Spot on

I did not get a chance to write about the last chapter of the David Frum series from five days ago, but it is worth mentioning late. After dispelling four myths about America's involvment in the Middle East, he has one truth: America is intending to become a revolutionary force in the region. He writes that if the democratization of Iraq is successful, the tremors it will produce will move throughout the Arab world. This isn't the most original thought, many have said it before. I guess I just like the way Frum phrases it.

Democratisation and liberalisation mean doom not only for the rulers of the moderate states - the Saudi royal family, the Mubarak clan, and so on - but also for a much broader swath of the elite: all those people who have made fortunes out of the closed system of controls and special favours that directs the Arab world's wealth into the hands of a tiny, well-connected elite.

The American determination to root out terror - to put a stop to the game where Arab regimes direct their people's anger outward at America and Israel, to eliminate the ambiguity that allows terrorist groups to raise funds more or less openly in states that pretend to deplore them - threatens to upend a system of government to which many in the West have become comfortably accustomed.

Frum further describes that it is September 11th that woke us up and made us move towards these changes in the Middle East. Our enemies and pseudo friends can second guess us, but we know that we will be doing all we can to help prevent a September 11th from happening again. He writes:

America does not want to destabilise the Middle East. But Islamic extremism, anti-American incitement, and willing and unwilling support for terrorist organisations have fastened themselves deep into the societies and cultures of the Middle East. Osama bin Laden's terrorism is not the work only of a few sociopathic killers: it is the product of a wide and deep complicity throughout the Arab world. Finding, uprooting, discrediting and destroying terror will have equally wide and deep - and unpredictable - consequences.

And that is why so many Europeans with an interest in the Arab world and its oil have urged America to learn to live with terror: to be realistic, to adjust, to accommodate - as they have had to do. And it is America's refusal to be realistic in this way that, more than anything else, has puzzled, vexed and even enraged so many in Europe and in Britain.

America's greatest disappointments and disasters have originated in the national unwillingness to live within realistic limits. So have America's greatest triumphs. Into which category will the war on terror ultimately be assigned? Of course I do not know. But let us hope it is the second - because, like it or not, with friends or without them, America is going ahead.
# Posted 11:03 AM by Karol

Those peaceful Palestinians have struck again. A gunman opened fire in Hermesh, killing a 12 year old girl. No doubt the girl was involved in the government at the highest level and was readying the army to attack the Palestinians as this was obviously a strike to preempt that. (Sorry, have just run out of ideas on what kind of excuses might be possible for these animals. I'm sure some of the readership here will come up with better, and unfortunately they will be serious.)
# Posted 10:12 AM by Karol

'The Republicans shouldn't campaign in the wake of Paul Wellstone's death' say the Democrats all the while campaigning, at his memorial no less.

Via Drudge Report.
# Posted 10:06 AM by Karol

My favorite teacher from high school, the man I credit with developing my independent side, encouraging me to travel, teaching me about writing, getting me interested in reading, telling me about the big world all the while drinking from his 'friends don't let friends vote Republican' cup, has died. I am really sad, a lot sadder than I even thought I would be. I'm going to the wake in a little while, so posting will probably not happen again until the evening. Phillip Stone, RIP.
# Posted 10:22 AM by Karol

PA sentences human rights worker to death.

And the world is, of course, screaming out in outrage. Oh wait, that's right, no one cares even a little except the Jewish and rightwing press.

Via LGF.
# Posted 10:20 AM by Karol

Pictures of naked chicks AND war blog links?
# Posted 11:08 PM by Karol

The Chechen guide to hostage taking:

1) A polytheist prisoner must be killed. No amnesty may be granted to him, nor can he be ransomed.

2) All infidel polytheists and the People of the Book (i.e., Jews and Christians) are to be killed. They may not be granted amnesty, nor can they be ransomed.

3) Amnesty and ransom are the only two ways to deal with prisoners.

4) Amnesty and ransom are possible only after the killing of a large number of prisoners.

5) The Imam, or someone acting on his behalf, can choose between killing, amnesty, ransom or enslaving the prisoner.

And that's before you even get to the paragraph titles 'Killing a Prisoner for the Sins of Others is Permissible.'
Via BOTW

# Posted 1:17 PM by Karol

Ari Goes Down has a hilarious take on a city without its Lizzie.
# Posted 12:10 PM by Karol

Tell me again how Islam is not at war with the west.
# Posted 11:51 AM by Karol

'At no time, it seems, did the Russians seriously intend to negotiate.'

While gas may have not been the best way to go, the media circus that is already beginning to place blame on Putin should end quickly. It is important to remember that while a great loss of life has occurred, the loss would have been far worse had action not been taken. The terrorist apologists will be out in full force, as they always are, but it would sadden me if their disease spread to others. Russia was the victim here. Every loss of life is on the heads of the terrorists. Russia did right, negotiation is out of the question with such animals.
# Posted 12:10 AM by Karol

Saddam Hussein allows protesters? Sure, if they're protesting against war in Iraq. Just how stupid are the protesters? Oh, you have no idea. The leader, Kathy Kelly, said 'she wished that the United States government would follow Mr. Hussein's example in ordering the emptying of Iraq's prisons.' Does it occur to Ms.Kelly that our prisons are filled with actual criminals as opposed to people who have unpopular opinions? No, of course it does not. Moral equivalency must be maintained at all time.

Iraqi blogger Salam (who incidentally, and I suppose obviously, is not for America going to war with Iraq)writes:
Dear american friends, please stop sending her over here, she is not helping. Some people might think that this sort of thing I like to see happening. It is NOT. Kelly baby you have been used. They have put you on show for the westerners..... I think you better take your 'thank you' gift and leave. fast. It feels like you're stepping on my toes. and I pray for "your" prisoners that they are not shown the exact same "spirit of (no-trial-just-shoot-them-I-don't-want-to-worry-about-them) forgiveness".
# Posted 12:05 AM by Karol

I went rock climbing in a mall today!!!! Sorry to be so excited but I don't get out to suburbia much and I didn't know such things existed. For the record, I'm a big chicken and didn't make it very far up because I kept picturing the headline 'city girl has accident in New Jersey mall, splits head open.' It was fun though and I think I may go higher next time. Just thought I'd share.
# Posted 5:40 PM by Karol

I am for racial profiling. I make no excuses for it. Some groups are more likely to commit certain acts than others. For example, I believe that men who are of Arab/Muslim descent and between the ages of 18-40 should get closer scrutiny at the airport. Why? They are most likely, based on history, to hijack the plane and fly it into a building. I think white teenage girls should be closer watched at malls. Why? Because white teenage girls are the group that is most prone to shoplifting. Now, I'm not saying that after profiling we should all lean back in our seats and take a break because only these types of people would commit these acts. Airport security should still check the bags of suspicious looking white women, or that mall security shouldn't pay attention to old men, but use your judgement, do it if something feels wrong to you.

I say all this as a way to bring up my next point: a lot of people are VERY against profiling of any kind based on race. I suppose an argument can be made from that side, the best one I heard deals with people not following step 2 of the process outlined above, that is just racial profiling and not paying attention to the rest of the people. It's interesting to me then that no one is mentioning that the police were specifically looking for a white man in the sniper shootings, or in other words profiling in order to find the killer. Why? Because everyone knows only white people are serial killers. Actually though, as Jonah Goldberg points out, James Allen Fox, a top criminologist from my alma mater Northeastern, 'found that out of 514 sniper murders between 1976 and 2000, 55% of the murderers were white.' As Jonah writes:

This, of course, would mean that whites are actually underrepresented among the ranks of sniper-serial killers. One can only assume that in a better world this increasingly influential subculture will look more like America.

Andrew Sullivan mentions that the sniper was stopped by police while sleeping in his car on October 8th but 'everyone was looking for a white car with white people.'

I assume the chorus of voices to denounce this obvious racial profiling will come later. I personally am holding my breath.
# Posted 10:49 AM by Karol

Did you know that if you click on the 'feel like blogsurfing?' link on the left side of your screen you will be redirected to a random blog of the server's choosing? Well, did you?
# Posted 12:13 AM by Karol

Memo to terrorists:
"Hostage-taking does not stop wars, it fans them even further." -A senior Russian Government official, Alexei Volin
# Posted 1:42 PM by Karol

Lileks on the sniper:

Just passed the TV, and they’re looking for a fellow named John Mohammed. And I wonder again what I would feel like were I one of those live-and-let-live Muslims who don’t want to tamp their faith down the kaffir’s throat with a rifle butt. A devout Christian would wince to learn that the authorities wanted to talk to Bob Jesus about some random slayings for the glory of God: talk about “Not in My Name.” Or His. If this is Islamic terrorism, then they’ve made another characteristically stupid move: that line about “your children are not safe anywhere anytime” is the sort of thing that shoves otherwise peaceable soccer moms into the Bellicose Women Brigades. Pop off a round at an elementary school in Minneapolis on behalf of Jihad, and
suddenly a lot of good Linden Hills liberal moms are going to be less inclined to attend the church-sponsored appearance by a survivor of the Jenin Massacre.

We don’t dress up our children in dynamite belts - and they think this makes us weak. We shield our children from death, not marinate them in its bloody juices, and they think this means we lack conviction. Morons. Come after our children, and you don’t know what you’re in for. You heard the part about awakening a sleeping giant? The sleeping giantess is the one you want to look out for, because she’ll tear off your head and lactate down your throat. Do not mess with American moms.
# Posted 9:08 AM by Karol

Part four of David Frum's excellent series in the Telegraph deals with the myth that America doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks. In it, I find he doesn't so much debunk that myth as he reassures Britain that it, in particular, matters to us. My favorite part is him asking if the issue isn't really if America cares about the world but if the world cares about America:

But look at the matter from an American point of view: for 50 years, via Nato, America risked nuclear suicide to guarantee the nations of Europe against attack. Sure, America benefited from the arrangement - but it benefited less than Europe and paid much more.

Then, paradoxically, the first Nato nation to be attacked turns out to be America. America invokes Article V - and where are the allies? Britain is there, and God bless you for it. Australia, though not in Nato, is there as well, and bless Australia, too.

But the others? Where are you? Where are the Germans whom America defended at their hours of maximum danger - the Berlin crises of 1949 and 1961? The French, the Dutch and the Belgians?

Europe aspires to become a great power and world leader alongside America. Well, what are Europe's obligations to listen to its friends in their hour of need? Or do the obligations run one way only?
# Posted 8:44 AM by Karol

We have caught the sniper like a duck in a noose?
# Posted 12:33 AM by Karol

Excellent Australian blogger Tim Blair, who at the moment is trapaising around New York taking time out to point and laugh at the UN, directs his readers to where they can donate to help the victims of the vicious Bali attack. If you would like to donate please visit the Australian Red Cross website.
# Posted 2:02 PM by Karol

Maybe it's because of my previously mentioned interest in Britain, but I'm finding the David Frum series in the Telegraph very interesting. I'm a day behind, just read yesterday's piece where he debunks the 'war for oil' myth. In addition to noting that America only imports about half its oil while its allies import much more, he also mentions three points:

1) Wasn't it just yesterday that America was being scolded for not buying oil from Iraq and thereby causing (as it was wrongly but loudly alleged) the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians?

2) Isn't it odd for people who oppose "wars for oil" to rally to the defence of a dictator who launched two of them -one to conquer the oil fields of Iran, the second to annex neighbouring Kuwait?

3) Although it is apparently wrong for hawks to be swayed by oil, it seems to be perfectly OK for doves. Here, for example, is a leader from the anti-war Guardian: "Would Saddam launch missiles against Kuwaiti and Saudi oil fields? Would an attack on Baghdad foment strife in Riyadh? To different degrees, both would be a shock to oil supplies . . . [During the Iranian revolution,] Iranian oil production fell from six million barrels a day to three million and never recovered. If the same happened in Saudi Arabia, the world would see oil prices spurt upwards. The consequences would be rising inflation and consumers deprived of spending power." So, while war for oil is condemned, appeasement for oil is quite all right.

Frum also touches on the fact that most of the oil lobby in the US do not want a war and are terrified of the effects it will have on our supposed friend Saudi Arabia. He writes:

Fowler's is the authentic voice of the oil lobby, the people who ran America's Middle East policy more or less unchallenged until September 11: pro-Palestinian statehood, sceptical of Arab democracy and concerned above all with the "stability" of the Middle East - meaning the preservation of the Saudi royal family.

Many of these people supported Bush in 2000, but they are found in both parties and throughout the American government. Listen to the retired officials and distinguished public servants who have criticised President Bush's Iraq policy - the Brent Scowcrofts and the James Bakers, the Anthony Zinnis and the Laurence Eagleburgers - and you will hear that word "stability" over and over again. "Stability" means oil.

Frum's pieces are meant to go slowly over the 'plausible delusions' that some Brits accept as fact. In today's piece he covers the myth that Bush is retaliating for the assassination attempt on his father. This is one of those theories that sound too much like nonsense to my ears but Frum goes over it from the angle that the governments of the US and Britain are very different and their differences are what lead to a theory like that to be accepted. It's worth a read. You can find it here.

# Posted 11:48 AM by Karol

Lileks blogs about blogging and I couldn't agree more.

I’ve come to depend on the krill-filtering mechanisms of blogs and news sites, because they’re far more interesting than the wire feeds. I read a wire story, and that’s that. A wire story consists of one voice pitched low and calm and full of institutional gravitas, blissfully unaware of its own biases or the gaping lacunae in its knowledge. Whereas blogs have a different format:

Clever teaser headline that has little to do with the actual story, but sets the tone for this blog post.

Breezy ad hominem slur containing the link to the entire story.

Excerpt of said story, demonstrating its idiocy (or brilliance)
Blogauthor’s remarks, varying from dismissive sniffs to a Tolstoi-length rebuttal.

Seven comments from people piling on, disagreeing, adding a link, acting stupid, preaching to the choir, accusing choir of being Nazis, etc.

I’d say it’s a throwback to the old newspapers, the days when partisan slants covered everything from the play story to the radio listings, but this is different. The link changes everything. When someone derides or exalts a piece, the link lets you examine the thing itself without interference. TV can’t do that. Radio can’t do that. Newspapers and magazines don’t have the space. My time on the internet resembles eight hours at a coffeeshop stocked with every periodical in the world -if someone says “I read something stupid” or “there was this wonderful piece in the Atlantic” then conversation stops while you read the piece and make up your own mind.

I’m serious. I was sitting at a terminal at a major American daily, and I thought: I feel so uninformed!
# Posted 12:05 AM by Karol

One in ten Britons can't name a single world leader including their own but they sure do 'know' who killed Jesus.

All joking aside (and for those of you who don't know me or are new to the site or have forgotten who I am: I love Britain only slightly less than I love the US), I am really surprised by the survey that more British people can name a character from the soap opera Eastenders than the leader of Germany, France or Russia. The majority of Brits that I met, during my three years or so living there, were very well versed in what was going on in the world. It's true that I spent most of that time in the northeast of Scotland and so maybe it is not representative, but I surely did not leave there with the impression that Brits as a whole were less knowledgeable than the ones I had met. Maybe this is indeed the case though....

The second part of the statement above links to an article about British perceptions of the American political system, it's part of a series by David Frum in The Telegraph, and this edition refers specifically to the case of Israel. Often in discussing with Brits our different views on Israel, the concept of the 'powerful Jewish lobby' is brought up. It does little good to explain that Jews constitute less than two percent of the population in the US and that American support of Israel is based on other factors. The most important factor to me and many others is that Israel is a democracy in a region of the world where such things don't exist. Frum writes:

When the European political Left looks at the Middle East, it sees a page out of a shameful past: arrogant white people conquering and colonialising oppressed non-whites. They think the Israeli cause is wrong, but, right or wrong, they believe it is hopeless - after all, did their own countries not fight very similar wars themselves during the retreat from empire? And did they not lose?

Nor is the political Left immune to older prejudices: Labour minister complained to me about the Israelis "rampaging through the Holy Land at Easter" - an unconscious hint that, while dechristianised Britain may have lost its faith that Christ ever lived, it has not quite forgotten who killed Him.

But post-colonial guilt has a weaker purchase on the American conscience. When Americans look at the Middle East, they see a democratic society inspired by the Bible and committed to human freedom, surrounded by murderous and tyrannical enemies.

And when they look at the Palestinians, what do they see? Not the victims that Europeans perceive - but the people who danced with glee as New York and Washington burned. Americans see the inventors of the airplane hijacking and the exponents of suicide-murder. In short, they see people who inspired and sympathise with America's newest and deadliest enemies.

It's more than just that. I know many non-Jews in the US who can't believe how patient Israel has been with the Palestinians. Israel had been attacked in the Palestinians name several times since its inception. Each time it was able to defeat its invaders and actually conquer more land. In no other case has the winner of a war returned captured land to the invading country. Israel has done this and has made countless other concessions and agreements to live in peace. That this isn't enough to some people isn't an issue of politics but of personal feeling, to not equate the two parties as equals, to see the suffering of the Jewish people in Israel as less important than that of the Palestinians. Or maybe as the poll shows, the information just isn't there though the opinions are.

Both articles found via Andrew Sullivan
# Posted 1:18 PM by Karol

Been looking in vain for that oil connection that you are sure is affecting our going to war with Iraq? Can't quite figure out that lifting sanctions would do more for the oil companies in the US than a war that may ruin the sacred oil fields? Are sure it's all about oil but can't quite place how? How about this, I'll run through it slowly:

The Nobel prize committee awards the Nobel Peace Prize to ex-President Carter

In giving the prize, members of the committee point to Carter's long standing method of dialogue instead of action.

The committee also makes no secret about the fact that the prize was just as much anti-Bush as it was pro-Carter. One committee member said that the prize should be viewed as a 'kick in the leg' to Bush.

Norway is the world's third largest supplier of oil.

Should the liberating of Iraq be successful, oil prices will invariably go down.

Norway's position in the oil market would be decreased.

Gunnar Berge, Nobel Peace Prize committee chairman, is also director general of his government's policy-making Norwegian Petroleum Directorate.

Are those rebellious protesters I hear out my window shouting 'no oil for peace'?

Via Weekly Standard.
# Posted 12:10 AM by Karol

A Mother's pride

In her own words:

Mahmud arrived at home one day and said: I was accepted, mother. I asked him where. He replied: To the ranks of the brigades [The Izz-a Din Al-Qassam Brigades, terrorist faction of the Hamas]. From now on, he said, I am to be counted among the warriors. He hurried and left [the house]. I assumed that he was going to a confrontation with the Jews, yet he returned shortly and asked me to be filmed with him for a video. He told me that the brigades want my approval for him to be a suicide bomber (Istishahadi). I sent a letter with him, which he passed to the leader, Salah Shehade [head of the terrorist faction of the Hamas; Shehade was killed in the IDF Airforce attack on Gaza in July 2002]. Shehade said that the operation that Mahmud would take part in would be very successful, because his mother is pleased by his actions.

Via LGF
# Posted 5:58 PM by Karol

Salam, an Iraqi blogger always worth reading if not for his semi-fatalist humor then for his excellent taste in music, writes:

I'm afraid most Iraqis fail to see what will be brought about by an american "invasion" correctly. It should be seen as a catalyst for change. We have to do the hard work ourselves, change has to come from within, it is no use to sit and wait for others to solve our problems, and iraq will be ruled by foreigners if iraqis don't take an active part in whatever will happen. The problem is that years of being told what to do has turned us into a bunch fatalists who see whatever happens to us as "maktub" - written by the hand of god, and submit to it, like all good faithfull people should. funfact of the day: when was the last time the iraqi "man-in-the-street" had the right to express an honest and free opinion about the government's policies? Answer: 1962 - that is forty years ago. I can only hope that our american friends don't forget to bring extra copies of "Democracy for Dummies" and "Make a Decision: it's not as hard as it sounds" books with them.
# Posted 12:33 PM by Karol

Quote of the day:

'No one who thinks George W. Bush is stupid is as smart as George W. Bush.'-the Maureen Dowd rule by Mark Goldblatt.

Via Bluestar Blog
# Posted 11:24 AM by Karol

Has the world gone mad?

Since when do Dan Savage and I agree on anything political? Since September 11th, that's when.

Via The CounterRevolutionary
# Posted 12:36 AM by Karol

Good morning and happy Monday. Thought for the day: the Islamofascists want you dead. But don't take my word for it when Mark Steyn can say it as clearly as he does:

The French were supportive for about ten minutes after 11 September, but for most of the last year have been famously and publicly non-supportive: throughout the spring, their foreign minister, M.Védrine, was deploring American ‘simplisme’ on a daily basis. The French veto is still Saddam’s best shot at torpedoing any meaningful UN action on Iraq. If you were to pick only one Western nation not to blow up the oil tankers of, the French would be it.

But they got blown up anyway. And afterwards a spokesman for the Islamic Army of Aden said, ‘We would have preferred to hit a US frigate, but no problem because they are all infidels.’

No problem. They are all infidels.

Unlike Mr Fisk, I don’t have decades of expertise in the finer points of Islamic culture, so when people make certain statements and their acts conform to those statements I tend to take them at their word. As Hussein Massawi, former leader of Hezbollah, neatly put it, ‘We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you.’ The first choice of Islamists is to kill Americans and Jews, or best of all an American Jew — like Daniel Pearl, the late Wall Street Journal reporter. Failing that, they’re happy to kill Australians, Britons, Canadians, Swedes, Germans, as they did in Bali. We are all infidels.

Back in February, Fisk wrote a column headlined ‘Please Release My Friend Daniel Pearl’. It followed a familiar line: please release Daniel, then you’ll be able to tell your story, get your message out. Taking him hostage is ‘an own goal of the worst kind’, as it ensures he won’t be able to get your message out, the message being — Fisky presumed — ‘the suffering of tens of thousands of Afghan refugees’, ‘the plight of Pakistan’s millions of poor’, etc. Somehow the apologists keep missing the point: the story did get out; Pearl’s severed head is the message. That’s why they filmed the decapitation, released it on video, circulated it through the bazaars and madrasas and distributed it worldwide via the Internet. The message got out very effectively.
# Posted 12:33 AM by Karol

Those crazy Scots and their obsession with porn.
# Posted 2:36 PM by Karol

Daniel Henninger asks if we are becoming too civilized. He writes:

A little more than a year after September 11, Islamic radicals almost certainly used a car bomb filled with C-4 plastic explosive to blow into pieces perhaps 180 human beings in Bali. Most were Australians or Brits, the rest were Indonesians, Dutch, Swedes, Swiss and some Americans. Wire reports note that the parents in Sydney of a lost 15-year-old daughter will be sending a DNA sample, so little is left of these people who were alive the morning of October 12. We are all becoming Israelis.....

Still and all, Paris, Bonn, and that part of Manhattan that never comes downtown instruct us that Iraq and Saddam, sitting atop barrels of mustard gas and anthrax, have no proven connection to this darkening world. Soon enough, they will find a way to say that medieval North Korea's acquisition of nuclear weapons has to be "managed."

It is possible to become too civilized, or so exquisitely civilized that the strongest feeling one can summon in response to a Bali or the logical surmise of more Balis soon to come is . . . concern. A politics of concern may be enough to assure some people that their own lives will be as untouched today by anti-civilization as they were all day yesterday. But it does appear that for a much larger majority of Americans, looking back on a week of slaughter, something sturdier is going to be needed to preserve where we are.

# Posted 12:21 PM by Karol

The anti-gun crowd has began their calls against guns in the wake of the sniper attacks. Their reasoning, that taking away the legal right to own guns will somehow stop criminals from obtaining guns illegally, is based on passion and not logic. My question is this: if taking away the right to own guns will stop future snipers, what would these same opponents suggest we do if it turns out that the sniper is, in fact, a member of Al Qaeda or some other Islamofascist group? Will Islam become illegal in the US as it keeps producing violence? Will they be ok with registering all Muslims like they want to register guns? Will we make 18,000 laws restricting the movements of Muslims same as we have with guns?
# Posted 12:01 PM by Karol

A Clinton voter is regretting it. I'm not gloating or anything.....
# Posted 11:42 AM by Karol

North Korea admits to having a nuclear weapons program in violation of a 1994 agreement. The agreement was brokered by Nobel Peace Prize winner and super effective president, Jimmy Carter, under yet another overly effective president, Bill Clinton. Good thing neither of these men are 'bullies' or 'warmongers' or North Korea might never get nukes. Congrats to everyone involved.
# Posted 11:12 AM by Karol

Sharp rise in support for war with Iraq among Brits in the wake of the Bali bombing.
# Posted 10:53 AM by Karol

I would say that I am a fairly obsessive reader of the news. Last night, while reading the paper version of National Review, I came across a detail I had somehow missed in a story I had read. Turns out, Azedine Berkane, the man who stabbed the mayor of Paris a few weeks ago was a 'devout' Muslim. Doing a search now for the phrase 'Paris mayor attacked'+'Muslim' produces mostly gay websites making this link. A South African newspaper reports this:

A neighbour of Berkane was quoted in Le Monde newspaper as saying, "He did not like homosexuals and he did not care who knew it." Another man--who gave his name as Samir -- said, "Here we are all homophobic because it's not natural. It's against Islam. There are no Muslim gays."

NR made the same point I am about to make: if the attacker had been a fundamentalist Christian, the coverage of the story would be very, very different.
# Posted 10:33 AM by Karol

Israeli intelligence is reporting bin Laden bin dead. Pandavox has the story.
# Posted 2:50 PM by Karol

I'm not a fan of milk but these kids, from my old home Aberdeen, are craaaaaaaazy.

Via Andrew Sullivan.
# Posted 12:40 PM by Karol

Christopher Buckley has an Iraq Q+A parody. My favorite is:

Q: Why hasn't the United Nations enforced the resolutions it passed on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?

A: Under Article 45 (b) of the U.N. Charter, "the primary responsibility for saving the world from itself shall be the United States' problem" while the U.N. "shall concentrate on vetoing any U.S. attempt to do something about it and denouncing it for unilateralism."
# Posted 11:36 AM by Karol

I heart New York

'I can’t explain why knowing that I live in a giant bull’s-eye doesn’t make me want to flee.'
# Posted 9:16 PM by Karol

The Iraqi people go to the polls.

I'm at the edge of my seat.
# Posted 9:38 AM by Karol

As apparent victim number 10 was shot last night by the sniper terrorizing the D.C area, I renewed a conversation I have been having since the shootings began. I have subjected many different friends to it. It goes something like this:

Me: Isn't it weird how no one even suspects for a second that this is the Islamofascists striking?

Them: No, it doesn't seem like their kind of terrorism to me.

Me: No? A trained sniper, killing people at random, in the Washington D.C area isn't their 'style'? It's inciting fear around our capital. People are afraid to pump their own gas. Wouldn't that be precisely the kind of result Al Qaeda would enjoy?

Them: No, I don't think it's terrorism, not in the traditional 'terror for political gain' sense anyway.

Me: Why not?

Them: It just doesn't seem like their kind of terrorism to me.

Me: But, but....

Them: Not terrorism. Get over it.

The problem for me isn't that I necessarily believe that it is terrorism, in all liklihood it probably isn't, but that we've all suspended the idea that it could even be a possibility. The people that aren't even entertaining the idea aren't in lala land. They are some of my most down to earth friends. They aren't apologists for the jihadis. They are the same people who would've not questioned for one second if it was or wasn't a year ago. No matter what the authorities told them, even if they caught the guy, October 2001 would have a lot of people thinking twice about whodunnit. We're all pretending we're some sort of crime experts that can spot patterns in terrorists, as if a year of this could have possibly given us that kind of knowledge. Many a time terrorists have used guns in Israel, they aren't married to the idea of bombs. What is wrong with us that we can't understand that they can use any method at any time. Are we really back to the September 10th mentality that allowed September 11th to happen?

To be fair, there are some columnists and tv pundits that are wondering if it is terrorism. I saw Charles Krauthammer on tv saying it could be. Kathryn Jean Lopez mentions the possibility in The Corner today. Still, the voices are few and far between. Again, my point is not to prove that this is indeed terrorism but just to wonder why we all have blinders on to the chance that it might be.
# Posted 8:34 AM by Karol

UN pays former Nazi Waldheim 125G annual pension

But they're doing it multilaterally and that's all that counts, isn't it?
# Posted 5:37 PM by Karol

Thirty thousand people who just don't get it.

Thousands of people gather in front of the State Library in Melbourne, Australia, Sunday, Oct. 13, 2002, in the country's biggest peace rally since the Vietnam War to protest Australia's support for a possible war with Iraq. An estimated 30,000 people who took part in the rally paused for two minutes of silence for victims of a deadly car bombing outside a nightclub on the Indonesian island of Bali. (AP Photo/David Callow)

# Posted 11:39 AM by Karol

'I suspect that the bombing was engineered by the United States and its allies to justify allegations that Indonesia is a base for terrorists.'-Indonesian Islamic cleric Abu Bakar Bashir on the bombing that killed more than 180 people in a nightclub in Bali.
# Posted 11:34 AM by Karol

Happy Columbus Day!

Posting will be sporadic if at all.

Some things I read every day and suggest in my absence you do too:

The Pandavox

Andrew Sullivan

LGF

The Corner

BOTW

# Posted 12:07 AM by Karol

Washington D.C's excellent City Paper has a 'Best of Protest 2002.' Categories include 'Best Misunderstanding of Tire Toxins' and 'Best Obvious Anti-Protester Sign.'

Via More Room Throughout Coach.
# Posted 11:46 AM by Karol

Wouldya look at that:

France signals wish to fall in with America over Iraq

Via Drudge Report.
# Posted 11:32 AM by Karol

'And IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII will always love you'

Saddam Hussein's party has picked the Dolly Parton song, made famous by Whitney Houston, as the theme song for his 'campaign'. I can't imagine why a campaign that won 99.89% of the vote the last time would even need a campaign song but there you have it.

Via BOTW
# Posted 8:51 PM by Karol

Palestinian Killing A Sign of Bad Blood. Rift Grows Between Arafat, Hamas

Trouble in paradise?

Looks like the official terrorist organization, Hamas, and the unofficial terrorist organization, the Palestinian Authority, have hit a speedbump on the way to the alter.

The assassination of Abu Lehiya as he was on his way to work Monday sparked a day of rage between Hamas and security forces of the Palestinian Authority, the Palestinians' official government headed by Yasser Arafat. The killing prompted a prolonged afternoon street fight between Hamas and Palestinian security forces in the middle of Gaza City and an early evening gun battle in the Nusairat refugee camp in central Gaza that killed four and injured 30.

I only half wonder if these numbers get included in Reuter's official tally that they love adding on to 'news' pieces about this region. This killing, billed as a honor killing by the Hamas side, is in retaliation for a killing the previous year. That's not so weird though. Here is what a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council has to say:

When the three people were killed by police a year ago, "the Palestinian Authority did not establish an inquiry, did not publish findings, did not exercise accountability or punish people, so it's natural that the people took the law into their own hands."

Natural?

Or as SMFA, who sent me this article puts it: 'in other news, Senator Daschle advised a woman, angry that her son's killer was not brought to justice, to take matter into her own hands. "It's only natural" said Mr. Daschle'

# Posted 4:08 PM by Karol

Daschle says will support Bush on Iraq
Wow, I really was on pins and needles until the very end with this one. Couldn't see that one coming a mile off at all.
# Posted 12:11 PM by Karol

Can every British person who patiently explained to me why death threats against a writer didn't matter, and how it is ok to call for the death of Americans at the Edinburgh Film Festival with the explanation of 'freedom of speech', please explain to me the double standard going on here.

Via Andrew Sullivan.

# Posted 11:33 AM by Karol

Tony Soprano has a weblog: Badabingbadablog

Via Lileks.
# Posted 11:19 PM by Karol

A leftie leaves

New York Observer writer, and leftist thinker, Ron Rosenbaum has had enough. Like Christopher Hitchens leaving The Nation because it had become 'an echo chamber of those who believe that John Ashcroft is a greater menace than Osama bin Laden', Rosenbaum has had enough of the excuse-makers and America haters. He has a piece called 'Goodbye, All That: How Left Idiocies Drove Me to Flee', written after attending the 'peace march' in Central Park last weekend. He was sickened by what he saw. He writes that it was:

A movement of Marxist fringe groups and people who are unable to make moral distinctions. An inability summed up by a man holding a big poster that proudly identified him as "NYC TEACHER." The lesson "NYC TEACHER" had for the day was that "BUSH IS A DEVIL … HANDS OFF NORTH KOREA, IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN …. "

Yes, Bush is "a devil" compared to those enlightened regimes that torture and murder dissidents (like "NYC TEACHER"). Bush is certainly "a devil" compared to enlightened leaders like Kim Jong Il, who has reduced the North Korean people in his repulsive police state to eating moss on rocks; or to Saddam Hussein, who tortures and gasses opponents, and starves his people to fund his germ-war labs; or to the Taliban in Afghanistan, who beat women into burqas. Yes, surely compared to them, Bush is "a devil." Thank God New York’s schoolchildren are in such good hands.

Rosenbaum seems more sad than angry that the left has taken on dimensions that he can't live with. He makes it clear that he is not becoming a conservative but that he can no longer associate with his side either. I've seen a lot of this happening since 9/11 and wrote about the personal experiences I've had with friends on the left who are stunned by their side. It's an unfortunate state for everyone, even rightwingers. The left starts to be associated with these kinds of people as they are the loudest, it happens everywhere, even on this site, and the argument is lost, coherent disagreement can not be had. And that's too bad. He sums up with:

'So, for my part, goodbye to all that. Goodbye to a culture of blindness that tolerates, as part of "peace marches," women wearing suicide-bomber belts as bikinis.....

Goodbye to the brilliant thinkers of the Left who believe it’s the very height of wit to make fun of George W. Bush’s intelligence—thereby establishing, of course, how very, very smart they are. Mr. Bush may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer (I think he’s more ill-informed and lazy than dumb). But they are guilty of a historical stupidity on a far greater scale, in their blind spot about Marxist genocides. It’s a failure of self-knowledge and intellectual responsibility that far outweighs Bush’s, because they’re supposed to be so very smart.

Goodbye to paralysis by moral equivalence: Remind me again, was it John Ashcroft or Fidel Castro who put H.I.V. sufferers in concentration camps?

Goodbye to the deluded and pathetic sophistry of postmodernists of the Left, who believe their unreadable, jargon-clotted theory-sophistry somehow helps liberate the wretched of the earth. If they really believe in serving the cause of liberation, why don’t they quit their evil-capitalist-subsidized jobs and go teach literacy in a Third World starved for the insights of Foucault?

Goodbye to people who have demonstrated that what terror means to them is the terror of ever having to admit they were wrong, the terror of allowing the hideous facts of history to impinge upon their insulated ideology.
# Posted 11:48 AM by Karol

Of course I'm not implying bias or anything, but is not airing the President's speech to the nation, and using the excuse 'the White House didn't specifically ask us to', normal? Call Fox biased but at least it understands that at a time when war seems imminent, the American people might want to hear what their president is saying.
# Posted 11:09 PM by Karol

Colin Powell is not black enough, says has-been singer.
# Posted 10:52 PM by Karol

Good question by Mark Steyn in Britain's Spectator.

Just as a matter of interest, how many countries does George W. Bush have to have on board before America ceases to be acting ‘unilaterally’? So far, there’s Australia, Spain, Italy, the Czech Republic, Qatar, Turkey....Romania has offered the use of its airspace to attack Iraq. The Americo-Romanian Coalition Against Iraq has more members than most multilateral organisations. But no matter how multilateral it gets, it doesn’t count unless it’s sanctioned by the UN. If France feels the need to invade the Ivory Coast, that can be done unilaterally. But, when it’s America, you gotta get a warrant from the global magistrate.

On deterence via containment:

When Saddam switches on CNN and sees Adam Nicolson standing in Downing Street pre-emptively chanting ‘Shame! Shame!’ over the mere possibility of a ludicrously antiquated vision of a prolonged siege of Baghdad, he might reasonably question how serious Nicolson would be about nuking the joint. The wily old monster might wonder, if he were to lob a small nuke at, say, Tel Aviv, whether the shame set would really have the stomach for full-blown retaliation with massive civilian casualties, or whether they’d be back in the streets chanting that ‘violence only breeds more violence’. He might conclude that a system of deterrence between a gangster and a ladies’ luncheon club will deter the latter and leave him free to do pretty much what he wants.

And lastly:

If you believe, like Nelson Mandela, that Bush is the problem not Saddam, then the above makes perfect sense. But I wonder if the rest of the anti-Yank set have thought it through. When they bitch about America’s warmongering but think the UN’s the perfect vehicle to restrain it, you know they’re just posing, and that, though they may routinely say that ‘Bush frightens me’, they’re not frightened at all. America could project itself anywhere and blow up anything, but it doesn’t. It could tell the UN to go fuck itself, but it’s not that impolite. Imagine any previous power of the last thousand years with America’s unrivalled hegemony and unparalleled military superiority in a unipolar world with nothing to stand in its way but UN resolutions. Pick whoever you like: the Soviet Union, Imperial Japan, the Third Reich, the Habsburgs, Tsarist Russia, Napoleon, Spain, the Vikings. That’s really ‘frightening’. I’ve now read a gazillion columns beginning, ‘He’s a dangerous madman with weapons of mass destruction. No, not Saddam. George W. Bush.’ It barely works as a joke never mind a real threat. The fact that, in all the torrent of anti-Americanism, there’s no serious thought given to how to reverse it nor any urgency about doing so tells you precisely how frightening and dangerous these folks really think the Great Satan is.

But the problem is this. Before 11 September, most Americans tolerated the anti-Yank diatribes from Europe as a quaint example of the local culture. Filtered through the smoke of the World Trade Center, it’s no longer quite so cute. The real phenomenon of the last year is not Europe’s anti-Americanism, which has always existed, but a deep, pervasive and wholly new American weariness with Europe. Saddam’s creditors in Moscow and under-the-table trading partners in Paris, his useful idiots in Europe and kindred spirits in the thug states may yet team up to stymie America at the UN and those 150,000 ‘peace’ marchers will cheer. But be careful what you wish for.

All in all, a phenomenal piece. I try not to do what I just did above, to quote most of a piece, but almost every part of this article struck me and I had to share. I still suggest reading the whole thing.
# Posted 2:25 PM by Karol

I know, I know, it's just one stupid woman making one stupid comment. But eventually, aren't all of these individual cases that I mention going to add up to something? Or do we just keep pretending that this isn't happening and everything is in its right place?

From Andrew Sullivan:

EURO-ANTI-SEMITISM WATCH: The wife of the European Central Bank president has started a group dedicated to ending the "occupation" of Palestine. She's organizing a petition on those grounds. Michiel Visser has the details:
Mrs Duisenberg was asked in a radio program how many signatures she was hoping to collect for her petition. She said: "Oh, perhaps six million" and started laughing loudly, in an apparent reference to the six million Jews who perished in the War.
# Posted 12:51 AM by Karol

Maybe I'm just really tired but I think this is kind of cute. Just type your name and click 'go'.
# Posted 12:50 AM by Karol

'And this is the blogger's way: like raptors, they hunt in packs, gain momentum, pick enemies, vent spleen, and never, ever, hold back.' -James Crabtree

Mr. Crabtree, a writer for the British magazine 'New Statesman' (just to give you some indication of the magazine: I have a copy in my house with a Jewish star atop a British flag with the words 'A Kosher Conspiracy?' John Pilger and Dennis Sewell on Britain's Pro-Israel lobby.' Hint: it's powerful), has a piece about the scourge of right leaning bloggers in the US. He writes:

'The American right moved into the medium with speed. Two bloggers in particular have astonishing influence: the journalist Andrew Sullivan, with his eponymous site; and a formerly obscure Tennessee law professor called Glenn Reynolds, who runs InstaPundit.'

This is right before Mr. Crabtree goes into how the bloggers rip apart articles for accuracy. Well, let's start with this one. Thanks for giving him to us because we like him real well but actually, Andrew Sullivan is from the other side of the pond.

Mr. Crabtree is putting the scare into British lefties and telling them to start blogging before it becomes a medium of the Right in Britain as it is in America. I would like to see just that happen myself. The left begin blogging that is. Heh-heh.
# Posted 12:49 AM by Karol

Any questions?
'This is a war between Islam and Democracy.'-shoe bomber Richard Reid in an email to his mother the day before he attempted to blow up an airliner.
Via BOTW.
# Posted 4:54 PM by Karol

Gotta love those Socialists

Apple Computer has pulled its iPod music player from store shelves in France because the device is capable of producing noise levels that exceed government regulations.
# Posted 1:47 PM by Karol

My favorite Democrat, Zell Miller, has a great editorial today on how the Democrat party is stuck in 1972. The comparisons he draws between then and today and remarkable. He ends with:
'But before we suffer, as Yogi Berra said, déjà vu all over again, let's rewrite the ending of this movie. Let's send the message that our party realizes the country faces a threat far different and far more deadly than it did in 1972. Today's war is on our own soil with terrorist cells lurking perhaps even in our own states and neighborhoods. Let's respond with strength and boldness, not with the same old failed script that doomed us 30 years ago.'

Good luck with that, Zell.
# Posted 12:17 PM by Karol

I would be a Libertarian, I really would. I agree with them on most things involving limited government except when they get carried away on little things like being feverishly against the law that prohibits talking on a cell phone while driving or other minutae which I consider unimportant. The problem for me isn't that some of them oppose traffic lights or consider a mandatory posting in their homes from the fire department about what to do in case of a fire an infringement on their rights. No, my problem lies in the candidates they choose to represent them. Last summer when I was working on a failing Herman Badillo campaign for mayor and was wishing for a third party candidate to vote for (after Herman lost the primary) that would save me from voting for Mike 'came a little late to the Republican party but hey I've got lots of money don't I' Bloomberg, the Libertarian party of New York was running Kenny Kramer for mayor. Who is Kenny Kramer? He is the inspiration for the character of Cosmo Kramer on the hit television show, Seinfeld. As you may or may not know, the character of Kramer is a bit of a yutz. I'm not saying the 'real' Kramer is one too, but how seriously can you take him when such a character is based on him? Now, there is news that the Libertarian Senate candidate in Montana has permanently turned his skin blue by taking colloidal silver in 1999 for fear that Y2K disruptions might lead to a shortage of antibiotics. O-k. Can't imagine why I have a hard time taking this party seriously.
# Posted 3:57 PM by Karol

It has been a busy, mostly political, few days (with the exception of going to a free White Stripes show in Union Square). I waited on a line that stretched for blocks to meet Rudy Giuliani yesterday. I had met him once before at a Martin Luther King Day dinner, held by the Congress of Racial Equality, and had told him then how he was my all time favorite politician. This is well before 9/11 when he became an international superstar. I fell for him in 1998 when I returned home for the summer from college and came back to a completely different city. It was a safer, cleaner, more orderly city than the mess I had grown up in. It was the first time in my life that I could actually see a difference that a politician made. I had always been interested in political theory but after seeing Giuliani's work I became interested in more than just politics as a concept, now it was politics as action.

Last night I went to a debate sponsored by the incredible Donald and Paula Smith Foundation. They always seem to get the best speakers and the free drinks afterward surely don't hurt. I'm always running into writers that I like there. Wall Street Journal's John Fund and James Taranto were there last night as well as New York Post writer and NRO contributor Robert George and a writer whose book, Africa Speaks (click on link to purchase and support this site), I am currently reading and loving, Mark Goldblatt. The debate was whether the stock market had hit rock bottom and was now only going to go up or if we still had a while to go in our current drop. MSNBC's Larry Kudlow took the bullish position that it was a buyer's market now and that it would only go up. Robert Prechter had a much more grim forecast and felt that ordinary investors should stay away from stocks right now. Economics isn't my strong suit and I tend to be an optimistic person in general so I liked what Kudlow was saying. The three people I spoke to after the event, an economist and two traders thought Kudlow was from Pluto with his predictions. Oh well.

This morning I got up really early and went to the Sheraton Hotel for a 'Women for George Pataki' breakfast. I was a guest of the Republican Pro-choice Coalition. There were about 1100 women there and they were all very energized to see the governor. I get annoyed at Pataki that he isn't running much of a campaign in New York City, mostly because I'd like to work on said campaign, but I think his strategy in this election has been genius. First, he ran ads that didn't mention him at all. It was just him thanking the people of New York for their support and strength in the last year. No mention of the election in November. Nothing overtly political about it. Then he has Giuliani in the ads saying how great Pataki is. This is interesting for a lot of reasons, namely that these two men feuded for their entire time in office. Giuliani broke with party ranks in 1994 and supported Democrat Mario Cuomo for the office (even superhuman Giuliani is allowed a mistake or two, I should think). Since 9/11 though, their cooperative efforts have been tremendous. It's nice to watch even though most people are sneering that it is all fake. Pataki's next ad features former mayor of New York Ed Koch, a Democrat, saying 'I'm a Democrat but I'm voting for George Pataki.' Then a lot of other Democrats join him on the screen saying the same thing. Lastly, Pataki's first ad that I've seen with him in it that actually makes references to the fact that there is a campaign on, features smiling children saying 'I wanna be an astronaut', 'I wanna be a doctor.' Pataki says 'in New York, you can be anything you want!' The ad concludes with a little girl saying 'I wanna be governor' and Pataki saying 'me too!' It's subtle and congratulates New York more than it foists him onto us as a candidate. It is one of the most brilliant campaign strategies I've ever seen. Meanwhile, his opponent Carl McCall is mired in scandal. Turns out he wrote 61 letters in 9 years seeking jobs for friends and family. The worst part is that McCall, as comptroller, wrote letters to corporations in which he, as the state's major fiscal officer, controls blocks of stock. Yet another example of a Democrat involved in a scandal that is getting medium coverage in the press. If it was a Republican, the situation would be very different.

That's all my New York political news for now. My next event that I am attending is a speech by Dinesh D'Souza, who has recently written a book called 'What's So Great About America' (again, you can click on link to purchase and support this site). Of course readers of this site should already know what's so great about America. Everything. :-)
# Posted 9:59 AM by Karol

Court rules Democrats can replace Torricelli

The fact that Torricelli's ethics review came to an end two months ago and that he and his party waited until his poll numbers slipped to replace him is outrageous. The deadline for such a replacement has passed and any manuevering now to get someone else on the ballot is akin to election fraud, in my humble opinion. This is the type of situation in which if it was a Republican involved all you would hear from the Democrat side would be 'they're trying to steal the election!'

James Taranto points out a site called 'The Internet Party' which has some interesting facts about what would be happening in the New Jersey Senate race should the Democrats ultimately be able to install a new candidate and if the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation was active:

Under the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law, which doesn't take effect until after next month's election, "issue ads" will be illegal less than 60 days before an election:

If [McCain-Feingold] were in effect today, the New Jersey Sierra Club couldn't inform voters about replacement candidate Frank Lautenberg's environmental platform. The National Taxpayers Union couldn't tell New Jersey voters about Lautenberg's record on tax legislation. And the state chamber of commerce would have to sit in silence about the new candidate's business record.

This means, TIP says, that "if a party is wary of special interests savaging its candidate, they can just send up a decoy. When the 60-day window closes, they'll be free to plug in the real candidate. He or she will then be protected by the advertising ban. Far-fetched? Just look at the maneuvering going on in Trenton today."

# Posted 6:41 PM by Karol

More

Jonah Goldberg has a follow-up to yesterday's article. He takes on the rest of the often heard arguments about going into Iraq. My favorite part is under the heading 'There is no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq':

When terrible things happen, politicians and pundits say things like "something like this must never happen again," and the rest of us nod a lot. After 9/11 the near-unanimous consensus was that America should do everything it could to prevent something similar from happening ever again. Now, if you believe that al Qaeda, and only al Qaeda, is capable of committing such a crime ever again, you are on safe intellectual ground. But no reasonable person actually believes this.

If a scorpion sneaks into your house and bites your child, you kill the scorpion. That's a no-brainer. But if you believe "something like this must never happen again" then you also go out in the yard and kill the other scorpions. You also kill rattlesnakes and black widow spiders, and maybe you even get a new alarm system and a child safety seat for your car. In other words, you do every reasonable thing you can. Imagine telling your wife, "Honey, I know there's that huge scorpion nest out in the yard, but I killed the scorpion responsible. Can you prove that the other scorpions had anything to do with the one that bit little Timmy?"

Once again, a must read.
# Posted 6:25 PM by Karol

Jonah Goldberg has an outstanding piece that argues for going into Iraq and takes on the nonsensical arguments made by the left. One by one he skillfully disputes the top 6:

1. We helped Saddam in the 1980's/we ignored his gassing Kurds.

2. The Arab street will be mad at us.

3. This will make the Israel-Palestine problem more difficult.

4. We have to solve the Israel-Palestine problem first.

5. We have no right without U.N. approval.

6. No blood for oil/doing it for greed.

A must read, this is one of those on-point articles that is a necessary read to understand why the above arguments, though they sound good, do not prove to be solid.
# Posted 9:49 AM by Karol

Ross Douthat has a good piece about the nonevent that was the protests in Washington D.C last weekend. In it, he befriends two college kids who are passionately against the WTO. He writes:

'They regaled me for 20 long minutes with their tales of the horrors that would result from an American invasion of Iraq ... which segued into the horrors that America had visited on other hapless countries ... which became, in turn, a discussion of the atrocities that the IMF and the World Bank had committed, or encouraged, or allowed, all across the developing world.'

By the time they finished talking, I was practically sold. Somewhere behind me, beyond the black-clad anarchists and the Radical Cheerleaders ("1-2-3-4, we don't want your racist war" they yelled, waving pom-poms and high-kicking), a man with a Bob Dylan rasp was on stage singing about the Sixties. A squad of D.C. cops, body-armored and stone-faced, roared by on motorcycles, and overhead I could hear the thup-thup-thup of a police helicopter. It was Seattle
1999 all over again, or Genoa 2001, or maybe even Chicago 1968. The whole world was watching, and I was primed — no, I was pumped for the revolution.

I just had one more question.

"So what would you do?" I asked. "What would you do, if you were put in charge tomorrow? What would you do to change the world?"

Todd looked at Mike. Mike looked at Todd.

"I'd abolish it," Todd said. "And then I'd . . ." He trailed off.

"Yeah, we'd abolish it," Mike said. "And then . . . and then things would be better."

Thirty years later, we're looking through bullet-proof glass, the singer crooned on. Led by a gun-slinging preppie with his head up his . . .

"Yeah," Todd finished. "Things would be better."

The whole thing is worth a read as it ends with a deflated Ralph Nader ranting about the Third World's genius and also discusses the reasons for a low turnout for these protests: suddenly the pro-American unions have much less in common with this ragtag bunch of anti-American anti-globalizationists than they used to.
# Posted 2:57 PM by Karol