Space Ship Sex: A Recipe for Disaster?

(EDITOR'S NOTE: Ahem. What can I say? The notion of intercourse while on a direct course for Mars makes for an enlightened conversation. The first rational suggestion that might be made is to mandate an all-male crew for the journey to Mars and thus mitigate the likelihood of relationship difficulties while en route. Unfortunately, practical experience take from prisons, military barracks, and heterosexuals confined together in precarious environs easily demonstrates that these astronauts will certainly have to come to grips with the potential for relationship flareups, to speak nothing of retro-burn flares. Perhaps the solution lies in sending couples. Mixed doubles anyone?

In the excerpts below from his article, Charles Arthur highlights rumors that Nasa has offered a few suggestions of their own. -EBO)


Sex, the Final Frontier: Nasa Acts to Ensure that Astronauts Don't Follow Their Urges
By CHARLES ARTHUR
The Independent
Thursday, April 29, 2004

In the First World War, frontline troops who were away from their loved ones for long periods famously had bromide put into their tea to reduce the distraction of their sexual drive. But yesterday it was suggested that such measures might be taken a lot further - to Mars, in fact.

"Nasa is talking about the chemical sterilisation of astronauts on longer journeys," Dr [Rachel] Armstrong said, in a talk discussing the problems humanity may face in trying to reach the planets and, eventually, the stars.

Douglas Powell, a psychology professor at Harvard University who was recruited in 1999 by Nasa to investigate the behavioural needs of long-term space trips, said: "Like anywhere, these are normal healthy people in their prime and they are sexually active so they are going to get involved with each other. So what's going to happen in space? It's a serious question and it needs to be confronted."

He noted the comments of one Russian cosmonaut about time spent cooped up in the Mir space station that "when you have two people locked up in a very small environment for months at a time, all the conditions for murder are met." Mix in sex, and you almost have the script of Othello in space.

"Alongside that is the idea that the ideal Mars mission would have - in Star Trek terms - two Mr Scotts and two Mr Spocks, and definitely no Captain Kirks, or Mr Sulus, or Dr McCoys. You need the Scotts to do the engineering stuff, and the Spocks to do the science. You don't need a Kirk because all he does is issue orders - and kiss any woman in sight."

Charles Arthur is the Technology Editor for The Independent.

Parachute Use to Prevent Death and Major Trauma Related to Gravitational Challenge

(EDITOR'S NOTE: This article is really for Edward and his father. It stems from an discussion that we had several years ago about whether all existing and new surgical procedures should undergo prospective, randomized, controlled, blinded, clinical trials (very rigorous testing... the highest level of testing short of actual direct human experimentation - which is unethical) to prove efficacy prior to widespread adoption.

Some doctors, from a non-surgical perspective, have attacked the practice of surgery for being behind in this area.

Most new medications are required to go through this process (though many, like aspirin, never did). This type of testing is much easier to perform on medical interventions. While it is true that some operations, such as coronary bypass grafting (commonly referred to "open heart surgery for clogged arteries") have never undergone this type of rigorous testing, there are endless counterexamples. For instance, the surgical literature that I have to go through every month is truly staggering.

In general, I accept that the highest level of evidence possible is desirable. However, there are some situations where the one intervention is so clearly superior to another that this expensive and impractical testing is superfluous. Examples include appendicitis, major vehicular trauma, and...parachutes. It turns out that parachutes have never been tested to that degree of rigor. When I saw this article in the British Journal of Medicine, I couldn't resist posting it. It's pretty funny and even better in the original PDF format linked to above. -BBM)


Parachute Use to Prevent Death and Major Trauma Related to Gravitational Challenge: Systematic Review of Randomised Controlled Trials
by Gordon C S Smith, Professor* and Jill P Pell, Consultant

Conclusions
As with many interventions intended to prevent ill health, the effectiveness of parachutes has not been subjected to rigorous evaluation by using randomised controlled trials. Advocates of evidence based medicine have criticised the adoption of interventions evaluated by using only observational data. We think that everyone might benefit if the most radical protagonists of evidence based medicine organised and participated in a double blind, randomised, placebo controlled, crossover trial of the parachute.

Introduction
The parachute is used in recreational, voluntary sector, and military settings to reduce the risk of orthopaedic, head, and soft tissue injury after gravitational challenge, typically in the context of jumping from an aircraft. The perception that parachutes are a successful intervention is based largely on anecdotal evidence. Observational data have shown that their use is associated with morbidity and mortality, due to both failure of the intervention1 2 and iatrogenic complications.3 In addition, "natural history" studies of free fall indicate that failure to take or deploy a parachute does not inevitably result in an adverse outcome.4 We therefore undertook a systematic review of randomised controlled trials of parachutes.

Discussion
-Evidence based pride and observational prejudice
It is a truth universally acknowledged that a medical intervention justified by observational data must be in want of verification through a randomised controlled trial. Observational studies have been tainted by accusations of data dredging, confounding, and bias.7 For example, observational studies showed lower rates of ischaemic heart disease among women using hormone replacement therapy, and these data were interpreted as advocating hormone replacement for healthy women, women with established ischaemic heart disease, and women with risk factors for ischaemic heart disease.8 However, randomised controlled trials showed that hormone replacement therapy actually increased the risk of ischaemic heart disease,9 indicating that the apparent protective effects seen in observational studies were due to bias. Cases such as this one show that medical interventions based solely on observational data should be carefully scrutinised, and the parachute is no exception.

-Natural history of gravitational challenge
The effectiveness of an intervention has to be judged relative to non-intervention. Understanding the natural history of free fall is therefore imperative. If failure to use a parachute were associated with 100% mortality then any survival associated with its use might be considered evidence of effectiveness. However, an adverse outcome after free fall is by no means inevitable. Survival has been reported after gravitation challenges of more than 10 000 metres (33 000 feet).4 In addition, the use of parachutes is itself associated with morbidity and mortality.1-3 10 This is in part due to failure of the intervention. However, as with all interventions, parachutes are also associated with iatrogenic complications.3 Therefore, studies are required to calculate the balance of risks and benefits of parachute use.

-The parachute and the healthy cohort effect
One of the major weaknesses of observational data is the possibility of bias, including selection bias and reporting bias, which can be obviated largely by using randomised controlled trials. The relevance to parachute use is that individuals jumping from aircraft without the help of a parachute are likely to have a high prevalence of pre-existing psychiatric morbidity. Individuals who use parachutes are likely to have less psychiatric morbidity and may also differ in key demographic factors, such as income and cigarette use. It follows, therefore, that the apparent protective effect of parachutes may be merely an example of the "healthy cohort" effect. Observational studies typically use multivariate analytical approaches, using maximum likelihood based modelling methods to try to adjust estimates of relative risk for these biases. Distasteful as these statistical adjustments are for the cognoscenti of evidence based medicine, no such analyses exist for assessing the presumed effects of the parachute.

-The medicalisation of free fall
It is often said that doctors are interfering monsters obsessed with disease and power, who will not be satisfied until they control every aspect of our lives (Journal of Social Science, pick a volume). It might be argued that the pressure exerted on individuals to use parachutes is yet another example of a natural, life enhancing experience being turned into a situation of fear and dependency. The widespread use of the parachute may just be another example of doctors' obsession with disease prevention and their misplaced belief in unproved technology to provide effective protection against occasional adverse events.

What is already known about this topic
-Parachutes are widely used to prevent death and major injury after gravitational challenge
-Parachute use is associated with adverse effects due to failure of the intervention and iatrogenic injury
-Studies of free fall do not show 100% mortality

What this study adds
-No randomised controlled trials of parachute use have been undertaken
-The basis for parachute use is purely observational, and its apparent efficacy could potentially be explained by a "healthy cohort" effect
-Individuals who insist that all interventions need to be validated by a randomised controlled trial need to come down to earth with a bump

Parachutes and the military industrial complex
However sinister doctors may be, there are powers at large that are even more evil. The parachute industry has earned billions of dollars for vast multinational corporations whose profits depend on belief in the efficacy of their product. One would hardly expect these vast commercial concerns to have the bravery to test their product in the setting of a randomised controlled trial. Moreover, industry sponsored trials are more likely to conclude in favour of their commercial product,11 and it is unclear whether the results of such industry sponsored trials are reliable.

A call to (broken) arms
Only two options exist. The first is that we accept that, under exceptional circumstances, common sense might be applied when considering the potential risks and benefits of interventions. The second is that we continue our quest for the holy grail of exclusively evidence based interventions and preclude parachute use outside the context of a properly conducted trial. The dependency we have created in our population may make recruitment of the unenlightened masses to such a trial difficult. If so, we feel assured that those who advocate evidence based medicine and criticise use of interventions that lack an evidence base will not hesitate to demonstrate their commitment by volunteering for a double blind, randomised, placebo controlled, crossover trial.

*Gordon C S Smith is a Professor in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Cambridge University, Cambridge CB2 2QQ, 2 Department of Public Health, Greater Glasgow NHS Board, Glasgow G3 8YU, email: gcss2@cam.ac.uk.

Mr. Lincoln Gives a Press Conference - September 1, 1864

(EDITOR'S NOTE: Edward has brought to my attention that some of the people reading this Blog have expressed concerns that the discourse often focuses on Iraq, or on the role of American power in a dangerous world. There have been requests for more variety. I'll try to comply, but it would also be great if our readers would email in any articles or stories that are interesting or noteworthy and we will endeavor to post the more memorable efforts.

With that said, Iraq and the power structure questions surrounding the role of America are THE stories of the day, and probably of this generation. While hoping to not overly tax attention spans, I'll continue to post those articles that explore these vital questions. After all, the battle to change the fundamentally 'il-liberal' nature of the Middle East will have to take place at some point: we can address it now or in 5-15 years when nuclear weapons are likely to be involved.

Here are some excerpts from a great, and humerous, article by the ever outstanding Victor Davis Hanson. It is always good to think about things from historical perspectives in order to gain a better level of clarity. -BBM)


Mr. Lincoln Gives a Press Conference - September 1, 1864
by VICTOR DAVIS HANSON
Wednesday, April 28, 2004

-Some thoughts to keep in mind as we surround Fallujah

Mr. Lincoln, you promised victory over our enemies, but as the recent attack on our capital itself by General Early proves, isn’t it more accurate to say you cannot even protect us from assault in our own homes? Can you right now guarantee that we will not see another surprise attack on Washington?

Mr. President, we are now in the fourth year of what clearly has become a quagmire with no end in sight. Opposition to your conduct of the war is growing by the day. Do you attribute this present mess to your own failure to communicate?

Mr. Lincoln, will you please respond to charges that you used the attack on Fort Sumner as cover to wage a preplanned war to punish the South?

Mr. Lincoln, please. Almost every day now we hear of our soldiers being killed with little progress in either Virginia or Georgia. Can you tell us why General Sherman seems unwilling or unable to take Atlanta? And was it, in fact, a mistake to send General Sherman deep into the South, when the greater enemy, General Lee and his Army of Northern Virginia, are still undefeated in near sight of our capital? If we cannot pacify Virginia, why in God’s name are we in Georgia? Isn’t Sherman diverting attention from the real enemy near our capital?

With all due respect, Mr. President, may I ask why and how after months of searching and constant patrols, no one can find, much less capture Nathan Bedford Forrest, who as a result has become a folk hero to millions?

Mr. President, why after years of occupation are there still killings and assassinations in Missouri and Kentucky? Were not these areas supposed to have been pacified long ago?

Mr. Lincoln, would you please respond to General McClellan’s charges at the recent Chicago convention that with the establishment of the Emancipation Proclamation you misled this nation in the reasons you gave for this war. Is it not true, Mr. President, that you assured Americans that you have started this war to preserve the Union and protect federal property in the South? Yet now you claim that in fact our sons are dying to free slaves and provide equality to the Negro? What was the real reason, Mr. Lincoln, that you cooked up this war and got us into this mess, and why did you not tell us the full story when the shooting started?

Mr. President, Sir, do you not think it is high time now to apologize for this summer’s slaughter in Virginia, and the thousands of poor innocent boys who were butchered there due to the ignorance and incompetence of your generals, about whose shortcomings you most surely knew? Can we at least have from you an “I’m sorry” to all the kin of the poor dead?

Mr. Lincoln: We have now seen a long train of failure. And after the removal of Generals McDowell, Hooker, Pope, and a score of others, isn’t it clear that you have no clear idea how to defeat the enemy, much less the proper person to lead us out of this present and mostly unnecessary mess?

Isn’t it also true Mr. President, that in light of the recent draft riots and attrition in the field, we have too few troops at the front? Why are we not committing another 40,500 soldiers now to ensure that we never see again anything like these recent weeks of constant Confederate aggression?

Rumors are flying, Mr. President, of general unhappiness in your cabinet, and of statements by Mr. Stanton and others that you are simply not qualified either in temperament or character to finish the war—and especially that you were obsessed with freeing the slaves and starting this war when the southern states wished only to leave in peace and posed no direct threat to the security of the United States? Why is it, Mr. President, that so many of your ex-friends and subordinates now speak so poorly about you?

Now that this war clearly has failed to reunite the Union and that you, Sir, will not be reelected as President of the United States, can you at last admit where you were in error and to the mistakes that led us to our present defeat?

Gentlemen of the Press. I have ordered General Sherman to take Atlanta. And when he succeeds, I think all your questions shall be answered.

Keeping U.S. Jobs at Home

(EDITOR'S NOTE: Kerry has proposes a reduction in the corporate tax rate. Good policy? Perhaps in part, but not for the reasons you might think. Read some excerpts from an article in the Washington Post below. -BBM)


By ROBERT SAMUELSON
The Washington Post
Wednesday, April 28, 2004

Start with the widely believed notion that U.S. companies are ferociously shifting jobs abroad. This is an exaggeration. Of course, some jobs have been lost as a result of the growing trade deficit, now roughly $500 billion. But the trade deficit mainly reflects faster economic growth in the United States than abroad and the dollar's high exchange rate. Both hurt U.S. exports and spur imports. As foreign economic growth improves and the dollar drops, the trade deficit should stabilize or decline.

What's untrue is that American multinationals -- those with operations here and abroad -- have progressively abandoned the United States for locations with lower wages or lower taxes. Interestingly, American multinationals are almost as rooted in the United States now as a quarter-century ago. Here's what the data from the Commerce Department show:

-In 2002 American multinationals had 73.1 percent of their global employment in the United States, down slightly from 77.9 percent in 1977.

-Capital spending is concentrated here. In 2002 these companies spent $467 billion on factories, offices and equipment; 75 percent was in the United States, compared with 79.8 percent in 1977 (the peak year was 1985, at 83.5 percent).

-Global production -- not surprisingly -- is also located mainly in the United States. In 2001 (the latest year available) U.S. multinationals based 77 percent of production here, up from 75.3 percent in 1977.

...Still, wouldn't Kerry's plan shift jobs to the United States? Probably not.

First, some background. Under U.S. tax law, American multinationals receive a tax credit (a dollar-for-dollar offset) for foreign taxes they've actually paid. They can also defer paying any more U.S. taxes on foreign profits until those profits are repatriated -- that is, returned -- to the United States. Although this seems generous, it's not generous compared with what many countries (say, France or Germany) do. They don't tax the foreign profits of their multinational firms at all. As a result, many U.S. companies keep foreign profits abroad to minimize their U.S. taxes and stay competitive with foreign rivals. Unrepatriated profits have accumulated to more than $600 billion.

What Kerry proposes is lowering the U.S. corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 33.25 percent -- and limiting the ability of U.S. multinationals to defer taxes on future foreign profits. The idea is to discourage U.S. companies from moving operations to countries with lower corporate tax rates. But the practical effect would be to put U.S. multinationals at a disadvantage against many foreign multinational firms, whose taxes would be lower. A study by the Institute for International Economics, a think tank, suggests that the Kerry proposal would inspire massive efforts at evasion or cutbacks in U.S. operations abroad -- which, if Slaughter is correct, could hurt U.S. job growth. The plan's basic defect is that it barely lowers the cost of operating in the United States; it mainly increases the cost of operating elsewhere. American companies might do less abroad without doing much more at home.

But Kerry is on to something. The corporate tax is a monstrosity. It promotes widespread tax avoidance, raises a diminishing share of governmental revenue and discourages efficiency. It's an exercise in cynicism and waste that the next president ought to overhaul.

Another Reason to Fear National Health Service ;-)

(EDITOR'S NOTE: In keeping with Edward's recent posts, I found this post at Oxblog, which is simultaneously humerous and horrifying. -BBM)


Reason to Avoid the NHS Like ERR, The Plague, No. 667:
From the BBC

A hospital nurse accused of attempting to murder four elderly patients was motivated by a drive to free up beds, a court has heard.

Prosecuting barrister Robin Spencer QC told the jury on Wednesday that Ms Salisbury was even heard urging one patient "give in, it's time to go", as she administered an overdose.

The court heard Ms Salisbury allegedly tried to kill James Byrne by repeatedly pressing the booster button on the device delivering diamorphine.

She is accused of trying to kill Reuben Thompson by removing his oxygen supply and she allegedly tried to kill Frank Owen by lying him on his back and telling another nurse: "With any luck his lungs will fill with fluid and he will die."

Mr Spencer said: "She was driven to free up a hospital bed but in fact there will always be another patient waiting. If she thought there was no hope of recovery, she didn't want to wait too long.

"If the patient could be made well enough to be discharged, she would aim for that, if not she would hasten death.

"One way or another, she wanted these patients off her ward."

Confronting Universal Health Care

(EDITOR'S NOTE: Having already received a few emails about my last post, I feel obligated to address the issue of universal health care more directly. It comes to this: when has the government ever undertaken any program with anything better than mediocre results at best and sheer incompetence at worst when compared to the individual taxpayer? Well, as it turns out, I am not the only one who feels this way.

In response to a resurgence of the liberal media's coverage of Hilary Clinton (no surprise that it's The New York Times leading the pack), her recognition of problems with the health care system, and her proposals to take care of those who supposedly cannot take care of themselves (surprising really when one considers that she was incapable, or worse negligent, of recognizing and resolving problems with her own husband), Thomas Sowell comments on the status of health care reform in the United States and why we might not want to follow other countries' models. The following excerpts from his article highlight some of his more astute observations. -EBO)


A huge headline on the front of a recent issue of the New York Times Magazine said more than they intended: "Now Are We Ready to Talk About Health Care?" Inside was an article with the same title by Hillary Clinton. The casual arrogance of that question is staggering. We talked endlessly about Hillary's proposed government-run medical system a decade ago and decided against it for many reasons. Now this re-run of the same issues proceeds as if the question is whether the rest of us are "ready" to talk about such things.

Senator Clinton parades the usual litany of reasons why the government should run the medical system, beginning with "soaring health costs and millions of uninsured." [Of course], she offer[s] nothing that will actually reduce those costs.

"Universal health care" is a lovely phrase with political resonance in some quarters. But what does it mean concretely? First of all, since people differ in what they want, nothing can be "universal" without being mandatory. In other words, we are talking about forcing people to belong to whatever program the politicians and bureaucrats come up with, regardless of what the people themselves might prefer. Somehow, the notion seems to be insinuated that the government can do it cheaper and better. But name three things that the government does cheaper and better than private individuals and organizations. It would be no trick at all to name dozens of things that the government does worse and at higher costs.

How many of those who gush about "universal health care" know that the countries which have it also have waiting times to get treated that are several times as long as people in America wait to see a specialist or get an operation? Waiting not only means longer suffering, it can also mean that a treatable disease can become untreatable -- or even fatal -- because of the delay.

Free Drugs? Sure. Medical Innovation? Not for Long.

(EDITOR'S NOTE: I'm back with yet another perspective on the sad state of healthcare in the United States...this time in the pharmaceutical industry as a result of yet another spirited debate with a younger friend in her first year of medical school. What with all the expectations that healthcare and drug treatment should be free to the public, I am surprised that anyone even took the time to discover where all of the innovation comes from...the anyone being the columnist below. Given all the evidence from the decline of the Soviet Union, every eastern European bloc country, the financial weakness of the socialist western European nations, and the sorry state of affairs with our own medicare, welfare, and social security programs, one would wonder why people prefer healthcare and drug programs that offer nothing in return to the individuals that spearheaded the research in the first place. Incentive is the only ideal that prompts the individual to pursue advances that ultimately improve everyone's lives. In minimizing or eliminating this incentive, a socialist platform that seeks to dictate the profits that a company can earn literally saps the creative juices that we have all come to rely upon in our day to day activities.

While I am certainly for a base level of healthcare and treatment for American residents, I surely do not expect it to come at the expense of further biotechnological and pharmaceutical research. A higher standard in the medical community must be adhered to in order to prevent politicians like Ted Kennedy and Trent Lott from crippling our healthcare system in order to curry more favor with voters, or who I like to call lowest-common-denominator citizens (LCDs)...those individuals who simply expect the contributions of the American majority to take care of every aspect of their lives as though they were children.

In the following article, Holman Jenkins argues convincingly against current themes in Congress that are gaining popularity and seek to derail the noblest efforts of our medical and pharmceutical industries. We must realize that despite socialist nations' claims to the contrary, the United States' healthcare system is the finest in the world when taking development, research, advances, and biotechnology in consideration. As usual, emphasis and comments added below... -EBO)


Why Not Import Drugs From Fantasyland?
By HOLMAN W. JENKINS, JR.
The Wall Street Journal
Wednesday, April 28, 2004

Mark McClellan, the FDA chief, paid a call on the Journal a year ago and we asked him who had the job in the Bush administration of worrying about how other countries regulate pharmaceutical prices. He looked puzzled, shrugged and said maybe the U.S. Trade Representative's office.

That was that, and the discussion moved on.

A year later, when Dr. McClellan was invited to leave his job and take over Medicare, the estimable Robert Goldberg, drug industry expert at the Manhattan Institute, could pen a tribute to the FDA chief as the guy who "made Canadian and European free riding on American drug development through their price controls a global trading issue."

The point is, some people in Washington do look reality in the eye and pursue rational solutions. Then we have Ted Kennedy, John McCain, Trent Lott and Byron Dorgan, who last week announced bipartisan legislation to allow "re-importation" of drugs sold to Canada.

We're not in business to give Congress even worse ideas than it can come up with on its own, but if the Canadian system is so great, why not just enact our own Canadian-style price controls here? Or why not just mandate that all U.S. drugs be shipped to Canada and then shipped back so they'll be eligible for Canadian prices and all Americans can have cheaper drugs? What's the point of simply sanctifying ad hoc hoops and hurdles that permit a few Canadian Internet pharmacists to get rich by arbitraging between our system and theirs?

What's the point indeed? The United States must find a way to put an end to tariffs, price controls, and political interference that seek to hinder a level playing field when it comes to global trade. The notion that an American company can be held hostage to the whims of foreign nations' trade policies while at the same time maintain an open-door policy with our own imports must come to an end. If we cannot even advance this issue with our economic and political equal to the north, how will we press forward when these issues arise in emerging markets such as China and India?

OK, Ted Kennedy probably doesn't understand any of this (or care). His answer for the difference between U.S. and Canadian retail drug prices contains only one syllable: greed. So let's visit the greed argument, since it also possesses the minds of many journalists.

Respectfully...well, to hell with respect: Ted Kennedy's only concern is reelection. Indeed, it is the predominant concern with the preponderance of our elected officials. While we're improving healthcare, let's improve the quality of our government and institutute term limits for once and for all. For a country founded on the notion of freedom from aristocracy, we surely seem to have an embedded aristocracy in Kennedy and Lott. Then again, that is an argument to be tackled on another day.

What can it possibly mean to call an industry "greedy"? Drug companies are said to be an unconscionable exception because their profits are comparatively high, 15.4%, when measured as a percentage of sales. But here's a question: Grocery stores have a measly return on sales of 1.4%, and liquor stores an even measlier 1%. So why does anybody invest in these businesses rather than the drug business? Last time we looked, the grocery industry and liquor stores still existed.

Such indictments of the drug industry overlook the fact that profits are a cost -- the cost of a company's capital. Nobody pays back their investors more than they are obligated to. By the same token, if your capital costs are 15.4% of your total costs, profits had better be 15.4% of your revenues or you won't be in business long. Measures of profitability, in short, tell you a lot more about an industry's need for capital than about its "greed."

But, critics moan, don't drug companies spend more on advertising than they do on research and development, and therefore . . . what exactly? The critics never say, but apparently they suspect that the availability of money to throw away on advertising is evidence of excess profitability.

Wrong. Companies spend money on advertising because it generates profits, not because it consumes them. You've spent 10 years and $500 million to develop a new product and haven't rung up your first sale yet. What could be a smarter investment than spending a few dollars more to let the world know the product exists? Advertising actually makes companies more willing to invest in R&D. Capital can be earned back faster; fixed costs can be spread over a larger number of customers, allowing each to be charged a lower price.

All this is magisterially beside the point, of course. No matter what adjective is applied to drug industry profits, everyone should be able to agree that you can't reduce industry profits without, ipso facto, reducing the incentive to develop new products.

America's real problem is that drugs have been roped into the same perverse incentives that govern most health care spending. Consumers don't weigh cost vs. benefit; drug companies focus their development efforts on drugs aimed at large populations of price-insensitive, insured patients. At the same time, consumers who don't have drug insurance and pay out of their own pockets scream bloody murder because drugs seem like a violation of a natural order in which medical care is increasingly perceived as a costless entitlement.

Think we exaggerate? Everybody noticed when HCA, the big hospital chain, earlier this month put aside $700 million to cover the bad debts of uninsured patients, who are typically good for only seven cents on the dollar. Little noticed was the fact the company also has to cover the bad debts of insured patients, who routinely skip out on their co-payments and deductibles. Nowadays these people are good for only 45 cents on the dollar on average.

Medical bills seem to have become optional to Americans when deciding which envelopes to toss in the trash unopened at the end of the month. "Hospitals are ninth" on the payment list, HCA's Chief Jack Bovender told Reuters in February, well behind mortgages, car payments and cable-TV bills. "The only thing people pay worse is the student loan program."

Yet the single biggest factor behind rising drug spending is the simple fact that drugs are being invented that can do more things for more people. A study by Columbia's Frank R. Lichtenberg finds that spending on cancer drugs buys an average extra year of life for every $5,000 the country spends on them. What patient doesn't consider that a bargain?

Well, insurers may want to hitch up their safety belts now. Eleven million Americans already take cholesterol drugs daily and new studies suggest that perhaps five times as many could benefit from taking them. But no problem: We'll just get the meds from Canada.

Holman W. Jenkins Jr. received a bachelor's degree from Hobart and William Smith Colleges in Geneva, N.Y. He received a master's degree in journalism from Northwestern University in Evanston, Ill., and studied at the University of Michigan on a journalism fellowship.

The Contrarian Viewpoint: Iraq is Untenable

(EDITOR'S NOTE: Regardless of one's opinion for the initiation of military force in Iraq over a year ago, most sides have come to agree that the battle for a democratic process in the Middle East is urgent. Indeed, bipartisan support generally suggests mounting ever increasing efforts to ensure that the United States' hopes for change in Iraq, and essentially the Muslim world, do not go unrewarded. Indeed, failure might ultimately signal to fundamentalist regimes and terrorists that the Western world is incapable of effecting change and potentially vulnerable. As such, this strengthening bipartisan chorus is calling for increased military support to ensure a successful transition from the Hussein era to a new democratic era in Iraq.

However, John Harwood would disagree with this perspective, instead offering a contrarian opinion in his article below from the Wall Street Journal. Though I do not agree with his conclusions, many of his observations are exceptionally valid, warranted, and well worth considering. As always, emphasis is added. -EBO)


Former General Sees 'Staying the Course' In Iraq as Untenable
by JOHN HARWOOD
The Wall Street Journal
Wednesday, April 28, 2004

The time to worry is when Washington politicians on all sides agree. So when John Kerry echoes President Bush in arguing that the United States "can't cut and run" from Iraq, maybe it's time to listen to someone who says we must.

Maybe it's time, in other words, to listen to retired Gen. William E. Odom. It is delusional, asserts the Army veteran, college professor and longtime Washington hand, to believe that "staying the course" can achieve President Bush's goal of reordering the Middle East by building a friendly democracy in Iraq. For the sake of American security and economic power alike, he argues, the U.S. should remove its forces from that shattered country as rapidly as possible.

"We have failed," Mr. Odom declares bluntly. "The issue is how high a price we're going to pay. ... Less, by getting out sooner, or more, by getting out later?"

His is not the voice of an isolationist, or a peacenik, or Republican-hater. He is talking from the conservative Hudson Institute, where he was hired years ago by Mitch Daniels, later Mr. Bush's budget director. His office displays photos of Ronald Reagan, under whom Mr. Odom directed the National Security Agency, and Jimmy Carter, on whose National Security Council staff he served.

Rather, his unsettling view reflects a broader reassessment of America's predicament as Iraq looks ever-uglier. It can be seen as well in U.S. Administrator L. Paul Bremer's tacit admission of error in disbanding the Iraqi Army and Mr. Bush's new reliance on United Nations help.

Mr. Odom opposed the Iraq war before it happened. An expert in comparative politics who teaches at Georgetown and Yale, he warned that there was no reason to expect that Iraq could soon develop the ingredients for constitutional democracy: individual rights, property rights and a tax-collection system supporting a government to enforce them. The violence of recent months, he concludes, has exposed Mr. Bush's vision of doing so as a dream.

Following the planned June 30 handover of nominal sovereignty, Iraqis may go to the polls and vote. But the result, Mr. Odom explains, will resemble theocracy more than liberal democracy. As televised images of Iraqis cheering attacks on U.S. troops suggest, it's not likely to be anything Americans would consider worth the war's cost in blood and treasure.

"Anybody that's pro-American cannot gain legitimacy," he says. "It will be a highly illiberal democracy, inspired by Islamic culture, extremely hostile to the West and probably quite willing ... to fund terrorist organizations." The ability of Islamic militants to use Iraq as a beachhead for attacks elsewhere may increase.

But can't U.S. troops there tamp down such hostile activity? Well, yes, he says -- at a cost of rising hostility to the U.S. throughout the region.

"It probably will radicalize Saudi Arabia, [and] it could easily radicalize Egypt," Mr. Odom says. Violence yesterday between security forces and terrorists in Syria hinted at what may come, heightening dangers for Israel and the U.S. Iran might agree not to stir trouble among fellow Shiites who are 60% of Iraq's population -- provided the U.S. eases its hostile stance toward Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

Yet the stakes, in Mr. Odom's view, are much bigger. The longer U.S. troops hang tough, he reasons, the more isolated America will become. That in turn will place increasing strain on international economic and security institutions that have undergirded the emergence of "America's Inadvertent Empire," as Mr. Odom's latest book calls it. "I don't know that the UN, the IMF, the World Bank, [or] NATO can survive this," he says.

His proposed solution sounds initially like Mr. Kerry's: a call for the U.N. and European allies to take charge of political and security arrangements. What's different -- even Bushlike -- is that Gen. Odom would accompany that request with a unilateral declaration that U.S. forces would leave even if no one else agrees to come in.

Such a move, he concludes, might even provoke an unexpected result a year after Mr. Bush brushed off opposition from France, Germany and many others to oust Saddam Hussein. "The Europeans might get scared [of chaos] and go in," Mr. Odom says. "There'd probably be a big effort to try to rescue" Mr. Bush. But U.S. troops would be gone within six months in any event.

It is a jarring prescription. But ask yourself, as bullets fly in Najaf and Fallujah, which sounds more credible: Mr. Odom's gloomy forecast, or Mr. Bush's prediction of success?

John Harwood is political editor of The Wall Street Journal. He studied history and economics at Duke University and graduated magna cum laude in 1978. In 1989, John was named a Nieman fellow at Harvard University, where he spent the 1989-90 academic year. He joined The Wall Street Journal in 1991 as White House correspondent. He subsequently covered Congress and national politics, and became national political editor in 1997. He has reported on each of the last five American presidential elections.

The Enemy is Not America

(EDITOR'S NOTE: The article below by Pamela Bone raises some interesting questions. Why is it so easy for the left to organize marches protesting American actions and yet demonstrate a cold, indifferent, and hipocritical silence to the situations below? Why is perfection demanded of the United States (and Israel, for that matter) but deliberate violence elsewhere ignored and often even condoned? Could not the recent pro-abortion protests have included five minutes for women's right around the world rather than simply at home? -BBM)


by PAMELA BONE
The Age
Monday, April 26, 2004

I am sent a newsletter from a women's rights group in Pakistan, which lists items from Pakistani newspapers. The following is a recent selection (I checked the items on the newspapers' websites):

Lahore: A girl, Kauser, 17, was strangled by her elder brother because she had married of her own will. She returned home and asked her family to forgive her but her brother strangled her with a piece of cloth. - The Daily Times.

Ghotki district: Two women were killed over Karo-Kari (honour killing). One Nihar Jatoi tied his wife to a bed and electrocuted her. One Bachal axed his wife Salma to death and fled. No arrests were reported. - The News.

Sargodha: A woman is in hospital after having both legs amputated because of severe injuries inflicted by her brother-in-law and mother-in-law, who clubbed her for her alleged illicit affairs. The woman, who was fighting for life, said the real reason was that her brother-in-law was trying to force her to arrange his marriage to her younger sister, but her sister had instead eloped with her paramour. - Dawn.

What chance of this woman becoming an international symbol, as has the boy who so tragically lost his arms during the invasion of Iraq?

Why is international public opinion not outraged at the treatment of women in Islamic fundamentalist societies? Why is it easier for millions of people around the world to see America as the great evil, rather than the countries in which governments ignore such horrific abuses of women?

Militants in Europe Openly Call for Jihad and the Rule of Islam

(EDITOR'S NOTE: More relevant information from the front lines in Europe. I have highlighted some excerpts below, but you can read the entire article here. -BBM)


By PATRICK TYLER and DON VAN NATTA Jr.
The New York Times
Monday, April 26, 2004

They swear allegiance to Osama bin Laden and his goal of toppling Western democracies to establish an Islamic superstate under Shariah law, like Afghanistan under the Taliban. They call the Sept. 11 hijackers the "Magnificent 19" and regard the Madrid train bombings as a clever way to drive a wedge into Europe.

On Thursday evening, at a tennis center community hall in Slough, west of London, their leader, Sheik Omar Bakri Mohammad, spoke of his adherence to Osama bin Laden. If Europe fails to heed Mr. bin Laden's offer of a truce - provided that all foreign troops are withdrawn from Iraq in three months - Muslims will no longer be restrained from attacking the Western countries that play host to them, the sheik said.

"All Muslims of the West will be obliged," he said, to "become his sword" in a new battle. Europeans take heed, he added, saying, "It is foolish to fight people who want death - that is what they are looking for."

Iraq and South Africa

(EDITOR'S NOTE: The following commentary is an interesting comparison between Iraq and South Africa regarding the difficult transition from authoritarianism to democracy. On Andrew Sullivan's web site, a letter to the editor recalls that the process took the west centuries. -BBM)


From The Daily Dish
Friday, April 23, 2004

"In reading articles marking 10 years since the end of South Africa apartheid, I was struck by the similarities between that country’s struggle since liberation and the current struggle since the liberation of Iraq. Likewise, I was struck by the relative silence of the left on the real problems South Africa has faced in the past 10 years.

In the early 1990’s, the movement against apartheid was one of the most passionate cause of the American left. The struggle for freedom is South Africa ended on April 27th 1994 when over 90% of the people of that country went to the polls to elect the first democratic government the country had ever seen. Since that time, South Africa has been one of the most, if not the most, dangerous place to live on the planet.

In 1998 for instance, South Africa led the world with a recorded 59 murders per hundred thousand citizens (source: Interpol). By comparison, the United States had 6 per hundred thousand that year; England had 1, France 4, and Russia 21. The closest to South Africa was Colombia, with 56.

Presently, although crime seems to have abated, the country is still racked with problems. An estimated 20.1% of the population has AIDS, 50% of the population is below the poverty line, and 37% of the population is unemployed. The current life expectancy is 46.56 years.

Now, very few people on any side of the political spectrum would argue that South Africa was "better off" under apartheid. Yet, those that oppose our war in Iraq often bitterly complain that the Iraqis are not better off. Both countries, when liberated, were coming from oppressive governments with people unaccustomed to the democratic process. It has taken ten years to get South Africa to the still troubled, but gradually improving, state it is currently in. Why is so much expected of Iraq so quickly?

Apparently, the left's criterion for democratic progress is a double standard."

UNSCAM: Is Everyone on the Take?

(EDITOR'S NOTE: More on the seemingly bottomless oil-for-food scandal, courtesy of The Washington Times and the London Daily Telegraph. -BBM)


By DAVID RENNIE
The London Daily Telegraph
Friday, April 23, 2004

A former French ambassador to the United Nations, Jean-Bernard Merimee, is listed as receiving vouchers totaling 11 million barrels. Also on the list is a vocal friend of Iraq, Gilles Munier of the Franco-Iraqi Friendship Association.

At the Vatican, the Rev. Jean Marie Benjamin — a French priest who is reported to have arranged a meeting between the pope and Tariq Aziz, the former deputy prime minister of Iraq — is listed as receiving the rights to sell 4.5 million barrels.

The list is dominated by Russian citizens and organizations. In addition to Mr. Zhirinovsky, the list names the former Soviet Prime Minister Nikolai Ryzhkov, the Russian Orthodox Church, the "office of the Russian president," President Vladimir Putin's Peace and Unity Party, and companies linked to the Communist Party.

In Indonesia, the list is headed by Mrs. Megawati, whose spokesman has said she is "aware of the allegations."

The files purportedly show vouchers being handed to socialist, communist and nationalist political parties in Ukraine, Belarus, the former Yugoslavia, Romania, and Slovakia.

There are also vouchers for the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

A prominent British member of Parliament is listed, along with his Jordanian business partner.

Obviously, United States foreign policy needs to place a heavier emphasis on covert bribery of foreign officials. It seems to work!

UPDATE: More here from the BBC. And here's a roundup of today's British coverage. One headline says it best: "Sick children sacrificed for profit and propaganda".

UK Media Roundup - Oil-For-Food

(EDITOR'S NOTE: The United Nations' oil-for-food scandal is finally exploding into the mainstream press. For readers who have not read about this scandal in our previous posts or in the news, Saddam essentially used oil vouchers to bribe UN officials and politicians in France and Russia to oppose sanctions. Moreover, he used kickbacks to line his own pockets while the Iraqi people starving under his rule. There is also evidence that he bribed officials and politicans in the anti-war movement. Most glaring is the increased likelihood that this corruption took place under the auspices and direct oversight of the UN. Indeed, the connections appear to link highly-placed officials, may even involve Koffi Anon's son, and accordingly, the Secretary-General of the UN himself. The articles listed below are a round-up of news written in Great Britain on the subject, courtesy of The Daily Ablution. -BBM)


From the Daily Ablution
Thursday, April 22, 2004

The UN oil-for-food scandal hit the Brit press in a big way today - it's interesting to see how various media are addressing it. It has been gratifying to see the extent and tone of the coverage in every outlet I've seen so far - except for one. Can you guess which?

It's no surprise that the Telegraph hits the story the hardest, with four articles and a leader. Here are the headers on page one (main story):
UN Officials 'covered up Saddam theft of billions in aid for Iraqis'
Stooges in West bribed to back tyrant
Unfit food was sent to feed the poor

"Stooges." Heh.

Three more stories appear on page 4 under the page heading "Oil-for-food scandal:"
Saddam cronies grew rich on cash meant for the starving
Russian and French politicians 'bribed to relax UN sanctions'
How the system was abused

The Editor also addresses the issue:
Iraq has enough trouble without adding the UN

In all, the Telegraph devotes 3371 words (exclusive of headlines and captions) to this story.

The Times, while not as verbose, still takes a highly critical tone vis-a-vis the UN:
UN officials 'took oil bribes from Saddam'

They also feel that the story warrants a leading article:
Food for scandal
The UN stands accused of betraying the people of Iraq

(Times word count: 1285)

Even the left-leaning usual suspects are stirred to action - some of them, anyway. From the Independent:
Saddam may have bribed head of UN Oil-for-Food programme

(Indy word count: 466)

And, mirable dictu, the Radio 4 Today Programme spent an impressive 15 minutes discussing this story, most of it devoted to an interview with Claude Hankes-Drielsma, the former Price Waterhouse auditor who is leading the Iraqi Governing Council's inquiries.

Well done, Humphrys and company.

Oh - the Guardian covers the story too. But the amount - and the spin - of the coverage is rather different:
UN backs oil for food inquiry

(Grauniad word count: 254)

The possible involvement of UN officials - which seems to be of no little concern everywhere else - is dismissed in a single sentence:
"However, they [a panel of Bush administration officials] said there was no corroborated evidence so far suggesting UN officials had been part of the scam."

Hurrah for the UN! Hurrah for the Guardian!

UPDATE: If by chance you're unfamiliar with oil-for-food, there's a new blog dedicated to the story.

Straight from the Ground in Fallujah, Iraq

(EDITOR'S NOTE: The following post comes straight from Andrew Sullivan. It offers a ground-level view of what is happening in Iraq. Most notably, it is an opinion that we don't often hear about in the media. -EBO)


From Fallujah, Iraq
Thursday, April 22, 2004

This comes from a source I know and trust...a military chaplain in Fallujah:

Here's some background on Al Faluja to keep in mind.

A) Why is it in the news almost every night? Because it is one of the FEW places in all of Iraq where trouble exists. Iraq has 25 million people and is the size of California. Faluja and surrounding towns total 500,000 people. Do the math: that's not a big percentage of Iraq. How many people were murdered last night in L.A.? Did it make headline news? Why not?

B) Saddam could not and did not control Faluja. He bought off those he could, killed those he couldn't and played all leaders against one another. It was and is a 'difficult' town. Nothing new about that. What is new is that outside people have come in to stir up unrest. How many are there is classified, but let me tell you this: there are more people in the northeast Minneapolis gangs than there are causing havoc in Faluja. Surprised?

C) Then why does it get so much coverage? Because the major news outlets have camera crews permanently posted in Faluja. So, if you are from outside Iraq, and want to get air time for your cause, where would you go to terrorize, bomb, mutilate and destroy? Faluja.

D) Why does it seem to be getting worse? Two answers:

1. This country became a welfare state under Saddam. If you cared about your well-fare, you towed the line or died. The state did your thinking and your bidding. Want a job? Pledge allegiance to the Ba’ath party. Want an apartment, a car, etc? Show loyalty. Electricity, water, sewage, etc. was paid by the state. Go with the flow: life is good. Don't and you're dead. Now, what does that do to initiative? drive? industry?

So, we come along and lock up sugar daddy and give these people the toughest challenge in the world, FREEDOM. You want a job? Earn it! A house? Buy it or build it! Security? Build a police force, army and militia and give it to yourself. Risk your lives and earn freedom. The good news is that millions of Iraqis are doing just that, and some pay with their lives. But many, many are struggling with freedom (just like East Germans, Russians, Czechs, etc.) and they want a sugar daddy, the U.S.A., to do it all. We refuse. We don't want to be plantation owners. We make it clear we are here to help, not own or stay. They get mad about that, sometimes.

Nonetheless, in Faluja, the supposed hotbed of dissent in Iraq, countless Iraqis tell our psyopers they want to cooperate with us but are afraid the thugs will slit their throats or kill their kids. A bad gang can do that to a neighborhood and a town. That's what is happening here.

2. We have a battle hand-off going on here. The largest in recent American history. The Army is passing the baton to the Marines in this area. There is uncertainty among the populace and misinformation being given out by the bad guys. As a result there is insecurity and the bad guys are testing the resolve of the Marines and indirectly you, the American people. The bad guys are convinced that Americans have no stomach for a long haul effort here. They want to drive us out of here and then resurrect a dictatorship of one kind or another.

Okay, what do we do? Stay the course. The Marines will get into a battle rhythm and, along with other forces and government agencies here, they will knock out the crack houses, drive the thugs across the border and set the conditions for the Falujans to join the freedom parade or rot in their lack of initiative. Either way, the choice will be theirs. The alternative? Turn tail, pull out and leave a power vacuum that will suck in all of Iraq's neighbors and spark a civil war that could make Rwanda look like a misdemeanor.

Hey, America, don't go weak-kneed on us: 585 dead American's made an investment here. That's a whole lot less than were killed on American highways last month. Their lives are honored when we stay the course and do the job we came to do; namely, set the conditions for a new government and empower these people to be the great nation they are capable of being.

The American burden.

Losing Our Edge? We Have Already Lost It

(EDITOR'S NOTE: The real problem in the United States is right under our noses and we do not take notice. It is often overlooked in favor of endless debates on the war in Iraq, the loss of jobs overseas, social security, welfare, health care, and all other entitlements. Nonetheless, the rise of the United States' economic and political standing in the world resulted because of invention and innovation. We pride ourselves on constantly challenging the framework and methods of life around us and working to streamline and improve them accordingly. It is unfortunate that this hunger for knowledge and desire for excellence seems to have dissipated in recent years. We spend more time arguing about where to lay blame, how to cover up, the presentation of the media, and how to best babysit others in order to obtain their support in the next election that we overlook the notion that people should ultimately be responsible for themselves. The great, founding principle of this country was a protection from tyranny in order to pursue our OWN dreams, not those designated by the state. However, it now seems that government deems itself the great arbiter of society and uses our hard-earned taxes and resources to determine and pursue their own dreams for us, particularly in the ever-more burdening form of welfare, Medicare, liability, social security, and even, obesity platforms. While a safety net is understandable at the lowest levels, it is resolutely destructive at all levels.

Unfortunately, the current political system rewards candidates who pander to the lowest common denominator for votes rather than those candidates who demand a higher standard and more noble ideal. It's no wonder that a general malaise seems to be falling over the population. We have become the pariah: a society of parasites interested in obtaining every modern convenience, yet willing to put forth only the most marginal of efforts to achieve them. The solution is to empower the individual and marginalize big government's impact. I trust in my fellow man: if given the opportunity, he will surely shine. But if left to shoulder the heavy burden of big government's ever increasing spending platforms, he will surely decay, and with him the greatness of our beloved Stars and Stripes.

In a wonderfully worded commentary, Thomas Freidman highlights the real problem in America. The more prescient of his arguments are highlighted in the excerpts below. -EBO)


By THOMAS FRIEDMAN
The New York Times
Thursday, April 22, 2004

I was just out in Silicon Valley, checking in with high-tech entrepreneurs about the state of their business, [and detected] a real undertow of concern that America is losing its competitive edge vis-à-vis China, India, Japan and other Asian tigers, and that the Bush team is deaf, dumb and blind to this situation.

Several executives explained to me that they were opening new plants in Asia...because governments in these countries are so eager for employment and the transfer of technology to their young populations that they are offering huge tax holidays for U.S. manufacturers who will set up shop.

...the Department of Homeland Security is making it so hard for legitimate foreigners to get visas to study or work in America that many have given up the age-old dream of coming here...leading to a twofold disaster.

First, one of America's greatest assets — its ability to skim the cream off the first-round intellectual draft choices from around the world and bring them to our shores to innovate — will be diminished, and that in turn will shrink our talent pool.

Second, we could lose a whole generation of foreigners who would normally come here to study, and then would take American ideas and American relationships back home. In a decade we will feel that loss in America's standing around the world.

Still others pointed out that the percentage of Americans graduating with bachelor's degrees in science and engineering is less than half of the comparable percentage in China and Japan, and that U.S. government investments are flagging in basic research in physics, chemistry and engineering.

...Intel sponsors an international science competition every year, [attracting] some 50,000 American high school kids [this year]. [In China, the figure approaches] six million kids. [Intel's CEO, Craig] Barrett said, "We are not graduating the volume, we do not have a lock on the infrastructure, we do not have a lock on the new ideas, and we are either flat-lining, or in real dollars cutting back, our investments in physical science."

And what is the Bush strategy? Let's go to Mars. Hello? Right now we should have a Manhattan Project to develop a hydrogen-based energy economy - it's within reach and would serve our economy, our environment and our foreign policy by diminishing our dependence on foreign oil. Instead, the Bush team says let's go to Mars. Where is Congress? Out to lunch - or, worse, obsessed with trying to keep Susie Smith's job at the local pillow factory that is moving to the Caribbean - without thinking about a national competitiveness strategy. And where is Wall Street? So many of the plutocrats there know that the Bush fiscal policy is a long-term disaster. They know it - but they won't say a word because they are too greedy or too gutless.

Wingless Plane to Take Flight on Mexican Roads

(EDITOR'S NOTE: So, this is what it has come to in order to spur innovation in other parts of the world. A press release issued by a Guadalajara, Mexico-based company called Limousines de Guadalajara Vaca Meters (LGVM) detailed the development of a new 'luxury limousine'. The company removed the wings on an old Boeing 727 and converted the fuselage into a gigantic limousine capable of comfortably carrying 50 occupants on roadways at speeds in excess of 120 miles per hour. A photograph illustrates its sleek form.

As it should so happen, my travels this weekend take me to the company's home city and will thus allow me the capability to visit the assembly plant and satisfy my curiosity for a closer look. Initial conversations with management reveal that the 'roadplane' will still be required to adhere to FAA regulations. In other words, 'drive attendants', like their in-air brethren, will continue to brief all passengers about safety procedures, seat belt functionality, time to destination, and emergency row obligations (as on airplanes, passengers seated in an emergency row must be 15 years of age or older and be physically capable of assisting 'drive attendants' in the event of an emergency). While LGVM refused to reveal exact sales figures for the 'airbus', they mentioned that initial interest has been robust.

In other news around the world, a Rio de Janeiro, Brazil-based company, not to be outdone by the Mexicans, has announced their intentions to develop a wheel-less automobile to be used as a luxury yacht off the coasts of their own beautiful beaches. Citing a Cadillac-based prototype, the firm's President was quoted as saying, "People love to drive their cars to the beach. Why should they not be able to take cars with them into the water?" Why not indeed, Mr. President. Story developing... -EBO)


From Reuters
Saturday, April 17, 2004

A Guadalajara, Mexico-based company has redesigned a large airplane in which the only turbulence passengers will experience might come from potholes in pockmarked roads.

Limousines de Guadalajara Vaca Meters bought an old Boeing 727-100, jettisoned its wings and gave it a facelift to turn the aircraft into the ultimate limousine with the capacity to transport up to 50 passengers.

A three-hour ride in this oversized limo with speeds of up to 200 kilometers (124 miles) an hour costs 1,000 dollars. The plane will be available to the public in May.

"We had to make a superhuman effort to bring the plane's parts here," said Martin Vaca, the limousine company's owner. "The trip was very difficult."

Sixty people worked on the plane's transformation for three months.

The six-tonne plane is 18 meters (59 feet) long and 3.9 meters (12.8 feet) high. It has a six-cylinder, turbocharged diesel engine in the back and air brakes and suspension.

The interior is decked with neon strobe lights and audio and video systems. Passengers can boogie on a dance floor, make a pit stop at a bar or retire to a "romantic" space in the back of the aircraft-turned-luxury-automobile.

Outside, the wingless plane still has its 30 portholes, but passengers looking out the windows will be admiring asphalt instead of white clouds.

Lessons from Iraq: Interesting Discoveries about Foreign Policy

(EDITOR'S NOTE: Differing opinions between hawks and doves about the use of military force in Iraq has been highlighted in the media ad nauseum. In particular, liberal doves seem hell-bent on criticizing President Bush's administration and it's reasons for preemptive action without a United Nations' resolution, the problems with the administration's strategy for occupation, and the intended transition of power back to the Iraqi Ruling Council. No amount of arguing and debating will resolve these issues for either party. Only time will ultimately determine if the actions espoused by George Bush were appropriate.

It is for this reason that bipartisan support is required from this moment forth. Success will only be viewed as the establishment of a fully autonomous, Democratic Iraqi nation. The alternative will result in the continued venom of terrorists and fundamentalists directed towards the Western world. This is not a fight against anti-Americanism; rather, it is a fight against the suppression of independent and free thought. Why should anyone in the Developed world be against this goal?

The answer is quite simple: corruption. While time has not passed in an ample duration to allow a proper assessment of full success in Iraq as mentioned above, it has allowed coalition forces to discover some interesting reasons why our so-called allies went to such great lengths to derail our efforts. George Melloan elaborates on these reasons in his article on John Kerry. Some of his more insightful comments are detailed in excerpts below. As always, emphasis is noted. -EBO)


Kerry's Foreign Policy: Clinton Without Charm
By GEORGE MELLOAN
The Wall Street Journal
Tuesday, April 20, 2004

John Kerry comes across as a tough, humorless campaigner, which may be the best thing he has going for him in his bid for the U.S. presidency.

His relentless sniping at the Bush conduct of foreign policy will continue for another six months. How well it will serve him when ballots are cast remains to be seen. Most Americans acknowledge -- although some only reluctantly -- that the country is at war with an international plague of fanatic assassins. If Mr. Kerry strikes them as a guy who likes to play rough -- albeit now against what in international terms is the leader of his own team -- it is not necessarily the worst vote-getting image to project.

The Democratic party line is that the Bush unilateralism has lost America friends around the world. Mr. Kerry would remedy this by being more careful to win the approval of allies and the United Nations before doing anything so radical as a military action to unseat some future Saddam Hussein.

Hogwash! While it is important to consider our allies' perspectives, the right decision is not always the popular decision. Moreover, one must distinguish between a true ally and one whose hidden motives and self-interest bias their decisions. Strong leaders need to be able to recognize this difference and act accordingly.

It could also be pointed out that Mr. Bush indeed tried to get a Security Council resolution explicitly supporting the Iraq invasion, but backed off when it seemed likely that France and Russia would veto such a measure. We now know a great deal more about the Russian and French motives than we knew at the time. The [Wall Street Journal] has dug out persuasive evidence that Saddam had a lot of politically important people in those two countries on his payroll by means of the U.N. Oil-for-Food program.

Indeed, the U.N. bureaucracy itself is deeply implicated in the scandal, which will shortly be the subject of a congressional investigation. The U.N. also promises a probe, but don't hold your breath. A proposal that former Fed chairman Paul Volcker head such an investigation is an excellent idea. But Mr. Volcker says he won't take the job without Security Council approval. Are France and Russia going to agree that Mr. Volcker can poke through their dirty linen?

But let us assume that a President Kerry would not have attacked Iraq without the full approval of the Security Council. And let us assume that France and Russia were determined to oppose such an attack, mainly because of the marvelous Oil-for-Food honey pot that was yielding such lucrative benefits to politically connected people in those two countries. Without the records uncovered in Baghdad, we would never have known as much as we know now about the sordid U.N. scandal, not to mention Saddam's atrocities against his own people.

...the quest for U.N. approval to give the attack a patina of legality would have failed a President Kerry, with the consequence that the pattern of corruption that is now emerging at the U.N. itself would have gone undiscovered and unpunished.

...France, the great thorn in Mr. Bush's side a year ago, is notably quiet these days.

...it might be true that a Democratic administration -- even one headed by the dour Mr. Kerry -- would have an easier time than Mr. Bush has had in building friendships in some countries. In places where Socialist parties and the socialist press are still strong, like France and Germany, a strong body of highly vocal opinion regards American Republicans with suspicion. What is often mistaken for anti-Americanism in the European press is usually anti-Republicanism.

But we have seen what results from an American foreign policy that has as its primary theme the winning of friends. Bill Clinton, a man who epitomized the American desire to be liked, ran an accommodative foreign policy. He proposed regime change for Iraq but never followed up on it, no doubt because it would have engendered international criticism.

John Kerry is not Bill Clinton. He appears to be made of sterner stuff, and he certainly doesn't have Clinton's boyish charm or political agility. But the product he appears to be selling is a return to the Clinton foreign policy. Those were the good old days, but look what happened later.

George Melloan is the Journal's Deputy Editor, International. He began writing "Global View" in 1990, when he took over responsibilities for the overseas pages after 17 years as deputy editor in New York. During the first five years of his present assignment he was based in Brussels, traveling extensively from there to write about such events as the fall of the Berlin Wall, the break-up of the Soviet empire and the collapse of the Japan's stock market and real estate bubble. He returned to New York in 1994.

Letter to the Editor

(EDITOR'S NOTE:The following commentary was directed to the editors of the realist party in response to Monday, April 19, 2004's post entitled, "Tag in the 21st Century, or How to Keep Track of Your Loved Ones". -EBO)


Marco Chong from Bern, Switerzerland writes:

As believable as this thing seemed (I WANTED to believe it - bloody frightening, but somehow very cool nonetheless) - it's not real. At least not yet (although I'm sure the intelligence community's weapons labs are running with the idea).

But, the story behind [the ID Sniper rifle] is pretty entertaining. Seems it was dreamed up by some guy as "high tech art". He snuck the thing into a Weapons Convention in China and got massive interest from [the Chinese government]. And all in the name of entertainment for himself, readers of his website, and New York art critics...

High Tech High Art

Jakob Jakob Boeskov is not a weapons dealer. But two summers ago, he and his artist friends came up with a project that took him deep into the heart of the international weapons trade, armed only with fake business cards and a poster of the most terrible weapon he could imagine – the "ID Sniper Rifle." His experiences at China Police 2002 which he shares with host Dean Olsher, form the basis of an upcoming art exhibit at The Thing, a gallery in Manhattan. Produced by Julie Subrin and Pejk Malinovski.

I guess my little joke was not overlooked after all.

Tag in the 21st Century, or How to Keep Track of Your Loved Ones

It is incredible the length that people will go to in order to keep tabs on a loved one. In the past, a simple yell in a crowded market was the best recourse. Eventually, wrist tethers, pagers, and mobile phones supplanted the age old shout. Now, state of the art identification, mapping, and weapons technology should alleviate spouses' and parents' concerns the world over for once and for all.

A Danish company called Empire North has recently released a rifle and implantable tracking device solution. The ID Sniper rifle will painlessly, or as painlessly as a mosquito-bite can be considered, strike a target from 100 paces and implant a GPS-microchip just beneath the human skin layer. Simultaneously, the ID Sniper rifle utilizes a digital scope that records a high-resolution photograph of the intended victim for later analysis. The implanted GPS probe will allow for triangulation of location as needed in the future.

Empire North highlights the new technology in the war against terrorism as a means to "mark and identify a suspicious subject on a safe distance, enabling the national law enforcement agency to keep track on the target through a satellite in the weeks to come." It does not take a genius to recognize a new application for this little tool: safely stalking any individual that you should so "designate" with your rifle. It's the logical solution.

Scary, eh? Don't believe me? Read more about the product and the company here.

What Hugo Chavez Means for Democracy Around the Globe

(EDITOR'S NOTE: We sometimes forget the institutions that accompany democracy in the western world. When we refer to democracy, what we really mean is "westernized liberal democracy" where freedoms are guaranteed, rather than just the right to vote. For example, these institutions include, but are not limited to: the separation of powers, an independent judiciary, the rule of law, checks and balances on the separate powers, specific limitations on the powers of government (eg. the individual freedoms and private property rights listed in the Bill of Rights) and the specific enumeration of powers that the government does have in a Constitution. These are designed to prevent the seizure of power by any group of the reigns of power... even a democratic majority. This is obviously necessary to protect minority rights. The framers, fortunately understood this. Unfortunately, a "democracy" is only as strong as its institutions. Of course, the question arises: what is the role, if any, of the international community, now and extending into the future? -BBM)


By Carroll Andrew Morse
Tuesday, April 13, 2004

Millions of Venezuelans have signed a petition demanding that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez stand in a recall election. Resist any urge to draw a parallel between the Venezuelan recall effort and the California recall of 2003. Venezuela is not California and Hugo Chavez is not Gray Davis. Over the past 4 years, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has installed autocratic rule over Venezuelan society, destroying the democratic institutions intended to check the concentration of political power. In the absence of democratic institutions, the only peaceful option the people of Venezuela have left for saving themselves is this exercise in direct democracy.

Hugo Chavez was elected president of Venezuela in December of 1998. Almost immediately, he took his first steps towards consolidating all of the power of the Venezuelan state into his own hands. He organized a series of referenda. The first authorized re-writing the Venezuelan constitution. The second selected delegates to a Constitutional Assembly, distinct from his country's legislature, to do the re-writing. The rules governing the election of the Constitutional Assembly featured a few non-standard items. Although no candidates -- neither Chavez's supporters nor his opposition -- were allowed to run under party banners, Chavez used state funded media to campaign for the election of his supporters. This, combined with Chavez's personal popularity, allowed Chavez supporters to win 120 of the 131 assembly seats.

The Constitutional Assembly, with the backing of Chavez, moved beyond re-writing Venezuela's Constitution. In August of 1999, the assembly set up a "judicial emergency committee" with the power to remove judges without consulting any other branch of government. The New York Times quoted the judicial emergency committee chairman as saying, "The Constitutional Assembly has absolute powers. The objective is that the substitution of judges will take place peacefully, but if the courts refuse to acknowledge the assembly's authority, we will proceed in a different fashion."

In the same month, the assembly declared a "legislative emergency." A seven-member committee was created to perform congressional functions, including law-making. The Constitutional Assembly prohibited the Congress from holding meetings of any sort. In a national radio address quoted in the Times, Chavez warned Venezuelans not to obey opposition officials, stating that "we can intervene in any police force in any municipality, because we are not going to permit any tumult or uproar. Order has arrived in Venezuela."

The new constitution -- increasing the President's term of office by one year, increasing the power of the president in general, and placing new government restrictions on the media, among other things -- was approved in a referendum held in December of 1999. Elections for the new, unicameral legislature were held in July of 2000. During the same election, Chavez stood for election again -- restarting the clock on his Presidential term of office. Though Chavez supporters won about 60% of the seats in the new unicameral assembly, Chavez still did not feel that he had enough power. In November of 2000, he pushed a bill through the legislature allowing him to rule by decree for one year.

In December of 2000 there was another set of elections. During elections for local officials, Chavez added a referendum on dissolving Venezuela's labor unions. Though it is unclear what authority was invoked, he attempted to consolidate all Venezuelan labor unions into a single, state controlled "Bolivaran Labor Force."

Put this sequence of events into perspective. Imagine, after winning the October 2003 election for Governor of California, Governor Elect Arnold Schwarzenegger called a second election for a constitutional convention to replace the state constitution with a new document increasing the power of the governor, then called a third election to replace existing California legislature with a new unicameral legislature, then called a fourth election to grant himself another full term of office, then called a fifth election to oust the labor union leadership in California, all within the space of two years. Would these be considered legitimate democratic practices because they involved elections?

The record is clear. Since his election in 1998, Hugo Chavez has engaged in a methodical campaign to eliminate dissenting voices from Venezuelan politics. He has provided the world with a clinic on how to set up totalitarian rule. First, get control of one branch of government. Then, eliminate all opposition within the government by making all other branches subordinate to the one branch you control. Next, use the power of government to prevent any other segment of society from organizing. He has attacked the labor unions, the independent media, the church -- any source of people organizing that is an alternative to the state.

By the time of the December 2000 election, it was readily apparent that Hugo Chavez was, as Jennifer McCoy and Laura Neuman of the Carter Center had worried in a February 2001 Current History article, a populist autocrat -- a ruler who does not seek the consent of the governed, but uses mobs to carry out his own will. With the government firmly under his control, and the organs of civil society smashed, Chavez would have to turn his attention to the final part of the totalitarian program -- preventing the expression of displeasure with the government at the individual level.

Not even populist autocrats can decree that the honeymoon will last forever. Eventually, Chavez's overwhelming level of popular support started to fade. The militarization of schools and social services and the shrinking Venezuelan economy under his rule began to grate on people. Civil chaos ensued. A coup attempt against Chavez in April of 2002 failed when key elements of the military refused to support it. A bitter two-month general strike between December of 2002 and February of 2003 wreaked further havoc. The petition for a recall election emerged against this backdrop of increasing chaos. In May of 2003, Chavez and the opposition momentarily reached an agreement -- the Organization of American States (OAS) brokered a deal that would allow a recall petition to proceed.

Alas, the government's anti-democratic behavior continued unabated. In September of 2003, The Economist reported that the government used a "rapid reaction" squad to raid the offices of the National Electoral Council (CNE), the government body overseeing the petition drive. The Economist also reported that the government punished Venezuelan citizens for signing the petition. Names of signers were leaked to a pro-Chavez legislator who published them on his website. Military officers who signed the petition were disciplined. Venezuela's state run oil company would not hire people known to have signed the petition.

Despite the continuing intimidation, the petition drive continued and 3.2 million signatures were gathered. Eventually, the CNE rejected the petition by a vote of 3-0 with 2 members abstaining. They ruled that signatures collected before the mid-point of Chavez's term were not valid under Venezuelan law.

A second petition drive began, the drive currently in the news. Again, the opposition collected over 3 million signatures. This time the CNE questioned the validity of individual signatures, saying that disputed signatures must be re-confirmed individually. The petitioners appealed the Electoral Chamber of the Venezuelan Supreme Tribunal of Justice (TSJ) -- the Venezuelan "Supreme Court." The court reinstated over 800,000 of the disputed signatures, bringing the total to 2.7 million -- well above the 2.4 million needed to authorize the referendum. However, about a week later, the Constitutional chamber of the TSJ overturned the Electoral chamber's ruling.

The pattern of government intimidation repeated itself. Again, the names of petition signers were posted publicly. The president of the Venezuelan Workers Confederation was quoted in the Associated Press as claiming that the government has began firing petition signers from government ministries, the state oil company, the state water company, the Caracas Metro, and public hospitals and municipal governments controlled by Chavez's party. The Associated Press also quoted Venezuela's Health minister as justifying petition related layoffs by saying that petitioners were engaged in terrorism against the state.

The last procedural hope for the recall lies in an appeal to the full 20 justices of the TSJ. The full court has shown flashes of independence over the past few years. Numerous sources cite that Chavez cannot count on the court to rubber stamp his wishes because several judges have aligned themselves with former Constitutional assembly leader Luis Miquilena whose relationship with Chavez turned sour some years ago. Most notably, the TSJ ruled 11-8 to dismiss charges against several military officers associated with the 2002 coup attempt. Most recently, the TSJ has gone against Chavez's wishes by ruling that Cuban doctors cannot practice medicine in Venezuela without a review of their qualifications. Chavez, of course, wants to change the rules. He wants to increase the TSJ membership to 32 so he can appoint more justices loyal to him.

As of three years ago, in Chavez's Venezuela, the election process, by itself, was an all-powerful source of legitimacy. Elections were called at irregular intervals whenever they suited Chavez's purpose of eliminating opposition, inside or outside the government -- seven elections in two years by McCoy and Neuman's count. Now, when election outcomes are not reliably pro-Chavez, the government is doing everything it can, both legally and illegally, to stop elections from happening -- even when millions have called for an election in accordance with the law created under Chavez's guidance. Were the consequences not so serious, the history of elections in Chavez's Venezuela would be the perfect comic parody of the totalitarian dream: you can hold as many elections as you want, whenever you want, so long as you are not allowed to vote against the incumbent.

It is a tribute to the resilience of the Venezuelan people and their belief in democracy that, faced with a leader who relies on intimidation rather than deliberation, they are still willing to work through the democratic institutions that have been nearly obliterated. The democratic spirit lives on in the Venezuelan people. Because of this, Venezuela, in many ways, is a more critical test of the viability of democracy within the existing international system than is Iraq or Haiti. The usual justifications for inaction against a dictator do not apply to the case of Venezuela. The logistical problems for democracy in Venezuela are not overwhelming. The necessary institutions exist and the memories of democracy, imperfect though it was, are fresh. No nation building is necessary to rescue Venezuelan democracy.

If the people inside of Venezuela can organize themselves to throw off the chains of a dictator, should not the people outside of Venezuela be able to organize to help them? The outcome in Venezuela will reveal much about whether the existing international system helps or hinders organizing in the name of freedom. The OAS and the Carter Center have performed commendably in Venezuela; their actions provide some measure of hope that countries are beginning to learn how to cooperate with one another for the advancement of democracy. Let us hope that their work is not negated by "sophisticated" internationalists who insist that the international community put its authority behind stabilizing any dictator who holds a United Nations vote.

Carroll Andrew Morse recently wrote for TCS about "The Bias Towards Brutality and Totalitarianism".

Give a Gift to IRS Along With Your Tax Return

(EDITOR'S NOTE: Caroline Baum, if nothing else, is spot on the mark here. Politicians and celebrities simply have no interest in acting on their word when it comes to the United States economy. Their philosophy is one of self-interest and self-ingratiation. The solution that the government provides in order to help diminish the size of our national debt, and that Ms. Baum emphasizes in her article below, is a simple one. I surely do not recall any measures passing in the house to moderate spending in light of the fact that a budget surplus may not be absolutely reliable. Instead, President Clinton and the Houses of Senate and Representatives saw fit to increase spending at almost every opportunity they were presented with. While the current budget deficit is partially the result of declining tax receipts and increased expenditures as a result of the war in Iraq, we can ultimately thank all of those individuals in the executive and legislative branches who saw fit not to save for a rainy day, instead opting to cull favor and the increased likelihood of reelection with an already complacent population. If politicians and celebrities truly want to help minimize our government debt, rather than just continue their efforts to stir up a nest full of wasps, let's seem them put their money where their mouths are. Until then, I would kindly ask them to mind their ignorance and shut up for once. -EBO)


By CAROLINE BAUM
Bloomberg News
Thursday, April 15, 2004

Asked last month if they would prefer balancing the budget to cutting taxes, Americans by an
overwhelming majority expressed a preference for fiscal balance. Sixty-one percent of 1,001 registered voters nationwide said they were in favor of balancing the budget and 36 percent preferred lowering taxes, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll. (The opinion poll provided no options for supply-siders, who would respond in the affirmative to both: cutting taxes as a means to balancing the budget.)

How many of the folks who say they want to balance the budget actually do something about it?

Americans are charitable by nature, but most of us probably never think about making a second, voluntary contribution to the federal government after we've forked over a considerable chunk of our income on April 15.

The Treasury's Internal Revenue Service and Bureau of the Public Debt make it easy for willing donors to contribute to this worthy cause. Look no further than the IRS's instructions for filing a federal return, or 1040, to find out what to do.

Interested parties can write a check payable to the ``Bureau of the Public Debt'' and mail it to Department G, P.O. Box 2188, Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188. Alternatively, you can enclose the check with your income tax return. (Do NOT make the mistake of combining your gift with your tax payment, the IRS warns.) The gift, considered a charitable contribution, is tax deductible.

Giving Season

The Bureau of the Public Debt's Web site is less intimidating than the IRS's and keeps a running total of year-to-date contributions. So far in fiscal 2004, which began Oct. 1, the Bureau has received $277,073, compared with $1,277,423.40 for all of fiscal 2003.

The gifts "come in all year-round, several a week -- small gifts mostly but some in the small four-figures," says Pete Hollenbach, a spokesman for the Bureau of the Public Debt. "We get some bequests.''

In other words, it's your average Janes and Joes who chip in, not billionaires like George Soros, who rant and rave about the deficit but who don't fork over a penny for the cause.

What if all these folks who want to reduce the deficit by raising taxes on the rich (themselves) put their money where their mouth is? If New Jersey Democratic Senator Jon Corzine ponied up $1 for every word he utters on the subject, he could match the $10 million in gifts the IRS has received over the past 20 years.

Campaign Gimmick

Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, could be the standard bearer. Instead of holding another celebrity-studded fundraiser, the Kerry campaign could enlist Hollywood's elite at a charity event. Who would contribute the most to debt reduction? Alec Baldwin? Barbra Streisand? Senator Kerry and his heiress wife?

Kerry could even donate one of his five homes -- perhaps the ski house in Idaho or the beach house in Nantucket. The Bureau of Public Debt accepts "real and personal property made only on the condition that the property be sold and the proceeds used to reduce debt held by the public.''

There's one caveat. Under the statute that outlines the terms for charitable gifts for debt reduction, "the Secretary (of the Treasury) and the Administrator (of General Services) each may reject a gift under this section when the rejection is in the interest of the government.''

Perhaps a large donation from a man who would be president wouldn't be "in the interest of government.''

Citizen Soros isn't off the hook.

Will the Opposition Lead?

(EDITOR'S NOTE: Paul Berman is a man of the left, which should lend the essay he's written below more credibility. Nevertheless, he has not allowed partisan bias to interfere with his views of the situation in the Middle East. Don't miss his must-read editorial in the New York Times today. The following excerpts highlight some of his more prescient comments. -BBM)


By PAUL BERMAN
The New York Times
Thursday, April 15, 2004

The war in Iraq may end up going well or catastrophically, but either way, this war has always been central to the broader war on terror. That is because terror has never been a matter of a few hundred crazies who could be rounded up by the police and special forces. Terror grows out of something larger — an enormous wave of political extremism.

The wave began to swell some 25 years ago and by now has swept across a big swath of the Muslim world. The wave is not a single thing. It consists of several movements or currents, which are entirely recognizable. These movements draw on four tenets: a belief in a paranoid conspiracy theory, according to which cosmically evil Jews, Masons, Crusaders and Westerners are plotting to annihilate Islam or subjugate the Arab people; a belief in the need to wage apocalyptic war against the cosmic conspiracy; an expectation that, post-apocalypse, the Islamic caliphate of ancient times will re-emerge as a utopian new society; and a belief that, meanwhile, death is good, and should be loved and revered.

A quarter century ago, some of the extremist movements pictured the coming utopia in a somewhat secular light, and others in a theocratic light. These differences, plus a few other quarrels, led to hatred and even war, like the one between Iran and Iraq. The visible rivalries left an impression in some people's minds that nothing tied together these sundry movements.

American foreign policy acted on that impression, and tried to play the movements against one another, and backed every non-apocalyptic dictator who promised to keep the extremists under control. The American policy was cynical and cruel. It did nothing to prevent those sundry movements and dictators from committing murders on a gigantic scale.

Nor did the policy produce anything good for America, in the long run. For the sundry movements did share a common outlook, which ought to have been obvious all along — the paranoid and apocalyptic outlook of European fascism from long ago, draped in Muslim robes. These movements added up to a new kind of modern totalitarianism. And, in time, the new totalitarianism found its common point, on which everyone could agree. This was the shared project of building the human bomb. The Shiite theocrats of Iran pioneered the notion of suicide terror. And everyone else took it up: Sunni theocrats, Baathist anti-theocrats of Iraq and Syria, the more radical Palestinian nationalists, and others, too.

The Sept. 11 attacks came from a relatively small organization. But Al Qaeda was a kind of foam thrown up by the larger extremist wave. The police and special forces were never going to be able to stamp out the Qaeda cells so long as millions of people around the world accepted the paranoid and apocalyptic views and revered suicide terror. The only long-term hope for tamping down the terrorist impulse was to turn America's traditional policies upside down, and come out for once in favor of the liberal democrats of the Muslim world. This would mean promoting a counter-wave of liberal and rational ideas to combat the allure of paranoia and apocalypse.

Some people argue that anti-totalitarian revolutions can never be brought about from outside. The history of World War II says otherwise. Some people respond with the observation that Germany, Italy and Japan are nothing like the Muslim world. In Afghanistan, the American-led invasion has nonetheless brought about an anti-totalitarian revolution. A pretty feeble revolution, true — but even feeble progress suggests large possibilities.

The whole point in overthrowing Saddam Hussein, from my perspective, was to achieve those large possibilities right in the center of the Muslim world, where the ripples might lead in every direction. Iraq was a logical place to begin because, for a dozen years, the Baathists had been shooting at American and British planes, and inciting paranoia and hatred against the United States, and encouraging the idea that attacks can successfully be launched against American targets, and giving that idea some extra oomph with the bluff about fearsome weapons. The Baathists, in short, contributed their bit to the atmosphere that led to Sept. 11. Yet Iraq could also boast of liberal democrats and some admirable achievements in the Kurdish north, which meant there were people to support, and not just to oppose. Such were the hopes.

An Interesting Take on the Korean Peninsula Situation

(EDITOR'S NOTE: This discussion from Oxblog gives a window into the Korean situation and the state of politics in the southern peninsula. It is long, but it reads quickly. -BBM)


This evening, the Boston chapter of the Nathan Hale Society had the privilege of dining with Prof. Sung-Yoon Lee of the Fletcher School of Diplomacy at Tufts. Prof. Lee is an expert on Korean politics and history. The subject of our discussion was the North Korean nuclear program.

The analytical linchpin of Prof. Lee's approach to North Korean behavior is his conclusion that the Pyongyang dictatorship considers the possession of nuclear weapons to be the only reliable guarantor of its existence. In the absence of a nuclear deterrent, it would only be a matter of time before the South Korean government destroyed its Northern counterpart by tempting its citizens with the prospect of prosperity and freedom Thus, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that Kim Jong Il will accept the verifiable dismantling of his nuclear program in exchange for economic aid, international legitimacy, a non-aggression pact with the United States or some combination of all three. Immoral or not, giving in to blackmail simply won't work.

In other words, Prof. Lee vehemently disagrees with all those who believe that the United States can resolve its ongoing confrontation with North Korea by means of either bilateral or multilateral negotiations. Yet given that war is simply not an acceptable option, Prof. Lee has nothing against negotiation, since it can't make matters worse and -- given some extraordinary luck -- may result in a lessening of tensions.

In assessing the state of US-North Korean relations, Prof. Lee believes that both the Bush administration and its critics make the categorical mistake of interpreting North Korean behavior as a response to American initiatives rather than the imperatives of North Korean domestic politics. Coming from this perspective, Prof. Lee tends to believe that the Bush administration has been beset by critics who offer unrealistic alternatives because of their naivete about North Korean politics. Thus, with regard to the Bush administration's decision to confront the North Koreans in October 2002 with evidence of their illegal uranium enrichemnt program, Prof. Lee suggested that the temporary escalation of tensions was essentially insignificant given that North Korea constantly creates crises as a result of its own provocative behavior.

Turning southward, Prof. Lee expressed grave concerns about rising anti-American sentiment in South Korea. While describing himself as an ardent South Korean nationalist who puts the interests of his homeland above all else, Prof. Lee nonetheless argued that absolutely nothing is more critical to South Korean security than an unflinching American commitment to protect it from Northern aggression. Speaking historically, Prof. Lee observed that whereas Harry Truman went to war in 1950 in order to contain Communism and protect American interests, his decision had the unmistakable effect of liberating South Korea from Northern occupation and laying the foundations of the moderan South Korean state.

With no memories of the war to rely on, young South Koreans have forgotten the degree to which South Korean and American security are inextricably linked. Thus, young South Koreans' passionate desire for reunification with the North leads them to indefensible conclusion (expressed via opinion polls) that it is the United States, rather than North Korea, that is preventing reunification. What young South Koreans do remember is that in 1980, South Korea's military government slaughtered thousands of civilians in what became known as the Kwangju Massacre. While there is no question that the Carter administration supported the military government almost uncritically, many South Koreans believe that the United States actually played a direct role in the massacre, since the military government could not have transferred its soldiers from the northern border to the southern city of Kwangju without the direct authorization of hte United States. [Apparently South Koreans don't think highly enough of Jimmy Carter to believe that he would never do such a thing. --ed.]

In addition to his wariness of South Korean public opinion, Prof. Lee is fiercely critical of both the current administration of Roh Moo-Hyun as well as that of his predecessor Kim Dae Jung. One year ago, Prof. Lee wrote that

[South Korean] nationalism was a constructive force in resisting colonial oppression and in the staggering challenge of nation-building half a century ago. Today, in its virulent anti-US rhetoric and shockingly naive attachment to North Korea, it is simply self-defeating.
One example of naivete that Prof. Lee mentioned was the Kim and Roh governments' decision to all but abandon counter-espionage programs designed to protect the South from the vast network of covert operatives -- numbering in the thousands -- that North Korea continues to operate in the South. In fact, the North Korean commitment to espionage is so fanatical that drafts preadolescents into its espionage programs so that they can undergo decades of training and indoctrination before being deployed to the South.

In spite of this bleak assessment of North Korean motives, is there any hope for change in the near future? Prof. Lee says 'no'. At the moment, there are no indications of factionalization within the North Korean military and thus no known prospects for a coup d'etat. While the North depends on China to provide much of its food and most of its fuel, China is in many ways the subordinate partner in the relationship. Knowing that a collapse of the North Korean regime would result in the arrival of millions upon millions of starving North Korean refugees in northern China, Beijing simply will not take any sort of action that endangers the existence of the Kim regime. At the same time, China desperately wants to avoid a military confrontation on the Korean peninsula that involves the United States.

How does China reconcile such conflicting impulses? The answer isn't exactly clear. Prof. Lee observed that the Beijing government does all in its power to hide its intentions from the West, as well as denying to the West any of the information it derives from its unique relationship with North Korea.

In closing, Prof. Lee shared his expectation there will be no significant developments on the Peninsula before the US presidential election in November. Moreover, even if John Kerry takes the White House there is little reason to expect any substantive change in American policy. For as long as the imperative of survival governs the decision-making process in Pyongyang, the options available to the West will remain extremely renstricted.

The Cost of Drug Research: A Double Standard in the United States

(EDITOR'S NOTE: At first glance, it seems unreasonable that Abbott Laboratories is raising prices for Norvir, a crucial drug used in the AIDS treatment 'cocktail' regimen. However, I have long argued for a free market environment that allows companies to set prices as a result of both supply and demand. As the drug is only protected by patents for a set duration, any pharmaceutical company that trys to fleece the public will surely get their comeuppance when generic manufacturers enter the marketplace. This increased competition typically occurs 10 years, and as little as 5 years, after FDA approval.

What is particularly galling about this recent intention to raise Norvir prices is two-fold. First, initial research into the drug was partially funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) which itself is fully funded by the federal government. Essentially, United States' taxpayers are now double-paying, as it were, for a drug whose development they essentially underwrote in the first place. Second, Abbott's claims that it must raise prices in the United States in order to continue funding for viral research is only a half truth. In actuality, they are raising prices in the United States because they are unable to do so in other countries, all of whom already purchase Norvir at substantially discounted rates. The whole truth is that, on the surface, the United States appears to be singlehandedly responsible for drug development.

The rest of the world seems to be riding our coattails, as it were, and this practice must end. Countries like France and Germany certainly seem to bask in their anti-American light when it comes to foreign policy, but quickly turn a blind eye when inexpensive healthcare and medicine is at risk. The double standard is offensive. In the case of drug pricing, I propose that free trade agreements include flat rate of pricing tied to per capita income. This solution would surely help to offset the ever spiraling cost of medication for patients in the United States going forward.

The following excerpts from an article in the New York Times details ongoing developments. -EBO)


Price of AIDS Drug Intensifies Debate on Legal Imports
By GARDINER HARRIS
The New York Times
April 14, 2004

The recent decision by Abbott Laboratories to quintuple the price of its crucial AIDS drug Norvir will be at the center of a federal hearing today in which AIDS groups and consumer advocates plan to argue that the government should begin allowing the import of cheaper drugs.

...the escalating protest over Norvir, whose average annual dosage cost rose to about $7,800 in January from $1,500, has suddenly given the import issue unexpected urgency.

Norvir is a vital ingredient in many of the drug "cocktail" regimens prescribed for tens of thousands of AIDS patients. Abbott, which cannot raise its prices overseas where governments control drug markets, says it has had to raise prices in the United States to continue financing its research into H.I.V. and other diseases.

In the cases of drugs that were developed with federal money — as Norvir was — the government has long held the right to demand "reasonable" prices, but has never done so.

With total sales of more than $1 billion since its introduction in 1996, Norvir long ago became profitable for Abbott. But with the recent price increase, the thousands of Americans who use Norvir now pay 10 times what the price is in Europe, where drug prices are regulated under national health care plans. An annual Norvir dosage in Belgium, for example, costs less than $720 a year.

Pardon my French, but Belgians can go fly a kite. At what point do drug companies simply say "no" to the absurd demands of socialist European nations?

Because drug prices are regulated abroad, but are not in this country, American consumers often end up in effect subsidizing overseas patients.

Drug makers fiercely oppose all efforts to legalize drug imports. They argue that bringing in foreign drugs — even when made in the companies' own factories — would effectively import foreign price controls, while reducing profits so much that companies would be unable to continue much of their research efforts.

Perhaps drug companies should exercise their clout in foreign countries that are fleecing them, rather than continuing to argue for fleecing the American taxpayer.

Federal drug officials, meanwhile, have argued that with imported drugs they cannot protect consumers from dangerous counterfeits that have none of the safeguards that cover drugs approved for sale in the United States.

This is a valid contention, but one which could very easily be remedied. As it stands, many of today's pharmaceutical and generic drug companies maintain manufacturing facillities offshore.

..."Norvir is sort of a nexus of all the bad practices that all the drug companies use," said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York. "Abbott should understand that what they're doing invites scrutiny and change."

..."[Norvir's] introduction followed an eight-year research effort at Abbott that began with a grant from the National Institutes of Health", according to John Erickson, the former chief of Abbott's AIDS drug research program. "The grant was critical in allowing us to make the rapid progress that we made."

..."Nobody's saying [drug companies] shouldn't have a reasonable profit, but to raise a drug's price like this seven years after they've already made a fortune is unconscionable," Lynda Dee said, a member of the Maryland AIDS Drug Assistance Program advisory committee.

..."The cost of AIDS medicines today is what funds the research for the better treatments and cures for tomorrow," said Alan Holmer, president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. "It's true that other developed countries are free-riding on American research and we need to address that, particularly in trade agreements."

Imam Muqtada Al-Sadr Does Not Represent 'All of Us'

(EDITOR'S NOTE: I hope everyone watched President Bush's speech and press conference. The following article pretty much speaks for itself. -BBM)


An exclusive interview with Wael Al Rukadi, vice-secretary general of the Council of Iraqi Tribes
by PIERRE BALANIAN
From AsiaNews
Thursday, April 8, 2004

People are quick to think that what is happening in Iraq is about a revolt of all Shiites against allied occupational forces. In reality, however, supporters of the 24 year-old Imam Muqtada Al-Sadr, are composed of a faction of unhappy citizens, most with ties to the old Iraqi regime and Iran. Moreover inspiring the revolt led by the young imam are many cases of personal vendettas and power struggles.

This is what we learn from an interview conducted with Wael Al-Rukadi, vice-secretary general of the Council of Iraqi Tribes.

Wael, 42, lives in the Shiite-majority town of Nassiriyah, where the Italian military is headquartered in Iraq. In the past, Wael was a journalist. After the fall of the Hussein government he took up politics.

During an exclusive phone interview with AsiaNews, Wael expresses solidarity with Italian forces in Nassiriyah and said that a withdrawal foreign troops before any power transition "would only lead to chaos".


Here's more:

As a Shiite how do you view the presence of foreign troops in Iraq?

Any withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraq at this time before a transition of power, elections and return to stability would only lead to chaos and all-out civil war in Iraq.

But Italian carabinieri troops were attacked in Nassiriyah…

The Italian soldiers are much loved by the people of Nassiriyah. Triggering the violent incidents were people from the outside, to be exact, from Falluja and the western part of the country. These were actually people from Falluja who brought sophisticated weapons to the city. "The [Italian] soldiers never opened fire first nor did they act as the aggressors. They only defended themselves.

I'll say it again: Italian soldiers are much loved by our people. The local population is in favor of returning to stability and the disarmament of those troops who shouldn't be in possession of weapons.

A Move to Block Gmail Service

(EDITOR'S NOTE: A state senator from California is seeking to prohibit the release of Google's Gmail service. As you may recall from an earlier column on this site, Google is releasing a new email client called Gmail with a seemingly limitless storage capacity for free usage by registered customers. In return, it intends to monitor emails for keywords sent on their Gmail client in order to more accurately target advertising for companies. Of particular concern is the notion that Google will invade their customers' privacy in exchange for the free storage. The government, it seems, is hell bent on protecting this very privacy. This is plainly anti-competitive. While it's not as though I don't find Googles efforts to monitor email somewhat offensive, it is appalling that the government seeks to intervene on behalf of the individual instead of allowing the free markets to decide whether this transgression of an individual's privacy can be more or less offset by the promise of essentially limitless storage. It again represents the very problem that strikes at the very core of our government: the sense that they, instead of us, know what's good for people. It is a dangerous precedent. The following highlights from Reuters news service review this developing story. -EBO)


From Reuters
Tuesday, April 13, 2004

A California state senator said Monday that she was drafting legislation to block Google's free e-mail service, Gmail, because it would place advertising in personal messages after searching them for keywords.

"We think it's an absolute invasion of privacy. It's like having a massive billboard in the middle of your home," said Sen. Liz Figueroa (D-Fremont). "We are asking them to rethink the whole product."

In late March, the world's leading Web search company announced plans to launch Gmail -- a service that would offer users 1 GB of free storage, more than 100 times the storage offered by other free services from Yahoo and Microsoft.

But in return for the extra storage, users would agree to let Google's technology scan their incoming e-mail, then deliver targeted ads based on keywords in the messages. For instance, a user receiving a message about a friend's flu symptoms might also receive ads for cold and flu remedies.

Figueroa, who was the author of California's Do-Not-Call law that allows people to block telemarketing calls, said she was pursuing the legislation because she had not yet received a response to an April 8 letter to Google co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page, in which she laid out her concerns.

"We received the letter from Senator Figueroa. We appreciate her feedback and will take it into consideration as we build the best possible webmail service for our users," Google said in an e-mailed statement.

The groups charged, among other things, that scanning e-mail for ad placement poses unnecessary risks of misuse and that the system sets "potentially dangerous precedents and establishes reduced expectations of privacy" in e-mail.

"We are confident that Gmail is fully compliant with data protection laws worldwide," Google said in a statement. "Google has the highest regard for the privacy of our users' information. We have taken great care to architect Gmail to protect user privacy and to deliver an innovative and useful service."

Again, my philosophy is: if you don't want your emails monitored for keywords, then don't sign up for Google's free Gmail service. There are plenty of alternatives.

Massaging Science: Conceptions and Misconceptions in the African AIDS Epidemic

A spirited conversation last night prompted me to investigate the problem of AIDS in Africa, and in other third world nations around the world, in order to try and separate the fact from the myth. Having heard about this plight for many years, it is important to isolate the actual statistics, and more importantly, to recognize any inherent bias in so doing. Let me preface my comments by stating that the epidemic in Africa is unfortunate and horrifying. Nontheless, the problem can ultimately be resolved if we accept the practical origins of its occurence and define policy, such as education, protection, and abstinence, accordingly. Eschewing the effots of pharmaceutical companies in the West, activist groups, and caring medical professionals, these policies demand great action from the leaders and rulers of the stricken nations themselves. For it is their corruption, ignorance, and inaction that must be tackled headon in order to stem the advance of infection.

The following articles highlight some of the controversies in grappling with solutions to the AIDS crisis. Frankly, controversies exist in simply attempting to identify and measure its breadth. I have highlighted some of the authors' conclusions, and commented accordingly where I saw fit, though it is surely worth your efforts to read each of them in their entirety.


U.S. Expert Downplays Africa's AIDS Statistics Dispute
-"What if we wake up five years hence to discover the problem has been blown out of all proportion by unsound estimates, causing upwards of $20 billion to be wasted?" he wrote.
-"There is no perfect method of measuring something as elusive and stigmatized as HIV infection," said Lawrence Marum, an epidemiologist at a research station in Kenya run by the U.S. government's Centers for Disease Control (CDC).
-The KDHS found an HIV prevalence rate of 8.7 percent among women - the same as UNAIDS estimates -- but found a rate of 4.5 percent in men, significantly lower than expected.
-All three found slightly lower rates of HIV infection, compared to the figures given by the United Nations.

These figures are for the sub-Saharan countries, the most highly-infected region in all of Africa, and yet all are well below the 40% levels typically espoused in propaganda to effect greater awareness and funding. While the often bearer of bad news, it is often the case that statistics are manipulated and exaggerated by those seeking to force their opinions on others.


Aids Statistics 'Likely to Be Conservative'
-It is assumed 35% born to HIV positive mothers will be infected, 25% at birth and 10% through breastfeeding which is thought to be almost universal in most of sub-Saharan Africa.
-Some 21% of women aged 15 to 24 are thought to be infected.
-"It doesn't make that much difference if we say 14% or 15% of the population is infected. It is still a big problem," said the spokesman.

I concur completely. The problem is immense, potentially larger than that, and even more troubling, potentially growing. NONETHELESS, the solution lies not in spending billions on drug treatments that simply delay the inevitable. The solution lies in EDUCATION and INFORMATION so as to stem the causes of AIDS: unprotected sex, drug use, and birth of a child to an infected, pregnant mother. The United States surely did not benefit from AIDS drug cocktails for prevention and to prolong the patients life in the 1980s, yet it succeeded in eventually stemming the growth of new AIDS cases within 5-10 years of virus discovery because of programs to rapidly educated the population of the virus' risks and transmission. It is in this direction that UN AIDS activists would be better served in their cause.


South Africa Sued for Failing To Distribute AIDS Drug
-Frustrated by the fact that hundreds of South African babies are born with HIV every day, AIDS activists and doctors sued the government today demanding that it distribute a drug that could cut that number by half.
-The German drug company Boehringer Ingelheim has offered nevirapine free to developing countries for the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV, but South Africa has yet to accept the offer.

You will notice that the fault lies predominantly with distribution by governments, as it always has throughout this epidemic. African governments have typically represented the worst form of rulership in history, neglecting even the slightest efforts at education, medication, and care for their people. Indeed, funding from western nations has infrequently been used for its intended purposes most often been used to line the pockets of despicable despots instead of directed at . The solution lies not in reduced drug prices or reformation; rather, it lies in the revolution against corrupt government officials. Prologue: The courts eventually ruled against South Africa.


AIDS in Africa?
-The only evidence that some Africans are "infected" with a virus called HIV is indirect, the random testing of Africans' blood for the presence of antibodies that react with a collection of so-called HIV proteins. If the "HIV proteins" (present in the test kits) only reacted with HIV antibodies there would be no problem.
-Many experts on African AIDS accepted this fact even at the beginning of the AIDS era. Earlier this year Myron Essex, a leading American researcher and his colleagues from Harvard University, when discussing their experimental data on HIV antibody testing in Africa, again warned that the HIV antibody tests "may not be sufficient for HIV diagnosis in AIDS-endemic areas of Central Africa where the prevalence of mycobacterial diseases [leprosy and tuberculosis and others, whose antibodies cross-react] is quite high".
-"Today, because of AIDS, it seems that Africans are not allowed to die from these conditions [from which they used to die before the AIDS era] any longer. If tens of thousands are dying from AIDS (and Africans do not cremate their dead) where are the graves?"
-According to him, the uppermost question in the minds of intelligent Africans and Europeans in that continent is: "Why do the world's media appear to have conspired with some scientists to become so gratuitously extravagant with the untruth?"

The conclusions of this article will surely be difficult to stomach after much of the 'information' and 'data' that has been spoon-fed to us by the media. It is not to suggest that AIDS does not exist in Africa; rather it suggests that the statistics are manipulted and potentially overblown. However, it does offer an uncommon alternative that is not widely heard, and thus, is very much worth considering.

Ultimately, I recognize the need for quality care of this life-threatening illness. It is troublesome that the world seeks to gloss over the reasons why, instead looking to continually throw hard-earned money at the problem. Their solution seems best equated to using a band-aid to repair severed limb. My suggestion to accept the root causes of the problem head on, including unprotected sex and drug use, two triggers of absolute horror to African nations. Only then can a program of widespread education go forth among the people to ultimately stem the spread of AIDS. It is unfortunate that a partisan debate between ruling parties around the globe has created an environment whereby solid science and statistics are being marginalized in order to 'prove' an emotional leaning.

The Chorus of Useful Idiots

(EDITOR'S NOTE: Never has a more apt term been applied than Useful Idiots to describes citizens outraged by United States' policy towards the Middle East and terrorism. Though the following article from Bruce Thornton is over 2 years old, it's conclusions are no less prescient. Though I encourage you to read the article in its entirety, I highlight the following excerpts. -EBO)


By BRUCE S THORNTON
FrontPageMagazine.com
Friday, November 1, 2002

Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that would hang them. Why people who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked passionately to destroy both is a fascinating question, one still with us today. Now the useful idiots can be found in the chorus of appeasement, reflexive anti-Americanism, and sentimental idealism trying to inhibit the necessary responses to another freedom-hating ideology, radical Islam.

The facts are there, and the facts tell us that a sizable number of Islamic people see the West and its proxy Israel as its ancient enemy whose destiny is to be conquered by a spiritually superior Islamic civilization. That struggle may be waged by a secular maniac like Hussein, a homicide-bomber in Israel, or a terrorist in Manhattan...

More factual information, then, will not help people whose beliefs are based not on reason but on a debased religious impulse. For years Communism was the opiate of the secular materialists, an apocalyptic creed which filled the chosen with assurance of their righteousness and election.

Recognizing these attitudes as a species of religion makes it easier to understand their illogic and incoherence. Hypocrisy, for example, the failure to live the doctrine one preaches, is a perennial bugbear of religious belief. So too with the anti-Americanists, the vast majority of whom have no intention whatsoever of living anywhere other than in the West, where they enjoy the freedom and prosperity that subsidizes their beliefs.

...Only a quasi-religious eternal standard of human happiness--the sort traditional religion once promised for believers after this life--could explain the nit-picking, ever more minute dissections of presumed American injustice and evil that typify the "leftist" attack on the United States.

...But when the standard of judgment is a religious belief in a perfect world, a world in which conflict and hurt feelings "never" occur, then America falls short.

Freedom of religion in America, however, means freedom for pseudo-religion as well. Useful idiots have a Constitutional right to display and parade their useful idiocy. But what should disturb us all is the prevalence of this sort of irrationality in what are presumably the bastions of critical thinking and healthy skepticism, our universities. It is there that the pseudo-religions of Marxism and anti-Americanism not only flourish, but choke out other alternatives. An ideological conformity redolent of the medieval church permeates everything from who gets hired to what gets taught. And that betrayal of the intellectual's calling means that fewer and fewer venues exist in which the irrational and dangerous delusions that blind us to reality — the idiocy useful to tyrants and dictators — can be exposed.

Bruce Thornton is a professor of Classics at Cal State Fresno and author of "Bonfire of the Humanities" and "Greek Ways".

Why We Must Never Abandon This Historic Struggle in Iraq

(EDITOR'S NOTE: Tony Blair's speech, vowing to remain steadfast in support of freedom and democracy in Iraq, is reprinted in its entirety below. It is the finest example in recent memory to defend our actions overseas and our responsibilities to the people of Iraq, the Middle East, and the World. More importantly, it begs to understand why the self-described elite in the Western media seem to intent on the coalition's failure, particularly when the coalition is endeavoring to defend everything that the liberal left and the media strive so seemingly to espouse. Are their politcally leanings simply canards, designed to foster votes and sympathies, or will they ultimately find the tenacity to make good on their promises and to merit their self-imposed labels of freedom? As always, emphasis added. -EBO)


by TONY BLAIR
Sunday April 11, 2004

We are locked in a historic struggle in Iraq. On its outcome hangs more than the fate of the Iraqi people. Were we to fail, which we will not, it is more than 'the power of America' that would be defeated. The hope of freedom and religious tolerance in Iraq would be snuffed out. Dictators would rejoice; fanatics and terrorists would be triumphant. Every nascent strand of moderate Arab opinion, knowing full well that the future should not belong to fundamentalist religion, would be set back in bitter disappointment.
If we succeed - if Iraq becomes a sovereign state, governed democratically by the Iraqi people; the wealth of that potentially rich country, their wealth; the oil, their oil; the police state replaced by the rule of law and respect for human rights - imagine the blow dealt to the poisonous propaganda of the extremists. Imagine the propulsion toward change it would inaugurate all over the Middle East.

In every country, including our own, the fanatics are preaching their gospel of hate, basing their doctrine on a wilful perversion of the true religion of Islam. At their fringe are groups of young men prepared to conduct terrorist attacks however and whenever they can. Thousands of victims the world over have now died, but the impact is worse than the death of innocent people.

The terrorists prey on ethnic or religious discord. From Kashmir to Chechnya, to Palestine and Israel, they foment hatred, they deter reconciliation. In Europe, they conducted the massacre in Madrid. They threaten France. They forced the cancellation of the President of Germany's visit to Djibouti. They have been foiled in Britain, but only for now.

Of course they use Iraq. It is vital to them. As each attack brings about American attempts to restore order, so they then characterise it as American brutality. As each piece of chaos menaces the very path toward peace and democracy along which most Iraqis want to travel, they use it to try to make the coalition lose heart, and bring about the retreat that is the fanatics' victory.

They know it is a historic struggle. They know their victory would do far more than defeat America or Britain. It would defeat civilisation and democracy everywhere. They know it, but do we? The truth is, faced with this struggle, on which our own fate hangs, a significant part of Western opinion is sitting back, if not half-hoping we fail, certainly replete with schadenfreude at the difficulty we find.

So what exactly is the nature of the battle inside Iraq itself? This is not a 'civil war', though the purpose of the terrorism is undoubtedly to try to provoke one. The current upsurge in violence has not spread throughout Iraq. Much of Iraq is unaffected and most Iraqis reject it. The insurgents are former Saddam sympathisers, angry that their status as 'boss' has been removed, terrorist groups linked to al-Qaeda and, most recently, followers of the Shia cleric, Muqtada-al-Sadr.

The latter is not in any shape or form representative of majority Shia opinion. He is a fundamentalist, an extremist, an advocate of violence. He is wanted in connection with the murder of the moderate and much more senior cleric, Ayatollah al Khoei last year. The prosecutor, an Iraqi judge, who issued a warrant for his arrest, is the personification of how appallingly one-sided some of the Western reporting has become. Dismissed as an American stooge, he has braved assassination attempts and extraordinary intimidation in order to follow proper judicial process and has insisted on issuing the warrant despite direct threats to his life in doing so.

There you have it. On the one side, outside terrorists, an extremist who has created his own militia, and remnants of a brutal dictatorship which murdered hundreds of thousands of its own people and enslaved the rest. On the other side, people of immense courage and humanity who dare to believe that basic human rights and liberty are not alien to Arab and Middle Eastern culture, but are their salvation.

Over the past few weeks, I have met several people from the Iraqi government, the first genuine cross-community government Iraq had seen. People like Mrs Barwari, the Minister of Public Works, who has just survived a second assassination attempt that killed her bodyguard; people like Mr Zebari, the Foreign Minister. They are intelligent, forward-looking, tolerant, dedicated to their country. They know that 'the occupation' can be used to stir up anti-coalition feeling; they, too, want their country governed by its people and no one else. But they also know that if we cut and run, their country would be at the mercy of warring groups which are united only in their distaste for democracy.

The tragedy is that outside of the violence which dominated the coverage of Iraq, there are incredible possibilities of progress. There is a huge amount of reconstruction going on; the legacy of decades of neglect is slowly being repaired.

By 1 June, electricity will be 6,000MW, 50 per cent more than prewar, but short of the 7,500MW they now need because of the massive opening up of the economy, set to grow by 60 per cent this year and 25 per cent the next.

The first private banks are being opened. A new currency is in circulation. Those in work have seen their salaries trebled or quadrupled and unemployment is falling. One million cars have been imported. Thirty per cent now have satellite TV, once banned, where they can watch al-Jazeera, the radical Arab TV station, telling them how awful the Americans are.

The internet is no longer forbidden. Shrines are no longer shut. Groups of women and lawyers meet to discuss how they can make sure the new constitution genuinely promotes equality. The universities eagerly visit Western counterparts to see how a modern, higher-education system, free to study as it pleases, would help the new Iraq.

People in the West ask: why don't they speak up, these standard-bearers of the new Iraq? Why don't the Shia clerics denounce al-Sadr more strongly? I understand why the question is asked. But the answer is simple: they are worried. They remember 1991, when the West left them to their fate. They know their own street, unused to democratic debate, rife with every rumour, and know its volatility. They read the Western papers and hear its media. And they ask, as the terrorists do: have we the stomach to see it through?

I believe we do. And the rest of the world must hope that we do. None of this is to say we do not have to learn and listen. There is an agenda that could unite the majority of the world. It would be about pursuing terrorism and rogue states on the one hand and actively remedying the causes around which they flourish on the other: the Palestinian issue; poverty and development; democracy in the Middle East; dialogue between main religions.

I have come firmly to believe the only ultimate security lies in our values. The more people are free, the more tolerant they are of others; the more prosperous, the less inclined they are to squander that prosperity on pointless feuding and war.

But our greatest threat, apart from the immediate one of terrorism, is our complacency. When some ascribe, as they do, the upsurge in Islamic extremism to Iraq, do they really forget who killed whom on 11 September 2001? When they call on us to bring the troops home, do they seriously think that this would slake the thirst of these extremists, to say nothing of what it would do to the Iraqis?

Or if we scorned our American allies and told them to go and fight on their own, that somehow we would be spared? If we withdraw from Iraq, they will tell us to withdraw from Afghanistan and, after that, to withdraw from the Middle East completely and, after that, who knows? But one thing is for sure: they have faith in our weakness just as they have faith in their own religious fanaticism. And the weaker we are, the more they will come after us.

It is not easy to persuade people of all this; to say that terrorism and unstable states with WMD are just two sides of the same coin; to tell people what they don't want to hear; that, in a world in which we in the West enjoy all the pleasures, profound and trivial, of modern existence, we are in grave danger.

There is a battle we have to fight, a struggle we have to win and it is happening now in Iraq.

Tony Blair is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Leader of the Labour Party.

A Thought Experiment (continued...)

Moreover, does anyone really think that the domestic policies and initiatives required to simply prevent the method of attack (hijacking) used by the Middle Eastern terrorists would have been tolerated by privacy hounds and liberal fanatics? Essentially, racial profiling, fingerprint and retinal identification, complete separation of pilots and passengers, and a more rigid stance on immigration would surely have diminished the threat of using planes as missiles against our edifices. Nonetheless, until we get serious about protecting our interests at the expense of slightly longer waits in airports, we leave ourselves continually vulnerable in the future.

A Thought Experiment

(EDITOR'S NOTE: Another Tempest in a Teacup:

Recent partisan comments have focused on the August 6th, 2001 memo to the president "warning" of Al-Qaeda's desire to perform attacks in the United States. But, no timeframe, area of the country, or methods were mentioned. Indeed, no less an authority than Bob Grahm (and no friend of the president's policies) had this to say:

Sen. Bob Graham (D.-Fla.), Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told HUMAN EVENTS on May 21 that his committee had received all the same terrorism intelligence prior to September 11 as the Bush administration.

"Yes, we had seen all the information," said Graham. "But we didn't see it on a single piece of paper, the way the President did."

Graham added that threats of hijacking in an August 6 memo to President Bush were based on very old intelligence that the committee had seen earlier. "The particular report that was in the President's Daily Briefing that day was about three years old," Graham said. "It was not a contemporary piece of information."

It does beg the question, however: What if we had broken up the 9/11 ring prior to the disaster by some miracle? The following anonymous user's counterfactual attempts to address this possibility. It probably overstates the case somewhat, but it is still interesting. -BBM)


Imagine this:

In August 2001, the CIA and FBI combine efforts to thwart an impending terrorist attack, and nineteen Arab immigrants are arrested and charged with numerous felonies related to the plot. Attorney General John Ashcroft claims at a press conference that their plans involved hijacking airliners and crashing them into skyscrapers and other high-value targets.

Tom Daschle and Nancy Pelosi immediately issue statements condemning Ashcroft's "grandstanding" over unproven allegations against innocent Arab immigrants. Ted Kennedy makes a speech at the opening of a new liberal think-tank decrying the Bush Administration's "war against immigrants" and "Islamophobia".

The New York Times joins the battle, its editorial writers calling for an immediate congressional investigation into whether the CIA and FBI violated 1970's-era Federal laws restricting their ability to cooperate on cases within the United States. Other media outlets make a cause celebre of the 19 arrestees, starting a continuous drumbeat of stories about how their rights were violated by "racial profiling". Maureen Dowd, the NYT's favorite snarky spinster, writes at length about alleged plot leader Mohammed Atta, regaling her readers with moist prose about his "chiseled features" and "piercing dark eyes".

The media assault continues unabated through the rest of 2001, and into 2002. Democrats finally force a Senate investigation into possible "improprieties" in domestic anti-terrorism investigations, filling the airwaves and newspapers with accusations about rampant racial profiling and domestic espionage activities carried out by the FBI and CIA.

The constant publicity enables the Democrats to retake the House of Representatives in the November '02 elections, and to solidify their control of the Senate. They use their restored control of the entire Congress to cut CIA funding and enact comprehensive "safeguards" against combined CIA/FBI operations. The criminal cases against the 19 Arab terrorist suspects begins to unravel, as their defense attorneys accuse the Justice Department of entrapment and use of illegally-obtained evidence. The ACLU files friend-of-the-court briefs on behalf of all nineteen men...

...and meanwhile, in a country house outside Kandahar, Osama bin Laden tells his senior staff that the failure of this operation is a blessing in disguise from Allah: "Look, brothers...the infidels are voluntarily weakening themselves. We will just bide our time and wait until we can obtain mass-destruction weaponry and bring it into their country".

The only way to prevent 9/11 realistically would have been to invade Afganistan 1-2 years prior. I don't know that I would have supported action of that type prior to 9/11... would you? Obviously, 9/11 changed everything for me.

Western Cannibalism

(EDITOR'S NOTE: I am not sure why I even bother writing comments, particularly when Mr. Hanson's writings capture my sentiments so perfectly. Read the selected excerpts below. -BBM)

"Everything that the world holds dear — the free exchange of ideas, the security of congregating and traveling safely, the long struggle for tolerance of differing ideas and religions, the promise of equality between the sexes and ethnic groups, and the very trust that lies at the heart of all global economic relationships — all this and more Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and the adherents of fascism in the Middle East have sought to destroy: some as killers themselves, others providing the money, sanctuary, and spiritual support.

We did not ask for this war, but it came. In our time and according to our station, it is now our duty to end it. And that resolution will not come from recrimination in time of war, nor promises to let fundamentalists and their autocratic sponsors alone, but only through the military defeat and subsequent humiliation of their cause. So let us cease the hysterics, make the needed sacrifices, and allow our military the resources, money, and support with which it most surely will destroy the guilty and give hope at last to the innocent".

Perspectives from Inside Iraq

The following is a list of blogs authored by Iraqis (mostly in Bagdad, but some in Basara and other areas). I don't mean to suggest that they are representative of Iraq as a whole, but these are educated professionals who have had some training in the West for the most part. Nonetheless, it is a refreshing perspective from the inside. These blogs go back for well over a year and will surely make for interesting research material in someone's future book. While they are listed in no particular order, there are lots of links on their sites to other Iraqi blogs with a diversity of opinions. There's even a sistani.org!

Healing Iraq

Iraq the Model

Iraq at a Glance

The Mesopotamian

Hammorabi

Where is Raed?

Sun of Iraq

G. in Baghdad

Road of a Nation

There's many more, but I typically visit the first six or seven.

The Current Situation in Iraq

(EDITOR'S NOTE: For those of you that oppose the war in Iraq, or opposed the way we got into it, I must remind you that the people who are currently fighting in Fallujah and Sadr's gangs represent the very antithesis of the values that we all, conservative or liberal, hold dear. These factions hold a violent, anti-intellectual, tribal, pre-modern, chauvinistic, fascist view of how society should be organized. They must be defeated in order for Iraq and the Middle East, and therefore the rest of the world, to move on. Fortunately, these people are in the minority (see below). Of the 25 million people in Iraq, only a small percentage are participating in this factional fighting. Indeed, it is not a general uprising since most shia do not want an Iranian-style mullacracy. Quagmire/Vietnam comparisons are way off base. Recall that the VC and NVA were supported by two nuclear powered superpowers that shared borders with North Vietnam and severely limited our offensive options. Likewise, those who claim that things will be easy are off base, too. But, in 20 years, I doubt anyone willl think that this war was a really bad idea.

This represents the best opportunity to change the world for the better since the Cold War (and therefore since 1945). The only force on Earth that can keep us from victory is erosion of support at home. -BBM)


In Search of Lost Time (Tacitus)

As you read this in the cold, comforting, wan glow of your screen, United States Marines are adding Fallujah to the roll call of honor that stretches from our young nation's first defeat of jihad in North African sands, to the beaches of Tarawa and Saipan, to Hue, and beyond. And soon, the men and women of the United States Army will emerge from their embattled base camps to conquer the ancient valleys of the Tigris and the Euphrates for the second time in a year. What they are doing is right and just; the enemy they fight is manifestly base and tyrannical. There is no question on this count, and there is no doubt of their battlefield victory. What is in doubt is whether their victory will last, and whether the price paid for it will be worthwhile. These magnificent instruments of our national will, soldier and Marine alike, are unstoppable by any insurgent, any jihadist, any fanatic, or any guerrilla. In fact, fellow American, there are only two things in the world that can stop them, and make their earnest sacrifice for glory or for naught:

You and me.


Meanwhile, here's more on how outside-the-mainstream Sadr is, from ABC News:

Shiite Arabs in Iraq express relatively little support for attacks against coalition forces such as those that occurred Sunday. And while most do express confidence in religious leaders and call for them to play a role in Iraq today, most do not seek a theocracy, and very few see Iran as a model for Iraq.
A nationwide poll of Iraqis conducted in February for ABCNEWS also found that very few Shiites express support for Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose militia mounted the deadly attacks against the U.S.-led occupation. . . .

In terms of al-Sadr, a bare 1 percent of Iraqis name him as the national leader they trust most. On Iran, just 3 percent name it as a model for Iraq in the coming years, and just 4 percent say it should play a role in rebuilding Iraq.


And from Reuters:

Iraq's Sadr Turns Down Elders' Peace Appeal

Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has turned down an appeal by Iraq's powerful Shi'ite Muslim establishment to renounce violence, a leading cleric said Monday.

An aide to Mohammad Bahr al-Uloum, a member of the U.S.-installed Iraqi Governing Council, said Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, regarded as Iraq's most powerful cleric and a rival of Sadr's, supported the Iraqi seminary's appeal.

"The Hawza (seminary) is unanimous on this," the aide said.

"We asked Moqtada (al-Sadr) to stop resorting to violence, occupying public buildings and other actions that make him an outlaw. He insists on staying on the same course that could destroy the nation."

He said Sadr refused to meet a religious and tribal delegation at the main mosque of Kufa, near the holy city of Najaf, where he is staging a sit-in with armed followers.

"The delegation met Moqtada's aides, who did not express interest in relying on wisdom and patience," the aide said.

U.S. authorities occupying Iraq issued an arrest warrant for Sadr Monday in connection with the killing of a senior Shi'ite cleric a year ago.

Iraq's U.S. governor, Paul Bremer, termed Sadr an outlaw Monday, a day after battles between Sadr's militia and U.S.-led coalition troops in Baghdad and near Najaf killed 48 Iraqis, eight American soldiers and one Salvadoran soldier.

For the past week, Sadr has been at the head of violent anti-American protests. His followers have sworn to fight back if attempts are made to arrest him.

Unlike the Shi'ite religious establishment, which has historic alliances with Iraq's merchant class and has cooperated with the U.S.-led occupation, Sadr has denounced the occupation and demanded the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

His brand of nationalistic Islam appeals mainly to poor young Shi'ites who grew up under a crippling economic embargo and repression by the former Baathist government of Saddam Hussein.

Letter to the Editor

(EDITOR'S NOTE:The following commentary was directed to the editors of the realist party in response to the article entitled, "The War on Wal-Mart". -EBO)


Calvin Mitchell from New York, New York writes:

Please....

1) I wouldn't want to live near such a giant "big box" store. Would you? Obviously, Inglewood, CA didn't either.
2) The city council of Inglewood set stringent guidelines restricting the amount of sq. footage of non-taxable items any big box store could carry. (democracy in action)
3) Wal-Mart didn't like those restrictions and spent more than $1m getting this on the ballot and advertising on its behalf. They lost. (democracy in action) Save the anti-community group rhetoric. Wal-Mart lost, fair and square.
4) Remember it's California. Just ask Gov. Schwarzenegger.
5) Just because Wal-Mart supposedly saves the "average" family "nearly $600" annually in grocery bills, it's rather Pollyanna-ish to believe that that amount automatically creates up to 36,000 new jobs.
6) Are you telling me that what's good for Wal-Mart is good for the country?

The War on Wal-Mart

(EDITOR'S NOTE: Recent protests in California against the construction of a Wal-Mart under the premise of its negative impact to the community is startling. Never before have I heard such anti-competitve rhetoric in my life. If ever there were a model of efficiency, productivity, and cost savings for the average consumer, it was and is Wal-Mart. The real issue at hand is the labor unions recognition that Wal-Mart's success comes with a cost: the continued diminution of organized labor in this country. Indeed, the improvement in cost of living brought about by lower selling prices at Wal-Mart more than offsets the marginal decrease in average hourly wages. Moreover, the community benefits from a flood of new jobs, much more traction in upward mobility of employment given Wal-Mart's strong philosophy to promote from within, and the continued benefits of health insurance programs. Yes, this war against Wal-Mart is ultimately a war against free markers by the radical left and political snobs living on Ivory towers and writing from elite news journals. However, to those residents actually living in the communities served by or hoping to be served by Wal-Mart and seeking to earn an honest living, the notion of lower prices, better quality, and better service is the ultimate ideal. The following excerpts from an article in the Wall Street Journal elaborates on this subject in ever more clarity. As always, emphasis added and commentary italicized within. -EBO)


By STEVEN MALANGA
The Wall Street Journal
Wednesday, April 7, 2004

Here is a story you're unlikely to read in the spate of press attacks on Wal-Mart these days:

When Hartford, CT, tore down a blighted housing project, city officials hatched an innovative redevelopment plan: Lure Wal-Mart to the site, entice other retailers with the promise of being near the discount giant, and then use the development's revenues to build new housing. After Wal-Mart agreed, city officials and residents celebrated the idea of better shopping, more jobs and new housing in one of America's poorest cities.

Why wouldn't they? It is a win-win for the community. Lower prices for all and a newly available abundance of jobs.

But then outsiders claiming to represent the local community began protesting the project. Astonished city leaders and residents quickly discovered the forces fueling the campaign: a Connecticut chapter of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union; and ACORN, the radical community group. Outraged residents denounced outside interference. "These people looked for every possible reason to stop a project that the community wants," says Jackie Fongemie, a resident.

It is often the case that the community strongly desires the development of stores like Wal-Mart. Sadly, the US media instead focuses on the highly vocal outsiders purporting to represent the community. Quite the opposite, these protestors have only their own agendas in mind, such as the continued dominance and resulting inefficiencies of organized labor and unions.

Though Wal-Mart has encountered opposition for years from anti-sprawl activists or small-town merchants, the Hartford drama exemplifies a new form of opposition, a coordinated effort of the Left in which unions, activist groups like ACORN and the National Organization of Women, and even plaintiffs' attorneys work together in alliances. They are fighting the giant retailer in statehouses, city halls and courts.

More than just a skirmish over sites, theirs is an assault on a company that embodies the productivity-driven, customer-oriented economy that emerged in the '90s, by opponents who argue that there is a hidden cost to business's increasing emphasis on low prices and high employee output. Opponents seek government or court edicts to force Wal-Mart and others like it to raise wages and offer workers more benefits, and they are rushing into battle just as the company expands to underserved urban communities, making the conflict a vital issue not just in Wal-Mart's traditional rural and suburban markets but, increasingly, in American cities.

...Wal-Mart has led a productivity revolution in retailing which supercharged the American economy. Warren Buffett even declared that Wal-Mart -- not Microsoft -- has contributed more than any other business to the health of the economy.

Because non-union Wal-Mart represents the leading edge of this American business revolution, the left's crusade against it has emerged as a clash of worldviews, as unions and their allies try to convince the public that super-efficient operators like Wal-Mart lower workers' standard of living. The left has especially targeted Wal-Mart's push into grocery super centers, which have been pulverizing unionized grocery stores. In an age when supermarkets already operate on single-digit profit margins, Wal-Mart's entry into a market can still drive down grocery prices 15%.

...But the left's case ignores the greater benefit that an efficient operator like Wal-Mart brings to an entire economy by driving down prices and forcing other stores to perform better. A Wal-Mart-sponsored study, undertaken by the Los Angeles Economic Development Council, estimates that Wal-Mart's entry into the local market would save southern California shoppers $3.76 billion annually, or nearly $600 per household, creating up to 36,000 new jobs.

Despite opponents' charges, Wal-Mart has had little trouble recruiting workers, in part because the gap between its pay and union wages isn't as large as opponents claim, and because Wal-Mart is growing so rapidly that it attracts ambitious workers looking for a career. In particular, workers in minority communities traditionally friendly to the left's agenda have shocked opponents by welcoming Wal-Mart. Unions tried to stop the opening of the company's store in Crenshaw Plaza, Los Angeles, even unsuccessfully urging the Urban League not to work with Wal-Mart on a job-training program; but more than 10,000 locals applied to work at the store. "It's those who don't live in this community who did the most objecting to this store," says councilman Bernard Parks. "The community has clearly spoken, and it supports this store."

...Though union-sponsored campaigns have meant little to consumers, the constant attacks are scoring in the elite media, whose members rarely go to Wal-Mart and can't understand the importance of the stores to middle-American shoppers.

...So striking have the attacks been that a Kansas City newspaper columnist recently suggested that the national press is "angry that average Americans don't share their perceptions of Wal-Mart as the bad guys."

Not surprisingly, the press downplays Wal-Mart's virtues: that it has never been accused of funny accounting; that it doesn't reward its executives with exorbitant salaries or perks; that not only do other executives call it the most admired company in America, but shopping surveys show it is the consumer's favorite store. But acclaim from common folk may not protect a company when elite opinion turns against it, influencing legislators, regulators and the courts. That's why Wal-Mart has become the chief private-sector target of trial lawyers, sued more than any other company, as the plaintiff's bar and its allies seek to achieve through litigation what activists struggle to accomplish in organizing drives. And every battle they win will cost the American consumer.

Mr. Malanga is a contributing editor at City Journal.

The Wages of Appeasement

(EDITOR'S NOTE: From the Wall Street Journal, we have the following excellent article. Read selected excerpts below on how to respond to Fallujah. -BBM)


by MARK BOWDEN
The Wall Street Journal
Monday, April 5, 2004

It is a mistake to conclude that those committing such acts represent a majority of the community. Just the opposite is true. Lynching is most often an effort to frighten and sway a more sensible, decent mainstream. In Marion it was the Ku Klux Klan, in Mogadishu it was Aidid loyalists, in Fallujah it is either diehard Saddamites or Islamo-fascists.

The worst answer the U.S. can make to such a message--which is precisely what we did in Mogadishu--is back down. By most indications, Aidid's supporters were decimated and demoralized the day after the Battle of Mogadishu. Some, appalled by the indecency of their countrymen, were certain the U.S. would violently respond to such an insult and challenge. They contacted U.N. authorities offering to negotiate, or simply packed their things and fled. These are the ones who miscalculated. Instead the U.S. did nothing, effectively abandoning the field to Aidid and his henchmen. Somalia today remains a nation struggling in anarchy, and the America-haters around the world learned what they thought was a essential truth about the United States: Kill a few Americans and the most powerful nation on Earth will run away. This, in a nutshell, is the strategy of Osama bin Laden.

Mark Bowden is the author of Black Hawk Down.

Top 100 April Fool's Day Hoaxes of All Time

(EDITOR'S NOTE: Here is a link to some pretty good April Fools hoaxes. Some noteworthy excerpts are listed below. -BBM


#4: The Taco Liberty Bell
In 1996 the Taco Bell Corporation announced that it had bought the Liberty Bell from the federal government and was renaming it the Taco Liberty Bell. Hundreds of outraged citizens called up the National Historic Park in Philadelphia where the bell is housed to express their anger. Their nerves were only calmed when Taco Bell revealed that it was all a joke a few hours later. The best line inspired by the affair came when White House press secretary Mike McCurry was asked about the sale, and he responded that the Lincoln Memorial had also been sold, though to a different corporation, and would now be known as the Ford Lincoln Mercury Memorial.

#7: Alabama Changes the Value of Pi
The April 1998 issue of the New Mexicans for Science and Reason newsletter contained an article claiming that the Alabama state legislature had voted to change the value of the mathematical constant pi from 3.14159 to the 'Biblical value' of 3.0. Before long the article had made its way onto the internet, and then it rapidly made its way around the world, forwarded by people in their email. It only became apparent how far the article had spread when the Alabama legislature began receiving hundreds of calls from people protesting the legislation. The original article, which was intended as a parody of legislative attempts to circumscribe the teaching of evolution, was written by a physicist named Mark Boslough.

#10: Planetary Alignment Decreases Gravity
In 1976 the British astronomer Patrick Moore announced on BBC Radio 2 that at 9:47 AM a once-in-a-lifetime astronomical event was going to occur that listeners could experience in their very own homes. The planet Pluto would pass behind Jupiter, temporarily causing a gravitational alignment that would counteract and lessen the Earth's own gravity. Moore told his listeners that if they jumped in the air at the exact moment that this planetary alignment occurred, they would experience a strange floating sensation. When 9:47 AM arrived, BBC2 began to receive hundreds of phone calls from listeners claiming to have felt the sensation. One woman even reported that she and her eleven friends had risen from their chairs and floated around the room.

#13: The Predictions of Isaac Bickerstaff
In February 1708 a previously unknown London astrologer named Isaac Bickerstaff published an almanac in which he predicted the death by fever of the famous rival astrologer John Partridge. According to Bickerstaff, Partridge would die on March 29 of that year. Partridge indignantly denied the prediction, but on March 30 Bickerstaff released a pamphlet announcing that he had been correct: Partridge was dead. It took a day for the news to settle in, but soon everyone had heard of the astrologer's demise. On April 1, April Fool's Day, Partridge was woken by a sexton outside his window who wanted to know if there were any orders for his funeral sermon. Then, as Partridge walked down the street, people stared at him as if they were looking at a ghost or stopped to tell him that he looked exactly like someone they knew who was dead. As hard as he tried, Partridge couldn't convince people that he wasn't dead. Bickerstaff, it turned out, was a pseudonym for the great satirist Jonathan Swift. His prognosticatory prank upon Partridge worked so well that the astrologer finally was forced to stop publishing his almanacs, because he couldn't shake his reputation as the man whose death had been foretold.

#26: Tass Expands Into American Market
In 1982 the Connecticut Gazette and Connecticut Compass, weekly newspapers serving the Old Lyme and Mystic areas, both announced that they were being purchased by Tass, the official news agency of the Soviet Union. On their front pages they declared that this was "the first expansion of the Soviet media giant outside of the Iron Curtain." The article also revealed that after Tass had purchased the Compass, its two publishers had both been killed by "simultaneous hunting accidents" in which they had shot each other in the back of the head with "standard-issue Soviet Army rifles." The announcement was bylined "By John Reed," and the new publisher, Vydonch U. Kissov, announced that the paper would be "thoroughly red."

In response to the news, the offices of the Compass and the Gazette received calls offering condolences for the death of the publishers. One caller also informed them that he had long suspected them of harboring communist tendencies, and that it was only a matter of time before all the papers in the country were communist-controlled. When the publishers tried to explain that the article had been an April Fool's prank, the caller replied, "You expect me to believe a bunch of Commies?"

#35: Big Ben Goes Digital
In 1980 the BBC reported that Big Ben, in order to keep up with the times, was going to be given a digital readout. It received a huge response from listeners protesting the change. The BBC Japanese service also announced that the clock hands would be sold to the first four listeners to contact them, and one Japanese seaman in the mid-Atlantic immediately radioed in a bid.

U.S. Receiving More 'Outsourced' Jobs than It's Losing

(EDITOR'S NOTE: Outsourcing and free trade cause painful disruptions in the job markets, for sure. However, they also create many more jobs and a higher standard of living overall than any other system. Need proof? Just examine the longest lasting continuous free trade block in history: the United States of America (or just open up any economics text). Not coincidently, the US also has the highest standard of living in the world. More telling, despite absorbing millions of impoverished immigrants per year, the proportion of those in poverty remain roughly the same.

Finally, don't the men and women of India that benefit in this case deserve jobs also? Don't forget that these people will also be able to buy American goods and services, now that they have incomes.

Economic growth and prosperity are important everywhere because poor, struggling people don't care about the environment, human rights, women's rights, education, or liberal civil society in general. Read the following excerpt. -BBM)


U.S. receiving more 'outsourced' jobs than it's losing
By ART PINE
Bloomberg News
Friday, April 02, 2004

The movement of U.S. jobs abroad "has been blown out of proportion" mainly because domestic companies in the United States have been slow to increase hiring, said Martin Baily, chairman of former President Bill Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers. "There was lots of offshoring going on in the 1990s, but job growth was so strong in the U.S. that nobody really took much notice."

While reliable figures aren't available for the last two years, the Commerce Department estimated on March 18 that the number of Americans employed by U.S. affiliates of majority non-U.S. companies grew by 4.7 million from 1997 through 2001. In the same period, the number of non-Americans working at affiliates of majority-U.S. companies abroad rose by 2.8 million.

Here's some links that seriously discuss the issue from both sides:

Daniel Drenzer: "The Outsourcing Bogeyman" in Foreign Affairs.

Tom Freidman: "What Goes Around..." in The New York Times.

Bruce Bartlett: "Outsourcing Good for U.S. and World Economies" in the National Center for Policy Analysis.

Steve Lohr: "Many New Causes for Old Problem of Jobs Lost Abroad" in The New York Times.

Jagdish Bhagwati: "Why Your Job Isn't Moving to Bangalore" in The New York Times.

How 9/11 Happened

By ANN COULTER
Thursday, April 1, 2004

We don't need a "commission" to find out how 9-11 happened. The truth is in the timeline:

PRESIDENT CARTER, DEMOCRAT
In 1979, President Jimmy Carter allowed the Shah of Iran to be deposed by a mob of Islamic fanatics. A few months later, Muslims stormed the U.S. Embassy in Iran and took American Embassy staff hostage.

-> Carter retaliated by canceling Iranian visas. He eventually ordered a disastrous and humiliating rescue attempt, crashing helicopters in the desert.


PRESIDENT REAGAN, REPUBLICAN
The day of Reagan's inauguration, the hostages were released.

In 1982, the U.S. Embassy in Beirut was bombed by Muslim extremists.

-> President Reagan sent U.S. Marines to Beirut.

In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut were blown up by Muslim extremists.

-> Reagan said the U.S. would not surrender, but Democrats threw a hissy fit, introducing a resolution demanding that our troops be withdrawn. Reagan caved in to Democrat caterwauling in an election year and withdrew our troops -- bombing Syrian-controlled areas on the way out. Democrats complained about that, too.

In 1985 an Italian cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, was seized and a 69-year-old American was shot and thrown overboard by Muslim extremists.

-> Reagan ordered a heart-stopping mission to capture the hijackers after "the allies" promised them safe passage. In a daring operation, American fighter pilots captured the hijackers and turned them over to the Italians -- who then released them to safe harbor in Iraq (news - web sites).

On April 5, 1986, a West Berlin discotheque frequented by U.S. servicemen was bombed by Muslim extremists from the Libyan Embassy in East Berlin, killing an American.

-> Ten days later, Reagan bombed Libya, despite our dear ally France refusing the use of their airspace. Americans bombed Qaddafi's residence, killing his daughter, and dropped a bomb on the French Embassy "by mistake."

Reagan also stoked a long, bloody war between heinous regimes in Iran and Iraq. All this was while winning a final victory over Soviet totalitarianism.


PRESIDENT BUSH I, MODERATE REPUBLICAN
In December 1988, a passenger jet, Pan Am Flight 103, was bombed over Lockerbie, Scotland, by Muslim extremists.

-> President-elect George Bush claimed he would continue Reagan's policy of retaliating against terrorism, but did not. Without Reagan to gin her up, even Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher went wobbly, saying there would be no revenge for the bombing.

In 1990, Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) invaded Kuwait.

In early 1991, Bush went to war with Iraq. A majority of Democrats opposed the war, and later complained that Bush didn't "finish off the job" with Saddam.


PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON, DEMOCRAT
In February 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed by Muslim fanatics, killing five people and injuring hundreds.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

In October 1993, 18 American troops were killed in a savage firefight in Somalia. The body of one American was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu as the Somalian hordes cheered.

-> Clinton responded by calling off the hunt for Mohammed Farrah Aidid and ordering our troops home. Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) later told ABC News: "The youth ... realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat."

In November 1995, five Americans were killed and 30 wounded by a car bomb in Saudi Arabia set by Muslim extremists.

-> Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

In June 1996, a U.S. Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia was bombed by Muslim extremists.

-> Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

Months later, Saddam attacked the Kurdish-controlled city of Erbil.

-> Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, lobbed some bombs into Iraq hundreds of miles from Saddam's forces.

In November 1997, Iraq refused to allow U.N. weapons inspections to do their jobs and threatened to shoot down a U.S. U-2 spy plane.

-> Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

In February 1998, Clinton threatened to bomb Iraq, but called it off when the United Nations said no.

On Aug. 7, 1998, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim extremists.

-> Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

On Aug. 20, Monica Lewinsky appeared for the second time to testify before the grand jury.

-> Clinton responded by bombing Afghanistan and Sudan, severely damaging a camel and an aspirin factory.

On Dec. 16, the House of Representatives prepared to impeach Clinton the next day.

-> Clinton retaliated by ordering major air strikes against Iraq, described by The New York Times as "by far the largest military action in Iraq since the end of the Gulf War (news - web sites) in 1991."

The only time Clinton decided to go to war with anyone in the vicinity of Muslim fanatics was in 1999 -- when Clinton attacked Serbians who were fighting Islamic fanatics.

In October 2000, our warship, the USS Cole, was attacked by Muslim extremists.

-> Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.


PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH, REPUBLICAN
Bush came into office telling his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites), he was "tired of swatting flies" -- he wanted to eliminate al-Qaida.

On Sept. 11, 2001, when Bush had been in office for barely seven months, 3,000 Americans were murdered in a savage terrorist attack on U.S. soil by Muslim extremists.

Since then, Bush has won two wars against countries that harbored Muslim fanatics, captured Saddam Hussein, immobilized Osama bin Laden, destroyed al-Qaida's base, and begun to create the only functioning democracy in the Middle East other than Israel. Democrats opposed it all -- except their phony support for war with Afghanistan, which they immediately complained about and said would be a Vietnam quagmire. And now they claim to be outraged that in the months before 9-11, Bush did not do everything Democrats opposed doing after 9-11.

What a surprise!

Why Gmail Gives Me the Creeps

(EDITOR'S NOTE: Scary! While I surely won't mind using the Google email service because I restrict my dialogues to personal, non-confidential communiques, the inherent privacy implications threaten to crash Google's Gmail zeppelin well before it leaves the ground. Computerized monitoring of emails for keywords in order to embolden targeted advertizing will certainly wreak havoc with privacy hawks. Put bluntly, they will have a field day. The battle is just beginning to simmer beneath the surface. Of course, my philosophy remains: you don't have to use the program if you have any lingering concerns. Read on... -EBO)


By CHARLES COOPER
CNET News.com
April 2, 2004

Google's debut of a Web-based e-mail service thrust this most hyped creation of Silicon Valley's venture capitalist community back onto center stage this week.

On the surface, it sounds like a wow idea. You get one gigabyte of storage and don't pay a copper cent in return. Credit the folks at Google for doing something for the common user. My other Web mail accounts too often reach the maximum storage capacity and shut down until I purge my in-box.

What's more, my hunch is that Microsoft and Yahoo will eventually respond in kind, lest they fall behind Google, which has been the beneficiary of fawning treatment in the press in the run-up to its initial public offering.

But all the encomia that's greeting the announcement of "Gmail" distracts attention from the fact that there's yet a hidden price you will still pay, albeit in the form of a different sort of coin.

The Google contextual advertising system automatically scans for frequently used terms in order to serve up ads. This constitutes a neat technology fix for Internet advertisers, who are always seeking to find ways to make their spots more convincing to Web surfers. For instance, if you e-mail a friend to play tennis this weekend, the system would lock onto the keyword and send you a relevant advertisement from a tennis gear supplier.

Sounds like a mind-blower, if you're the marketing director for Wilson Sporting Goods. Truth be told, however, this is the kind of technology advance that gives me the creeps.

Contextual advertising has been around for years. Type "dominatrix" as a search term, and you'll find enough hard-core bondage and fetish ads to keep you occupied for quite some time. But search is one category; your e-mail is quite another. Do you really want Google snooping so close to home? The company says it is not going to read the contents of anyone's in-box. Still, you don't need to be a privacy extremist to realize that this fundamentally remains a bad idea.

So, why is Google taking such a risk? In a word: Microsoft.

The folks in Redmond have been slow to get to market with a good search technology. Windows XP has a search function, but Microsoft expects to debut a killer search technology with Longhorn, the code name for the next important version of the Windows operating system. Company executives acknowledge that they're late to market, but they also express confidence in their ability to surpass Google's search technology.

Chest beating? To be sure. But Microsoft, not Google, owns the operating system. That's why Microsoft is talking about letting users do things like search out Windows Media tunes they once played or locate spreadsheet files from years' past. And after getting (rightly) slammed for all its privacy woes, my guess is that Microsoft will be more Catholic than the pope, when it comes to e-mail privacy and search. Besides, what better way to draw an invidious comparison with the competition?

Google was not first to market with search, but it was better than the rest and ultimately became No. 1. Microsoft can say the same about Internet browsers, spreadsheets and word processors. The point here: Technology tastes do change.

If it becomes a matter of an arms race, a company with a multibillion-dollar research and development budget can afford to take its time. That's why the big thinkers at Google should go back to the drawing board and correct a big mistake, before it's too late.

Charles Cooper is the executive editor of commentary at CNET News.com.

When should we stop supporting Israel?

(EDITOR'S NOTE: Whenever I see anything written by Victor Davis Hanson, I immediately read it. He's right on, IMO, just about every time. He writes well and his books that I have read so far are classics. I've reprinted an excerpt from his website because it can't really be put better than this approach. Oh, by the way, I think that mention of the headscarf below is protected speech. We'll try to get some comments sections set up. -BBM)


The recent assassination of Sheik Saruman raises among some Americans the question—at what point should we reconsider our rather blanket support for the Israelis and show a more even-handed attitude toward the Palestinians? The answer, it seems to me, should be assessed in cultural, economic, political, and social terms.

Well, we should no longer support Israel, when…

Mr. Sharon suspends all elections and plans a decade of unquestioned rule.

Mr. Sharon suspends all investigation about fiscal impropriety as his family members spend millions of Israeli aid money in Paris.

All Israeli television and newspapers are censored by the Likud party.

Israeli hit teams enter the West Bank with the precise intention of targeting and blowing up Arab women and children.

Preteen Israeli children are apprehended with bombs under their shirts on their way to the West Bank to murder Palestinian families.

Israeli crowds rush into the street to dip their hands into the blood of their dead and march en masse chanting mass murder to the Palestinians.

Rabbis give public sermons in which they characterize Palestinians as the children of pigs and monkeys.

Israeli school textbooks state that Arabs engage in blood sacrifice and ritual murders.

Mainstream Israeli politicians, without public rebuke, call for the destruction of Palestinians on the West Bank and the end to Arab society there.

Likud party members routinely lynch and execute their opponents without trial.

Jewish fundamentalists execute with impunity women found guilty of adultery on grounds that they are impugning the “honor” of the family.

Israeli mobs with impunity tear apart Palestinian policemen held in detention.

Israeli television broadcasts—to the tune of patriotic music—the last taped messages of Jewish suicide bombers who have slaughtered dozens of Arabs.

Jewish marchers parade in the streets with their children dressed up as suicide bombers, replete with plastic suicide-bombing vests.

New Yorkers post $25,000 bounties for every Palestinian blown up by Israeli murderers.

Israeli militants murder a Jew by accident and then apologize on grounds that they though he was an Arab—to the silence of Israeli society.

Jews enter Arab villages in Israel to machine gun women and children.

Israeli public figures routinely threaten the United States with terror attacks.

Bin Laden is a folk hero in Tel Aviv.

Jewish assassins murder American diplomats and are given de facto sanctuary by Israeli society.

Israeli citizens celebrate on news that 3,000 Americans have been murdered.

Israeli citizens express support for Saddam Hussein’s supporters in Iraq in their efforts to kill Americans.

So until then, I think most Americans can see the moral differences in the present struggle.

Another Crisis Ignored

(EDITOR'S NOTE: Someone please explain to me what it is that the UN actually does (besides restrain the United States and condemn Isreal). They surely do not pay any attention to their founding principle: the prevention of genocide. -BBM)


Reprinted from Glenn Reynolds Blog:

GENOCIDE IN THE SUDAN

Nick Kristof cares, but sadly not many other people seem to.

For all the talk of "never again", genocide hasn't seemed to upset the international community much. The UN seems to have contributed to genocide in Rwanda -- while various other people obstructed action or did nothing. Noam Chomsky's support for the Khmer Rouge is famous. And, the response in the Balkans was dreadfully slow while the looming genocide in Zimbabwe is largely ignored.

If the Israelis killed all the Palestinians the world would care -- but only because the Israelis did it.

For more information, click here.