Lefty Latin America

I've railed against Hugo Chavez's leftward power grab in South America. In the wake of one of his proteges being elected in Bolivia, Ralph Peters (subscription req'd) says not to fear, let 'em fail and be there to pick up.

Looks like the voters of Bolivia have chosen Evo Morales as their next presidente. Evo's a pro-narco pal of Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro. His campaign included a pledge to become "America's nightmare."

What on earth should we do?

Nothing. The dumbest thing Washington could do would be to overreact and make yet another populist demagogue a hero. Bluster and threats only help our enemies.

Anti-Americanism is dying — it just happens to be a loud, slow death. The old blame-America excuses are growing thin. Left alone, the latest wave of Yanqui-go-homers will fade after they fail to live up to their promises. But with enough attention from Washington, they could hang on indefinitely. We made Fidel Castro a giant through our clumsiness. And we didn't learn. We did the same thing with Hugo Chavez, threatening to huff and puff and blow his casa down. The effect was to give him a hemispheric stage on which to strut.

Now there's a third amigo. Let's not do this one any favors by calling him names.

In Washington, it's tough to do nothing, since there's a lobby for everything. But sometimes nothing is exactly what we should do. Any signs of administration hysteria will play into Morales' hands.

Interesting point.

Roundup

Is the idea of multiculturalism finally undermining mass media.

The Weekly Standard's Robert Kagan and William Kristol offer one explanation for why the Iraqi elections could be a turning point.

Meanwhile, their colleague Stephen Barbara looks at the world's enmity toward's U.S. .....soccer.

Pope Benedict XVI is going to "reinterpret" Vatican II according to some, though he would say he's going to finally tell the real story. Meanwhile, is the U.S. Supreme Court too Catholic?

Here are the 10 Most Conservative colleges in the U.S., according to the Young America Foundation.

With a War on Terror, what is the future of the U.S. Navy?

A little Roundup

Arnold Kling writes that Americans don't like real health insurance--say a $10,000 deductible before any insurance kicks in--because they think what they're getting now is "free."

An Israeli general believes Saddam moved his WMD to Syria, and so do many Iraqis.

Lee Harris turns to Thomas Hobbes to supply an answer to the question of "What next?" in Iraq.

Can Europe become a melting pot?

About the Economy

Brian Wesbury's comments last week about the ominipresent pessimism that seems to surround any and all economic news was a "Gee, I thought that too" moment for me. Here is what he said:

During a quarter century of analyzing and forecasting the economy, I have never seen anything like this. No matter what happens, no matter what data are released, no matter which way markets move, a pall of pessimism hangs over the economy.

It is amazing. Everything is negative. When bond yields rise, it is considered bad for the housing market and the consumer. But if bond yields fall and the yield curve narrows toward inversion, that is bad too, because an inverted yield curve could signal a recession.

If housing data weaken, as they did on Monday when existing home sales fell, well that is a sign of a bursting housing bubble. If housing data strengthen, as they did on Tuesday when new home sales rose, that is negative because the Fed may raise rates further. If foreigners buy our bonds, we are not saving for ourselves. If foreigners do not buy our bonds, interest rates could rise. If wages go up, inflation is coming. If wages go down, the economy is in trouble.

Read the rest of his essay for just one list of the good economic news.

Against illegal immigration

explains that Americans aren't against immigration, but illegal immigration. She offers this personal anecdote:

I recently found out through one of her daughters that my grandmother spent her first night in America on a park bench in downtown Manhattan. She had made her way from Ireland to Ellis Island, and a cousin was to meet the ship. It was about 1920. The cousin didn't show. So Mary Dorian, age roughly 20, all alone, with no connections and no relatives interested enough to remember her arrival in the new world, spent her first night in America alone on a bench, in the dark, in a strange country. Later she found her way to Brooklyn and became a bathroom attendant at the big Abraham & Straus department store on Fulton Street. (It's now a Macy's. I buy Christmas gifts there.)

Two generations after my grandmother arrived, I was in the Oval Office of the American president saying, "I think you oughta." And amazingly enough he was listening.

In two generations. Two.

What a country.

She also explains here philosophical opposition to illegal immigration.

The questions I bring to the subject are not about the flow of capital, the imminence of globalism, or the implications of uncontrolled immigration on the size and cost of the welfare state. They just have to do with what it is to be human.

What does it mean that your first act on entering a country--your first act on that soil--is the breaking of that country's laws? What does it suggest to you when that country does nothing about your lawbreaking because it cannot, or chooses not to? What does that tell you? Will that make you a better future citizen, or worse? More respecting of the rule of law in your new home, or less?

If you assume or come to believe that that nation will not enforce its own laws for reasons that are essentially cynical, that have to do with the needs of big business or the needs of politicians, will that assumption or belief make you more or less likely to be moved by that country, proud of that country, eager to ally yourself with it emotionally, psychologically and spiritually?

When you don't earn something or suffer to get it, do you value it less highly? If you value it less highly, will you bother to know it, understand it, study it? Will you bother truly to become part of it? When you are allowed to join a nation for free, as it were, and without the commitment of years of above-board effort, do you experience your joining that country as a blessing or as a successful con? If the latter, what was the first lesson America taught you?

These are questions that I think are behind a lot of the more passionate opposition to illegal immigration.

Walk the Line

I hope to catch "Walk the Line" sometime, if nothing else than because one of my favorite cult-musicians has a starring role. More about him here and, further back, here (or here for a real flavor). And, by the way, he had a hand in helping this guy's career. (Yes, I'm being purposefully "mysterious," he likes it that way.)

Homework Assignment

Homework Assignment: Google "Clinton Iraq 1998" and see what you find.

President Bush's Veterans Day Speech '05

The President on Iraq:

This progress is not easy, but it is steady. And no fair-minded person should ignore, deny or dismiss the achievements of the Iraqi people.

And our debate at home must also be fair-minded. One of the hallmarks of a free society and what makes our country strong is that our political leaders can discuss their differences openly, even in times of war.

When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support. I also recognize that some of our fellow citizens and elected officials didn't support the liberation of Iraq, and that is their right, and I respect it. As president and commander in chief, I (accept ?) the responsibilities and the criticisms and the consequences that come with such a solemn decision. While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decisions or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began.

Some Democrats and antiwar critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs. They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction.

Many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: "When I vote to give the president of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hand is a threat and a grave threat to our security."

That's why more then a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence, voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.

The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important for politicians to throw out false charges. These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send to them to war continue to stand behind them. Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. And our troops deserve to know that when -- whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less then victory.

The Absolute Final Post About Why Bush Didn't Lie About Iraq

Well, probably not. Anyway, Norman Podhoretz wraps it all up rather nicely by explaining how everyone thought Saddam Hussein was a threat, though even the President didn't think it was an imminent one (my, how that got all turned around, huh?). But Kevin Drum thinks Podhoretz wraps it up too soon and conveniently glosses over the few intelligence agencies that refuted the spook CW. However, Tom Bevan at Real Clear Politics reminds us all that President Bush put the onus on Saddam to prove his compliance--heck, even Hans Blix kept offering South Africa as a model--and Saddam failed to spill the beans. (And now we know why, what, with Oil for Food and all) .Only then did we "rush to war" after a couple years worth of warnings.

'Evangelical Pruning' Ahead?

Imagine. The Pope actually thinks that traditionally Catholic universities and colleges should get back to their roots:

Ever since Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger became Pope Benedict XVI, educators at Roman Catholic colleges in the United States have been trying to figure out what his agenda would be for their institutions.

In a speech at the University of Notre Dame Monday, a senior Vatican official offered some predictions about what to expect: a strong emphasis on Catholic identity on their campuses and an increased role in reaching out to Catholic institutions in other countries. Archbishop Michael Miller, secretary of the Vatican’s Congregation for Catholic Education, told a packed audience at Notre Dame that the pope might favor “evangelical pruning,” rather than maintaining ties to institutions that have become too secular. . .

Michael J. James, executive vice president of the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities. . .[believed] that the Vatican is taking a broad view of the ideals of Catholic higher education, and not focusing on any one single question. James said that this was appropriate, but he acknowledged that there could be controversies ahead. Many Catholic colleges are embroiled in debates over whether to recognize gay student groups or to allow speakers on campus who disagree with Catholic teachings. College presidents dealing with such situations tend to face criticism on all sides — with students and many faculty members pushing for greater tolerance, especially on issues of sexuality, while traditionalist groups attack colleges that appear to deviate in any way from official teachings.

One “possible negative outcome” of the archbishop’s talk, James said, was that “it could bolster conservative groups that are relatively small and isolated, but they will take this and say, ‘we think you are not living up to your Catholic identity.’

. . .Rev. Charles L. Currie, president of the Association of Jesuit College and Universities, agreed. “He’s making the point that these schools should be serious about their Catholic identity and the folks I work with — Jesuit and non-Jesuit — are serious. So we accept that challenge, and our schools are very actively pursuing their Catholic identity.”

Inspired Genius

Ian McEwan writes of how some examples of genius is merely "inspired guesswork" and give Einstein's theory of relativity as such an example. Interestingly, the Big Bang is another instance of such inspired guesswork. Did you know it was first proposed by a Catholic priest? Bet you thought all religious people went for that Intelligent Design stuff, huh?

Instapundit Setting the Record on Iraq Straight...again

I'll let him do it so I don't have to, again! Instapundit writes:

One of the things I've noticed in the Judy Miller / Scooter Libby coverage is the development of a new history that's very convenient for a lot of the people peddling it. The new story is that:

1. We only went to war because of WMDs -- that was the only reason ever given.

2. Bush lied about those.

3. He told his lies to Judy Miller, who acted like a stenographer and reported them.

4. Everyone else gullibly went along.

He also points to earlier posts here, here and here. He also adds:

Democratic politicians who supported the war want an excuse to tack closer to their antiwar base. Shouting "It's not my fault --I'm easily fooled!" would seem a substandard response, but it is a way of changing position while pretending it's not politically motivated. Meanwhile, journalists, most of whom were reporting the same kind of WMD stories that Miller did (because that's what pretty much everyone thought -- including the antiwar folks who were arguing that an invasion was a bad idea because it would provoke Saddam into using his weapons of mass destruction), now want to focus on her so that people won't pay much attention to what they were reporting themselves. This makes Judy Miller a handy scapegoat.

But, as I say, the biggest problem with this revisionism is that it's not true. I guess we'll just have to keep pointing that out.

And then he continues:

J.D. Johannes notes that what people were saying in the 1990s seems to raise problems with the revisionist history. "The final authorization for use of force in 2002 cited the legislation from 1998. But what was conventional wisdom and uncontroversial in 1998, became hotly debated in 2002 and beyond." Especially "beyond."

And he links to this from Dean Esmay:

Having been part of those debates when they were happening, I am utterly appalled at people I used to think of as intelligent and well-informed who keep repeating falsehood after falsehood after falsehood about it. And I am utterly exhausted with having to, at least once a month or so, go back and rehash the same arguments because some people are not simply honest enough, diligent enough, or caring enough to go back and look at the historical record and just be honest about it.

I find having to rehash it all about as pleasant and satisfying as chewing on aluminum foil. It's not disagreement I can't stand, it's the constant repetition of falsehoods that makes me want to scream.

Like I said, I reposted most of it so I wouldn't have too dig it all up myself.

UPDATE: Glenn has also posted on how the Democrats under Bill Clinton were more than willing to proceed under the assumption that Saddam did indeed have WMD.

What Plame is Really About

With indictments handed down against Scooter Libby, and with the media obsessing over how the investigation may uncover Bush Administration "lies" in the "run up to war" (never mind the incident ocurred after the war started!), Roger Simon lays it out plain as day: we all knew what was going on when it was going on:

As the for the run-up to the war, in looking back I think it was a big game of charades that everybody understood. Despite what was said, the obvious US motivation was geo-political. We wanted the despot Saddam out of the Middle East and replaced by a democracy. The French and the Russians - never particularly interested in democracy in the first place - desperately wanted to keep their cash cow in office. Everybody knew this, so the dreaded WMDs had to be emphasized in front of the UN. Never mind that whether Saddam had nuclear and other such weapons now or later was essentially irrelevant as long as he was in power and able to use them, never mind the supposedly missing weapons could be hidden at this moment in Syria, Lebanon or Iran (or even Iraq of course), never mind that there actually is a fledgling democracy in Iraq seemingly applauded by a vast majority of Iraqis, the weapons have been pronounced non-existent and the war a mistake.

Of course the real mistake was this emphasis on WMDs instead of a more honest declaration of the what the war was really about - democracy. On that score it hasn't fared that badly, all things considered. But still the focus must be kept on missing WMDs.

The Motives Behind "Soft" Power

Anti-war activists accused the U.S. of invading Iraq for oil. Well, it appears that some countries were interested in Iraq's oil, and tried to use their "soft" power to protect those interests.

More than 2,000 companies taking part in the United Nations oil-for-food programme paid illegal surcharges and kickbacks to Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, an inquiry has found.

Paul Volcker, the former chairman of the US Federal Reserve, has delivered a fifth and final report, which details how thousands of companies and individuals around the world were involved in illegal transactions to circumvent the UN programme. . . "the country with the most companies involved was Russia, followed by France."

The 500-page report said companies in 66 countries paid kickbacks on selling Iraq humanitarian goods and companies from 40 countries paid surcharges on oil contracts but the UN Security Council took little action.

The program, which began in December 1996 and ended in 2003, was aimed at easing the impact of UN sanctions imposed in 1990 after Baghdad's troops invaded Kuwait. It achieved considerable success in feeding Iraqis, and allowed Iraq to sell oil in order to pay for food, medicine and other goods.

Preferential treatment was given to companies from France, Russia and China, the report says, all permanent members of the Security Council, who were more favorable to lifting the 1990 sanctions than the America and Britain.

My take on the Plame thing...

...is the same as Mark Levin's:

And in an Alice In Wonderland-like storyline, the same media that demand confidentiality for their sources as a First Amendment right, also demand the identity of Bob Novak’s sources and the names of administration officials who’ve spoken to the media. They cheer the very criminal investigation they once claimed endangered their profession. Meanwhile, who’s under investigation? Not Plame and Wilson, who appear to have hatched this scandal, but those truly victimized by it — administration officials who, it appears, sought to correct Wilson’s lies. Their phone conversations with reporters and e-mails to colleagues are now scrutinized by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and his grand jury as if they’re war criminals. No wonder Plame is the toast of the Washington establishment and appears in publicity shots in Vanity Fair with a big grin. Look what she’s wrought.

National Guard on the Border?

Allan Wall asks a question I've asked before: Why can't the National Guard be deployed, or rotated through, our nations borders. I know some people with ties to the Border Patrol, and they're not crazy with the idea of people not trained in such work. But as Wall points out, perhaps our National Guard has had a crash course after all: in Iraq.

Some say it's impossible to secure our borders. I don't believe it. Here in Iraq I've seen what a determined national policy can accomplish in a short time. Back home, borders could be secured, if the political will existed. The technical means exist already. We have the resources. We have the personnel. Some have suggested we use the National Guard to secure the borders. . .

Many of the tasks necessary to secure the U.S. border are the same tasks we are already performing here in Iraq. They could be carried out just as easily (and less expensively) on our own borders. Here in Iraq, National Guardsmen are patrolling 24/7, logging thousands of miles in armored humvees. Why can't they do the same on our own borders ?

In Iraq, Guardsmen secure defensive perimeters, they man guard towers, they operate UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles). They do surveillance in the dark with night-vision equipment. Why can't they do the same on the borders of their own country?

Currently, Guard units are being called up on 18-month deployments to Iraq and other places. Why can't they be deployed the same length of time to guard the border? When a Guard unit is not deployed, guardsmen train a total of about 40 days a year, one weekend a month and a two-week "annual training" period. Why not rotate National Guard units in and out of border duty for their yearly "training" period?

. . . Under current federal law, the U.S. military can't physically detain illegal aliens, and leaves it to the border patrol to do it. But the military can still do patrolling, reconnaissance, and surveillance on the border. We're doing it in Iraq right now. To support these operations, permanent bases could be constructed along the border, to house troops and store equipment. Putting the Guard on the borders would send a message that we are finally serious about controlling our own borders.

It also doesn't preclude introducing Border Patrol training as part of the rotation. I suspect part of the fears expressed by those in the Border Patrol over such ideas has to do with protecting their institutional turf. They are all for increasing the number of Border Patrol agents. I am too, but there is probably a role to be had for some more muscle, don't you think?

Adult Stem Cells Get Results

Michael Fumento:

I have frequently written on the gulf between the promise of embryonic stem cells (ESCs) and the reality of therapy from adult stem cells (ASCs) -- those already in our bodies and umbilical cord blood. ESCs get publicity; ASCs get results.

He provides details and explains why we don't hear the MSM trumpeting such remarkable progress.

It's still true that, as I wrote two years ago, "When an ESC hiccups it makes page one, but reports of ASCs actually saving human lives are often ignored." A search of the Lexis-Nexis database reveals that the incredible liver breakthrough was picked up by two lesser British newspapers and UPI. BBC.com also mentioned it. That's it. No U.S. newspaper seems to have mentioned it.

Lexis-Nexis also indicates no English-language publication thought that such an incredible breakthrough as allowing a paraplegic to walk again was newsworthy -- at least not if it involved the politically incorrect kind of stem cell.

Therapeutic progress with adult stem cells will continue to come fast and furious. Just when the public will be allowed to hear about it is another thing entirely.

Conservative Against Miers: The Process is as Important as the Result

George Will writes about the Miers mess and explains that, for conservatives, it's about more than just HOW she votes:

Thoughtful conservatives' highest aim is not to achieve this or that particular outcome concerning this or that controversy. Rather, their aim for the Supreme Court is to replace semi-legislative reasoning with genuine constitutional reasoning about the Constitution's meaning as derived from close consideration of its text and structure. Such conservatives understand that how you get to a result is as important as the result. Indeed, in an important sense, the path that the Supreme Court takes to the result often is the result.

The Miers Mess

The Wall Street Journal (sign-up required) editorializes on the Miers imbroglio and Byron York offers some insight into the problems the White House is having "selling" Miers. Charles Krauthammer is the latest to call for a do-over. From the Journal's piece:

Senate Republicans now find themselves caught between their loyalty to the President and their entirely legitimate concerns about Ms. Miers's philosophy and qualifications. For their part, Democrats have so far largely been content to watch their opposition squirm and shout. But they will certainly play the opportunists, jumping on any opening on ethics or ideology to defeat her and embarrass the President.

The liberal base may even demand it, given that one of the White House's private selling points to religious conservatives has been that she is both an evangelical and is personally opposed to abortion rights. (Hint: She'd vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.) These assurances, if that's what they were, may turn out to have been doubly counterproductive, given that they also undercut Republican claims to believe in process- rather than results-oriented jurisprudence.

Perhaps Ms. Miers will prove to be such a sterling Senate witness that she can still win confirmation. But so far the lesson we draw from this nomination is this: Bad things happen when a President decides that "diversity," personal loyalty and stealth are more important credentials for the Supreme Court than knowledge of the Constitution and battle-hardened experience fighting the judicial wars of the past 30 years.

Conservatives simply expected better.

Stossel on "Myths About Gun Control"

Look, I'm not a member of the NRA or a hunter or anything, but the gun control debate has always seemed to me to be based upon a facile premise: restricting the ability to legally (and conveniently) purchase of guns will reduce crime. Like I said, I'm not a gun enthusiast, so I've never really had a problem with waiting periods or background checks. But for those who thought such laws as the Brady Bill would be the "silver bullet" that would help to reduce gun related violence, John Stossel offers some evidence that such is not the case.

The Centers for Disease Control did an extensive review of various types of gun control: waiting periods, registration and licensing, and bans on certain firearms. It found that the idea that gun control laws have reduced violent crime is simply a myth.

I wanted to know why the laws weren't working, so I asked the experts. "I'm not going in the store to buy no gun," said one maximum-security inmate in New Jersey. "So, I could care less if they had a background check or not."

"There's guns everywhere," said another inmate. "If you got money, you can get a gun."

Talking to prisoners about guns emphasizes a few key lessons. First, criminals don't obey the law. (That's why we call them "criminals.") Second, no law can repeal the law of supply and demand. If there's money to be made selling something, someone will sell it.

A study funded by the Department of Justice confirmed what the prisoners said. Criminals buy their guns illegally and easily. The study found that what felons fear most is not the police or the prison system, but their fellow citizens, who might be armed. One inmate told me, "When you gonna rob somebody you don't know, it makes it harder because you don't know what to expect out of them."

What's that saying? "It's not guns that kill people, it's people that kill people." Counting on laws to prevent those who already break them from breaking more is naive.