The Noble Pundit

Quick Links

Deseperation of Church and State - I can't figure out exactly what it is about this that just doesn't sit right, but something just doesn't.

The war against Hollywood - this has got to be the most pathetic defense of the left that I've seen yet. The author engages almost exclusively in ad hominem attacks to try to prove his point that there can't be any reason for a bias against the left.

Scenes from Liberia: Horror, chaos and a people pleading for help - a little view in to what's happening in Monrovia and some of the whining being engaged in by the aid workers.

Blogging will probably be light the rest of the weekend as we're taking our youngest to Universal for his birthday party tomorrow and I'll probably be painting on Sunday. I'll post what I can, but it probably won't be much.

I Have To Agree With This

MSNBC has decided to write about the current heat wave in the Phoenix area. The article is mostly just the normal make-you-feel-good-you're-not-there type of story. But towards the end they attempt to pull the usual feel bad for the plight of the prisoners in jail:

About 2,000 inmates living in a barbed-wire-surrounded tent encampment at the Maricopa County Jail have been given permission to strip down to their government-issued pink boxer shorts.

On Wednesday, hundreds of men wearing boxers were either curled up on their bunk beds or chatted in the tents, which reached 138 degrees inside the week before. Many were also swathed in wet, pink towels as sweat collected on their chests and dripped down to their pink socks.

"It feels like you are in a furnace," said James Zanzo't, an inmate who has lived in the tents for 1½ years. "It's inhumane."

To which the sheriff of Maricopa County responded:

"It's 120 degrees in Iraq and the soldiers are living in tents and they didn't commit any crimes, so shut your mouths."

I got to admit that the sheriff has a pretty good point, if it's good enough for the men and women in uniform, it is more than adequate for a common petty criminal. 'Nuff said.

This Must Be A Sick Attempt To Make Me Happy

No matter what this "scientist" says, I'm not going to accept the idea that not having vacation time is a good thing. I can't deal with the idea that if I take one day off from work I can't eat for a week and a half. I'll take a few points off my IQ for a little bit of mental sanity.

No vacation time is not a good thing, even if it makes me smarter. I refuse to be happy about the no benefits gig.

Boeing Loses $1B in Rocket Contracts

Something just doesn't seem to be right with Boeing any more. Phil Condit was a great program manager (the 777 was originally his baby), but he just doesn't seem to be too hot as a CEO. Politically he is tone deaf (Chicago over Dallas or Long Beach for the HQ?). And now Boeing, that great symbol of American industry, is losing $1 Billion in rocket contracts to Lockheed Martin as a penalty for the illegal theft of documents.

The Air Force is really taking some pretty harsh shots at Boeing. Lockheed is certainly a capable alternative in the industry and it really won't do too much damage to the viability of the US launch capacity to change the contracts. But this is the stiffest penalty that anyone can find on record and the Undersecretary was indicating that they had been lenient on Boeing.

And all this because of the actions of two former McDonnell Douglas employees (Boeing acquired McDD and eventually fired the two for a lack of ethics). But of course, Boeing didn't make things any better by being less than completely truthful with the Air Force. And therein lies the difference between former Boeing CEO Bill Allen and Phil Condit.

Allen didn't tolerate such actions, and if they did occur he would take decisive and ethical action, up front. Here, Allen would have sanctioned Boeing before the AF ever got a chance. Heads would have rolled and a complete and thorough reporting would have been made to AF immediately.

Instead, we get Condit apologizing for his company's actions and claiming to be "disappointed by the circumstances." He then hired former Senator Rudman to help review the company's ethics.

The review needs to start at the top. Maybe I'm wrong, but Condit doesn't seem, to me at least, to really be too contrite about the whole thing. Boeing has been aware of this since 1999 and has understated the significance of the situation and the quantities of documentation they had in their possession. After four years and being caught in their understatement, saying sorry isn't really the right answer.

Boeing knows where the problem lies. After four years they should know if it lies with one person condoning this in his department or if it is a product of the corporate culture. Sorry doesn't correct the problem. Sorry isn't enough. Changes need to be made. They've had four years in which to determine what to do. There aren't too many acceptable reasons for not having acted by now.

Boeing is a special company in American industry. They are like a GE, a Coca-Cola, or an IBM. We hold them to a higher standard and we expect them to exceed that standard. And we should. As one of our biggest exporters, they are an example to the rest of the world of what America is all about. It may not be fair to Boeing to expect more of them than we do from most other companies, but that's life. They hold a powerful position in US industry and therefore also have powerful responsibilities.

And one of those responsibilities is to conduct themselves in the most ethical manner possible.

A Public Service Announcement

Just in case you were unsure, here is the list of foods that are unsafe to eat while driving, courtesy of Hagerty Classic Insurance in Traverse City, MI.

Now that you are an informed driver, a couple of questions come to mind for me. First, who eats soup while driving? And where's all the Italian food? I don't see spaghetti, fettuccini, pizza, or any of those other tasty driving dishes. I would have thought that they might have made the list also, especially in lieu of coffee and soft drinks which can be put in spill proof cups.

I'm just glad to see that my Krispy Kreme donuts (just the normal glazed kind) didn't make the list, although I guess I'll have to give up my trips through Taco Bell (that gives me two, tacos and soft drinks - oh yeah, and I have no cupholder and drive a stickshift).

Now that you're dutifully informed as a driver, we return to our regularly scheduled programming.

Next Up, A Tax On Thingy

Are you Governor of a state that is having some, how shall we put this, financial difficulties? Well, look no further for the answer to your problems! Follow the lead of the great State of Kansas and implement a stamp tax on illegal narcotics!

Kansas is already reaping the benefits of the tax with revenue on marijuana increasing by 3.6% and on the harder drugs, like cocaine and speed revenue was up by 20.6%! Not too bad for collections in a stagnant economy! (source for the statistics)

</sarcasm>

I don't know how I really feel about this. On the one hand, the drugs are illegal, society has voiced its desire to eradicate them, and this is potentially a very powerful tool in that quest. But on the other hand, I get concerned with just how powerful this could be. And it seems like the controls against abuse are somewhat inadequate:

The drug dealer has 15 days from the date of assessment to request a hearing before the Director of Taxation to determine the validity of the assessment pursuant to K.S.A. 79-5205. The assessment is statutorily presumed to be valid and correctly determined. The burden is on the taxpayer to prove otherwise. (emphasis mine)

They continue on to say that the outcome of a criminal case will not necessarily have any bearing on the tax question.

That's just not right. It should be incumbent on the state to prove any of its accusations, not for the citizen to exonerate himself at a higher standard than the accusation, which is what we have with the burden being on the taxpayer to "prove otherwise" the accusation of the state. All it would take is an overzealous revenue officer slinging around accusations.... Now many people would argue "but there are safeguards to ensure that doesn't happen."

How many of you look forward to any question from the IRS? How about the Department of Children and Families? They have safeguards against civil servants abuse their position. So why are people afraid of them?

Because they know that one nutjob can ruin their life. They know that with either of those organizations the deck is stacked against them from the get-go.

Or maybe it's because both organizations (and the Kansas DOR in this case) are statist organizations that operate in complete opposition to the American ideal of innocent until proven guilty.

But, hey, being a weed dealer is almost becoming respectable. Now you can get insurance on your plants (in some cases, obviously). Kind of doubt it protects against confiscation by the Department of Revenue though.

Every day, Monty Python looks more and more like a prophecy instead of sketch comedy. Better start organizing the protests for tax free thingy...

Palestinian Authority, Meet Dale Carnegie

They really do need to send these guys to a Carnegie course.

For some reason, I don't think that using religiously offensive cartoons or depictions of your advesary as a violent, razor toothed octopus ripping people limb from limb is an integral part of the course of "How to win friends." It might influence people, but probably not in the manner that you desire if you're Yassar or Abu Mazen.

Sometimes, it's almost as if the PA forgets that it is the US that really forced Israel back to the table this time (before Israel was really ready to go back) or that the US can basically turn around, walk away, and let this "peace process" collapse. More often than not, we are convincing the Israelis to act in a manner that is counter to their interests. Does the PA really think that the EU will have the same influence?

Why is it that many of these nations that need our help, either militarily of economically or for their very existance, feel as though they have the right to disrespect us on the one hand while coming begging with the other. They certainly have the right to express their opinions, I won't deny them that, but when they we also have the right to cut support for them for doing so. It's not censorship, it's simply our choice to not support those who express such contempt for us.

They have a choice and so do we. They are exercising their choice through political cartoons.

It's time that we start looking at exercising our choice. A little lesson on the concept of consequences seems to be in order.

Understand that the cartoons are not the only reason I say this, there has been an accumulating pile of this kind of editorializing on the part of the PA, they are just an excellent and timely representation of the overall problem.

Berkeley Students Sue Board Of Regents

They're claiming a breach of contract because their fees and tuition are going up and they are also demanding refunds for some of their previous tuition increases.

A UC spokesman has said that: "We understand students' concerns about the fee increases, but they are a product of a difficult budget time facing the state."

I have an idea for UC that might help. Quit funding studies like the Reagan/Hitler one. Maybe your professors need to spend more time teaching or interacting with the real world. It couldn't make them any worse.....

Not Looking Good For Gray

If you're Gray Davis, sitting out there in Sacramento, looking at your chances in a recall election, the last thing you need to see is your "friends" edging away from you, throwing around words like lacking "charismatic leadership" or "devoid...of tactical skills."

Even the head of the California Democratic Party is seeming to prepare for the inevitable successful recall and is already beginning to explain the reasons why Davis is in the position he's in.

I really hope that politicians other places are watching this whole affair and learning. Maybe this can get some of our elected officials to start concentrating on actually governing, instead of trying to dig dirt on opponents and create 30 second sound bites (and maybe some Martians will come down to teach me the secret of building flying saucers).

Like I've said before, it's going to be interesting to watch the fallout from this one.

Perspective On Jihad And Persecution

It's always interesting to me to look back at how we've come to a certain point in history. What has made up our path and what might it tell us about where we're going?

I found this rather interesting article from the Church and Israel Forum which gives a historical perspective to the life of the dhimmi or the Jews and Christians under the rule of Islam and looks at how that lifestyle relates to the concepts of jihad and persecution.

On the whole, for the big concepts like oppression, there wasn't much in the way of new stuff. The interest comes in the details - how Muslims oppressed the Jews and Christians. The details of how the dhimmi lived was particularly interesting.

But I think the nicest aspect of this article was that it wasn't trying to justify. The author made it clear that he's looking at things from the point of view of dhimmi people, but at no point does he try to justify any violence against the Muslims. Instead he only looks at how the conditions under which the dhimmi lived affected both sides - to this day.

There are no great revelations in this article, but it is great for learning a little more about the world around us today.

When Women Aren't Women

It's amazing what kind of stuff comes out of an unaccountable bureaucracy. Today's latest example is from Brussels where they are essentially trying to outlaw anything that might indicate that there is any difference whatsoever between men and women.

The bureaucrats are trying to acquire the power of censorship to suppress anything that might offend their sensibilities. They want to strip TV programs of anything that might perpetuate the stereotype of men and women being different. They want to get rid of the Page Three girls (yeah, good idea, tweak the British male just a bit more....). They want to censor advertising and most importantly, they want to go after the insurance companies.

They are offended that actuarial data the insurance companies use ends up paying smaller annuity payments to women than to men. They believe that without a shadow of a doubt that they annuities should pay the same amount, regardless of gender.

What they forget is that women often pay lower premiums than men, based on the fact that they live longer (and the insurance company can profit from the accumlated pay-ins for a longer period of time before they have to make the final death payment, if one is specified by the contract.). they also fail to acknowledge the basis on which an annuity works.

Let's say that a man and a woman, the same age, both begin taking payments from an annuity at the exact same time. They both have the same amount in their annuity fund when the payments commence. The man's payment will be higher. Why?

The insurance company is using actuarial data which says that men have shorter lives than women. The idea of the annuity is that the annuity fund is reaches zero on the data when statistics say the insured will die. If the initial pool of funds are the same for both the man and the woman, the woman's longer life span indicates that she has to receive less in each payment in order to stretch the money over a longer period of time as the goal is still for the annuity funds to zero out as you die.

The insurance compeny is essentially betting that you will die on or before the data statistics say you will. If you live longer, the insurance company will lose money on you, an amount that increases with every payment.

So what would happen if the payments were normalized genderwise? One of two things:

One, men would receive less than their paid in amount for annuities. Insurance companies would begin calculating payouts based solely on the female lifespan. Men would get cheated out of money and nothing would change, save psychologically, for women.

Or two, women would pay a higher premium than they currently do so that the annuity payout could be maintained at the current level of the male payout structure. In that case, women would pay more now, to receive the same amount later, but still with the annuity zeroing on the expected date of death.

The second option would seem to be the more fair of the two, as women would pay a higher amount now for their extended benefits later, but I would see the bureaucrats in Brussels implementing the first plan instead. Why do I see this?

Simple, they would then find a way to tax the excess paid in amount of the male annuity funds on the death of the insured. It would screw the men, screw their families and the insurance companies, all while being implemented as a sop to "gender equalization."

It is every socialist-feminist's dream.

Quick Links

They Blinded Me with Science - Jonah Goldberg takes on the latest compost material to come out of Berkeley. Unfortunately his take was much funnier than mine.

I also came across a wonderfully named publication: Jewsweek, which actually has a couple of good articles in it:

Islamic imperialism - a good review of the demographic changes happening in Europe, which are increasing the power of the Muslim extremist blocs. The author also speculates on the effect that Islamic imperialism may have on the US.

Thoughts on the road map to peace - An interesting reminder of the situation facing the Road Map in regards to the participants.

And Gray Davis Rejoices

Gray Davis is about to become born-again. As he heads into his recall election, out comes this article that indicates that the Diebold electronic voting system, used in California among other places, can be fairly easily hacked with votes able to be changed after the fact and people being able to vote early and often (I wonder if this thing was designed in Chicago?).

Just remember, Gray, if hacking the voting machinery fails, just outsource the tabulation to the Palm Beach County Elections office. They'll help you in divining the true intent of all those votes to recall you. You just better hope that the recall ballot has Pat Buchanan on it somewhere.

One Day

Tuesday: the Hussein boys are discovering that their "paradise" isn't so peachy.

Wednesday: Newsweek Monday-morning quarterbacks the fight in Mosul that took out Uday and Qusay.

Thursday: Pictures of two bodies, still identifiable as human, are published, purported to be those of Uday and Qusay. (no link to the pictures as they're a bit macabre, but I found them on Yahoo! - look under our old friends of the disgusting, Reuters.)

Now I know that in the past I've been quick to take exception to something that I've seen as a mistake. But come on, look at this for a minute.

If you take them alive, yeah, you get the PR boost from Nuremberging these two (along with the cries from the human righters that you're flaunting the Geneva Conventions) and maybe they give up some really great intelligence on hidden WMDs or on Daddy Dearest before they melt off into the general inmate population at Leavenworth where they become accomplished artists who make great cultural contributions to the world through their jailhouse artwork.

Or maybe, you arrest them and they become the focal rallying point of every bin Laden wannabe kicking around. Maybe they turn their Nuremberg in a circus more offensive than the OJ trial. Maybe they get some judge that decides to let them off in a fit of moralistic relevancy ("well, murder was accepted in their family, so you can't hold them responsible for their upbringing").

You really can't say that having them alive is any better than having them dead. We don't know (and never will know now) what they might have been able to tell us, or what deception they might have tried to use against us. We said "dead or alive;" they're dead. End of story.

But what about this whole "excessive force" charge? How are we to judge whether or not the force used was excessive? And what gives some reporter, who wasn't there either, any right to judge?

Is it because he talked to an unnamed British intelligence source (who wasn't there) who said so? Or because a former Special Forces guy (wasn't there either!) said a SWAT team should have been able to do this?

Bottom line was that the officers on the scene knew that they needed to take the occupants of the house dead or alive. The occupants decided that they didn't like the alive part, so the officer on the scene obliged them with the dead option.

It's too bad that the little Husseins won't be able to be "exploited." But we have always maintained that we wanted them "dead or alive." We have maintained that pledge.

We did exactly what we said we were going to. Once the decision was cast that death was the operative choice, we should have expected our military to ensure that that decision was implemented without question.

This battle, more than any others in this war so far, was one that we could not afford to lose. To back off when four ordinary Iraqis hole up and start shooting is one thing, but when it's the "boys" compassion and negotiation were not options. Enforcement of our demands with extreme prejudice was required.

If you want to question our men in uniform, I think the only justifiable question is why more firepower wasn't used, because those two looked to be in way too good a shape for having just bitten the big one at the hand of two hundred members of the 101st.

One day for the media to start asking inane questions. Amazing.

Quick Links

Nordic protest against Olympic brothels - "...a greater demand for sexual services during the Olympics is expected..." And Sweden (among others), the ultimate in prudish states, is protesting this? Something just seems a wee bit ironic in this whole story....

California's budget deficit stuns nation's state lawmakers - " 'I don't think California's a laughingstock. It just demonstrates how difficult the budgeting process can be,' Monson said." How difficult it can be, yes. Take the income subtract the expenses and you'd better come up with a positive number. I'm up a creek when mine goes 38 cents negative, I can only imagine coming up $38 billion short. The answer is easy: increase revenue or cut spending. And when you're economy is in the tank, the revenue portion isn't a very good option, which leaves - cut expenses.

NEA Shouts Down Conservative Teacher's Call for Tolerance - "she urged the NEA to support students in their right to choose not to engage in homosexual behavior. But Jochmann says delegates booed and shouted angrily at her while she spoke." (emphasis mine) - sad part is that I can't say I'm overly surprised. It was the NEA after all.

Calif. Gov. Davis Will Face Recall Vote - This should get interesting, for the first time in recent history politicians are reminded that the serve at the will of the people, not of the party or divine appointment.

Pots and kettles - Ann Coulter takes on the newly anti-Machiavellians.

Forget The Marines, Send In The Mercenaries!

This is interesting. A company named Northbridge Services is offering to deploy to Liberia instead of the US or UK military. They are offering to undertake peacekeeping missions and to detain everyone's favorite Liberian, Charlie Taylor.

Privatization is good, right? So why haven't these guys been given plane tickets and hearty "good luck?"

There are only a few legitimate functions of government. The military is one of them. It provides for the common defense and is an instrument of foreign policy.

And a private military company, if operated under some strict guidelines, would not be in violation of any part of the Constitution or even illegal for Congress to hire to provide certain security services. So, again, why not hire them?

In the case of Liberia, as we've learned from past UN peacekeeping operations - like Kosovo - peacekeeping usually involves very little actual peacekeeping and may involve quite a bit of real fighting.

Imposing a peace, like current "peacekeeping" operations require, is pretty close to conducting foreign policy. Being former military, I'm sure that these PMC guys are cognizant of the fact that there are political goals in play and understand the importance of following orders.

But what happens when Northbridge becomes stretched too thin? What happens when we have Joe's Peacekeeping and Wrecker Service conducting operations for us? Once you start the process of hiring mercenaries to impose your will, how far down the food chain do you go?

I agree that the US military is stretched way too thin and needs help. A PMC like Northbridge may be very helpful in relieving some of the soldiers in the boonies of Iraq. Where it's already relatively quiet, hire these guys to go in and act like glorified rent-a-cops, helping the locals to establish law enforcement and restoring or improving various services.

Our men and women in uniform, under the direct control of the government, should be the ones to take on the most difficult tasks, like imposing a peace, or securing restless areas such as Baghdad.

PMCs like Northbridge need to be used in support of the military, not in place of it.

If we're going to go into Liberia, let's do it right. And then once it's settled down some, send our folks home and let Northbridge work on some real peacekeeping instead of trying to create the peace.

Bush = Hitler?

So some psychological researchers have gotten together out at UC Berkeley and have come up with a study that links Hitler, Mussolini, Bush and Rush Limbaugh.

Now as soon as I saw whom the authors were trying to link, I dismissed the study as hopelessly flawed through bias. But as someone who collects books on wrecks, I couldn't pass up reading more of this intellectual train wreck.

So I kept reading and most of the study seems to be just the usual political rhetoric of the "liberals" (except for when they tried to label Stalin and Castro as conservative also - that's different). You know the drill, conservatives don't think, they're aggressive, they see things in black and white, etc.

And then came the usual "they're intolerant" argument.

A current example of conservatives' tendency to accept inequality, he said, can be seen in their policy positions toward "disadvantaged minorities" such as gays and lesbians.

Tendency to accept inequality.

Powerful statement. It's also true to a large extent. But why are conservatives so willing to accept inequality?

Inequality is personal opportunity. Inequality is individualism. Our nation was founded on the idea of equality of opportunity, not equality of man or outcome.

One of the great tensions of American society is that in order for everyone to be equal, we must be unequal. If everyone had the exact same outcome in life our great nation would cease to exist. Why do people come to the United States? Is it because we have a great welfare system (ok some do, but I'm not talking about them!)? Or do they come here because there is an opportunity to go as far as your ambition and willingness to work and learn will take you?

If twenty Cubans come over on a boat, it isn't so that they can all live in the same housing project in South Florida. It's because they want an opportunity to try to make something of their life. And they understand that of the twenty, some will make millions, some will struggle, but it will always be due to their own effort (or lack thereof).

Inequality is not bad. Not in the least. Discrimination is, but the two words are not synonyms. And to use them interchangeably, as the authors have done here, is to be intellectually dishonest and to cheapen the English language.

There are some things that could be a bit better in my life right now. But no matter, I still don't want to see enforced equality. Give me some more of that inequality. Overcoming obstacles can only make me stronger.

Quick Links

IRAN, SYRIA WARNED US may take action, says Bush - I think that we're nearing the point where the rhetoric has to end and we need to decide once and for all what we're doing. You can only bluster for so long before it starts to lose effectiveness.

Open microphone catches California Democrats talking about prolonging budget crisis - as Homer Simpson would say "Doh!" It's going to be hard to spin out of this one.....

The Perfect American - an interesting site that I came across today. Take a look particularly at the postings on Orwell and 1984 and the Freedom OF, Not Freedom From religion. I found them both to be very interesting and the rest of the site really isn't all that bad either.

Gresham's Cultural Law?

A while back I had a thought on Gresham's Law and looked at it in relation to the delinking of currency to precious metals. Today, I came across this rather interesting take on Gresham's Law "What's Wrong with Twinkling Buttocks?" by Theodore Dalrymple in the summer issue of City Journal.

I find it to be a very interesting argument. We know and have proven that Gresham's Law does in fact function in metal-based economic structures. And I have to admit that Mr. Dalrymple has put forth a pretty good argument for it holding true in cultural matters as well. But I don't think that it holds as true as the article might indicate.

The problem that I have is the basic premise that has to hold true in order for Gresham's Law to hold true in cultural matters: that man is incapable of recognizing problems and changing for the better.

To put it another way, Gresham's Law would indicate that bad behavior would gradually crowd good behavior out of existence, as the bad behavior becomes the generally accepted behavior. Or, our standards continually drop until society fails from a lack of social mores or constraints.

And all of the examples that Mr. Dalrymple expounds on (plus many many other examples he doesn't mention) all point to this type of decline happening. And I don't disagree that the dumbing down of morals is straining the very fabric of society.

But I think that we (meaning society) can recognize the decline and its roots. We can alter the course that we're on. Gresham's Law points to the decline being inevitable so long as there is bad behavior. I don't believe that that's true. I believe that there is enough goodness in the soul of society to avoid a complete collapse.

It won't be easy to change the moral course of society. Just because we wish it to be so, doesn't mean that it will happen. But we can make it happen, if we want to.

Mr. Dalrymple discusses at the end of his article using censure, since we can no longer censor. This has always needed to be the way of dealing with issues that strain the social fabric. More pressure of censure needs to be applied to those who are truly straining the social fabric with anti-social behaviors.

Making something illegal will not stop it from happening; it may in fact only succeed in promoting more lawlessness (Prohibition ring a bell here?). Societal censure won't stop it either, but it will make it much less attractive as an option.

Censure can help to reverse some of the decline that has taken place in society. Gresham's Law says that any attempt is doomed to failure, as bad behavior will eventually push out the good behaviors.

But I have more faith in the goodness in man's soul.

Here's To A Speedy Trip

For Uday and Qusay as they commence that final trip to the special circle of Hell where they will toil endlessly as Reuters editors, completely incapable of admitting that the West has done anything right without pointing out at least two failures.

This is simply more proof that we're making progress in Iraq. Just the simple fact that an Iraqi was willing to rat out their hiding place is proof enough that the world is a'changin' over there.

Enjoy your trip to Satan's dominion, boys - you've earned it. And if you watched South Park - you'll know where to find Daddy.

Thanks For The Kind Words

Thanks to all who have sent kind words and encouragement over the last week. I'll try to respond to each of you over the next few days.

As an update, the leg is getting better. It's still bleeding a little (2 weeks and a day now, but the doctor says it's ok), but the infection appears to be completely gone. Still have a couple of days of antibiotic to go, but it looks like it should be better soon. Still a little pain, but not as much as before.

As for the dog, that it still a real, real tough situation for me. I still feel like we made the wrong choice and that we should have kept him. I feel like I abandoned a friend when he needed defending more than ever. What he did was wrong and terrible, but I honestly don't believe that he intended to do it or that he would have done it to a person. I worry because he is a very vocal dog - he'll communicate by growling when you do something he doesn't like - and I'm afraid that someone will misunderstand that as aggression and will put him down. It is that reason that has been keeping me up at night ever since we gave him up.

I really am trying to make more of an effort at getting back to a regular posting schedule. I just have to ration my computing time a bit more than usual right now as I'm spending a fair amount of time trying to find a new job. This leg infection has shown me just how important it is to have a job that can provide for that health insurance stuff (as if I didn't already know it before).

Quick Links

Our New "Peace Partner" - a good recap of the actions of our friend Abu Mazen, but I'm not quite sure what he's calling for in comparing the US/Israeli relationship to the Roman/Israeli relationship of 2000 years ago. It almost sounds to me as though he wants Israel to distance itself from the US. Not too bright at this time, I wouldn't think.

Green Party faction wants McKinney for president in 2004 - Nader/McKinney is 2004, if you didn't think the Green Party was dead in the US before....

Business Meets Its Match - will new EU chemical testing regulations become the impetus for a nasty and damaging trade war?

Is Iraq "better off"? - you should know my answer by now.

They Like Us! - Liberia, more proof that people - even Chirac, Kofi Annan, and Charles Taylor - respect power and the ability to enforce one's will.

France insists Saddam has never bought uranium - but they won't say that he never acquired any......

"Ils Ne Sont Pas Serieux"

It is interesting to see the Europeans getting worried about what they see as a growing anti-Europeanism in America. Many authors, like Mr. Ash have attempted to dissect the problem for their European audiences, but they have all failed to truly recognize the true reasoning behind the growing gulf between us.

Mr. Ash fairly quickly shows off his agenda as he tries to pigeonhole the "anti-European" trend as a conservative versus liberal phenomenon. He actually correctly identifies two of the main undercurrents in American society today that appear the anti-European: the resurgence of the Jacksonian influence and the difference in the belief of a common enemy. But rather than to delve more deeply into these issues, he tends to dismiss them as irrelevant as he searches for a liberal vs. conservative or an "American inferiority complex" answer to the rising anti-Europeanism he feels exists.

Most every aspect of the change in the American psyche recently can be boiled down, in essence, to a single word: terrorism.

Terrorism has brought out the Jacksonian influence in us. The gauntlet has been thrown down in a dirty fight and it is our intention to see that fight through. Appeasement is not an option for us. We cannot and will not back down, even though we know the road ahead is difficult and painful.

The Europeans, on the other hand, negotiate with and make concessions to the terrorists. They buy peace through appeasement.

Europeans have done something that no one has ever done before: create a zone of peace where war is ruled out, absolutely out. Europeans are convinced that this model is valid for other parts of the world. - Karl Kaiser

Neville Chamberlain declared at Munich that he had secured "peace in our time." Hitler used the time he was given through the appeasement to plan and prepare for the next phase of the fight he knew was coming. Do the European governments really think that the terrorists aren't using what peace they can find to plan and prepare their next attacks? Do they really believe that if the terrorists choose to make the next battlefield Paris or Berlin that the EU Constitution will stop them? In 1938, there was talk about concessions averting war, how Hitler was a reasonable man, and how appeasement was the true path to peace. Those who fail to learn from history....

But why are the Europeans so willing to sacrifice the unity of the "West" to appease the terrorists? After all a unified "West" was part of what helped to bring down the Soviet Union.

In the Soviet Union we had a clear and common enemy. They were ideologically opposed to the "West" and militarily they were potentially a world-ending (literally) threat. The military confrontation never came, but the ideological confrontation went on for nearly 40 years.

Part of the growing gulf between the US and Europe is due to the fact that there isn't, in Europe at least, the same feeling of ideological opposition as there was during the Soviet Union years.

This is partially due to the fact that while the Soviet Union lost the battle of the Cold War, much of its idealogical foundation is winning the war for various world governments.

Both the EU and the terrorists are yearning for a totalitarianistic form of government. To an extent, one could even argue that both are religiously based totalitarianism. The terrorists find justification in their cause from a sense of religious supremacy in which the Muslim religion is superior to all others; the EU is founded on an almost religious ideal of equality, no matter what the cost of achieving it. It is this similarity in goals that has "fractured" the unity of the West.

But there is also a difference of opinion about the threat posed by the terrorists. European tourists are gunned down in Egypt or blown up in suicide bombings in Israel and the best that the EU can come up with is a menacing scowl of disapproval. No real action has been taken to hold anyone to account for these deaths; they are viewed as an unfortunate tragedy that must be mourned and forgotten in the name of appeasement.

It is part of the reason why they don't understand our need to bring to justice the perpetrators of 9/11. It's part of the reason why they don't understand our "fixation" on finding the party responsible for Danny Pearl. It's why they can't understand that we still remember Beirut.

They work to forget about their losses, not because they're unimportant, but because to remember would rock the boat and might expose them to more challenges. And each challenge to their security would demonstrate to the citizens of the EU the fact that their governments have failed them in providing for a common or national defense.

Ils ne sont pas serieux: they are not serious. Instead of making the tough decisions a government has to make, they have chosen to hide behind a facade of "internationalism." They have risked their citizens through appeasement and a desire to not make waves. They have not been serious in their job of protecting the national interests.

As we move forward on these different paths: the US following our Jacksonian instincts and Europeans following their Chamberlainistic tendencies, we will see more and more accusations of anti-Europeanism as the appeasers are fearful of being called out for being what they are.

American anti-Europeanism isn't a liberal vs. conservative issue; it is not an issue of perceived inferiority. Instead it is recognition of a fundamental difference in approach to the new global threats that face us both.

The Europeans don't understand what our motivations are. Mr. Ash has come closest, at least recognizing that the Jacksonian influence in America is significant and real. But until they understand that "nous sommes serieux" we will remain at loggerheads.

And the recriminations from both sides of anti-Otherism will continue.