CONSERVATIVES FOR GAS TAXES
First Sullivan, and now Krauthammer respond to the Gas price "crisis" with a blast of common sense.
So where is John Kerry, who no doubt understands that gas prices remain radically underpriced in this country and that raising them further is essential to any realistic efforts at improving energy efficientcy and combatting climate change - pandering like there is no tommorrow by offering half-baked plans to lower gas prices. I'm still waiting for a U.S. politician to speak the truth on this issue. Maybe Al Gore, after he's done shilling for the latest enviro-disaster flic can get working on a more realistic version of the "Day After Tommorrow" in which the legacy of a decades of pandering on gas prices leads America to collapse into a major depression when the world's oil supply dries up and the backup energy sources haven't been developed.
Tasty commentary on politics, law, religion and more, without the fattening dogma. (The views expressed on this blog are the author's alone, and do not represent those of any past, current or future employer or his past, current, and future soulmate.)
May 21, 2004
May 20, 2004
GAZA: A TRAGEDY, NOT A MASSACRE
Once again an Israeli offensive into a densely-packed refugee camp has led to howls of world outrage. Even the U.S., battered by the images of Abu Ghraib, partially joined in, abstaining in one more biased U.N. resolution and scolding the latest IDF action as "worsening the Palestinian humanitarian situation without improving Israeli security." That criticism is tame compared to the strident Arab and European cries of massacre and genocide. Lost amidst the rhapsodic Israel-bashing in the reason why the IDF was sent into Rafah in the first place - the vast matrix of tunnels used to smuggle increasingly more deadly arms into Gaza from Egypt. Those that would respond in muted shock to Palestinian missles shooting down an Israeli civilian airliner (and that is where such missles would be aimed) are the same that react with horror at Israel's efforts to prevent such an intentional massacre.
The picture on the front of all the world's papers today is that of a grieving father holding his dead child in his arms - it is of course powerful to move all but the most inhuman viewer. But what the picture does not show is anything close to the context leading up to the child's death - the countless deliberate massacres of Israeli children by Palestinian terrorists, the deliberate Palestinian tactic of using their own civilians as human shields, the decision to pepper the demonstration with just enough armed men to draw Israeli fire, with the hope of producing an image just like the picture, the creation of arms-smuggling tunnels using civilian homes as camaflouge, and of course the ongoing Egyptian violation of its signed peace accord with Israel, by failing to police its border with Gaza.
It is almost mind-numbing to have to counter the Palestinian propaganda that results from an event like this. The charges of course, are not that Israel was reckless, but that it genocidal. What happened in Rafah was a tragedy, not a massacre. But unlike Palestinian society, those Israelis that are in anyway responsible for Palestinian civilian deaths will be reprimanded - and not hailed as heros. This is fundamental difference between a moral lapse in a moral society and the acts of the an immoral society. The inability to tell the difference a critical moral failing that leads to much of the moral perversion that passes for enlightened world opinion.
If Israel is to be criticized for any part of the Rafah operation, it is the handling of the destruction of the homes covering the tunnels. This is a problem that Israel has known about for a long time, and a solution that could have accomodated those residents could have been found, had the offensive not been launched as much in anger, albeit understandable, in the wake of the butchering of Israeli soliders and defilement of their corpses. Even worse are th current noises from Sharon that he plans to raze the settlements upon exit, rather than arrange for them to help ease the Palestinian housing crunch. Smallness should not be cofused with firmness in the struggle against terror.
Parallels are being aptly drawn to the abortive 1996 "Grapes of Wrath" offensive in Lebanon against Hezbullah, launched by Peres as much as anything to distract from Hamas's concurrent terror offensive. That operation ended in disaster when an errant strike destroyed a packed building of civilians. So, too, does the Rafah offensive appear to be very much part of a political cover ploy by Sharon. But there is another parallel to be drawn with Lebanon, and that is the Barak-led unilateral withdrawal, a morally and strategically sound move that was misread by radical Arabs instead as weakness. Israel (and the Palestinians for that matter) can ill-afford for a Gaza withdrawal to result in a similar strengthening of radical Palestinians. The Rafah offensive, therefore, can not be the last crack-down in Gaza before Israel exits. It is essential, however, that the next one do a better job at limiting the collateral loss of civillian life.
Once again an Israeli offensive into a densely-packed refugee camp has led to howls of world outrage. Even the U.S., battered by the images of Abu Ghraib, partially joined in, abstaining in one more biased U.N. resolution and scolding the latest IDF action as "worsening the Palestinian humanitarian situation without improving Israeli security." That criticism is tame compared to the strident Arab and European cries of massacre and genocide. Lost amidst the rhapsodic Israel-bashing in the reason why the IDF was sent into Rafah in the first place - the vast matrix of tunnels used to smuggle increasingly more deadly arms into Gaza from Egypt. Those that would respond in muted shock to Palestinian missles shooting down an Israeli civilian airliner (and that is where such missles would be aimed) are the same that react with horror at Israel's efforts to prevent such an intentional massacre.
The picture on the front of all the world's papers today is that of a grieving father holding his dead child in his arms - it is of course powerful to move all but the most inhuman viewer. But what the picture does not show is anything close to the context leading up to the child's death - the countless deliberate massacres of Israeli children by Palestinian terrorists, the deliberate Palestinian tactic of using their own civilians as human shields, the decision to pepper the demonstration with just enough armed men to draw Israeli fire, with the hope of producing an image just like the picture, the creation of arms-smuggling tunnels using civilian homes as camaflouge, and of course the ongoing Egyptian violation of its signed peace accord with Israel, by failing to police its border with Gaza.
It is almost mind-numbing to have to counter the Palestinian propaganda that results from an event like this. The charges of course, are not that Israel was reckless, but that it genocidal. What happened in Rafah was a tragedy, not a massacre. But unlike Palestinian society, those Israelis that are in anyway responsible for Palestinian civilian deaths will be reprimanded - and not hailed as heros. This is fundamental difference between a moral lapse in a moral society and the acts of the an immoral society. The inability to tell the difference a critical moral failing that leads to much of the moral perversion that passes for enlightened world opinion.
If Israel is to be criticized for any part of the Rafah operation, it is the handling of the destruction of the homes covering the tunnels. This is a problem that Israel has known about for a long time, and a solution that could have accomodated those residents could have been found, had the offensive not been launched as much in anger, albeit understandable, in the wake of the butchering of Israeli soliders and defilement of their corpses. Even worse are th current noises from Sharon that he plans to raze the settlements upon exit, rather than arrange for them to help ease the Palestinian housing crunch. Smallness should not be cofused with firmness in the struggle against terror.
Parallels are being aptly drawn to the abortive 1996 "Grapes of Wrath" offensive in Lebanon against Hezbullah, launched by Peres as much as anything to distract from Hamas's concurrent terror offensive. That operation ended in disaster when an errant strike destroyed a packed building of civilians. So, too, does the Rafah offensive appear to be very much part of a political cover ploy by Sharon. But there is another parallel to be drawn with Lebanon, and that is the Barak-led unilateral withdrawal, a morally and strategically sound move that was misread by radical Arabs instead as weakness. Israel (and the Palestinians for that matter) can ill-afford for a Gaza withdrawal to result in a similar strengthening of radical Palestinians. The Rafah offensive, therefore, can not be the last crack-down in Gaza before Israel exits. It is essential, however, that the next one do a better job at limiting the collateral loss of civillian life.
May 18, 2004
ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE U.N. HAD BEEN PLACED OF CHARGED OF ABU GHRAIB, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN TURNED INTO A BROTHEL
It is not surprising that one response to Abu Ghraib would be to conclude that this is what happens when unilateralism takes peace-keeping out of the hands of the powder-blue-helmeted professionals and into those of ill-trained American reservists. The problem with this argument, as Marc Steyn points out, is that the UN's track record is not exactly sparkling when it comes to the human rights abuses of their peacekeepers.
Unfortunately, the disfunction of the U.N. is treated as a debating point - used by unilateralists to score points, and ignored by multilateralists as inconvenient. Neither of these positions, which Bush and Kerry have stuck to with depressing regularity offer much hope for a world desperately in need of competent nation-builders.
It is not surprising that one response to Abu Ghraib would be to conclude that this is what happens when unilateralism takes peace-keeping out of the hands of the powder-blue-helmeted professionals and into those of ill-trained American reservists. The problem with this argument, as Marc Steyn points out, is that the UN's track record is not exactly sparkling when it comes to the human rights abuses of their peacekeepers.
Is the UN good? Well, I'm not sure I'd even say that. But if you object to what's going on in those Abu Ghraib pictures – the sexual humiliation of prisoners and their conscription as a vast army of extras in their guards' porno fantasies – then you might want to think twice about handing over Iraq to the UN.
In Eritrea, the government recently accused the UN mission of, among other offences, pedophilia. In Cambodia, UN troops fueled an explosion of child prostitutes and AIDS. Amnesty International reports that the UN mission in Kosovo has presided over a massive expansion of the sex trade, with girls as young as 11 being lured from Moldova and Bulgaria to service international peacekeepers.
In Bosnia, where the sex-slave trade barely existed before the UN showed up in 1995, there are now hundreds of brothels with underage girls living as captives. The 2002 Save the Children report on the UN's cover-up of the sex-for-food scandal in West Africa provides grim details of peacekeepers' demanding sexual favors from children as young as four in exchange for biscuits and cake powder. "What is particularly shocking and appalling is that those people who ought to be there protecting the local population have actually become perpetrators," said Steve Crawshaw, the director of Human Rights Watch.
Unfortunately, the disfunction of the U.N. is treated as a debating point - used by unilateralists to score points, and ignored by multilateralists as inconvenient. Neither of these positions, which Bush and Kerry have stuck to with depressing regularity offer much hope for a world desperately in need of competent nation-builders.
May 17, 2004
COLD WAR REDUX
As the "few bad apples" defense of the Bushies on the Iraqi Prison Scandal continues to crumble, it becomes more and more apparent that both sides, Left and Right are set on repeating all the mistakes of the Cold War. The Left-wing has already given us the knee-jerk anti-Americanism and apologetics for tyranny. With Abu Ghraib we see have a War on Terror version of Right-wing justification for slipping towards the moral abyss of the enemy. Moral purity in this battle is a luxury we cannot afford - the notion that terrorists like the late Shiek Yassin or bin Laden should be dealt with in a court of law is absurd. But to indiscriminately apply techniques that at best are justified in "ticking time bomb" situations to Iraq - which despite the presence of al Qaeda and ex-Baathists remained a more traditional counter-insurgency environment - demonstrates the same lack of judgment and moral backbone that led past administrations to sully America's name by partnering with "anti-Communist" despots. To win this war, the center must hold - which means we can neither afford a right-wing whitewash of the atrocities at Abu Ghraib no a left-wing backlash against using the force we need to win this war. If, as alleged, the roots of Abu Ghraib can be traced to the Pentagon, it is particularly ironic that the very
architects of the surgical attack plan that so scrupulously aimed to minimize collateral damage to civilians would be responsible for frittering away that moral and political accomplishment with such an indiscriminate approach to defending the country once taken.
As the "few bad apples" defense of the Bushies on the Iraqi Prison Scandal continues to crumble, it becomes more and more apparent that both sides, Left and Right are set on repeating all the mistakes of the Cold War. The Left-wing has already given us the knee-jerk anti-Americanism and apologetics for tyranny. With Abu Ghraib we see have a War on Terror version of Right-wing justification for slipping towards the moral abyss of the enemy. Moral purity in this battle is a luxury we cannot afford - the notion that terrorists like the late Shiek Yassin or bin Laden should be dealt with in a court of law is absurd. But to indiscriminately apply techniques that at best are justified in "ticking time bomb" situations to Iraq - which despite the presence of al Qaeda and ex-Baathists remained a more traditional counter-insurgency environment - demonstrates the same lack of judgment and moral backbone that led past administrations to sully America's name by partnering with "anti-Communist" despots. To win this war, the center must hold - which means we can neither afford a right-wing whitewash of the atrocities at Abu Ghraib no a left-wing backlash against using the force we need to win this war. If, as alleged, the roots of Abu Ghraib can be traced to the Pentagon, it is particularly ironic that the very
architects of the surgical attack plan that so scrupulously aimed to minimize collateral damage to civilians would be responsible for frittering away that moral and political accomplishment with such an indiscriminate approach to defending the country once taken.
May 12, 2004
ONE OTHER THING LA HAS OVER NYC BESIDE THE WHOLE "TURN RIGHT ON RED" THING
I watched the magnificent Game 3 of the Wolves-Kings series, one of those games that exemplifies why the NBA Playoffs are so great. It also ended around 2 in the morning EDT. You might think the NBA might want to work on that, especially when there is such a gap in quality between the Western and Eastern games. (Does anyone outside of Detroit actually like watching the Pistons play?) Right now I'm watching another fabulous game, a tight back and forth battle between the what are arguably the league's top two teams in the Spurs and Lakers. In order to function at work tommorow, I'll have to read about the 4th quarter tommorrow.
I watched the magnificent Game 3 of the Wolves-Kings series, one of those games that exemplifies why the NBA Playoffs are so great. It also ended around 2 in the morning EDT. You might think the NBA might want to work on that, especially when there is such a gap in quality between the Western and Eastern games. (Does anyone outside of Detroit actually like watching the Pistons play?) Right now I'm watching another fabulous game, a tight back and forth battle between the what are arguably the league's top two teams in the Spurs and Lakers. In order to function at work tommorow, I'll have to read about the 4th quarter tommorrow.
May 05, 2004
OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD...
During my year studying in Israel, I dated a nice Sabra/Texan, who described her mother, a die-hard Likudnik as someone who when greeted "Shabbat Shalom" (Good Sabbath) would respond "Ze lo Shalom, Ze Peres" (There is no peace. There is Peres (Prime Minister at the time)). Considering these were the people voting in last week's referendum, should it really be a shock that the Gaza withdrawal went down to defeat?
John Stewart, once again boiling the 2004 campaign down to one sentence: "Why does John Kerry sound more like a dick when he's telling the truth than Bush does when he's lying?"
If I were in charge of the U.S. response to the criminal acts of the guards at Abu Ghraib, I'd do whatever it took to give Al Jazeera and the other Arab satellite channels an image to replace that of the tortured Iraqi prisoners. How about dragging two or three of the guards shown in those pictures before a camera to confess their sins, before sending them to jail pending their military or civilian trials.
The Pistons' 78-56 suffocation of the Nets may have been one of the most impressive defensive performances in NBA history, but it was painful to watch. A Pistons-Spurs final could easily rival the Rockets-Knicks finals its utter lack of aesthetic appeal. I'm enjoying the Kings - Timberwolves series while I still can.
My choice in the current Dem veepstakes? My pick is a former senator from the Midwest, a decorated veteran with impeccible national security credentials. That's right - Bob Kerrey. As I see it, the biggest advantage of a Kerry-Kerrey ticket is that, while nobody's looking, all the Dems have to do is move one little letter, and Bush is really in trouble.
During my year studying in Israel, I dated a nice Sabra/Texan, who described her mother, a die-hard Likudnik as someone who when greeted "Shabbat Shalom" (Good Sabbath) would respond "Ze lo Shalom, Ze Peres" (There is no peace. There is Peres (Prime Minister at the time)). Considering these were the people voting in last week's referendum, should it really be a shock that the Gaza withdrawal went down to defeat?
John Stewart, once again boiling the 2004 campaign down to one sentence: "Why does John Kerry sound more like a dick when he's telling the truth than Bush does when he's lying?"
If I were in charge of the U.S. response to the criminal acts of the guards at Abu Ghraib, I'd do whatever it took to give Al Jazeera and the other Arab satellite channels an image to replace that of the tortured Iraqi prisoners. How about dragging two or three of the guards shown in those pictures before a camera to confess their sins, before sending them to jail pending their military or civilian trials.
The Pistons' 78-56 suffocation of the Nets may have been one of the most impressive defensive performances in NBA history, but it was painful to watch. A Pistons-Spurs final could easily rival the Rockets-Knicks finals its utter lack of aesthetic appeal. I'm enjoying the Kings - Timberwolves series while I still can.
My choice in the current Dem veepstakes? My pick is a former senator from the Midwest, a decorated veteran with impeccible national security credentials. That's right - Bob Kerrey. As I see it, the biggest advantage of a Kerry-Kerrey ticket is that, while nobody's looking, all the Dems have to do is move one little letter, and Bush is really in trouble.
May 03, 2004
LIKUDNIKS VOTE FOR PURITY, IRRELEVANCE
In the wake of the succesful Bush-Sharon summit meeting and the endorsement of Bibi and the other major national figures in Likud, the defeat of the plan in the recent referendum appears to be a stunning setback for the prime minister and his plan. But, as Shinui leader Tommy Lapid noted, the views of slightly more than 25% of one party doesn't exactly mean very much in light of the decisive majority of the Israeli public in favor of the plan. Looking closer, the vote says far more about the increasing irrelevance of the Likud party, and the inability of the Israeli right's grass-roots to come to grips with post-Oslo reality. In this regard, the Likudniks, with their undimmed commitment to Greater Israel and dogged refusal to give concessions to terror mirror the Israeli Left's unreconstructed Peace Processors.
The inexorable logic of unilateral withdraw, will continue to push the Sharon Plan forward, with or without Sharon. Already, the ever-hopeful Shimon Peres is calling for elections, seeing an opportunity for Labor to once more recover the pragmatic Israeli center. With Yossi Beillin now pitching Oslo knock-offs with the party formerly known as Meretz, he has a shot, but the party with the most to gain from Likud's sucidical instincts is Lapid's Shinui, who now have the ideal position on the left-wing of Sharon's coalition. All of this is speculation, however, as Sharon is far too cagy to stumble again. He will push forward, and drag the majority of his power behind him, kicking and screaming. And those that don't want to come can along can join the Herut branch of the National Union which shares the politics and name of Likud's predecessor - uncompromisiing and irrelevant.
In the wake of the succesful Bush-Sharon summit meeting and the endorsement of Bibi and the other major national figures in Likud, the defeat of the plan in the recent referendum appears to be a stunning setback for the prime minister and his plan. But, as Shinui leader Tommy Lapid noted, the views of slightly more than 25% of one party doesn't exactly mean very much in light of the decisive majority of the Israeli public in favor of the plan. Looking closer, the vote says far more about the increasing irrelevance of the Likud party, and the inability of the Israeli right's grass-roots to come to grips with post-Oslo reality. In this regard, the Likudniks, with their undimmed commitment to Greater Israel and dogged refusal to give concessions to terror mirror the Israeli Left's unreconstructed Peace Processors.
The inexorable logic of unilateral withdraw, will continue to push the Sharon Plan forward, with or without Sharon. Already, the ever-hopeful Shimon Peres is calling for elections, seeing an opportunity for Labor to once more recover the pragmatic Israeli center. With Yossi Beillin now pitching Oslo knock-offs with the party formerly known as Meretz, he has a shot, but the party with the most to gain from Likud's sucidical instincts is Lapid's Shinui, who now have the ideal position on the left-wing of Sharon's coalition. All of this is speculation, however, as Sharon is far too cagy to stumble again. He will push forward, and drag the majority of his power behind him, kicking and screaming. And those that don't want to come can along can join the Herut branch of the National Union which shares the politics and name of Likud's predecessor - uncompromisiing and irrelevant.