Thursday, February 16, 2006

Why the Delay? No, Wait! Why the Hurry?

As the essential James Taranto again points out, the Grey Lady at the New York Times needs to keep her slip from showing, or rather her bikini wax up to date!

Why the Delay?
"Let's see. The vice president of the United States accidentally shot someone while bird-hunting on a Texas ranch. It took the White House nearly 24 hours to share that information with the rest of the nation. . . . The rest of the world might have been in the dark forever if Ms. Armstrong had not chosen to share the news with a reporter from the paper in Corpus Christi."--editorial, New York Times, Feb. 14

No, Wait! Why the Hurry?
" 'Ultimately, I'm the guy who pulled the trigger that fired the round that hit Harry,' Mr. Cheney said, appearing a bit shaken in a hastily arranged interview on Fox News to provide his version of events in a just-the-facts monotone."--news story, New York Times, Feb. 16

The only funnies the NYT carries are on its editorial page, unless it's in the editorials in its news coverage!?!

Another true fact from Taranto in the WSJ, whose circulation is growing while the NYT circulation is diminishing:

To some extent, too, the pro-Bush sentiment on the right that so upsets Greenwald is a product of the anti-Bush fanaticism of the left. There is a sort of Newton's Third Law of politics, which was at work during the previous administration as well. People on the left who reviled Bill Clinton's policies in such areas as trade, welfare and capital punishment nonetheless backed him, and supported him fervently when Congress impeached him.

For most conservatives, Bush is not perfect but he is far better than the alternatives that were on offer in 2000 and 2004. Those on the left who look at the right and see blind loyalty for the most part are actually viewing a reflection of their own blind hate.

Dick Cheney ready for Elephant's Graveyard?

Peggy Noonan has been drinking the wrong Kool-Aid. Living in Manhattan, she has become affected by the contact vibes with the amygdalectomized inhabitants [cfr: Tom Wolfe and I am Charlotte Simmons] And someone needs to edit her op-eds.

Peggy believes Cheney should resign. Actually, I agree that Cheney is a large minus in the political polling jousts that gather the rapt attention of the MSM pundits [unless of course the poll demonstrates that Bush is getting more popular, which relegates the "news" to way inside the NYT, LAT, WaPo, or Globe].

But even though Cheney may be the iron bar in Bush's house of cards, which is overstating the situation, he must be succeeded by someone. Peggy expatiates:

This new vice president would, however, have to be very popular in the party, or the party wouldn't buy it. Replacing Mr. Cheney would be chancy. The new veep would have to get through the Senate, which has at this point at least three likely contenders for the nomination, at least two of whom who would not, presumably, be amused.

Senators McCain, Brownback, Graham, and Hagel are all potential '08 candidates, plus I may have left out a couple more Republican Senators who secretly lust in their hearts for a run at the Oval Office. So at least three Republicans would be against. Peggy repeats herself:

It would have to be a man wildly popular in the party and the press. And it would have to be a decision made by Dick Cheney. If he didn't want to do it he wouldn't have to. If he were pressed--Dick, we gotta put the next guy in here or we're going to lose in '08 and see all our efforts undone--he might make the decision himself. He'd have to step down on his own. He's just been through a trauma, and he can't be liking his job as much now as he did three years ago. No one on the downside of a second term does

The only man wildly popular in the press might be John McCain, and he is not wildly popular in the party. Unlike the Dem philosophy of Nancy Pelosi, you can't replace something with nothing, or in this case, somebody with nobody.

So who is Peggy thinking of? Or is she simply succumbing to the hysteria vibes prevailing in Manhattan? Or is she on a secret quest on behalf of Giuliani and Pataki, both of whom are not Senators, but acceptable to the Blue-State Republicans she rubs shoulders with?

She should declare her colors, or at least suggest several alternatives to the widely dislike incumbent in the VEEP's chair.

And also remind her readers that the hysterical MSM frothes at the mouth over the slightest peccadillo on the right, while letting maniacs like Al Gore rant at will against the USA without a peep [the NYT, LAT, WaPo, and Globe all neglected even a mention of Gore's treasonous attacks on America during his visit to Saudi Arabia].

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

GORE is off the radar with trash-talk at USA

Hugh Hewitt does a good job dissecting the suicidal swan-dive the legacy media are making into complete irrelevant partisanship.

Where is any word of the former VEEP's mentally unhinged remarks in a foreign country off-camera to an Arab audience that the U.S. had treated Arabs terribly? Hewitt answers his own question by saying, not in the NYT, LAT, WaPo, or Globe.

Chris Mathews is trying to redeem himself from his relevant remark about Michael Moore by frothing at the mouth during his dialogues with MSNBC attack-dog Gregory, but Hewitt gives no mention to the talking heads on the popcorn news networks.

Rather appears to be John the Baptist leading his clueless cocoon-mates to an early career exit. Jon Klein at CNN is soon to follow, and the network news is becoming unwatched as the WH Press thrashes on-camera.

But David Ignatius comparing Cheney to Teddy Kennedy's leaving a girl to drown while blind-drunk at Chappaquiddick?

What will Deborah Howell say to a howler like that?

Tesco joins Wal-Mart on the left's hit list

According to the Daily Telegraph, Tesco, the largest European retailing market giant, is undergoing the same anti-capitalist or rather Poujadist campaign that U.S. marketing giant Wal-Mart is undergoing in the international left-leaning electronic and print media, as evidenced in this piece about the Berlin Film Festival.

In the U.S., labor is coordinating with Democratic-Party-connected Target and other leftist outlets like Frontline and PBS Evening News. Frontline had an anti-Wal-mart special hosted by Hedrick Smith, the former NYT foreign correspondent who got his sea-legs overseas as the Times’ Moscow correspondent.

A brief CBS Evening News piece noted that the Maryland legislature has voted for legislation that singles out Wal-Mart [although that’s not the way PBS framed it]. The segment mentioned that other legislation in Wisconsin and other states had failed, but there were still pending votes in still other jurisdictions. All this straight-faced without any mention of a national campaign to restrain trade with Wal-Mart.

Just another left-wing plug against big business and the evils of success.

Oh well, the old international left is still at work rousing the useful idiots to boycott certain retailers, although in this case it is Target that benefits along with its Democratic Party allies, as my blog of Target Targeting Wal-Mart points out.

And Tesco gets to join Wal-Mart in the rogue's gallery of the left.

HE SAID, SHE SAID...

Today's Wall Street Journal has a piece by James Q. Wilson on the Red/Blue divide called "Divided We Stand." Some Excerpts:

Richard Hofstadter in "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" (1965)wrote that
polarization can entail the belief that the other side is in thrall to a secret conspiracy that is using devious means to obtain control over society. Today's versions might go like this: "Liberals employ their dominance of the media, the universities, and Hollywood to enforce a radically secular agenda"; or, "conservatives, working through the religious Right and the big corporations, conspired with their hired neocon advisers to invade Iraq for the sake of oil."
And to get more adjectival assurance on the issues, Wilson says that the debate:

reflects a mutual revulsion between whole geographical sections of the country, the so-called Red (Republican) states versus the so-called Blue (Democratic) states. As summed up by the distinguished social scientist who writes humor columns under the name of Dave Barry, residents of Red states are "ignorant racist fascist knuckle-dragging Nascar-obsessed cousin-marrying road-kill-eating tobacco-juice-dribbling gun-fondling religious fanatic rednecks," while Blue-state residents are "godless unpatriotic pierced-nose Volvo-driving France-loving leftwing Communist latte-sucking tofu-chomping holistic-wacko neurotic vegan weenie perverts."


And the beat goes on......

Tuesday, February 14, 2006

GAY BISHOP ADMITS "Failure of Will..."

Gay Bishop V.Gene Robinson has entered a rehab clinic to fight his alcoholism. He writes to his flock and notes:

In his letter, Robinson, 58, said he has been dealing with alcoholism for years and had considered it "as a failure of will or discipline on my part, rather than a disease over which my particular body simply has no control, except to stop drinking altogether."

Hmmm... As a Roman Catholic, I understand homosexuality as a "failure of the will..." to overcome tendencies which many men or women have to be attracted to or have sexual relations with persons of the same gender.

Why isn't that the case for Bishop Robinson?

Is alcohol so different from sex?

Monday, February 13, 2006

GOREBOT on Pander Patrol

The WSJ has the story on Gore's sucking up to the Saudis, but Taranto ends the story linked above with a sober observation:
The only consolation is that Gore likely would have done a lot more damage had he spent four years in the White House. And given the precedent set by Jimmy Carter, it isn't hard to imagine Gore as an embittered one-term ex-president giving the same speech in Jeddah.


Then comes a better story about the recently anointed Chairman of the Friendship Pipeline from his good friend Vladimir P. to his own Vaterland, the one and only Gerhard:
Frau Clinton f?r Pr?sidenten!
On the other hand, another AP dispatch tells a story from Jeddah that is purely amusing. It seems that 997 days before the 2008 election, Hillary Clinton has picked up an endorsement--but one that she may not want:

Former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, a fierce critic of the Bush administration, said Saturday that he's pulling for U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to win the White House.

"I'd be very pleased if Hillary Clinton would become the next American president," Schroeder said to applause from a largely Saudi audience at the Jeddah Economic Forum, which opened here Saturday. "But don't quote me too loud. I hope I'm not harming her by saying that."

"Schroeder made the statement during a discussion of global women leaders at a gender-segregated theater where a plastic barrier separated women from men."

"So here we have a founding member of the "axis of weasels" endorsing Frau Clinton and drawing cheers from a segregated Saudi audience. It would be hard for Republicans to write a better campaign commercial."


But given Hillary's resemblance to the Volkspolizei border guard [female type] template so often noted by critics of her empathy quotient, Schroeder is a good choice for her foreign policy campaign advisor. Gerhard has that weasal vibe that's appropriate for Democratic foreign policy types.

Mathews' Hardball and the Full Moon

Just finished watching Chris Mathews and David Gregory on MSNBC wringing their metaphorical hands and tut-tutting non-stop for about 15 minutes on the timeline, likely sequence of events, government philosophy behind, and possible intentional delay of the news that VP Cheney "peppered" a fellow quail-hunter with a 28 gauge shotgun.

There is obviously a Full Moon tonight, and Mathews was characteristically shouting and interrupting his guests, except for Sen. Alan Simpson, who uttered the great truth that the press uproar and furore about this non-event was simply a result of the White House Press's disdain for Cheney, which Cheney returns in full at every opportunity.

Simpson said the fact that he had had two dozen phone calls from the press about this is "NUTS." Mathews responded incorrectly that MSNBC was not nuts.

But Mathews went for another half-hour interviewing Bush-hater Pat Buchanan and dance student Ron Reagan about the rank carelessness of the White House not to immediately inform the press.

City slickers Mathews, Buchanan, Reagan and Gregory are clueless, of course, about the substance and importance of someone being hit with a 28 gauge, which is barely stronger than a BB-gun with multiple pellets----not dangerous unless you get one in the eye. Simpson explained how good a hunter Cheney was and how it was almost certainly the elderly 78-year old victim's fault for not informing the rest of the hunters that he was back in the line.

But the clueless urban cowboys kept acting like meth-heads in a sustained quiet rant about the neglect of the press and the "Peoples' right to know."

The word "kerfuffle" was probably invented for a more important event than this hunting accident.

Lots of sturm und drang, signifying, as usual, nothing.

ANGRY KILLER BEES A-BUZZING!

Wow! A little synchronicity at work!

Just after posting the previous blog on Ann Althouse and the Kos killer-bee swarm, I switched on the tube and there were the White House newsies in a collective hissy-fit buzz-swarm over another outrage against the American Constitution!

Yep, the hunting accident V.P. Cheney had this weekend was not on the airwaves for hours and hours after it occurred! The National Security implications of this flagrant disregard of the public's right-to-know are staggering!

Ha Ha! Just watching this swarm of exempt-media entitlement-drenched spoiled kiddies, including 80-year-old chronic drunk Helen Thomas, thrashing about in a sustained whine-fest reminded me why the national press is far lower in the polls and man-on-the-street esteem than politicians, and almost in the sub-basement with attorneys!

And BTW, where was the lefty MSM WH Press Corps after President Clinton broke a kneecap after midnight in PGA pro Greg Norman's palatial home? No questions about being drunk? Or who else was in the house? Or where was Hillary?

And what about the perpetually drunk Teddy Kennedy and the manslaughter he inflicted on Mary Jo Kopechne? Was there a rush to report and find out all the details on that fiasco? What? No blood-alcohol report? No intrepid journalistic investigative zeal a la Watergate a couple of years later?

Oh yeah. Remember Roger Mudd who lost his co-anchor job with Tom Brokaw after interviewing a drunken Ted Kennedy too vigorously and making him look like the fool he was, and still is, about taking on Jimmy Carter in 1980 and leaving the door open for Ronald Reagan to devastate the Democrats until today?

Roger got fired from that anchor job and ended up on the History Channel!

Don't think these White House Press {I almost said "media whores" like Pam Leavey on the Democratic Daily Blog} Reporters don't remember what happens if you get too objective or get a sudden attack of integrity while interviewing Democrats vigorously.

Gosh, I wonder whether there is a DOUBLE STANDARD somewhere concerning what is newsworthy [a hunting accident? by a Vice President?] Or a broken kneecap by a sitting president in the middle of the night?

By the way, David Gregory is obviously trying to get on The Daily Show. You can see it in his body language!

Ann Althouse: the benefits of being linked to Kos

In one of her pellucid responses to another sputtering-with-rage attack by ARMANDO at Kos, Ann deftly demonstrates why she is on so many thinking persons' blogrolls. Armando coins a neologism [since corrected], which Ann gently employs to fend off another African killer-bee attack from the perpetually angry airheads on the Kos page.

But wait, they don't even leave their hive, but commune among themselves in an ecstasy of adrenaline-rush buzzing and mock sting-fests!

Ann calls this:
The echo-y comfort zone of rage.

Here is some of her comments on the tres-enrages

Armando over at Daily Kos, links to me and awkwardly calls me one of the "theoretically not stupid folks [who are] wondering what hit them in the Left Blogosophere." That's his typo, "Blogosophere," but you know it made me stop and think about whether it was some kind of portmanteau word comprising "blogosphere" and "philosopher." Well, don't you know, I want to be a blogosopher when I grow up. I could ponder Armando's theory of not being stupid, but I'm just going to assume it means not agreeing with him yet and move on.

Armando's link is to my recent post about the revival of interest in a year-old post called "Right and left: my sad experience." The older of the two posts observes that "bloggers on the right link to [me] when they agree and ignore the disagreements, and the bloggers on the left link only for the things they disagree with, to denounce [me] with short posts saying [I'm] evil/stupid/crazy, and don't even seem to notice all the times [I've] written posts that take their side."

Interest in that post was revived, as I explained in the post Armando linked to, when Crank at RedState wrote about how he thought a lot about what I'd said and wanted Republicans to remember that they need to engage and include the centrists and liberal hawks who are the source of their majority power.
[F]rom one issue controversy to the next, we may find ourselves on the opposite side from some of these folks. And therein lies the temptation to go the Kos path, and dissolve into spittle-spraying rage when people who are "supposed" to be on "our side" cross over and side against us. That's the situation where we need to think carefully about how harshly we go after people's motives, their intellectual integrity, etc. A ritual bridge-burning may be fun, but that's how you end up stranded on your own island.
Quoting that passage, I add: "Hardcore Democrats ought to do the same, and not just because I like people to be nice to me."

You'd think that if Armando was going to bother to link to this, he'd respond to the point that matters so much: it's dysfunctional to alienate the people you need to win over in order to gain majority power.[My emphasis] But, though he goes on for 725 words, it's all just about how angry he is at the Bush Administration and don't I ever think about why he's angry?[My emphasis again!]
Yeah, well, but you linked to me. Don't you ever think about why your side can't seem to win elections, despite all these deficiencies in the people you are so angry at? Can't you distinguish between them and people like me, who represent the votes you need to win? I agree with you on many issues. I've been a registered Democrat since I first started to vote, in 1972. I can count on one hand the Republicans I've voted for in my life, for any office. And that's giving a separate finger to Cheney. And go ahead and make a giving-the-finger-to-Cheney joke. I would laugh at it. I watch every episode "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report." You think I'm not worth engaging, because you're angry at Bush? Are elections not worth winning because you're angry at Bush? Just exactly who is theoretically not stupid?

Oh, but, wow, a Kos link -- that must bring a lot of traffic, right? No, my friends. It does not. Less than 2% of my traffic is coming from that Kos link right now, and I've got no active -lanches at the moment. I'm getting more traffic from Google and from Glenn Reynolds' blogroll. Meanwhile, there are more than 300 comments on Armando's post. Wouldn't want to leave the echo-y comfort zone. The echo-y comfort zone of rage.

And then there's this guy, who seems to think that when I said "Hardcore Democrats ought to do the same, and not just because I like people to be nice to me" I was really only talking about how I wanted people to be nice to me. And so it goes.

Ann, it's all about them and how they are entitled to run the country, and why Krugman isn't shrill and stupid even though he screeches on a weekly basis that the sky is falling [he has predicted about 20 of the last 0 recessions].

Kos: Keep it up and keep John Forehead and Company blogging for you over there and the Republicans will win again in '08.

FIRST SATURDAY'S PEOPLE, THEN SUNDAY'S PEOPLE....

Today’s Financial Times [sorry, only the broadsheet has it and it is not online, even in pay-version] has what seems to be a recent FT Monday tradition of a comment piece that could have been tossed over the transom from Osama bin Laden on LSD. Last week, I blogged a multi-culturalist named Patrick Chabal, and this week, it is the turn of a fellow named Faisal Devji to be on the FT rogue's gallery of Lacan-Derrida wannabees.

You can tell this fellow is someone special by the FT title of the piece "Islam offers a role model of the most modern kind."

While your mental tuning fork overcomes the cognitive dissonance of that title, you should understand that Faisal uses language and tropes peculiar to the cocoon that multiculturalists inhabit, waiting for the inevitable[?] metamorphosis.

The thought processes of Devji, such as they are, go somewhat like this: Thesis: The debate on the cartoons are proceeding on the basis of freedom of speech as proclaimed by traditional western democracies. Antithesis: The "radical novelty" of the Islamic challenge is in the "new rationality" of a "global arena." Ergo, the global village, pace McLuhan who is likely spinning in his coffin over this, is a "hyper-modern" entity which is stateless and therefore somehow immune from rationality, the Enlightenment, and therefore free speech.

Okay, I put in the immunity part, but that is the gist of this bunch of paragraphs in search of a synthesis.

Devji says that the Muslim "hyper-modern" entity is not theological, but is "familial in a global context and based on media." And he says that liberal democracies are therefore outmoded since they are merely state-based and therefore inevitably "parochial."

And "because global Islam comes to us from the future...it exposes clearly the limits of liberal democracy." Ante hoc, ergo propter hoc? Devji then talks about wigs and breeches and liberalism's Dickensian past, and the fact that Islam is a "religion [that is] the most volatile global phenomenon of our times."

The only comment I can make is that the global village of 1.2 billion Muslim believers, or family-members if you follow Devji’s dodge'em descriptions of something that is not-theological-but-a-religion, is going to overwhelm the 5 billion of the rest of mankind, including 2 billion Christians, by proving the strength of solidarity over free expression.

Isn’t that the combined-cudgel symbol of fascism overcoming the singularity of one’s individual conscience, or am I off-base?

Or maybe Torquemada and the Inquisition?

How about the hyper-modern Salem and its witchcraft trials?

Or the "I have seen the future and it works" of John Reed during the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917?

Anyhow, the author obviously believes that the self-abasement of some European entities like the EU’s Justice and Security Commission led by Signor Franco Frattini will become the politically-correct pandemic of all democratically-based institutions.

And that that tradition of individual freedom of speech belongs in the dustbin of history.

He lives in NYC and teaches at the New School for Social Research, so Devji may be deluded into thinking that the rest of America shares the cultural-suicide vibe prevailing in Greenwich Village.

As Mark Steyn quoted memorably yesterday the old Arab proverb, "a falling camel attracts many knives," there is a strong element of Western weakness, especially in Europe, which draws violent Islamic activists as a shark is drawn to blood in the water.

When I lived in Beirut three decades ago [you can see the ambience in Clooney’s paranoid tour de force Syriana], there was the saying among Shi'ite radicals and Sunni PLO, "first Saturday's People, then Sunday's People."

First overcome the Jews, then the Christians.

Although the saying at that time pertained to the Middle East, the vision statement Faisal Devji now perceives is that Islam is making this its global goal.

Sunday, February 12, 2006

AJAMI on the CARTOON CRISIS

There is a speech reprinted by the Toronto Star given by SAIS professorFouad Ajami whom I accompanied to many of his talks. Fouad is an electric speaker in person, and the words below must have impressed the Toronto reporter to have them print it in full. Ajami in person has the same mesmerizing ability to convince listeners that Steve Jobs has. I have put emphasis on some particularly strong passages. And I find his observation that the Danish Embassy in Beirut was burnt by Syrians and Palestinians, with only a few Lebanese in the crowd, particularly salient:

"The real precursor to what is happening in Denmark today happened a generation ago, when Salman Rushdie wrote The Satanic Verses. The issues are exactly what we are witnessing today.....
You would have expected European Islam to be more tolerant, but it was the other way around. The troubles migrated from England and made their way through the Islamic world, and we saw what happened.
In the case of these cartoons, this is exactly what happened. The Muslim activists in Denmark took their cause to the Islamic world. As they worked their way through the Islamic world, there was this exquisite little irony: They went into regimes that oppress Islamists, which kill Islamists, but which were more than willing to lend a helping hand, because such is what you have to do......
Fifteen million Muslims make their home in Europe; in fact the demography of Islam is the great story of the Islamic world today. Put side to side, the demography of Europe, the declining populations of Europe, 1.1 children per childbearing woman in Germany, or 1.2 in Spain, or 1.3 somewhere else, you can see the dilemma of Europe.
Europe is awakening to this danger. Europe has to understand that this is not a battle between America and the Islamic world, with Europe as an innocent bystander. Europe is a battleground in this fight.
Every European country has had its moment of awakening. In the case of the Danes, this is their moment.
The July 7 bombings were England's. Kids who worked in a fish and chips restaurant — how more British could you be — were involved in deeds of terror. That was the moment of truth for Britain.
Look at what has happened, as well, in the case of the Dutch. Here is the quintessentially politically correct society. It awakens to the horror with the murder of the filmmaker, Theo Van Gogh, when a young Dutchman of Moroccan descent walks up and kills Van Gogh and then sticks a knife in him and leaves a message on him.
During his trial the killer said he had no remorse. He said, "I slaughtered him" — the language again coming from some other deep tradition and some other frightening world.
So I think, in the case of these cartoons, they are a window into what is happening in the Islamic world, and what is happening in Europe in particular.
If you want to live in a liberal society, you have to be willing to be offended. And these people are not willing to be offended. They don't understand the nature of life in a modern society. They are in the West, as I always have said about them, but they are not of the West.
I feel like a total dinosaur. My generation of Arabs and Muslims, when we left we understood the meaning of our departure. We understood that we were leaving the failing lands of the Arab world. We understood that we couldn't take our beliefs on the road with us to foreign lands. We knew that we had to adjust.
And even as we came out of darkness, we could see the lodestar. The lodestar was modernity; you just follow that path toward the modern world.
That pact with modernity has been shattered in the Islamic world today. And people ask, "Well, what does one see for the future of the Islamic world?"
I really don't know. You are dealing with a world all the way from Indonesia and the east to Morocco in the west, 1.2 billion people; 20 per cent of the world's population are Muslims. What can we say about them? They are an enormous variety. What can you say about a religion that has the Malays and the Saudis?
Not much, on some level. But you could make some generalizations. You can say, by and large, this population tends to be overwhelmingly young. They are urban. They are poor. And it's not so much they are illiterate — they are half educated. They are newly lettered. They now have access to the Koran, direct access to the text. They are literalists.
They read the text. And from the text, they can pronounce on the modern world. They can pronounce on politics. They can pronounce on my faith and yours. They can pronounce on the condition of women. They can decide for themselves and for their neighbours, and for the government.
That dilemma for the Islamic world will endure. These cartoons are just a window on the unease of modern Islam — on the inability of modern Muslims to live in their own lands, where they can't really make a living, but then when they take the faith abroad and try to manipulate it, they find themselves unable to live with others, and unable to accept the rules of the modern life. You are going to see more Salman Rushdie affairs. You are going to see more of these cartoons.
The city I grew up in, Beirut, has played a part. We watched the attack on the Danish consulate in Beirut. The people who assaulted the consulate came into a Christian area of Beirut, a city that is divided in the old-fashioned Ottoman way. There are Christian neighbourhoods and Muslim neighbourhoods. And the Lebanese know better than to go into a neighbourhood that is not their own. They know the rules of the road. But nevertheless, they stormed this consulate and they attacked a Mennonite church in east Beirut.
When the police rounded up some of these suspects, we learned something about them. The largest number of people who were rounded up were Syrians. The second largest were Palestinians. And the third, finally, bringing up the rear, were the Lebanese themselves.
Now, the Syrian regime orchestrating all this is hardly a pious regime, right? They themselves have had a terrible war with the Islamists in their midst. In 1982, the ruler, the father of this young ruler today, Assad himself, gunned down no fewer than 20,000 people in the city of Hamma, and they were principally Sunni Muslims. They were Muslim brothers who had risen against the "godless" regime of Assad.
So the spectacle of a tyrannical Syrian regime — secular, really considered by the pious to be an un-Islamic, ungodly regime — suddenly awakening to this great violation that befell the Islamic world is a scam. It's a scam, and people know that it's a scam.
Fortunately, there are now people who are awakening to the fact that they are fouling their own nest, that they are destroying their own world. And there are Islamic jurists of some moral calibre, and some substance, and some spine, who are trying to recover the tradition and trying to take Islam back from these hooligans.
You can at least draw some measure of hope that the battle is joined, and that maybe some Muslims will reclaim their tradition.
They have to take it back from the likes of bin Laden. They have to take it back from the likes of these preachers in Denmark. They have to take it back from the preachers in London.

TOON-DEAF EUROPE waves the white flag

The Chicago Sun-Times now has two of the most incisive writers in the USA, and of the two, the inimitable Mark Steyn has the best dark humor, as noted by Roger Simon in today’s blogs. Mr. John O’Sullivan plays bad cop to seducer Steyn in the Sun-Times duo. Here is a Steyn series of one-liners:
From Europe's biggest-selling newspaper, the Sun: ''Furious Muslims have blasted adult shop [i.e., sex shop] Ann Summers for selling a blowup male doll called Mustafa Shag."
Not literally "blasted" in the Danish Embassy sense, or at least not yet. Quite how Britain's Muslim Association found out about Mustafa Shag in order to be offended by him is not clear. It may be that there was some confusion: given that "blowup males" are one of Islam's leading exports, perhaps some believers went along expecting to find Ahmed and Walid modeling the new line of Semtex belts. Instead, they were confronted by just another filthy infidel sex gag. The Muslim Association's complaint, needless to say, is that the sex toy "insults the Prophet Muhammad -- who also has the title al-Mustapha.''

Steyn has a hilarious scenario on just how a pious Muslim could run across Mustafa Shag in Ann Summer’s shop, but you have to read the whole gleeful put-down of sanctimonious politically correct pieties that motivate MSM capitulation to multicultural mantras. [Whew!]

Steyns comment has elicited lots of comments, except from the humor-challenged MSM groupies, and while I don’t think gratuitous offense to a world religion is in good taste, Roger Kimball in the New Criterion blog ARMAVIRUMQUE quotes Steyn thus:
If I were a Muslim, I'd be "hurt" and "humiliated" that the revered prophet's name is given not to latex blowup males but to so many real blowup males: The leader of the 9/11 plotters? Mohammed Atta. The British Muslim who self-detonated in a Tel Aviv bar? Asif Mohammed Hanif. The gunman who shot up the El Al counter at LAX? Heshamed Mohamed Hedayet. The former U.S. Army sergeant who masterminded the slaughter at the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania? Ali Mohamed. The murderer of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh? Mohammed Bouyeri. The notorious Sydney gang rapist? Mohammed Skaf. The Washington sniper? John Allen Muhammed. If I were a Muslim, I would be deeply offended that the prophet's name is the preferred appellation of so many killers and suicide bombers on every corner of the earth.

Nope, the Washington Post is afraid that the Washington sniper reference could hurt its readership's sensitivities.

Roger Simon also has a good observation on how craven liberals like Albert Brooks, who used to be funny, have retreated into political correctness, as in his Searching for Humor in the Muslim World movie set in Hindu India, since Brooks didn’t want to get too on-topic. Simon quotes Steyn:
In theory, this should have been the perfect moment for Albert Brooks to release his new film ''Looking for Comedy in the Muslim World.'' Instead, life is effortlessly outpacing art. Brooks had an excellent premise and, somewhere between studio equivocation and his sense of self-preservation, it all got watered down, beginning with the decision to focus the plot on a trip to India. Which is a, er, mostly Hindu country.

and then lapses into a generalization about the gentrification of Hollyweird. Simon says:
"I haven't seen Brooks' film. The reviews were pretty bad and kept me away. Also, traditional Hollywood libs like Brooks don't seem to have the guts for satire anymore. That's been left in the hands of the South Park gang. The Brooks crowd (all of them) are more worried about seeming "nice" these days then telling the truth. That's death for comedy. Mark Steyn could give them lessons."

The Oz blogger Tim Blair makes a list of recent Muslim incitements that might eventually activate the supine British police authorities, to avoid another July 7th catastrophe. The situation in Britain is serious, but in the EU, they are preparing for proactive measures. Europe has already started waving the white flag of surrender, as Steyn notes:
The European Union’s Justice and Security Commissioner, Franco Frattini, said on Thursday that the EU would set up a “media code” to encourage “prudence” in the way they cover, ah, certain sensitive subjects. As Signor Frattini explained it to the Daily Telegraph, "The press will give the Muslim world the message: We are aware of the consequences of exercising the right of free expression. . . . We can and we are ready to self-regulate that right."
"Prudence"? "Self-regulate our free expression"? No, I’m afraid that’s just giving the Muslim world the message: You’ve won, I surrender, please stop kicking me.
But they never do. Because, to use the Arabic proverb with which Robert Ferrigno opens his new novel, Prayers for the Assassin, set in an Islamic Republic of America, "A falling camel attracts many knives." In Denmark and France and the Netherlands and Britain, Islam senses the camel is falling and this is no time to stop knifing him.

Except for the fact that there is an Italian contingent in Iraq, I would make a comment about the nationality of the EU Commissioner, and to be fair, the EU usually selects the most craven spineless lefties to represent it in these matters. Signor Frattini fills that bill.

But Steyn ends up getting a straight to the heart of the matter, which demonstrates why he is too funny and relevant and boots-on-the-ground to work for the gelded MSM exempt media rainmakers:

The issue is not "freedom of speech" or "the responsibilities of the press" or "sensitivity to certain cultures." The issue, as it has been in all these loony tune controversies going back to the Salman Rushdie fatwa, is the point at which a free society musters the will to stand up to thugs. British Muslims march through the streets waving placards reading "BEHEAD THE ENEMIES OF ISLAM." If they mean that, bring it on. As my columnar confrere John O'Sullivan argued, we might as well fight in the first ditch as the last.
But then it's patiently explained to us for the umpteenth time that they're not representative, that there are many many "moderate Muslims.''
I believe that. I've met plenty of "moderate Muslims" in Jordan and Iraq and the Gulf states. But, as a reader wrote to me a year or two back, in Europe and North America they aren't so much "moderate Muslims" as quiescent Muslims. The few who do speak out wind up living in hiding or under 24-hour armed guard, like Dutch MP Ayaab Hirsi Ali.
So when the EU and the BBC and the New York Times say that we too need to be more "sensitive" to those fellows with "Behead the enemies of Islam" banners, they should look in the mirror: They're turning into "moderate Muslims," and likely to wind up as cowed and silenced and invisible.

Don't expect to see Steyn's humor on PBS Evening News or in the NYT, LAT, or WaPo any time this decade!

George W. refuses to walk his own talk on cartoon jailing

The New Republic has an interesting online piece by James Forsyth about the cartoon controversy, and the bobbing and weaving and sins of omission the President has done to find the right pitch. Evidently Bush is still thrashing around.

Momani is the hero of the cartoon controversy. He was the editor of the Jordanian tabloid al-Shihan that published three of the Mohammed caricatures on the grounds that people should know what they were protesting about. The cartoons were accompanied by an editorial that pleaded, "Muslims of the world be reasonable," and asked, "What brings more prejudice against Islam, these caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras or a suicide bomber who blows himself up during a wedding ceremony in Amman?"
For his troubles, Momani was fired, arrested twice, denied bail, and charged with blasphemy by the government of King Abdullah II of Jordan. As of Wednesday he was under arrest in a hospital, where he was suffering from "stress and exhaustion." Abdullah has played an important role in the case. Last week he explained that insulting Mohammed is "a crime that cannot be justified under the pretext of freedom of expression." Agence France Presse subsequently reported that "His words were seen by security forces as a signal to take action against the newspapers."

Forsyth ends up by hoisting Bush, who after the arrest hosted King Abdullah of Jordan and uttered not a peep over the jailing of the brave Arab journalist, by his own petard. Here is the last paragraph:

The Bush administration boasts of its straight talk and willingness to offend foreign governments if that is the price of doing the right thing. But its near-total silence on this case calls into question the president's commitment to his own freedom agenda. It is time for someone to remind Bush of what he said on the steps of the Capitol last January:
America's influence is not unlimited, but fortunately for the oppressed, America's influence is considerable, and we will use it confidently in freedom's cause. ... We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right. America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies. We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people. America's belief in human dignity will guide our policies. Yet rights must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators; they are secured by free dissent....

It's a pretty simple choice, really. A Jordanian journalist who stood up for freedom finds himself in jail. As Michael Gerson might say: Are we going to take his side or not?

Bush took the high road in his inauguration speech, but refused to walk his talk when the chips were down.

Saturday, February 11, 2006

COULDN'T HAVE SAID IT BETTER!

There is an excellent piece in the Guardian today by Martin Kettle recalling the famous Khrushchev speech on Stalinism in 1956.

I actually believe that the riots in Berlin and in Posnan were earlier indicators of the essential instability of the Rule of Terror Stalin imposed on his European satellites. And Berthold Brecht's supposed retort when the East German Democratic Republic claimed in 1953 after the riots that the Germans were not worthy of Communism, "Well then, why don't you select a new people?"

Here is Kettle's final paragraph:
But the cold-war syllogism lives on today in a new guise. Too many haters of capitalism and the United States still cram everything into the frame of untruth and self-deception that says my enemy's enemy is still my friend because, even if he blows up my family on the tube, murders my colleagues on the bus or threatens to behead me for publishing a drawing, he is still at war with Bush, Blair and Berlusconi. It is 50 years this month since that simplistic view of the world lost whatever moral purchase it may once have had. It is time such thinking was, to choose a sadly appropriate word, purged. Too long, my brothers and my sisters, too long.

Reading the foreward to David Horowitz's new book, The Professors, will demonstrate that many tenured radicals in the American academy still believe Stalin and the USSR are better than the USA and Capitalism.

And they are continuing to teach their students this completely discredited point of view.

GERMAN LEFT TARGETS WAL-MART

Looks like the American ultra-left has exported its Wal-Mart anti-capitalism campaign to the ever-gullible German lefties whose Social Democrats and Greens are still smarting from being ousted by Angela Merkel's selection as Kanzler.

Read my post last week about Target Targeting Wal-Mart for one speculative piece on where this campaign originated.

Oh, and if you think I might be overreacting to what might be called the iron law of success, namely, that the losers find a shibboleth around which to regroup and fight another day, you might be right.

But I note the respect/fear/loathing that the readers of The Democratic Daily have for Karl Rove, whom they accuse of leaving that mike on ON PURPOSE and then having Bush make statements on the NSA that were the same as those he made in public!

DAS San Diego Says:
February 10th, 2006 at 2:25 pm
I was listening to Ed Schultz today & he feels this has Karl Rove written all over it. He feels it was a set up because Bush simply stated some of the same things he has said in public. Maybe trying to show he is concerned and says the same thing in public as private? Trying to put on the impression that he can be trusted. What do you all think?

Pamela Leavey Says:
I would tend to agree with Ed. I actually sent this piece to Ed’s sound guy when I posted it. The story was fresh off the wires when I put it up. I heard Ed’s take on and agree whole heartedly. As a matter of fact, I’m going to update the piece and note what Ed said.

Pen Says:
It does indeed sound like another version of the rovian bait. Bush send reporters out acting like what he was going to say is private then speaks the spill that he always says and I’m sure he had that stupid smirk on his face to. I’m sure the media whores fell for it as always.

Pamela Leavey Says:
At least the media whore who wrote the AP piece had some sort of an inkling and thought it was odd.


Note the projection by Pamela Leavey about the "AP media whore." Yes, the loonie left is far loonier than Ann Coulter is on the loony right.

Sympathy for Bill O'Reilly

Slate editor Jack Shafer has an unusual column called "Sympathy for Bill O'Reilly" that lambasts NYT's most sanctimonious liberal acolyte, Nicholas Kristol, for possessing the rampant self-righteous egomania only an NYT Op-Ed columnist can aspire to.

After O'Reilly turned down a challenge by Kristol to visit Darfur, where Shafer notes that
As Kristof readers know, he's such a frequent visitor to the Darfur slaughterhouse that he's purchased a time-share condominium there. I jest, of course, but there's something around the bend about Kristof's Darfur-instead-of-Christmas harping. Every journalist who chooses to report on Subject A receives critical mail and phone calls from folks who insist that the journalist should be reporting on Subject B if he thinks A is a problem. Kristof must think it's clever to stoop to a gambit that's beneath any self-respecting blogger.

Shafer's final admonition follows the obligatory kicking of O'Reilly in the shins for being so successful that his ratings rankle every liberal from toe to top. Then, after the bashing of Bill, Shafer observes the solipsistic autism that even bloggers fall into having its way with Kristol:
Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make a newspaper columnist. Most columnists start off with a bag full of ideas and endless energy. But the job begins to weigh on even the most talented journalist. He starts writing columns about columns he's written, about his kids, or about the deaths of relatives. He composes columns as open letters to world leaders—or writes from inside their heads. He quotes cab drivers. His columns become more assertion than argument. Finally, he starts picking silly, protracted fights with other media machers.

Kristof, a Times columnist since November 2001, can do better than this. If he's run out of gas, why doesn't he re-enlist as a reporter?

Good question, although once a columnist, it is hard to descend from the ex cathedra infallibility pedestal on Olympus to labor among ink-stained wretches who actually WORK for a living.

Friday, February 10, 2006

ANN ALTHOUSE STRIKES FROM THE CENTER

If there is a median opinion in the world, Madison-based Ann must be in the middle of it! The WSJ opinion journal quotes her:

What I've noticed, over and over, is that the bloggers on the right link to you when they agree and ignore the disagreements, and the bloggers on the left link only for the things they disagree with, to denounce you with short posts saying you're evil/stupid/crazy. . . .

I'm struck by the way the right perceives me as a potential ally and uses positive reinforcement and the left doesn't see me as anything but an opponent--doesn't even try to engage me with reasoned argument.

With a few exceptions, this has also been my experience in my extremely short blogging career. I have Ann’s link on my blog and checked her out today. Predictably, she has had relinks to her original observation over a year ago. She also quotes Redstate:

There are also plenty of pundits and bloggers who are on our side on the war, or the economy, or the culture, or the law, but not all of the above. In the blogosphere, there are centrists like Althouse and libertarians like Glenn Reynolds, Megan McArdle and Stephen Green. The pundit world even includes people like Christopher Hitchens and Nat Hentoff, arch-liberals on many issues who are nonetheless steadfast allies on some questions.

Anyway, from one issue controversy to the next, we may find ourselves on the opposite side from some of these folks. And therein lies the temptation to go the Kos path, and dissolve into spittle-spraying rage when people who are "supposed" to be on "our side" cross over and side against us. That's the situation where we need to think carefully about how harshly we go after people's motives, their intellectual integrity, etc. A ritual bridge-burning may be fun, but that's how you end up stranded on your own island.


And there are more comments on Redstate and Ann's links on various issues such as how the emphasis on primaries has brought both parties to expensive pitched battles the losing candidates often regret having entered. The sad result is that many of the losing candidates' supporters refuse to support the eventual party standard bearer. Also that Reagan’s 11th Commandment about not speaking ill of other Republicans has helped the right to avoid the Manichaean tendencies on the unhinged far-left side of the political spectrum.

The US political scene has a long tradition of civility helped by Robert’s Rules of Order and other canons of civilized discourse. I have lived overseas in countries without these codes [France] and the bitterness and divisiveness in the political arena in such places has seeped into the daily workplace. The American political culture seems slowly moving toward a collapse of the vital center bloggers like Althouse represent so well.

Meanwhile, Deborah Howell, Ombudsman of the Washington Post, got flamed with a torrent of obscene personal attacks for a peccadillo so minimal that it would have been overlooked in a sanitary political environment. But anyone who has checked into the left's chat-houses knows that mental and other forms of hygiene are sadly lacking over there.

Thursday, February 09, 2006

COME INTO MY PARLOR, SAID THE SPIDER....

The Wall Street Journal sums up the peril to American security that expanding FISA judicial review has done and will do to the USA if Congress has its way. I like the part where Sen. Pat Leahy chortles to AG Gonzales in his "strip-search 10 yr-old girls" warble: "if you need new laws, then come and tell us." Ditto for the scarcely less insincere Arlen "Scotch Law: Not Proven" Spector.

A little history might put light on this charade.

Bear in mind that CONGRESS ITSELF did a JOINT INQUIRY review in 2003 that made the following finding:
12. Finding: During the summer of 2001, when the Intelligence Community was bracing for an imminent al-Qa'ida attack, difficulties with FBI applications for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) surveillance and the FISA process led to a diminished level of coverage of suspected al-Qa'ida operatives in the United States. The effect of these difficulties was compounded by the perception that spread among FBI personnel at Headquarters and the field offices that the FISA process was lengthy and fraught with peril.

"If not addressed, these weaknesses will continue to undercut U.S. counter terrorist efforts." [xvi]

That’s according to the REPORT OF THE JOINT INQUIRY INTO THE TERRORIST ATTACKS OF 9/11 by the House Permanent Select and Senate Select Intelligence Ctes, which had as its Democratic House Ranking Member none other than Nancy Pelosi! The House and Senate Select Committees on Intelligence spent a year on the JOINT INQUIRY and Pelosi signed it without a peep or a self-serving memo to the files a la Jay Rockefeller.

Thankfully, today the ranking Democrat House member is the sensible, responsible, emotionally balanced and politically honest Jane Harman, also of California.

Here is the sensible, balanced, and politically honest position of the Wall Street Journal:

Judging by Monday's hearing, Senators of both parties are still hoping to stage a Congressional raid on Presidential war powers. And they hope to do it not by accepting more responsibility themselves but by handing more power to unelected judges to do the job for them.

The preferred vehicle here is an expansion of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, the Carter-era law that imposed judicial consent for domestic wiretaps during the Cold War. "If you believe you need new laws, then come and tell us," Senate Democrat Pat Leahy told Attorney General Alberto Gonzales during Monday's hearing. Chairman Arlen Specter and Members in both parties seemed to be saying, "We're from Congress and we're here to help you."

But note well that the Members aren't talking about sharing responsibility themselves for wiretap decisions. That they want no part of. The leadership and Intelligence Committee chairs were already briefed numerous times on the NSA program, only to have several of them deny all responsibility when the story was leaked. Intelligence Vice Chairman Senator Jay Rockefeller (D., W.Va.) even wrote his own not-my-fault letter that he kept secret until the story broke, when he released it in order to embarrass the Bush Administration. The real message of this episode is: "We're from Congress and we're here to second-guess you."

What FISA boils down to is an attempt to further put the executive under the thumb of the judiciary, and in unconstitutional fashion. The way FISA works is that it gives a single judge the ability to overrule the considered judgment of the entire executive branch. In the case of the NSA wiretaps, the Justice Department, NSA and White House are all involved in establishing and reviewing these wiretaps. Yet if a warrant were required, one judge would have the discretion to deny any request.

As a practical war-fighting matter, this interferes with the ability to gather intelligence against anonymous, al Qaeda-linked phone numbers. FISA warrants apply to people, and are supposed to require "probable cause" that the subject is an agent of a foreign power. But as Mr. Gonzales and Deputy National Intelligence Director Michael Hayden explained Monday, in fast-moving anti-terror operations it's often impossible to know if someone on the U.S. end of an al Qaeda phone call is actually an "agent." That means the government must operate on a different "reasonable basis" standard.

FISA is the intelligence equivalent of asking battlefield commanders in Iraq to get a court order before taking Fallujah. "We can't afford to impose layers of lawyers on top of career intelligence officers who are striving valiantly to provide a first line of defense by tracking secretive al Qaeda operatives in real time," as Mr. Gonzales put it.

We already know FISA impeded intelligence gathering before 9/11. It was the reason FBI agents decided not to tap the computer of alleged 20th hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui. And it contributed to the NSA's decision not to listen to foreign calls to actual hijacker Khalid al-Midhar, despite knowing that an al Qaeda associate by that name was in the country. The NSA feared being accused of "domestic spying."

Remember that the Clinton Administration had fetishized lawyers to the extent that Jamie Gorelick in the DoJ was strengthening firewalls between the CIA foreign and FBI domestic surveillance efforts and trying to make them higher.

Civil Liberties always trump American Security when the lawyers start to snuff for truffles.

As the Able Danger episode demonstrated, lawyers even had the Pentagon jumping through legal hoops to the extent that effective counterintelligence efforts were paralyzed or shut down.

A quick review of the operative language of the finding above: "The effect of these difficulties was compounded by the perception that spread among FBI personnel at Headquarters and the field offices that the FISA process was lengthy and fraught with peril."

"If not addressed, these weaknesses will continue to undercut U.S. counter terrorist efforts."

Even after Congress admitted that FISA courts gummed up the process, Congress still wants to micro-manage even more.

535 Cooks make a horrible broth.

Friedan, Megalomania, and Memory Lane

There is an interesting tidbit of an obit on Betty Friedan on Steve Sailer's recent blog. After Germaine Greer wrote a devastating nil de mortuis nisi malo piece that portrayed Friedan as a grasping megalomaniac, it brought to mind meeting Friedan at a dinner party in Sag Harbor in the mid-80s at the home of John Scanlon, a peerless PR person for Daniel J. Edelman whose Rolodex had every name one could think of and who had a cell phone way back before it was standard issue for even top business people.

Betty Friedan was attending, along with Ken Auletta, an obscure congressman named Chuck Schumer [Scanlon could spot a comer a mile off], the WaPo's Richard Cohen, Kurt Vonnegut Jr., Nora Ephron, and other luminaries of lesser incandescence. Strangely, Betty sat to the side as meek as a sheep, or ewe, and seemed almost oblivious to the merrymaking. My only strong memory is talking about human sacrifice with a three-sheets-to-windward Vonnegut, who made a lot of sense even slurring his words through serial glasses of gin on the rocks.

But Steve had an interesting point that the Financial Times maven Lucy Kellaway made one Monday in her FT column, which I cannot find online, unfortunately. Lucy was writing about senior business execs, but her comments on their completely blithe solipsism and limitless self-regard are salient in very much the same way as Sailer’s following point:

Indeed, much of what we are taught as the high intellectual history of the human race is based more on the magnetism and impenetrable self-assurance of thinkers than on minor issues like whether they were right or not. Freud is a perfect example, a charlatan who befuddled two generations via his implacable self-esteem. Marx was similar, and Ayn Rand was cut from the same cloth but fortunately never had as deleteriously wide an impact as Marx or Freud

I believe Kellaway went on to say that often these super-management achievers are finally feckless and render great harm to their companies. But unlike Steve Jobs so far, whose wiki bio accuses him of causing a "reality distortion field," or RDF in Apple lingo, they and their companies often come a cropper with disastrous consequences to stakeholders trusting the CEOs' inner vision and outer confidence. As the wikipedia says about Jobs:

Jobs is both admired and criticized for his consummate skills of persuasion and salesmanship, which has been dubbed the "reality distortion field" and is particularly evident during his keynote speeches at Macworld Expos. This "RDF" shield is an encapsulating term, also referring to Apple's sometimes non-competitive market pricing, such as the overly expensive G4 cube, or making decisions outside the desire of market demands, such as the elimination of Macintosh clones.

I watched Jobs weave his magic web online at his Macworld Expo presentation and his rollout reminded me of his Syrian ancestry, as he projected a sort of religion-tinged [I believe "indigo" is the new buzz word"] absolutism in unadorned straightforward self-assurance. A combination of a smarter younger Saddam Hussein and Carlos Slim controlling the world through his brilliant artifice.

As I look at my daughter's TV Ipod, bought by her grandparents behind my back, and watch Disney come into the Jobs/Lasseter magnetic field, I wonder how much longer before he overtakes stodgy Bill Gates.