Month: August 2002

Check out this superb essay by the incomparable Samuel Brittan in the Financial Times yesterday. Here’s the money paragraph:

I find myself somewhat surprised to be so much on the Bush side. I call myself a neo-pacifist because I do not believe in dying either for forms of government or to have rulers of one ethnic or national origin rather than another. The choice between living under the Kaiser and living under Lloyd George was not worth the millions of deaths in the trenches, as Lloyd George himself came to appreciate. And I am old enough to have been opposed to the Vietnam war as well as to the Falklands war and was dubious about the Gulf war.

“Neo”, because if our very lives and the right to exist are threatened, as my family’s were by the Nazis in the second world war and as the whole western world is threatened by al-Qaeda and by rogue states, I believe in fighting back with every available resource.

Islamist militancy is a self-confessed threat to the values not merely of the US but also of the European Enlightenment: to the preference for life over death, to peace, rationality, science and the humane treatment of our fellow men, not to mention fellow women. It is a reassertion of blind, cruel faith over reason.

I’m feeling a little better now.

The London Times’ Simon Jenkins sneers at the notion that Iraq is a threat to Britain or America. He describes the military campaigns in Serbia and Afghanistan as failures. He describes post-9/11 American foreign policy as “catatonic.” He likens Tony Blair to the premier of an East European state under Soviet tyranny. This isn’t in the Guardian or the Independent, it’s in the Times. But here’s the classic sentence: “If the Government is right and al-Qaeda remains a threat to Britain the more reason for caution in the minefields of Middle East politics. It is a reason for listening and watching, not blundering into the region with bombs and tanks.” You can’t get a more concise description of appeasement than that. Don’t fight back, because it could make them even angrier! Just listen and watch – exactly what the peaceniks urged on the West in the 1930s and throughout the Cold War and throughout the 1990s. And what if, while we listen and watch, a Saddam-sponsored biological weapon goes off in D.C. or San Francisco or London? Jenkins argues that we do not know for certain that that is likely. And he’s right. But the critical issue is not certainty. It is whether, after terroristic forces have already massacred thousands of Americans, self-defense should get the benefit of the doubt. Bush and Blair are responsible if their own citizens are murdered en masse again. And they don’t only have a right, they have a manifest duty to stop that happening. And the sooner, the better. Jenkins demands: “If We Must Go To War, for God’s Sake Tell Us Why.” Perhaps someone could arrange a trip for Jenkins to the site of what was once the World Trade Center, and he could get his answer.

The letter composed yesterday by the president of Hebrew University deserves a wider readership:

The forces of evil have struck yet again. For them, the entire State of Israel, its citizens, and its institutions are legitimate targets – this time, however, the target was chosen with much care. The attack required planning and determination in order to overcome the many layers of security and strike at the very heart of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. This was not just an attack on our institution; it was an attack on a symbol of the rebirth of Israel in its own land, on a modern state that is rooted in tradition but embraces openess.

This attack was perpetrated against a university founded upon the principles of pluralism and tolerance, a university that seeks to understand the world in which we live and that – despite the wave of terror and murder we are experiencing – aspires to promote peace and understanding with its neighbors in this region. The aim of the terrorists responsible for the horrific scene that I witnessed several minutes after the explosion was to bring an end to those values that the Hebrew University embraces and embodies – understanding, tolerance, and the quest for peace.

The victims include many members of the University community – students, teachers, employees, and visitors from all parts of the world. They are Jews and Arabs, and citizens of the US, Korea, France, Italy, and other countries. This attack is a crime not only against Israel or the Jewish people; it is a crime against the free and enlightened world. As I stood facing the destruction, the pools of blood and the wounded, I was forced to ask myself how we can continue in our research, teaching and other vibrant activity while we mourn for the victims. The answer is clear and it is expressed by the Hebrew word davka, ‘despite everything’. The perpetrators of such heinous acts may kill those dear to us, but they cannot destroy our vision and our determination to continue to create a society that is based on reason and mutual understanding, and to work as a community of researchers and students which welcomes Israelis of all backgrounds and guests from all over the world. Above all, we will not let them kill our aspirations for peace.

Professor Menachem Magidor
President, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Like Mickey Kaus, I waded through the Jeff Gerth-Dick Cheney investigation, Rainesed on page one. Like Mickey, I can’t for the life of me see a single problem with Cheney’s conduct, as described breathlessly by Gerth. Except, as usual, with the Times’ fast-evaporating journalistic credibility. One small thought: if they can get the word asbestos in the same sentence as Cheney, they might milk this as successfully as the non-story about W and arsenic. At this point, the Times is simply throwing all they’ve got.

Doesn’t it tell you everything that Hamas bombed a university?

WHY NOT GRAHAM-SMITH? The money-quote from this New York Times story on Medicare drug coverage is from Senator Olympia Snowe. She opposed a sensible proposal to restrict a prescription drug benefit to the poor or to those who face catastrophic medical treatment. This means-tested benefit would help those who need help the most and keep costs down. So what’s the problem? “If we take the approach of low-income and catastrophic coverage as the sole type of benefit we will enact in the Senate,” Ms. Snowe said, “we are abandoning the principle of universal coverage under Medicare. I hope we don’t move in that direction. It’s the wrong approach – wrong for Medicare, and wrong for our nation’s seniors.” But why is it so wrong to provide help for those who need it most? Matt Miller’s latest column highlights a vital point here: under the current doctrine that Medicare and Social Security are universal non-means-tested benefits, we know what the future will be. We will have to pay much higher taxes or go bankrupt. So why not restructure the programs now to prevent such a crunch later? I’ve never seen a problem with having social security benefits either taxed or means-tested. What we’re buying with social security is “security”. It’s insurance that if we do end up indigent, we’ll be helped. What it has become instead is guaranteed middle-class welfare – a huge transfer of resources from the young, poor and working to the old, retired and rich. I wish one of the parties would get honest about this. But Democratic demagoguery on the subject all but prevents common sense from breaking out.

A DEMOCRAT WORRIES: Lots of positive press from the DLC meeting for the Dems, especially Hillary, but this Democratic state rep from New Hampshire, Peter Sullivan, begs to differ. Here’s his email:

Regarding Robert Borosage’s spin on the Democratic Leadership Council’s gathering in New York…we tried his approach. It was called the Mondale campaign. We all recall what a smashing success that exercise in squishy isolationism, neanderthal economics and racial resentment politics played out.
I attended the DLC event, and I noticed that a lot of people evidently took Borosage’s advice to go to the banquets, meet the money, eat the food, etc, but blow off the underlying message. The DLC made the mistake of offering any Democratic legislator in America asistance with either hotel or travel expenses. A lot of people who took them up on the offer were actually the very paleolibs the DLC (and we New Dem legislators) are trying to subdue. The delegation from my own home state of New Hampshire was riddled with an assortment of old school lefties, party hacks and educrats who view charter schools as the political equivalent of the West Nile Virus. There was also a large and annoying contingent of teachers-turned-politicians, who seemed to take a certain glee in badgering the moderators of the education policy workshops run by the DLC in New York on Sunday and Monday. I also suspect that these are the same folks responsible for the glowing reviews bestowed upon Hillary Clinton following her rather unremarkable address.
I hope that Borosage’s admonition falls on deaf ears. Otherwise, the Democrats will all too readily cede the political battlefield to a substantively vacuous but politically ruthless Bush machine.

THE BRITISH HACK: This little gem comes courtesy of another gem, the invaluable weblog, “Little Green Footballs.” It’s a poem by one Humbert Wolfe, whom I confess to know little to nothing about.

The British Journalist

You cannot hope
to bribe or twist,
Thank God! the British journalist.

But, seeing what
the man will do
unbribed, there’s no occasion to.

Ahem.

WHEN WEED CURES: Fascinating new evidence for the effect of marijuana on suppressing traumatic memories and anxiety attacks. More data suggesting that the prohibition is unwarranted.

SUPPORT FOR THE WAR AGAINST IRAQ: Matt Welch, in a flight of high-mindedness, says I provide no evidence for my claim that the American public supports a war to disable Iraq’s potential to deliver weapons of mass destruction. Well, a Newseek poll last October found the following:

Nine out of 10 Americans say they support the current military action in Afghanistan. Seventy-nine percent support the use of military force against suspected terrorist targets in other Middle Eastern countries, with 81 percent approving the use of direct military action against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. Seventy-one percent support the use of military force to combat terrorism outside of the Middle East, in countries like Sudan and the Philippines.

I’d say 81 percent is pretty decisive. The notion that Americans need to be apprised of Saddam’s threat, have not thought about the pros and cons of war, and need a thorough from-scratch debate about this is self-evidently silly. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have a real discussion about how to unseat Saddam, an exploration of all the possible consequences, and a sober period of argument and decision-making. But the war’s opponents are acting as if this is a new idea, as if it has to be debated de novo, as if September 11 is irrelevant, as if the public is divided or confused, as if there’s no compelling evidence to warrant intervention. That’s baloney. Here’s what the Washington Post reported yesterday:

U.S. opinion polls indicate that more than 60 percent of Americans support the use of force to overthrow Hussein, “and that’s without the administration doing much selling of the idea,” said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center.

And it is simply a fact that many people opposed to the war against Iraq are indeed “passionately opposed to using American power to defeat the forces of state terror.” They opposed using force when Saddam invaded Kuwait; they predicted quagmire and urged negotiations in Afghanistan. They want to stop this war. The job of war-proponents is to remind people of what last September showed was possible, assemble all the evidence to show how dangerous Saddam is, and make a strong case that we need to make his removal speedy, final and as casualty-free as possible.

WELL, AT LEAST HE DOESN’T MOLEST THEM: The Onion reveals the dark truth behind gym teachers.

HOW STRAIGHTS INTEGRATE GAYS AND LESBIANS: An important point. Just as miscegenation can help reduce black-white divisions, so can lots of interaction with straight people help gay-lesbian relations. A reader emails to add context to the notion that the Northwest music scene unites homos and lesbians:

What’s important to remember is that the music scene here, and the lesbians, gays and straights who part
icipate in and support it, are far from living in a sub-culture — this scene constitutes the dominant popular culture in the city. Lesbians and gays who attend these shows are finding common ground, but they’re sharing that ground with straight people too. What I’ve found so exciting and invigorating about this scene is just how mixed it is. Going to the swingiest gay club in town with pretty boys and pretty, sweaty bodies is disappointing in comparison…everyone seems to be doing their best to pretend they’ve just returned from a weekend on Fire Island, when everyone knows they’ve got to put on their raincoats at the door and hit the electric beach later if they’re going to maintain the image. There’s more genuine frisson around here when everyone’s mixed up in a group and you don’t know if the boy you’re checking out in the crowd at the show is gay, straight or…worth persuading.

In general, I think a lot of gay problems would be helped by greater integration. And the critical instrument for this, I think, is for gay men to have more interaction with straight men. Both groups would benefit – but both have to overcome their fears and awkwardness.

EVIL FORCES: If you want to discover what the inimitable Reihan Salam does when he isn’t editing your emails and posting brutal take-downs of yours truly on this site, then take a look at his collaborative blog, Evil Forces. And be afraid.

UNBEAUTIFUL MOVIE: I don’t know why we rented “A Beautiful Mind,” last night. It was boiling hot even here on the Cape and we huddled around the a/c. All I can say is that if that was the best movie in America last year then film-making is at an all-time low. Every scene a hideous cliche; the writing beyond bad; the cinematography straight out of a tv-movie; the treatment of a serious issue like mental illness alternately dumb and condescending. And Russell Crowe’s accent – more South Yorkshire than West Virginia – was the only comic relief. Is Hollywood that dumb? Don’t all answer at once.