And the War on Terror Goes On

7/7/2005

A terrorist president?

It's been a long time kids ... but Mad is back ...

... and with some shocking news too ... this time about a terrorist president.

And no you silly libs, I'm not talking about President Bush :)

Tonight, one cable news station (and it wasn't CNN) is broadcasting photographs from November 1979 of US hostages in Iran being escorted around by a man suspected to be Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's newly "elected" president (elected is such the wrong word). Add to this the stories (and more stories) from hostages Charles Scott, David Roeder, William J. Daugherty, Don A. Sharer, Kevin Hermening and William A. Gallegos who all insist that Ahmadinejad was a leader among the hostage-takers.

"As soon as I saw his picture in the paper, I knew that was the bastard," Colonel Charles Scott, 73, told the Washington Times. "He was one of the top two or three leaders ... The new president of Iran is a terrorist."

But wait, there's more:

Scott ... [also] said the new Iranian president sat in on parts of his monthlong interrogation and whispered guidance to the men who were questioning him.

So we report, you decide: is it him?






And this isn't that much of a stretch. Just consider this:

Mr. Ahmadinejad was a founding member of the Office of Strengthening Unity, the student organisation that planned the embassy takeover.

And he's been accused of many worse crimes:

Previously, Austrian parliament representative, Peter Pilz, alleged Ahmadinejad to have possibly had a hand in international assassinations ordered by the Iranian government against political opposition groups ... Some have also alleged that Ahmadinejad had been a "Last Shot-in-the-head" executioner of political prisoners, shooting the executed prisoners after they were shot by a firing squad to ensure that they are dead, in the Evin prison in Tehran, and claim that he has delivered around a thousand such shots.

Well ... you know what they say: you have to step on (or shoot) a few heads to get to the top!

And ole' Ahmadinejad isn't holding back his punches ... today he was quoted as saying:

"The era of oppression, hegemonic regimes, tyranny and injustice has reached its end," he said, in an apparent reference to Iran's arch-foe the United States. "The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world"

Ummmm .... ya ... right ...

So what we have here shouldn't surprise anyone: The biggest state-sponsor of terrorism in the world has rigged its elections to install a terrorist with American blood on his hands. And a terrorist who wants to spread the "wave of the Islamic revolution" to "the entire world." So how does he plan to do that? Well, with the soon-to-be-completed arsenal of Iranian nukes of course!

Can we please, please, please start taking this problem seriously now???

To cite the eternal words of Michael Ledeen: Faster please!

Vacation

I am off to the Holy Land for the next two weeks. Posting will resume then.

Selling the EU

In a few days France will vote in a referendum on the new EU Constitution. It seems, at this point, that French voters will reject this 300 page monstrosity. But not to worry, I'm certain that similar to previous votes on EU matters, if the French get this vote "wrong" they will be given the chance to vote on it again and again until they produce the answer that Chirac and Giscard actually want.

But what is interesting, is the way the bEUreaucrats are trying to sell this constitution. Mark Steyn has an interesting write-up of their campaign.

Scornful of such piffling analogies, the prime minister, Jan-Peter Balkenende, thinks a Balkan end is the least of their worries. "I've been in Auschwitz and Yad Vashem," he says. "The images haunt me every day. It is supremely important for us to avoid such things in Europe."

At the Theresienstadt (or Terezin) concentration camp in the Czech Republic, Sweden's European Commissioner, Margot Wallstrom, declared: "There are those who want to scrap the supranational idea. They want the European Union to go back to the old purely inter-governmental way of doing things. I say those people should come to Terezin and see where that old road leads."

Golly. So the choice for voters on the Euro-ballot is apparently: yes to the European Constitution, or yes to a new Holocaust. If there's a neither-of-the-above box, the EU's rulers are keeping quiet about it. The notion that the Continent's peoples are basically a bunch of genocidal whackoes champing at the bit for a new bloodbath is one I'm not unsympathetic to. But it's a curious rationale to pitch to one's electorate: vote for us; we're the straitjacket on your own worst instincts.

The Left Keeps Trying

Arianna Huffington has recently started a celebrity-laden group blog. Ned Rice reviews this latest contribution to our virtual discussion world, as as well as some old technology attempts by the Left to "get their message out".

Apart from its larcenous origins and hit-or-miss content the other glaring weakness of "The Huffington Post" is that it's pretty much what sources like N.P.R., the A.P., and most TV networks already offer: a conventional left-of-center perspective with a few conservative voices tossed in for window dressing.

With this new blog, as well as AirAmerica, and Al Gore's proposed liberal network, the Left continues to believe that if only they could get their message out, people would vote for them. It seems, though that the key problem for the Left is not "getting their message out", but actually getting a message that people actually support.

Attention Democrats: the American people have heard your message loud and clear, and the more they hear of it the less they like it. You can launch all the feeble new media ventures you like ("Hey, how about a liberal 'zine? That'll turn this thing around!"). You can spend as much of George Soros's fortune as he's stupid enough to part with. You can even get Margaret Cho to come back out of the closet and denounce President Bush again - or did she do that already? Thing is, until you advance a political philosophy that has some sort of connection with mainstream America you might just as well get used to being the minority party no matter how many New Media outlets you horn in on.

US is Evil...Again

Well, the jackasses at Amnesty International have done it again in their annual report on human rights around the world: U.S. leads global attack on human rights -Amnesty. Of course, the main reasons for this assessment by AI is Abu Ghraib and detentions at Guantanamo. It is hard to imagine a more morally obtuse report than this.

In the four years since 9/11, the US has liberated Afghanistan from the Taliban, ensuring rights for all the people there. After that the US liberated Iraq from one of the most brutal dictators of the last 50 years, once again improving the human rights of the people there immeasurably. The US has done more for human rights just in the last four years more than AI has done in its entire existence. Yet the only thing that the anti-American morons at AI see is Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.

Of course, the other country so assaulted by AI is Israel. They have accused Israel of "war crimes and crimes against humanity". The basis for these accusations is that Palestinian civilians have been killed in "attacks on residential areas". Perhaps it would behoove AI to actually read international law before propounding these inanities. Yes, Palestinian civilians have been killed. But according to international law the responsibility for these deaths lie solely on the terrorists who hide out in civilian areas - a war crime under international law - and use civilians as human shields - also a war crime. These Palestinian crimes do not merit mention by AI.

Of course, its much easier to accuse democracies of violations of international law than it is to accuse repressive regimes; there is always a fifth column in democracies willing to heap scorn and blame on their own governments and draw even more attention to the baseless accusations of NGOs gone wild - something which usually does not occur in the Sudans and Zimbabwes of the world.

My suggestion is to force the people making these judgments to actually go live in a truly repressive country before they make such accusations. Maybe then they would actually find out something about human rights.

Worthless

Ariel Sharon today said something that everyone has known, but not been willing to say publicly:

Without offending the Arab world, it must be said that their agreements, declarations and speeches are not worth the paper they're written on.

Clearly this is evidenced by the actions of the Palestinian Authority since Arafat signed the Oslo Accords. Continuing in that rich tradition, within days of signing onto the "Roadmap", Abbas was also violating it and openly talking about it.

Caroline Glick has more on Abbas's continued violations, while at the same time talking peace. I have no doubt that the Bush Administration understands exactly what is going on in the PA. Yet in doing nothing about it except the ritual announcements that the PA "must do more", the Bush Administration is undermining its own principles in the War on Terror.

The Bush administration seems absolutely committed to ensuring that the PA will not become a failed state on the model of Somalia or Lebanon. And yet, in its rush to strengthen Abbas in order to prevent chaos, the US is backing his bid to establish a Palestinian rogue state.

If President Bush really believes in his vision for freedom and democracy for the Palestinians, he would be well advised to tell Abbas that as long as the choices are between a failed Palestinian state and a rogue Palestinian state, the US opts for no Palestinian state.

Marketing

This is a copy/paste from an email I got. Makes for a good yuk.

Two beggars are sitting side by side on a street in Rome. One has a cross in front of him. The other one has the Star of David. Many people go by and look at both beggars, but only put money into the hat of the beggar sitting behind the cross.

A priest comes by, stops and watches throngs of people giving money to the beggar behind the cross, but none give to the beggar behind the Star of David. Finally, the priest goes over to the beggar behind the Star of David and says: "My poor fellow,
don't you understand? This is a Catholic country. People aren't going to give you money if you sit there with a 'Star of David' in front of you, especially when you're sitting beside a beggar who has a cross. In fact, they would probably give to him just out of spite." The beggar behind the 'Star of David' listened to the priest, turned to the other beggar with the cross and said: "Moishe, look who's trying to teach the Goldstein brothers about marketing."

The Root of All Evil

Roger Kimball of The New Criterion describes the problems of the university. It is truly stunning what is going on at the "elite" schools of the US.

Blix Again?

Apparently, in the mistaken belief that anyone still wanted to hear his opinions, Hans Blix decided to once again criticize President Bush.

Blix told reporters there is "a great deal of concern" about North Korea and Iran among states without nuclear weapons.

But "that feeling of concern is somewhat muted by the feeling that the United States in particular, and perhaps some other nuclear weapons states, are not taking the common bargain as seriously as they had committed themselves to do in the past," he said.

He cited Bush administration proposals to build new nuclear weapons and talk in Washington even of testing weapons, ending a 13-year-old U.S. moratorium on nuclear tests. He also referred to statements by Bolton, President Bush's embattled nominee to be U.N. ambassador, devaluing treaties and the authority of international law.

So the reason that North Korea and Iran are developing nuclear weapons is because of statements by Bolton? Blix seems to forget that Iran has been working on this for quite a few years, and that it was during the Clinton Administration that the North Koreans.

Cox and Forkum has the perfect cartoon for Blix's idiocy.

More fundamentally, Blix expresses the continuing delusion of the Left that all one needs to do to guarantee world peace is sign some treaties. It seems that no amount of evidence can convince those that are so blinded that tyrants and tyrannies do not adhere to treaties.

Comme Une Image

It seems that in connection with the V-E celebrations, a new monument of Charles de Gaulle was opened in Moscow. Russia loves public monuments, but our resident art historian Nudnikette points out some very interesting aspects about the statue. Basically, it signifies cowardice. He looks like a "toy soldier" - well dressed but powerless and unarmed. His feet are facing slightly inwards, like a child's. He is standing at attention, the way a soldier stands before a superior. And the superior is undoubtedly Stalin. Probably not how the French wanted him to be represented, but a fairly true representation nonetheless.

V-E Day

Today is the celebration of V-E Day in Russia, celebrated a day later than in the West primarily because Stalin delayed the announcement of victory for a day. Pretty much all the newspapers carry stories about Bush and Putin watching the parade and ceremonies in Red Square, yet almost none really say anything about what this commemoration is really about. As those who fought in that war get old and pass away we lose the oral history of those events, and the sacrifices made by all who were swept up in the war.

The experiences of the US and the Soviet Union, and the soldiers of the respective countries, were vastly different. Around 27 million soldiers and civilians of the Soviet Union were killed in the war. By contrast, US dead numbered around 400,000. And while the US was fighting for an idea, the destruction of the Nazi regime, the Soviet Union was fighting for something much more tangible – their homes. The US homeland was never really threatened during the war. Even if the Nazis won the US would not be invaded, and while life might have been different, the US would have continued more or less as it was. Soviet soldiers were fighting for their very homes, knowing that losing meant death for them and their families.

The way the US and the Soviets fought was also entirely different. One of the reasons for such heavy casualties in the Soviet army was the complete lack of concern of the Soviet leadership for the welfare of its people. It would be inconceivable for the US army to send troops into battle unarmed, with orders to pick up the rifle of the soldier next to you. Or to place machine guns behind your own advancing troops and gun down any who did not advance. Yet this is what the Red Army regularly did.

My Grandfather was one of the millions who fought in the Red Army. He was a 17 year old lieutenant when the Nazis invaded, fought outside of Stalingrad, and towards the end of the war commanded an anti-tank artillery unit that ended up in East Prussia. I have heard many stories from him about those years, yet I still can not fully imagine what he and that generation had to go through.

And with every day, there are fewer and fewer people to explain what happened and to relate what they saw. V-E Day loses its importance and allows us to forget what happened, and lose the lessons for our current situations - as more attention is paid to the goings on of Paula Abdul and American Idol, than the commemoration of a world struggle and triumph over unimaginable evil.

I wonder if there will be a 100th anniversary commemoration of V-E Day, and if there is what it will look like.

Gaza Withdrawal

I haven't really written anything on Israel's upcoming withdrawal of settlements from the Gaza Strip later this summer. Until recently I was very conflicted on the wisdom and the necessity of this move. As a strategic concept, trading Gaza for part of the West Bank is a good move for Israel. However, more and more it seems that such a strategy will be difficult to achieve. I am now firmly of the belief that leaving Gaza will be a major mistake; it will not improve Israel's bargaining position vis-a-vis the Palestinians or the US.

The most likely outcome from this evacuation will be to produce a result similar to Barak's withdrawal from Lebanon 5 years ago - the Palestinians will be emboldened into thinking that they can achieve the same result in the West Bank; Hamas leadership has already said as much. The strategy of the Palestinians will be not to attack within the Green Line, something that is daily made more difficult by the separation barrier, but to attack the settlements in Judea and Samaria. And just as we heard about the settlements in Gaza - they're difficult to protect, why waste soldiers on this, etc - we will hear the same about these settlements. The Palestinians have not wasted time during this hudna and have been stockpiling and preparing everything from rifles and explosives to anti-tank and shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles smuggled in from Egypt. They have also brought in and have started manufacturing Kassam rockets in the West Bank. No longer will these rockets be falling in the desert or on the outskirts of Sderot, but on Kfar Saba and the outskirts of Jerusalem.

With this withdrawal Israel, with the urging and help of the US, will have succeeded in creating a new terrorist enclave in the Middle East and brought on itself a wider and deadlier war. As Caroline Glick points out, this is completely contrary to the goals of the Bush administration.

Israel's planned withdrawal from Gaza and northern Samaria present a tangible threat to US national security interests from both military and psychological warfare perspectives.

On the military level, one of the core principles of the US counter-terror strategy is to deny terrorists sanctuary. Yet Gaza and northern Samaria are both poised to become new operational bases for global terror organizations.

During his negotiations with the terror chiefs in Cairo in March, in the presence of Syria's foreign minister, PA chairman and US favorite Mahmoud Abbas invited the leaders of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command to relocate from Damascus to Gaza after Israel withdraws. How does this square with the US strategy to bar terrorists from receiving shelter?
[...]
On a psychological level, the images of an Israeli retreat from Gaza and northern Samaria will be footage for jihadi recruitment videos for years to come. In Iraq, a large proportion of the insurgent groups' energies are devoted to producing images that portray them as strong and the US forces as weak. Al-Jazeera and its clones – along with cameramen employed as stringers by Western news networks and agencies – work hand-in-glove with the terrorists to produce just such images. The point, of course, is that in at least one central respect, Arabs are no different from Americans. Both like winners. Videos showing the decapitation of hostages are meant to mobilize supporters.

Yet there can be no doubt that, as attractive as watching helpless hostages getting beheaded may be to potential recruits, the spectacle of Hamas and Fatah flags being foisted onto Israeli homes in Gaza and Samaria is even more alluring. And footage of Jews attacking one another as Israel comes apart at the seams will also serve the terrorists' purposes wonderfully well.

The damage to US interests and democracy promotion in the Middle East would be immeasurable.

But the decision for this "evacuation" has been made, and it seems there is no turning back now. The main question that remains then is what to do with the buildings in the soon to be abandoned settlements. Many in Israel, including the man who brought us the Oslo War yet continues to push for more appeasement - Shimon Peres - thinks that the settlements should be turned into a Club Med or Palestinian resorts. It is ironic, as David Warren shows that the Palestinians would prefer to have the settlements destroyed by Israel, while Israel would rather abandon them intact.

It is typical of the non-meeting of minds, that the Palestinians mostly want the buildings demolished and their sites cleared, while most Israelis want to hand over the buildings to the Palestinians rather than wasting them. The Israeli authorities are also aware that if the buildings are demolished, the international media will have an anti-Israeli field day showing the scene. Which is in turn why many Palestinians want the demolition to happen: they would rather see that TV show, than have the use of buildings better constructed and serviced than most they now own.

And now the PA is considering giving families of suicide bombers these homes. No matter what bad PR comes of it, these settlements must be destroyed. Pictures of Palestinians dancing on the homes of the departed Israelis will be worse PR. Uri Dan is right:

Israel's momentary profit from being represented in the world media as a peace lover giving the keys of Jewish displaced persons' homes to the Palestinians will be swallowed up by a long-term loss: unambiguous encouragement of the enemy to continue its war against the kibbutzim in the region, against Ashkelon and Ashdod, from the Gaza Strip, and against the heart of Israel from Judea and Samaria.

Ariel Sharon, as defense minister, destroyed the Yamit settlements in 1982 with government approval because he didn't want Egyptian president Anwar Sadat, with whom Menachem Begin had signed a peace agreement, to implement his program to transfer between half a million and a million Egyptians to a region close to the overcrowded Gaza Strip. You don't need a great deal of imagination to realize how terrible Israel's situation would be if another two million Egyptians were living there today. If it was right then, during the withdrawal from Sinai, after signing a peace agreement with Egypt, it is even more right to follow that path today in the Gaza Strip, in the face of Hamas's and Islamic Jihad's plans to continue the war.

So – destroy it all!

At least this may salvage some good from a horrible decision.

Iran Rolls On

It seems that the "talks" between Iran and the EU-3 have come to an impasse, and Iran is now saying that it is determined to pursue uranium enrichment. Clearly this sets it up for a confrontation with the US, and once again the efficacy and worth of the UN will be tested. The US will undoubtedly want the matter referred to the UN Security Council in order to impose sanctions on Iran. Even if China and Russia go along and don't veto such a resolution, what effect would sanctions actually have? Iraq managed to survive under sanctions for 12 years, South Africa even longer. While we could afford to wait with those countries, Iran is only a couple of years away from a nuclear bomb, and according to Israeli intelligence, will achieve a "point of no return" - when they have worked out all technical issues and will be able to proceed without outside help - possibly by the end of this year. Sanctions are, in effect, an acceptance of a nuclear Iran.

Iran is due to have elections in June. There is some hope that some kind of democratic movement will emerge to overthrow the mullahs - although this hope is fairly faint. Despite the continuing reports of demonstrations and riots in a number of cities in Iran - reports that rarely, if ever make the news here - there doe not seem to be enough of an organized movement to remove the mullahs.

More and more, as risky and uncertain as it is, it seems that a military strike on Iran's facilities could be the best option. The best case scenario would be if there were some kind of democratic demonstrations which would then be "supported" by US airpower. Such airstrikes would aim to destroy not just the nuclear installations, but also government command and control assets, military, and Revolutionary Guard installations. This could then have the possibility of overthrowing the mullahs. The worst case scenario is flat out airstrikes on nuclear installations. Since we don't know where all of them are, this would not destroy the Iranian nuclear program, but could delay it for long enough. And once again, the hope would be that the mullahs would be overthrown from within. None of these options are good ones. But once again, the US (not the UN or France) will have to choose and execute the least bad option.

Columbia's Israel Problem

As stunning as this may seem, Columbia University does not have a Jewish Studies Department. They have decided to try to rectify this by creating an Israel Studies chair, endowed by four trustees. But as Martin Kramer points out, the search committee for this chair shows that Columbia still doesn't get it.

The committee includes Ira Katznelson, chair of the ad hoc (a.k.a. "whitewash") committee that investigated student grievances; Dan Miron, a long-suffering Hebrew lit professor in the Middle East department; and Karen Barkey, an authority on the Ottoman empire. So far, reasonable. But then add this to the mix: Rashid Khalidi, the ubiquitous Edward Said Professor; and lesser-known Lila Abu-Lughod, a Palestinian American anthropologist and signer and supporter of Columbia's divestment petition.

This is a joke. Jewish alumni, and those who care about Columbia's intellectual honesty should withhold their contributions. Maybe then Columbia will get the message.

Disliked

Victor Hanson writes today that we shouldn't be too upset that some countries don't like us. In fact, it may be a sign that we are doing things right.

In short, who exactly does not like the United States and why? First, almost all the 20 or so illiberal Arab governments that used to count on American realpolitik's giving them a pass on accounting for their crimes. They fear not the realist Europeans, nor the resource-mad Chinese, nor the old brutal Russians, but the Americans, who alone are prodding them to open their economies and democratize their corrupt political cultures. We must learn to expect, not lament, their hostility, and begin to worry that things would be indeed wrong if such unelected dictators praised the United States.

In another excellent article, he criticizes the hypocrisy and ridiculousness of those Senators opposing him.

European Predictions

Denis Boyles, National Review's European correspondent in Paris has grown weary of Europe, so he is going to the Midwest.

One Kafkaesque morning, as I was waking up from anxious dreams, I discovered I dreaded going to work. All I wanted to do was cheat on my perfect wife, ignore my children, stab my oldest friend in the back, and smoke a cigarette, even though I haven’t smoked for almost 20 years. My hair broke out in gel and my underwear turned into briefs - then shrunk three sizes. I realized I was slowly becoming a French person.

But as he leaves EUtopia, he has some predictions for what we should expect from the Continent this summer.

The Democratic Philosophy

David Gelertner perfectly defines the philosophy of the Democratic Party - 'We're Smart, You're Dumb'.It seems that the entire Democratic agenda is to make sure that people don't make decisions for themselves, because obviously the Democrats know what is better for them.

How could anyone be opposed in principle to private investment accounts within Social Security? I could understand Democrats arguing that "private accounts are a wonderful idea but the country can't afford the transition costs right now." But mostly I hear Democrats saying they're a lousy idea, and that President Bush wants to wreck Social Security — because, after all, he wants to let you keep a great big whopping 4% of your payroll taxes in a private account instead of handing over every cent to the government. How on Earth could anyone be opposed in principle to letting taxpayers manage a minuscule fraction of their own money (their own money, dammit!) if they want to? Because private accounts violate the Infantile American Principle, so dear to Democratic hearts. Little kids should turn over their cash to the Big Smart Government for safekeeping.

This principle relates to much more than the current debate on Social Security. Virtually every proposal of the Democrats relies on the reasoning that the Government will decide for everyone. This has been the basis of a few failed ideologies of the 20th century, yet the Democrats seem to have not learned from history.

Krugman's Healthcare

We constantly hear from the left (among others) that the healthcare system in Europe is so much better than in the United States. Paul Krugman wrote a column about this last week in the New York Times. His argument focused on the "fact" that the infant mortality rate is higher in the US than in Europe, and that life expectancy is greater in Europe than in the US. David Hogberg, in The American Spectator, debunks these claims and shows that the government run health systems of Europe, are in many cases much worse than the private healthcare of the United States. He ends with these statistics:

Of women diagnosed with breast cancer in the United States, one-fourth die of the disease. About one-third die in France and Germany, and a little less than half do in the United Kingdom. Of men diagnosed with prostate cancer, less than one-fifth die in the U.S., while one-fourth do in Canada, nearly half in France, and more than half in the U.K.

Iran's Nukes and Russia

In a move that is probably designed more to appease the US and Israeli publics, Putin today took a harder line on Iran's nuclear program.

Putin, at a news conference in Jerusalem, said Tehran's agreement to return spent nuclear fuel to Russia -- which agreed to supply the material to Iran's Bushehr plant -- "does not seem to be enough."

He said that in addition, the Iranians should "abandon all technology to create a full nuclear cycle and also not obstruct their nuclear sites from international control."

Since Russia is the main sponsor of Iran's nuclear program, it seems to me that this statement is pretty much meaningless. Still, maybe the US sale of 100 laser-guided "bunker buster" bombs to Israel has something to do with his greater interest in controlling Iran's nuclear ambitions.

At the same time, Iran is once again threatening that if talks with the EU-3 fail, it will restart its Uranium enrichment program. I wonder what the EU-3 will compromise on now.

Arab Government

RealClearPolitics.com reprints an article from the current issue of Foreign Affairs by Bernard Lewis entitled Freedom and Justice in the Modern Middle East. Lewis is one of the preeminent scholars of the Arab world, and is writing about the possibility of consensual government there. He points ot that the current idea that Arabs are incapable of consensual government because dictatorship is endemic to the culture is simply wrong. Consensual government did exist in the Arab world, though not in the form that we are used to.

Consultation is a central part of the traditional Islamic order, but it is not the only element that can check the ruler's authority. The traditional system of Islamic government is both consensual and contractual. The manuals of holy law generally assert that the new caliph--the head of the Islamic community and state--is to be "chosen." The Arabic term used is sometimes translated as "elected," but it does not connote a general or even sectional election. Rather, it refers to a small group of suitable, competent people choosing the ruler's successor. In principle, hereditary succession is rejected by the juristic tradition. Yet in practice, succession was always hereditary, except when broken by insurrection or civil war; it was--and in most places still is--common for a ruler, royal or otherwise, to designate his successor.

But the element of consent is still important. In theory, at times even in practice, the ruler's power--both gaining it and maintaining it--depends on the consent of the ruled. The basis of the ruler's authority is described in the classical texts by the Arabic word bay'a, a term usually translated as "homage," as in the subjects paying homage to their new ruler. But a more accurate translation of bay'a--which comes from a verb meaning "to buy and to sell"--would be "deal," in other words, a contract between the ruler and the ruled in which both have obligations.

Despotism and dictatorship were actually fairly late imports from Europe, specifically from Nazi Germany.

Lewis is cautiously optimistic that with the elections in Iraq we are seeing a reversal of the rule of despotism and the possibility of the birth of true consensual governments in the Arab world.

"I punched Saddam in the Mouth"

An interesting article about Samir, the Iraqi now living in St. Louis, who was the man who pulled Saddam out of his spider hole.

Some Good News

Last week the British Association of University Teachers voted to boycott academics from two Israeli universities, unless they declare that they do not support the Israeli government. Judging by the reaction to this boycott from some British academics, it seems that there are still a few who are willing to stand up against this immoral action.

The backlash, which may take the form of mass resignations from the union, has seen an outpouring of protests by Jewish and non-Jewish academics across Britain.

John Vail, lecturer in political economy at Newcastle University, wrote in an e-mail to fellow academics: "The boycott is blatantly discriminatory and reeks of double standards." He added: "Although I have no current research links with Israeli academics, this has made me want to go out and develop some just so as to show my disapproval of this motion. I hope that our local branch will pass a motion that expresses our disagreement with the national policy."
[...]
The AUT received a further resignation this morning, as a professor from Hertfordshire University cancelled his AUT membership. This followed the resignation of Reinier Salverda, of University College London, bringing the number of academics who have resigned from the union to four. More resignations are expected to follow.

Fifteen academics from the Board of the London-based Leo Baeck Institute signed a letter expressing "dismay" at the AUT resolutions: "All agree in deploring the proposed boycott of Israeli universities and academics who fail to satisfy a political inquisition. Israeli universities, notably the three targets of the boycott, represent the best ideals of the university as a place of tolerance and the free exchange of views, in which Jews, Muslims and Christians study and work together."

The letter, which registered alarm at the "double standards and hypocrisy" behind the resolution, asked: "Will the tests and the boycott apply to Israeli Arab academics or only Jews?"

An excellent question, that I'm sure the boycotters will be hesitant to answer.

More Bolton

Frank Gaffney makes a good case that the whole argument regarding the confirmation of John Bolton is nothing more than refighting the 2004 election.

They're back. The people who tried to defeat George W. Bush are the same people now trying to defeat his nominee for the United Nations, John R. Bolton.

And George Soros, MoveOn.org, the Democratic Party machinery and, not least, John Kerry hope to demonstrate, by so doing, they were right all along on what is, arguably, the most important national security issue of our time: Need America pass a "global test" to protect its vital interests?

The fact is that the Democrats refuse to have a serious debate about Bolton's views because they know they would lose that debate just like they lost in November of last year. So not being able to discuss the issues, they have sunk to the "politics of personal destruction" based on the most absurd allegations. Proving once again that they are simply not a serious opposition.

Bill Sammon reports that the White House now understands this, after screwing up the initial part of this confirmation battle, and plans to present it to the American people as a debate about the role of the UN. I'm sure the Democrats are not looking forward to that.

Back to the '90s

An overriding desire of the Democrats seems to be a return to Clinton times. And why not? The market was up every day, every other person was an internet millionaire, we were at peace (relatively), and terrorists didn't kill enough people for us to really care. This regressionary desire seems to be the thrust of today's Nicholas Kristof piece. You see, during Clinton's term, North Korea had no nuclear weapons (maybe one or two), and now under Bush they have six. This of course is due to the fact that Bush refuses to engage in bilateral negotiations with North Korea the way that Clinton did. Kristof is trying to make the argument that the 1994 "Agreed Framework" negotiated by Carter - the greatest example of appeasement since the Oslo Accords - stopped the North Koreans from working on their nuclear program. He does mention, however, that

...but about 1999, it secretly started on a second nuclear route involving uranium.

That was much less worrisome than the plutonium program (it still seems to be years from producing a single uranium weapon), and it probably could have been resolved through negotiation, as past crises had been.

So the "Agreed Framework" worked so well that North Korea started a Uranium enrichment program?

This whole article is complete and utter non-sense. The left side of the political spectrum refuses to learn that appeasement simply does not work. North Korea abided by the agreement for as long as it was convenient for them, and when it was no longer convenient they stopped. Now that they need more oil, and more food, they are once again using the same tactics as before. Their hope is that the Bush Administration will act like the Clinton Administration and agree to supply them with whatever they need, while they pretend to stop their nuclear weapons program. Until, of course, they want something else. Then we will go through this whole routine again. This is the standard result of appeasement.

Realistically, there is only one way to deal with North Korea and that is to force China to pressure them to give up their nukes. China wants hegemony of the region, convincing them that their support (or lack of pressure) on North Korea will harm that desire, i.e. by Japan and/or Taiwan going nuclear, is the best way to disarm North Korea.

Pax Americana

A very interesting article by Efraim Halevy, former Mossad Director and Ariel Sharon's National Security Adviser, about the possibilities in the Middle East now that the US is fully involved.

The Big Lie

Since the conclusion of the Iraq War, the Left has consistently peddled the story that Saddam had no WMDs. This of course, led to the shrill cries of "we were lied to!!!!" and that Saddam was contained, therefore this war was unnecessary. I don't think its necessary to once again discuss the actual reasons for the war beyond saying that this war had as much to do with WMDs as World War I had to do with the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand. As with any lie, if it is repeated enough times it eventually becomes accepted as the truth.

Even before the invasion of Iraq, a number of intelligence agencies expressed concern that Saddam's WMD program was being dismantled and shipped out of the country. Now it seems, the IAEA is hopping onto this story(subscription required).

The Saddam Hussein regime dismantled all WMD facilities and either concealed them in Iraq or shipped them to Syria. This is more than the assessment of agencies within the U.S. intelligence community: It is even the assessment of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Last week, the IAEA concluded that Iraq dismantled dozens of nuclear sites that had been operating under the Saddam regime. In a letter to the UN Security Council, the IAEA said satellite imagery revealed significant dismantling and removal activities at 37 Iraqi sites linked to Saddam's clandestine nuclear program since 2003.

Blame Game Shame

The left continues to find new things that they can blame our president for. As always, Ted Rall is on the front lines of lunacy.

Why do so many cops lie? My pet theory is that, in the same way that Bill
Clinton's sex scandals encouraged promiscuity among impressionable young
people, George W. Bush's contempt for the truth and the law, including granting
permission to torture and jail the innocent, set a tone that emboldens law
enforcement officers to feel that they can get away with anything.

Just wait… next week Ted will have an article blaming George Bush for the bad weather that we are having. He’ll tie it to Kyoto or something.

Bolton Battle

The disgraceful Democrats on the Foreign Relations Committee have managed to browbeat a couple of Republican Senators, forcing the vote on his nomination to be delayed. The Democrats' stated reason for their opposition to Bolton is that he is a "serial abuser" of his subordinates. The evidence of this was quoted by Mark Steyn in an article last Sunday:

So I was interested to hear about the kind of violent Boltonian eruptions that had led Boxer to her diagnosis. Well, here it comes. (If you've got young children present, you might want to take them out of the room.) From the shockingly brutal testimony of Thomas Fingar, assistant secretary of state for the Bureau of Intelligence Research:

Q: Could you characterize your meeting with Bolton? Was he calm?

Fingar: No, he was angry. He was standing up.

Q: Did he raise his voice to you? Did he point his finger in your face?

Fingar: I don't remember if he pointed. John speaks in such a low voice normally. Was it louder than normal? Probably. I wouldn't characterize it as screaming at me or anything like that. It was more, hands on hips, the body language as I recall it, I knew he was mad.

So Bolton put his hands on his hips, and that makes him a "serial abuser"? The Democrats more and more show themselves for the feckless fools they are. Having lost the election for President, having lost more seats in the Senate and House, they have consigned themselves to throwing pies (literally and figuratively).

Frank Gaffney has the perfect solution for what the President should do in response to these Democratic character assassination: recess appointment, and luckily a Senate recess is coming up in a few days.

Consequently, President Bush should serve notice on the Senate: Complete whatever further investigations now indicated and vote the Bolton nomination in the Foreign Relations Committee and on the floor of the Senate before the upcoming May recess. Or face a recess appointment of Bolton that will enable him to get to work at the United Nations while senators are engaging in constituent services and other important matters outside of Washington.

Perhaps President Bush can make this bitter pill less difficult for committee Democrats to swallow. The president could offer to provide anger-management classes to senators who might be infuriated by their inability further to defame so estimable a public servant as John Bolton and to prevent him from advancing at the U.N. the president's policies - policies that are, in the end, their real reason for their efforts to deny him this post.

I doubt the President will do this. But at this point the only way to fight Democratic intransigence is by descending to their level and declaring all-out war on them.

Zarqawi's Nukes

Bill Gertz reports today in the Washington Times that US intelligence agencies have received a number of reports that Zarqawi now possesses a nuclear device or is preparing a dirty bomb.

The classified reports have been distributed to U.S. intelligence agencies for several consecutive months and say Zarqawi, al Qaeda's leader in Iraq, has stored the nuclear device or dirty bomb in Afghanistan, said officials familiar with the intelligence.

It is still unclear if the source of this information is reliable, especially given the belief that if al Qaeda had a nuclear device they would not hesitate to use it. It seems that if they have actually obtained a nuke or dirty bomb, the most likely place they would use it is in Europe, primarily because of the relative ease of bringing it there as opposed to into the US.

The question then is if a nuke or dirty bomb were detonated in a European city, what would their reaction be? Undoubtedly, a sizeable segment of the European population will blame the US and/or Israel. But would such an attack have any effect on government policies? Would there be some kind of crackdown on Muslims or on immigration? My guess is that while there would probably be some internal changes, European foreign policy towards the Arab world or to the GWOT would remain pretty much the same as it is now - Arabist and anti-American. As to actually retaliating for such an attack, its hard to execute any type of military action when you don't have a military.

Palestinian Education

Mahmoud Abbas has so far refused to take the crucial step of disarming the terrorists groups operating in Gaza and Hamas. The reason he has given for failing to do this is that this would prompt a civil war in the PA. But, as Micah Halperin points out, there is a much simpler step he could take to show Israel that he is serious about peace - slightly alter the educational curriculum.

The official 10th grade Palestinian school curriculum teaches The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion.

The edition used in the schools is published in Syria. The curriculum never mentions that the Protocols are a forgery of the Russian secret police created by the Czar in order to generate the notorious myth that the Jews control the world.

One must ask: Why teach The Protocols if not to expose the work as a conspiracy theory of Antisemites? In any other context, what is the educational purpose behind teaching The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion to impressionable 10th graders given today's social and political climate?

In order to perpetuate the myth. We all know the answer. The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion has not been removed from the Palestinian school curriculum, the book has not been removed from school library shelves, only, ONLY, in order to perpetuate the myth.

The Palestinians continue to teach The Protocols because they are not yet committed to the reforms. And Mahmoud Abbas, as president, is the man responsible for re-educating or not re-educating his people, for implementing reforms or for letting them linger, ignored if not forgotten.

If the Palestinians refuse to do even this, it should raise serious doubts - for anyone still not harboring them - that the Palestinians really want peace.

Hillary the Politician

For the past few years, all the talk about Hillary has been about how good of a politician she is. It has been clear to everyone that she is planning to run for President - the New York Senate seat was merely a stepping stone - and that all of her positions have reflected her preparations for the Presidential campaign. Jay Cost thinks that all of her well telegraphed moves actually reflect the fact that she is a horrible politician, not the genius everyone thinks she is.

The answer to this question boils down to obviousness. Hillary's movement is a big deal first and foremost because everybody notices her movement. Mr. Frist and others do not get noticed because, while one can identify their political movements through systematic evaluation of their voting records, their positioning is more subtle. But not Hillary's. There is nothing subtle about her strategic positioning. Not a thing. Everybody talks about Hillary's political calculations not because they are brilliant but because they are obvious, because everything about Hillary screams "political calculation." There is nothing organic to her politics; it all seems artificial.

This is the sign of a bad politician. All politicians do the same things. They all change their views. They all move with the political currents. They are all flexible and pragmatic. What differentiates the good politician from the bad one is that you never notice that the good one is pragmatic. A good politician is as smooth as a well-aged single-malt scotch. Hillary is a bad politician. She is like that bottom-shelf blended garbage that sells for $12 a handle.

He may be right that she is a bad politician, but come the Presidential race all this will be irrelevant. She will be the darling of the press who will continue to convince us that she is brilliant.

Experts

Victor Hanson criticizes all those bien-pensants - Scowcroft, Brzezinski, Albright, among others - who keep coming up with reasons for why Bush's policy just wont work, and how they keep being wrong.

For the last year, such well-meaning former "wise people" have pretty much assured us that the Bush doctrine will not work and that the Arab world is not ready for Western-style democracy, especially when fostered through Western blood and iron.

But too often we discuss the present risky policy without thought of what preceded it or what might have substituted for it. Have we forgotten that the messy business of democracy was the successor, not the precursor, to a litany of other failed prescriptions? Or that there were never perfect solutions for a place like the Middle East - awash as it is in oil, autocracy, fundamentalism, poverty, and tribalism - only choices between awful and even more awful? Or that September 11 was not a sudden impulse on the part of Mohammed Atta, but the logical culmination of a long simmering pathology? Or that the present loudest critics had plenty of chances to leave something better than the mess that confronted the United States on September 12? Or that at a time of war, it is not very ethical to be sorta for, sorta against, kinda supportive, kinda critical of the mission - all depending on the latest sound bite from Iraq?

The EU and Hamas

The EU wants to be more involved in the Middle East "peace process". So far, Israel has resisted this involvement. In the past few days, some documents have come to light that may explain why.

In June 2002, Alistair Crooke, then security adviser of Miguel Moratinos, then EU special envoy to the Middle East (and currently foreign minister of Spain), met secretly in Gaza with a Hamas delegation headed by the organizations then-leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.

The veil of secrecy was broken, however, when the Israel Defense Forces seized a transcript of the meeting in November 2002 at the compound of the Palestinian Authority's Preventive Security Service in Gaza. The transcript has now been made available by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, based near Tel Aviv.

If a top EU official meeting with terrorist leadership is not bad enough, it is instructive to see Crooke's interaction with Yassin and the other terrorists.

Crooke: "We believe that the settlements are illegal. The European position on this matter is not vague. . . . The building of settlements must be brought to a complete halt. As for terrorism, I hate that word. I have spent some time in my life with freedom fighters like in Colombia. We were affected by the events of September 11. People cannot tolerate the sight of babies being killed, and that triggers an emotional response. When America reacted to the September 11 events, the Afghan people should not have paid the price for that."

This struck a responsive chord in Yassin: "Time will tell that . . . it was global Zionism that paralyzed the American security, so that war could be declared on the Islamic world and on Hamas. About 100-120 Zionist-American agents [knew about it] and did not report it. I do not rule out the possibility that they attempted to seduce Hamas [operatives] and other Islamic operatives [to do it]."

Crooke: "What Europe has done " [changing the subject:] We do not consider the political wing of Hamas to be a terrorist organization, and the same complaints were made regarding Fatah.'

For the EU, Hamas and the other Palestinian terror groups are "freedom fighters", and all those dead Jewish babies are an inconvenience.

Our Worst President

Ned Rice compares Jimmy Carter to the recently departed Pope. Needless to say, Jimmy comes up a bit short.

As our commander in chief, Jimmy Carter consistently displayed three basic characteristics: hapless incompetence, (what a charitable person might describe as) a distaste for confrontation and danger, and - paradoxically, given the first two - an almost cartoonishly inflated ego. In short, Jimmy Carter was the deputy sheriff Barney Fife of American presidents: alternatively bumbling, then petrified, then egomaniacal, then back to bumbling, and so on for four long, surreal years. One of history's true buffoons, Jimmy Carter was, at best, a post-Nixon electoral palate cleanser of a president whose sole contribution to America's legacy was readying the way for Reagan by his own ineptitude. Or to put it another way, Carter was the transitional boyfriend we dated briefly just after Nixon broke our heart and just before Reagan swept us off our feet. I do wish someone would tell Carter that: He still thinks he's the love of our life.

John Paul II, on the other hand, as a young seminarian risked death at the hands of the Nazis to complete his studies - then again later in life in defying not only the puppet government of his beloved Poland, but the Soviet monolith itself. The assassin's bullet he survived was nothing compared to what the Soviets might have done to the world if not for brave men like himself. President Jimmy Carter's naive, appeasement-based foreign-policy views only made that job harder and more necessary. Lucky for all of us the former Karol J. Wojtyla was up to the job.

Out of Ideas? Throw Food!

In the last few weeks, a number of prominent conservatives have endured culinary attacks; Bill Kristol and David Horowitz had pies thrown at them, while Pat Buchanan had salad dressing dumped on him. George Neumayer thinks that this is the natural reaction of liberalism's failed ideology, and will only lead to more violent acts as the left continues to lose power.

Underneath the robes, vestments, and suits they collected during their march through the institutions remained the grubby attire of radicalism only now visible as they return to their posture of primitive protesting -- a wild, speechless style of protest that throws light on liberalism's essential hostility to reason and morality. Why do liberals who regard themselves as apostles of Enlightenment reason resort so quickly to intimidation and primitive exertion of will? Because fundamentally liberalism is based not on reason but on force. It is a willfulness writ large that becomes more vivid as liberals lose power and fail to control a people unpersuaded by claims that find no basis in reality and thus cannot be calmly demonstrated by reason.

Ann Coulter, who was herself the target of one such attack, points out that this somewhat contradicts the liberals' assertions that they are the intellectual one.

More Academic Freedom

An interesting story of an economics professor's battle with the PC police at the University of Nevada. The comment that started his persecution was:

In March of 2004, during a 75 minute lecture in my Money and Banking class on time preference, interest, and capital, I presented numerous examples designed to illustrate the concept of time preference (or in the terminology of the sociologist Edward Banfield of "present- and future-orientation"). As one brief example, I referred to homosexuals as a group which, because they typically do not have children, tend to have a higher degree of time preference and are more present-oriented. I also noted--as have many other scholars--that J.M Keynes, whose economic theories were the subject of some upcoming lectures, had been a homosexual and that this might be useful to know when considering his short-run economic policy recommendation and his famous dictum "in the long run we are all dead."

This, of course, led to charges of a "hostile learning environment" and consequently a full out harassment of the professor by the university administration.

Killing Terrorists Bad?

Al-Reuters news service comes up with a ridiculous headline this morning: Israeli Soldiers Kill Militant, Straining Truce. Maybe, if the Palestinians actually lived up to their agreements and arrested terrorists, Israel would have no need to do this themselves.

Columbia Whitewash

Bruce Thornton writes an excellent critique of Columbia University's handling of the recent controversy over anti-Israel bias in its department of Middle East and Asian Languages and Cultures. The foxes were sent in to investigate the disappearance of chickens, and lo and behold didn't find any gone.

Appalling, But Not Surprising

France has so gotten used to appeasing hostile regimes, that it does not seem to know any other way to operate. Today we learn that Chirac has been pushing the EU-3 to accept Iran's "right" to enrich Uranium. At this point, it is no longer a surprise to be betrayed by France. More and more, it seems that the Iranian nuclear program will only end at the hands of the US or Israel.

Disgusting

We thought that academia in the US was anti-Israel. In the last week, England's academics have shown themselves to be even worse. Once again, they are proposing a boycott of Israeli academics, unless of course they renounce their government. There is nothing that I can say about this that Melanie Phillips has not said in this excellent article.

The motion has already been compared to McCarthyism. This is too kind. However cruel, illiberal and arbitrary that disturbing period was, a number of those who were hounded subsequently turned out to have actually been communists. By contrast, Israeli academics are to be persecuted for failing to denounce their own country for seeking to defend its citizens against genocidal mass murder. A more appropriate comparison would surely be the forced conversion of the Jews of Europe in the Middle Ages, or the show trials under Stalinism. For in true totalitarian tradition, only those in the pariah group who denounce their own will be permitted to have a livelihood. To survive in the cradle of free expression, Israelis will have to betray their own people in the cause of hatred and lies.

The Jerusalem Post editorial calls this the "antithesis of freethinking".

Bolton

It seems that the Left's objections to John Bolton's confirmation to the UN are grounded in the allegation that he has "disdain" for the UN. The obvious question then, is why does the Left not share that same disdain for an organization that in the past few years has embodied and propagated ideas that are supposedly antithetical to the beliefs of these "progressives". I don't think it's necessary to once again recount all of the UN scandals. The New York Sun's editorial perfectly addresses the Democrats' objections.

The fact is that the Senate hearings on the nomination of Mr. Bolton to the United Nations have been a classic case of what is wrong with the Democratic Party. Here we are in the midst of a war with Islamist terror, in the midst of a historical scandal over the oil-for-food program, in the midst of a crisis of credibility at the United Nations over the behavior of its peacekeeping forces, in the midst of a reform in the management and fundamental structures of the world body, and in the midst of a debate over whether the United Nations ought even to stay in New York. What do the Democrats do but fall to quibbling over the nominee who once dressed down a bureaucrat.

Abbas's Future

In today's Jerusalem Post, Barry Rubin looks at the situation of Mahmoud Abbas. His conclusion is similar to one that has been written about previously, namely that for all his nice talk and nice suits, Abbas is simply a nicer looking Arafat. His actions up to now, in relation both to Israel and to the terrorists in his midst, have in no way distinguished him from his predecessor. More importantly, his rule may be very short-lived. In the elections coming up in July Hamas is expected to triumph fairly handily over Fatah and Abbas. What the US's reaction to this would be is unclear. It would be difficult to reconcile negotiating with the PA headed by a group on the US terrorist list with the Bush Doctrine.

At the same time, IDF intelligence is warning that the Palestinians plan to return to the war that they have paused, and with greater ferocity. Throughout this hudna, all the terror groups have been re-equipping and recruiting. There are even reports that they have managed to smuggle Strella surface-to-air missiles into Gaza. All of this is happening because Abbas refuses to confront and dismantle these terror groups. Until he does that, any negotiations with him will lead nowhere.

Iran Continues Bubbling

Another report from Iran of demonstrations in a number of cities.

Street demonstrations calling for democratic reform are spreading in cities throughout western Iran.

The Iranian opposition has reported clashes between Kurdish pro-democracy forces and authorities in western Iran. The opposition said battles took place in Baneh, Mahabad, Marivan, Piranshahr and Sanandaj.

Interestingly, opposition sources are claiming that these demonstrations were inspired by elections in Iraq.

Censorship

A few years back, Boston Harbor was so polluted that if one took a bucket of water out of there, dumping it back into the harbor would be in violation of anti-pollution laws. Now it seems a similar thinking is being applied to the Koran.

If Kafka met Monty Python, and George Orwell edited their collaboration, they might have come up with something like the following real-life exchange.

It took place in an Australian court where two Christian pastors were found guilty of "religious vilification" of Muslims by lecturing to their flock on Islam. At one point during the trial, defendant Daniel Scot began to read Koranic verses in his own defense. The Pakistani-born pastor hoped to prove to the judge that his discussion of the inferior status of women under Islam, for example, had a specific textual basis in the Koran. As he began to read, a lawyer for the Islamic Council of Victoria, the plaintiff in the case, objected. Reading these verses aloud, she said, would in itself be vilification. Poor, ultimately convicted, Mr. Scot put it best: "How can it be vilifying to Muslims when I am just reading from the Koran?"

CAIR and various other Muslim groups haven't yet had the Koran banned, but they have forced NRO and others to stop selling other books critical of Islam.

Yad Vashem

In today's New Republic, Martin Peretz writes a very powerful article about the opening of the new Holocaust Memorial Museum in Jerusalem. The last paragraph, which is about Kofi Annan's participation in the opening ceremonies is truly scathing.

There was one discordant note in the opening ceremonies, and it was the participation of Kofi Annan. He had taken time out on his way to Jerusalem to pay homage at the Ramallah grave of Yasir Arafat, a certified legatee of the anti-Semitism of the Nazis. How diplomatic! The secretary-general's very presence evoked the offending memory of his predecessors: U Thant, who removed U.N. troops from the Sinai--a decade-old barrier to war between Israel and Egypt--on the command of Gamal Abdel Nasser, which unleashed the Six Day War; and, most grotesquely, Kurt Waldheim, whose personal role in the Final Solution to "the Jewish problem" was suppressed by the great powers and the U.N. bureaucracy. And what were Annan's qualifications for this ceremony? Well, he is an expert on genocide, an expert of a certain sort. In his diplomatic practice of the 1990s, in various U.N. posts, he became a genocide-denier, since he refused to act against the extermination wars in Bosnia, Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Sudan. If the history of our time is written honestly, it will record that Annan stood passively by as the new exterminators went to work. Shame will be his memorial, his everlasting name.

Middle East Negotiations

The land-for-peace negotiations formula has proven to be an unmitigated disaster - with Israel giving up tangible land for intangible promises of peace that have been all too easily broken. Today, Hizbullah has taken this formula one step further. Responding to the UN and US demand to disarm, Hizbullah has proposed that if Israel gives the Shebaa Farms to Lebanon - despite the fact that even the UN has ruled that this territory belonged to Syria - then they might be prepared to discuss disarming. I have very little doubt that the UN and Europe will seize this new formula and force Israel to withdraw from Shebaa Farms so that Hizbullah can move in there. I also have very little doubt that once Israel is forced to withdraw, Hizbullah will come up with another demand, and then another, and then another. Appeasement always works in the same way.

Arab Development

A few days ago, the UN released the latest Arab Human Development Report. As would be expected, these Arab intellectuals placed a large measure of blame for the lack of freedom and democracy in the Arab world on Israel and the United States, showing that the idea of actually looking inward and analyzing their problems has not yet fully taken hold. The US and Israel dismissed this analysis as "misguided". Yet, as Caroline Glick shows, despite the dismissal of these Arab claims, the policies of the US and Israel vis-a-vis the Arab-Israeli conflict are based on very similar logic.

The view among American policymakers and Israeli Foreign Ministry types, both egged on by their ideological bedfellows in Europe and the international Left is based on two presumptions. The first is that the Palestinian conflict with Israel is the cause of the Arab conflict with Israel. The second is that the Palestinians are weak and the Israelis are strong and that the way to solve the conflict is to strengthen the Palestinians and weaken Israel.

The second presumption is what leads both Israeli and American foreign policy elites to advocate Israeli surrender of land and rights to the Palestinians and to support Palestinian acquisition of arms, money and sovereignty.

The first presumption is what leads both Israel and the US to ignore the direct dependence of the Palestinian conflict with Israel on outside support by Arab League member states led by Egypt. Egypt, like the rest of the Arab world has never accepted Israel's inherent right to exist as a Jewish state in the Levant. Yet over the years, the rhetorical focus shifted from overt calls for Israel's destruction through war to overt calls for Israel's destruction through the establishment of a Palestinian state and unlimited immigration of millions of foreign born Arabs to Israel. These calls are obfuscated to a degree by a public fixation on the perceived weakness and actual misery of the 2.3 million Palestinians in Judea, Samaria and Gaza – both of which are blamed on Israel.

Daniel Pipes and others have long asserted that defining the Arab-Israeli conflict as an issue of Palestinians and a Palestinian state is wrong. The idea that a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians will lead to Arab rapprochement with Israel, is exactly backwards. The Arab-Israeli conflict can only end once Arab states fully accept Israel as a Jewish state in the Middle East. And for this to happen there will need to be a complete political and societal change in the Arab world. When Arab tyrants are no longer around to direct the frustration of their own people onto Israel and the United States, and instead to look critically at their own societies and come up with solutions to their own problems, only then will peace be possible in the Middle East. President Bush has embraced this concept and his policies of spreading democracy reflect that. The Arab world is tentatively wading into this democratic stream. Unfortunately, Europe's continued reliance on the policies of the past are giving Arab tyrants hope that they can outlast Bush and avoid the long necessary reforms.

The Hudna Goes On

The Palestinian "cease-fire" continues.

A Qassam rocket fired by Palestinian militants hit a cemetery in the Negev town of Sderot on Thursday evening, causing no damage and no injuries.

According to Israel Radio, the missile was probably fired from the Beit Hanun area of the northern Gaza Strip.

This seems to be a small indication of what is to come. According to this report, the IDF is preparing itself for a renewal and increase of the Oslo War in the fall of this year. As predicted, the Palestinians have spent their "cease-fire" time re-arming and preparing themselves for more attacks.

Already, a huge amount of weapons has been smuggled from Egypt's Sinai Peninsula to the Gaza Strip, the sources said. They estimated that more than 3,000 assault rifles, 400 pistols and 400,000 rounds of ammunition were brought into the Gaza Strip between July 2004 and February 2005. They said 600 kilograms of explosives have also been delivered to Palestinian insurgents.

Palestinian insurgency groups have also been amassing rockets and missiles, the sources said. They said the groups, particularly Fatah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, have acquired more than 180 anti-tank rocket launchers and five anti-aircraft missiles.

It is clear that Abbas has no control over the PA, with infighting spreading to his own party, and that the Palestinian elections, as well as the upcoming "dis-engagement" will not bring Israel one step closer to peace. Until the terrorists are completely wiped out, and the Palestinians fully realize that war will only bring them more and more misery, peace will be impossible. No agreements, no "cease-fires", no Road Maps will mean anything until Israel fully defeats the Palestinians.

France's Problem

Just about a month ago Paris experienced a race riot. I have not seen this reported in any major news outlets, yet what undeniably occurred should be a serious wake-up call to France. But judging from the way it has been swept under the rug, not just in the US press, but also in France, seems to show that France has no intention of confronting the most serious problem the country has faced since being overrun by the Nazis.

Olivier Guitta in the Weekly Standard describes what happened.

On March 8, tens of thousands of high school students marched through central Paris to protest education reforms announced by the government. Repeatedly, peaceful demonstrators were attacked by bands of black and Arab youths--about 1,000 in all, according to police estimates. The eyewitness accounts of victims, teachers, and most interestingly the attackers themselves gathered by the left-wing daily Le Monde confirm the motivation: racism.

Some of the attackers openly expressed their hatred of "little French people." One 18-year-old named Heikel, a dual citizen of France and Tunisia, was proud of his actions. He explained that he had joined in just to "beat people up," especially "little Frenchmen who look like victims." He added with a satisfied smile that he had "a pleasant memory" of repeatedly kicking a student, already defenseless on the ground.

Another attacker explained the violence by saying that "little whites" don't know how to fight and "are afraid because they are cowards." Rachid, an Arab attacker, added that even an Arab can be considered a "little white" if he "has a French mindset." The general sentiment was a desire to "take revenge on whites."

So if this really happened as described, why is no one talking about it? Most left wing organizations attributed these attacks to economics - an expression of a class struggle. Interestingly, the same people that downplayed and made excuses for anti-Semitic attacks are the same ones now trying to minimize the significance of these events. More and more it should be strikingly obvious to all but the willfully blind that France has a serious problem with its immigrant population - most of whom are Arab or North African, Muslim, unassimilated and oftentimes unassimilable. As the writer points out, these ethnic tensions are most evident in schools. In a study done for the inspector general of education, many of these issues are clear.

Obin discusses the attitudes of Muslim students, some as young as first graders. He reports, for instance, that Muslim students, asked their nationality, answer, "Muslim." When they are told that this is not a nationality and they are French, some insist that they can't be French since they are Muslim. This should come as no surprise. The presidential commission that examined the issue of secularism in 2003 reported that "extremist groups are working to test the Republic's strength and push some young people to reject France and her values."

Reading this after reading the recent interview with Bat Ye'or should be a wake-up call to everyone in the West that if something is not done, and soon, Europe will be lost.

Academic Diversity

It is pretty much an accepted fact at this point that university faculties are far to the left of the general population and even of their own students. This is one European professor's experience of the climate at an elite US liberal arts college.

In fact, their uncritically positive image of Europe astonished me so much that I began trying to convince them that they were wrong. (In the name of free speech and an educated academic conversation – things that you would expect to find on a college campus.) This turned out to be a bad idea: my colleagues slowly but steadily changed their attitude toward me. I refused to acknowledge that the politics in Europe was as superior as European wine, cars or cuisine. (In fact, I prefer California wine, I drive a Chevrolet and I love pumpkin pie!)

The most feverishly liberal among my colleagues now began looking at me as a traitor. One told me to stop expressing my political views when other faculty was around. Why? Because, he said, “I do not want to have to defend why we have a conservative here” at our department.

As much as this shocked me, I began talking to a close group of friends about it. I had realized that the overwhelming majority of my colleagues were radically liberal, effectively socialist. I had also realized that the overwhelming majority among them, in turn, would not tolerate dissenting political views on campus.

Jonah Goldberg looks at the inane arguments in Paul Krugman's latest column for why there aren't many Republican academics. The attitude on campus is best exemplified by this quote

Here’s a better example than anything Krugman musters. And I cite it simply because it was something I read just yesterday. These things happen every day. The historian John Moser, who has just written a fascinating biography of J. T. Flynn, recently went to the Organization of American Historians conference. While there he happened to mention to a colleague that he voted for Bush. She responded, "And yet you write books.”

Poor Jimmy

President Bush is heading to Rome today for the funeral of the Pope, with an official delegation that includes Presidents Clinton and Bush (pere). One President noticeably not included in this delegation is Jimmy Carter. It seems that despite his entreaties, President Bush refused to invite him. After all of Carter's criticisms of the President - something not traditionally done by ex-presidents, especially abroad - its not that surprising that Bush wants nothing to do with him. The Prowler has the story.

Eurabia

A very interesting interview with Bat Ye'or from the American Thinker. She explains better than anyone why it is that Europe is so anti-American and anti-Israel. And not surprisingly, it all started with France.

Thanks, Ward

This month's New Criterion thanks Ward Churchill for bringing the issue of "academic freedom" and "free speech" to the forefront. They make an important distinction between the two, and speculate that as more people note that distinction, there will be a backlash against the leftist radicalism currently present in the universities.

Moral Authority

From today's Washington Times:

The world's most repressive countries hold more than a quarter of the seats in the Geneva-based U.N. Human Rights Commission and their presence has subverted the panel's mandate, a respected watchdog group reported yesterday.

In its annual report on the world's biggest human-rights abusers, Freedom House lists 18 countries as the "worst of the worst regimes" and notes that six of them -- China, Cuba, Eritrea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Zimbabwe -- are members of the commission.

This is, of course, the organization that claims moral authority and regularly issues condemnations of Israel's human rights record. UN delenda est.

Palestinian Civil War

Yesterday members of the al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade fired shots at the Muqata, the Palestinian seat of government, while Abbas was inside. The al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade is actually a part of Abbas's Fatah faction which made this attack somewhat strange. Now it seems that this is just a continuation of the power struggles not just within the Palestinian Authority as a whole, but also within Fatah. A few of the shooters were terrorists who had been holed up in the Muqata for the past 4 1/2 years because they were on Israel's wanted list and were being protected by Arafat and then Abbas. It seems that after this latest incident, they have lost their protection.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas Thursday expelled a group of militants from his West Bank headquarters who had been given refuge by Yasser Arafat, a spokesman for the gunmen said.

Abbas ordered the 26 out after half a dozen of the gunmen -- from his ruling Fatah faction -- fired at his Muqata compound in Ramallah overnight while he was inside and then rampaged through the city, damaging shops. No casualties were reported.

One might think that this might spur the Palestinian Authority to actually confront these terrorists, but beyond their declarations they will once again do nothing.

Palestinian officials on Thursday backed away from a declaration that they would go after gunmen who shot up Mahmoud Abbas' office building and rampaged through Ramallah, underlining the difficulties authorities face in restoring order in the chaotic West Bank.

Abbas, who was in the building but was not hurt in the gunfire late Wednesday, ordered a crackdown, and security officials said the renegades had "crossed a red line" by attacking the seat of government. But in the light of day, the officials adopted a conciliatory line, and one admitted they feared coming under armed attack themselves.

The Politics of Churlishness

That is the title of Martin Peretz's excellent article in The New Republic.

If George W. Bush were to discover a cure for cancer, his critics would denounce him for having done it unilaterally, without adequate consultation, with a crude disregard for the sensibilities of others. He pursued his goal obstinately, they would say, without filtering his thoughts through the medical research establishment. And he didn't share his research with competing labs and thus caused resentment among other scientists who didn't have the resources or the bold - perhaps even somewhat reckless -instincts to pursue the task as he did. And he completely ignored the World Health Organization, showing his contempt for international institutions. Anyway, a cure for cancer is all fine and nice, but what about aids?

I have written before about the Left continually "moving the goalposts" on Iraq and the GWOT, primarily because they can not bring themselves to admit that Bush could have been right about anything. And by doing so they have marginalized themselves, and given the impression that they would rather have the US fail in its enterprise in the Middle East than for Bush to be proven right.

One does not have to admire a lot about George W. Bush to admire what he has so far wrought. One need only be a thoughtful American with an interest in proliferating liberalism around the world. And, if liberals are unwilling to proliferate liberalism, then conservatives will. Rarely has there been a sweeter irony.

Hanson Interview

Victor Hanson was recently interviewed by the editor of al-Watan, a Saudi Arabian daily newspaper. Both the questions of the Saudi editor as well as Hanson's answers are pretty interesting. i wonder how much of the interview actually made it into al-Watan.

Head in the Sand

A new poll by CNN released yesterday shows that Europe continues to engage in wishful thinking and delusion.

Almost six out of 10 adults in Britain, France and Germany say that Iran does not pose a nuclear threat to Europe, according to the findings of a new CNN/TIME poll.

This seems to be the triumph of hope over experience and it is followed today by a release from the NCRI - National Council of Resistance of Iran - that Iran has sought to acquire nuclear warheads. This dissident group has been repeatedly correct about Iran's nuclear program, and it is therefore very worrying if they are correct once again about this aspect of Iran's nuclear pursuits. They did not say whether Iran had actually managed to procure these warheads, so there is clearly the possibility that Iran already has as many as three nuclear warheads. Coupled with the revelation last week of Iran's acquisition of a dozen nuclear capable cruise missiles from Ukraine, and with Iran's continuing ballistic missile program, one has to ask "what are the Europeans thinking?".

It seems to me that in part, this is a reaction to the Bush Administration's push on Iran. The Europeans seem to be saying that whatever Bush thinks, they want to be on the opposite side. It also probably has to do with the fact that even if Iran is a real nuclear threat to Europe, there is very little they can do about it. Diplomatically they have achieved nothing over the past few years except give Iran more time. And militarily they are completely impotent. Being unable to do anything about Iran, they seem to have decided to close their eyes and ignore it. Of course, putting your head in the sand inevitably exposes your other end.

The funniest post I will ever make… ever!!!!

Ok… so if you do the following and you don’t laugh out loud, then I’m sorry… you need to hang out with grandma and check back in when you have your sense of humor recalibrated.

Go to the following site… "asksnoop"

Then type in the URL for your favorite web site (the Nudnik File is mine as a for instance). I am not responsible for this site, but am proud to pass on the yuks.

A funny repost....

This is a reprint of a post that I plagiarized from Craigslist.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

A Marine squad was marching north of Basra when they came upon an insurgent soldier badly injured and unconscious. Nearby, on the opposite side of the road, was an American Marine in a similar but less serious state. The Marine was conscious and alert. As first aid was given to both men, the Marine was asked what had happened. The Marine reported, "I was heavily armed and moving north along the highway and coming south was a heavily armed insurgent. Seeing each other we both took cover."

"What happened then?" He responded, "I yelled to him that Saddam Hussein was a miserable low-life scumbag, and he yelled back, 'Teddy Kennedy is a rich, good-for-nothing fat drunk.' We were standing there shaking hands when a truck hit us."

Changing Momentum

The Washington Times carries a report this morning about the momentum shift taking place in Iraq. Since the elections in Iraq, the number and lethality of attacks by "insurgents" has dropped off significantly. More importantly, it seems that more and more Iraqis are taking responsibility for their own security, as opposed to relying on US forces.

The favorable trends do not mean that insurgents cannot pull off spectacularly deadly attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces.

On Thursday, 11 Iraqi policemen were killed by a single suicide bomber, most likely a terrorist in the employ of Jordanian-born Abu Musab Zarqawi.

But Iraqis continue to sign up. After an even bloodier attack in January against Iraqis in line to apply for police jobs, a still-longer line formed the next day at the same spot, said a U.S. Army officer in Iraq.

And last week, merchants and residents on one of Baghdad's main streets joined the fight by using their own guns to kill three terrorists, who were firing on passers-by.

Maj. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, who commands the Army's 1st Cavalry Division and just returned from a year-plus tour overseeing Baghdad, is telling audiences that Osama bin Laden made a crucial mistake when he publicly encouraged Zarqawi.

It meant that the Saudi bin Laden was telling the Jordanian Zarqawi to slaughter Iraqis.

The insurgents also have seemed to change their tactics. In the past week, there were a couple of direct head-on confrontations with US and Iraqi forces. In each of these, the "insurgents" suffered huge losses, while inflicting very few casualties. These would seem to be acts of desperation, since it should be clear to anyone that head-on engagements with US troops are sure to be losing ones.

Drudge is reporting now that the Iraqis are saying that Zarqawi is surrounded.

Iraqi Interior Minister Falah al-Nakib announced today that AbuMusab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al Qaeda in Mesopotamia (Iraq), has been surrounded.

The Sofia News Agency reports the Interior Minister as saying, "He is surrounded in a certain area, and we hope for the best'

Of course the press, as Lawrence Kaplan points out, still does not notice the changing trend.

Good-bye Terri, and Good-bye to the Nudnik's

This will be my last post for the Nudnik File. And since it is hard to think about anything in the news other than the plight of Terri Schiavo, I'd like to take this opportunity to make the case why this whole Terri Schiavo story is so wrong.

I recognize that Terri's mother and father have lost, her "husband" has won, and as a result Terri will die sometime in the next few days. Dozens of judges have ruled on this case (well, only one judge has reviewed the actual facts of the case, while dozens of other judges have merely ruled on the initial judge's findings, despite new evidence that has come to light since the initial ruling) ... But the case has been ruled upon by virtually every court in the land. The Governor of Florida, the Senate, the House of Representatives and the President of the United States have all weighed in. And despite all of these efforts, Terri will still die.

We don't know if this is what she wanted, other than to take the word of her husband (a man who may have abused her, according to many). She didn't leave a living will. He claims she mentioned something to him once. It is odd that he failed to mention this prior to 1997 (seven years after Terri's initial injury), when he first made this claim. His sworn testimony is contradictory on the matter. But the point is: she may want to die - she may not. We just don't know.

We also don't know what her true condition is. Her "husband" has refused access and denied treatment. Some claim that she is in a permanent vegetative state. Many disagree. Many who watch the video of Terri interacting with her parents find it hard to believe that she is.

So even though we don't know if this is what she wanted, and even if we don't know whether she is in a permanent vegetative state or not, Terri will still die, simply because this is the wish of her estranged husband (a man who is now living with another woman, who has borne two of his children - an act that would result in a "common law" marriage if it were to have occurred in one of 12 other States in the Union other than Florida, and therefore would legally prevent him from being allowed to serve as Terri's guardian).

And the really disturbing part to me is that most of the country (as well as bloggers and readers of this site) agree with this outcome (according to these FoxNews Polls and ABCNews Polls) as well as comments to my recent post titled "A Sad Day in Florida".

I am personally appalled by all of this, and embarrassed for my country (and to a lesser degree, for my blog).

But enough of that - and enough of all of this. On to business.

So why is this Terri Schiavo story all so wrong? We all know her story is sad. Very few enjoy seeing another die. But what makes this so wrong?

Well, there are two main issues that factor into it:

Reason #1: Michael Schiavo should not be Terri's guardian.

Michael Schiavo is not representing Terri's interests. This Affidavit of Carla Iyer, R.N. (Original PDF file of affidavit by Carla Iyer, Registered Nurse) speaks for itself:

9. Throughout my time at Palm Gardens, Michael Schiavo was focused on Terri's death. Michael would say "When is she going to die?," "Has she died yet?" and "When is that bitch gonna die?" These statements were common knowledge at Palm Gardens, as he would make them casually in passing, without regard even for who he was talking to, as long as it was a staff member. Other statements which I recall him making include "Can't you do anything to accelerate her death - won't she ever die?"

Michael Schiavo may have abused Terri. Note this excerpt from a detailed account posted in Wikipedia:

A bone scan done one year after her injury showed (according to the radiologist who evaluated it) that she had also suffered previous traumatic injuries to multiple ribs (on both sides), to both sacroiliac joints, to both knees, to both ankles, to several thoracic vertebrae, and to her right thigh, plus a minor compression fracture of the L1 vertebra. Mrs. Schiavo's family did not know of the existence of this scan until November 2002.

Michael Schiavo has violated Terri's rights. Just read a few of these excerpts from "Myths about Terri" at terrisfight.org:

MYTH: Terri does not need rehabilitation
FACT: Florida Statute 744.3215 Rights of persons determined incapacitated:

(1) A person who has been determined to be incapacitated retains the right
(i) To receive necessary services and rehabilitation.

This is a retained right that a guardian cannot take away. Additionally, it does not make exception for PVS patients. Terri has illegally been denied rehabilitation - as many nurses have sworn in affidavits.

MYTH: Removal of food was both legal and court-ordered.
FACT: The courts had only allowed removal of Terri's feeding tube, not regular food and water. Terri's husband illegally ordered this. The law only allows the removal of "life-prolonging procedures," not regular food and water:

Florida Statute 765.309 Mercy killing or euthanasia not authorized; suicide distinguished. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to condone, authorize, or approve mercy killing or euthanasia, or to permit any affirmative or deliberate act or omission to end life other than to permit the natural process of dying.

For a complete list of Violations of Florida Statutes against Terri Schiavo, click here.

Reason #2: Terri Schiavo is not in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS).

A good explanation is contained in these excerpts from "Myths about Terri" at terrisfight.org:

MYTH: Terri is PVS (Persistent vegetative state)
FACT: The definition of PVS in Florida Statue 765.101:
Persistent vegetative state means a permanent and irreversible condition of unconsciousness in which there is:

(a) The absence of voluntary action or cognitive behavior of ANY kind.
(b) An inability to communicate or interact purposefully with the environment.

Terri's behavior does not meet the medical or statutory definition of persistent vegetative state. Terri responds to stimuli, tries to communicate verbally, follows limited commands, laughs or cries in interaction with loved ones, physically distances herself from irritating or painful stimulation and watches loved ones as they move around her. None of these behaviors are simple reflexes and are, instead, voluntary and cognitive. Though Terri has limitations, she does interact purposefully with her environment.

MYTH: Many doctors have said that there is no hope for her.
FACT: Dr. Victor Gambone testified that he visits Terri 3 times a year. His visits last for approximately 10 minutes. He also testified, after viewing the court videotapes at Terri’s recent trial, that he was surprised to see Terri’s level of awareness. This doctor is part of a team hand-picked by her husband, Michael Schiavo, shortly before he filed to have Terri’s feeding removed. Contrary to Schiavo’s team, 14 independent medical professionals (6 of them neurologists) have given either statements or testimony that Terri is NOT in a Persistent Vegetative State. Additionally, there has never been any medical dispute of Terri’s ability to swallow. Even with this compelling evidence, Terri’s husband, Michael Schiavo, has denied any form of therapy for her for over 10 years.

Dr. Melvin Greer, appointed by Schiavo, testified that a doctor need not examine a patient to know the appropriate medical treatment. He spent approximately 45 minutes with Terri. Dr. Peter Bambakidis, appointed by Judge Greer, spent approximately 30 minutes with Terri. Dr. Ronald Cranford, also appointed by Schiavo and who has publicly labeled himself “Dr. Death”, spent less than 45 minutes examining and interacting with Terri.

More evidence about this can be found in the following excerpts from affidavit by Heidi Law, a nurse who cared for Terri in 1997: (Original PDF file of affidavit by Heidi Law, Certified Nursing Assistant)

11. On one occasion Michael Schiavo arrived with his girlfriend, and they entered Terri's room together. I heard Michael tell his girlfriend that Terri was in a persistent vegetative state and was dying. After they left Olga [another nurse at the hospital] told me that Terri was extremely agitated and upset, and wouldn't react to anyone.

[...]

15. During the time I cared for Terri, she formed words. I have heard her say "mommy" from time to time and "momma," and she also said "help me" a number of times. She would frequently make noises when she was trying to talk. Other staff members talked about her verbalizations.

And if you still think that Terri is in a permanent vegetative state, just watch this video and you'll see the only person in the world who has ever been in a permanent vegetative state who could actually laugh at her father's jokes.

So, if all of this information doesn't convince you that 1) this is a travesty, 2) Michael Schiavo has not acted in Terri's interests as he should (and per Florida law), and 3) the starvation and dehydration of Terri is wrong and she should be allowed to receive treatment per the wishes of her parents (and per Florida law), then I'm not sure what will.

And if it did convince you, then you should be appalled too. It's not good enough to say "yeah, I agree, it's wrong, but it's not the government's place to get involved." What if the government said that in the 1960's about desegration or other civil rights abuses? What if the case was about Jewish rights being violated and a judge not recognizing it as such? Should the federal government just ignore this and not get involved?

This kind of stuff should not happen in a country like ours. The United States is better than this. If our system allows Terri's rights to be violated in this manner, then it allows yours and mine to be violated as well. I usually don't take interest in these kinds of stories - ya know: the amber alerts, the child sexual abusers, the courthouse / schoolroom shootings ... it's just not news to me. They are all sad stories, but I must admit that I am quite jaded and recognize that we live in a world divided between good and evil - and that there is real evil in our world. And when that evil strikes one individual, to be perfectly honest, it usually doesn't phase me. Another kid got abducted / raped / killed. Whatever. It happens every day. No big deal. And please don't judge me - it's just a recognition of the sad state of affairs in our world.

But this is different. This is about our government - and what it will allow and not allow to occur in our society. And it's just wrong. It's not only a sad day in Florida (as I have been posting this past week), but it's a sad day for the rule of law in our country. For the first time in my life, I am somewhat embarrassed to be an American knowing that my country's government has allowed the events of this past week to transpire.

I could go on and on about how our judicial branch of government is out of control. But you would be better served reading Mark Levin's new book Men In Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America.

Instead, I'll share a funny with ya at a time when things aren't so funny.

An extremely non-religious friend of mine told me today that this all reminded him of the movie, The Seventh Sign - remember the last sign? The death of innocence? I think the Bible actually refers to it as "Martyrdom." But the movie manifested this as the execution of a retarded kid that wound up being the straw that broke the camel's back and lead to the coming of the apocalypse.

I don't think that the world is coming to an end, I just thought it was an interesting thought for a non-religious guy like him to have at a time like this.

And why will this be my last post? Well, life has become quite busy for me. And to be honest, Nudnikette has quite often asked me to stop posting certain opinions and images on this blog. So has it been requested, so shall it be done.

I would feel remiss if I were to create discord in the house of Nudnik, so good-bye all. And good-bye Terri. May God have mercy on you (and all of us as well for allowing this to happen). And this is coming from a not-very-religious person.

Enjoy your blog! Happy Purim! And don't eat too much hamantaschen! (you may get sick if you eat too many because of all the Arab blood we use to make 'em!)




Original files for independent research on Terri Shiavo's story can be found at:
http://www.terrisfight.org/
http://www.zimp.org/stuff
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo