Chinese Blogger Arrested

For those of you who don't think that China is a police state.

ACLU vs. the MATRIX

Friend sent this to me today. If you follow the link you get to view a little Flash clip that mocks a pizza delivery call. During the call you see what, apparently, the delivery company call person sees on her screen. Which includes just about everything having to do with the caller's life you can imagine. The phone they are calling from, where they work, their health history, what they have spent on their last vacation and the status of their visa card.

If you follow the link at the end of the flash clip, you are taken to the ACLU site and a page warning you to take action now or suffer this fate in the future because of some project called MATRIX (not like the movie). The MATRIX program is data on individuals, compiled in a database, for use in law enforcement. Currently the project compiles, according to the government, your name, address, family members, property ownership, bankruptcies, liens and judgments, voter registration and criminal history.

Now the ACLU likes to freak out about a lot of stuff, and I'm not sure this isn't one of them. The example in the flash clip has us believing that eventually anyone, or any business, will have instant access to all sorts of information because of this collection of stuff. But the fact is that all this stuff on the MATRIX list is all public information, possibly except for the criminal history. But the real question is how is this stuff getting used in the future. If it'’s solely for criminal justice use, then we don'’t have too much of a problem here. I think that the police should have every tool they need to get their job done.

However, I do think that the government should be explicit about what is being collected and how it'’s going to be used. There should be definite guidelines and boundaries in order to protect rights. But the ACLU is notorious for placing that borderline in extremely hard to defend locations, so I don't exactly trust them to define this one. Make your own decision.

Update: Welcome readers of The Gentile Cricket. He's got some words and a link to another guy. I think that we are all having the same tentative optimism about the project, but know that most tools that law enforcement uses have the potential for abuse.

Time to myself and family

I just got back from a wonderful weekend filled with skiing and a short trip to the beach with my son. A sort of father/son sort of weekend. We need that bonding every once and a while, and lately I had wondered how close he felt our relationship was. Since he is 10, my wife and I thought that I should take some time with him and talk about the next phase of his life, which is going to contain many physical and emotional changes. The venerable, and often controversial Dr. Dobson often says that it’s better to prepare than repair. And so the preparation begins.

Blogging might be light, as it’s March Madness, and I'll be following Gonzage like a Bulldog. I’ll be reading up and watching the mayhem and filling out my bracket.

I'm just a kid at heart myself, you know.

Biological conundrums

You may be one of those who believe that Saddam didn’t have any biological weapons when we invaded the country of Iraq a few years ago.  You may believe that he did and they are still at large because he got rid of them (Syria, whatever).  You may believe that he once did have them, but dismantled the program years ago.  You might think that bio-weapons are unthinkable and we should start an international commission to make really stern statements and try to coddle all the worlds government, dictator or not, to give them up for good.  Or you might think that there are some great legitimate reasons to have and use weapons that contain viruses and other organisms that do nasty things (I don’t).

But either way, I think that they are around to stay.  Not that I’m happy making that statement, but it seems that due to the sins of man there will always be men whose lust for power and fear of their fellow man will go to great lengths and insane means to protect themselves and destroy those who they hate and fear.

Glenn Reynolds had some thoughts recently that we shouldn’t relax on the issue just because we took Saddam out.  Old Soviet programs that manufactured bio-weapons probably weren’t disposed of properly, and we would be kidding ourselves if we conceded that Iraq was the only third world country with links to terrorists that maintained weapons that kill through chemical or biological means.

It should make sense that the more we grow to understand how the body works, and the more detail that scientists glean on what makes the body function, the more ways those with bad intentions will discover to destroy the body.

Secretary of the Interior

Our new interim Secretary of the Interior, Patricia “Lynn” Scarlett, has some interesting views, some of which you hear from the right, but mostly what you would hear from a hard core Libertarian, not a Republican. 

Back in the 80s she argued for the legalization of drugs.  She has been responsible for many controversial DOI rulings, like Snowmobiles in Yellowstone and more development on federal land.  Her environmental philosophy is dead center Milton Friedman:

Thus, in our analysis, the fundamental causes of environmental problems can be reduced to two: the tragedy of the commons and the inability of people to defend themselves against pollution harm. This explanation of pollution differs from what is frequently taught in economics courses. There, pollution is an “externality” that constitutes a “market failure.” That is, somebody engages in a lawful activity such as manufacturing a product but allows waste—smoke or chemicals or heavy metals—to enter the air, water, or soil. Because the cost of this pollution is external to (that is, not paid by) the people producing or purchasing the product, it is a “negative externality” that adversely affects third parties (Fullerton and Stavins 1998, 433). The proposed remedy is usually government action that requires the producer to reduce the waste or pay a tax designed to discourage its production.

The precautionary principle is used to defend efforts to moderate global warming through tough limits on the use of fossil fuels. However, scientific uncertainty about climate change impacts suggests that resilience may be more appropriate. Twenty years ago, some scientists expressed concern that global cooling might be occurring (Schneider 1976). Had we had the same determination to “do something” as we do today about global warming, we might have accelerated burning of fossil fuel to hold off cooling.

Banning pesticides is likely to increase the costs of food so that lower-income people eat fewer fruits and vegetables. Since eating fruits and vegetables is believed to reduce the risk of cancer, eating fewer of these foods may cause more harm than did the pesticide residues the regulation was designed to eliminate (Ames and Gold 1996, 12, 27).

Hat tip to Instapundit.

Solomon Amendment

Noticed that the students at Yale are up in arms over the Solomon Amendment (get it, up in arms?)(ok, sorry it was dumb). A couple of organizations on campus called Outlaws and SAME (basically the same organization: Student/Faculty Alliance for Military Equality) are filing a complaint against the Amendment, which allows the military to recruit on campus, no matter how the school or students feel about the military’s don’t ask don’t tell policy, as long as the campus accepts government funding.

But this is, of course, after the Supreme Court in Washington (yes, that one) upheld the amendment last week. This article, talking about that event, notes that the Penn Law School is also challenging the amendment. Although their argument might be a bit better, this is almost a moot point, as I don’t see SCOTUS taking this up again unless there’s a really good reason. You take federal bucks? You need to allow fed access to your campus for recruiting. End of story. Penn Law argument is that they already allow access to the military through Career Services, as other employers do. Sure, but those other employers probably don’t give thousands upon millions to your school either.

Anyway, back to the Yale argument. They maintain that the amendment violates the First and Fifth amendments to the Constitution.

Put aside that they are basically challenging the wisdom of judges with more experience studying the Constitution in their pinkies then these law students have in their whole bodies. Take a look at the first and fifth amendments.

First: free speech. Really, no one is taking away anyone’s right to say what they feel here, as evidenced by SAME’s ability to vigorously oppose this in the first place. Perhaps they are talking about the Military’s suppression of gay people’s right to declare themselves gay. But that really doesn’t apply here. If that’s the case they should be suing the military. But that’s been tried, hasn’t it.

Fifth: Trial and punishment. What? What does this have to do with trial and punishment? The fifth amendment was a protection against the government holding you without cause or taking your property without compensation.

OK I'm reading the legal complaint filed by SAME here, and I'm no legal expert, but it seems pretty thin to me. They are arguing that they have reasonable cauzation or "injury in fact" to bring before the court. I.E. they have to argue that they will suffer "injury" in some way or form from the amendment. Since there is no personal, financial or bodily injury that they will suffer, I think they are relying on the grounds of the amendment defying certian constitutional rights, but like I said it seems pretty thin.

The right includes the right not to associate, and government actions that force "intrusion into the internal structure or affairs of an association" may unconstitutionally burden this right.

Basically they are saying that since it's against the policy of the school to associate with any organization that discriminates against any group of individuals for reasons of race, sex, etc. And the Federal government is forcing them to because the Solomon Amendment forces them to allow the military to use school resources to recruit. And the military discriminates with the "don't ask don't tell" policy.

But I think the problem here is that the federal government isn't really forcing them to do anything. It's a condition of the money that they get from the feds. If they really believe they shouldn't associate with the military, if they are willing to accept the consequences for their moral positions, then all they have to do is stop accepting money from Uncle Sam. How is that discriminating?
Their position on the First Amendment to the Constitution is exceedingly thin. In another section they try to prove that the Solomon Amendment somehow prevents the school from communicating with the students its message that discrimination against gays is wrong. I'm not sure how they are going to prove that.

More later.

UN and NATO to Darfur?

Noticed something in this article that Austin Bay didn’t make a note of (but might have seen anyway).  Basically the article is talking about how the UN and NATO are considering replacing the overwhelmed African Union troops who are there keeping the peace.  Genocide continues, and the Sudan government and peoples living in the north part of the country are speaking out against UN intervention.

Really, that means they are opposing someone coming in to break up their little genocide party.  I found this statement kind of funny:

“In the south they are there to help, but in Darfur this will just be a front for Israel and America to come in to get our oil,” said demonstrator Amal Jaafar.

Sudan produces roughly 330,000 barrels per day of crude, mostly from fields in the south.

That last line thrown in by Reuters makes the statement by the demonstrator look pretty foolish.  But I was thinking that the statement is far more hypocritical seeing as China has most of the interest in the oil coming out of the Sudan, and the oil interest in the Darfur region in particular. 

So let me get this straight, you trust that the UN and NATO have the best interest of the people in mind in the south were most of your oil comes from currently, but trying to stop mass murder in Darfur is only because we want to come in and “get” your oil.  Hmmm.

Frankly, a statement like this infuriates on so many levels it’s staggering.  They sound a tad concerned about the people’s in the south, but up until a few years ago they were doing their best to practice the art of genocide down there too.  The difference being that those in the south seem to know how to organize and fight back.

Sudan is railing on about how the UN is going to “invade” their country.

“The UN invasion of Sudan” — that’s what replacing the African Union peacekeepers with UN troops (and NATO-supplied troops) will amount to. Why? The Sudan government objects to the change, for many reasons. One reason: the peacekeepers would mo e from monitoring to peace enforcement. NATO troops would serve in strike and rapid reaction units– meaning the militias of all stripes would be out-classed and out-gunned. NATO would provide air strike and air lift support (so far the UN has asked for air lift, but made the request in terms of “air support”). NATO would provide maintenance assistance.

Color me skeptical that transferring management of the peacekeeping mission from AU to the UN is going to help the Darfur peoples from their aggressors.  My hope for them here is that NATO sounds like they want an active roll, and they are more likely to provide direct relief in the form of military exercises against those terrorizing the civilians.

The Armed Liberal takes a look at accident rates in the United States and regulation designed to help keep accidents down. He found that California is trying to get smart about regulating safety in the workplace.

So basically, instead of periodic or post-incident inspections, citing and fining the contractor when violations occur, the inspectors visit on their own schedule, identify problems, and if the contractor fixes them, no further action is taken.

Now if you credit the 15 possible injuries to the 23 reported ones, you still have an accident rate less than half the typical construction project.

More press distortion

Since we’re on the subject (I was complaining about the recent media resurrection of the Katrina issue), here’s an interesting look at how the media is “fixing” information coming out of Iraq to support their exaggerated claims about the faux civil war they seemed to want so badly to cover.  The reporting is in regards to a press conference by General George Casey, commander of Multinational Forces in Iraq.

The media is free to dispute the General's claims - that's expected of them. But in this case they aren't, they are simply using his words selectively in a manner that supports their own previously published fictions.

I read the news stories this morning, and frankly found them strange.  They way they were worded and the way they were reporting what the General said sounded very contrary to how military leaders have communicated with the public throughout the entire war and occupation.  I should have known it was media distortion.

Hat tip to Instapundit, who has much more on the subject.

Attack of the Living Katrina

From the sound of this article, the AP is actually tempering the hubbub regarding whether Bush knew the levees in New Orleans or not.  The release of a report by the Senate blaming officials at every level of government for the poor response to the disaster seemed to prompt the media to start the Bush-blaming game all over again.  Much ado was made about a video showing the President in conference with FEMA coordinator Michael Brown where Brown in telling Bush that the levees might just break.  This is used as proof that Bush lied when he said a few days later that they could not have imagined that the levees could have been breached. 

I’m not sure what to make of that statement.  My guess is that it was taken out of context, because in other reports now surfacing, Brown also makes statements to the effect that he thought Bush asked a lot of good questions regarding the situation, and in the transcripts (what isn’t being shown about the meetings) is that Brown is convincing Bush that FEMA has the situation in hand.  Bush believes this, and considering that the last few major hurricanes that hit Florida were handled well, he certainly has reason to have faith in the agency.

The problem, again, that the national media likes to ignore is the difference between the state and local responses to the disaster and the fact that Florida is far better equipped to deal with hurricane events. 

Now we get this information about what Blanco was saying the day after the storm hit:

"We heard a report unconfirmed, I think, we have not breached the levee," she said on a video of the day's disaster briefing that was obtained Thursday night by The Associated Press. "I think we have not breached the levee at this time."

So Blanco didn’t believe, and certainly didn’t know.  She is the one heard on several tapes being asked what the situation is, and she told FEMA that she couldn’t be sure whether the levees had been breached or not. 

The video shows weather forecasters predicting the storm's path and also briefly cuts to White House deputy chief of staff Joe Hagin asking Blanco about the status of the levees and the situation at the Superdome in New Orleans.

So the White House, while knowing that a breach COULD have happened, didn’t know until well after the storm left – because the local officials didn’t know.

But I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: the local response is what happens first and foremost and the feds don’t come in until later.  They can’t move faster than that, and their role in this situation is that of support and resources.  How do you reconcile what the critics of the federal response are saying to this gem from Col. Jeff Smith, Louisiana director of emergency preparedness:

Still, "the coordination and support we are getting from FEMA has just been outstanding," Smith said.

Yes, considering that the federal response to the last big hurricane in Florida was 5 days, and this time it was about 3 days, I would say that it was outstanding.

But no evidence to that effect would ever deter self-promoting politicians on Capitol Hill from trying to be the loudest voice of dissention. 

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said it "confirms what we have suspected all along," charging that Bush administration officials have "systematically misled the American people."

Reid and House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California renewed their calls for an independent commission to investigate the federal response to the hurricane. The House and Senate have conducted separate investigations of the federal response, and the White House did its own investigation.

I’m sure another commission and another investigation is going to be exactly what we need to make everything right (read:  blame Bush).

Civil war in Iraq?

I’ve been seeing these stories in the paper for the past few days.  It’s not that I disagree with the information presented here, I suppose as much as the way it’s presented and the information that is not included.

In every one of the articles I have read in the AP, NY Times service and Knight-Ridder, the journalists make the situation sound on the edge of insanity.  Civil war might break out any minute!  There’s nothing but chaos in Iraq.  All Sunnis hate all the Shiites and civil war is inevitable!

Oh perverse and detestable media, how long shall we be forced to live among thee.
Iraq the Model lists the actual figures of casualties that the press got wrong, and describes on Monday how life is getting along and that people aren’t really fooled about who destroyed the mosques in the first place.  Most normal people in Iraq do not want a civil war and are wary of people who do.

Ralph Peters reports in the NY Post that the bombers will keep bombing, but life goes on.

It's more like a city suffering a minor, but deadly epidemic. As in an epidemic, no one knows who will be stricken. Rich or poor, soldier or civilian, Iraqi or foreigner. But life goes on. No one's fleeing the Black Death — or the plague of terror.

And there’s no civil war he reports while walking through the streets of Bagdad.
Max Boot reports that things were pretty hectic, but that the Iraqi police had things under control for the most part, and generally things didn’t turn violent.

One thing important that the press didn’t cover AT ALL was the numerous protests around Iraq.  They’re not what you think.

Then there’s the stories today about the President’s continuingly collapsing approval numbers and the poll of Military personnel by Zogby that reported that a large majority now think we should get out of Iraq by the end of the year.  As Gateway pundit details, these polls are suspect AT BEST, and considering the polling demographics of the Presidential approval poll, not very representative of the population at all.

If we didn’t have blogs, none of this would be revealed to the American Public.  Really.  Have you seen any of this in the paper?  Or the networks?  Cable?

Cosmos: War of the Planets!!!!

This Monday night was one of those evenings that you can never forget, nor will you ever be able to quite get your head around explaining why it was so unforgettable.

The first part of the evening, actually, is easier.  It was the occasion of my daughter’s 5^th birthday.  We decided to allow her to pick the place for her celebration and she chose, of course, Yucky Cheese.   Wait, sorry, I mean Chucky Cheese.  Well, even if the pizza isn’t top quality, the kids love all the stuff there is to do.  The rides, the tubes, the Skee-ball, and video games.  They spend all night accumulating tickets you can redeem for prizes that come $1 for 1000 in bulk anywhere else.

We went there on a Monday night, not only because this was the actual day, but because we thought that the crowds would be smaller, as Ch-Ch is an insane asylum when it’s packed with people.  Unfortunately, Monday happens to be one of those days when it’s packed with people. 

Anyway, we survived.  And the kids had a great time.  And the pizza wasn’t all that bad.
 
When we got home, we put the kids to bed and decided to take the evening together and watch Batman Begins, which had been sitting on our TV for the better part of a week.  We get movies by mail these days, and since the Olympics have been our focus, movie watching has been on hold. 

Anyway, I put the disk in the player and we sat down to watch, but what appeared on screen was not what I expected.  The menu screen blazed with scary lettering:  “COSMOS, War of the Planets.”  The image on the screen looked very much like something out of the 50s, ala Forbidden Planet.  After taking the DVD back out and realizing that the on-line movie warehouse put the wrong DVD in the sleeve (or just didn’t check it), we decided to give the campy Sci-Fi a chance.  So here you are; Cosmos, War of the Planets!

The first thing I should say is that after watching this, I looked it up online and discovered that it was inexplicably made in 1977, not 1957.  It was made in Italy, so I guess you can consider this a spaghetti sci-fi, although the actors were mostly English or American B movie actors (or C movie after being in this).  All the voices were dubbed in the film, even though it appeared that the actors were speaking English when the filming was done.  The dubbing is terrible, and sometimes doesn’t resemble what the actors are doing on screen.  Some characters speak that don’t have to move their mouths, like the robot or the sage of the underground people who talks with his mind, but the dialog is so bad it hardly matters either way.

Oh, I should also note that the title has nothing really to do with the plot either, as there is no war, but that’s just nitpicking, right?

I decided to give the movie 10 minutes before turning it off, but it was so bad I couldn’t take my eyes off it.  It was like I was watching a museum piece representing the worst the entertainment industry of the 20^th century had to offer and had to be fully informed lest society cascade into utter oblivion of cheesy cardboard special effects and dialog written by Elmo.

In this human society, most of the decisions are made by consulting a master computer called the “WIZ” (to which I hum “Ease on Down the Road”) and the whole point, I guess, was that the society they find on the planet they crash land on was destroyed when the computers they built took control, thus offering an object lesson for the hapless humans.  It gets so silly that after learning about the evil computer, they go back to their ship and consult their own computer who tells them that the “Bad computer will have a destruct button, probably red.”  But that’s only a probability, of course.

The Plot Outline on IMDB reads thus:  “A spaceship investigates an out of control planet and discovers a computer that controls an underground civilization.”  That’s pretty loose considering how the plot is structured (or not structured).  They do crash land on a planet, but the fact that the robot actually controls this civilization is only sort of developed.  The master computer has this robot minion that looks like a furnace with legs.  Those vents that are glowing are it’s eyes.  

The music is dreadful too.  At one point when confronting the robot, the music switches suddenly to Bach’s Toccatta and Fugue in D minor, but most of the time is randomly littered with bizarre 50s style sci-fi synthesized sounds.  Yikes!

I wonder if Mystery Science Theatre got a hold of this one, or if they passed it up as being too easy to make fun of.

Establishment clause = federal govt

Interesting legal question:  Do federal courts have jurisdiction over state legislatures and state governments?  Specifically, if a state legislature wants to have a prayer to start sessions, and that prayer is specifically Christian in nature, does a federal court have the authority to say that they can’t do it because of church and state?  A federal district court decision ruled that the Indiana Legislature couldn’t do it.

If the state government wants to put the 10 commandments on it’s lawn, isn’t that a state issue, not a federal one?
Isn’t the clause of the constitution preventing the government from promoting a religion specifically referring to the national government, not the states?  Shouldn’t the states own constitutions handle that sort of thing?  What writings from the founding fathers would refute this argument or support it?

Paying your tithe from your Medicaid

Did congress really just pass a Medicaid bill that causes every act of giving, including church tithes and gifts to the poor, to be deducted from their benefits?  The program already does this to an extent, in the case of someone trying to push assets off to family members or some other safe location so that their assets and income look smaller so that they can qualify for benefits.

But then comes the new rub—as of Jan. 31 of this year. The law just passed by Congress doesn't try merely to discourage such intra-family dealings. Now it extends the "look-back" period from three years to five years. And now it requires that all charitable giving—including every bit of her tithe to her local church, and starting at the beginning of the five-year period—also be deducted from future benefits.

There’s an appeal process, but it’s daunting.  Score another cynical move for politicians trying to look like their busy fixing something.

Land Use Law controversy over

The controversy surrounding a measure in Oregon that protected property owners from state regulation that would devalue their land is now settled.  The Oregon Supreme Court finally gave it the thumbs up, and so ends the litigation (at least regarding the law itself).  The decision was unanimous also, which will make it hard to argue that there are lingering legal problems with it.

The Oregonian article notes that this will spur a major change in the state’s approach to planning.  Up until now it’s been focused on reserving land, either for agriculture or environment, and concentrating growth in cities.  That’s certain to change, but planning activists, like those at 1000 Friends of Oregon, say things like, “this state will mar a landscape protected by three decades of careful planning.”

I don’t think you are going to get there, but the landscape is going to change significantly from the direction it was currently taking.  I think the property owners are correct here, that with practically unrestricted government control over what they could do with their land, they were trampling some basic American principles, and I think that no one should have been surprised that there was enough support to get the current trend of government control reversed.   They won’t be able to reverse this new trend without some very hard battles and some very heavy losses.  Either we are going to get a compete revolt here and the government won’t be able to protect and manage anything, or we go back to being OK with limiting one of the founding freedoms that was at the root of what Jefferson, Madison and the rest were trying to accomplish with the Great Experiment.  The challenge for Oregon land use planners is to move forward and try to achieve reasonable goals in the new land use environment.

Lingering Damage of Propaganda

A lengthy discussion on the propaganda machine at work in the west.  Eric Raymond argues that the propaganda machines set up by the Soviet’s during the last century did their job (although their source didn’t stand the test of time), and are continuing to work.  Only this time the people taking advantage of them to influence culture and political thought are Islamists.

Americans have never really understood ideological warfare. Our gut-level assumption is that everybody in the world really wants the same comfortable material success we have. We use “extremist” as a negative epithetic. Even the few fanatics and revolutionary idealists we have, whatever their political flavor, expect everybody else to behave like a bourgeois.

We don’t expect ideas to matter — or, when they do, we expect them to matter only because people have been flipped into a vulnerable mode by repression or poverty. Thus all our divagation about the “root causes” of Islamic terrorism, as if the terrorists’ very clear and very ideological account of their own theory and motivations is somehow not to be believed.

By contrast, ideological and memetic warfare has been a favored tactic for all of America’s three great adversaries of the last hundred years — Nazis, Communists, and Islamists.

..
But it was the Soviet Union, in its day, that was the master of this game. They made dezinformatsiya (disinformation) a central weapon of their war against “the main adversary”, the U.S. They conducted memetic subversion against the U.S. on many levels at a scale that is only now becoming clear as historians burrow through their archives and ex-KGB officers sell their memoirs.

..
Accordingly, the Soviet espionage apparat actually ran two different kinds of network: one of spies, and one of agents of influence. The agents of influence had the minor function of recruiting spies (as, for example, when Kim Philby was brought in by one of his tutors at Cambridge), but their major function was to spread dezinformatsiya, to launch memetic weapons that would damage and weaken the West.

..
This worked exactly as expected; their memes seeped into Western popular culture and are repeated endlessly in (for example) the products of Hollywood.

Indeed, the index of Soviet success is that most of us no longer think of these memes as Communist propaganda. It takes a significant amount of digging and rethinking and remembering, even for a lifelong anti-Communist like myself, to realize that there was a time (within the lifetime of my parents) when all of these ideas would have seemed alien, absurd, and repulsive to most people — at best, the beliefs of a nutty left-wing fringe, and at worst instruments of deliberate subversion intended to destroy the American way of life.

..
The most paranoid and xenophobic conservatives of the Cold War were, painful though this is to admit, the closest to the truth in estimating the magnitude and subtlety of Soviet subversion. Liberal anticommunists (like myself in the 1970s) thought we were being judicious and fair-minded when we dismissed half of the Right’s complaint as crude blather. We were wrong; the Rosenbergs and Alger Hiss really were guilty, the Hollywood Ten really were Stalinist tools, and all of Joseph McCarthy’s rants about “Communists in the State Department” were essentially true. The Venona transcripts and other new material leave no room for reasonable doubt on this score.

..
It is no accident that Osama bin Laden so often sounds like he’s reading from back issues of Z magazine, and no accident that both constantly echo the hoariest old cliches of Soviet propaganda in the 1930s and ’40s.

Another consequence of Stalin’s meme war is that today’s left-wing antiwar demonstrators wear kaffiyehs without any sense of how grotesque it is for ostensible Marxists to cuddle up to religious absolutists who want to restore the power relations of the 7th century CE. In Stalin’s hands, even Marxism itself was hollowed out to serve as a memetic weapon — it became increasingly nihilist, hatred-focused and destructive. The postmodern left is now defined not by what it’s for but by by what it’s against: classical-liberal individualism, free markets, dead white males, America, and the idea of objective reality itself.

..
In the banlieus and elsewhere, Islamist pressure makes it certain that sooner or later the West is going to vomit Stalin’s memes out of its body politic. The worst way would be through a reflex development of Western absolutism — Christian chauvinism, nativism and militarism melding into something like Francoite fascism. The self-panicking leftists who think they see that in today’s Republicans are comically wrong (as witnessed by the fact that they aren’t being systematically jailed and executed), but it is quite a plausible future for the demographically-collapsing nations of Europe.

I’ve pretty much pulled the important bits out, but it’s worth reading in toto.  Hat tip to Instapundit.

Gumbel on the winter games

Gateway notes that Bryant Gumbel said this about the Winter Olympics:

Finally, tonight, the Winter Games. Count me among those who don’t care about them and won’t watch them... Try not to be incredulous when someone attempts to link these games to those of the ancient Greeks who never heard of skating or skiing. So try not to laugh when someone says these are the world’s greatest athletes, despite a paucity of blacks that makes the winter games look like a GOP convention.

He said that last week right before Shani Davis won the men’s 1000 meter speed skate event.  Now I don’t know why Bryant said that.  I can point to probably a few dozen sports in the Summer Olympics as well that have no association with ancient Greece.   Perhaps he was having a bad day.  Perhaps he just doesn’t like the winter Olympics and needed an excuse to say so.

But his statement reveals a belief of his that black athletes are naturally more athletic than other shades of people, and given the opportunity they would be far better than all those pasty skiers and skaters adorning Turin right now.  But different ethnicities of peoples do well at whatever sports tend to dominate the culture.  I would be willing to say, without any real science to back me up, that I could buy that Americans of African descent are build differently enough that they do excel at certain things, like running. 

However, most of the sports in the winter Olympics haven’t much to do with running.  The skill sets involved seem to cross ethnic and biological boundaries, and therefore physically these sports don’t give an advantage to one race of people or another.  Economics might have some small part.  After all skiing is pretty expensive.  It’s a pretty poor excuse for not showing up, but it might have something to do with why people from the urban reserve don’t make it up to the mountain much.

But I think that the real issue is that the sports are just not popular with black American just yet.  The entire pool of athletic people have not been tapped in that sense, but if Gumbel expects that blacks would somehow take over many of the winter games, he might be surprised.  Also, the number of blacks participating in the Olympics is not necessarily indicative of the percentage that have tried out for a spot.  Anyone have that number?

Random movie talk talk

Back from the weekend.  Been enjoying some time with my wife, it being her birthday.  Some going out with the kids, some staying in and watching the Olympics (actually a lot of that).  We watched a movie called Alex and Emma, staring Kate Hudson and Luke Wilson.   I was horribly disappointed, in that while the idea of the story was cute, the writing dialog and acting took a bit away from the film. 

The entire idea of the film is that a struggling writer, Alex (Wilson) needs to write a romance novel before the month is over or some Hispanic goons he owes money will kill him.  The only way that he can write with that kind of speed is by orating his ideas to a court stenographer, Emma (Hudson), and so he hires her by pretending to be a struggling law firm.  Not withstanding the fact that it’s a stretch to believe that a publisher would hand out the $100k he needs in order to pay off the goons the second he turns in the finished book, but we are presented with having to root for the hero of the tale to get the girl when the hero is a depressing liar with a gambling problem. 

The trick with the film is that we experience the plot of the story he is trying to write along with the main story of his growing relationship with the Emma.  The book is meant to mirror the reality of what he is experiencing.   The writing for the novel parts, as dictated by Wilson’s character, are terrible, but I’m assuming that was on purpose and part of the comedy of the film.  There were some bright moments, like the constant morphing of Hudson’s character in the novel (first she’s Swedish, then German, etc…).

However, there were too many moments when I thought the dialog in the main part of the movie (not the novel part) was just as bad.  And like I said you have to struggle to really like Wilson’s character.  And it doesn’t make me want to pick up a romance novel anytime in the foreseeable future either.

Intelligent Design of the Left

I've been forever noticing that while the left lampoons the right's devotion to the ID cause where creation and evolution is concerned in the biological world, they hold to Intelligent Design in the socio/economic world.

Indeed, it is the economics of the left, so affectionately espoused by Galbraith and his compatriots, that is secular Intelligent Design par excellence.
Consider quotes like this from the New York Times'’ Paul Krugman: "What's interesting about [the Bush Administration] is that there's no sign that anybody's actually thinking about, '‘well, how do we run this economy?'"’
The very idea of "“running"” an economy is predicated upon the notion that economies can be run and fine-tuned, much like a machine. But what Krugman and folks like Galbraith fail to understand is that the economy isn't a machine at all, but an ecosystem. And ecosystems aren't designed, they evolve.

Indeed. The more you try to tinker with the system for the benefit of those less fortunate, the more you are going to end up with what those poor unfortunate Russians faced for 70 years. The more you try to control the economic environment, the less room it has to innovate and adjust to conditions. There should always be boundaries set up around the economy (like anti-trust situations), but it should be left alone for the most part. President Bush really did just about all a President should do during the recession to lift the economy back to its feet. If anything more, he should have championed less government spending to keep the Federal government from sucking up so many taxpayer's (consumer's) dollars.
This doesn't mean that I'm all over a Darwinian view of the biological world, it has it's own scientific problems. But this person Gilbraith, along with Krugman, seem to misunderstand what American capitalism is all about and why it's been so successful.
And in the end it's directly contrary to what they believe about the rest of the world.
Hat tip to Joe Katzman.

Ralph Reed and Abramoff

One of the lesser known political figures who is in big trouble as a result of the Abramoff scandal is Ralph Reed of the Christian Coalition. World magazine details the extent of corruption that Reed allowed in order to attract the funding that Abramoff could bring. It also mentions that some hurt feelings arose when one of World's reporters asked the Vice President of Focus on the Family some very tough questions.