in part with the title to this post, and also with the observation that the core buildings of New College, Oxford are more than 600 years old.

The friend in question is one of the few loyal readers of my ramblings, and I suspect he has yet more to say on the subject. So I shall post his reply here without delay. permalink

Don’t know much about history . . .

I think we need a corollary to the old Santayana aphorism about remembering the past, because the parade of commentators twisting history in the service of Saddam Hussein is astounding. Molly Ivins’s insipid, name-dropping love letter to the French (see the post immediately below) is hardly alone. So today, I’ll hit two more. First up is Russell Martin’s diatribe from NPR a couple weeks back. (It was delivered in sonorous, soothing NPR-tone, but it was a diatribe nonetheless) I heard it on my way into the office and almost drove off the road. Martin is a historian and author of the book “Picasso's War: The Destruction of Guernica and the Masterpiece That Changed the World”. A tapestry of the painting in question which hangs in the UN is often a backdrop for dignitaries giving press conferences there. In a stupid and indefensible move reminiscent of General Ashcroft’s ridiculous prudery at the DOJ, the tapestry was covered during a press conference the day that Colin Powell made his presentation to the Security Council. Martin comments:

.Three years prior to his invasion of Poland, Adolf Hitler sent planes, tanks and troops into Spain in support of General Francisco Franco, who was attempting to overthrow that country's popularly elected government. On April 26th, 1937, in the late afternoon of a busy market day, in the town of Guernica, Hitler's Luftwaffe began relentless bombing, and three and a half hours later, the village lay in utter ruins, its population decimated. Hitler's act of terror and unspeakable cruelty outraged the world, and painter Pablo Picasso responded with artistic fury, creating a massive canvas that would become his testament in opposition to the horrors of war.

And a marvelous testament it is. But is it not fair to ask, had the world responded with force in aid of the Republican cause, would Spain have been spared forty years of Franco’s tyranny? Perhaps Prime Minister Aznar has asked that very question, and this is what motivates his staunch support of America now.

The UN's decision not to allow “Guernica's” images to be used as a backdrop for discussions about whether Iraq should be attacked preemptively are ironic, given the Pentagon's stated intention to intensively bombard Baghdad, a city of five million people, as the war commences. US defense planners call this type of attack `shock and awe,' a tactic meant to overwhelm the Iraqis with so much initial force that their will to defend themselves will be shattered, the strategy that Nazi Germany's military leaders called blitzkrieg, and tested for the first time in Guernica.

There you have it: an outright comparison of the United States to Nazi Germany. I’m not a military historian, and I can’t say whether American military plans for the bombardment of Baghdad bear any actual resemblance to the Nazis' destruction of Guernica. I rather doubt it, but let me take the comparison at face value. I think it is incumbent on one who would make such an accusation to show not just that the tactics are similar, but also that the world’s casus belli against Iraq is as nefarious as the Nazis’ in Guernica (which, as far as I know, was simply a training exercise for the campaign to subjugate the continent of Europe). Unless one proceeds from Jimmy Carter’s assertion that war “is always an evil, never a good,” it is simply grotesque to compare the two. I reject Carter’s formulation, because a war, like the coming war, which promises to prevent even worse horrors to come, is a net good. Martin apparently disagrees. He continues

It may be that as they finalize plans for a preemptive war against Iraq, Mr. Bush and his strategists have carefully considered the lessons of Guernica and the different course history might have taken if Hitler had been stopped as he aggressively entered Spain. Yet if the Bush administration does see a correlation, it misses a vital point. A bold strike against Hitler would have been made in response to his slaughter of thousands of innocent civilians and not on the possibility that he might do so. It remains difficult to imagine that any nation in the world would have sanctioned a military strike against Hitler that year had his troops, tanks and planes remained inside Germany's own borders, had the town of Guernica continued to stand. Yes, the Nazis were amassing sophisticated new weaponry at an alarming pace, precisely the charge that Saddam Hussein stands accused of today. But the decision to go to war before one's enemies do is the thinking of despots, not statesmen.

Shall we call this the Martin One Free Atrocity Rule? He’s honestly saying that the French were right not to have stopped Hitler when he occupied the Rhineland (which might well have resulted in the General staff deposing him). Of course, Saddam has already gotten more than just one free atrocity. Just ask the Kuwaitis, the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs (not to mention the Iranians, but then they gave as good as they got). The question for Martin and his simplistic AWIB (All War Is Bad) cohorts is how many more people must die at this man’s hands before you say genug shayn (that’s Yiddish for “enough already”).

Then there’s yesterday’s New York Times column by Nicholas Kristof. Kristof thinks that Saddam Hussein is no more menacing than Nasser in ’56, and that Ike’s handling of the Suez Crisis should be our model today. Anyone who disagrees with him is a “shrieking hawk.” For brevity’s sake, I’ll take at face value Kristof’s assertion that Nasser really wasn’t that much of a menace, pausing only to note that Israelis might disagree.

But Kristof asserts that “Eisenhower . . . faced a crisis in Egypt similar to today's.” I think not. Today’s situation differs from 1956 in at least two crucial respects. First, in 1956, there were two superpowers, who contained most international conflicts between their client states. Today, the bi-polar world is gone, and regional conflicts that were suppressed in the good old days of MAD are not as easily checked. Saddam Hussein has no external constraint on his ambitions except the United States and its allies. Second, although Nasser apparently tried to go nuclear it was a goal well beyond his reach. Nuclear proliferation in 1956 (or even 1967) wasn’t what it is today. Saddam Hussein, by contrast, continues an effort to obtain nuclear weapons (see especially pp. 24-27) that would already have borne fruit had not Israel had the foresight and the will to bomb the Osirak reactor in 1981. So whatever the West’s perceptions of Nasser in ’56 (and not being an expert in public perceptions in 1956, I’ll again give Kristof the benefit of the doubt), Saddam Hussein is, in fact, a greater threat to regional stability and world peace than Nasser could have hoped to be in his wildest fantasies.

Kristof’s errors are not, however, confined to this facile analogy. He tells us

hawks have a consistent track record of shrieking obsessively and seeing one minor country after another as global threats — in an eye-bulging, alarmist way that in retrospect looks hysterical. In the 1950's and 1960's, the hawks magnified the threat from Vietnam and Cuba. In the 1980's they obsessed about Nicaragua (only a one-week bus ride from Texas!). None of these threats were imagined, but they were exaggerated.

It seems to me that all the shrieking these days is coming from the AWIBs, who are in such hysteria over this war, and have so lost their perspective, that they routinely, with complete sincerity compare George Bush to Adolf Hitler. Personally, I’m no great fan of war. Opposition to the Vietnam War (and the Nixon administration) was my political mother’s milk. My mom wore a war is not healthy for children and other living things pendant, and in a box somewhere in my parents' home is the neon blue peace sign and other paraphernalia from my childhood bedroom wall that establish my anti-war bona fides. In college during the 80’s, I hated Reagan, and while I’ve come to appreciate a couple of things about the man, I still pretty much do. I still think Abbie Hoffman was a great American, and revisionist history notwithstanding, I still revere Jack, Bobby and Ted. So I’m hardly a “hawk.” But this ain’t Vietnam. Kristof’s lumping together of current “hawks” with historical hawks is, I suppose, a necessary corollary to AWIB philosophy. But it’s counterfactual, like a lot of the AWIB propaganda that’s being printed in our newspapers and aired on NPR these days.

permalink

Just What Kind of Champignons Have You Eaten, Molly?

I'm a Francophile from way back, and I have a soft spot for Molly Ivins, too. But her latest column, defending French policy on Iraq, is so devoid of logic, and so littered with factual inaccuracy, that I must give it the blogger once-over. Molly writes:

George Will saw fit to include in his latest Newsweek column this joke: "How many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris? No one knows, it's never been tried." That was certainly amusing. One million, four hundred thousand French soldiers were killed during World War I. As a result, there weren't many Frenchmen left to fight in World War II. Nevertheless, 100,000 French soldiers lost their lives trying to stop Adolf Hitler . . . Relying on the Maginot Line was one of the great military follies of modern history, but it does not reflect on the courage of those who died for France in 1940. For 18 months after that execrable defeat, the United States of America continued to have cordial diplomatic relations with Nazi Germany.

Fair enough on French tenacity and sacrifice in WWI. But sorry, Molly. To say that we had cordial relations with Nazi Germany between June 1940 and December 1941 -- and to imply that we had no particular beef with the Germans -- is simply untrue. Roosevelt was busy arming the UK through the lend-lease program, helping that truly brave nation survive the aerial assault on London and keep its shipping lanes open. Roosevelt knew that war was coming. This is what he said:

The Nazi masters of Germany have made it clear that they intend not only to dominate all life and thought in their own country, but also to enslave the whole of Europe, and then to use the resources of Europe to dominate the rest of the world. It was only three weeks ago that their leader stated this: "There are two worlds that stand opposed to each other." And then in defiant reply to his opponents he said this: "Others are correct when they say: 'With this world we cannot ever reconcile ourselves.' . . . I can beat any other power in the world." So said the leader of the Nazis. . . . In view of the nature of this undeniable threat, it can be asserted, properly and categorically, that the United States has no right or reason to encourage talk of peace until the day shall come when there is a clear intention on the part of the aggressor nations to abandon all thought of dominating or conquering the world.We must be the great arsenal of democracy. For us this is an emergency as serious as war itself. We must apply ourselves to our task with the same resolution, the same sense of urgency, the same spirit of patriotism and sacrifice as we would show were we at war.

Not too f*ing cordial, if you ask me, Molly. If you'd like to brush up on your history, I can recommend a few good tutors.

She continues:

One of the great what-ifs of history is: What would have happened if Franklin Roosevelt had lived to the end of his last term? How many wars have been lost in the peace? For those of you who have not read Paris 1919, I recommend it highly. Roosevelt was anti-colonialist. That system was a great evil, a greater horror even than Nazism or Stalinism.

Colonialism was a greater evil than Stalinism or Nazism. Ok, I'll admit that would make a lovely topic for a high school or college debating society meet. But it is a breathtaking hypothesis. Stalin killed twenty million of his own people. Hitler killed at least 11 million innocent Europeans. That doesn't give him credit for all the military and civilian deaths from the prosecution of a world war he started. The 11 million are just the wanton murders. Now frankly, I haven't read widely on the deaths suffered under colonial rule around the globe. With the exception of Belgium's handiwork in the Congo (someday, I'll have to write a post about the rich irony of Belgium's attempts to hold Israel accountable for human rights violations. In the meantime, see the response of the Israeli Minister for Justice), I know of no program of systematic murder and suppression of freedom under European colonial rule quite equal to the Nazis and Stalin. And I defy Molly Ivins (or anyone else) to show me a nation or people better off in the post colonial era than during colonial rule (except in the not inconsiderable sense that their current tyrants are locals) UPDATE: That challenge, as a friend has quite correctly pointed out, is an easy one to meet. But the point is not necessary to my argument, so read on.

Instead of insisting on freedom for the colonies of Europe, we let our allies carry on with the system, leaving the British in India and Africa, and the French in Vietnam and Algeria, to everyone's eventual regret.

Molly, let's not forget we left the Soviets with a few colonies too. Or do suffering Hungarians, Czechs, and Romanians not count? But what exactly has that to do with France's policy today?

Surrender monkeys? Try Dien Bien Phu. Yes, the French did surrender, didn't they? After 6,000 French died in a no-hope position. Ever heard of the Foreign Legion? Of the paratroopers, called "paras"? The trouble we could have saved ourselves if we had only paid attention to Dien Bien Phu.

Again, so what? This ain't Vietnam. And so the French were right to get out of Vietnam when the getting was good, and they lost 6,000 men before they did. Vive la France. But why ought their nobility then cloak their cowardice now?

Then came Algeria. As nasty a war as has ever been fought. . . . Charles de Gaulle came back into power in 1958, specifically elected to keep Algeria French. I consider de Gaulle's long, slow, delicate, elephantine withdrawal (de Gaulle even looked like an elephant) one of the single greatest acts of statesmanship in history. . . . Those were the years when France learned about terrorism. The plastiquers were all over Paris. The "plastic" bombs, the ones you can stick like Play-Do underneath the ledge of some building, were the popular weapon du jour. It made Israel today look tame. For France, terrorism is "Been there, done that."

Algerian terrorism in France makes what happens to the Israelis look tame? On what planet? The per capita losses of the Israeli people in the 56 years of unrelenting assault on their very right to exist is so staggeringly out of proportion to Algerian terrorism in France that one can only stand slack-jawed at Ivins’ callousness and ignorance in suggesting otherwise. And what, exactly, is she proposing? That we'll get used to terrorism after we've suffered enough of it? Sorry, Molly. We can't afford that kind of ennui. Or is she saying that because the French have "been there, done that" that they've some sort of expertise to which we should defer. That's just laughable. The French suffered Algerian terrorism for the reason that Molly herself identifies: They wouldn't let go, long after the Algerians made plain they wanted France gone. Americans and Israelis suffer Iraqi and Arab terrorism simply for being. So the cure isn't quite as simple in this case.

I was in Paris on Sept. 11, 2001. The reaction was so immediate, so generous, so overwhelming. Not just the government, but the people kept bringing flowers to the American embassy. They covered the American Cathedral, the American Church, anything they could find that was American. They didn't just leave flowers -- they wrote notes with them. I read more than 100 of them. Not only did they refer, again and again, to Normandy, to never forgetting, but there were even some in ancient, spidery handwriting referring to WWI: "Lafayette is still with you."

I suppose it's like shooting fish in a barrel, but it's still fun. Molly, hon? The Lafayette reference was to 1777, not 1917. You see, when Black Jack Pershing famously proclaimed "Lafayette, nous voici," he was talking about repaying a debt. The Frenchman's note, telling us that Lafayette was still with us, hearkened back not to Pershing's claim of repaying the debt, but to the original act of friendship. Maybe you should take me up on that list of history tutors.

Look, the French are not a touchy-feely people. They're more, like, logical. For them to approach total strangers in the streets who look American and hug them is seriously extraordinary. I got patted so much I felt like a Labrador retriever.

I don't doubt that the French themselves, so much like us in so many ways, feel a strong kinship to us; I think they always have, and always will. Some of my oldest and dearest friends in the world are French. But that doesn't excuse French policy or the shameful conduct of its President -- and that, and only that -- is what's being targeted in the latest round of France-bashing. Those are legitimate targets.

This is where I think the real difference is. We Americans are famously ahistorical. We can barely be bothered to remember what happened last week, or last month, much less last year.

Q.E.D.

The French are really stuck on history. (Some might claim this is because the French are better educated than we are. I won't go there.)

Ah, but you have gone there, Molly. You have.

Does it not occur to anyone that these are very old friends of ours, trying to tell us what they think they know about being hated by weak enemies in the Third World?

And has it occurred to you, dear, sweet, naive Molly, that the French, despite their vast experience in the world, have simply got it wrong this time; and that far from being a precocious child among nations, we are an equal, entitled to call bull-merde on our French friends?

UPDATE: With a target this rich, I'm not the only one shooting. Here's a strong critique. And here's Angie's, also a good read pointing out a few logical incosistencies I missed. Molly really deserves some sort of award for coming up with something this incredibly bad -- and getting paid for it, to boot. permalink

A Glaring Omission

The Russian delegate offered his condolences to the United States for the loss of the Columbia and its crew. Earth to Russia: An Israeli died too. Even the French had the decency to extend condolences to Israel, even though France daily and enthusiastically gives aid and comfort to Israel's enemies.

UPDATE: I was only listening with one ear. Hearing French, I thought it was France speaking, but it was Cameroon. Figures.

Completely Justified and Absolutely Necessary

I've been listening this morning to the Security Council's meeting. I think Powell's case was irrefutable. Yet the Chinese and Russian delegates have just expressed their opposition to any meaningful response to Iraq's arrogant pursuit of regional hegemony. The Russian delegate was painfully honest: Russia views a political solution as the only possible solution. That is the prism through which Russia views the situation. This is madness. Inspectors can only inspect what they're allowed to see. Powell presented irrefutable evidence that Iraq is actively thwarting inspectors' efforts to see what's going on. If Iraq is not frantically trying to amass an arsenal of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, then why the cooridnated effort to hide evidence, and to threaten Iraqi scientists with death if they speak with inspectors? And just how will more diplomacy convince Iraq to alter its course? For twelve years, Iraq has been playing the diplomatic community for fools. As I write, France has just risen to speak. But is there really any need to listen to the French?

Why Israel Deserves Support

This point can't be made often enough.Pictures from yesterday's election make the point pretty well. Turnout -- at 68.5%! -- was the lowest in Israeli history. The highest turnout here, in the last 42 years, was 42 years ago, when we got a whopping 63.1% in the Kennedy-Nixon election. In recent years, 1996 and 2000, we got 49.1% and 51.3%, respectively. Pathetic.