Mr. Bragg's Homework Blog |
Friday, November 22, 2002
Link. The husband of the Christian missionary who was murdered in Lebanon yesterday for being a Christian missionary has forgiven her killers. Some would say that he did a noble thing. I disagree. He did a morally obscene thing. Her killers shouldn't be forgiven, they should be killed. But I guess that's the difference between a religion of peace and a religion of martyrs.
Link. Steven Den Beste writes that on December 8, when Iraq sends its final report of lies about its weapons programs to the UN, that that will constitute a "material breach," of Resolution 1441, which is UN-speak for casus belli, which is diplo-speak for grounds for war. Eurodiplomats say that lies in the report, coupled with Iraqi obstruction are required for a material breach. My reading of Paragraph 4, the text in dispute, says that the Euros are right about the wording of the resolution.
Resolution 1441...
Paragraph 4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the council for assessment in accordance with paragraph 11 and 12 below;Looking at the grammar, the language says that the Resolution "Decides that false statements or omissions (in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution) AND failure by Iraq (at any time) to (comply with, and) cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach..." Summarized, Falsehoods in the declaration AND failure to cooperate with the inspectors are required for a material breach.
Of course, it doesn't really matter, the issue is arcane enough that the US can, should and will declare a material breach and go ahead anyway. The false declaration should be enough of a breach of the resolution to give our allies diplomatic cover.
Link. Well, the Homeland Security Department bill will do a little bit of good after all. There is a clause requiring every Saudi application for a United States visa to be reviewed by a Homeland Security officer in Saudi Arabia. In the interest of keeping up relations with Our Good Friends the Saudis, State had approved 97% of visas from Saudi applicants, inculding 15 of the 19 September 11 hijackers. The State Department made it easier for a Saudi to get a visa than it is to get a driver's licence in the U.S. For example, the visa form includes the address at which the alien will stay. Two of the hijackers' visa applications gave "Wasantwn" as the address at which they could be found. Another gave their U.S. address as "JKK Wyndham HTL", no street address, no city, no state. So, all Homeland Security has to do to improve on State's record is to staff the Saudi offices with former DMV employees. Of course, there could be a downside to fewer Saudis coming to the United States. Think of the contributions Saudis have made the to the world in the fields of adulteress-stoning, icon-smashing, gender-segregating, Jew-baiting, Bible-banning, Hamas-funding and Taliban-promoting, not to mention blowing up the World Trade Center. No, I was right the first time--Saudi is a useless wasteland whose only worth to humanity is the oil wells that Westerners built and foreigners operate.
Credit to National Review's Joel Mowbray for the information on the visas.
More Mowbray on the hijacker's visas.
Thursday, November 21, 2002
Link. Great amicus curiae brief by my buddies at the Center for the Advancement of Capitalism, found on the web at www.capitalismcenter.org. Every link counts in those Google results!! The Center makes two revolutionary arguments--no shock there. What's exciting is that I think there's a prayer in hell of the Supreme Court coming down on the same side as the Center. One is that there should be no distinction between commercial and non-commercial speech, that the distinction is unworkable as well as pointless. The supposed purposes of regulating commercial speech, setting aside fraudulent claims, cannot be achieved without putting the exact same regulations on non-commercial speech. If you cite clean streets as a reason to ban people distributing advertising flyers on the sidewalk, then the same rule has to apply to, say, religious flyers, otherwise the religious flyers end up all over the sidewalk. Not only is the distinction unworkable, giving lower courts no real guidance as to how to tell commercial from non-commercial speech, it is becoming a danger to free speech. Nike bought ads in newspapers to answer their critics in the anti-sweatshop campaign. That's about as pure as free speech gets. One of the most important cases in free speech jurisprudence is Sullivan vs. New York Times, stemming from a signed ad condemning Southern police chief Sullivan. The other revolutionary argument is a broadside attack on the idea of "private attorneys-general." Private attorney-general laws mean that anyone who feels like it can file suit on behalf of the State against anyone or any company. There is no democratic accountability here, the "private attorneys-general" are answerable to absolutely no one. The Center argues that this violates the Consitutional guarantee of a republican form of government, as it places government power in the hands of unaccountable individuals with no check on their power or activities.
Link. Good news for the Isreali Labor party--Ben-Eliezer's supporters have agreed to delay fratricidal undermining of their new leader until after his crushing defeat in the Knesset elections in January. The bad news for the Labor party is that right now that counts as good news.
Link. American Academia Jew-Hating Watch. The English "poet" Tom Paulin, who has stated in the past that Brooklyn-born Jews on the West Bank "should be shot dead," will be speaking at Harvard after all in the spring. He was invited, then disinvited when the gutless weasels at Harvard withered under an assault of bad publicity. After the disinvitation, the withering assault stopped, and the defenders of Jew-hating as a valid expression of free speech at Harvard mounted their own campaign, at which point Harvard reversed itself under pressure. Clearly, Harvard did not act out of any principle, since the decision to invite was reversed, and the reversal was reversed. Updates to follow, when the reversal of the reversal is reversed.
Link. American Academia Jew-Hating Watch. I sent the following letter to the editor of The Hoya, Georgetown University's student newspaper: Georgetown professor claims Jews want to control Arab world If a student group at Georgetown were to declare that “the international Zionist movement is leading the United States to wage war against the Arab world with the intentions of colonizing the region”, they would hopefully be ostracized and ridiculed, isolated on campus as an unfortunate outbreak of ignorant, paranoid Jew-hating and neo-Naziism. If Georgetown is anything like most university campuses, the student government and the university office of student activities would properly be preoccupied with measures to limit the group’s connection to Georgetown and limit the blight on Georgetown’s reputation. So what are we to make of Dr. Hisham Sharabi, the Omar Al Mukhtar Chair, Center for Contemporary Arab Studies, who was quoted as saying the same thing to Lebanon’s Daily Star newspaper? Dr. Sharabi is out of the country right now, according to his office at Georgetown. It is certainly conceivable that he has been slandered by the Lebanese press. But it is incumbent on the university to discover the truth, either to combat the libel that Dr. Sharabi harbors neo-Nazi sentiments, or if the Lebanese Daily Star report is accurate to clarify the University’s connections to Dr. Sharabi, and the University’s position on Dr. Sharabi’s contention that an international Zionist conspiracy controls the U.S. government. The article in question is available on the Web at http://www.dailystar.com.lb/20_11_02/art17.asp
John Bragg
Tommorrow, the Labor party in Isreal decides whether to choose their parliamentary list by primaries or by having the Central committee do it. Far left figures in the party have promised to leave the party if the primaries are cancelled, the new leader wants primaries. We'll see if the party committee, which is full of adherents of Fuad Ben-Eliezer, who just got the boot, cripples Mitzna or waits until after the election to continue destroying the party.
By the way, can someone explain to me why Catholic bishops (or any clergyman) who pays an abuse victim to remain silent is not legally guilty of obstruction of justice? Isn't obstruction of justice a felony that people go to jail for?
Let's try that again. Link Nifty NYTimes Op-Ed, saying that the UN Charter prohibition on the use of force has gone the way of the Kellogg-Briand Pact. Link requires registration. (I use "aaaaa314" and my password is "aaaaa")
By the way, was anyone surprised that Roger Ailes, former professional Republican consultant and Fox News chief, secretly advised President W. on media strategy? Does a lie that obvious even count as a lie?
Well, the NWA-TNA pro wrestling promotion just shot itself in the foot. They had a new star as their champion, Ron "The Truth" Killings who was very entertaining (in my opinion) in the WWF a year or two ago. They just had him lose the belt to Jeff Jarrett, who is an okay wrestler but didn't need the belt to build himself up. Killings does need the belt, he's still not an established star. And they brought back the writer Vince Russo as a character and apparently as a writer--Russo comes up with stuff that's stupid even for wrestling.
NWA-TNA costs $10 a week or so, so I've never watched it. But there you go.
Not sure exactly why they thought they needed to tell us, but Hamas says that the election of Mitzna as the new Labor leader is no reason to stop killing Jews. Jerusalem Post
More on the Council for a Community of Democracies: basically, it's a talking shop and sort of a support group for all of the world's democracies. One proposal is to create a Democracies Caucus at the U.N., which would be nice for embarrassing France when they suck up to dictators. One of the things that the Community wants to do is set up OAS-like regional bodies in other regions. This is something that should be a long-term plan for the United States, to make democratic institutions the criteria for participating in the international arena. While international norms are not the be-all and end-all that Europeans and "transnational progressives" think, they do play a role. The U.S. should plan for them to play a role which promotes our values and interests.
Dammit, sometimes Blogger ignores whitespace, sometimes it creates modern crap poetry.
"Found it through
Oxblog.
Meditated until
the incense set the curtains on fire."
Wednesday, November 20, 2002
Saw an
editorial
today by
Jack Diehl of the Washington Post.
Found it through
Oxblog.
Quick summary is that the Administration downplayed and Secretary Powell blew off the second meeting of the Community of Democracies initiative. I sent the White House a note saying that we should have sent a prominent, if unemployed, representative. This was the note: I think that the Administration made a major mistake not sending a prominent representative to the Seoul meeting of the Community of Democracies. I understand that Powell and other Cabinet are extremely busy. However, there are many unemployed or underemployed Formers who could have taken a few days off from lawyer-lobbying to represent the U.S. Sending someone who has held high US office would have raised the profile of the Community, furthering U.S. goals of promoting democracy throughout the world. Dan Quayle could have used the respect, and the initiative could have used a former VP. Dick Armey would have been a good choice, since there were no close House votes expected in the lame-duck session. Other Republican possibilities would have been Bob Dole, Jack Kemp, Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingstone, William Cohen, Jeane Kirkpatrick (health allowing), and James Baker, among others. Thought should have been given to sending a high-profile U.S. representative regardless of party. Albright, or Holbrooke, or George Mitchell, or Tom Foley, or San Nunn would have been strong choices. Please consider sending a bipartisan delegation of former US leaders to the Third Ministerial Conference so as to bring attention to the Community of Democracies initiative. There are enough former secretaries of state and defense, former UN Ambassadors, Presidential and Vice-Presidential nominees, and former Congressional leaders that someone from each party should be happy to represent our country and promote democracy in the world (and have a day in the spotlight).
There were problems with the post on the Isreali Labor Party. Anyway, the predictions for the next Knesset:
Likud 39. The single-ballot system and the security situation means a big win for Sharon. Labor 16. Disaster for the party of the Ashkenazi, secular, educated elites who know more and better than you do. Shinui 12. The party for the Ashkenazi, secular educated elites who aren't ashamed of promoting their own interests. Arab parties combined 11. Demographic grown. Isreal Beitenu/National Union 10. Keeping the pressure on Sharon's right flank. Shas 7. The single-ballot system and the split between Yosef and Deri do bad things to Shas. Meretz 7. That whole lion laying down with the lambs thing turns out to be bad news all around--either the lions are starving, or the lambs get eaten Isreal Ba'aliyah 6. Sharansky is losing ground to Avigdor Lieberman as the Russian-Jewish alpha-male. National Religious Party 5. No comment United Torah Judaism 4. Some voters shift to Likud. Ahavat Isreal 3. Offshoot of Shas. Tuesday, November 19, 2002
Last Knesset election, when Likud premier Netanyahu was alienating everyone in sight, and former general Ehud Barak was promising a tough-minded peace with security, Labor and its satellite parties took 26 seats.
Outgoing Knesset Labor (One Israel) 26 Likud 19 Shas 17 Meretz 10 (Peace at any price party) Arab parties 10 seats combined. Israel Ba'aliyah 6 (Russian immigrant party, since split) Shinui 6 (Secularist party, against special treatment of religious Jews) Center 6 (Disbanded, members rejoined Likud or Labor. Center did not hold.) National Religious Party 5 (Represents settlers in disputed territories, has recently become very hawkish, picking up a charismatic general Effi Eitam) United Torah Judaism 5 (Haredim--study Torah all night and all day, be on welfare from the state and don't serve in the army. Why does Shinui hate them?) National Union 4 (Very right wing party. Entertains notions of solving the conflict by expelling Palestinians to Jordan.) One Nation 2 (Civil servants' party, as far as I can tell.) Next post, Predict the next Knesset!!
[11/19/2002 3:25:59 PM | John Bragg]
Haaretz Daily on the new Isreali Labor Party leader and his likely future.
[edit]
[11/18/2002 5:34:09 PM | John Bragg]
Beginning today, the Good Bragg Goodness is online and publicly available.
[edit]
Monday, November 18, 2002
|
