::

 
Letter from Iraq

This letter from a returning Iraqi to Andrew Sullivan bears a repost.

Note the observation that Bathists have taken up the robes of Muslim Clerics so as to enfranchise, legitimize and protect their spoken hatred of the US and UK occupation forces.

Baghdad is wonderful, despite the destruction and neglect, and the obvious presence of the new class that made its wealth through the oil for food programme, and the misery of the Iraqis. Nevertheless, there still remains an educated middle class which is completely aware of all that has happened and is still happening in Iraq. It is these people that make you want to stay and do something to the beloved country. I was made more than welcomed by this type of people, most of whom I had met for the first time in my life. In fact, they did every thing possible to make my life comfortable, for fear that I should otherwise leave them. One person described us (Iraqis from outside) very eloquently, he said that the body of Iraq was bleeding and in need for blood transfusion, and it was the Iraqis who are outside the country who have retained the good healthy blood, of the same blood type which will not be rejected by the body!!! Believe me, only those who support Saddam and want him back, will talk of us as outsiders and half Iraqis, and fight their way to make us leave. Good decent people are yearning to being part of the rest of the world and taking part in the 21st century and feel that they can only achieve that through us.

I have met with hundreds of people, especially women. I have helped form a women's group named Iraqi Independent Women's Group. Women have very clear fears, concerns and requirements, and are ready to fight their way into achieving their goals. I held 14 meetings in total with them, and there are many more to come. What surprised me most was the amount of tolerance that all Iraqis had. They respected each other's thoughts and ideas like never before in Iraq, even when they disagreed. The only exception (of course) were Saddam's boys and the Baathis, who would throw accusations right left and centre, in an attempt to protect themselves and their interests. No Baathi will ever admit to ever being a Baathi. They all claim that they were forced into it. Some Baathis have grown beards and pretend to be Islamists in order to fight against the occupation that has effected their status. These are the people who have been bombing the electricity and water supplies, and oil pipes. They are very dangerous and despised by all that I know. They do not want life to improve for Iraqis and are behind all the existing unrest, including the lack of law and order. Others are more opportunists, and try to infiltrate political movements. People know them one by one, and no one escapes unnoticed.

A lot of sincere hard work has to be done in Iraq, otherwise it might fall once more in the hands of the ignorant and the extremists. The real struggle today is not between Sunnis and Shias, nor Kurds and Arabs. It is between the secularists and centrists one side, and the religious extremists, part of whom are the Baathis who now wear clerical robes. This war, in my opinion, has to be fought now or else Iraq will be lost forever.
As for the occupation forces, whatever you might think of them and their performance so far, every one that I have met wants them to stay for the time being. Much worse will happen should they decide to pack and leave. I have been in a number of meetings with them and can tell you that their long term plans will turn Iraq into an economical and educational heaven, however, Iraq will play no role in the politics of the region. Their short term plans for keeping law and order in the country leaves much to be desired, however, I sincerely believe that things have and will continue to improve, slowly but surely.

Adam Sullivan, 13:42 | 0 comments

::

 
Basis for hope in Sao Tome

Another obrigado to Randy Paul who emailed good news on Sao Tome.

Seems the junta that staged the coup feels pressure and wants to talk.

Maj. Fernando Pereira, who heads a three-man junta installed after Wednesday's bloodless rebellion, asked the United States, Nigeria and a delegation from Portuguese-speaking countries "to find a solution to the crisis."

...

The announcement came after two days of talks between the junta and the U.S. Ambassador to Gabon, Kenneth Moorefield, who is also accredited in Sao Tome, and Portuguese Ambassador Mario de Jesus Santos.

...

The deposed president held talks in Nigeria's capital Abuja on Friday with Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo and his Mozambique counterpart, Joachim Chissano.

Afterward, Menezes smiled at reporters as he delivered a message for his people: "They should believe that things will end properly and well for everybody," he said.

Local reporting is more reserved - perhaps out of pragmatism.

Worth reading, it gives some more regional context and digs up who some of the bidders are for the oil extraction contracts:

An official at the Nigeria-Sao Tome Joint Development Authority, which is handling the bids, said on condition of anonymity that ExxonMobil, Royal/Dutch Shell, ChevronTexaco and TotalFinaElf were among companies that have indicated interest.

Adam Sullivan, 04:37 | 0 comments

::

 
Another Concise Observation

From Andrew Apostolou on Englishmen among Americans ...

As for our style of speech and intelligence, the truth be told we trade on it shamelessly. One's vowels are never so rounded as when in the company of Americans and the intentions are generally entirely dishonourable. Watch Englishmen at an American party. They shuffle in alone with all the faux diffidence of Hugh Grant and then bound out with company and the libido of James Bond.

Yet I am reminded of an English friend's advice he offered many years ago when we entered a bar - "Go ugly early so as to beat the rush at closing."
Adam Sullivan, 03:58 | 0 comments

::

 
Think about root causes

The horrific tragedy that happened up the road from here in Santa Monica has people asking the obvious questions about elderly drivers.

Not mentioned is that we in the US, and especially in Southern California, have structured our cities such that a person without a car is largley cut off from society. As the country ages, the problem will become more acute, manifesting itself not only in more automobile fatalities, but also more suicides, more health problems, and a malaise in an ageing population.

Pedestrian scalable cities, where housing, services, entertainment, and community centers are traversable by foot, bicycle, or even golf cart are needed so that people can age without losing their identities and independence. My parents are fortunate to live in such a place - Capitola, California. My father (who no longer drives) lives a fully engaged life on foot. My mother still drives (as the nearest Nordstrom's is quite a distance away), but drives 1 or 2 times a week. They are a very fortunate contrast to most folks their age in this country.

Modernity has favored the young - that we have a generation that redefined America as youth now facing retirement, the quality of ageing will become a big issue, and it will force us to look at the social effects of modernity as well as od institutions - like villages.

Adam Sullivan, 02:18 | 0 comments

::

 
A concise observation

From Lorenzo's Journal -

... it struck me how, down the millennia, the natural tendency of the state (as the most powerful social predator) is to prefer most people to be disarmed, passive, constrained, revenue-cows. The knowledge class of the day – whether clergy or clerisy – has typically been supportive of this. Strangely, publicly dominant opinion among the current intelligentsia are in favour of gun control, higher taxes, narrowing the range of acceptable opinion, bigger government and more regulation. The more things change … And these guys & gals think they are so cutting edge. (Well, I guess the surface rhetoric has some novelty.)

Adam Sullivan, 01:52 | 0 comments

::

 
Beeb timeline on Sao Tome

A useful timeline on Sao Tome's development from the BBC.
Adam Sullivan, 01:44 | 0 comments

::

 
Good round up on Sao Tome

It is worth reading this round up on the Sao Tome coup from the Nigerian paper The Sun.

Key points -

Oil companies are vocal in their opposition to the coup, joining universal condemnation from the AU neighbors, if only to avoid delays in the extraction of the oil.

Sao Tome has all of 900 troops.

President De Menezes is a wealthy businessman, has been accused by legislators of "receiving shadowy backing" from Nigeria. More recently, we had received a payment from an oil company which he claims is legitimate.

Nigeria threatens to "act decisively" if the lives of Nigerians in Sao Tome are threatened.

The Nigerian influence over the situation is important to note - they are the power of the area, yet have significant corruption problems and an Islamo-Fascist insurgency. Were Nigeria to operate Sao Tome as a client state, which may be the result of this episode, and then be taken over by a Islamic theocracy, the West will suffer a major setback.

The US should intervene for no other reason than to diversify its interests in the region. Nigeria is a risky basket for the eggs of democracy.

Adam Sullivan, 01:33 | 0 comments

::

 
The power of corruption

I've written about it before, but corruption is the second greatest threat to the development of democracy worldwide.

Now we have news that corruption is causing significant setbacks in the war on terror in Philippines - seems some Al Qa'eda terrorists paid off their captors and walked free.




Adam Sullivan, 01:06 | 0 comments

::

 
He even quotes a socialist

The intrepid Andrew Apostolou posts on Sao Tome, and makes the point that if oil is what gets the Sao Tomese their freedom back, then oil may actually prove useful to them.


Adam Sullivan, 02:21 | 0 comments

::

 
Randy Paul on Guatemala

Here is some disturbing news from Guatemalla that Randy Paul blogged the other day.

Seems the thug that ran the country in the early 80's, Efrain Rios Montt, just packed a court that has now allowed him to run for president once again.

Randy posts a disturbing graph showing the substantive results of his last stay in office.


Adam Sullivan, 01:54 | 0 comments

::

 
Obrigado

Obrigado (thanks) to the folks who have responded on Sao Tome.

Randy Paul makes a pointed but realistic assessment here. Yes - I have to agree that oil is a big part of the story here. But without apology.

I do not agree that US motivation to assist amounts to a resource grab. Why? Because it is harder to steal and work crooked deals from a transparent democracy than from a dictatorship.

That isn't to say that Chevron and others probably aren't trying to establish "contacts" within the new "government." You can bet they are, if only to maintain their position in line.

What is at issue from the standpoint of democratic security is something rather simple - concentrated wealth is a difficult challenge to any democracy. Diverse sources of wealth create different places where the greedy guys in any society can go make conquests. When the wealth of a society stems from holes in the ground, conquest takes the form of owning those holes.

Venezuela is a fine example of an oil democracy at risk. She is a country that had a relatively stable democracy in the 80's, only to have its banking system and middle class collapse when oil prices fell. They never diversified their economy from oil (though they have a magnificent interior with rich agricultural land and awesome natural sights for tourists). Now they have very difficult challenges, to put things as mildly as I can.

Contrast that with Norway, who saw big windfalls in oil, but managed to maintain diversity. Yes - very different regions and countries, but economic diversity needs to be understood as an important part of democratization.

That Saudi Arabia was formed/conquered by the Wahhabist Saud family only a few years before oil was discovered there gives insight into how oil wealth can be leveraged when in the hands of a band of thugs. The Wahhabists conquered Mecca and Medina by siege from 1924 to 1926 so as to (in their opinion) purify Islam. Thanks to their spending of much of their oil wealth on spreading their vision of Islam around the world, their orthodoxy is now mainstream. Interesting we now hear the call from bin Laden for a new round of "purification" - not that the Sauds have been any less "pure" in the past 80 years. Concentrated wealth in the hands of a theocracy bears little hope for democratization, and has fostered export of a dangerous religious orthodoxy.

That Sao Tome is home to about 120,000 Roman Catholics with an army smaller than Andrew Sullivan's hourly visitor count does not pose such a threat (though Pat Robertson may disagree). But the region has other democracies at risk, like Nigeria, Cote Ivoire, and others with Islamo-Fascist sponsored insurgencies on their northern borders.



Odd how oil attracts the Islamo-Fascists, creating the need for insurgent demands for justice when oil is discovered, isn't it? It as if they were trying to repeat a prior success.

That the US (warts and all) endeavors to keep the world's oil supply in a diverse set of hands is a good thing for democracies around the world, IMO. Only 1 of the 6 companies trading Iraqi oil is US. Hardly a US grab.

Just the same, the US should "take the sticks away" of her critics by simply insisting that public oil trusts be established for protectorates in cases where new oil wealth is found (Sao Tome) or where it had been nationalized prior (like in Iraq).

Adam Sullivan, 01:15 | 0 comments

::

 
I really don't give a shit

I just sent a mass email to a group of influential pro-democracy bloggers regarding Sao Tome.

I've been told that doing such things is a violation of bloging protocol.

I don't give a shit. This is a war.

Here is the email

While this is a complete violation of protocol, I am
asking pro-democracy bloggers to consider posting on
the coup in Sao Tome.

As Glenn Reynolds points out, Bill Hobbs is a good place to start.

The situation in that region for democracy is
extremely fragile.

While we try to encourage democratization of the
Middle East, we should pay attention to places that
have made earnest internal efforts at democracy, only
to be subjected to thugocracy when natural resources
are discovered and there is a prospect of becoming a
wealthy nation.

When the source of a nation's emerging wealth is
concentrated, thugs thrive. We can see that clearly
in the Middle East. We can't let that model dominate
Africa, too, or we lose the war.

- Adam Sullivan
karmic_inquisition.blogspot.com

You'll notice I don't maintain an expansive blogroll nor a stats meter. I don't blog for the love of my peers.

I blog because tyranny sucks, yet it dominates history.

If you are a reader who doesn't blog, and thinks Sao Tome needs more attention, send your own email to those you read. Your voice will be more effective than mine.

Adam Sullivan, 14:50 | 0 comments

::

 
More on Sao Tome

The story is being covered well by Hobbs. Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds.

Bloggers with an interest in democracy shoud be all over this. This is a region that is very fragile, has nascent democracies, and has post-colonial thugs undermining any chance of a blossoming of pluralism, democracy, and freedom. All for a grab of natural resources.
Adam Sullivan, 14:30 | 0 comments

::

 
Say it ain't sooooo .....

Mean Mr. Mustard bids a dieu.


Adam Sullivan, 14:18 | 0 comments

::

 
Setback for democracy

So we have a coup in Africa, and a setback for democracy.

For those with the notion that democracy is the natural order of things, and that the US and UK don't promote it through interventionist policies, need to look hard at Sao Tome.

They have piles of foriegn aid sent to them every year, and plenty of western NGO's "helping" things along.

The natural order of man is oppression. Thugs have ruled most of history. Democracy is an unnatural state of affairs.

Which is why you need to be willing to work and fight for it. NGO's and feel good foriegn aid don't cut it alone - force of will does.

Adam Sullivan, 14:08 | 0 comments

::

 
Now Just One Minute

Yes. The defecit is big.

Yes. Bush spends like a French Socialist.

Yes. Tax cuts are a factor in the defecits.

But ...

This deficit costs half as much

The cost of each additional dollar of debt is 1/4 of what it was in 1992, when we posted our previously highest annual deficit of $290 Billion. Our $460 Billion deficit now costs much less than the $290 Billion in 1992. The math?

On June 30th, 2003 the daily government borrowing rate of interest (in the form of daily 6 month t-bill rates posted by the Fed) wass 0.96%. On June 30, 1992 it was 3.89%.

If we take rough numbers, and borrow $460 Billion at 0.96%, we have an annualized interest bill of about $4.5 Billion. Do the same in 1992 with the then deficit of $290 Billion, and you have a bill of $11.3 Billion.

$4.5 Billion is less than $11.3 Billion. By half.

Yes, the analysis is rough - the 6 month daily rate is not the long term one, and I don't account for inflation, nor compounding. But each of those factors would actually strengthen my case. The fact is that borrowing this deficit costs less than half than in 1992.

Tax cuts didn't cause it

Numbers for costs of Bush's enacted tax cuts run from $330 Billion to $760 Billion over a 10 year period. Let's double the worst case and spread it over 10 years, OK? That is $152 Billion a year. A deficit of $460 Billion (yes, I did round-up from $455 Billion) demonstrates that we still have a hole of $300 Billion. This year. Not due to the tax cuts.

Yes, I have oversimplified the analysis, but I assert again that more rigorous analysis would only help my case.

What could be causing the deficit? Government growth at about 6% coupled with tax revenues way off due to the economy. When everyone was getting rich onthe stock market, and IPO fortunes were being made, the government was pulling in big bucks on the capital gains side and from big earners paying AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax).

So, should something be done? What should it be?

Yes. Something must be done.

Fiscal discipline must be restored. We run the risk of a whiplash double digit inflationary spike that would have folks yearning for the days of the Carter administration. That is a very real risk when governments dig big borrowing holes. Ask Argentina. Or Brazil. The budget cap rules we had in the 90's need to be reimposed.

At the very same time, we need a sustained recovery with capital spending at its core, which is what Greenspan expects, but Intel has yet to see. When such a recovery occurs, and if congress re-imposes deficit rules, you will see things reverse quickly.

Part of that recovery will come, frankly, from kicking Al Qaeda and Ba'athist ass. It is that simple. The free world is very cautious and sceptical about how the new US foreign policy stance will work out. That affects risk taking. Risk taking creates opportunity and economic growth. We have committed ourselves - we must see it through to success.

Till then, be mindful that this protracted economic slump has disproportionately hit big earners, who can take the hits. Even though I am a Republican, I much prefer rich guys driving Hyundais than construction and auto workers begging for food.


Adam Sullivan, 12:41 | 0 comments

::

 
Important Words

From Salam Pax in the Guardian

People talk about politically motivated sabotage and the fear that Ba'athists might come and get you if you work too closely with the Americans. This is something that should get everybody really worried; if Iraqis are afraid to work with the coalition forces, if the translators who work with the US forces in Baghdad start quitting their jobs for fear of getting shot, things will start getting really bad.

Adam Sullivan, 00:46 | 0 comments

::

 
What Control?

In telling us that the US is on a road to war with North Korea, former Defense Sec. William Perry says:

"I think we are losing control"

Well, Bill, I think we never had control, and deluded ourselves into thinking we did, buying time for a megalomaniac intent on threatening the region with nuclear blackmail. The myth that we ever had control gives insight as to the cause of this mess.

Read Epictetus, Bill. Then we can talk about "losing control" of situations.

Adam Sullivan, 16:37 | 0 comments

::

 
Newly added

Newly added to the list of heretics I read is Jeff Jarvis at Buzz Machine.

Yes, he blogs tirelessly in the cause of rationality and freedom. Yes, he is a daily read.

But this is what earns him top shelf status.

Big of me.

Adam Sullivan, 16:16 | 0 comments

::

 
Truth and Tantrums - The Forces Are Joined

The war that we are fighting turns on the question of truth. Is truth for man to discover, or is it only the result of recitation from God? When that question is asked, one must look around and realize that a great many in the West have come to question whether truth can be described and, by extension, be known.

It is this question of truth that has lead both the Islamo-Fascists and the post-modern Ludditry to compromise their "truths" so as to impose them on us. The Islamists that seek to enlighten and indoctrinate the infidel through suffering hold common ground with those generically referred to as "post-modernists" - in advancing their causes, they have perverted them.

Terrorism - debasing the foundations of Islam.

In the case of the Islamo-Fascists, the Qu'uran has explicit prohibitions against suicide and against the killing of innocents, especially women and children, even if they are of the infidel. The military history of Islam is of Jihad "in the path of God." It meant (and means) that the faithful are obliged to fight to advance Islam, presumably to the world. The history is of armies, as we commonly understand them, meeting an enemy on a field of battle. The Islamic armies used the terrain of deserts, which were difficult for their enemies to traverse, let alone navigate, to great effect. There is also a Muslim tradition of immitating the enemy so as to defeat him.

When terrorists combine the instruments of war with the modern tools of mass communications, they might think themselves innovating while using the tools of the infidel against him. But to be effective - to evoke the greatest effect of suffering - they target large groups of random victims - preferably women and children.

That Usama bin Laden took care in his "fatwa" to declare all Americans complicit in the "crimes of their government" and therefore make fair targets doesn't wash with Muslim tradition - When Saladin re-captured Jerusalem from the Crusaders in 1187, he spared the lives of the captured combatants and their leaders except for one person - a Frenchman (Reynald de Chatillon) who had raided Arab caravans for booty near Mecca. That Usama kills any American (or Jew) regardless of age, ability or complicity violates Islamic tradition and, it would appear, the recitations of the Prophet.

The use of suicide bombers seems to be a double betrayal of the faith, for suicide is forbidden in the Qu'uran as well. The Prophet said that one who kills himself will repeat the crime in hell for eternity. Killing oneself to mitigate one's own suffering, even on a battlefield, is forbidden. Fighting to the death, even certain death, is martyrdom - administering one's own fatal blow is suicide.

In The Crisis Of Islam Bernard Lewis documents this contradiction well, and demonstrates how some Mullah's accommodation of Suicide Bombing is both in conflict with tradition and the majority view of Muslim jurists.

Cultural Relativism - debasing the foundations of rationality and democracy.

Cultural relativism has its roots in the work of Philosopher Jacques Derrida. In setting deconstructionism into motion as acritical tool, Derrida made the point repeatedly that language was intrinsically flawed and cannot fully describe a truth.

Both Cultural Anthropologists and Semanticists have told us for some time that language carries the baggage of the culture that produced it. This is both undeniable and useful. But in advancing deconstructionism in criticism, Derrida did not intend to disprove that truth exists. Yet, when manifest as Cultural Relativism, that is the legacy of his work - that the truth, if it does exist, is malleable - sensed but not described. For each individual, nuanced to suit their own tastes.

In this quote, Derrida caveats the world that deconstruction, taken to its extremes beyond a critical tool, produces dangerous absurdities.

It must not create an inflation of the image, or be used to neutralise every danger by means of what might be called the trap of the trap, the delusion of delusion: a denial of events, by which everything - even violence and suffering, war and death - is said to be constructed and fictive, and constituted by and for the media, so that nothing really ever happens, only images, simulacra, and delusions. The deconstruction of artifactuality should be carried as far as possible, but we must also take every precaution against this kind of critical neo-idealism.

Misunderstood, Just Like the Uncertainty Principle

Derrida is not wholly responsible for how his ideas and critical methods have been applied, no more than Werner Heisenberg is of the application of his Uncertainty Principle. Even if you have never contemplated the atom, you are probably familiar with trite contemplative aphorisms like - "Consider that the batting wings of a Butterfly in China could spawn a tornado in Kansas." The idea is that, at a quantum level, we cannot preclude that possibility. Thus a door is opened to the revival of medieval mysticism.

But Hiesenberg's uncertainty is due to a simple set of rational phenomena - the means of measuring velocity and position of particles affect the things measured, so you cannot measure both with precision. Your measurement of one destroys the accuracy of measuring the other. In order to get a full picture, one is compelled use statistical sampling - conduct sample measurement against a population of events. Position in this set of tests - velocity in this other set.

Statistics require one to account for uncertainty - polling data are offered to you with +/- percentage accuracy. You cannot be 100% sure unless you have measured 100% of the events - not possible in measuring quanta. So one must allow for the improbable.

The common perversion of the Uncertainty Principle is that people use it as physical support for the improbable. In fits of anti-rationality, sophists invoke Heisenberg to support all sorts of activities and improbabilities.

Here, Heisenberg is cited as offering good reason to drop acid. Here he is cited in support of Karma as a physical force in Medicine (of all things). Absurd as these claims are, they are common. Embedded in our cultural fabric are the misunderstandings of a rational consideration of the improbable. Ranging from worm holes to New Age spirituality, the improbables are expressed as the possible available to those with an "open mind."

Rightly, the late Douglas Adams mocked the common misapplication of Heisenberg when he created "improbability drive" that powered space flight in his "Hitchhikers" series. His later introduction of "Bistro Drive" - where space flight was powered by the random, irrational nuances of a French Bistro Action System - completed his Voltarian indictment of anti-rationalism. More pleasing is the fact that his sarcasm escapes most fans of his work - I've met many fans of his that describe themselves as post-modernists.

In the west, the anti-rationalists are just plain lazy. They have no other excuse. And the lazy will take an idea, morph it to meet their aesthetic of what truth should resemble, and start painting their collective minds as if redecorating a room. They confuse and sell such activity as informing and learning. The current rage in fashionable deconstruction are a certain 16 words.

Here is a
link to an essay by an earnest post-modern fellow who confronts Cultural Relativism as it relates to Genital Mutilation (a cultural practice) and asks "In a Relativist world, can there be such things as Human Rights?" Since the upsetting answer is "no", he whips out Nietzsche's "hammer" like a sawed off shotgun and gets on with getting past the "conflict" - in the end, it seems, you simply must force the other culture to submit to your will.

Q.E. Fuckin' D.

It seems "might makes right" only after doing a properly cited Relativist mating dance first. Why not just abandon the Relativist position on the basis of its absurd outcomes? One might ask a relativist how a "war crime" might be defined and then prosecuted in a Relativist context without acquitting the indicted for citing Nietzsche in open court.

That Clausewitz predates Nietzsche, and that the two of them were invoked by Hitler as justification for waging war for liebensraum should inspire some introspection among Relativists. It doesn't.

The same goes for Derrida's caveat.

That Derrida instructed his students to not create a "critical neo-idealism" is fine, but that is precisely what has happened. In a world where the spoken word can be manipulated to indict the speaker, yet where dialogue is held as a paramount value, where can one go?

The relativist forces are left with ascribing motive to the speaker, and when the speaker has power, he is (expo facto) guilty of something. So the parsing mills are fired up and the text deconstructed. At present, we are focused on 16 words. All indicting the US as a power hungry hegemon bent on world domination. That is their truth - the one they are comfortable with, in defiance of the basis of their neo-idealism. Oppose the powerful. Support the oppressed. Parse the words describing events to fit accordingly.

They find critical analysis of a speech far more telling of truth than the destruction of planes, buildings and thousands of lives or of unearthing centrifuges from Rose gardens.

Derrida -

Information can transform and strengthen knowledge, truth and the cause of future democracy, with all the problems associated with them, and it must do so, just as it often has done in the past.

Just as with the Islamo-Fascists, we have a group adapting its ideology to advance itself, to gain power, and to thwart western rationality. Their aim is a global bistro nirvana where I'm OK, you're OK, where everyone plays nice and there is no bill. All very lazy, and in substantive conflict with "truth and the cause of future democracy."

In cause and effect - one and the same

The Islamo-Fascists and the post-modern Ludditry have expansive common ground.

In their tactics they corrupt the quest for "truths" that motivate them. And in both cases, they oppose rationality as an oppressor. Bound and blinded by a common angst against rationality, they express their contempt for rationality and modernity by tantrum (either rhetorical or violent). Both insist on the intrinsic truth of their viewpoint and adopt piety to their orthodoxy in order to reject all rational discourse as intrinsically corrupt.

Given the nature of the enemy, who seeks to impose the truth that it defies on the unwilling, one would think the Relativists would hear Derrida's Caveat. They don't.

Given the nature of the Prophet's revelations, one would think that Islamists would let God's words and the power of tradition and the Qu'uran attract new followers, effecting conversion by example. They don't.

Stated flatly, neither group truly believes in what they are doing. They cannot reconcile their actions with their beliefs. They direct the resulting angst in a simple will to power against rational order.



Adam Sullivan, 15:36 | 0 comments

::

 
The Magic of Marseille

So the Tour de France was disrupted today by protesters in Marseille. Merde in France has a running account of the "farmer" Jose Bove who is at the center of the protests as well as this organization.

Here is a sentimental account of how Bove helped "dismantle" a Milan McDonalds in 1999 (Psst - the reason for the attack? It was the cheese).

Those unfamiliar with French politics should note the special place that Marseille is. It is home to the power base of Jean-Marie Le Pen, the xenophobe who gains more and more political mindshare with each French election cycle. Marseille has also had a Communist as mayor since World War II. It is a town of extremes and apparent contradictions.

Marseille is also where immigration of muslims from North Africa is most acutely felt. Paris tries to pretend that its national policies have not failed to integrate Muslims, and that there is no Islamification of Arab immigrants occurring within the country. The discontented of Marseille deal with the issue in the classic French style that manifests itself when the country is pushed hard - by calling for expulsions en-masse.

Marseille was a major port of the Vichy with a well developed rail head, and Jews who lived there did not fare well in the Holocaust -the few survivors know that expulsion en-masse can actually be done.


Adam Sullivan, 13:45 | 0 comments

::

 
The Democrat's Branson Belt

I got some email about my assertion of a Branson Belt in central California. To recap (and clarify) what a Branson Belt is: A Branson Belt is a region of a larger state where a politcal minorty holds a majority position, and where that minority is dominated by orthodoxy and endeavors to create a majority in the larger state through promoting its orthodox views.

Just as Branson gives hopes to old acts that they will make a comeback without innovation, Branson Belts give orthodox conservatives and liberals that they can do the same.

A political Bransonite can be called paleo-liberal or paleo-coservative.

Michael Totten points to Howard Dean as someone who is so orthodox and old message that he is un-electable, yet inspires the base like no other. A George McGovern.

That Dean hails from New England does not surprise me. In my opinion, New England and California (my beloved home state) constitute the left's Branson Belts. One can imagine Howard Dean selecting Barbara Boxer as a running mate. Not that he'd secure the election for President. Rather, he'd be Mayor-for-life of Branson.

Not that California can't be turned back toward the center-right, where it was for so many years. But the national Republican party will have to de-polarize it's stance on abortion for one, and then it will have to take the lead in "less government = more freedom" by reforming its social agenda around freedom rather than moral orthodoxy (which SCOTUS seems to have rejected as a proper activity of lawmaking in Lawrence).


Adam Sullivan, 15:31 | 0 comments

::

 
No Doubt They Have Good Granola at the Plaza

Roger Simon demonstrates such as he blogs this great item on Islamic immigrant integration today.

My addition to the muselli is only this - the separation of church and state that Roger mentions is the core issue, IMO. France is actually getting wise to this, which is why Chirac is talking about secularization, trying to confront an issue by addressing it tangentially.

Both the history of Islam and the nature of the Qu'uran make the whole idea of "separation of church and state" very difficult to fathom, let alone accept, to the faithful. Muhammed was not only a spiritual figure - he was a head of state and a conqueror. The Caliphate's that followed him and expanded Islam into a very large empire had church and state combined into one thing.

Asking devout Muslims to accept in perpetuity the idea of secular rule reminds me of the book "Flatland" where the inhabitants of a two dimensional world are asked to conceptualize three dimensions. A two dimensional being can be just as smart and good as one in the three dimensional world, but they are conditioned by an environment that makes a third dimension very counter-intuitive.

Within a Claiphate, tollerance is to allow the infidel (as long as he is Christian or Jew) to worship God as his religion prescribes as long as he submits to Muslim rule and pays a special poll tax. The idea is that any son of Abraham will surely choose the truth that is manifest in the Qu'uran, and bludgeoning him into it will only protract the process. This view is reinforced by the success that the Caliphs had in pretty much wiping out Christianity in North Africa as well as other lands by largely voluntary conversion, in sharp contrast to conversion practices within Europe at the time.

Either the Qu'uran and Muhammed's revelations are the truth of God or they are not. If they are, there is really no place for secular law except under the dictates of the Qu'uran.

The Iranian revolution, oddly, showed an earnest effort to incorporate western democratic institutions into and under a theocracy. Doesn't seem to be working out too well.

Adam Sullivan, 14:58 | 0 comments

::

 
Summer Storm from the Don

Oxford Don Andrew Apostolou is ALL OVER the slanted urinalism of the BBC, Iraq, and Robin Cook's cynical opportunism (which has proven inopportune).

I found this vivisection of the BBC's Jonny Dymond particularly satisfying. What he didn't add (no doubt out of brevity) is that Mr. Dymond was stationed in Ankara as the BBC corespondent for several years. Turkey has been working diligently to join the EU, attempting to jump through every flaming hoop thrown before them by the club's membership committee. Certainly, having reported on these efforts, as well as on the high European standards by which non-EU democracies are judged, Dymond surely knows that it takes a wee bit longer than a few months to assemble a free and fair democracy. Turkey, Germany and Spain have had problems creating stable democracies - France had problems defending theirs. Yet Dymond decries the council seated in Baghdad (though he admits that it is representative) as "tainted". Like his reporting.

Adam Sullivan, 14:27 | 0 comments

::

 
The Davis Strategy

This morning the local public radio station (KPBS) had John Perez, who sits on the Executive Board of the California Democratic Party and is a former member of the DNC on a call in talk show called These Days.

The topic was the recall of California Governor Gray Davis. Mr. Perez had his talking points in hand, and what I heard was a flashback to the early Lewinsky days - attack those bringing the allegations as an extremist conspiracy trying to undo democracy.

I found this interesting because I have some friends who are yellow dog Dems who circulated recall petitions. There are a great many in the party who are disaffected. The complaint? Davis in general, but specifically the state's finances, and that the true state of them was revealed within two weeks of Davis' re-election. (The State ran surpluses prior to Davis' term. In his first 2 years, the State's spending went up 36% - well outpacing the population growth. Taxes on Dot Com fortunes paid for all this, but when the bubble popped, a huge hole appeared. And there is an unwillingness to cut what was added, so new taxes loom. Dems oppose the cuts, Republicans oppose the taxes. Among the electorate, both oppose Davis - just 27% favorable.).

Now I have to commend these Democrat friends for being consistent in their demand for honesty - they are harping on Bush right now on Niger / Uranium.

What fascinates me is how Davis is forcing orthodoxy - by trooping out the "right wing extremist" fear mongering. Of course, our Branson Belt conservatives give him plenty of pretext, but I digress.

The main points of defense were:

This is an attempt to undo an election.

There are no issues out now that weren't in front of the electorate before.

Recall is a sacred institution ensconced in our Constitution - it should not be demeaned with partisan manipulation ("sacred" and "demeaned" are my words, but I am going for concise here - something I rarely do. Be thankful).

This is the only way that the Republicans can get elected, since they can't run on issues, have no ideas, and can only sell the negative.

The last point is particularly brilliant - the accusation that the other side has no issues to run on. The Republicans are using that message nationally against the Democrats. This allows you to simply goad your opponent into going even more negative. While someone may come out and say "I have ideas, here they are" attracts little attention - getting on the TV and name calling back does get attention, but also reinforces the impression that you have no ideas.

That isn't to say you can't run on ideas - to the contrary. But it takes a great deal of time, and you have to build momentum with the capacity for coordination with other camps once you do get the momentum. then you have the initiative, and your opponent must respond substantively.

With the compressed timeline of a recall election, as well as the nature of it, building on ideas is very tough to do. Two candidates on the Republican side have the chance to build and carry momentum. They are Schwatzenneger and Riordan. Schwartzenegger on extremely high positive name recognition, and Riordan on his track record as mayor of LA. The problem is that if they both run they may split the same base, though Bill Simon and Darrel Issa may do the same.

What I will look for, however, is how these talking points disuade my Dem friends who have been pro-recall - will they buckle? Will they take the bait? In an environment of ubiquitous partisan poison (which Davis will create as the talking points demonstrate) I think they will flinch.

Davis may just survive the recall.

Adam Sullivan, 14:10 | 0 comments