One theme of James Bennet’s otherwise excellent recent dispatches from Israel has been that the current conflict was in part caused by the Bush administration’s “malign neglect” of the peace-process. This ignores the fact that more Israelis have been murdered by terrorists since the Oslo Accord than in all the years since 1948. It is also belied by the New York Times’ own story today by David Firestone that documents Hamas’s plans for terror and supplanting the PLO since at least 1993.
ASHCROFT, BUTTERFIELD AND GUNS: The invaluable weblogger, Glenn Reynolds, dismantles Fox Butterfield’s New York Times’ piece on attorney general Ashcroft’s ruling on gun checks today. Reynolds argues that “a firearms registry that permits the lookup of individuals is specifically forbidden by statute.” Hmmm.
THE MYTH OF THE MYTH OF THE ANTI-WAR LEFT: Be sure to check out Ron Radosh’s response to Jake Weisberg in the current Frontpage magazine. Thinking about this debate overnight, it occurred to me that I should add something. Although I disagree with Jake about the salience of the anti-war left, he does have one good point. Those of us who hammered the nihilists, post-modernists and feeble-minded after September 11 might seem to be going overboard in one respect. In retrospect, with regard to this war, these people turned out to be pretty irrelevant. But there was no way we could have predicted that at the time, and under the circumstances, I think we were right to take no chances. Jake will have noticed that the anti-left campaign has now subsided in this regard. But more generally, the reason for our vehemence was that we decided to take the opportunity of the war to expose and discredit the far-left more broadly. The reason is obvious. For the past generation, the pomo left has hijacked our universities, helped destroy good high school education, derailed good causes like gay rights, and acted as a horrifying bully whenever it won power. Most of the time, sane good people couldn’t be bothered to take notice of these authoritarians. The war changed that. By showing how people like Sontag, Pollitt, Chomsky, Moore, et al were incapable even of responding to mass murder, we were able to show how deeply corrupt their thinking was and is. The war was an invaluable opportunity to expose them to a wider audience, discredit and marginalize them. I make no apologies for doing so. Liberals whose cause is also derailed by these extremists should, in my opinion, join in. And some liberals – like The New Republic – have. It’s a pity that Jake and others should now rise to these leftists’ defense just when we have them somewhat on the run. I say: smoke ’em out wherever they’re hiding.
THOSE SWEDISH CHARACTERS: I’m sorry for the weird characters in an item posted yesterday. To all of you Microsoft gloaters, it had nothing to do with Apple. It’s too boring to go into detail but it was a series of tech errors. I hope it won’t happen again.
THOUGHT FOR THE DAY: “The fact is that the world is divided between users of the Macintosh computer and users of MS-DOS compatible computers. I am firmly of the opinion that the Macintosh is Catholic and that DOS is Protestant. Indeed, the Macintosh is counterreformist and has been influenced by the “ratio studiorum” of the Jesuits. It is cheerful, friendly, conciliatory, it tells the faithful how they must proceed step by step to reach – if not the Kingdom of Heaven – the moment in which their document is printed. It is catechistic: the essence of revelation is dealt with via simple formulae and sumptuous icons. Everyone has a right to salvation. DOS is Protestant, or even Calvinistic. It allows free interpretation of scripture, demands difficult personal decisions, imposes a subtle hermeneutics upon the user, and takes for granted the idea that not all can reach salvation. To make the system work you need to interpret the program yourself: a long way from the baroque community of revelers, the user is closed within the loneliness of his own inner torment. You may object that, with the passage to Windows, the DOS universe has come to resemble more closely the counterreformist tolerance of the Macintosh. It’s true: Windows represents an Anglican-style schism, big ceremonies in the cathedral, but there is always the possibility of a return to DOS to change things in accordance with bizarre decisions… And machine code, which lies beneath both systems (or environments, if you prefer)? Ah, that is to do with the Old Testament, and is Talmudic and cabalistic. ” – Umberto Eco.
The Dish 