All About Josh

2003-07-07T21:34:00.000-04:00

REMEMBER PHILIP BRENNER?: Yes, he's the infamous American University professor who I blogged about last year that thought Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were only bad from a "Western perspective" -- this before 9-11. Well, he made an appearance on Hannity & Colmes in April when I was away in London. And he made the liberal Colmes shell-shocked in his insinuations that Fidel Castro's Cuba was the moral and legal equivalent of the United States. And here's the transcript:

SHOW: FOX HANNITY & COLMES (21:50)

April 29, 2003 Tuesday

SECTION: News; International

LENGTH: 1704 words

HEADLINE: Interview With Philip Brenner

GUESTS: Philip Brenner

BYLINE: Sean Hannity, Alan Clomes

BODY:
COLMES: We're back on HANNITY & COLMES.

Cuba was reelected today to serve on the United Nations Human Rights Commission but do they deserve it? White House Spokesman Ari Fleischer doesn't think so.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Having Cuba serve again on the Human Rights Commission is like putting Al Capone in charge of bank security.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COLMES: Joining us in D.C. Philip Brenner, a professor of international relations at American University, and co-author of "Sad and Luminous Days: Cuba's Struggle With the Super Powers After the Missile Crisis." Good to have you with us, sir.

PHILIP BRENNER, INTL. RELATIONS PROFESSOR: Good to be here.

COLMES: What's wrong with saying and letting our message out to nations that if you are not going to observe basic human rights you do not participate in the body of nations and sit on human rights commissions unless you do certain basic things. What's wrong with that?

BRENNER: Well, the question is this about trashing the United Nations? I heard you...

COLMES: No, not from me, not from me. That's not my view. I'm not - - I favor the United Nations. My argument is should you sit on the Human Rights Commission anywhere, U.N. or anywhere else, if you are not an observer of human rights?

BRENNER: Well, the people who elected Cuba were the other members of this Human Rights Commission and you could say they don't belong there either.

COLMES: Maybe not.

BRENNER: What the real message here is that the message that we're not getting through to the American people is that the world is very angry at the United States and they're going to stick it in the United States' eye and we have to see this as an extraordinary rejection of the United States, not so much as support for Cuba.

COLMES: But shouldn't the United States and any decent, respectable, moral country stand up against what countries like Cuba does, Cuba that has rounded up 78 opposition leaders, sent them to prison for terms of up to 28 years, three alleged hijackers shot to death recently without the benefit of a trial, and shouldn't we be forceful in speaking out against these kind of abuses and not allow these countries to sit on commissions dealing with human rights issues?

BRENNER: Sure. They violate human rights. There's no question about that but so does the United States. Amnesty International...

COLMES: To the extent that Cuba does?

BRENNER: Well, when George Bush was governor of Texas without any compunctions he executed 153 people.

COLMES: Well, wait a minute but he did that legally, sir. I'm against the death penalty but he followed the law.

BRENNER: Well, they were legally executed in Cuba.

COLMES: Cuba breaks international law.

BRENNER: Excuse me. They were legally executed in Cuba. They have laws.

COLMES: But wait a second. He did it legally.

BRENNER: They had trials. They violated laws for which they had capital punishment.

COLMES: But, Mr. Brenner, George W. Bush and I disagree with him totally on policy, I disagree with him totally about the death penalty, but he didn't do it illegally. He followed the law of Texas which, of course, he favored. Fidel Castro breaks international law, is a human rights violator. You can't put George W. Bush in the same category.

BRENNER: Excuse me. He did not break international law. There's a law in Cuba that makes capital punishment the punishment for hijacking and these people were hijackers. They were found guilty of it.

HANNITY: Yes, and what were they trying to do? They were trying to get the heck away from him and his repressive regime.

BRENNER: Excuse me, were they hijackers?

HANNITY: You know what your problem is?

BRENNER: Were the people on those boats lives at risk, yes.

HANNITY: You know what your problem is, professor, you equate their justice system with ours. Have you ever met or discussed the issues of what life was like when he came into power and the brutal murders that he and his thugs were involved in? I have.

I have a friend of mine, Armando DeQuesada (ph). I'll put you in touch with him. Talk to him about what the brutal murder and torture of his family and his relatives and his friends when this animal came into power. Now this country is going to be in the Human Rights Committee? You got to be kidding me.

BRENNER: Well, I think that rather than focus again on Cuba, understand that they were elected because the world, the countries on that commission and, in fact, most of the countries of the world see the United States bullying Cuba in ways that are against international law and they're in effect defending Cuba.

HANNITY: Sir, you just...

BRENNER: Why do we want to put those countries in that position? That's the question we have to ask.

HANNITY: Where is your criticism of Castro, the murderer? He's a murderer. He's a thief and a thug and a murderer. When will you say what needs to be said? You're a professor. Do you not know the history of him coming to power?

BRENNER: Excuse me. The question before us is why would the countries in the United Nations do that? Doesn't that bother you that everyone in the world looks at us and sees those people...

HANNITY: Why are those people getting in broken down, dilapidated, rickety boats and inner tubes in shark infested waters and risking death? You know why they're doing it because they've lived under the oppressive regime. That's why they're doing it.

COLMES: All right, we're going to take a quick break.

BRENNER: They also live next to the richest country in the world and they have relatives in the United States telling them they can come here and live a good life.

COLMES: All right, sir. We're going to take a quick break and be right back to continue the debate on the other side.

You're watching the Fox News Channel, the network America trusts for real journalism, fair and balanced.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HANNITY: Continue now with Mr. Brenner. Mr. Brenner look you're not denying he's a murderous thug so you explain to our audience why a murderous thug like Castro should be chosen with the honor of his country to be on the Human Rights Commission, just like Libya which is another joke, just like Iraq being on the Disarmament Commission? Explain to our audience how that makes sense to you.

BRENNER: Well, the world is not the place we would like it to be. A lot of our allies, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria where we get an awful lot of oil, are on the Human Rights Commission. If we were going to disallow countries to be on that commission then, in effect, we would...

HANNITY: Why do we have a commission? This renders it a joke. It renders it meaningless when the biggest violaters of human rights on the face of this planet, their countries are rewarded with that prestigious position.

We're rendering that entire body meaningless because there are no human rights in Castro's world, in Kadafi's world, just like there's no disarmament in Saddam's old world or in Iran's world. It's foolish and it gives us another reason to get away from this meaningless body known as the United Nations.

BRENNER: Well, I think what you have to do is stand back and ask yourself a different question. Why is it that we don't understand how it is that the rest of the world could honor these countries? And, until we understand that, this is not the 19th century. We live in the world.

COLMES: Mr. Brenner.

BRENNER: If you guys want to live in the 19th century, go there but we live in the 21st century.

COLMES: No, thanks. Mr. Brenner, I favor -- this is Alan. I favor the United Nations. I want to see the United Nations be vital and vibrant but it's not going to be as long as it puts human rights violaters on commissions. It's not just -- and it's not just Cuba.

You have Peru that's still holding Laurie Barrington (ph), an American citizen. You have Russia that refuses the Human Rights Commission to look into lack of human rights in Chechnya. So, I think the U.N. has to be forceful in being very clear about where it stand morally if it's going to be a vital entity in the 21st century.

BRENNER: But on those grounds the United States wouldn't be on the commission.

COLMES: Wait a minute. Would you equate the United States' violations with Peru, with Russia, and especially with Cuba? Is there moral equivalency between these two countries?

BRENNER: If I can finish my sentence.

COLMES: Yes, sir.

BRENNER: What would be the standards which we would judge? We wouldn't for one thing ask a country to sign the treaties that hold them accountable, and the United States has refused to sign one of the basic treaties on human rights and it was only in 1992 that we signed the Political Rights Treaty.

COLMES: But, Mr. Brenner, you're suggesting there's moral equivalency between the United States and...

BRENNER: I'm asking who should judge?

COLMES: Please let me finish my question and you'll have a full chance to answer. You're suggesting there's moral equivalency between what we do, human rights wise, and what Cuba does human rights wise. Are you suggesting there is that kind of equivalency?

BRENNER: I'm suggesting the rest of the world sees it that way and I think you need to understand how the rest of the world sees things because we live in the rest of the world. We don't live by ourselves anymore.

COLMES: I think we have to be -- we are a moral country. We have to continue to be. We have to stand up and we have to encourage the United Nations not to reward countries who do these kinds of things to get on commissions.

HANNITY: All right, we got to roll.

COLMES: And there is no moral equivalency.

HANNITY: Final point, Mr. Brenner, we got to go.

HANNITY: Your final word professor.

BRENNER: OK.

HANNITY: All right, Mr. Brenner, that's all. You rendered him speechless, Colmes.

BRENNER: Can I have a final word?

COLMES: All right, we gave you an opportunity. We have ten seconds if you want to respond.

HANNITY: Go ahead.

BRENNER: I think that we should invite talks with Cuba to improve their human rights. We refuse to talk to them. That would be an important way to start.

HANNITY: All right, you had the last word, Mr. Brenner. That is all the time we have left this evening.

LOAD-DATE: April 30, 2003

What a guy, that Brenner.

2003-06-27T00:03:00.000-04:00

THE ANTITHESIS TO "BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE": Just got back from seeing the documentary Spellbound, which is ostensibly a video vignette of eight middle-school spellers who, despite their disparate personalities and backgrounds, all have a passion for words. But while the film is about a spelling bee, the real theme throughout the engrossing flick was the love of America. The movie could just has easily have been titled "The Greatness of America." One contestant, Angela, was a Mexican immigrant's daughter from Amarillo, Texas whose father worked on a farm milking cows. Her parents spoke Spanish at home, yet she became a champion-caliber speller. Another memorable character was Neil, a 12-year old 8th grader of Indian descent whose parents pushed him to excel in any activity -- be it basketball, karate or spelling. His parents pointed out he wasn't just one of those "geeky spellers, he was also a blackbelt in karate." His father said (paraphrasing): "That's what's unique and great about America. With hard work, you can go anywhere you want." For comic relief, there was Harry, the hyperactive kid from New Jersey who spoke a mile-a-minute and seemed an unlikely champion speller.

This movie should be touted as the conservative response to "Bowling for Columbine." Many of the kids came from disadvantaged backgrounds, but worked tremendously hard to succeed. Many of the families profiled were religious -- one father mentioned that a grandfather from India got 1,000 people to pray for his son's success. Another contestant was a church regular who told the camera he "believed in Jesus." No one was a victim, save perhaps for the hyperactive Harry who blamed the host for mispronouncing the word he lost on. The communities in which these children grew up were largely supportive -- nearly every middle school and many local establishments put up congratulatory signs for their hometown heroes. Even a "Hooters" joined in on the act, but managed to misspell the word "congradulations" in a fitting bit of irony. I felt myself rooting for all the kids, from the somewhat socially awkward, gun-lover from rural Pennsylvania (take that, Michael Moore) to the lower-class, black girl from the inner city who merely took a Metro ride to arrive at the national competition.

Community, family values, religion, strong work ethic, love of America: what more could a red meat conservative ask for in a movie?

2003-06-24T21:36:00.000-04:00

THE POST RUNS A COVER STORY ON AU: Last Sunday, the Washington Post magazine ran a 5,800 word cover story about the state of American University's campus during the Iraqi war. The story's author, Peter Perl, an occasional writer for the paper's magazine, tries to weave a narrative together similar to a Michael Lewis, whose book "Moneyball" provides an outsider's look at a baseball success story of the Oakland A's by highlighting several key protagonists. Perl tries to highlight several conspicuous players on the AU campus: AU Republicans prez Bob Nardo, AU "anarchist" Andrew Willis, Prof. Said, the veteran peace and conflict resolution studies professor.

However, the difference between Perl's expose and a chapter out of "Moneyball" is that, despite their same literary technique, it becomes fairly obvious that Perl depends more on singular observations and unfair stereotypes. I don't know exactly how much time Perl spent on campus, but he clearly lacks the firsthand knowledge of being at AU full-time to really gain any significant insights. Let's look at some examples (or as old Channel 9 sportscaster and AU professor Warner Wolf would say: "Let's go to the videotape!")

Perl starts off by introducing one of the story's protagonists, a veteran Prof. Abdul Aziz Said who was a strong opponent of the war in Iraq. In the second graf, Perl writes:

Similarly, Abdul Said himself is a singular institution on this internationally diverse campus. The Syrian-born professor of international relations has been a fixture at AU for five decades, promoting social justice and peace, regardless of circumstances. More than 40 years ago, he championed the rights of a handful of Jewish students who were being blackballed by fraternities and he helped them found their own frat. "I believe I am the only Arab who has a Jewish fraternity scholarship named after him," Said says with a deep laugh.

For the record, I've been at AU for three years now and it wasn't until last year until I heard of this "singular institution." Perl makes him out to be like a Elie Weisel or Robert Reich, or some campus icon -- frankly, he's not. He's been at AU a long time, but Perl offers no evidence to put Prof. Said on such a pedestal. The fraternity story is interesting, but it hardly backs up the fluffy cliche that he has "promoted social justice and peace, regardess of circumstances." That's some loaded language. Does embracing social justice and peace, for example, mean supporting the Palestinian cause? Sadly, these words have become so politicized that when I read that I automatically assume that he's embraced a bunch of left-wing causes. Sadly, social justice isn't what it used to be.

And lo and behold, with the next paragraph, my hunch is proven.

More recently, with the Palestinian intifadas, the Oklahoma City bombing and the September 11th terrorist attacks, Said stepped forward to lead campus teach-ins aimed at promoting a message of academic and personal understanding.

(No, not the suicide bombings, but the Palestinian intifadas. Okay, so I read on.)

So once Perl sets up Prof. Said as some icon on campus, it's hard to disagree with anything he does -- for example, kissing the American flag that a pro-war protestor is holding up. Perl writes:

Said went on to deliver a strong message against what he described as the Bush administration's failure of leadership, absence of vision and dangerous abdication of America's role as a moral standard-setter for the world. Acting preemptively and unilaterally would do lasting damage, he warned students. "In a military sense, our position is unlosable," he told the standing-room-only audience. "But in a political sense, our position is unwinnable."

Perl automatically assumes Prof. Said's message is strong even though he doesn't seem to offer any substantive pearls of wisdom, just the standard anti-war protestor cliche. I would think that freeing the Iraqis from a brutal dictator would further enhance America's role as a moral standard-setter, no? Instead, Perl just accepts this message and portrays him as the wizened clergyman of campus.

That's just the beginning. The article, while admirable in its coverage of all things AU (it managed to seemingly cover nearly all the war-related news on campus), it lacked the depth and first-hand knowledge of the players and people on campus. At first, I thought this piece was disappointing because it did its job well -- it was value-neutral. And that's what I found problematic, because it's so hard to approach a provocative issues with full objectivity. But when I re-read the piece, I felt it wasn't value-neutral. The conservatives on campus were portrayed as flag-huggers who just like to sing patriotic anthems all day. That doesn't accurately represent the conservatives on campus that I know. They are among the more articulate and well-reasoned people at AU. The reason the College Republicans have grown isn't because of some right-wing hysteria and jingoism on campus. It is due to the strong and intelligent leadership of a Bob Nardo who deserves a lot more sympathy than he gets in the article.

The baseball story that Moneyball narrates is the battle of ideas, and a small cadre of stat-geeks essentially manage to alter the dominant mind-set of the leaders and elite in the game. Maybe I'm biased, but I would've approached the AU war story in a similar vein. Frankly, the overwhelming power numerically of the left on campus is outdone by the reason and ideas of the conservatives and libertarians on campus. There's a palpable hatred and prejudice of anyone who espouses a non-liberal view on campus by a small but vocal group of lefties on campus. These leftists wanted to censor a conservative magazine and stormed into a College Republicans meeting because a member wrote an article that criticized the excesses of feminism. But in recent years, the college Republicans membership has skyrocketed and I think there is becoming a genuine contest in the battle of ideas. Yet Perl simply stereotyped the conservative as this:

"God Bless America! Land that I love . . ." Nardo and his companions sang. They then broke into "The Star-Spangled Banner." Outside other antiwar functions, a small but determined contingent of opponents chanted, "U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!," sang patriotic songs and "Onward Christian Soldiers," and shouted slogans aimed at Saddam Hussein -- and occasionally at the French.

While the lefties protested ridiculously, the coverage of their events -- such as the Said flag-kissing for peace -- were portrayed in a positive light. Frankly, Nardo comes across like a jingoistic, evangelical maniac -- not the occasionally crazy but genuinely intelligent Nardo I know. When Said talks about peace, Perl takes three paragraphs to make him a paragon of virtue. But when Nardo and his ideological cohorts want to take out a heinous dictator, they're crazy patriots. In an article loaded with adjectives, there's not one devoted to the evil, maniacal, (insert adjective here) Saddam Hussein.

I'm not going to comment on the whole story, but there's one point that is telling in the Left's intellectual dishonesty. History Professor Peter Kuznick, an unscholarly lefty professor if there ever was one, is profiled teaching his class about how former President Harry Truman's racism played a role in his dropping of the atom bomb in Japan. Here's the excerpt:

Reading aloud contemporaneous excerpts that included Truman's private letters to his wife, Bess, Kuznick portrayed a man who was stubborn, insecure and also racist, privately using derogatory terms for blacks and Asians. Most of Truman's top advisers opposed using the atom bomb, as American intelligence reports indicated Japan was about to surrender, Kuznick told his class of 35.

"A relatively decent, informed, intelligent human being chose to use the bomb -- despite the opposition of almost every top military leader. If he would choose the bomb, why should we believe that someone like George Bush would be more cautious or thoughtful in using these weapons?" he asked. "My argument is not condemnation of Harry Truman. My argument is that none of the presidents should have that kind of power."

Kuznick went on to outline the Bush administration's Nuclear Posture Review that he said officially "lowered the bar" on America's willingness to use weapons of mass destruction. He asked the students, "Do we have any trust that our president won't use nuclear weapons? Is George W. Bush a deeper thinker or more moral than Harry Truman?"

But Perl had to issue a clarification to this part of his article, writing: "An article in the Magazine paraphrases American University history professor Peter Kuznick as saying that most of President Harry S. Truman's top advisers opposed using the atom bomb on Japan. While most of Truman's military advisers opposed dropping the bomb, there is no historical record of his top civilian advisers counseling against it, according to Kuznick, who has written extensively about the bombing of Hiroshima."

I checked my valuable primary source reference, "Major Problems in American History since 1945," and the results were illuminating. Facts are a useful thing, you know? The Interim Committee, which Truman appointed to advise him on the atomic, unanimously recommended its usage. Secretary of War Stimson gave high praise to the project. Secretary of State Marshall was enamored with the potential effects of the bomb. In fact, Marshall dissuaded Truman from informing the Japanese before leveling the bomb on Hiroshima. A panel of U.S. science advisers also recommended dropping the bomb in June 1945. (Thank you, Prof. Griffith for both the valuable book and informative class -- one based on facts not politicized nonsense. And Griffith is definitely not a conservative.)

So is Kuznick a liar? Intentionally intellectually dishonest? It sounds like Kuznick is admitting that the historical record contradicts what he taught. Before the clarification was issued, I posed that question to Perl in his online chat, and his response was telling. Here's the exchange:

Same with Prof. Peter Kuznick, who attributes President Truman's dropping of the nuclear bomb to his racism, when it is obvious that the overall mindset in 1940s post WWII America was strongly anti-Japan and anti-German -- Truman was no anomaly of his time. And surely his views on race didn't dictate his dropping of the bomb; national security considerations did.

Do you have the same reaction as I do when reading those comments from tenured professors, who seem hopelessly "unscholarly?"

Peter Perl: You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I'm hard-pressed to define who's scholarly or unscholarly. Some teachers put a great deal of passion into their work. If you agree with them, they are great teachers and scholars. If you don't, they're unscholarly.

We'll see who has the last laugh. Perl apparently thinks any opinion -- with or without factual evidence -- is relevant, and any passionate teacher can be scholarly. It's merely a matter of opinion. Yet it was Perl who had to issue a retraction because he bought, hookline-and-sinker, Kuznick's ludicrous assertion that Truman dropped the bomb because he just hated the Japanese. (As I mention in the question, hardly any Americans had any love for the Japanese during WWII. I guess FDR is a evil monster because, you know, he put thousands of Japanese legal immigrants into internment camps.) And yet the neglect for facts and lack of useful information was what made what could have been an impressive piece into a lackluster one. It's basically a list of his observations meshed into a descriptive narrative. It has breadth but no depth. He shows no degree of skepticism when listening to, er, crazy hippies spouting their utopian, ridiculous worldview.

Which brings me back to "Moneyball." The great thing about the baseball narrative is the story's protagonists used facts and knowledge to back up their views. Billy Beane's A's essentially led the Information Revolution in baseball. While veteran scouts liked a player's swing, build, or 50-meter dash time, the smart ones used data and reason to back up their views. Yet Perl writes this piece like the over-the-hill scouts who evaluate on what they observe -- facts be damned. He interviews a bunch of people, captures a bunch of snapshots on campus but fails to see the big picture. Perl lacks any skepticism and fails to, essentially, acknowledge the naivete and abject stupidity of many of the protagonists he glorifies. Where's the probing question to Kuznick when he asserts that Truman was a flaming racist? Where's the questioning to Said about the positive effects the war brought? Heck, where's the challenge to Nardo to clarify his views on the war, to delve deeper into more than just silly slogans?

I guess I'll have to wait for that piece -- or maybe I'll write it myself.

2003-06-22T20:34:00.000-04:00

LET'S GET THIS BLOGGING STARTED.

Okay, I've taken a semi-hiatus from blogging, and have since returned from Europe, started a job and began looking for a place to live next year. The latter is still happening, but I'm ready to start opining and do more than just offer links and post the occasional column that I did in London. I have this nice new laptop that allows me to blog from the comfort of my bed, and there's quite a lot of stuff going on in the news that I have more than a passing interest in: postwar Iraq, the roadmap, affirmative action and race-based admissions policies, media bias, and the quality of academia. So here it goes: "All About Josh," season two.

2003-04-06T12:59:00.000-04:00

WHY IRAQ IS NOT VIETNAM. Good column in the Jerusalem Post today, stating the obvious.

2003-04-06T12:26:00.000-04:00

PEJMAN pointed me to this article illustrating the differences between Christianity and Judaism in responding to evil.

Some food for thought.

2003-04-06T11:55:00.000-04:00

I AM HANDING OUT MY FIRST JOHN KERRY AWARD, for inappropriate comparisons between the United States and Iraq. The first one comes from David Von Drehle's Sunday story about Bush's administering of the war -- and draws a ridiculous comparison between John McCain's 2000 election campaign and Saddam's Fedayeen.

But Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) mounted an insurgent campaign on a shoestring, and surprised Bush with a whipping in the New Hampshire primary. Like the Fedayeen harassing coalition troops in southern Iraq, McCain rattled the sense of invincibility that Bush had worked to create. The reaction in Washington was similar in each case: Nervousness, second-guessing and calls for new personnel and new plans.

I think von Drehle one-upped John Kerry. Couldn't a more tasteful analogy have been made?

2003-04-05T11:48:00.000-05:00

HERE IN BRITAIN, many of the hawkish Labor party members who have supported Blair have utterly failed in countering the absurd claim that "if Iraq is violating UN resolutions, why aren't we attacking Israel?" I've heard this almost daily on the British newscasts, from all across the political spectrum.

Well, let me point you to my friend Lior Klirs' excellent rebuttal to this claim, written in UVa's Cavalier Daily back in September. I couldn't have responded better myself.

2003-03-28T09:33:00.000-05:00

HERE'S A LOOK at my latest column, to be published by American University's student paper, The Eagle and the folks at benladner.com

Evangelical Professors
by Josh Kraushaar

I was having a conversation with my wonderfully liberal friend the other day at a London coffee shop, and the topic turned to evangelical Christians. We were talking about Israel, and I expressed my gratitude for the many religious evangelicals who have offered first-hand support to the Israelis threatened by terrorism. I also mentioned the dedicated work many evangelical Christians have accomplished in Africa, feeding the malnourished and treating the sick. My friend was skeptical. "They’re nuts," she said, suggesting that they had ulterior motives behind their altruism. Specifically, they want to convert people – to Christianity.

Forty percent of Americans are evangelical Christians, a proportion that seems abnormally high to many of the secular elite throughout the cities on the East and West coasts. That statistic only includes the evangelical adherents of a certain religion. But evangelicals cover a much broader group. Dogmatic environmentalists desperately want to convert skeptics to their cause – the most hardcore of them chaining themselves to trees to prevent them from being cut down. The gun lobby instinctively invokes the Second Amendment when any gun control legislation is proposed, and the gun control proponents are equally convinced that gun owners are evil and guns should be banned. The laudable Habitat for Humanity organization is evangelical. They’re convinced in the merits of building housing for the less fortunate and continually try to get students to sign up to their group. Even fraternities and sororities are evangelical. Every semester, each one tries to convince as many students as possible to rush and pledge.

So not all evangelical activity is inherently bad. Far from it, in fact. But judging from the news on campus these past weeks, I’d conclude that evangelical activity is much higher and more dangerous among so-called American University peace protestors than at any Southern Baptist convention – or Delta Chi rush, for that matter. Dozens of students lay on the floors of Mary Graydon Center portraying Iraqi war victims, spreading the message that Iraqi people will die during the war. There was no mention of the horrible repressiveness that defines the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, where scores of Iraqis are murdered and tortured daily for the same political dissent that these students crave. Four obnoxious students interrupted Chris Mathews’ "Hardball" show on campus trying to express their incoherent anti-war views. And in the most blatant example of evangelism at American University, certain professors canceled two days of classes in protest of the war on Iraq to organize a "teach-in." Looking at the guest list, which included some of the most flaming anti-war activists and precious few serious scholars, this hardly can be called a teach-in. Call it a preach-in. Or a laugh-in.

Most of this evangelism is pretty harmless stuff. Chris Mathews, no pro-war hawk, told the immature foursome to "sit down and shut up." It made for some pretty funny television, even though it was at the expense of AU’s reputation. Very few people took the "corpses" lying in Mary Graydon seriously. If anything, their lack of seriousness hurt their cause. But when professors cancel classes to express explicitly political views, it’s a cause for concern. Using an academic class as a platform for political views has long been the habit of many left-wing liberal arts professors. Imposing their views on the student population, as was done this past week at AU, is shameful.

Part of this professorial evangelism easily stems from their belief that any pro-war view is just nuts. This is plainly evident from the comments made by the professorial teach-in organizers in the Eagle last week. "Clearly people who are educated and have a more profound sense of ethics are very uncomfortable with [the Bush administration’s Iraq] policy, " history professor Peter Kuznick said in The Eagle. What arrogant pomposity. He apparently hasn’t seen polls showing over 70 percent of Americans supporting the war.

Many of these left-wing professors talk all about academic freedom and the right to dissent. SIS Dean Lou Goodman defended the professors’ right to protest by invoking that famous "academic freedom" cliché. "Each faculty member has complete freedom to conduct their class in a way they see as most productive for their course; that’s an essential part of academic freedom," he said. So it’s an obligation to dissent if you’re anti-war, but at the teach-in, there wasn’t a single pro-war voice. Look at the list. The director of Women’s Action of New Directions. Oxfam America. Africa Action. These are hardly significant organizations. Our nation’s capital has a wealth of think tanks and experts from all sides of public opinion. Cato, Brookings, American Enterprise, you name it. Yet no members from them – liberal, libertarian or conservative – were represented. In fact, using the word ‘think’ to describe most of these "pro-peace" speakers would be inaccurate. If these professors were serious about their job, they would invite a broad representation of scholarly opinion. Instead there was a unanimous chorus of anti-war activists, including Karin Lee from the Friends Committee on National Legislation. The peace movement’s constant invocation of McCarthyism is a bad joke. The war protestors themselves are among the least open to opposing opinions. Kuznick’s comment to the effect that all smart people agree with me is incredibly self-serving. That won’t win him a lot of converts.

Professors certainly should not feel constrained by a campus atmosphere where the ability to express opinions is quelled. I have had many outstanding professors in my three years at AU and most of them have been – surprise! – liberal. And the best ones occasionally express their views on certain issues. But they do not preach. They respect debate and do not have a political agenda in their classrooms. They certainly wouldn’t cancel class in order to attend an on-campus rally. Even the anti-war liberals would certainly concede the many merits of removing one of the world’s most hideous and brutal regimes – one that cuts off dissidents’ tongues and murders men, women and children. These evangelical professors hardly mentioned Saddam’s laundry list of atrocities. They were totally unserious and dismissive of any national security threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. They want to convince you that peace is paramount, but at what cost?

Nobel Peace Laureate and Holocaust survivor Elie Weisel recently wrote in the LA Times, "Though I oppose war, I am in favor of intervention when, as in this case, because of Hussein’s equivocations and procrastinations, no other option remains…We have a moral obligation to intervene where evil is in control. Today, that place is Iraq." Such a serious scholar and thinker shouldn’t be confused with the gaggle of evangelicals in Batelle-Tompkins last week. It would be easy to compare them to the many evangelical Christians who believe strongly in their religion and try to convert others to their cause. But many of these Christians back up their words with action. They travel to Africa to administer medical care, food and – yes – religion to the afflicted. They sometimes risk their lives to help others. They ride with Israelis on the buses targeted by suicide bombers, giving them much-needed moral support.

In contrast, these evangelical professors hold preach-ins. Some cancel class, getting two paid days off from their job. They’re more avid than Jerry Falwell in trying to convince others of the righteousness of their cause. But their words are cheap and they are abusing a noble profession. They have the potential to mold young minds, but instead waste it on empty slogans.

2003-03-22T21:29:00.000-05:00

I LIKED THIS PIECE by Shmuley Boteach in the Jerusalem Post about the similarities between anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism in Europe these days.

2003-03-12T12:35:00.000-05:00

AND MORE OUSTANDING STUFF from Ralph Peters on the moral obtuseness of the Europeans in today's NY Post.

2003-03-12T12:27:00.000-05:00

CLIFF MAY'S piece on the whole Jim Moran mess is well-written and well-argued and is up at NRO.

2003-02-19T06:38:00.000-05:00

FIRST THE JEWISH VOTE, NOW THE BLACK VOTE? The Washington Times reports today that Gore campaign manager Donna Brazile is genuinely concerned that a significant portion of the African-American vote -- particularly younger blacks -- may be trending Republican.

If this is the case, the Democratic party truly has a crisis on its hands. More importantly, I hope her comments send the message that Democratic racial pandering, as in instinctively supporting race-based affirmative action, is not a viable long-term strategy for keeping most of the black vote. Seeing black racists like Al Sharpton running (or scandal-plagued figures like Carol Mosely, instead of more mainstream/moderate black leaders, such as Harold Ford or John Lewis, is also a bad sign for the party. Hopefully, people like Denise Majette, Artur Davis, and the young, pro-growth, anti-corruption Democratic candidate for mayor of Newark last year (whose name I forget) will be the new faces of the Democratic party, instead of left-wingers like Maxine Waters and Barbara Lee.

2003-02-19T06:20:00.000-05:00

ANDREW SULLIVAN'S been blogging endlessly about the pro-Baghdad stance of the BBC. I've been in London for over a month now, and I beg to differ. Surely the BBC leans left, but I don't think any moreso than NPR or PBS back in the States. Anyways, here's a copy of the letter I wrote to him:

Andrew,

I've been in London for the past month (and staying until May for a semester abroad), and I honestly don't see how the BBC is as *extremely* slanted to the left as you claim it to be. You refer to it as "NPR on steroids," I see it more as an NPR clone.

The interviewers here, I've noticed, are much more aggressive and harsher than even your most vitriolic US interviewer -- say, Chris Matthews -- and give no deference to any politician, whether it was the French member of parlement, Iain Duncan Smith or Blair himself. Paxman was grilling the same French MP as mercilessly as he ridiculed Blair. I don't personally like this style of journalism -- it's more representative of an immature debating society than serious journalism. However, I don't think it's necessarily representative of a hard BBC bias against the war.

Second, I've watched some serious programs and segments that have been objectively pro-war. Newsnight last night aired about a 15-minute segment about how all the Kurds supported a Us-led attack, and gave a laundry list of Saddam's atrocities towards them. A Panorama special, where the Iraqi "Dr. Germ" scientist was interviewed, was very harsh on the Iraqi regime and showed how inspections weren't working. (This piece was highlighted by the Telegraph magazine, no liberal bastion.) A debate special on Iraq featured the fervent anti-war loonies (Tariq Ali, Biana Jagger), but also had on Richard Perle and a very articulate historian named Andrew Roberts. The panel was split virtually 50-50, though the audience leaned against the war.

Third, I've seen the same ridiculous anti-American bias from the other news networks -- ITV and Channel 4. A recent ITV piece interviewed Americans, all of whom were against the war. I've seen similar pieces on BBC, but I don't think this is a BBC problem -- its representative of the elitist media culture in Britain.

Sure, I've seen my share of poor journalistic pieces, sympathetic coverage of the Palestinian cause and a series called "Inside the Axis of Evil" that basically served to humanize the awful regimes of Syria, Iraq and North Korea. (Interestingly on this show, the presenter, Ben Anderson, was most against Iran because the immigration officials there pushed him around. When he went to North Korea, he actually had kind things to say about his stay there -- all monitored by government "tour guides".) But this is little different from National Public Radio, which is also subsidized by our government. They have their share of well-done pieces, but it's marred by a leftist, anti-American, anti-Israel sentiment among many of its reporters.

BBC surely is biased, but it hardly merits the title "Baghdad Broadcasting Corporation." After watching their newscasts fairly regularly, it's not as fervently anti-war as you might think.

2003-02-17T16:26:00.000-05:00

THE FACES OF THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT, at least in San Francisco, can be seen here. Please make sure to check out the picture of the mustached man towards the bottom. It sums up the state of the movement perfectly.

2003-02-17T16:13:00.000-05:00

HERE ARE SOME PICTURESQUE SNOW PICTURES from American University. A good 20 inches or so fell at American University and around the DC metropolitan area, and I'm a little disappointed that I wasn't there to experience the snow mayhem.

Otherwise, things are great in London. :)

2003-02-16T11:33:00.000-05:00

TONY BLAIR gave a magnificent speech to the Labor party conference in Glasgow about the moral case for war in Iraq yesterday and, despite the near-million protesters here in London, I'm proud to be in country with such a principled prime minister. Here's a poignant excerpt (which I got off Andrew Sullivan's site):

Yes, there are consequences of war. If we remove Saddam by force, people will die and some will be innocent. And we must live with the consequences of our actions, even the unintended ones.

But there are also consequences of "stop the war".

If I took that advice, and did not insist on disarmament, yes, there would be no war. But there would still be Saddam. Many of the people marching will say they hate Saddam. But the consequences of taking their advice is that he stays in charge of Iraq, ruling the Iraqi people. A country that in 1978, the year before he seized power, was richer than Malaysia or Portugal. A country where today, 135 out of every 1000 Iraqi children die before the age of five - 70% of these deaths are from diarrhoea and respiratory infections that are easily preventable. Where almost a third of children born in the centre and south of Iraq have chronic malnutrition.

Where 60% of the people depend on Food Aid.

Where half the population of rural areas have no safe water.

Where every year and now, as we speak, tens of thousands of political prisoners languish in appalling conditions in Saddam's jails and are routinely executed.

Where in the past 15 years over 150,000 Shia Moslems in Southern Iraq and Moslem Kurds in Northern Iraq have been butchered; with up to four million Iraqis in exile round the world, including 350,000 now in Britain.

This isn't a regime with Weapons of Mass Destruction that is otherwise benign. This is a regime that contravenes every single principle or value anyone of our politics believes in.

There will be no march for the victims of Saddam, no protests about the thousands of children that die needlessly every year under his rule, no righteous anger over the torture chambers which if he is left in power, will be left in being.

I rejoice that we live in a country where peaceful protest is a natural part of our democratic process.

But I ask the marchers to understand this.

I do not seek unpopularity as a badge of honour. But sometimes it is the price of leadership. And the cost of conviction.

But as you watch your TV pictures of the march, ponder this:

If there are 500,000 on that march, that is still less than the number of people whose deaths Saddam has been responsible for.

If there are one million, that is still less than the number of people who died in the wars he started.

Lots of ambivalent students from AU became somewhat pro-war after seeing some of the disgusting and empty slogans tossed about by the anti-war protestors here (ones comparing Bush to Hitler, End Illegal Israeli occupation, etc..). Blair's speech continues to expose the moral hypocrisy the protestors continue to illustrate.

2003-02-03T18:02:00.000-05:00

CHECK OUT MARK STEYN opining on the French and their euroweeniness.

2003-02-03T17:34:00.000-05:00

I JUST GOT BACK FROM MADRID, and couldn't believe how much the Spanish smoked cigarettes. On subways, in airport terminals, in hotel lobbies -- everywhere. I hear much is the same on the rest of the European continent. So I thoroughly enjoyed Tom Friedman's column about how Europe is paranoid about US-imported meat, which has no adverse health effects, yet smoke incessantly. Now I'm back in London, and my clothes currently reek of smoke. I can't imagine that's too healthy.

2003-02-03T17:11:00.000-05:00

AS USUAL, Charles Krauthammer is on the mark on the irrelevance of the United Nations. He writes:

This is the United Nations. This is the institution whose support Democrats insist the United States must have to validate the legitimacy of its actions, such as the forcible disarming of Saddam Hussein. This is the institution to which they turn to test the worthiness of decisions taken by the president and Congress of the United States. It is a kind of moral idiocy: the greatest defender of freedom on the planet, enjoying the freest institutions, seeking its moral yardstick in the looking-glass values of a corrupt, perverse institutional relic.

Couldn't have put it better myself. The rest of the column is worth a good read, especially for those multilateralists out there.

2003-02-03T15:46:00.000-05:00

EVEN THE LEFT-WING GUARDIAN ran a column over the weekend from a self-described socialist who supported toppling Saddam's maniacal regime. Here's the money quote:

If you really think it's better for more people to die over decades under a tyrannical regime than for fewer people to die during a brief attack by an outside power, you're really weird and nationalistic and not any sort of socialist that I recognise. And that's where you link up with all those nasty rightwing columnists who are so opposed to fighting Iraq; they, too, believe that the lives of a thousand coloured chappies aren't worth the death of one British soldier. Military inaction, unless in the defence of one's own country, is the most extreme form of narcissism and nationalism; people who preach it are the exact opposite of the International Brigade, and that's so not a good look.

UPDATE: Yet more clarity on Iraq from the Guardian! Maybe I'll buy a copy along with my Times.

2003-01-29T14:02:00.000-05:00

TWO COOL AMERICAN UNIVERSITY CHICAS got to meet some of the cast of West Wing last night in Dupont Circle. Here's the evidence.

2003-01-28T07:58:00.000-05:00

SO I'VE BEEN HERE IN LONDON for almost two weeks now, and I'm beginning to get a good feel of the place. There's a much more class-conscious culture here; my internship, which poses itself as a thinktank, is rather an exclusive club filled with lords and earls that put on a "debate" in the House of Commons twice a year. Among my professors here, there is definitely a smug anti-Bush sentiment, yet the Brits love American culture. American movies, from classics to also-rans, are shown nightly on British TV. The morning news shows are patterned after the US. And there is a near-obsession over Hollywood actors. Los Angeles is quite the glamorous place in the eyes of Britain.

Anyhow, here's my column -- scheduled to be published in American University's newspaper The Eagle next Monday. You guys get an advanced look at it -- it's about England and the upcoming war against Iraq.

During my first week of my semester-long stay in London, one of the most impressionable moments came during a plumber’s visit to our flat. “You Americans learned what it’s like on 9/11. Until then, you hadn’t experienced what we have,” he opined while fixing our clogged sink, recalling Britain’s tenacity during the German blitz on London and the spate of Ireland’s terrorist bombings in London over the last three decades. As a child, the plumber recalled the terror he experienced when a local pub was bombed by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) and he narrowly escaped death. He was familiar with terror firsthand, and understood the incalculable damage terrorists cause, whether by regime (Hitler’s Germany) or by terrorist group (the IRA). Heightened awareness is prevalent throughout England’s capital city. Unattended packages on the London Underground subway can cause massive delays, as police send their bomb squads for inspection.

Indeed, upon our arrival, scores of arrests were reported across Europe – in France, Spain and here in England – of Islamist terrorists attempting to poison British food supplies and spray the deadly chemical risin in London. British police stormed into the notorious Finsbury Park mosque, where hate-inciting cleric Abu Hamza recruits Islamic terrorists and incites violence from the pulpit. British police stormed the mosque, finding stun guns, chemical warfare protection suits and a CS gas canister – hardly material necessary for Friday prayers.

Yet even while the threat of terrorism hits home here in Britain, public opinion here leans against a war against Saddam Hussein – a maniacal dictator who has accumulated incalculable amounts of chemical and biological weaponry and threatens to become the first Arab state in the Middle East to acquire a nuclear weapon. Despite Hussein’s threat, the television satires here mock American leadership, the archbishop of Canterbury deemed a war on Iraq “illegal and immoral” and even some Tory MPs have adopted anti-war stances. “I was stunned to realize that people here seem more fearful of American power than they are of oppressiveness and hideousness of Saddam’s regime,” professor Melvyn Leffler said in a Washington Post article.

British prime minister Tony Blair understands the threat Saddam poses. His government issued a lengthy dossier of Saddam’s horrific human rights violations, including the cutting off of political dissidents’ tongues. That’s one of the less severe punishments issued by Saddam. Without the patrolling of the “no-fly zones” as part of the sanctions imposed by the US and Britain, thousands of Kurds to the north would likely be massacred and become part of the over 1 million murdered by the Iraqi madman. And with his acquisition of chemical and biological weapons, it’s not a stretch to believe that Saddam would hand off some of the deadly substances to a sub-national terrorist group like al Qaeda. British intelligence believes that the recent discovery of risin in London is connected to Abu Musaab al-Zarqaqi, an al-Qaeda lieutenant who received treatment at a Baghdad hospital.

With the discovery of a plot to unleash the deadly chemical risin here in Britain, there’s little doubt that Saddam and al Qaeda’s goals are much the same. They both loathe America and the West, and employ terrorist means to accomplish their goals. Already over 200 arrests have been made here of members of Islamist terrorist cells who seek to wreak havoc locally. And as liberal a society Britain is, they do not afford their citizens with the same rights we take for granted back home. Left-wing interest groups labeled Attorney General John Aschroft as a fanatic for his detainment of suspected terrorists. Here in Britain, mosques are wiretapped and stormed into with hardly a peep of protest from the Labor-led government here. Ashcroft’s controversial Patriot Act has been the law here for decades, and embraced by the liberal political establishment. In 1974, the parliament passed the Prevention of Terrorism Act which exiled any suspected IRA terrorist – regardless of evidence – out of the country to Northern Ireland. If Ashcroft is a fascist, I shudder to think of how the left in the US portrays the British (and the rest of Europe’s) leadership – namely MI5, a domestic version of the U.S.’s Central Intelligence Agency.

Fortunately, Blair realizes the threat Saddam poses and, along with President Bush, has shown extraordinary leadership. While the French and Russians currently object to war for their own unilateral means – they both have oil contracts with Saddam – they will likely eventually follow the American and British example to get concessions in a post-war Iraq. All of the Eastern European countries, who have experienced totalitarianism firsthand, are steadfastly with the US-led coalition.

September 11th served as a wake-up call for the United States to realize the vast harm that terrorist groups or terrorist states can inflict on countries that treasure freedom and liberty. Until 9-11, the US had not suffered an attack on the continental 48 states since the Civil War. In contrast, London experienced intensive bombings throughout the sustained German blitz of 1940. Terrorism is indeed a real threat, and the United States could learn a lot from the British experience. Both al-Qaeda and Saddam’s terrorist regime both identify the West as the great Satan, and share the same disregard for international codes of conduct. Pacifist members of parliament and elitist celebrities fail to understand the potential danger posed by Saddam. But here in Britain, both a principled prime minister and a plumber know the moral imperative to fight terrorism first-hand.

2003-01-28T07:54:00.000-05:00

WOW! HERE'S A COLLEGE CLASS that looks perfectly suited for me!

2003-01-27T18:06:00.000-05:00

FAREED ZAKARIA outlines the benefits of a post-Saddam Iraq in his MSNBC column.

2003-01-24T10:39:00.000-05:00

AS USUAL, VICTOR HANSON hits the nail on the head, in his column today at NRO about the anti-war protesters. Here's the money quote:

No Blood for Oil? Under a favorable scenario of a new reform government in Iraq, oil production will rise to over three million barrels. That would help to allow the world price to decline — or at least stabilize. Such price continuity will help billions worldwide beyond our shores — as well as earning revenues for the people of Iraq. Does Exxon really want lower prices and a state-run oil company under civic audit at last controlling the vast petroleum reserves of Iraq? Are Texas oil-company executives clamoring for consensual government in the Gulf or are they big supporters of Israel?

Those most worried about American military force used to remove Saddam Hussein may well be not D.C. protesters, but international oil companies who apparently are jittery that in a postbellum climate there will be too much Iraqi oil under a stable peace — or contrarily scared that their joint-venture infrastructure and investment abroad will be endangered when the shooting starts. Only the continued existence of Saddam Hussein means that none of his oil revenue goes to the people — as the world's oil supply remains tight, wells are relatively safe, and energy-corporation profits stay ample.

Exactly. The people who would lose out the most from a post-Saddam Iraq are the oil companies themselves, with the oil prices presumably going down with increased supply. Of course, the anti-war dolts don't seem to know basic economics.

2003-01-24T08:09:00.000-05:00

THE SIMILARITIES BETWEEN Joe Lieberman and John McCain are analyzed in Michael Kinsley's latest column.

2003-01-24T08:08:00.000-05:00

THE WAR FOR OIL MYTH is nicely dispelled by Thomas Lippman in the Washington Post.

2003-01-24T07:29:00.000-05:00

CHEERLEADERS FOR CHESS? Indeed, only at UMBC.

2003-01-23T08:40:00.000-05:00

THERE'S SOME GOOD INSIGHT on Joe Lieberman in Jonathan Tobin's latest JWR column.

2003-01-23T08:36:00.000-05:00

ANDREW SULLIVAN ON THE IRAQ WAR:

But for us, it's important to remember why we're fighting Saddam. The answer is September 11. Those who want to find some specific evidentiary link between al Qaeda and Saddam don't begin to fathom what war is. It is not the pursuit of one distinct goal after another, depending on the exigencies of international law or diplomacy. That's called foreign policy. War, in contrast, is the attempt to destroy an enemy. The enemy is Islamist terrorism and its state sponsors. Strategically, the overthrow of the Saddam regime is absolutely central to this objective. It will deal another psychological blow to the reactionaries who want to ratchet Islam back a few more centuries and wage war on the free societies of the West. It will remove one huge and obvious source of weapons of mass destruction potentially available to the enemy. It will provide a military base from which to continue the war against al Qaeda and its enablers across the Middle East, specifically in Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. And it will reassert the global hegemony of the United States and its Anglosphere allies. That's why we fight. It isn't a pre-emptive war. It's a reactive war - against what was done to this country throughout the 1990s, culminating on that awful September day. We are fighting to honor the memory of the dead and to defeat a brutal enemy that would inflict even more carnage if they possibly could. And we fight to defend the principles of a liberal international order, principles that the United States and the United States alone has long been responsible for upholding. Our loneliness in this struggle should not therefore be a cause for concern. It is, in fact, a sign, once again, that we are on the right path.

Indeed.

2003-01-23T08:27:00.000-05:00

CONDOLEEZA RICE pens the adminstration's view in the NY Times today.

2003-01-23T08:10:00.000-05:00

DONALD RUMSFELD surely knows how to bash France and Germany's stand of opposing war in Iraq. Today's Post features a classic statement from Rumsfeld.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said today that the position of France and Germany was a "problem," but played it down, calling the two countries "old Europe." Addressing foreign journalists at the National Press Club in Washington, he noted NATO's expansion into Eastern Europe and said that "vast numbers" of European countries "are not with France and Germany on this, they're with the United States."

Amen, Rummy.

2003-01-23T08:08:00.000-05:00

I'VE BEEN IN London's Kensington Square district for the last week or so, and am settling in with my new internship here and classes. Posting will resume shortly.

2003-01-12T23:21:00.000-05:00

I'M HEADED OFF TO LONDON THIS WEDNESDAY, and probably will not be blogging for the next week, at the earliest, while I get settled in and such. However, I am told there is ample Internet access and I will hopefully be back to blogging London-style for the next four months both here and and Kesher Talk.

One quick observation: yesterday, I commented that both Oxblog's David Adesnik and my roommate blogger Phil Kahn both were avid fans of wrestling -- which I perceived to be a minority interest of the blogosphere. Now, Adesnik takes the rare position of saying The Two Towers was boring, contrary to the vast majority of bloggers. And read this post from Phil last week.

Adesnik and Kahn, separated at birth?

2003-01-10T22:08:00.000-05:00

WOW, THERE REALLY ARE A LOT OF INTELLECTUAL WRESTLING FAN BLOGGERS OUT THERE. You've got my roommate, Phil Kahn, whose blog On the Right Side is always worth a good look. Then, there's Josh Heit, another AU student who has jumped into the ring. And now David Adesnik of Oxblog, the scholarly Oxford student, posts in detail about the WWE -- taking a break from his numerous posts on US-North Korea relations!

I must say, I've never gotten wrestling, despite my occasional liking for "reality" television. But many of the greatest minds in the blogosphere seem to enjoy the "sport" a lot. David Adesnik has just shattered many stereotypes of the average wrestling fan -- and, I guess that's progress.

2003-01-07T22:19:00.000-05:00

I JUST CAUGHT THE TAIL END OF HARDBALL, and I saw former Republican Congressman Rep. Joe Scarboroughdebating Nation publisher and wunderditz Katrina Vander Huevel debating the new book on Bush's presidency out by his former speechwriter and current NRO contributor David Frum.

I caught Scarborough bashing Frum and his fellow "neo-conservatives" as (and I'm paraphrasing here) "intellectuals that are never loyal to a Republican president. These guys called Reagan an idiot, Ford stupid, they're as disloyal as everyone on the left." Now, I haven't read Frum's book and other than his daily columns and recent television appearances, I know little about the guy. But Frum is no neo-conservative -- if the word is defined as a former liberal who has embraced the conservative movement. Charles Krauthammer, Bill Bennett and Irving Kristol are three prominent neocons. Frum isn't and never has been.

But David Frum always has been a conservative Republican. His formative years were during the Reagan era, after the Democratic party veered to the left in presidential elections. So what else is left by Scarborough's definition? I know little about Frum and even less about Scarborough, but the attack seemed to be targeted at Jewish conservatives. In what other context would Scarborough be using the word neo-con?

Max Boot of the WSJ wrote a terrific little piece about how neo-conservatism really doesn't mean anything today. Boot concluded that most neo-cons commonly disdain both an isolationist foreign policy and an automatic aversion to any government. Indeed, Bush's policies are essentially neo-conservative. He wants to force regime change in Iraq, and his compassionate conservatism allows room for certain government-run programs: witness faith-based charity.

So what was Scarborough's point in labeling Frum as a neo-con? Here's what Boot wrote in his column:

When Buchananites toss around "neoconservative" -- and cite names like Wolfowitz and Cohen -- it sometimes sounds as if what they really mean is "Jewish conservative." This is a malicious slur on two levels. First, many of the leading neocons aren't Jewish; Jeane Kirkpatrick, Bill Bennett, Father John Neuhaus and Michael Novak aren't exactly menorah lighters. Second, support for Israel -- a key tenet of neoconservatism -- is hardly confined to Jews; its strongest constituency in America happens to be among evangelical Christians.

Frankly, I think Scarborough's comment was anti-Semitic; the same type of verbal miscue that Trent Lott made when speaking at Strom's 100th birthday. It's fine to bash Frum individually as a opportunity-seeking, disgruntled former employee who was looking to cut a book deal while being disloyal to his former boss. (Then again, Frum's book The Right Man was very praiseworthy of Bush -- witness the title -- so I don't agree.) But to use this to paint "neoconservatives" as disloyal through the ages sounds like an anti-Jewish canard to me. Shame on Scarborough.

2003-01-06T23:43:00.000-05:00

RICH LOWRY believes racial quotas in football hiring is absurd, and I agree with him. But what commentators and Johnnie Cochran-types miss is not a racial prejudice in pro sports -- with the exception of maybe Jimmy the Greek, I would doubt there is much of a racist sentiment in owners boxes of football or baseball. As anyone who has followed baseball will tell you, old notions die hard. The reason black managers and GMs are often passed over in favor of some veteran loser of a manager (see: Phil Garner) has nothing to do with race. It has everything to do with a habitual liking towards people with experience -- be they black or white. And, most of the veteran, curmodgeonly coaches with experience in both football and baseball are white. Don Baylor is a perfect example. The former black manager of the Chicago Cubs (and the Rockies, previously), he has always been at the top of the list for managerial openings despite his losing records and poor managerial strategies. Most owners, until recently, have loathed hiring general managers who have new approaches -- mainly statistical -- to the game. It wasn't until Billy Beane was hugely successful with the A's the first known GM to embrace sabermetrics (baseball analysis favoring stats over observation), when the trend changed. It is an "old-boy" network, but it's not based on race, it's based on experience -- whether they're successful or not.

The same holds for football. I'm not quite as high on Bill Parcells as Rich Lowry is, but he has been a very successful coach. (Not so much a great talent evaluator, but that's another story for another time.) But retread coaches, usually white, always pop up and get recycled. Dick Vermeil. Bobby Ross. Pete Carroll. Jim Mora. Tom Coughlin. The inept Rich Kotite was Jets coach for much longer than he should have been.

But it doesn't take quotas to solve the problem. Look at the Cincinnati Bengals. They've hired mediocre white coaches, passing up guys like Ted Cottrell and Marvin Lewis and have languished with sub-par records for nearly a decade. They recycled the veteran Bruce Coslet, and now may pass up on some very talented coordinators (both black and white) for a mediocre retread of a coach in Tom Coughlin. For these teams content on hiring for experience, they will often suffer the consequences. The future is in these talented young coordinators -- be they black or white. Hiring failed coaches is hardly a winning strategy.

2003-01-06T23:34:00.000-05:00

MARK STEYN has a nice column on Britain and guns. Britain's ban on guns has actually led to an increase in crime. And, despite the growing gun control restrictions, England's murder rate is coming closer and closer to the United States. Here's the money quote:

But, as I said, it's hardly worth mentioning in relation to Britain. In my part of New Hampshire, we're all armed to the hilt and any gangster who fancied holding up a gas station would be quickly ventilated by guys whose pick-ups are better equipped than most EU armies. The right of individual self-defence deters crime, constrains it, prevents it from spreading out of the drug-infested failed jurisdictions. In post-Dunblane, post-Tony Martin Britain, that constraint doesn't exist: that's why the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea now has a higher crime rate than Harlem.

Meanwhile, America's traditionally high and England and Wales's traditionally low murder rates are remorselessly converging. In 1981, the US rate was nine times higher than the English. By 1995, it was six times. Last year, it was down to 3.5. Given that US statistics, unlike the British ones, include manslaughter and other lesser charges, the real rate is much closer. New York has just recorded the lowest murder rate since the 19th century. I'll bet that in the next two years London's murder rate overtakes it.

2003-01-06T23:31:00.000-05:00

THE TIMES MAGAZINE RAN A VERY ILLUMINATING ESSAY by Michael Ignatieff, talking about the American empire and expanded global influence. (I also wouldn't use the word empire, though Ignatieff defines the word, as it applies to America, quite well.) It's a must-read, even though I would bicker ever so slightly about his suggestions towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Ignatieff suggests that a regime change in Iraq would morally obligate the U.S. to move us to get more involved in a road map for peace. Perhaps. However, I think the great benefits of a democratic, freedom-embracing government in Iraq would greatly hurt the PA's ability to fund these terror operations. And if Iran's mullahocracy soon falls on its own, those developments by themselves would greatly futher the peace movement -- without any action made by the United States.

It will take a non-corrupt Palestinian government who genuinely means what it says before any type of peace will exist between the Israelis and the Palestinians. A guarantee of security will also necessitate a guarantee a total revamping of the current hate-based curriculum so prevalent in the Palestinian education system. This isn't started by an American road map -- it needs to be sparked by the Palestinians themselves. Just like Sadat took the initiative to go to the Knesset, the Palestinians need to have honest brokers of their own. And I doubt that will happen until the Palestinians understand violence is not a viable option. The collapse of the totalitarian and terror-funding regimes in Iraq and Iran will help bring this goal about much faster.

2003-01-06T22:37:00.000-05:00

PEGGY NOONAN has some interesting and, I think, spot-on analysis of President Bush in today's WSJ.

2003-01-06T20:21:00.000-05:00

THIS PREVIEW OF ELECTION 2004 is priceless.

2003-01-05T02:42:00.000-05:00

INSTAPUNDIT points out this interesting article about the Islamist movement and its relation to Saudi Arabia. If you haven't seen it already, go and take a look.

2003-01-05T02:39:00.000-05:00

I GUESS IT'S BECAUSE I'M IN A PRAISEWORTHY MOOD, but the guys at OxBlog just do a tremendous job -- especially David Adesnik's tireless commentaries -- from his eloquent response/Fisking to Fareed Zakaria and a slew of links and posts to the whole North Korea conflict. Kudos to Josh Chafetz too. It's one of the best-written, most intelligent blog sites you'll come across and I always make a daily stop there. You should too.

UPDATE: And while you're at it, check out the best liberal blog out there -- Kevin Drum's CalPundit. Again, a guy who writes well, with informative, well-argued posts. We don't agree a lot of the time, but he sure makes me think. I've been meaning to permalink the site, which I will be doing momentarily.

2003-01-05T02:36:00.000-05:00

HERE'S A MUST READ from the WSJ on the differences between North Korea and Iraq. It's real simple, folks: North Korea already has nuclear weapons -- any US military attack now would likely spawn a significant counterattack. In essence, we're being blackmailed in the Korean Peninsula because of their weapons program and because of ineffective Jimmy Carter-led diplomacy. We can't let that happen in the Middle East; any type of appeasement with Saddam Hussein would severely limit our Middle East dealings and, hence, hurt our national security significantly. North Korea should stand as a lesson learned. Let's not make the same mistake again.

2003-01-05T02:27:00.000-05:00

I'M A LITTLE LATE ON THIS, but the New York Times reported last week that moderate drinking is very healthy for you -- in fact, it decreases the risk of heart disease and stroke significantly. Check out this excerpt from the story:

In a study of more than 80,000 American women, those who drank moderately had only half the heart attack risk of those who did not drink at all, even if they were slim, did not smoke and exercised daily. Moderate drinking was about as good for the heart as an hour of exercise a day. Not drinking at all was as bad for the heart as morbid obesity.

¶In thousands of middle-aged Danish men with high cholesterol, moderate drinkers had 50 percent less risk of developing heart disease from blocked arteries than abstainers.

¶Among more than 100,000 California adults, moderate drinking after age 40 was associated with reduced death rates during every subsequent decade of life — in some people by as much as 30 percent.

You heard it here first, abstinence is bad for your health!

2003-01-05T02:17:00.000-05:00

WHEN I TRAVELED TO ISRAEL last winter on the wonderful Birthright Israel program (thru Hillel), I had the wonderful opportunity to hear a d'var Torah (scholarly discussion) from UCLA's outstanding and engaging head Hillel Rabbi Chaim Seidler-Feller. One of the many things I remembered from his discussions was his comment that the secular Israelis take forgranted the religiosity of their daily lives. (I am reminded of these comments because Judith Weiss of Kesher Talk makes similar points, in referencing an article from Moment Magazine.)

In Israel, Jewish religious holidays are national holidays. The nation itself serves as a Biblical textbook, which every student studies in school. Nearly all families have a special Shabbat meal on Friday nights -- it was truly a special and holy night celebrating the Sabbath in Jerusalem. Everyone attends a Passover seder. Cheesecake is everywhere on Shavuot, a holiday many American Jews ignore. Ninety percent of Israeli Jews keep kosher -- 90 percent! These same Israeli Jews who would insist that they don't observe anything are in actuality more observant than they think. As a Conservative Jew who isn't as observant as I'd like to be, I can say it's genuinely hard to have a strong spiritual life when there are so many pulls and pressures in today's environment. I'm always in a rush to complete things, wolf down meals, scour the Web for my daily news consumption and never have much spare time for anything. When I was in Israel, I could relax and read books, spend time with friends and pray in historical synagogues -- all without having to worry about time.

Many people, both Jewish and non-Jewish, note the daily tension Israelis must feel with the threats of terrorism prevalent daily in the Holy Land. But when I was in Israel, especially in Jerusalem, I found an inner calm. I'm always stressed with schoolwork, social pressure and never have much time to relax spiritually. At least every Friday night, Israelis have this spiritual satisfaction. They may take it for granted, but it is really what makes even the most secular Israeli so Jewish.

2003-01-03T22:44:00.000-05:00

ON HIS BLOG, Andrew Sullivan hands out the Paul Begala award for excessive liberal rhetoric in the media. I think I found a contender of my own. While reading a review for the solid Martin Scorsese flick "Gangs of New York," film critic Michael O'Sullivan writes:

To be sure, former Florida secretary of state Katherine Harris never threw a meat cleaver into anyone's back (one of Bill the Butcher's milder political "fixes"), but if images of Florida and hanging chads don't come to mind, then you're not paying attention.

So if the scene in which nativist Bill "The Butcher" murders his political rival by throwing a knife in his back doesn't remind me of Katherine Harris, I'm not paying attention? O'Sullivan is seriously stretching it here -- to put it mildly.

2003-01-02T13:04:00.000-05:00

THE WASHINGTON POST yesterday reported on a local Islamic cleric, Mohammad Asi, who formerly ran the Islamic Education Center right off Montrose Road in Potomac, MD. The Alavi Foundation, which funds the school and other local mosques, is controlled by the Iranian government and funds terrorist groups, such as Hezbollah and Hamas. The school itself is a bastion of anti-American hate.

This is profoundly disturbing. I've passed by the Islamic center many times, and thought of it as the Islamic equivalent of the Jewish day school that I attended in middle and high school -- it's in fact just down the road. Sadly, this couldn't be further from the truth. Are these schools teaching about the Constitution, pluralistic government and democracy alongside Koranic studies? Highly doutbtful. The school, which looks like an innocent, opulent educational outpost in affluent Potomac appears to be, a front to brainwash Muslim children into hating America. Khomeini's picture is adorned throughout the school. A large banner displayed in the school says "those who struggle against the U.S. will be rewarded by God." The school regularly extends invitations to Ahmed Huber, a Swiss Muslim who is a Holocaust revisionist and complains about "Jewish bankers." As reporter John Mintz wrote:

Rising from his woven prayer rug, he stands in his socks hollering his sermon into a bullhorn, denouncing "Jewish Zionist usurpers" and the Saudis.
On one recent Friday, he shouted that a suicide bomber in Israel always "goes to Allah."

This article could easily run as a complement to a column Marc Fisher wrote last year about the same Muslim Community School in Potomac. Here are some choice excerpts, straight from the mouths of the students there:

Is it reasonable to ask students at the Muslim Community School in Potomac whether there is a conflict between being an American and being a Muslim? It certainly seemed fair after six young people, all born in this country, all American citizens, told me that no, they did not believe that Osama bin Laden was necessarily the bad guy the president says he is, and no, they did not think the United States should be attacking Afghanistan, and, no, they might not be able to serve their country if it meant taking up arms against fellow Muslims.

"What does it really mean to be an American?" asked seventh-grader Miriam. "Being American is just being born in this country."
...

Almost no matter what they were asked, the students' answers often included something about how the United States should focus not just on bin Laden's terror network but on "the real terrorists," which is their code for Israel, which they refer to as "the illegitimate Zionist regime." Whether questions were about patriotism or faith or the difficulty of maintaining Muslim practices in a society that embraces open sexuality, the teenagers' thoughtful answers somehow found their way back to bashing Israel.
...
Her principal, however, was unwilling to denounce bin Laden because he does not trust the U.S. government to judge the evidence. "Being cautious doesn't mean we are turncoats," said Kareem, who is 50 and grew up in the District. "It means we want to wait until there are sufficient facts. I don't know Osama bin Laden. But whatever is said about him, I want it said about the Israeli prime minister. If we're going after terrorism, let's go at it at the roots, not the branches."

This is how minds are shaped.

The principal said he has a powerful emphasis on the Middle East in his curriculum because "it's an issue of life and death, and we're trying to empower the kids to be truthful and be honest. There is more that is the same among peoples than there is that is different. We all brush our teeth."

Yet a notice posted to all students and staff said, "Today's ice cream snack is in honor of Shaheed Mohamed Jamal Al-Durra," a 12-year-old Palestinian boy who last year was killed by Israeli Defense Force bullets in a firefight with Palestinian policemen. "We will always remember those who are responsible for taking his innocent, young life," the school notice said.

And a "media relations guide sheet" distributed at the school advised telling visiting reporters that "there is as much evidence pointing away from" bin Laden as there is "circumstantial 'evidence' pointing toward" him.

And this same principal wrote an essay about Israel in a school newsletter issued before the terrorist attacks: "This state with its cursed population . . . is founded on a racist, warped, cancerous ideology which says Jews are better than all other people."

Is the Muslim Community School teaching hate? Kareem said that was impossible, that Islam is a faith of peace. "Our kids are not insensitive or uncaring," he said. "It's not that they are targeting somebody. These are the reference points we are exposing them to, because we don't see ourselves in nation-state terms. We are our own nation."

But, wait, it gets even worse.

Here are some of the comments the school's former headmaster Asi has said, all documented in the Post article.

-- "Muslims will deal the deathblow to Yahud [Jews]," he wrote in an undated essay on a pro-Iran Web site called Muslimedia. In a 1996 magazine article, he wrote on the evil of his enemy: "A Jew is a Jew is a Jew."

-- Seven weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Islamic cleric Mohammad Asi made a speech at the National Press Club, calling them "a grand strike against New York and Washington" launched by "Israeli Zionist Jews" who had warned the 5,000 Jews at the World Trade Center to skip work. He warned America that if it continued to offend Islam, "the day of reckoning is approaching."

-- Asi was a provocative figure inside the Potomac Center, and FBI officials took note when he urged Muslims to take up arms against the forces of "kufr" or unbelief. "We should be creating another war front for the Americans in the Muslim world," Asi told a militantly anti-Israeli conference in 1990, just before the Persian Gulf War, as recorded on a tape unearthed by terrorism researcher Steven Emerson. "Strike against American interests," he said.

-- The current principal of the school, Salahudden Kareem, calls Asi "an authentic and rare and unique patriot."

Where are the genuinely mainstream Islamic groups condemning this hatred being spewed? Over 1,500 students attend this school -- no small number, and I'm guessing they are Muslims from all ethnic backgrounds. When Jerry Falwell says Mohammad was a terrorist, he gets inundated by critics who claim he is fomenting hatred for Islam. So where's the consistency -- why can't these same Muslim "anti-discrimination" groups speak out against something so blatant and occurring in their own backyard? (Potomac, MD is a mere 15-minute drive from downtown DC.)

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Until Muslim groups condemn the educational insitutions and mosques that spread this anti-Americanism and hate, it's hard to take their anti-discrimination rants seriously. Last year, I took a course at American University where the professor essentially wanted us to compare the French reaction to Jews in the early 19th century to the current American and European reaction to Muslims today. My thesis was largely different from what the professor "wanted." I argued that Islam needs to develop a reformed movement so Islam can be consistent with the democratic principles of the West. European Jews bent over backwards to assimilate and become more "modern" -- in fact traditional 17th century Judaism was practiced much differently than how religious Jews practice their faith today. Judaism has evolved throughout time, and adapted to the context of the times. For example, synagogues are a relatively modern concept, introduced only after the destruction of the Second Temple.

Islam has failed to do that. Instead of bending over backwards, as the Sephardic Jews did in France to gain the acceptance of their Christian peers, it seems that Islamic groups are making every attempt to avoid being a part of America. It's not a matter of assimilation, which some view as abandoning religious practices and becoming entirely secular. It's about integration -- about not promising students with divine providence if they "struggle against the U.S." Is that so hard to ask?

2002-12-29T13:42:00.000-05:00

THE INSTAMAN makes reference to Al Franken's comments on "This Week" on race relations, where he said the top rapper in today's culture is white while the top golfer is black.

To that, I say interesting, but hardly unique. In 1956, long before the civil rights movement, one of the top baseball players (Jackie Robinson) was black while the top R&B singer (Elvis Presley) was white.

I'll leave it up to PunditWatch for the commentary, but it seemed that Al Franken was painfully out of place on the ABC News commentary team, next to the staid George Will and the serious Michel Martin. From Fareed Zakaria to Al Franken/Stuart Smalley? Hmm.

2002-12-09T01:55:00.000-05:00

TO MY READERS, I apologize for the infrequent postings. As I mentioned a while ago, I have a new job that prohibits me from commenting directly about politics -- which once was the bread-and-butter of the site. I'm headed to London in the spring (mid-January to mid-May) and I may be transforming "All about Josh" into some extended essays/commentaries about London, and their politics and culture. (This, provided I have a laptop and Internet access.)

Until then, I'll be pointing out some quality articles and maybe an extended blurb here and there.

2002-12-09T01:52:00.000-05:00

GREAT COLUMN by Fred Hiatt (the Wash Post's editorial page editor -- further proof the Post is a pretty damn centrist paper) about how international law is being skewed by human rights organizations to, in essence, overlook Saddam's sadistic methods of torture and repression towards his people. Here's the money line:

And yet, given that they have taken on Saddam Hussein as their client, you have to wonder whether, if their reading of the law is right, there isn't something peculiar, something out of whack, about international law itself. Yes, national borders should be respected. But why should a gangster who has maintained power only by violating every norm of morality and law -- including international law -- be permitted the sanctuary of those borders? Why should his regime be entitled to the same protection as a government that represents its people?

This follows up a dead-on column by Hiatt's deputy editor, Colbert King on Saturday, which comprehensively dismisses the "root causes" theory of Bin Ladenism.

Frankly, the Washington Post editorial page is pretty damn balanced -- relatively intelligent commentary from liberals whom I often disagree with (E.J Dionne, David Broder), some consistent quality work on foreign policy (Jim Hoagland, Fred Hiatt), quality contributors (Anne Applebaum, Fareed Zakaria), and the top conservative commentators (Krauthammer, Kelly, Will). Kudos to Hiatt on a great piece and a damn underappreciated op-ed page.

2002-11-23T20:57:00.000-05:00

THERE'S A MUST READ from the Jerusalem Post this past week about the unbridled sadism coming out of the Islamist world.

Here's an excerpt:

Cases like these stand out among the hundreds of murders of Israelis and foreign visitors here in recent months, not because of their evil but because of their inhumanity. They reveal a terrifying angle of the story of this war.

Beneath the strata of Islamic unity, Pan-Arabism, and Palestinian national aspiration at the root of this great campaign engineered by Arab leaders is pure, unbridled sadism, a delight in cruelty that boggles the Western mind. And even if this lust for savagery is slightly less evident in the "ordinary" shootings and suicide bombings that people suffer in this country on a daily basis, there is a growing suspicion that much of this violence flows from a visceral, Palestinian truculence a craving for Jewish pain, for blood.

It's a sobering read.

2002-11-21T00:05:00.000-05:00

"We are basically in bed with the Israelis now,"

IF PAT BUCHANAN MADE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT, no doubt pundits would cite the quote as further proof -- and rightly so -- of his anti-Semitism. But, the following quote was not made by Pat Buchanan, but by our 39th president, lamenting the U.S's tilt toward Israel.

Yes, the one and only Jimmy Carter.

2002-11-19T14:49:00.000-05:00

ON THE MIDDLE EAST: Yossi Klein HaLevi, per usual, has another great column on the difference between Sadat's peace overtures and Arafat's peace impediments.

2002-11-18T23:35:00.000-05:00

FASCINATING INTERVIEW with Steven Schwartz about the face of Wahabbi Islam in today's National Review Online.

2002-11-12T16:27:00.000-05:00

ANOTHER MUST-READ from Christopher Hitchens, who comments on Slate about the "the ugly idea that non-soldiers have less right to argue for war."

2002-11-11T17:47:00.000-05:00

HANNA ROSIN, a reporter for the Washington Post, writes about the growing anti-Semitism masked as anti-Zionism on the college campus.

2002-11-01T15:14:00.000-05:00

DAVID CORN OF 'THE NATION' writes a pretty damning piece about the anti-war protest and delves into exactly what they believe.

2002-10-30T20:54:00.000-05:00

PROFESSOR PHILIP BRENNER at American University has been known to make ridiculous statements. For his "Analysis of Foreign Policy" class at American University, he defended both Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein in the same sentence, as I reported in August. But his expertise is Cuba and Latin America. In a meeting with the dean of the School of International Service here at American University, I was told that "Professor Brenner is a little pro-Castro." Fortunately, I withdrew from his class before he lectured about Latin America. But, I didn't realize the extent to which he really loved Castro -- apparently, I thought this was just a continuation of his record of anti-Americanism.

Apparently not.

The AU public relations newsletter The American Weekly ran a puff-piece on Brenner and his recent trip to Cuba with other academics. Brenner just came out with a book Sad and Luminous Days: Cuba’s Struggle with the Superpowers after the Missile Crisis, and, in the photo (on top), Brenner is asking the murderous dictator Fidel Castro to sign his book like a little schoolboy asking Cal Ripken to autograph his baseball.

But what's really striking is the quote by Brenner, who is supposedly an expert on all things Cuba -- all things except their miserable human rights and repression, I guess. Here's the classic quote:

Brenner had a closer encounter with Castro at a lunch for a handful of U.S. academics hosted by the Cuban president, which took place one afternoon of the conference. Brenner describes Castro as “a very gracious and animated person, and very open to questions.”

Gracious? That's one of the last adjectives one would use to describe Castro. Open to questions?!!?! Very open to questions from everyone but his own people! Sadly, this is what passes for academia at American University's School of International Service, and I suspect at other campuses, as well. And this is a tenured professor whose area of expertise is Cuba.

2002-10-29T15:50:00.000-05:00

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS has run amok at Georgetown University, where two expert speakers invited to lecture on dhimmitude (the state of Christians and Jews as second-class citizens under Muslim rule) were criticized after their speech by the same Jewish organization that invited them to campus! Rod Dreher has much more on this story at National Review.

Here's the background on Yeor, an occasional NRO contributor:

Bat Yeor, who occasionally contributes to National Review Online, made her reputation by documenting the tragic fate of the dhimmi Christians of the East, in lands conquered by Islam. Classical Islam prescribes a state of existence for subject Jews and Christians under which they must live as second-class citizens, paying a special tax to their Muslim rulers, living under special rules, and not granted the same basic human rights enjoyed by Muslims. Bat Yeor, born a Jew in Egypt but exiled to Europe, is the best-known historian of what she has termed dhimmitude, and has written three books on the subject.

Muslim students openly laughed and heckled during Yeor and historian David Littman's presentation, as a Georgetown Hoya reporter wrote. But what's saddening is that the Jewish student organization that invited Yeor and Littman now is condemning them to the student newspaper.

Truly saddening. And on a related note, Yale University students tore down and ripped to shreds a memorial for the 14 Israelis who were murdered in the most recent suicide bombing. This isn't anti-Semitism?

2002-10-23T21:50:00.000-04:00

I DON'T LINK TO JAMES LILEKS ENOUGH, not because I don't love his work, but because I just don't have the time to read all his stuff. But today, he has a can't miss piece about, well, essentially America-haters and how leftist indoctrination is prevalent in elementary school classrooms.

2002-10-20T21:28:00.000-04:00

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS writes a golden piece in the Washington Post on the Left's incoherence in foreign policy. Titled, "This is All That's Left?" this former Nation columnist's piece is a must-read.

2002-10-19T17:02:00.000-04:00

MY FELLOW AMERICAN UNIVERSITY BLOGGER, Josh Heit, has a nice up-and-coming blog which, like mine, covers news, sports and American U. Go check it out.

2002-10-17T20:54:00.000-04:00

MORE GOOD STUFF from the New Republic. Franklin Foer has a great piece on how the U.S. media operating out of Baghdad is manipulated by the Iraqis.

Check this out:

An ex-Iraqi intelligence official I contacted through the opposition Iraqi National Congress wrote a memo to me describing their tactics: sending women to seduce male reporters in their hotel rooms, planting false information with reporters, destroying reporters' equipment. The former Iraqi intelligence agent wrote, "Every journalist from abroad is considered a spy with a journalist cover. He should be followed and indicated and controlled one way or another."

And this comes out days after the media are insinuating that an actual election took place in Iraq this week. Fair and balanced? Hmm.

Fair and balanced? Hmm..

2002-10-17T20:15:00.000-04:00

PETER BEINART has some prescient words about the Nobel Peace Prize in this week's The New Republic.

2002-10-10T18:43:00.000-04:00

AMERICAN UNIVERSITY didn't even make it to the second-tier on this list of rankings, but then again, I don't exactly fit the magazine's core demographic.

2002-10-10T13:26:00.000-04:00

MERYL YOURISH has an excellent, well-referenced rebuttal to the authors of two Harvard professors, who defend their Israeli divestment petition movement.

2002-10-09T18:41:00.000-04:00

ADMINISTRATIVE UPDATE: I have recently accepted a job which requires me to discontinue writing about politics on the blog -- a conflict of interest. I will still continue writing about campus issues, sports analysis and broader essays on themes not tied to politics. So, you won't see Al Gore or John McCain named on "All About Josh," but you will see short essays on different themes.

That's about all for now. I'll still try to post regularly, but more likely, you'll see longer pieces posted semi-regularly (if that's a word). And, as always check out the links of excellent bloggers on the left.

2002-10-05T02:14:00.000-04:00

UPENN ON CHOMSKY: Noam Chomsky spoke at the University of Pennsylvania this past Thursday, and Daily Penn columnist Ariel Benson has something to say about his visit.

2002-10-05T02:12:00.000-04:00

LILEKS FISKS PAUL WELLSTONE: ...and it's well worth your time reading.

2002-10-05T02:11:00.000-04:00

JEFFREY GOLBERG ON IRAQ: Goldberg, in Slate, explains why -- for the millionth time -- there needs to be regime change in Iraq.

There are, of course, many repugnant dictators in the world; a dozen or so in the Middle East alone. But Saddam Hussein is a figure of singular repugnance, and singular danger. To review: There is no dictator in power anywhere in the world who has, so far in his career, invaded two neighboring countries; fired ballistic missiles at the civilians of two other neighboring countries; tried to have assassinated an ex-president of the United States; harbored al-Qaida fugitives (this is, by the way, beyond doubt, despite David Plotz's assertion to the contrary); attacked civilians with chemical weapons; attacked the soldiers of an enemy country with chemical weapons; conducted biological weapons experiments on human subjects; committed genocide; and then there is, of course, the matter of the weaponized aflatoxin, a tool of mass murder and nothing else.

2002-10-03T02:28:00.000-04:00

MY COLUMN TO THE EAGLE: Here's my latest column in American University's student newspaper, responding to a professor's claim that professors in the School of International Service care about scholarship, despite their evident anti-Israel bias. You guys get an advanced look at it -- it's either coming out tomorrow or next Monday. Here it is:

In his recent column in the Eagle, Professor Paul Wapner defended his School of International Service colleagues against claims of pro-Palestinian bias, and asserted the school’s commitment to scholarship, at the same time dismissing requests for ideological balance.

It’s encouraging that Wapner is in favor of sound scholarship. Sound scholarship requires the use of a diverse set of sources and is based on historical facts. Far too often in SIS, facts are ignored in favor of one-sided ideological imbalance. A quick walk to the AU bookstore easily demonstrates this point. Several books by the leftist professors Edward Said and John Esposito are often assigned in Middle East courses, rarely counterbalanced by their ideological and scholarly opposites, such as Bernard Lewis and Daniel Pipes. Professor Laura Drake, who taught at American University last year, participated in a particularly virulent anti-Israel rally on the quad that was widely criticized. Only one professor of Israeli background is on the SIS staff, while professors presenting the Arab perspective are well represented.

Wapner commented that he’s committed to "the radical idea that all people are equal, and thus equally possess rights and have responsibilities. This causes people to speak out about the plight of the Palestinians." In the interest of scholarship, I’d like to point out some facts. Israel is the only country in the Middle East where there are thriving feminist and gay movements. Many Palestinians in the West Bank have been executed for participating in such "heresy." Israel is the only country in the Middle East that has an independent judiciary. Both Arab and Jew can expect fair treatment in the Israeli courts. Israel is the only country in the Middle East to have freedom of speech. Elsewhere, as many Palestinian critics of Yasser Arafat discovered, dissent means death. Israel is the only country in the Middle East that allows all its citizens, both Arab and Jew, to vote and participate in a representative democracy. In the West Bank and in the rest of the Middle East, repressive dictatorships are commonplace.

Is Israel a perfect country? Of course not; no sovereign nation is without its flaws. But compared to its neighbors, its record is quite favorable. Anyone who believes in human rights and liberal values would embrace Israel’s record and spend a great deal more time criticizing the Arab’s world miserable record when it comes to freedom. Israel is a tiny country the size of New Jersey in a region that extends for thousands of miles. Yet it receives most of the blame for all the region’s ills, despite it only occupying a sliver of space in the Middle East. And there undoubtedly is a degree of anti-Semitism to this unceasing focus on Israel, the only Jewish state in the world.

While there is a difference between anti-Semitism – hatred of Jews – and anti-Zionism – hatred of Israel – they are much closer than many want to acknowledge. One can be a principled anti-Zionist and love Jews, but that is rarely the case. The government-run Saudi, Egyptian and Palestinian press all portray Jews in identical fashion to how Goebbels portrayed the Jews during his reign as Hitler’s propaganda minister. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a text which accuses Jews of murdering Christian children, is a best-seller in the Arab world. Arafat first came into prominence when his organization murdered eight Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics, part of his oft-stated goal to drive the Jews into the sea.

This hatred toward Israel supporters also extends to the college campus. At UC-Berkeley, pro-Israel supporters rallying for peace were violently attacked by a counter-demonstration of Palestinians. A mob of violent protesters at Concordia College in Montreal violently prevented former Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu from speaking. A liberal George Washington University student who went downtown to protest against a band of neo-Nazi marchers was spit on and jeered by her fellow counter-protesters because she was carrying an Israeli flag. At many universities, Arab student groups set up mock checkpoints, conveniently ignoring the suicide bombings that necessitate those security measures.

The reason that the Arab world lags behind the Western world in progress is not because of Israel and past Western colonialism, despite what some leftist professors in SIS might want students to believe. Several Arab intellectuals – in conjunction with the United Nations – published the Arab Human Development Report in July, which places the blame squarely on the Arab nations’ lack of democracy – not on Israel and its policy towards the Arabs. The report argues there is a "poverty of capabilities and poverty of opportunities," not a poverty of resources. Money is diverted away from education to prop up the coffers of tyrannical leaders. The report concludes the Arab world’s lack of freedom has undermined their human development.

It is apparent that Israel receives so much attention in SIS classrooms because of ideological reasons, and not because of sound scholarship which Professor Wapner prizes so dearly. Israel is used as an excuse to distract the Arab world from their real internal problems. The Arab Human Development report concludes by saying "Only an unbiased, objective analysis" could help the "Arab peoples and policy-makers in search of a brighter future." If only unbiased, objective analyses toward the Middle East would be the credo of the School of International Service.

2002-10-02T19:05:00.000-04:00

CLINTON AND GORE, BOTH AGAINST WAR: Both president and vice-president of the last administration spoke out forcefully against pre-emptively striking Iraq today. Former President Clinton spoke at a Labor party meeting in England, where his rationale for not striking Iraq now is because the former Bush administration did not condemn the Iraqi gassing of Kurds forcefully enough in 1988. Huh? Wouldn't Iraq's ruthlesness make it more imperative to force regime change in Iraq? He also:

criticized the Bush administration for rejecting the 1997 Kyoto accord on global warming, the new International Criminal Court to try alleged war criminals and the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. Those policies, he said, had understandably made Britons and others wary of conservatives in the administration and more inclined not to trust them on Iraq

Okay, so the Kyoto accord was rejected 98-0 by the Senate -- which Clinton knew full well when he sent the treaty to them. And the International Criminal Court was hardly embraced by the Clinton administration -- and it's a good thing. Fortunately, President Bush II has the cajones to openly state his hostility to a court that makes a joke of American sovereignty.

And here's an account of Gore's speech, saying we should put economic concerns ahead of our national security. The unnamed Washington Post "Staff Writer" (there's a byline strike at the Post) writes:

Gore's speech was short on specifics.

No kidding. Just criticize and attack the Bush administration's capable handling of foreign policy, and try to switch the topic to economics -- to which Gore offers no specific solution. Just more attacks. What a political hack. I can't believe I actually voted for the guy in 2000. Never again.

2002-10-01T19:01:00.000-04:00

JONAH GOLDBERG ON THE UNITED NATIONS: Jonah Goldberg has a good anti-idiotarian piece at the NRO today, making these accurate comments about the United Nations:

One is tempted to explain the very concept of "sovereign" in "sovereign state," but since those who use this argument are already deeply antagonistic to the idea that America has any right to do anything on its own, let's just skip right past that. Instead, let's go to the moral heart of the matter. People who think we must go through the U.N. seem to believe that the U.N. is an objectively neutral or moral institution. In their eyes, getting approval from the U.N. is like getting approval from a judge or a priest. Or, they think the U.N. is where the nations of the world put aside their petty self-interest and do whatever is in the best interests of humanity.

There's only one problem with this. None of the nations in the U.N. — especially the permanent members of the Security Council — are acting on such pure motives. France isn't opposed to invading Iraq out of an abiding love of peace. It's opposed to an American invasion largely because France has been trading with Iraq for years, despite the sanctions. France has billions of dollars in oil contracts it doesn't want to lose. Which is why, according to numerous accounts, the French have made it known that if they can keep their existing contracts, they will probably approve a U.S. invasion.

Or, consider Russia. Russia's foot-dragging is also largely about oil — and securing the $8 billion Iraq already owes them. But Russia also wants the U.S. to turn a blind eye to its military abuses in Chechnya and Georgia. And, by the way, a precondition for China's vote is tacit American approval of a Chinese crackdown on separatist Muslim Uighurs. Now, how is it that an American invasion of Iraq is somehow morally superior with U.N. approval if that approval can only be bought by American support for bloodshed elsewhere? Altruism and charity aren't the coin of the realm on the Security Council; blood and oil are. As the editors of National Review put it in the latest issue: "We will leave it to the shrinks to determine why American liberals consider it a mark of morality in foreign policy when that policy coincides with Russian and French strategies that are themselves arrived at for the crassest of reasons. In general, making 'international opinion' the benchmark for right and wrong is a mistake, since so much of it is driven by fear, self-interest, and greed."

There's a lot more good stuff. I recommend reading the whole piece.

2002-09-30T18:01:00.000-04:00

ETHNIC STUDIES ON CAMPUS AND CAMPUSWATCH: I just came back from an African-American history class (required as a prerequisite for history majors) at American University. Today, we spent 90 minutes arguing about some girl's comment that she feels America is discriminatory to her, and that she'd much rather live in Africa -- and then later, she amended that list to include London and Paris. (I responded by comparing the representation of African-Americans in Congress to people of African descent in the parliaments of Paris and London combined.) That was just the tip of the iceberg. The amazing thing is how much credence that viewpoint had in our 30-or-so person class. Except for myself and two other articulate students, everyone else felt that, to some degree, America oppresses minorities and is a horrible country to live in. As to be expected, some people made analogies to the Holocaust, comparing the Founding Fathers to Nazis but were reformed after the civil rights movement. And that was the middle of the road, ideologically, in the class. The entire class is a joke -- as my friend Ben commented to me, taking the class probably decreases my knowledge base.

So it was nice to read Steve Den Beste's latest essay on ethnic studies, and his devoting much time writing about this sickly field. Read the whole thing, but here's the money excerpt:

I have no use for any field that deliberately constructs fallacious myths and sweeps unpleasant truths under the rug and tries to claim that they are science or history in order to support some sort of political indoctrination, irrespective of what they hope to accomplish doing so. I prefer unpleasant truths to pleasing lies, and I think that American blacks are ill served by deception and rationalization.

I gather that there are those in that field who are trying to counter the extremists, to change Afrocentrist study so that it ceases to be apology for antiwhite bigotry and instead becomes a straightforward study of Africa. One can hope. There was much in sub-Saharan Africa to be proud of. There were major cities there, like Zimbabwe. There was a rich culture, a great oral tradition, amazing arts and crafts. African music has strongly influenced the development of modern American music, including jazz and rock. (Not in the way that many American Blacks think it has, however. I really enjoy listening to traditional African music, but it bears no resemblance whatever to rap, and it involves far more melody and singing and far less beat and percussion than many think. There's a great deal of it in the movie "Zulu"; it's worth watching that movie just to hear the music, such as at the great marriage ceremony at the beginning of the film, or the chant the Zulu warriors make just before their final charge. [It's unfortunate that the film makers felt the need to libel the Reverend Witt. In the actual Battle of Rorke's Drift, he helped carry a box of ammunition around to give bullets to the soldiers who were fighting.])

There was also barbarism and war and hostility and a great deal of killing. Africans did and do still practice slavery. Africans were and are just as complicated as anyone else. They were no more "noble savages" than anyone else was. But even in that there is much to study. I've always found the true history of sub-Saharan Africa to be fascinating to the extent that I've studied it; I first got turned onto it when I started reading about Shaka, one of the great military leaders of all time, who I think of as the African Temujin (and for me, at least, that is high honor indeed). His advances in military science were quite amazing for his place and time. He designed new weapons and new tactics, and actually created an entire national military system which permitted him to collect and move a truly mammoth military force at speeds of up to 20 miles per day on foot. With them he conquered a major empire. Unfortunately, the leaders which followed him became decadent, and ultimately the Zulu had the misfortune of being where the British wanted to go. And yet, the Zulu were one of the few aboriginal armies in the world to actually hand a major European force a catastrophic defeat in the colonial wars, a defeat which actually brought down the British government.

But the culture (or cultures, for it was culturally a very rich and diverse place) in sub-Saharan Africa had little to do with ancient Egypt, and in any case the Greeks and Romans did not actually steal everything important that they had from Egypt. Most of the contentions of Afrocentrism are total bunk.

And that this class suffers from these ahistorical biases is very sad. Thirty-four thousand dollars for a major in history, and this is what I'm getting.

That's why I'm totally in support of Campus Watch, Daniel Pipes' think-tank to expose these teachers who propagate an ahistorical narrative of the Middle East, largely imbued with anti-Semitism. My professor who teaches my US and the Middle East class (who is actually quite good) implicitly criticized the site for its restriction on academic freedom. But teaching at the university level should be a privelege, not a right. And it's certainly not the right to propagandize. There's a popular site at American University called GradeYourProf, which lists every professor and allows any student to grade them. While students in my Middle Eastern history class were laughing at CampusWatch, I asked the class what they thought of a site that grades professors based on their teaching ability like GYP, which many of the students use frequently to choose classes during registration. No response.

It's all about accountability. If I'm paying 35,000 dollars to attend a university, I want to know who's teaching based on history and who's not. And that's what CampusWatch is all about.

2002-09-30T17:36:00.000-04:00

THE BUSH DOCTRINE: Jackson Diehl has an excellent column in today's Washington Post about the new Bush Doctrine of pre-emption, which he attributes largely to Condoleezza Rice. Here's the key quote:

The national security doctrine issued this month by the White House packs into just 34 pages everything the foreign policy of the 1990s lacked. It begins by embracing two facts that have been obvious since 1991, but hard for a democratic and sometimes insular society to accept: that America has unmatched and unprecedented power in the world and therefore no choice but to shape the international order; and that it faces threats that are utterly different but in some ways more dangerous than the threats from the old Soviet Union.

The Bush doctrine commits the United States to act aggressively, with others or alone, "to promote a balance of power that favors freedom." The phobias about engaging abroad that paralyzed policy in the '90s, and infuriated the internationalists, are banished. This isn't just the Jacksonian assertion of American interests, though that is surely part of it. There is also a Wilsonian promise to "bring the hope of democracy, development, free markets and free trade to every corner of the world" -- and a Kissingerian strategy of maintaining a "great power balance" that decisively favors the United States. The ambition is breathtaking: "We will work to translate this moment of influence," declares the doctrine, "into decades of peace, prosperity and liberty." It is, in short, a bold -- and mostly brilliant -- synthesis, one that conceivably could cause national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, who executed it, to be remembered as the policymaker who defined a new era.

2002-09-30T17:32:00.000-04:00

TORRICELLI STEPS DOWN: Bob Torricelli announced today he's not running for re-election, leaving the Democrats in a lurch. This pompous senator not only has screwed over his constituents with his pompous, self-interested persona but now the Democratic party, as he's waited this long to step down. I'm listening to his speech now on FOX News, and I've never seen a speech so filled with 'me's and I's -- it's incredibly self-serving. In fact, he's even invoked former President Bill Clinton often in his speech, and it's been that long -- since President Clinton's presidency -- that I've heard someone so full of himself.

2002-09-30T17:27:00.000-04:00

ON MODERN ANTISEMITISM: Mike Silverman of Red Letter Days calls European anti-Zionism for what it is -- blatant anti-Semitism. In it, he links to a fine column by Newsweek's Jonathan Alter about anti-Semitism. Alter writes:

The virus of true anti-Semitism is so strong in so much of the world—where synagogues are burned and people cheer suicide bombers—that garden-variety stupidity doesn’t rate, even for the Anti-Defamation League.

And don't forget Cathy Young's article on the topic, which can be found here.

2002-09-27T02:21:00.000-04:00

EXCERPT OF THE WEEK: Enough has been said about Al Gore's speech this week, so I don't feel like I have anything to add to the discussion. But Charles Krauthammer's column in today's Washington Post has one of the more golden lines I've seen in a while.

The New York Times reports that Gore wrote the speech "after consulting a fairly far-flung group of advisers that included Rob Reiner." Current U.S. foreign policy is the combined product of Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Paul Wolfowitz and the president. Meanwhile, the pretender is huddling with Meathead.

Not that Leon Feurth is that much better, but I digress.

2002-09-25T23:33:00.000-04:00

INTERNATIONAL LAW: For those who are bothered whenever pro-Palestinian supporters invoke international law to boost their moral claims of Israeli occupation, check out Lior Klirs' letter to the Cavalier Daily, UVa's paper of record. It's a good, concise knock-down of these weak arguments that base their Israel-bashing solely on the basis of various United Nations resolutions.

2002-09-24T01:38:00.000-04:00

DERSHOWITZ ON ISRAEL: Alan Dershowitz writes a succinct but powerful article about Israel's commitment to democracy and liberty -- in contrast to her neighboring Arab regimes. Here's a blurb:

As an advocate and practitioner of human rights throughout the world, I can confidently assert that Israel’s record on human rights is among the best, especially among nations that have confronted comparable threats. Though far from perfect, Israel has shown extraordinary concern for avoiding civilian casualties in its half-century effort to protect its civilians from terrorism. Jordan killed more Palestinians in a single month than Israel has between 1948 and the present.

Israel has the only independent judiciary in the entire Middle East. Its Supreme Court, one of the most highly regarded in the world, is the only court in the Middle East from which an Arab or a Muslim can expect justice, as many have found in winning dozens of victories against the Israeli government, the Israeli military and individual Israeli citizens. There is no more important component in the protection of human rights and civil liberties than an independent judiciary willing to stand up to its own government. I challenge the proponents of divestment to name a court in any Arab or Muslim country that is comparable to the Israeli Supreme Court.

<...>

There are, of course, difficult issues to be resolved in the Middle East. These include the future of the settlements, the establishment of Palestinian self-governance and the prevention of terrorism. These issues will require compromise on all sides. Members of the Harvard community must be free to criticize Israel when they disagree with its policies or actions, as they criticize any other country in the world whose record is not perfect. But to single out the Jewish state of Israel, as if it were the worst human rights offender, is bigotry pure and simple. It would be comparable to singling out a black nation for de-legitimation without mentioning worse abuses by white nations. Those who sign the divestment petition should be ashamed of themselves. If they are not, it is up to others to shame them.

2002-09-24T01:32:00.000-04:00

PATIOPUNDIT AT YOUR SERVICE: The estimable PatioPundit answers all the questions and doubts revolving around a war against Iraq. If you aren't already convinced, reading this will help.

2002-09-20T17:02:00.000-04:00

ADMINISTRATIVE UPDATE: I will be away in the beautiful confines of the University of Virginia this weekend, so blogging will probably be light, if I'm able to at all. In the meantime, check out the other terrific websites to the left.

Oh, and thanks to Ben Domenech for permalinking me. His site is a terrific combination of quickie posts and links reflecting his great knowledge, and the site's layout is terrific, too. Plus, he gives complete football updates after each Sunday -- always a plus. His site is definitely worth a long look.

While I'm in the thank you mood, thanks to 11-Day Empire, a real hidden gem of a blog; Pejman, who always gives me mucho traffic for my posts, and Howard Fienberg of KesherTalk, who runs an excellent Jewish blog, for all linking me over the past week or two.

Alright, off to Charlottesville.

2002-09-18T14:51:00.000-04:00

BASEBALL AND BUSINESS: For those of you who are regular readers of this site, you know that I like to make comparisons between baseball and politics occasionally. I've blogged about conservative free-marketers' hypocrisy when it comes to baseball labor, and also compared the "blogging revolution" to the ever-growing Baseball Prospectus, which has become an influential publication in the baseball world out of Internet chat boards.

So in that spirit, here's a great piece by James Surowiecki in the latest New Yorker, comparing Oakland A's general manager to Warren Buffett. Dell Computers and Southwest Airlines are also mentioned as "Oakland A's" like companies.

It's today's required reading of the day.

2002-09-18T10:17:00.000-04:00

IT'S NOT ABOUT RACE: FOX News reports on the increasing dissatisfaction between members of the Congressional Black Caucus. Here's their lead:

WASHINGTON — Participants in this month's Congressional Black Caucus conference say the defeat of two black House members in bitter primaries not only suggests a widening rift with Jewish Democrats, but trouble within the Democratic Party itself.

"People were talking retaliation," said Ron Walters, the director of the African American Leadership Institute at the University of Maryland, of last week's CBC events in Washington. "They were saying [presidential hopeful] Sen. Joe Lieberman is dead in the water, and so on and so forth."

But, it can't be an issue of race -- the two candidates who defeated Earl Hilliard and Cynthia McKinney are both black. It's their views that were considered out of the mainstream, not their race. Both were virulently anti-Israel, and both were ridiculed for their anti-American tendencies. (Hilliard expressed support for Libyan causes; McKinney suggested Bush knew about 9/11 beforehand.) If the CBC wanted to avenge their former colleagues' losses, on what basis will they do it on? Because they're Jewish? Now that's racism.

(Link via Instapundit.)

2002-09-17T12:33:00.000-04:00

YOM KIPPUR... has ended, which means I will be resuming to blog shortly.

2002-09-13T16:59:00.000-04:00

GOLDBERG ON THE UNITED NATIONS: Jonah Goldberg pontificates on the pointlessness of the UN.

2002-09-13T16:40:00.000-04:00

TRIPLE-FISKING THE NY TIMES: Matthew Hoy skillfully pokes holes in Nick Kristof, Madeleine Albright, and Paul Krugman's op-ed pieces -- all in a day's work.

2002-09-13T16:25:00.000-04:00

THE MAKING OF A HAWK: For those of you who haven't seen Jim Cramer's article on his transformation from a dove to a war hawk, here it is.

Here's a short snippet:

The terrorists' cause is not Islam, it is not even radical Islam. It is nihilism. The terrorists believe in absolutely nothing other than destroying the lives of others. That's the terrorist creed; think of it as if the devil himself finally had a home team, and don't for a moment try to understand them or reason with them or believe our laws are meant to protect them.

2002-09-13T16:13:00.000-04:00

DOSE OF DEN BESTE: One of my favorite Web essayists, Steven Den Beste, has yet another great piece up about Bush's speech to the United Nations yesterday. It's today's pre-weekend required reading. Here's a preview:

No, Iraq hasn't slipped away. We're still on track to take Saddam out. It's not a sure thing (nothing is a sure thing) but the events of September 12 did not significantly reduce the chance that it will happen.

That doesn't mean that what happened today (or yesterday, or which will happen tomorrow) was all part of a deeply crafted plot, and that it was all predicted months ago. Events don't unfold that way. What it means is that the most sure way to be defeated is to let your opponent convince you that short term setbacks do indeed mean you've lost your chance to prevail. If you accept that setbacks happen, and that you can deal with them, you can still win.

Of course, that doesn't mean that a perceived setback wasn't actually a gambit. That's a term from chess which refers to a case where a player will make a short term sacrifice, usually by deliberately suiciding a valuable piece, in order to gain a more subtle and longer term advantage offsetting it. A gambit is a risk, of course; you definitely lose at the beginning but you may not actually win the advantage you thought you were going to get. But if you pull it off, you're actually strengthened by it.

That kind of thing happens in politics and war all the time. One form of it in war is known as a "forlorn hope"; it's a form of demonstration. A demonstration is where you launch an attack on an enemy with the degree of ferocity that would ordinarily accompany the beginning of a major battle or campaign, but without the plan or even the ability to carry through at that level of ferocity. The goal is to deceive your opponent into thinking that you are making maximal effort at that point. Sometimes a major offensive in one part of the front will be accompanied by a demonstration somewhere else in hopes of convincing the opponent to split his reserves between them, so as to reduce his ability to reinforce the part of the front where your real effort is happening.

A forlorn hope is an attack by a reduced force, which fails (deliberately) in hopes of convincing your opponent that you are weaker than you actually are. The Mongols perfected this (using tactics developed by the great Subadei) and would attack an enemy army with a small portion of their force, which would then retreat after the attack "failed". The army would then pursue, and follow the forlorn hope into a trap, after which the majority of the Mongol force would fall on the enemy army from both sides and the rear while the forlorn hope would again turn to face the enemy and engage it from the front. Upon being attacked from all sides, that army would disintegrate and the slaughter would be unimaginable.

This kind of thing happens in lots of ways. George Bush has now, for the third time, used a diplomatic gambit. The first time it happened, I referred to it as "making them an offer they cannot accept". He didn't invent this, but he's proved rather adroit at using it.

2002-09-13T16:03:00.000-04:00

THE NEW STANCE OF THE NEW REPUBLIC: The editors of the New Republic declare in their staff editorial this week "it has been a long time since this journal felt so despondent about the Democratic Party" in a powerful piece damning the increasing irrelevance of the Democrats' war complaints. Marty Peretz also echoes this complaint in a separate article.

What's next, endorsing Bush over old friend Al Gore in the 2004 election? Stay tuned.

2002-09-12T02:36:00.000-04:00

GEORGE W. BUSH'S NY TIMES COLUMN: President Bush's column, which was printed in Sept. 11's NY Times was a refreshing change from the ignorant op-ed pieces recently published by two former presidential candidates, Al Gore and Jimmy Carter, on our foreign policy. It appears to me that the foreign policy of the Bush administration is a mixture of idealistic Wilsonian belief in democracy and self-determination, mixed with a protection of American interests tempered by a firm sense of morality. This paragraph below is why I have been so pleased with the Bush administration's foreign policy:

America's greatest opportunity is to create a balance of world power that favors human freedom. We will use our position of unparalleled strength and influence to build an atmosphere of international order and openness in which progress and liberty can flourish in many nations. A peaceful world of growing freedom serves American long-term interests, reflects enduring American ideals and unites America's allies. We defend this peace by opposing and preventing violence by terrorists and outlaw regimes. We preserve this peace by building good relations among the world's great powers and we extend this peace by encouraging free and open societies on every continent.

This, my friends, is the Bush Doctrine.

2002-09-12T02:30:00.000-04:00

BELATED SEPT. 11 READING: Ted Olson's November 2001 speech to the Federalist Society memorializing his late wife, Barbara, is a true must-read -- one of the best pieces on Sept. 11 and its aftermath I've seen.

2002-09-10T20:24:00.000-04:00

DOES RICHARD COHEN READ HIS OWN PAPER?: Based on his column today, I'd say the answer is a definitive no:

Here's what he wrote today:

But there is no -- that's no -- evidence that Iraq has nuclear weapons. Intelligence suggests, in fact, that Iraq is five or so years away from either securing or developing a bomb. The nuclear threat is not an imminent one, and it is not one, in any case, directed at the United States. We are a world away and have ample means to retaliate. Iraq would cease to exist.

And here's what his own paper -- the Washington Post -- reported on Monday:

Iraq could produce a nuclear weapon "in a matter of months" if supplied fissile materials from an outside source, according to a report released here today. Saddam Hussein's government also has an extensive biological weapons capability, a smaller chemical weapons stockpile and a small supply of missiles to deliver them, the report concluded.

2002-09-09T13:52:00.000-04:00

DISGUSTING COLUMN: Today's edition of "The Eagle" published a column by sophomore Valery Dragon, titled "America reaped what it sowed." (On the online version, they apparently changed the headline.) In it, the author clearly writes she is glad that 3,000 people perished on September 11. Here's the meat:

What I hated most, and still do, is when others tried to comfort me. It was so routine. They would tilt their heads to the right, do a simultaneous smile and frown, showing no teeth, and then bow their heads. What’s wrong with that? Absolutely nothing. Except the fact that others are feeling sorry for something I’m not sorry about. If anything- I’m glad it happened. I’m glad America, the “Big Giant”, had a mirror reflected on itself. I’m just sad that so many people had to pay for the “American Way.”

I thought many times that this is what children all over the world go through every day. I thought, “this is what happens when America finds something beneficial in another country and choose sides. This is what happens when America aids the government in hushing guerrila armies. This is what happens when oil supply is thinning.”

I encourage all blog readers and others to e-mail the Eagle's op-ed page to respond and lend your outrage to this type of vicious anti-American thinking. I, for one, will be writing a letter detailing my disgust.

It's sickening.

2002-09-09T10:36:00.000-04:00

HATE MASQUERADING AS TOLERANCE: Sarah Kopelovich, a 21-year old George Washington University senior, was spit on, harrassed and assaulted at a counterdemonstration to neo-Nazis at the Capitol last week. Why? Because she brought an Israeli flag to the event. She penned an editorial describing the events to the Washington Jewish Week, writing:

As I walked toward my compatriots, my fellow protesters, I felt more empowered with each step. These were people who believed as I did, rational tolerant people whose personal morality impelled them to stand together and denunciate hatred and intolerance. They would stand with me, protest with me, and perhaps attempt to educate -- with me.

Or so I thought.

As I walked deeper and deeper through the crowd of protesters, waving the Israeli flag high and proud above my head, I began to feel less and less welcome. I marched on, waving the flag even higher so each and every neo-Nazi could see the flag of the Jewish people.

Suddenly I realized that the cries and jeers at the sight of the flag, originated not from the neo-Nazis, but from the anti-Nazi protesters.

I continued through the crowd and tried hard to ignore the glares. Inevitably, I was confronted. Abusive, although not unfamiliar words assaulted me at first: "Israel is fascist!" "Zionism is racism!" An old woman with a sweet face screamed at me, "You are a Nazi!" she cried. What had started out as a protest against racism quickly turned into a forum of hatred and fanaticism. I and the flag I held were their targets.

What could I do? Would I turn around? Could I let them disrespect this symbol of my people, and retreat in fear? I held my flag even higher. And I attempted, among the threats, the jostling and chaotic vehemence, to reason.

"I am not the enemy! The enemy is right across the street. Please, let's share this common ground and fight together!"

Despite my intense rage, I stayed true to my nonviolent beliefs and fought her and the crowd that had begun to form around me, with my words.

The crowd of anti-Nazi protesters did not have the same nonviolent ideology. I was spat upon. I was physically and verbally threatened. Grown men accosted me and tried to rip the Israeli flag out of my hands. Several were very close to actually assaulting me. Police intervened and blocked the anti-Nazi protesters from approaching me. These were supposed to be the good guys, and yet the hatred they exuded was just as potent as that of the Nazis themselves.

Sounds awfully like the Palestinian behavior at the San Francisco State pro-Israel peace rally. (The WJW has more on the story here.)

As Matt Drudge would say, "Developing..."

2002-09-09T00:22:00.000-04:00

WHY I SUPPORT VOUCHERS: In today's Washington Post Outlook section (which was particularly bad this week), a woman wrote a particularly relevant letter that I believe sums up my unequivocal support for school vouchers. The woman, who identifes herself as a "card-carrying liberal," lives in a lower-income section of Anne Arundel County, where the schools have consistently ranked as substandard. She writes:

The test scores combined with these stories persuaded my husband and me to start looking into private schools for our daughter.

My mother-in-law didn't approve. She said it wasn't right for us to send our daughter to private school. If we kept her in public schools and worked to make the system better, everyone would benefit -- including people who don't have the option of sending their kids somewhere else.

For a card-carrying liberal, I was surprisingly unapologetic about our decision. Why should I sacrifice our daughter's future to an abstract principle? I wasn't up to battling the school system about class size, curriculum and extracurricular activities. And by the time any changes could be made, our daughter would have already missed out on a vibrant education.

But Granny's arguments did ring uncomfortably true. Education isn't just another commodity, with parents doing comparison shopping to find the best brand at the lowest price. Education is the foundation of our future as a community and as a nation.

Our public school system suffers from scarce resources: not enough teachers, too-large classes, not enough fine arts instruction or computers, and a finite number of slots for children in the schools that will challenge them. Sadly, most educational opportunities seem tied to money in one way or another: the higher mortgage payments for homes near the best public schools, or the tuition payments and waiting lists for private schools.

This is the precise argument that school voucher proponents have been advancing for years. It's a known fact that many public schools that are not located in affluent suburbs can't be fixed overnight -- and the issue goes far beyond money. Some of the most well-funded schools, like the District of Columbia's schools, continually perform miserably in every possible measure. I don't advocating ignoring the public school system, but I also don't advocate ignoring the many bright kids who are unable to get a good education because they're forced to attend poor schools. Vouchers don't automatically decrease the quality of schools; in fact, increased competition may force public schools to spend their money more wisely to get better results. Even if that doesn't happen, I frankly think that children should be put ahead of buildings and bureaucracies -- that's precisely what school choice, through charter schools and vouchers, accomplishes. It's great how children of Congressmen and Congresswomen send their kids to private school, but they want to limit choice to hard-working families.

The "card-carrying liberal" April Doss, in her letter, puts it best:

Private education doesn't square so well with my liberal, communitarian ideals. But with the state of our public school, I wouldn't dream of educating our daughter any other way.

2002-09-07T17:47:00.000-04:00

WHINING ABOUT BASEBALL PLAYERS: Jayson Stark of ESPN, who has been on a roll lately with his columns, reminds us that baseball players are not lazy and overpaid, like many commentators and bloggers like to reflexively claim. (Some of my favorite columnists -- Charles Krauthammer and George Will -- and my favorite bloggers -- VodkaPundit, Sgt. Stryker and Matt Welch come to mind -- continually propagate this "players are lazy" myth.)

Please, no more talk about how players today don't care the way they did when you were a kid.

Most players today understand exactly how lucky they are to get paid what they do to play a game they love. That's one reason they're not on strike right now.

If fans had any clue how many players get to the ballpark five hours before game time, they'd be stunned.

The game today includes some not just some of the best players ever to play, but some of the best people playing any major sport. There's no reason men like Cliff Floyd, Tom Glavine, Todd Helton, Jeff Bagwell, Scott Rolen, Carlos Delgado, Nomar Garciaparra, Mariano Rivera, Omar Vizquel, Trevor Hoffman, etc., etc. shouldn't be on every kid's Most Admired Athletes list -- except that baseball has done such a great job of keeping them so top-secret.

Let's compare the number of felony charges filed against baseball players with the rap sheets on those NBA and NFL icons. That's a stat that tells you more about baseball players today than OPS.

This article is about as good as it gets, insofar as sports Fiskings. I highly recommend all sports fans out there give it a read.

2002-09-07T17:00:00.000-04:00

TODAY'S MANDATORY READING: column comes from Yossi Klein HaLevi in Saturday's New York Times.

And to all my Jewish readers out there, Shana Tova u'metuka. ("May you have a good and sweet new year!")