Cellular Calls Cause Cancer

(EDITOR'S NOTE: I had been meaning to post this finding a few weeks back but never got around to it for fear of causing a panic. However, after traveling through New Hampshire recently where mobile service was spotty at best when I needed to make calls from the road, despite the fact that my telecom provider indicated on their web site's coverage map that service was available. Consequently, I decided throw caution to the wind and let the mobile telecommunications providers fend for themselves.

So, here it is: A recent report in Reuters suggests that there is a slightly increased chance of getting cancer if you use your mobile phone a lot...say, every day for the past 10 years. Sadly, I surpassed that duration some time ago, having gone so far as to sleep with my mobile phone strapped to my head in recent years. -EBO)


Mobile Phones Increase Tumor Risk, Study Says
Reuters
Thursday, October 14, 2004

Ten or more years of mobile phone use increases the risk of developing acoustic neuroma, a benign tumor on the auditory nerve, according to a study released on Wednesday by Sweden's Karolinska Institute.

(...if only I had not first bought my mobile phone in 1994. -EBO)

The risk was confined to the side of the head where the phone was usually held and there were no indications of increased risk for those who have used their mobile for less than 10 years, the Karolinska Institute said in a statement. "When the side of the head on which the phone was usually held was taken into consideration, we found that the risk of acoustic neuroma was almost four times higher on the same side as the phone was held and virtually normal on the other side."

The mobile phone industry has said there is no scientific evidence of negative health effects from use of mobile phones.

(Uh huh. Sure. No scientific bias likely from them at all. Wink. -EBO)

"At the time when the study was conducted only analog mobile phones had been in use for more than 10 years and therefore we cannot determine if their results are confined to use of analog phones or if the results would be similar also after long-term use of digital (GSM) phones," it said.

(I tried to reach the reporter on this story to verify some details, but he would not answer his mobile phone. Hmmm... -EBO)

Largest German Newspaper Endorses Bush

It's shocking, but certainly noteworthy nonetheless. Germany got an October surprise of its own when their largest newspaper endorsed the re-election of President George Bush, suggesting that "Bush has learned his lesson" and that "he will focus more on international cooperation in his second term."

Of course, it should come as no surprise that most Germans, and Europeans for that matter, still support Kerry. Indeed, the endorsement for Bush by the German newspaper comes on the heels of an editorial earlier in the week in which Europe's biggest financial newspaper, The Financial Times, backed Kerry.

Great Speeches on Leadership, Part 3

(EDITOR'S NOTE: In the first part of this series, I highlighted excerpts from a Winston Churchill’s first speech as Prime Minister. In the second part, Lincoln’s comments from the Gettysburg Address were emphasized. For this third part of the series, we could sample any number of great leaders like Truman or FDR, but I'd prefer to return to Churchill, because no one does it better. -BBM)


We Shall Fight on the Beaches
Winston Churchill
Addressing the House of Commons
June 4, 1940

Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France. We shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets. We shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender. And even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.


Their Finest Hour
Winston Churchill
Addressing the House of Commons
June 18, 1940

What General Weygand called the Battle of France is over. I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin... The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this Island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, "This was their finest hour."

New Species of Human Discovered

(EDITOR'S NOTE: Scientists have discovered another branch in the human species’ past. The truly interesting thing is that these beings may have lived up through the end of the last ice age into Paleolithic times, possibly even cohabiting with modern humans for a time. -BBM)


Ancient Hobbit-Sized Human Species Discovered
The Associated Press
Wednesday, October 27, 2004

In an astonishing discovery that could rewrite the history of human evolution, scientists say they have found the skeleton of a new human species, a dwarf, marooned for eons in a tropical Lost World while modern humans rapidly colonized the rest of the planet.

The finding on a remote Indonesian island has stunned anthropologists like no other in recent memory. It is a fundamentally new creature that bears more of a resemblance to fictional, barefooted hobbits than modern humans.

Yet biologically speaking, it may have been closely related to us and perhaps even shared its caves with our ancestors.

Common Myths about the Common Cold

(EDITOR'S NOTE: I'm a natural skeptic about most things including: astrology, government, and the media. Having recently done battle with a nasty little illness that was rapidly spreading around the city a couple weeks back, the things that really make me the craziest are these faux-healthcare and natural supplement solutions. By that, I mean herbal medicine, holistic healing, crystals, and acupuncture. You can no sooner cure a malignant tumor with quartz or malachite than I can flap my arms and fly to the moon.

For those of you who share my distrust of new wave medicine, as a result of our complete trust in mankind's predilection for making a buck off of someone else's misfortune and naiveté, the following highlights from an article in The New York Post should be enlightening. -EBO)


Cold Myths to Be Sneezed at
By PATTY ONDERKO
The New York Post
Tuesday, October 26, 2004

We may not believe in the restorative powers of Mom's chicken soup, but there are still plenty of misconceptions about how to prevent and treat the common cold.

The myth: You can catch a cold if you go outside with wet hair.
The truth: Despite what your mother may have said, catching a cold has nothing to do with being exposed to a draft, not being dressed warmly enough, going from heat to air conditioning or walking outside with wet hair. If one of the 200 viruses that causes a cold enters your nose, no amount of warmth can prevent the infection, says Dr. Adam Stracher, an infectious-disease specialist at New York Presbyterian Hospital.

The myth: Drinking milk causes increased mucus when you have a cold.
The truth: "I don't know where this myth came from," says Stracher. "It's bizarre." Milk is digested by the body just like any other protein and is not converted into nasal mucus, he says.

The myth: Vitamin C and echinacea can help prevent a cold.
The truth: Though neither of these can hurt you, there is also no proven scientific evidence that they can stave off a cold, according to the American Lung Association. The best way to prevent a cold, says Stracher, is to minimize your exposure to the viruses that cause them. That means washing your hands frequently, avoiding touching your face with unwashed hands, and staying away from infected friends and co-workers.

The myth: You need antibiotics to beat a cold.
The truth: Antibiotics only treat bacterial, not viral, infections. Since the common cold is caused by a virus, says Stracher, taking antibiotics will have no effect, and can even lead to antibacterial resistance and yeast infections. In the case of the common cold, antibiotics can do more harm than good.

Putting the Finger on Bush

No one has ever accused President Bush of leaving his mischievous fraternity days in the past. But, for those of you who were entertaining it, check out this video (courtesy of The Drudge Report) of then Governor Bush joking around with the camera. Hmmm....I guess it's good to have a President with a sense of humor...I guess.

Practical Economics 101

(EDITOR’S NOTE: With a week left until the election, the level of rhetoric coming from both politic parties is getting downright deafening, and often absolutely misleading. In a wonderfully objective review of the economy over the past four years, an essay in the Wall Street Journal tackles exactly where we DO stand without regards for the manipulations of political puppets and mainstream media trying to swing voters one way or another.

Read some of the excerpts from the article below and judge for yourself. I think you will conclude that while things are at internet bubble levels of the late 1990s, they certainly are as bad as some would have you believe. –EBO)


Stick to the Basics
By MICHAEL BOSKIN
The Wall Street Journal
Tuesday, October 26, 2004

Teaching "Economics I" to hundreds of freshmen, it's dismaying to see the usual election-year distortion and hyperbole morph into outright economic illiteracy. From convenient economic-historical amnesia, to refusal to acknowledge facts, to suspension of basic economic principles, what we're hearing from the Kerry campaign trail is truly remarkable.

Let's start with the Kerry claim that this is the "worst economy since Hoover." Hoover was in office in October 1929, when the stock market crashed and the Great Depression began. The unemployment rate, at a time when very few families had two earners and there was a much smaller safety net, reached almost 25% by 1933; indeed, it was still 15% under FDR in 1939. The current unemployment rate is 5.4%, less than the average for the last 30 years, and about what it was when President Clinton ran for re-election in 1996, though certainly above the 4.2% when President Bush assumed office.

(As those of us working in finance already know, so much for Kerry’s first claim. –EBO)

That low unemployment rate was the result of a mini-bubble in the labor market accompanying the maxi-bubble in the stock market. Few economists believe we can push unemployment permanently back down to 4.2% without accelerating inflation and risking much worse economic harm. By President Clinton's last year in office, inflation had doubled to 3.4%, the Fed was raising interest rates, the bubble had burst, and the economy was sliding toward recession.

The Kerry campaign claims the Bush tax cuts did economic harm. This is exactly backwards. While in the long run, deficits -- as well as the level and structure of spending and taxes -- do matter, war and recession are times when deficits naturally occur and can be downright desirable. This was one of the most efficacious uses of fiscal policy ever. Only a couple of years ago, there was serious concern about outright deflation, falling prices and a Japanese-style lost decade. Better still to have combined the tax cuts with effective control of future spending as the economy returned to full employment. But it's no coincidence that a moribund economy mired in an uneven, uncertain recovery took off exactly when the 2003 tax cuts were passed.

The Kerry campaign is no better at micro than macro economics: Suggesting it's the government's role to prevent any price from rising (tuition, pharmaceuticals) is reminiscent of the former Soviet Union, where prices never went up but there were never any goods available. In fact, overall inflation has been quite low and some other prices are falling (computers, cell phones). President Bush is no more to blame for the decreases than the increases.

Mr. Kerry is proposing quite a bit more spending, higher taxes, especially on capital formation, greater government regulation and restrictions on global trade. That plan would be a sizeable step toward a European-style social welfare state, with its concomitant double-digit unemployment and economic stagnation. So which candidate is out of touch with economic reality?

Mr. Boskin is a professor of economics at Stanford and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.

Explosives could not be found when U.S. troops arrived

(EDITOR'S NOTE: The most recent October surprise from the NYT claiming that incompetence in the war planning and aftermath led to the loss of 380 tons of powerful specialized high explosives is a serious charge. If true, it should lead to some job losses. However, it appears that the explosives were missing when US troops arrived at the storage area the day after the fall of Bagdad. You would think that the vaunted NYT would have access to that information. First CBS, now the NYT. Intellectual blinders must be removed to fact check a story, especially one so clearly capable of changing the course of an election. -BBM)

Is it really that surprising that Saddam would move some of his valuable assets prior to the war or during the three weeks of war?

NBC reporters embedded with the 101st Airborne are questioning the New York Times report which suggests that US custodial incompetence was responsible for the loss of RDX explosive.NBC News:

Miklaszewski: “April 10, 2003, only three weeks into the war, NBC News was embedded with troops from the Army's 101st Airborne as they temporarily take over the Al Qakaa weapons installation south of Baghdad. But these troops never found the nearly 380 tons of some of the most powerful conventional explosives, called HMX and RDX, which is now missing. The U.S. troops did find large stockpiles of more conventional weapons, but no HMX or RDX, so powerful less than a pound brought down Pan Am 103 in 1988, and can be used to trigger a nuclear weapon. (NBC’s “Nightly News,” 10/25/04)

Barriers to Moderation in the Middle East

(EDITOR'S NOTE: Interesting observations below on why it is hard to be a Muslim moderate in times of extremism. From Winds of Change. -BBM)


Does Islam Need a Reformation?
Joe Katzman

Stephen Schwartz is a moderate Muslim who recently called for a Muslim Reformation. Robert Spencer of JihadWatch.org questions whether this common refrain is really an intelligent focus - or whether the key problem lies elsewhere:

"Schwartz overstates the "pluralism" of Qur'anic interpretation and Islamic law before Wahhab, in a manner quite similar to his attributing to Wahhabis mainstream elements of Qur'anic interpretation in his previous piece. But the chief question here is whether Islam would or could develop interpretative traditions analogous to those in Judaism and Christianity that mitigated the force of bellicose passages of the Old Testament -- in other words, how this Islamic renaissance would manage to blunt the force of Qur'anic literalism (and literalism in Hadith interpretation also) so that they would not continue to be inspirations for violence and fanaticism."

Spencer makes a strong set of points, and backs them up with quotations from the Qu'ran that illustrate his central argument. An additional post covers the recent fate of a Cairo conference on Islamic reform (see their 10-point statement here), which is used as a practical example of the dynamic Spencer describes. In summary, Qu'ranic literalism makes reformers vulnerable to charges from radicals of infidelity to Islam. As Spencer notes:

"In Islam Unveiled I discuss why Islamic reformers will always face an uphill battle: whenever they attempt to depart from Qur'anic literalism, they become vulnerable to charges from radicals of infidelity to Islam. This poses what is probably an insurmountable problem for those who would reform Islam. Why, then, have I called for such reform myself? Principally in order to raise awareness of the Islamic texts and teachings that give rise to fanaticism and violence; the very existence of these elements of Islam, and thus of any need for reform at all, is still denied by virtually every American Muslim spokesman. And also because, if there are Muslims working for a secularized Islam shorn of literalism, they deserve support and encouragement."

Yes, they do. I, too, salute the efforts of the Cairo conference on Islam and Reform, the Ibn Khaldun Center, and the other participants. I also support the efforts of Robert Spencer and others who shine a light into the very real intolerance, shameful conduct, and barriers to reform that make change so necessary. And vigilance in the West so essential.

Iraq is Not Harming the War on Al-Qaeda

(EDITOR'S NOTE: It is constantly repeated that invading Iraq would enflame the ‘Arab street’ and hamper the war on terror. While I'm willing to concede that this may be true in the short term, supporting evidence is pretty thin. In the long term, security is best provided for by the spread of freedom, which ultimately spreads tolerance.

Meanwhile, bold action has converted Pakistan from a fence-sitter into an important ally, achieved the peaceful disarmament and cooperation of Libya, and forced serious discussions in Egypt, Syria, and Saudi Arabia about their respective futures. The fear is that if the Middle East is allowed to continue to fester beneath the yoke of totalitarian regimes, eventually there will be more terror attacks. At some point, they may be devastating enough to provoke a war of genocide, perhaps even by us against them.

However, a true clash of civilizations can be avoided, but will require change in the Mid East. Evidence of that change is found every day, most recently by the continued assistance of former rogue nations, as evidenced in excerpts from an AP article below, to suppress terrorism. -BBM)


Libyan Police Arrest 17 Alleged al-Qaida Members
Associated Press
Sunday, October 10, 2004

Police have arrested 17 non-Libyans suspected of being al-Qaida members who had entered this North African country illegally, the interior minister said Sunday. Nasr al-Mabrouk said the men are "from the Indian subcontinent and of Central Asian origin" and had been arrested when "they entered Libya illegally."

Al-Mabrouk did not specify the nationalities of the men, nor say when they were arrested or if they had entered Libya individually or as a group. "Preliminary investigations proved that the group, numbering now 17, has a connection with (al-Qaida leader) Osama bin Laden, but the nature of this relation has not been established yet," al-Mabrouk told The Associated Press.

Al-Mabrouk provided no details on the detained men's aims in Libya, nor relations with al-Qaida, but said more information would become known in the coming days.

Rat Neurons Learn to Pilot Flight Simulator

Seeing something like this makes you wonder what life will be like in 50 years. Courtesy of Wired Magazine.

Somewhere in Florida, 25,000 disembodied rat neurons are thinking about flying an F-22.

These neurons are growing on top of a multi-electrode array and form a living "brain" that's hooked up to a flight simulator on a desktop computer. When information on the simulated aircraft's horizontal and vertical movements are fed into the brain by stimulating the electrodes, the neurons fire away in patterns that are then used to control its "body" -- the simulated aircraft.

Currently the brain has learned enough to be able to control the pitch and roll of the simulated F-22 fighter jet in weather conditions ranging from blue skies to hurricane-force winds. Initially the aircraft drifted, because the brain hadn't figured out how to control its 'body', but over time the neurons learned to stabilize the aircraft to a straight, level flight.

Iraq Update

I've had several discussions recently about why we are in Iraq and what the plan is for the future. After reading those posts, I invite anyone with questions to pose them in the comments section and I will do my best to answer them.

In pondering the current situation in Iraq, I often wonder about the coverage afforded by the mainstream media. It is very easy to spin coverage in a given direction, consciously or not. For example, it is interesting to imagine what might have happened to FDR's presidency if WWII was covered the way the various news media do their job right now. Back in 1944, for example, 700+ American troops died in a training accident during preparations for D-Day…in a single day. This figure is approximately the same number of combat deaths in Iraq (total deaths a little over 1000)…in over a year.

Here’s another example from Bruce Chapman at The Wall Street Journal, reporting from Baghdad, Iraq:

Basking in the sun by the Al Hamra Hotel swimming pool, a Spanish journalist complained to me that "all my editors want is blood, blood, blood. No context. No politics. " Such editors are cruising to be scooped by such local Iraqi blogs as Iraq the Model, which last summer debunked a Los Angeles Times story on the departure of Coalition Provisional Authority head L. Paul Bremer. The Times told its readers that Bremer had fled abruptly, "afraid to look in the eye the people he had ruled for more than a year." In fact, as Iraq the Model reported, Mr. Bremer before leaving delivered a television address that gave a moving account of his tenure and his hopes for the new all-Iraqi interim government. The paper ultimately had to correct its account, though never acknowledging the indignant Iraqis who caught its snide oversight.

Simply looking for shocking, attention-grabbing headlines introduces a form of unconscious bias. I call this the "South Central LA Syndrome". Anyone would think, by watching the news, that South Central (and other similar neighborhoods) is a constant war zone. However, this completely misrepresents the situation. Anyone, of any race, can walk the streets of South Central at most times in safety. Sadly, this type of coverage, though not overtly biased, unfairly effects public perception about minorities, a bias that is similarly at work on Iraq.

QUOTE OF THE DAY (Courtesy of Andrew Sullivan):

"I will not kneel before these terrorists. If I don't join the army, who is going to defend the country from the terrorists?" - an Iraqi recruit, after yet another hideous terrorist assault on an Iraqi National Guard building.

He's a hero - as are so many Iraqis trying to rebuild their country in the face of Jihadist and Baathist murder. I haven't given up on Iraq. You have to believe that, given a real choice, Iraqis will vote for a democratic and free future, not the medieval depravity available in Iran and elsewhere. The elections are critical, of course. What tears me up is that we are responsible for protecting these people from such violence; and we have chosen to minimize our troop commitment at the very hour of their need. I hope they prevail. With the Falluja showdown looming, we all have to pray that they will.

There is good news from Iraq, and it is at least as real and relevant as the bombings and kidnappings. For example, there has not been a single death in action in the Kurdish territories. Here are some interesting sites for filling in the gaps from the mainstream media:

The Truth About Iraq
Chrenkoff: See the "Good News from Iraq" editions 1-12.
Iraq the Model
Healing Iraq
Iraq at a Glance
The Mesopotamian
Hammorabi

Sometimes it’s easy to forget how difficult war really is. As it has been said, no plan survives contact with the enemy.

EMAIL OF THE DAY (Courtesy of Andrew Sullivan):

"I was stationed at a base (Al Taqqadum) South-West of Fallujah that we took over from the 82nd Airborne. Your writing about the Abu Graib prompted me write this. It is an explanation of why so many in the military favor Bush, even though we are the ones suffering the most because of his mistakes: It is an old military maxim that blunders can be forgiven, but a lack of boldness cannot. There will always be blunders. The simple becomes difficult in war.

Take for example the following question: what is 2+2 equal too? An easy question right? Now imagine I gave you 15 such questions and you had 2 seconds to answer them. Most likely you would answer some and leave the rest. Looking at those questions you missed in isolation I might say, "What kind of blathering idiot are you? You can't even answer simple questions like 2+2=4". That is why Armchair Generals are so annoying. They look at one thing in isolation with all the time in the world to think about it and say confidently "the answers obvious". But when you are out in the fight everything looks different. Nothing is ever seen in isolation. You never have enough time. You never know more than 1/10 what you need to know. There will always be blunders. But the job has to get done anyway. And to get this kind of job done boldness is essential. A leader who never blunders, but who doesn't take the fight to the enemy is worthless. A leader who sets about to win - win ugly if needs be - is priceless."

Have mistakes been made? Unquestionably, but it will take the verdict of history to discover them. I've heard many times that we needed more troops in Iraq. But, nobody ever considers why they weren't there in the first place. My guess is that we needed to keep a strategic reserve in place in case of an occurrence of the following:

-situation on the Korea peninsula
-coup in Pakistan (with need to secure loose nuclear weapons)
-serious situation in Venezuala
-confrontation in the Straits of Tiawan

In an ideal situation, more troops would have been helpful, I agree. But the stated mission capabilities of the armed forces is to fight simultaneous large scale conflicts at separate ends of the globe, not to be able to nation build at one end and also fight on the other end. Currently we're nation building in two areas, and we still need to guard against the above possibilities. It would be better if the rest of the world weren't free riding in Iraq.

Even the best make mistakes. There are many examples in the Pacific War of strategic errors in many theaters, including having separate Army and Naval commands leading to needless duplication of goals and competing strategies in attacking the Philippines and the Central Pacific Strategy. These spread-out resources resulted in more combat deaths than necessary. Another example includes Churchill’s Dardanelles campaign in WWI. It came within an ace of succeeding in spectacular fashion had the naval task force not turned back after hitting a few mines. Not surprisingly, this failure nearly ended the Churchill’s political career.

However, some mistakes are bigger than others. Recall that Kerry opposed the First Gulf War in spite of the largest coalition ever in history.If he were president then, Saddam might have occupied Kuwait, have nuclear weapons, and entertained taking the Saudi oil fields. At the very least, he would have menaced the Saudis into cooperating with his plans. There would be an unstable arms race between Israel, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, likely culminating in the very high probability of a regional nuclear exchange. Kerry's instincts on big issues like that are just wrong.

The current reluctance of France and Germany to get involved in Iraq is noteworthy. They're not stupid. They know that a failed state in Iraq is in no one's best interests. If they thought that there was a real chance of the current coalition failing, they'd be forced (by their realpolitik foreign policy) to assist in some way.

However, they are perfectly comfortable free riding on the coattails of others. 20 years from now, people will talk about the miraculous sea change that the US brought Iraq and the Middle East, just as we refer to Europe now. The "Powell plan" of foreign aid will compare to the Marshall plan in 1947. Unfortunately, it may take just as long to play out completely.

Healthcare: Waiting Room for Disaster

(EDITOR'S NOTE: In following the Presidential election over what seems like the past four years, the topic of healthcare has remained a focal point for both candidate's platforms. In his ownership campaign, Bush has argued for health savings accounts that individuals could contribute to tax-free and draw from as needed for healthcare in the future to offset higher-deductible, yet cheaper, insurance plans. Alternatively, Kerry has campaigned for a stronger presence of government in American healthcare, particular for lower income families and children. He has specifically cited the Canadian healthcare program as a model.

While Kerry's plan may be noble, I must take issue with his proposed solution. Hailing from Canada as I do, it is worth mentioning that Canadian healthcare is in the midst of a breakdown and suffers from long waits, ever-declining quality, and diminished medical innovations and research efforts. Plainly stated, the cost has simply become too much for the government to sustain. Frankly, when has government intervention ever resulted in a more efficient system?

I support a proposal similar to Bush’s that leaves responsibility in the hands of the average American and private insurers, utilizing the government only in caring for the needy. Capitalism has worked in all other applications; there seems to be no reason that it would not function in this capacity either, likely resulting in cheaper and better healthcare (witness the software, hardware, automotive, biotech, and telecom industries to name a few…each offers much more for much less than even 10 years ago).

Sadly, politicians seem hell-bent on talking in rhetoric about paying for everyone only to curry favor with voters when they know that the present system is on its last legs. 1 every 7 dollars generated by the US economy is spent on healthcare. It is reeling out of control. The solution is not to throw more money at this dying patient; rather, the solution is to explore alternative therapy altogether.

Don't believe me? Read the following excerpts from a Reuters article that describes the downward spiral in healthcare received by our neighbors to the north running the so-called 'best healthcare program in the world'. -EBO)


Canada's Once-Proud Public Health System in Crisis
By DAVID LJUNGGREN
Reuters
October 14, September 2004

Canada often boasts its universal health care program shows it is more caring than the United States, but the system is creaking alarmingly, with long wait lists for treatment, and shortages of cash and doctors.

"Meanwhile, financial pressures are increasing as our population ages, as medical knowledge...expands, and as beneficial but expensive new treatments become available," he told a top-level meeting designed to rescue medicare.

Medicare eats up C$85 billion ($66 billion) a year in public funds alone and the provinces continually demand more money, with no strings attached.

A study by the right-wing Fraser Institute this month said that average waiting time for treatment in 2003 rose to 17.7 weeks from 16.5 weeks in 2002. Some delays are much longer. Patients in Ontario who require major knee surgery can wait six months to see a specialist and then another 18 months for surgery.

"This grim portrait is the legacy of a medical system offering low expectations cloaked in lofty rhetoric," the study said, criticizing the fact that governments and not doctors are responsible for allocating resources.

Experts say the shortage of doctors will only get worse as an increasingly elderly physician population starts to retire over the next decade. And as medical expertise becomes ever more sophisticated, so will the demand and the expense.

Some provincial premiers -- notably Ralph Klein of Alberta -- say one obvious solution is to increase the use of private clinics and hospitals, where people would pay for treatment.

Taxing Letters

The letters continue to flow in regards to the inequities of our current tax system. Indeed, The Wall Street Journal listed a number of the keener responses, a few of which are listed below:

Your famous Wall Street Journal editor Barney Kilgore had it right, but I'd go him one better: The rich not only don't mind high taxes, they welcome them. The reason is defined by your editorial. They already have their money and it's well hidden from the tax man. A case in point is the Heinz family trust fund. Ms. Heinz Kerry draws an estimated $45 million every year from this fund and pays zero taxes on it. I say more power to her, but if she and her husband are going to rail about others not paying their "fair share" then their books should be opened up for all to see.

Of course they're claiming a privacy issue is involved and that's why they're keeping this part of their finances secret. What is it about liberals that makes them want to snoop into every aspect of everyone else's life, but when it comes to them, they cite their right to privacy?

Charles Mitchell
Winchester, Ohio

My wife and I work very hard and earn more than the Democrats' arbitrary threshold of the "very rich," $200,000. But by the time we pay for child care, a mortgage on a modest four-bedroom home in the Philadelphia suburbs and (above all) taxes, we are left with very little to invest. We drive a minivan and a family sedan. Our effective federal tax rate in 2003 was 21.57%.

I do not begrudge Mrs. Heinz Kerry her wealth (although, by the way, I looked at my ketchup bottle and found it was produced in Canada), but until I see that she and her husband are voluntarily turning over 39% of their income to the federal government, I will not listen to them preach about the inequities of the federal tax system. President Bush is best for my family.

Rick Miller
Wallingford, Pa.

The most pertinent comment in the editorial is that Mrs. Heinz Kerry is doing nothing illegal. She's rich, and not illegally. I would like to be rich too, but I certainly don't begrudge her money.

Why don't you follow up this article by comparing the Bush family's income and the taxes that the individuals in that family pay, both before and during their White House days, as well as the income and taxes paid by individuals in the Cheney family before and during his vice presidential years.

Bernadine Jacobs
Scarsdale, N.Y.

I would think Teresa Heinz Kerry would be the perfect candidate for the alternative minimum tax given her high income and very low tax rate. I thought the whole idea of this added tax was to make the very rich pay their fair share of the tax burden.

Frank Madden
Beaufort, S.C.

This last letter really interested me. At first glance, it would seem that the alternative minimum tax (AMT) would apply to income taxed at a rate lower than the currently defined AMT tax rate of 28%, as is the case with Mrs. Heinz Kerry. However, the AMT only applies in the case where deductions from 'income' result in a lower effective tax rate. Mrs. Heinz Kerry derives her income from tax-free investments in municipal bonds, offshore trusts, and tax shelters. Accordingly, and sadly, the AMT does not apply. I hate to say it again, but I can't resist: it's time to enforce a flat tax on all income: earnings, dividends, interest, or inheritance...period.

Why Kerry's Care-free on Taxes, Revisited

The Wall Street Journal again revisited Teresa Heinz Kerry's historical tax returns. The goal is to demonstrate why people like Kerrys are indifferent to the notion of raising income tax rates: they are simply unaffected by them. Witness the following excerpts:

It's very hard to dodge a tax increase on salary income, especially for middle-class folk who need the money. They haven't had time -- or been lucky enough to marry rich -- to build up the assets to be able to live off tax-free investments the way Mrs. Kerry can.

Mrs. Kerry paid an average tax rate of 12.4% on her declared income of $5.07 million. In 2002, even after the first round of Bush tax cuts, the average rate paid by all taxpayers was still higher than that at 13.03%. As for the folks in her wealthy neighborhood, in 2002 the top 1% of taxpayers paid an average rate (also known as the effective tax rate) of 27.25%.

Some readers wondered how she could be worth nearly $1 billion (as the Los Angeles Times has estimated) and earn only $5.07 million in 2003. It's impossible to tell given that Mrs. Kerry has disclosed only two pages of her 1040 form and declines to explain how her assets are deployed.

...much of her wealth must be tied up in trusts and estates that don't require a declaration of income. Like many of the super-rich, Mrs. Kerry can afford to hire lawyers and accountants to create these shelters for her and her heirs.

...the rich don't mind high taxes because they already have their money. Mrs. Kerry and her husband are cases in point.

As I have mentioned again and again, the only viable and fair solution is a flat tax for all income brackets, to be assessed on all classes of income, including payroll, capital gains, and dividends to name a few. The fact that wealthy heiresses like Mrs. Kerry are able to avoid paying their fair share of taxes simply because she inherited a large sum of money is egregious and stands as a slap in the face of hardworking Americans. Moreover, for Senator Kerry to lecture the American public about his plans to raise taxes on the rich is typical rhetoric. As shown above, the rich don’t pay tax regardless of the top bracket’s rate. His hyperbole and hypocrisy is typical of a man who stood in the US Senate for 20 years while effectively accomplishing nothing save a second marriage to an even wealthier heiress than his first wife.

Mr. Kerry: the gloves are off. Pay your fair share in taxes or keep your hypocritical thoughts on income tax reform to yourself!

Guarding Against Guardian Readers

The Guardian UK's attempts to influence the outcome of the US Presidential election have gone highly unappreciated by residents of Ohio. My colleague Brendan brought to my attention news that The Guardian, a leftist newspaper in the United Kingdom, had sponsored a drive to effect the 2004 elections in favor of John Kerry by writing to undecided voters in the swing county of Clark in the swing state of Ohio. Not surprisingly, it prompted a reaction drive to send emails backs to The Guardian, many of which they generously opted to publish on their web site. The following excerpts represent some of the more entertaining and imaginative responses:

Dear wonderful, loving friends from abroad,

We Ohioans are an ornery sort and don't take meddling well, even if it comes from people we admire and with their sincere goodwill. We are a fairly closed community overall. In my town of Springfield, I feel that there are some that consider people from the nearby cities of Columbus or Dayton, as "foreigners"- let alone someone from outside our country.
Springfield, Ohio

Shame on you for using the people of Ohio like this. The US presidental election isn't just about foreign policy, it's about healthcare, taxes, education, transportation, natural resources and all manner of issues with little to no impact on the people of Britain.

We live in a globalised, interconnected world. If China shuts its borders to US imports, you better believe American companies, shareholders and workers are affected. Should US citizens therefore have a direct say in Chinese policies? No - Americans should demand that their own elected leaders address the issues with their Chinese counterparts. The British have a similar voice in US policies - through your own elected representatives who have any number of diplomatic, economic and military tools at their disposal. You vote for your leaders and we'll vote for ours. Your problem is with your leaders, not ours.
Washington DC

Real Americans aren't interested in your pansy-ass, tea-sipping opinions. If you want to save the world, begin with your own worthless corner of it.
Texas, USA

Your idea is superb and frankly, we need a little help over here right now.
Ohio

Please be advised that I have forwarded this to the CIA and FBI.
United States

THE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS HAVE SPENT TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS PROTECTING THE PEOPLES OF THE EU, AND WHAT DO WE GET IN RETURN. BETRAYAL, BETRAYAL, BETRAYAL. I HAVE BEEN TO YOUR COUNTRY, THE COUNTRY OF MY ANCESTORS, AND I KNOW WHY THEY LEFT.

MAY YOU HAVE TO HAVE A TOOTH CAPPED. I UNDERSTAND IT TAKES AT LEAST 18 MONTHS FOR YOUR GREAT MEDICAL SERVICES TO GET AROUND TO YOU. HAVE A GREAT DAY.
Harlan, Kentucky

As a US citizen, I want to advise you that you and anyone that participates in subverting the US presidential election can be criminally charged and perhaps even charged as spies.
California

Thank God above for you English! Just when I was beginning to despair at the thought of Bush being re-elected, you come along with a strategy to help us! Your invitation to your readership and rationale for offering it are provocative at the least, and laudable at best.
Springfield, Ohio

Mind your own flipping business.
United States

The Flat, and Fair, Tax

(EDITOR'S NOTE: The US tax system is in shambles. It is inefficient, it is complicated, and contrary to popular opinion, it is NOT progressive. Indeed, the rich do no pay their fair share, hiding behind every tax shelter, tax dodge, off-shore trust, and charitable foundation known to man.

As I have often argued, the solution is simple: a flat tax. Critics may argue that it is not fair because the rich would pay the same percentage as the poor. The 'reality' is that it is absolutely progressive. If a US citizen earns more, he pays more. It's just that simple. Moreover, government receipts are likely to increase because a flat tax ELIMINATES the deductions that have long benefited the rich with their legions of tax attorneys and accountants. As for the latter, their job just got a hell of a lot easier.

Sadly, very few politicians from both the Democrat and Republican parties have gotten behind tax reform. Why? It's simple: they all tend to be rich. The following excerpts from an essay in The Wall Street Journal last week provides a nice glimpse inside the life of one presidential candidate in particular. -EBO)


A Wild and Crazy Guy
By STEPHEN MOORE
The Wall Street Journal
Monday, October 11, 2004

John Kerry has his own version. It goes like this. You can make a billion dollars and pay almost no taxes. First, marry a billionaire. Second, hire a gaggle of tax accountants and lawyers to bring your tax rate down to about half what many middle-income families pay. Except for John Kerry, this is no gag; it's reality. According to the Kerrys' own tax records, and they have not released all of them, the couple had a combined income of $6.8 million in income last year and paid $725,000 in income taxes. That means their effective tax rate was a whopping 12.8%. And it was all (presumably) done legally.

Who's Not Paying Their Fair Share?

2003 EFFECTIVE TAX RATE
30.4% = George and Laura Bush
20.0% = Typical Middle Class Family
12.8% = John and Teresa Kerry
Source: Club for Growth

Of course, there is delicious irony in the Kerry family tax-return data. Here is the man who finds clever ways to reduce his own tax liability while voting for higher taxes on the middle class dozens of times in his Senate career. He even voted against the Bush tax cut that saves each middle-class family about $1,000.

The Kerrys have unwittingly made the case for what George W. Bush says he wants to do: radically simplify and flatten out the tax code. Dick Armey and Steve Forbes have persuasively argued over the years that America should have a flat tax with a rate of 17% to 19%. John Kerry has consistently opposed a flat tax, because he says it would be a tax break for the rich. But the truth is with a 19% flat tax, some rich people with lavish tax shelters, like John Kerry, would pay more taxes. I calculate that the Kerrys would pay another $500,000 of taxes if we had a flat tax.

So before John Kerry is given the opportunity to raise taxes again on American workers, shouldn't he and Teresa at least pay their fair share?

US to Indict Head of Oil-for-Food Program

(EDITOR'S NOTE: Here’s another update on UNSCAM, the corruption of the UN Oil-for-Food program that allowed Saddam to concentrate the entire economy of Iraq under his power, reward his creatures, and withhold aid from internal enemies. He used this money not to feed his people, but to enrich himself and build up a nest egg for rearmament once UN inspectors were gone. There is evidence that some of the billions were laundered through companies with known Al-Qaeda and terrorist connections. More revelations are expected as the investigations continue. -BBM)

UN Oil for Food Chief Faces Inquiry into Property Deals
BY DAMIEN McELROY and CHARLES LAURENCE
Telegraph.co.uk
Sunday, October 17, 2004

American prosecutors are preparing charges against Benon Sevan, the former head of the United Nations oil for food programme, who has been accused of accepting millions of dollars in kickbacks from Saddam Hussein's regime.

Congressional investigators examining alleged corruption in the programme disclosed that Mr Sevan's diplomatic immunity would not prevent an indictment being issued. Mr Sevan has consistently denied any wrongdoing.

"We have tried to find out what part he had and we've been working to lift the lid on what he did," said one official on the US Congress International Relations committee. "My understanding is that we can indict him without lifting diplomatic immunity. That's what we did with Noriega."

Former officials in Iraq's state oil company, Somo, have alleged to investigators reporting to the International Relations committee that Mr Sevan was "sacked" on Saddam's orders in 2001 for failing to keep promises to campaign on ending sanctions.

"The basic understanding of these officials is that Saddam felt short-changed by this guy who took the money but did not deliver," said one committee staffer.

Global Warming Mathematically Flawed?

(EDITOR'S NOTE: We know about the Earth's climate changes over past centuries. Unfortunately, we have a poor understanding of why it occurs. The impact that human activity has on climate change is also conjecture. The following excerpts from an article describes a recent revelation from MIT that highlights how little we really know about our climate.

While I support commonsense efforts to curb greenhouse emissions, we need to be careful about restrictions that will cripple economic activity, especially when the science of climate change is still in its infancy. -BBM)


Global Warming Bombshell
By RICHARD MULLER
MIT Technology Review
Friday, October 15, 2004

A prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate change turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics.

Progress in science is sometimes made by great discoveries. But science also advances when we learn that something we believed to be true isn’t. When solving a jigsaw puzzle, the solution can sometimes be stymied by the fact that a wrong piece has been wedged in a key place.

How does this bombshell affect what we think about global warming?

It certainly does not negate the threat of a long-term global temperature increase. In fact, McIntyre and McKitrick are careful to point out that it is hard to draw conclusions from these data, even with their corrections. Did medieval global warming take place? Last month the consensus was that it did not; now the correct answer is that nobody really knows. Uncovering errors in the Mann analysis doesn’t settle the debate; it just reopens it. We now know less about the history of climate, and its natural fluctuations over century-scale time frames, than we thought we knew.

(UPDATE: It has come to my attention that there may be flaws in the above analysis, just as there were flaws in the origional research. We'll have to see how this plays out. -BBM)

Things a President Can't Say

(EDITOR'S NOTE: The three presidential debates have captured much of the American public’s attention of late. Critics have questioned which candidate had the better showing, generally favoring Kerry’s more eloquent performance.

Larry Henry offers some of his own good points on this topic in an essay posted in The American Spectator. He points out that Kerry had an advantage by the simple fact that the President, as Commander in Chief, simply cannot respond to several accusations because of the adverse diplomatic and military consequences that would follow. For example, Bush can not point out that there were fewer troops on the ground in Iraq at the start of the war than intended because Turkey, a NATO member, would not allow our troops to pass through their territory secondary to French and German threats to hold up Turkish membership in the EU if Turkey granted such permission. Read on from the excerpts below. -BBM)


Things a President Can't Say
By LAWRENCE HENRY
The American Spectator
Wednesday, October 13, 2004

The American Spectator's website alone, including the letters column, has been full of advice for President Bush on what he should say -- or should have said -- in the first two debates with Senator John Kerry. Truly, you can understand why. Like most Bush partisans, I watch with a certain grim determination, knowing our guy's right, that John Kerry will say absolutely anything, and that the lies and half-truths will pile up high and demand a good swift kick, and knowing, too, that President Bush probably won't deliver that ultimate kick to the Kerry pile of you-know-what.

But consider President Bush's situation -- the situation of any President in wartime, faced with an ad-lib partisan debate. There are far more things he can't say than those he can, because the President actually is in the game of world politics. What he says could fracture alliances, end relationships, start wars. And some of his best ripostes are barred to him because of that.

In two debates, for example, Senator Kerry has insisted that he would eliminate the "nuclear bunker buster bomb program" from the United States' arsenal. Unfair, don't you know. Asking those other countries like Iran and North Korea to give up their nuclear arms programs, and then we go ahead developing new H-bombs. Hardly sporting, what? Not diplomatic.

Everybody in the world -- take that literally -- knows why the United States is developing those bombs. But can the President say something like, "You want to eliminate nuclear bunker buster bombs, Senator? What are we going to do about rogue nuclear powers when sanctions don't work? I haven't noticed they're too responsive to talk."

Even implying that threat in a public forum could cause an act of war.

Similarly, when Senator Kerry insists that the United States is ignoring the threat of Iran, or that the United States is "distracted" in Iraq when the "real threat" is in Iran, could the President say this?

"What makes you think we're not doing anything about Iran? We already have special forces teams deployed all over Iran working with the democratic opposition to the mullahs. And we're already at war with Iran. It's a proxy war, going on right now in Iraq."

Neither can President Bush make the obvious response to Senator Kerry's repeated accusation that the United States has "turned its back on its traditional alliances" and "failed to bring aboard our traditional allies" in the war on terror.

"What countries are you talking about there, Senator? France, maybe? Did you know that France was bribed by Saddam Hussein through the Oil for Food program, to the tune of X billion dollars? And that France sold weapons to Saddam right through our war in 2003?

"Not when the United States still depends on French cooperation for fighting terrorism in North Africa.

When Senator Kerry slams the Bush administration for a "too few troops on the ground" and "failing to win the peace," the President cannot say something like this:

"Senator Kerry, the Fourth Infantry Division was missing from our forces at the time the war started -- and ended. Those are the forces that would have settled conflicts in Northern Iraq, where most of the trouble is now. Why was that division missing, Senator? Because those allies you keep talking about held up Turkey's membership in the EU unless the Turks denied us passage through Turkey for that division. Those are your 'global test' buddies, Senator."

Can't say it, that is, without alienating Turkey and inflaming already difficult relationships with "old Europe."

New Vaccine Cuts Malaria

(EDITOR'S NOTE: Great new medical news. Malaria (once thought to come from fetid marshes, hence the name "mal aria" - bad air) still takes a horrible social and economic toll in Africa and other tropical areas. Hundreds of millions are infected each year and millions die. Sadly, survivors often remain troubled by chronic fatigue and inertia. While not perfect, the vaccine below is a huge step forward and the first successful vaccine of its type. Other preparations are on the way. -BBM)


Breakthrough Vaccine Cuts Malaria in African Kids
By BEN HIRSCHLER
Reuters
Thursday, October 14, 2004

A pioneering vaccine can protect a significant proportion of African children against malaria, scientists said on Thursday, boosting hopes that the mosquito-borne disease may one day be conquered.

An effective vaccine is the "holy grail" in the battle against malaria, which makes up to 500 million people sick each year and kills between 1 and 3 million, most of them African children under five.

"This is a really huge breakthrough," said Melinda Moree, director of the non-profit Malaria Vaccine Initiative, one of the groups behind the clinical trials program.

In a study involving more than 2,000 children in Mozambique aged one to four, the vaccine proved 30 percent effective in preventing all cases of malaria. However, it reduced the risk of getting life-threatening forms of the disease, needing hospital treatment, by 58 percent.

Intellectual Ignorance

Beware Intellectuals. Mankind has often been brought to it's knees by their conclusions. Our readers may recall that it was these intellectuals that testified that the Earth was flat, that the Sun revolved around the Sun, that the Moon could not be reached, that Communism was the natural and optimal evolution of government, that the atom could not be split and harnessed for electrical power, and so on and so forth. They are the very 'intellectuals' who forewarn us about global warming, the environment, the coming energy crisis, and addressing the terrorist problem through pacifism.

Essentially, their viewpoints are to be considered, and considered only, and then deftly discarded in pursuit of mankind's own interests. The Earth is an evolving environment and will be around long after the human race has expired. The desire to achieve a perfect, utopian state is an effort to inhibit the requirement of change in our own development to improve our well-being as we travel forward in time. To rest is to stagnate.

In his book "Intellectuals", historian Paul Johnson rails against the intellectual instead favoring the efforts of the individual taken collectively with other individuals as the driving force for economic and political advancement. He writes:

"One of the principal lessons of our tragic century, which has seen so many millions of innocent lives sacrificed in schemes to improve the lot of humanity, is - beware intellectuals. Not merely should they be kept well away from the levers of power, they should also be objects of particular suspicion when they seek to offer collective advice. Beware committees, conferences and leagues of intellectuals. Distrust public statements issued from their serried ranks. Discount their verdicts on political leaders and important events. For intellectuals, far from being highly individualistic and non-conformist people, follow certain regular patterns of behavior. Taken as a group, they are often ultra-conformist within the circles formed by those whose approval they seek and value. That is what makes them, en masse, so dangerous, for it enables them to create climates of opinion and prevailing orthodoxies, which themselves often generate irrational and destructive courses of action. Above all, we must at all times remember what intellectuals habitually forget: that people matter more than concepts and must come first."

Inherent in evaluating intellectuals' recommendations is to understand their ultimate motivations. Often times, they clamor for personal glory at the expense of public benefit. Remember, when digging a foundation for a building, a man with a shovel moves a lot more dirt than a man with an opinion.

Cracks Appearing in Iraqi "Insurgency"

(EDITOR'S NOTE: Evidence is finally mounting that US strategy in the Sunni triangle is starting to pay off. In a previous post, I detailed that strategy, while in another post, I reviewed why, in Clinton's words, we had "no choice" but to invade Iraq after 9/11. The aim is to train Iraqi forces so that they can hold territory that our forces helped them retake, ultimately splitting the insurgency. As a result of these efforts, foreign elements have begun to wear out their welcome, as Sadr did in Najaf. His group finally capitulated and is handing in weapons.

In excerpts from the article below, we are finally beginning to see cracks form in Sunni areas well ahead of the upcoming offensive into the Sunni triangle. -BBM)


Insurgent Alliance Is Fraying In Fallujah
By KARL VICK
The Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, October 13, 2004

If the Arabs will not leave willingly, we will make them leave by force," said Jamal Adnan, a taxi driver who left his house in Fallujah's Shurta neighborhood a month ago after the house next door was bombed by U.S. aircraft targeting foreign insurgents.

Located 35 miles west of Baghdad in Iraq's Sunni Triangle, Fallujah has been outside the control of Iraqi authorities and U.S. military forces since April, when a siege by U.S. Marines was lifted and Iraqi security forces were given responsibility for the city's security.

U.S. and Iraqi authorities together have insisted that if Fallujah is to avoid an all-out assault aimed at regaining control of the city, foreign fighters must be ejected. Several local leaders of the insurgency say they, too, want to expel the foreigners, whom they scorn as terrorists. They heap particular contempt on Abu Musab Zarqawi, the Jordanian whose Monotheism and Jihad group has asserted responsibility for many of the deadliest attacks across Iraq, including videotaped beheadings

Residents say foreign fighters recently have taken to gathering in Fallujah's grimy commercial district after being denied shelter in residential neighborhoods because their presence so often attracts U.S. warplanes. The airstrikes and the turmoil in the streets have spurred perhaps half of the city's 300,000 residents to flee, residents and officials said.

Adnan, the taxi driver who moved his panicked wife and four children to another town, said attitudes toward the foreign fighters have changed dramatically since they poured into Fallujah after the Marines' siege ended in April." We were deceived by them," he said. "We welcomed them first because we thought they came to support us, but now everything is clear."

Grassroots Groups for Mideast Democracy

(EDITOR'S NOTE: Long term security is best provided by democratic governance, free trade, and collective security. In essence, these are the ideas that changed Europe from a peninsula soaked in blood to the relatively peaceful state we see today. Can these tenets be spread to the Middle East? Democracy has shown itself to be adaptable to societies as diverse as England, post-war Germany, Italy, and Japan; moreover, it has clearly worked in Malaysia, Indonesia, Israel, Turkey, and India.

The root causes of terrorism have to include the lack of freedom we see in the totalitarian regimes in the Mideast. Poverty is a factor, yes, but we don't see many sub-Saharan terrorists, where poverty is much worse. Totalitarian regimes squeeze out all areas of civil society (political parties, professional associations, clubs, trade unions, etc) and all sources of power that might challenge the state. It is this current state of governance that is evident in the Mideast, where the only surviving vestige of non-state power is the mosque, which ultimately radicalizes the populace. These regimes can not provide prosperity, a key tenet for peace, so they divert their people's attention to Israel and blame the West for their weakened condition. Accordingly, it distracts the populace and redirects their rage into jihad.

It is for this reason that that Iraq must not fail. The spread of freedom and prosperity fights terrorism most effectively. Success in Iraq will be a cornerstone to long-term stability and peace in the Mideast. An article in The Washington Post addresses this matter in some detail. Read on. -BBM)


An Opening For Arab Democrats
By JACKSON DIEHL
The Washington Post
Monday, October 11, 2004

Drowned out by the bombings in Iraq, and the debate over whether the staging of elections there is an achievable goal or a mirage, the Bush administration's democracy initiative for the rest of the Middle East creeps quietly forward. In neo-realist Washington, it is usually dismissed -- when it is remembered at all -- in much the same way that, say, national elections in Afghanistan were once laughed off. The unpopularity of the Bush administration and the predictable resistance from the dictatorships of Egypt and Saudi Arabia are cited as proof that the region's hoped-for "transformation" is going nowhere.

And yet, the process started at the Sea Island summit of Group of Eight countries in June is gaining some traction -- sometimes to the surprise of the administration's own skeptics. A foreign ministers' meeting in New York two weeks ago produced agreement that the first "Forum for the Future" among Middle Eastern and G-8 governments to discuss political and economic liberalization will take place in December. Morocco volunteered to host it, and a handful of other Arab governments, including Jordan, Bahrain and Yemen, have embraced pieces of the process.

More intriguingly, independent human rights groups and pro-democracy movements around the region are continuing to sprout, gather and issue manifestos -- all in the name of supporting the intergovernmental discussions. An independent human rights group appeared in Syria this month; Saudi women organized a movement to demand the right to vote in upcoming municipal elections. On the same day that the Egyptian foreign minister belittled what is now called the Broader Middle East and North Africa Initiative (BMENA) in an interview with The Post, an unprecedented alliance of opposition parties and citizens' groups issued a platform in Cairo calling for the lifting of emergency laws, freedom of the press and direct, multi-candidate elections for president.

Despite all the defiant rhetoric, Egyptian and Saudi police, it turns out, are hesitant to pummel people who say they are responding to the president of the United States.

As for their own mission, the activists said, "what civil society can provide...is the power to pressure reluctant governments (and reluctant fellow citizens), keeping a watchful eye on the processes of and progress towards reform."

Such empowering grass-roots rhetoric has never before been heard in the Arab Middle East. If the United States fails in Iraq, it may well be snuffed out. But for now, for those who are listening, it offers reason for hope.

Hybrid Hijinx

The United States automotive industry has been beaten to the punch again. Then again, considering the fuel-efficient Japanese cars of the 1970s, the German luxury car invasion of the 1990s, and the shift to cross-over SUVS of the 2000s, the US has a long history of being late to the game. Instead, they rely on the past's success (read higher margin, over-sized trucks and SUVs) to drive their sales. Unfortunately, given the plummeting popularity of gas inefficient vehicles, those sales now require huge incentives from the dealer, including 6 year interest-free financing, upwards of $6,000 cash rebates, and highly anti-competitive tax benefits (detailed in a post on The Realist Party recently).

It is now pretty evident that the US is falling ever farther behind in the race to build high quality, affordable, and drivable hybrid automobiles. Honda has recently announced plans to release their new Accord Hybrid.

Courtesy of Honda Motor Company
Honda is Ready to Release the All New Gas-Electric Hybrid Accord.
It is a vehicle dramatically different from previous hybrid offerings, such as the Toyota Prius, that were noteworthy for their cramped interiors and lackluster performance. One need only read the following highlights from a review of the Accord Hybrid by Joseph White at The Wall Street Journal yesterday:

In December, Honda plans to roll out the next major hybrid entry: a gas-electric version of its best-selling model, the Honda Accord sedan. This time, Honda is using its hybrid technology to make a small, six-cylinder engine feel like a beefy, large-displacement six from Detroit or Munich -- but with the fuel economy of a four-cylinder Honda Civic. The Hybrid Accord will be rated at 255 horsepower, compared with 240 for the regular Accord V-6, and will generate 9% more torque.

Honda has produced a car that has more [torque] than a 3.8 liter V-6 Buick LeSabre -- the epitome of large-displacement Detroit sixes. This is a difference you can feel. The Hybrid Accord delivers this improved performance with an estimated mileage of 30 miles per gallon in the city and 37 miles per gallon on the highway, compared with 21 miles and 30 miles per gallon for a regular V-6 Accord and 20 city miles and 29 highway miles for the 3.8 liter Buick.

As usual, General Motors and Chrysler have been slow to jump on the hybrid bandwagon. My only hope is that they don't create too deep a hole from which to climb, a phenomenon that is far too reminiscent of the late 80s and early 90s when they relied too heavily on minivans. We all know how popular those minivans are today. Hopefully, US auto manufacturers are paying more attention this time round.

The Battle of the Bulge

Speculation has been rife as to the source of the bulge on the back of President Bush's jacket during the first national presidential debate.


Courtesy of CNN
What Is the Source of Bush's Bulge? Widespread Speculation Abounds.
Some have speculated that it was a portable electronic device used to aid President Bush during the debate. Others have countered that his lackluster performance clearly demonstrates otherwise. My own suspicion is that it is simply a crease in an otherwise well-fitting suit, rather unlike Kerry's oversized 'cape' worn during the second national presidential debate. For a man living in the lap of luxury, one would think that Kerry could afford better tailors. But I digress...

Still others have offered more concrete conclusions regarding the 'bulge'. Scott Ott at ScrappleFace reports that forensic scientists have arrived at more definitive explanation for the bulge's appearance:

A forensic scientist studying photographic evidence has identified an object which caused a bump on the back of a suit jacket worn by President George Bush during his first debate with John Forbes Kerry.

"It's a spine," said the unnamed scientist. "The president's backbone, in a sense, was showing during his debate with Mr. Kerry."

Similar images of Mr. Kerry showed "no comparable spinal features."

When asked about the new evidence, Mr. Kerry said, "I had a spine when I defended this country as a young man, and I will have one again when I defend her as president of the United States."

It seems the battle of the bulge has been settled once and for all.

More Perspective on North Korea

(EDITOR'S NOTE: I have highlighted two articles by Robin Burk that appeared on the pages of Winds Of Change. Also, make sure you follow the links at the bottom of each story for more content. It’s some pretty amazing stuff. Also, here's a link to a prior post on The Realist Party about North Korea in case you want even more background. -BBM)


What is Propping up the North Korean Regime?

Given years of starvation, the brutal if canny dictatorship of Kim Il Jung and the occasional exploding train, why hasn't the North Korean state collapsed?

Nicholas Eberstadt predicted they would, several years ago. Today, however, North Koreans are no longer starving and they pose a serious threat to international stability. Eberstadt has a thought-provoking article out in Policy Review that examines the persistence of North Korea. And his conclusions are strongly stated: US aid begun in 1998 not only allowed the NORK regime to survive, it also directly enabled them to proliferate deadly missiles and WMD technologies on the black market. North Korea, he argues, is following a deliberate policy of living off of foreign aid, while building a self-sustaining economy based on creating demand for its arms and WMD products by fostering instability around the world.

(Read the rest! -BBM)


North Korea: Making the Point

Today's headline from the Khaleej Times illustrates the way in which the NORK regime attempts to keep the pot boiling:

Bellicose North Korea warns UN “sanctions mean war”(AFP)

North Korea warned Monday any move by the United Nations to impose sanctions on the communist state to make up for stalled diplomacy would spark a “merciless war”.

(Read the rest! -BBM)

Huge News

In the last week we have seen several important developments, some of which might even be deemed historic:

Historic Elections in Afganistan

From the BBC: It was a celebration today. There was a tremendous buzz of excitement at the polling stations. I genuinely got the feeling that this was the people's opportunity and that's why in Kandahar, the problem with the ink is being laughed out of town.

Reuters agrees: Afghan Polls Fair Despite Ink Fiasco

From ABC News: The Taliban vowed to turn the Afghan election into a day of bloodshed, but the rebels mounted only a smattering of small-scale attacks on police and civilians and a larger clash that left many of their own dead.

After months of what proved to be empty threats, military commanders and ordinary Afghans said Sunday the vote was a serious setback for the holdouts of the hard-line Islamic regime that was driven from power by U.S. bombs almost three years ago for harboring Osama bin Laden.

"Yesterday was a big defeat for the Taliban and a huge defeat for al-Qaida," Lt. Gen. David Barno, the top American commander in Afghanistan, told The Associated Press. "It shows that the political process is overwhelming any influence they may have." Voters also said the Taliban had been exposed as weak.

More from the BBC: International observers have endorsed Afghanistan's first presidential election, rejecting opposition calls for a new poll amid reports of fraud. The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) said demands by 15 of the 18 presidential candidates to annul the poll were "unjustified". The local Free and Fair Elections Foundation of Afghanistan (FEFA) said the poll was "fairly democratic".

Possible Seismic Change in Syria

From Winds of Change: Syrian President Bashar Assad is offering to make peace with Israel and says he is ready to cooperate with the United States in stabilizing Iraq, a former senior State Department official said Wednesday.

On peacemaking, Assad offered to hold talks with Israel without preconditions, Indyk said, and had made several overtures to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that the latter rebuffed

On the domestic side, Indyk said, Assad spoke "about the need to reform the government."

On Iraq, Assad "figured out he was on the wrong side" and has switched to cooperation with the U.S. occupation forces in the country, Indyk said.

On support for terrorism, Assad was responding to U.S. demands by moving some leaders of militant Palestinian groups out of Damascus, Indyk said.

Last month, Syria was praised publicly by Secretary of State Colin Powell for dismantling military camps in the hills near Beirut, Lebanon.

Knowing Syria, we'll have to see if this is too good to be true. However, if it can happen in Lybya, this could be a second historic diplomatic coup made possible by the policy of firm action that we've witnessed during the last three years.

Sadr Army Surrenders Weapons

From Iraq the Model: In what looks like a massive recession for Muqtada and his followers, 'Mehdi Army' decided to give in all their medium and heavy weapons to end their violent activities and obey the laws as a first step to enter the political and electoral process. The 'conditions' that were put by Muqtada in return are no more than an attempt to tell the public opinion that this is not a surrender, as the 'condition' related to the release of the arrested members of 'Mehdi Army' was followed by the statement 'except those found guilty of crimes' and this is an important development and a clear acceptance for the existing administration.

Another important development was that for the fist time Muqtada’s spokesman referred to the coalition forces as the multinational forces, not the occupation forces or aggressors and the usual crap.

Australia Re-elects Pro-Iraq War Government in Landslide

Now, the election was of course about more than just a referendum on Iraq, but the victory by the Howard government was very important.

From Instapundit: John O'Sullivan notes the importance of the Australian elections, and how little attention they've gotten in the U.S. media. It's also worth reading in conjunction with this post. "Al Qaeda has received a serious setback, Kofi Annan a rebuke, France and Germany a disappointment — and the media elites a slap in the face so stinging that outside Australia, Howard's victory has been a non-story." As O'Sullivan notes, though, his defeat would have been treated as big news, freighted with deep political significance.

Free SUVs

(EDITOR'S NOTE: File the following post in the 'How did that bill ever get passed' department. A loophole that has had the American taxpayer underwriting SUV manufacturers bloated and gas-inefficient vehicles sales is about to be closed. It's about time. Don't get me wrong: I am all for a free marketplace that allows consumers the option to make up their own minds about car purchases (be they inefficient pigs like 6000 pound SUVS or what not), but the notion of subsiding the purchase of these behemoths had me up in arms.

It bears mentioning that though this issue seems to be coming to an end, I'll only believe it when I see it. Never question the resilience of American SUV manufacturers. These vehicles are the source of their highest profit margins.

Still wondering what all the fuss is about? Check out the following excerpts from an article in yesterday's Wall Street Journal. -EBO)


SUV Tax Break For Businesses Is Likely to End
By NEAL BOUDETTE and KAREN LUNDEGAARD
The Wall Street Journal
Thursday, October 7, 2004

Small-business owners considering buying a big sports-utility vehicle or full-size pickup truck in the next year or so may want to hurry up a bit: Congress, with the backing of the Bush administration, now appears to be ready to close a loophole that gave small businesses big tax breaks on these vehicles.

Those that qualify must have a gross vehicle weight -- which means when they are fully loaded -- of more than 6,000 pounds. This includes pickups popular with farmers and builders, such as the Ford F-150, Dodge Ram and Chevy Silverado. But it can also kick in when doctors, lawyers or other professionals drive off in SUVs such as the VW Touareg, Hummer, BMW X5, Cadillac Escalade or Volvo XC/90. The loophole allows them to write off against their taxes up to $100,000 from purchases of these trucks -- usually the entire price of the vehicle.

The law is set to expire in 2005, and a bid to extend it to 2007 has run into opposition in House-Senate negotiations over a mammoth corporate-tax bill.

(That’s right, there is actually a pending bill to extend it. –EBO)

Bush administration officials, including Treasury Secretary John Snow, are urging Republican lawmakers to scrap the tax break, or limit it so that it applies only to people who have legitimate business uses for these vehicles.

For car dealers, abolishing the tax break could make it a bit harder to sell big SUVs and trucks. With gasoline prices up this year, some consumers have steered away from gas-guzzlers.

(Uh, clearly. Why doesn't Congress give people a tax break for smoking and drinking alcohol while they're at it? The entire SUV loophole blatantly reeked of politicians’ efforts to curry auto manufacturers' favor, bolster manufacturing jobs, and ultimately increase voter support. -EBO)

Who Let the Dog Out?

Ever the dog lover, I was simply amazed at the ingenuity of one dog in London, England upon reading an article on AFP.


Courtesy of AFP
The Smartest Dog in the World?
It seems that man's best friend, canis familiaris, has finally figured out how to make use of the doorknob:

Staff at Battersea Dogs Home were baffled after an apparent troublemaker released dozens of animals night after night, allowing them to raid the kitchen and cause chaos. Little did they realise it was an inside job. It was only after video surveillance footage was studied that the culprit was revealed to be Red, a lurcher who had been brought to the London refuge as an emaciated stray several months earlier. Red had somehow learned to undo the bolt on his kennel, before then freeing a group of chosen companions for a raid on the kitchen.

Talk about loyalty, the dog freed his dog-friends too. Incredible!

Pet owners everywhere: protect your pantries. You have been warned by The Realist Party.

(UPDATE: Brendan found the remarkable video of Red the Super Dog's escape antics. It is viewable on Battersea's web site. -EBO)

Saddam Bought off World Opinion

(EDITOR'S NOTE: Speculation has been rampant for a while now that Iraq tried to influence world opinion through the use of bribes, oil concessions, and arms contracts. Well, a report released by the CIA turns speculation into fact and the data is simply astounding, horrifying, and predictable. Countries may not subscribe to capital market theory, but there is no denying that greed is a particularly effective motivator.

In excerpts from an article in The Washington Times today, the results of the CIA's findings are finally made public. I am obliged to admit that the sheer scale of Saddam's efforts to sway and influence European foreign policy is simply daunting. Read on... -EBO)


Saddam Paid off French Leaders
By BILL GERTZ
The Washington Times
Thursday, October 7, 2004

Saddam Hussein used a U.N. humanitarian program to pay $1.78 billion to French government officials, businessmen and journalists in a bid to have sanctions removed and U.S. policies opposed, according to a CIA report made public yesterday.

The cash was part of $10.9 billion secretly skimmed from the U.N. oil-for-food program, which was used by Iraq to buy military goods, according to a 1,000-page report by the CIA-led Iraqi Survey Group.

In the late 1990s, Iraq also used an oil-purchasing voucher system through the U.N. oil-for-food program, which began in 1996 and ended in 2003, to influence the French to oppose U.S. initiatives at the United Nations and to work to lift sanctions, the report stated.

The payoffs help explain why the French government, along with Russia and China, opposed U.S. efforts in the United Nations in the months leading up to the March 2003 invasion, U.S. officials said.

One Iraqi intelligence report stated that a French politician assured Saddam in a letter that France would use its veto in the U.N. Security Council against any U.S. effort to attack Iraq.

The report said Saddam's regime obtained $1.5 billion from U.N. humanitarian contract kickbacks and $228.5 million in surcharges on U.N.-approved oil sales. Other oil smuggling provided the regime with $8 billion in cash outside of U.N.-approved oil sales, the CIA report reveals.

(Can anyone possibly question the true intentions of the French, German, and Russian governments prior to the coalition's invasion of Iraq? It is simply deplorable, but sadly, to be expected. -EBO)

Perfect Security vs. Perfect Privacy

In a time of heightened terrorist awareness and global unrest because of events in Iraq, Afghanistan, and North Korea, it is understandable that security has been stepped up at airports and border crossings around the country. Unfortunately, it seems that our security is largely cosmetic. I received an article from Poull, a good friend and The Realist Party reader in New York City, expressing this very concern. He writes:

"PLEASE put a report on this into your blog. Dude, this is scary. Three years after 911 we've done almost nothing at our airports to prevent another similar attack using airplanes. It's just absolutely ridiculous and something people need to know about."

The article about which he expressed concern appeared in USA Today on September 23rd, 2004. The following excerpts summarize the bulk of Poull's worries:

Undercover investigators were able to sneak explosives and weapons past security screeners at 15 airports nationwide, according to a government report on aviation security.

[The tests] highlight ongoing vulnerabilities in the nation's aviation security system, particularly in detecting explosives such as those that Russian authorities say were used to bring down two airliners last month.

An earlier report in 2003 by the Government Accountability Office had found that undercover agents were able to slip guns, knives and box cutters past screeners.

Ervin's report blamed poor training and management of the thousands of screeners who work for the Transportation Security Administration, a division of the Homeland Security department. It also cited the need for better equipment and technology.

Mica and other members of Congress are promoting the use of low-radiation X-ray machines that reveal what is under passengers' clothes. DeFazio said privacy concerns have slowed their development.

The outcome is clearly revealing and shocking, but to be expected all the same. There is a delicate balance between complete security and personal privacy. My contention all along has been that airlines, though a private enterprise, offer a public service and are therefore obligated to attend to the safety of every passenger. Accordingly, the public should recognize that some privacy may be violated if they desire to fly in order to ensure the safe operation of each flight. As we do live in a free and capitalist country, if one does not wish to submit to more stringent security standards, one can always drive in the personal privacy of one's own car.

Why should the general public's safety be compromised because one passenger in particular feels uncomfortable removing their shoes or passing through an x-ray machine? Until we arrive at a consensus on this conclusion, security breaches will remain a potential risk at all times. It is just as simple as that!

We are "Go" for Space: Ansari X Prize Claimed

Reminiscent of prizes awarded in the early 20th century that spurred technological development in the now ubiquitous air transportation industry (i.e. - Charles Lindbergh won the $25,000 Orteig Prize for traversing the Atlantic), the Ansari X Prize has finally been claimed. There are a whole bunch of videos and photographs, available here, here, and here, that are simply astounding to view. The achievement surely cements the boundless energy and creativity of the entrepreneur if simply given the freedom to pursue their dreams.


Courtesy of Scaled Composites
SpaceShipOne Catches the Sun's Rays in Space during Flight.
The $10 million Ansari X Prize was awarded to SpaceShipOne after another successful flight into space. The contest, hoping to encourage the development of civilian space travel, was offered to the first team to fly three people, or the equivalent weight, to at least 62 miles in altitude and do it again within two weeks. SpaceShipOne's winning voyage was actually their third successful effort.

The sleek combination of rocket and glider, designed by Burt Rutan (Scaled Composites) and financed by billionaire Paul G. Allen of Microsoft fame, reached a record altitude of 368,000 feet, or 69.7 miles above the surface of the Earth, blasting past the 337,600-foot altitude reached by the same ship last week. It is particular amazing to consider that the entire project had very low development costs, approximating $20-30 million.

Wonderfully, the success of the X Prize is spawning imitators. A $50 million prize may be offered for an orbital vehicle.

Orwell on Pacifism

George Orwell, one of the most important writers of the 20th century, was a socialist. However, he was no dupe. He spoke out against totalitarianism in all forms, left or right. He fought in the Spanish Civil War and saw the excesses of both the left and the right there:

"Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me.'" - George Orwell

Crackberry Addicts

(EDITOR'S NOTE: I'll never understand it because I have always refused to carry a Blackberry (read portable office) with me. I have always subscribed to the thought that if someone really wanted to contact me immediately, my mobile telephone surely offered the easiest solution. Nevertheless, the proliferation of these devices continues daily, annoying friends and hosts everywhere. Indeed, who has not been waved off temporarily so that a 'really important' email could be addressed? Sadly, it's more likely a dashed message to a friend than an actual work obligation, which probably says a lot more about my skills as a confidante and a friend. But I digress...

An article in The Washington Post delves into the limits of crackberry addiction and its impact on good old-fashioned etiquette. The following excerpts are some of the more entertaining observations. Read on... -EBO)


No Escape From E-Mail: Wireless BlackBerrys Push Limit of Etiquette
By YUKI NOGUCHI
The Washington Post
Wednesday, September 29, 2004

Washington lawyer William Wilhelm knows from experience that not everybody loves his BlackBerry as much as he does. [His] girlfriend was fed up with a relationship punctuated by Wilhelm fiddling with the wireless device to check hundreds of e-mails a day.

[A]s instant e-mail devices accelerate the cadence of work life, there are increasing complaints that they whittle away at time that people once used to give undivided attention to family or co-workers, or to find solitude on the beach or during the daily commute.

In a recent survey by Harris Interactive commissioned by wireless provider T-Mobile USA Inc., 15 percent of wireless-device users said they have e-mailed from a restroom, 19 percent while eating in a restaurant, and 21 percent while talking to friends or family.

"I've been in depositions where opposing counsel will pull it out and check it," said Brian Moffett, a Baltimore litigator. "It raises issues with me, like jeez, someone thought it was important to show up to the meeting but not enough to pay attention."

The BlackBerry also has tethered some people closer to work. "While people keep talking about wireless as liberating, in fact there's the other side, which is that we're drawn in to being accountable wherever we are and always answering," said Sherry Turkle, director of the MIT initiative on technology and self. "You never know when you're not working. You're losing time to quietly reflect."

"I take it with me to the gym. I keep it on my belt, even while I'm working with a trainer," said Adkins, communications director at the Governors Highway Safety Association. "In this country we don't have that much downtime. It's probably not good for our mental health to do business at 10 o'clock at night, but it takes a lot of willpower not to, especially as everyone else does it."

(Isn't that the excuse that drug dealers use? -EBO)

"It's the perfect productivity tool for anxious professionals," Wilhelm said. Then he wondered out loud: "Does the BlackBerry make someone more neurotic, or does a neurotic person find that the BlackBerry comforts them?"

(So the real question remains: how badly do you really need that ridiculous device? That's what I thought. -EBO)

Questions about the Future of Iraq

There has been a lot of concern about the current status in Iraq and the intended strategy going forward, particularly in light of the media's continued barrage of news reports highlight civil disobedience and seemingly widespread militant attacks. It's time to step back a bit from the situation and review the current state of affairs more objectively:

Recent news sounds worrisome. What is the plan?

The current problems stem from a combination of external terrorists (Al-Qaeda for example) and a local Sunni resistance. Many Sunnis (about 20% of the population in Iraq) are nervous. They have benefited from what was essentially a local empire, culminated by their control of the other subgroups in Iraq (Kurds and Shi’a) for the last 1000 years or so. It has allowed them to carry out a colonial-like exploitation of the rest of Iraq’s resources, particularly oil and water. These resources are in short supply in the Sunni triangle, but are plentiful elsewhere. Accordingly, control of the majority of Iraq’s population over the last 30 years had taken on an increasingly totalitarian flavor highlighted by domination of the military and of the positions in power.

Former regime elements are worried that, in addition to losing control over the rest of Iraq and its important resources, they will be subject to reprisals from angry Kurds and Shi’a. They also are concerned by a reduction in shared resources (particularly oil) that are lacking in the Sunni triangle. In short, it is thought that they have everything to lose and will be left behind in a new Iraq. Sadly, perhaps the ruling coalition has done an unsatisfactory job in assuring them of a future in the new Iraq.

These residual regime elements escaped the initial fighting for several reasons. The lack of a northern front along the Turkish border allowed many of these elements to get away unscathed. Though the United States’ rapid advance overwhelmed the south, having focused on gaining territory and bypassing pockets of resistance, it had the unintended consequence of allowing these resistance fighters to also get away with their weapons.

For a better frame of reference, bear in mind that ‘insurgents’ continued to take potshots at American forces in Germany and Italy through 1948, some 3 years after the second World War came to and end. However, it is true that the situation wasn't nearly as bad as in Iraq, butonly because most of those who could have become insurgents were killed (the majority of the Waffen SS were killed) and the rest were exhausted. Also, there were not many spare assault rifles, RPGs, and explosives (or explosive experts) available.

Unfortunately, Saddam handed out millions of assault rifles prior to our invasion, emptied his jails of all the common criminals (about 50,000), and had thousands of hidden weapons cachets throughout Iraq. Moreover, he stashed billions of dollars now available to fund the insurgency. Add to this figure the many more who escaped our initial onslaught and it is easy to grasp the current situation. To be indelicate, there are 10,000 to 20,000 indoctrinated fascists in the Sunni triangle that need to be neutralized before the rest of the area and Iraq can more fully embrace a democratic liberal future. It would be a shame to allow them to impose their will on the rest of the population simply because they are willing to use violence. Ultimately, their targeting of the Iraqi police will only alienate them from the populace.

Security should markedly improve following the Nov/Dec planned offensive in the Sunni Triangle. The only thing hold up is the rate of Iraqi Special Forces training which can not be rushed. When coalition forces attacked last April, marines killed hundreds of insurgents, but concurrently created a groundswell of anger on the ground by alienating the populace despite limited, precise strikes. A decision was made to pull back and wait until enough Iraqi troops were ready to participate and make it appear as though Iraqis themselves were securing the country from outsiders.

There are currently 6 battalions of Iraqi Special Forces on the ready. By the end of October, there should be a total 12 battalions (about 8400 men). By January, there are projected to be 27 such battalions. This will be in addition to over 100,000 police officers and another 100,000 or so less extensively trained Iraqi troops, allowing for a more significant participation by Iraqis while simultaneously splitting the resistance into those who just oppose the occupation on general nationalist principle and those who oppose a future open, free Iraq. Compounding this authenticity, national elections will put in what should be seen as a legitimate government by the majority of Iraqis early next year. Now is not the time to go wobbly.

Essentially, the coalition is trying to set up a situation similar in nature to the one that worked well in Afghanistan, including supporting indigenous forces with air power (and in this case with infantry and armor). The hope is that extremists will wear out their welcome as did Sadr in Najaf (where he is now a persona non grata) and as they did in Samarra. However, it would be disingenuous not to expect the level of violence to increase as the election nears. We can't expect the Sunni former regime elements that have everything to lose not to fight.

Once these antidemocratic elements are cleared out, stability should be sufficient to allow economic expansion and reconstruction to occur. Once a legitimately elected Iraqi government is in place, much of the “general principle” nationalist opposition to the western troops should lose support.

Nevertheless, the current spate of terrorist bombings has not dissuaded thousands more from signing up for the IP and the new Iraqi army. In interviews, many have said that although they are scared, the bombings only increase their determination. Additionally, there have been recent demonstrations in Baghdad against terrorism. Web sites, such as Iraq the Model, have sprung up that are managed by those living in Baghdad and Basra. While they do not represent the entire population, it is refreshing to hear a moderate voice over there, and they will continue to need our help.

Aren't we just creating more terrorists in Iraq?

There’s no evidence to support this assertion whatsoever. In the short run, I'm willing to concede that there clearly has been an increase in terrorist activity. However, in the long run, freedom, prosperity, and collective security are the answer in the Middle East, just as they were to the seemingly intractable problem of imperialist Europe in the 20th century. Firm resolve and action will motivate moderates to action as well.

These so-called ‘new’ terrorists are raw, green, and untrained amateurs. The terror training camps have been vanquished. Expert, seasoned terrorists are being killed by the score in Iraq, and many more perished in Afghanistan. This is the key advantage to taking the fight to the enemy. Also, terror funding is being halted, largely as a result of regime change. Evidence continues to spew forth that part of the Oil-For-Food money was being siphoned off into accounts for terrorists. Some terrorists are simply ‘retiring’ under the pressure. Exhibit Qaddafi, who had managed to produce weapons grade plutonium before he voluntarily disarmed last year. Lastly, there is a compelling realpolitik case for regime change as detailed extensively in a prior post. Clearly, the advantages of US foreign policy outweigh the disadvantages. That's really all you can ask for.

The totalitarianisms of the Middle East squeeze out all aspects of civil society (political parties, clubs, professional associations, trade unions, etc) except that of the Mosque. There is no way to vent frustration or gather in groups except at the mosque, ultimately radicalizing the populace. Free Muslims (and others) rarely participate in terrorism (see Indonesian, Malaysian, Turkish, Israeli, or American Muslims). The nihilism of the terrorists is counteracted by the hope and feeling of control over one's life that is the legacy of freedom. In this vein, spreading freedom IS combating terrorism.

From OxBlog:

THINK GLOBALLY, ACT LOCALLY: Apparently, that's Al Qaeda's new strategy. The LA Times also insists very forcefully that Muslim outrage at the invasion of Iraq has created a new generation of terrorists. That's a respectable hypothesis, but every time I hear it I want to know why the invasion of Iraq was so different from the invasion of Afghanistan. If Muslims -- especially Arabs -- tend to believe that the Mossad and the CIA were responsible for September 11th, why was the invasion of Afghanistan any less provocative than the invasion of Iraq? Are Muslims and Arabs so committed to upholding international law that they will murder Turkish, Iraqi and Indonesian civilians in order to vent their outrage? What I'm getting at, of course, is that American journalists project their own moral judgments onto the behavior Arab and Muslim terrorists. It is possible, of course, that Arabs and Muslims did perceive the invasion of Iraq as a uniquely offensive act. But if so, why? And what is the evidence?

Along those same lines, consider Andrew Sullivan’s comments:

ARE THE JIHADISTS LOSING? A new book says so. The key is the way in which these murderous theocrats are now killing more Muslims than infidels. Would any sane Muslim want to live in Falluja? Money quote: "The principal goal of terrorism -
to seize power in Muslim countries through mobilization of populations galvanized by jihad's sheer audacity - has not been realized," Kepel writes. In fact, bin Laden's followers are losing ground: The Taliban regime in Afghanistan has been toppled; the fence-sitting semi-Islamist regime in Saudi Arabia has taken sides more strongly with the West; Islamists in Sudan and Libya are in retreat; and the plight of the Palestinians has never been more dire. And Baghdad, the traditional seat of the Muslim caliphs, is under foreign occupation. Not what you would call a successful jihad.

The Realist Party’s sentiments exactly.

Is it possible to create democracy in the Middle East?

We had success in Germany, Italy, and Japan. Democracy has made strides in Muslim countries such as Malaysia, Turkey, and Indonesia. Muslims live in democratic societies in India, Israel, and the United States. Democracy has adapted to each of these different cultures. Though lacking a democratic history, Arab states do have a tradition of consultative local government (based on tribal structure), complete with councils and political bartering. These characteristics (vital to a democratic society) were missing from the authoritarian structures of Japanese and German society. It is why you see much more progress at the local level in Iraq, though national progress toward representative government is evident as well with the upcoming elections in January.

Wouldn't things be better with a UN mandate? Wouldn't that remove the "American Stigma" from the occupation?

Removing the "American Stigma" would just be replaced by a "Western Stigma". It is important to understand that fanatical Muslims make no distinction. The Sunni insurgents would still fight to keep the control of Iraq that they have enjoyed for the last 1000 years. They know that there's no oil in the Sunni triangle and in order to enjoy its benefits, they think that they need to run the whole country. Continuing, wahabbi terrorists wouldn't care either. They want an Islamic fascist totalitarian dictatorship. A broader UN-based effort might actually hinder progress toward democracy because there is a tradition among those not in the Iraq coalition of doing business with autocrats and a realpolitik-inspired favoring of stability over progression in the Middle East. It is a strategy that may have made some sense during the Cold War, but is now clearly maladaptive.

Aren't we playing into Bin Laden's hands by invading Afghanistan and Iraq?

Some critics claim that Bin Laden had a master plan to create a clash of civilizations, and that the coalition is falling into his trap. Bin Laden had his Shari'a utopia in Afghanistan and could have built upon it there unmolested by the west. He could have just minded his own business. But he and the islamo-fascists couldn't help themselves. They had to throw it all away. The same could be said for Iran and their mullahs.

Why was it so hard for them just to keep to themselves? The answer is because Islamo-fascism is inherently chauvinist, militaristic, and expansionist. They can't provide for their people's needs, so they instead do what (ironically) Bush is accused of doing: using external events and jihad (war) to distract their populace from domestic concerns and keep the spirit of ‘revolution’ alive.

I doubt that Bin Laden wanted to be kicked out of power and have his dreams of a shari'a fascist utopia crushed. Furthermore, in the end does it really matter what he wants? Especially if what he wants is actually bad for his cause in the long run? The answer is ‘no’.

Aren't preventive wars a bad idea?

Some seem to think that the only wars worth fighting are the ones where national survival is on the line, such as in WWII. Another view, however, is that we need to keep a situation from getting to that point. For example: when Hitler renounced the arms limitations set upon Germany by the Treaty of Versailles in 1935 and when he re-occupied the Rhineland in 1936, a small preventive war with Germany might have crushed Hitler and the Nazi movement with only a minimal loss of life (perhaps as little as 20,000-30,000 troops on both sides). This preemptive action would have saved the world over 50 million dead in WWII, in addition to the 6 million Jews killed during the Holocaust (out of a total world population of about 10 million at the time).

The current situation in Iraq and the Middle East is analogous. We need to act and encourage change before inevitable nuclear proliferation puts the power of the atom into the hands of regimes for whom there is no mutually agreed upon deterrence. That time to act is now!

More on the Oil-For-Food Scam

(EDITOR'S NOTE: The New York Times has an update on the continuing scandal at the United Nations, excerpts of which appear below, concerning the UN-Iraqi oil-for-food program that really should not come as surprise to anyone anymore. It once again highlights the conflicts of interest that surround the Security Council's failure to enforce UN Resolution 1441.

Also worrisome is the preliminary and emerging evidence that many Oil-for-Food companies did business with other entities known for their ties to terrorist organizations, including Al-Qaeda. It raises the possibility that some of the billions raised were ultimately being shuffled into terror accounts. Shocking! -BBM)


3 Nations Reportedly Slowed Probe of Oil Sales
By JUDITH MILLER
The New York Times
Saturday, October 2, 2004

Congressional investigators say that France, Russia and China systematically sabotaged the former United Nations oil-for-food program in Iraq by preventing the United States and Britain from investigating whether Saddam Hussein was diverting billions of dollars.

The paper also accuses the United Nations office charged with overseeing the program of having "pressed" contractors not to rigorously inspect Iraqi oil being sold and the foreign goods being bought.

Representative Christopher Shays, the Connecticut Republican who chairs the subcommittee, said in an interview that there was no doubt that the abuses were systemic and that blame for the widespread corruption must be shared by Security Council members, the United Nations office that administered the program, and the contractors hired by the United Nations to inspect Iraq's oil exports and aid purchases.