Category: Old Dish

The military seems to have ignored many of its own counter-insurgency guidelines in taking back Falluja. Focusing on territory rather than the organizational structure of the insurgency is not the ultimate goal. Necessary, but by no means sufficient, as the death toll in the rest of the country continues to prove. Noah Shachtman has more. Still, 600 dead mujahideen is a start.

Yep, these alleged protectors of free speech are blaming the victim in the Theo van Gogh murder. Money quote:

Van Gogh’s juvenile shock-horror art finally led him to build an exploitative working relationship with Somalia-born Dutch MP Ayann Hirsi Ali, whose terrible personal experience of abuse has driven her to a traumatizing loss of her Muslim faith. Together they made a furiously provocative film that featured actresses portraying battered Muslim women, naked under transparent Islamic-style shawls, their bodies marked with texts from the Koran that supposedly justify their repression. Van Gogh then roared his Muslim critics into silence with obscenities. An abuse of his right to free speech, it added injury to insult by effectively censoring their moderate views as well.

These are the defenders of free speech? Then there’s this obscenity:

A sensational climax to a lifetime’s public performance, stabbed and shot by a bearded fundamentalist, a message from the killer pinned by a dagger to his chest, Theo van Gogh became a martyr to free expression. His passing was marked by a magnificent barrage of noise as Amsterdam hit the streets to celebrate him in the way the man himself would have truly appreciated. And what timing! Just as his long-awaited biographical film of Pim Fortuyn’s life is ready to screen. Bravo, Theo! Bravo!

The man was murdered for his controversial political views. Murdered. Somehow I don’t think he was intending it to be a publicity stunt. (Hat tip: HurryUpHarry.)

QUOTE FOR THE DAY: “On the one hand side, I meet plenty of people, both Dutch and Muslim, who say they condemn the Van Gogh murder. But. They understand it. On the other hand, I meet a slightly smaller number of people, mainly Dutch and not as many Muslims, who say they don’t want to condone the attacks on mosques. But. They understand it. May I offer a heartfelt raised middle finger to both groups?” – Arjan Dasselar, Dutch blogger. Amen.

HOW MANY CASUALTIES? That 100,000 number for Iraqi civilian deaths seemed fishy to me. The Economist reviews the study.

The notion that the Democrats could have done better if they had concentrated more on the economy is about as dumb an argument as I’ve heard lately. Kevin Drum weighs in.

TIME FOR HEALING WATCH: “But if militant Christianist Republicans from inland backwaters believe that secular liberal Democrats from the big coastal cities look upon them with disdain, there’s a reason. We do, and all the more so after this election. … By any objective standard, you had to be spectacularly stupid to support Bush… So our guy lost the election. Why shouldn’t those of us on the coasts feel superior? We eat better, travel more, dress better, watch cooler movies, earn better salaries, meet more interesting people, listen to better music and know more about what’s going on in the world.” – Ted Rall, one small reason Kerry lost.

EMAIL OF THE DAY: “I was disappointed to see you participating in the dishonesty surrounding the idea of a flat tax. Like Steve Forbes during his presidential campaign, you refer to two completely distinct and unrelated issues, progressivity and simplification, as if they were the same. This bait-and-switch takes simplification of the tax code, which would benefit almost all Americans and is highly popular, and uses it as cover to argue for reducing the progressivity of the tax rates, which would benefit only the wealthiest Americans and which has little popular support. As you surely are aware, a tax code that had eliminated progressivity could be just as larded with complex deductions as the current system, while a tax code that had been radically simplified could still retain progressive tax rates (how hard is it to look up the tax you owe in a table?). If you’re in favor of simplification, argue for that reform. If you’re in favor of eliminating progressivity, make that case. If you want both, argue for both. But it’s a lie to pretend that one has anything to do with the other.” Well, I’m for both. But a single rate is simpler than multiple rates, however few the deductions. More feedback on the smartest Letters Page on the web.

Yes, it won’t solve everything. Yes, some Sunni and Jihadist terrorists will escape and have escaped to wreak havoc elsewhere. But subduing the Sunni-Jihadist insurgency is a simple prerequisite for some kind of representative government in Iraq. Johann Hari cites an Iraqi friend:

The Sunni resistance is, however, a different story [from the Shiite resistance]. “I was there in Fallujah earlier this year. It doesn’t look like Iraq; it looks like Taliban Afghanistan. I didn’t see a woman’s face the whole time I was there. They are all hidden behind those dehumanising shrouds.” The resistance fighters he met there believed in either Sunni supremacy or endless jihad. “It wasn’t surprising. You only have to look at who they are killing to find out their philosophy. They don’t want democracy and peaceful co-existence. If there was any way to negotiate with them, I’d support it. But how can you talk people like this down from their ledge? What can you offer them?” Yasser then offers two crucial facts. First, there hasn’t been a single Shia suicide bomber in Iraq so far. That tells you something about who is trying to destroy security and why. Second, there have been just three weeks this year when there were no suicide bombs in Iraq. They were the three weeks the US forces had Fallujah surrounded. Doesn’t that suggest it is the base of the Sunni resistance? Doesn’t that suggest it is right to deprive them of their base by force if necessary?

Yes, and yes. It’s foolish to believe that this siege means a major victory. It doesn’t. It’s one stage in a brutal war of attrition against the enemies of democracy. But it must be done. And what it’s teaching the U.S. military will prove invaluable in the years of war ahead.

THE EVIL EMPIRE: I mean Microsoft. They’re approaching bloggers. (Theme song from “Jaws” will now commence.)

“MANDATE”: Isn’t that term just a little but, er, gay?

EMAIL OF THE DAY: “I’m a Christian missionary, investing my life in bringing global transformation by working to convert Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists in the hardest and most miserable parts of the world. I oversee the work of a number of christian Relief & Development NGO’s that seek to restore human dignity by providing jobs and sustainable family incomes through micro-economic development, educational projects, clean water projects, and a lot more… I believe you and others who are gay are doing yourselves a great disservice by your rhetoric and the way you go about trying to achieve your goals. I think most evangelical christians would support your rights in every realm if you were more wise in your approach to the subject.
As a very devout, Bible-believing, conservative-value-holding, christian missionary, I believe that every person, straight or gay, should have the ability to freely choose who should inherit their property when they die, who should be able to visit them in the hospital, who should have the right to make hard decisions over their lives and property in the event they were incapacitated in some way, etc., etc. I do not believe these rights should be granted to husbands and wives only, but to everyone, because we are all created in God’s image, and have the God-gioven right to freely chose our path in life and our associations — whether God approves of them or not. This desire for everyone’s freedom of choice that I hold so dearly does not contradict my belief that nuclear families are the very foundation blocks of a stable society and should be encouraged, strengthened, and preserved through our laws and by every other social means available to us.” So why not support equality in marriage? Or more to the point: how on earth does including gay couples in civil marriage somehow weaken the protections for the nuclear family? How?

His movie, “Submission,” detailing the appalling subjugation of women under Islamic rule was enough to prompt the Jihadists to murder him in broad daylight. To their great credit, IFilm is now showing the movie on the Internet. What better way to tell these religious fascists what we think of them and their attempt to chill free speech than viewing what they hated? Here’s the link. Watch it in memory of a real martyr – for freedom of expression.

CAN BUSH FIRE ANYONE? It’s a question worth pondering. The odds keep increasing that the bulk of the administration will stay in place – even after four draining years. Ashcroft and Evans have resigned. Tenet left of his own accord. Only O’Neill was terminated – for deviating from the script. And Cheney had to do the dirty. The best bets are on everyone else staying put. Has any White House chief of staff stayed on for two full terms, as Andy Card seems poised to do? Of course, when you have run an administration in which no errors have been made, this is only fair. Gulp.

It’s odd, isn’t it, that perhaps the most momentous reform being considered in a Bush second term barely registered in the campaign: a flat tax. It could take the form of a national sales tax, or a flat income tax, or some combination of the two. I might as well put my two cents in. I’ve long been a huge enthusiast for the reform for a simple reason. Forget about the obvious economic benefits. The political benefits are legion. First, it deals a death blow to the cancer of corporate lobbying in Washington. If you restrict shelters to one or two (charity or home-ownership, but I’d abolish the latter), then the whole Washington game is over. Far, far more effective than campaign finance reform. Second, it upholds an important liberal principle: that the government should be neutral among its citizens. I don’t believe in affirmative action, because it means the government discriminates on the basis of race. I oppose heterosexual-exclusive civil marriage, because it means the government discriminates on the basis of emotional/sexual orientation. And I oppose punitive or “progressive” taxation, because it means the government discriminates on the basis of personal success. If we’re all taxed at the same proportionate rate, the successful still pay far more into the public coffers than the unsuccessful. They’re just not penalized even further by a higher rate. If you want to help the disadvantaged, and I do, then focus government spending on programs that help the under-privileged. But don’t penalize work. And don’t defend unequal treatment.

SPECTER’S PLEDGE: Did Snarlin’ Arlen promise Pennsylvania papers that he would make sure abortion stayed legal if he became chairman of the Judiciary Committee? Tim Perry examines the evidence.

Where’s Noam Chomsky when you need him?

EMAIL FROM OSLO: It was the anniversary of Kristallnacht last night. My friend Bruce Bawer observed it in Norway:

This evening in Oslo there was a march commemorating Kristallnacht. According to TV2 News, no Norwegian Jews were present. The authorities, saying that they did not want any trouble, forbade any Jewish symbols, including Stars of David and Israeli flags. On the TV2 evening news, a group of Jews and their friends who wanted to take part in the commemoration were shown being firmly told by a policeman to “please leave the area.” This in a city where Muslim demonstrations take place on a regular basis, and include signs and banners bearing hateful, barbaric slogans.

What on earth is happening to Europe’s sense of right and wrong?

PRESCRIPTION DRUG COSTS: The sanest and smartest piece I’ve ever read on the subject can be found here.

“[T]he wreckers loose in our own society are stronger, more confident, and more numerous. It is those wreckers that most concern me: the arrogant judges, the academic deconstructors, the teacher-union multiculturalists, the media guilt-mongers, the love-the-world pacifists, the criminal-lovers and family-breakers, the inventors of bogus rights and destroyers of cherished traditions, the haters of normality and scoffers at restraint, the enterprise-destroying litigators and pain-feelers.- – John Derbyshire, still hating, National Review.

TIME FOR HEALING II: “For many decades, conservative citizens and like-minded political leaders (starting with President Calvin Coolidge) have been denigrated by the vilest of lies and characterizations from hordes of liberals who now won’t even admit that they are liberals–because the word connotes such moral stink and political silliness. As a class, liberals no longer are merely the vigorous opponents of the Right; they are spiteful enemies of civilization’s core decency and traditions.” – Mike Thompson, Human Events Online.

More evidence piling in:

There was a very strong correlation between President Bush’s share of the vote in 2000 and his share of the vote in 2004 across all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The president consistently ran a few percentage points ahead of his showing in 2000, but he did not improve on his 2000 performance any more in states with gay marriage referenda than in other states. In 11 states with gay marriage referenda on the ballot, the president increased his share of the vote from an average of 55.4 percent in 2000 to an average of 58.0 percent in 2004–an improvement of 2.6 percentage points. However, in the rest of the country the president increased his share of the vote from an average of 48.1 percent in 2000 to an average of 51.0 percent in 2004–an improvement of 2.9 percentage points.

I don’t believe that we should give up or change the fight for marriage equality. But I do think it behooves people like me to listen to what the other side is saying. I’m struck by how many of you have told me that your real objection is not with the issue of marriage equality itself, but by the means of achieving it. Court-imposed mandates rub people the wrong way, even those who support including gay couples within the family structure. Extra-legal tactics like Gavin Newsom’s particularly rankle. I wasn’t sanguine about this at the time but minimized it because I was so swept up in the emotion of seeing gay couples finally getting the respect they deserve. I should have been stricter in opposing Newsom’s grandstanding. I’ll have more to say in a forthcoming TNR piece. But it’s important to hear what others who disagree with me are saying. I’m trying harder.

QUOTE OF THE DAY: “[W]hen a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental–men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack or be lost… [A]ll the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre–the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” – H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920.

When you look at a simple geographical/political representation of the country, you can get overwhelmed by the red states, simply because they are much bigger than the blue ones. And that, in itself, can lead us to imagine that the country is more conservative than it actually is, or more consistently Republican. That’s why these cartograms are so enlightening. Check ’em out.