Berkeley Pundits

2003-06-20T14:26:00.000-07:00

A Coda to my Blogging Tenure at BerkeleyPundits

After months of inactivity I think it has become clear that BerkeleyPundits is rather defunct. There are still various websites with links, as well as websurfers who google their way here, so I feel the need to throw on a final goodbye. I had a thoroughly enjoyable time chucking my various comments and concerns up here, but I think my blogging suffered from a clear flaw. I had no claim to any special skill or ability in the areas I blogged in. Yeah, I certainly valued what I had to say, but there were other much more (admittedly) smarter and talented people on the same beat. Me writing on Iraq or the Middle East never seemed like it had the credibility to get others to link.

I had violated the cardinal rule of blogging, which is to write what you know or care deeply about. BerkeleyPundits was far to generally focused to ever be successful. I considered focusing specifically on Berkeley issues, but I don’t think people outside of Berkeley particularly care what is occurring in my wacky college town, except for the occasional high profile story, like newspaper stealing Tom Bates, which receives wide national coverage anyway. Besides, there are already other Berkeley blogs handling the Berkeley coverage better than I probably could, due to more insider information and contacts.

With that in mind, in mind I am temporarily retreating from the blogosphere to possibly (or not) come up with a new idea for something to write about. I have a bunch of ideas floating around in my head, and if something promising presents itself then I shall re-appear in some reincarnated form, and as a service to all my loyal reader(s), I will post a link here with my new location and new focused aread of discussion. Thank you to everyone who stopped by,
-andy-

2003-04-11T02:22:00.000-07:00

Elections FUBAR

I have no contacts amongst the election oriented on campus, but Kevin at CalStuff has all the dirt on how messed up things are. See here and here. [It seems I can't post links because blogger is acting in a fashion similar to those people who are running the elections, so just go to CalStuff and scroll down...]

2003-04-10T22:08:00.000-07:00

I Had No Idea Vietnam Went so Well

Andrew Sullivan has been keeping track of the ridiculously pessimistic comments made about the invasion of Iraq. I came across a local example from the San Francisco Bay Guardian, whose political perspective I'm sure you can ascertain from its geographic location. There April 2nd edition had a cover article on Iraq, with the headline and subheadline, "An unwinnable war: Is Iraq the new Vietnam? The comparisons look closer every day.

The article goes on to make numerous insinuations about how bad things could go, and how this current conflict could turn into a new version of Vietnam. After, first vastly over-estimating the length of time that fighting would take, "The campaign to remove Saddam Hussein has barely been in progress 9 or 10 days. Whether it lasts 9 or 10 weeks (perfectly possible) or 9 or 10 months (rather unlikely)..." writer Rupert Cornwell then goes on to claim, "But the fond belief in Washington – and the one on which this war was largely sold – that the advancing G.I.s would be greeted as liberators, as they were in occupied France in 1944, has already been shown to be an illusion." Anyone interested enough in the war to check out what BerkeleyPundits has to opine, has surely seen the voluminous reports that do show how we have been greeted as liberators, so the Bay Guardian's decision to run that article prompts a simple question: will they bother to post a retraction or correction?

2003-04-09T14:20:00.000-07:00

Serving Comeuppance Berkeley-Style: Penn Gets Saddamized

An avowed abettor of the criminal and despotic regime that formerly occupied Baghdad got his just desserts yesterday, in Berkeley no less. Sean Penn, who openly pimped for Saddam just a few months ago was met with hostility in Berkeley on April 8th, 2002. His luxurious 1987! yes, 1987 Buick was stolen in broad daylight according to the Daily Cal. Noting that Berkeley has been the center of anti war protests for a while now, not all of them ending as peacefully as the 'peace movement' would have hoped, it does ring as poetic justice that Penn, a Marin county resident, had both his car and gun--Yes Mr. Penn unlike most California residents can acquire a CCW--stolen in the heart of 'friendly territory'. Maybe some of the 63% of Bay Area war supporters, as the SF Chronicle reported, have infiltrated the lovely hamlet of Berkeley. The irony that this ‘horrific’ crime occurred on the day of liberation for the Iraqi people is sweet, maybe the perpetrator was an Iraqi exile getting in on some of the looting of the Ba’athist regime that his compatriots enjoying across Iraq.

2003-03-19T16:32:00.000-08:00

Send forth the best ye breed/Go, bind your sons to exile

War-mongers in the conservative press, policy think tanks, and even in the speech writing room of the Whitehouse are constantly apologizing for themselves. War, they say, is the regrettable conclusion to a failed diplomacy, a failed policy of containment. A final resort. A last defense before the dawn of a new and dangerous reality. They lay out carefully what the case for war is and why they would have preferred a different course.

Ahh Bull! We are relishing this. War is good for the soul, especially this one. Stop apologizing for it and going into the countown half-assed. The case for removing Saddam is three fold: past acts (human rights etc), disobedience, and potential for harm. It is a pre-emptive campaign when one considers the third consideration paramount but as most war mongerers would assent, its just part of the puzzle. We will liberate the Iraqi people. Have another chance to establish democracy in a war torn and autocratic region and demonstrate American power to other despots and rogues. This was has a few possible scenarios which would be regrettable but most are limited to the evil acts of an evil and desperate man. Saddam could unleash his stock piles which UN inspectors assure us he no longer has or he could begin executing his own people. Or set the oil fields ablaze. But in the aftermath of his atrocities, the American liberator will stand triumphant.

Mud on our face? huh? Blood for oil? wha? These are ridiculous claims. The democratic and likely federal republic of Iraq will be rebuilt with Iraqi oil profits and American help. The UN will be jettisoned as the irrevelant and squabbling body it is. Exiles will flood back to Iraq to invest their money and manpower into a rejuvenated homeland. An after taking up this burden, we will be spit upon by a thankless world. It will happen. I am sure. But we welcome it. Just as the British were castigated as an empire for stopping the slave trade and never fully thanked, they mark it as one of their greatest accomplishments as a nation and so will we. Don't be ashamed that you clamor for war! Celebrate the tyrant's demise, the ascent of liberty. It is all in a day's work for the new and benevolent American empire. Rudyard Kipling asked us to take up our burden at the close of the 19th century. We stood against tyranny then. We stood against fascism. We stood up for innocence. We stood up for liberty. And today we do the same. American service men (and women) will die undoubtedly along with Iraqi combatants, who foolishly stood against. American bombs will rain down and cut down innocents but liberate millions more. To focus on the few rather than the many is to doom the many to a fate worse than death. We will make the world safe for democracy in a few hours. We will make the world safe for liberty. God Bless America and God Bless this War!

2003-03-18T16:28:00.000-08:00

Dip 'em in Old Spice already

I hate to say I told you so but I told you so. The homeless need to be locked up. The Wash Times' confirms my suspicions.

2003-03-18T13:31:00.000-08:00

The Hour is Nigh

The war will commence in a few hours. Saddam will be killed. Iraq will be liberated. America will be triumphant. And Peaceniks should be hung!

2003-03-17T16:07:00.000-08:00

Who needs the French Army, We have the Poles!

In a key strategic military move, assuring the allies of victory 200 Polish soldiers have been committed to the coalition of the willing. We are all aware about the fierce resistence the Poles are known for giving the Nazi blitzkrieg in September of 1939. Oh wait that wasn't resistence that was a Polish French surrender. It took them longer to figure out the proper technique to surrender while the French managed to do it in a shorter time frame. But I dont blame them really I mean they've had a country running on a total of 75 years over I dont know a millenium. Its hard to have a military tradition if you haven't had a military while the French have had a long tradition as a nation and a military, just not a very good one in either case.

2003-03-12T01:31:00.000-08:00

The Cavalry Arrives, finally.

Noted neoconservative and Berkeley Graduate Max Boot will be at Cal March 12 and 13.

The Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz Memorial Lectureship annually brings to UC Berkeley a distinguished scholar, professional military person or government official for a series of lectures on specific national security subjects. On March 12 and 13, Max Boot will deliver two Nimitz lectures, "Does America Need an Empire" and "The 'American empire' in the Middle East: 50 years of futility."

Boot (History, '91) is Olin Senior Fellow in National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard, and a former writer and editor at The Wall Street Journal. He is the author of "The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power" and is working on a history of military technology revolutions over the past 500 years, "War Made New: Four Great Revolutions That Changed the Face of Battle."

Be assured the BPs will be there.

2003-03-11T23:43:00.000-08:00

It remains to be seen when the lynch mob will be assembled....

In my hometown (well the town adjoining it), a tragedy took place this last week. A memorial to September 11th and our troops was vandalized by hooligans. I am perplexed by the utter stupidity of the officers on duty, or their ignorance of property law.

Officers witnessed the vandalism Saturday afternoon but did not arrest three people seen damaging the memorial because they were "exercising the same freedom of speech that the people who put up the flags were," said La Habra Police Capt. John Rees.

"For this to be vandalism, there had to be an ill-will intent,' he said, according to the Whittier paper.

Police would take action only if the owner filed a complaint, said Rees.

Owner Jeff Collision said he might press charges.

Yes, officer Dimwit when a person owns property any items on that property that are damaged are considered protected under general property rights. When I see idiocy at a local and Orange County police station I cringe. The more outrageous part of this crime is how close to home it hits. My mother's old business office adjoins the empty lot that was decorated as a 9-11 memorial I feel personally violated.

2003-03-11T16:42:00.000-08:00

Mark Steyn on the Anti-war Protesters

Steyn on human shields :

They got to Baghdad only to find their Iraqi "co-ordinators" wanted to deploy them not at "humanitarian" facilities but at military bases. One British teacher said he was used to working with young children and would have preferred to be deployed at an orphanage. Pity the poor Iraqi official who had to explain to the guy that the orphanage has already got all the human shields it needs: they're called "orphans."

2003-03-09T12:49:00.000-08:00

An Elite Fighting Force

When critics begin to harp that there will be huge casualities in this new Gulf War and the Iraqis will stand strong I scoff. But now I am going to have to laugh. It seems British paratroopers captured a dozen Iraqis attempting to surrender to shooting practice. If this is the best Saddam has to offer we might as well just paradrop CNN and Fox News camera crews into Baghdad right now to mop it up.

2003-03-05T21:42:00.000-08:00

Protesters Strike Again!

Following in the footsteps of the wildly controversial occupation of Wheeler Hall, today's anti-war protest involved disturbing students during class. CalStuff has all the information so you can go to his site and begin scrolling down, as well as checking out Steve Lin's exclusive posted on CalStuff here.

2003-02-27T09:48:00.000-08:00

The Neighborhood Bows its head

Unfortunately, I feel it necessary to report that Mister Rogers is no longer with us. The beloved man of the 'hood passed away

Fred Rogers, who gently invited millions of children to be his neighbor as host of the public television show “Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood” for more than 30 years, died of cancer early Thursday. He was 74.
Rogers died at his Pittsburgh home, said family spokesman David Newell, who played Mr. McFeely on the show. Rogers had been diagnosed with stomach cancer sometime after the holidays, Newell said.

“He was so genuinely, genuinely kind, a wonderful person,” Newell said. “His mission was to work with families and children for television. ... That was his passion, his mission, and he did it from day one.”

From 1968 to 2000, Rogers, an ordained Presbyterian minister, produced the show at Pittsburgh public television station WQED. The final new episode, which was taped in December 2000, aired in August 2001, though PBS affiliates continued to air back episodes.

Rogers composed his own songs for the show and began each episode in a set made to look like a comfortable living room, singing “It’s a beautiful day in the neighborhood,” as he donned sneakers and a zip-up cardigan.

“I have really never considered myself a TV star,” Rogers said in a 1995 interview. “I always thought I was a neighbor who just came in for a visit.”

His message remained simple: telling his viewers to love themselves and others. On each show, he would take his audience on a magical trolley ride into the Neighborhood of Make-Believe, where his puppet creations would interact with each other and adults.

Rogers did much of the puppet work and voices himself. He also studied early childhood development at the University of Pittsburgh and consulted with an expert there over the years.

“He was certainly a perfectionist. There was a lot more to Fred than I think many of us saw,” said Joe Negri, a guitarist who on the show played the royal handyman in the Neighborhood of Make-Believe and owner of “Negri’s Music Shop.”

Negri said Rogers refused to accept shoddy ad-libbing by guests who may have thought they could slack off during a kid’s show.

But Rogers could also enjoy taping as if he were a child himself, Negri recalled. Once, he said, the two of them fell into laughter because of the difficulty they had putting up a tent on the show.

Rogers taught children how to share, deal with anger and even why they shouldn’t fear the bathtub by assuring them they’ll never go down the drain.

During the Persian Gulf War, Rogers told youngsters that “all children shall be well taken care of in this neighborhood and beyond — in times of war and in times of peace,” and he asked parents to promise their children they would always be safe.

“We live in a world in which we need to share responsibility,” he said in 1994. “It’s easy to say ’It’s not my child, not my community, not my world, not my problem.’

“Then there are those who see the need and respond. I consider those people my heroes.”

Rogers came out of broadcasting retirement last year to record public service announcements for the Public Broadcasting Service telling parents how to help their children deal with the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.

“If they see the tragedy replayed on television, they might think it’s happening at that moment,” he said.

Rogers’ show won four Emmy Awards, plus one for lifetime achievement. He was given a George Foster Peabody Award in 1993, “in recognition of 25 years of beautiful days in the neighborhood.”

At a ceremony marking the show’s 25th anniversary that year, Rogers said, “It’s not the honors and not the titles and not the power that is of ultimate importance. It’s what resides inside.”

The show’s ratings peaked in 1985-86 when about 8 percent of all U.S. households with televisions tuned in. By the 1999-2000 season, viewership had dropped to about 2.7 percent, or 3.6 million people.

As other children’s programming opted for slick action cartoons, Rogers stayed the same and stuck to his soothing message.

Off the set, Rogers was much like his television persona. He swam daily, read voraciously and listened to Beethoven. He once volunteered at a state prison in Pittsburgh and helped set up a playroom there for children visiting their parents.

One of Rogers’ red sweaters hangs in the Smithsonian Institution.

Rogers was born in Latrobe, 30 miles southeast of Pittsburgh. Early in his career, Rogers was an unseen puppeteer in “The Children’s Corner,” a local show he helped launch at WQED in 1954. In seven years of unscripted, live television, he developed many of the puppets used in his later show, including King Friday XIII and Curious X the Owl.

He was ordained in 1963 with a charge to continue his work with children and families through television. That same year, Rogers accepted an offer to develop “Misterogers,” his own 15-minute show, for the Canadian Broadcasting Corp.

He brought the show back to Pittsburgh in 1966, incorporating segments of the CBC show into a new series distributed by the Eastern Educational Network to cities including Boston, Philadelphia and Washington.

In 1968, “Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood” began distribution across the country through National Educational Television, which later became the Public Broadcasting Service.

Rogers’ gentle manner was the butt of some comedians. Eddie Murphy parodied him on “Saturday Night Live” in the 1980s with his “Mister Robinson’s Neighborhood,” a routine Rogers found funny and affectionate.

Rogers is survived by his wife, Joanne, a concert pianist; two sons; and two grandsons.

The obit speaks for itself.
It's a sad day in the neighborhood. Now take off your shoes dammit.

2003-02-26T19:14:00.000-08:00

Satire Cannot Compete with Reality II

I cam across another disturbingly hilarious example of reality being much more funny than satire ever could. Gene Weingarten, writing in the Washington Post has the transcript of an interview with a writer whose book he reviewed. What makes this situation ridiculous on its own was Gene's decision to tell the writer what he thought of his book before he reviewed it:

The only catch, I said, is that I am going to say that it is, in my professional judgment, the worst novel ever published in the English language.

Go read the whole thing, it's a very funny little interview. Here is one of the more egregious exchanges:

Me [Gene]: Your characters don't seem to have personalities.

Burrows: This was a novel of ideas. I didn't go into personal relationships.

2003-02-26T18:10:00.000-08:00

Satire Cannot Compete with Reality

While riding the bus recently I grabbed a copy of the East Bay Monthly, a magazine I had never seen before (oddly enough, it doesn't seem to have a website or I would provide a link). There was actually an extremely interesting article about a Berkeley Professor who does aerial photography using a kite. His website is full of some of the photgraphs he has taken, like this one of Sather Tower:

The title for this post was inspired by a different article, though. The end feature was an interview conducted by Paul Kilduff with an on and off homeless man by the name of Ace Backwards who is also a bit of a philosopher and activist. I will reprint some of the more humorous exchanges below:

Paul Kildugg: Your approach to homelessness reminds me of Henry David Thoreau-communing with nature, the outdoors, the elements.

Ace Backwards: I've never actually read Thoreau but I probably am like him. Does he write about eating out of the garbage.

...

Paul Kildugg: What's more frustrating, being a freelance cartoonist or being homeless?

Ace Backwards: ...And the years when I was sleeping in the bushes were some of the best of my life because I just gave up. I tended to identify more with the raccoons and the squirrels and the pigeions becuse I spent most of my days scratching for food. I was sleeping in the bushes in a little nest just like the others animals.

2003-02-26T15:40:00.000-08:00

The Campanile is Open for Business

Sather Tower, iconic symbol of Berkeley, and supposedly a structure offering one of the best views in the area, is now allowing visitors. The real reason I am posting this though, is just to check whether I can use PHP to post a picture. So, without further ado, the Campanile:

Update: Cool, it worked!

2003-02-26T11:51:00.000-08:00

Effigies on Sproul

The Daily Cal has an article and picture from the latest anti-war protest. The article also has a description of the main part of the protest:

In a protest against U.S. military action, four effigies were hung from Sather Gate yesterday.
Protesters hung four dummies labeled "Iraqi Children," "Accountability," "Civil Liberties" and "Our Sons and Brothers."
"The U.S. is killing them," said senior Charlie Detar. "We are losing international accountability by warmongering."

2003-02-23T17:28:00.000-08:00

An Organic Chicken Hawk

Beinart's TRB hits another one out of the park this week. Peter, if I may, outlines persuasively where Liberal Hawks need to come down on the war and why. More importantly, he reveals a conservative inclination toward pessimism about the Bush plan for post-Saddam Iraq. The chain reaction democracy theory is wild eyed and part of the neocon plan but we aren't quite sure how much Bush is behind it. An Iraqi Pervez Musharraf is a worst case scenario for us neocons or neo-liberals in TNR's case. But Beinart's analysis is dead on when it comes to where the potential Bush policy failure would push the Democratic party's foreign policy, toward a 'soft isolationism'. ANSWER cannot be allowed to co-opt what Clinton so successively built in the last decade and dismantle it. Wake-up liberal hawks, blame Bush not interventionist internationalism. I cannot believe I just uttered such words.....Blame Bush. The neocon position is much more tenuous than most think. Bush's success or failure will be ascribed to the neocon movement no matter whether it is reflective or not. Scary thought for us Perle-ites.

2003-02-23T17:16:00.000-08:00

Jesica Passed On

Jesica, the miracle girl, who received two organ transplants in the matter of a week, the first one being botched, died this morning. Her parents were in immense grief and did NOT amazingly donate her organs. Unfortunate but understandable. Our thoughts (and prayers) are with her and her family. And all those who have recently felt the grief of losing a family member.

2003-02-22T11:39:00.000-08:00

Web Extra: UC Berkeley, Pro-Palestinian Protesters End Hearings With Settlement

Wendy Lee reports the bad news in the Daily Cal. Here's the graf, but go read the whole thing:

After a long and embittered legal battle, the university and most of the pro-Palestinian protesters who occupied Wheeler Hall last April have signed an agreement to end the hearings, university officials said this afternoon.

2003-02-21T20:43:00.000-08:00

Inspections Have Been a Ridiculous Waste of Time from Day One

The inspections process has been doomed to fail from the beginning, due to a simple problem. For the inspections to succeed in peacefully disarming Saddam a vitally important condition had to be met, and it was not.

First, what happens if the inspections do not work? If the inspections fail in their (overt) intended purpose, to eliminate Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction programs, then Saddam is able to hold on to his chemical and biological weapons and also develop nuclear weapons. Although, some may argue that the true purpose of inspections was to act as a trigger for war (This is what Baghdad argues here: Iraq Calls Resolution An Excuse To Attack), at face value the inspections are intended as a means to disarm Saddam. If the inspections do not succeed, everyone in the world loses big because Saddam becomes a nuclear wielding maniac.

What about the inspections succeeding, though? The point of the inspections process was to non-violently disarm Saddam. But, for the inspections to be successful in that regard, it required Saddam to own up to the weapons he currently has in his possession. Everyone knows Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. I commend Tony Blair for the courage and forthrightness he showed at a meeting with other European leaders when he claimed:

“Looking at his colleagues one by one, he told them bluntly: "There is no intelligence agency of any government around this table that does not know that the government of Iraq has weapons of mass destruction."

I have already written extensively here about how it is blatantly obvious that Saddam is still actively pursuing weapons of mass destruction:

To sum up what I have been arguing, it does the debate over war with Iraq no good to continue to claim that Saddam has no WMD just because we have not found them yet. Those supporting war with Iraq know he has them, and those opposing the war know he has them, and Saddam knows that we know that he has them… It only diminishes the debate by trying to claim that because we have not found Saddam’s secret stash of WMD, they do not exist.

For those still in doubt, who will not take the reliable Tony Blair and Berkeley Pundits at our word, there was of course the ridiculously damning presentation by Colin Powell at the United Nations showing the subterfuge that Iraq is currently engaging in. So now that we have established that Iraq is indeed in possession of weapons of mass destruction, why not just use the inspections process to get rid of them? For the very simple reason that Iraq already had a chance to try the inspections process and they decided that they did not want to play that game.

Iraq was given the chance to declare their weapons of mass destruction and they chose not to:

A report on Iraq's weapons programs was delivered to the United Nations in New York on Sunday. Iraq says the document, which is nearly 12,000 pages long, proves the Gulf nation has no illegal weapons.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 makes it clear what obligations Iraq had to avert being violently disarmed by the United States and allies (bold not in original):

The Security Council,…
[there is a whole lot missing here]

Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,

.Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and or 12 below;

…

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

Resolution 1441 makes it abundantly clear what should be happening. Iraq was given one last chance to tell us where all of their weapons are, so they could be destroyed. The resolution specifically states that Iraq has “disarmament obligations”, which Iraq has rather blatantly not complied with. The resolution also calls for “serious consequences” if Iraq is found to be in a “material breach”. The inspections process was not supposed to be a game of hide the anthrax, as the resolution clearly states:

this resolution [is] a final opportunity [for Iraq] to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council;

U.S.S. Clueless has already explained what should be occurring and why in the present inspections process:

Let's get something clear about what the inspections process described in UNSC 1441 was supposed to involve, shall we? The idea was that Iraq would actively cooperate. Iraq would actually genuinely give up its ambitions to develop WMDs and retain the ones it has, and the government of Iraq would deliberately open the books, and be completely honest about what it had and where everything would be found. Iraq would make no attempt whatever to continue to conceal anything…
And we're not going to retroactively convert it into a slow adversarial inspections process, where the inspectors find and destroy weapons despite Iraq's best efforts to keep them hidden. That's not acceptable. We tried that for 7 years before and it didn't work.

If we do happen to find any of Saddam’s well hidden goodies then that would constitute a material breach of the resolution (because Iraq gave us an incomplete weapons declaration). And if we find Iraq in material breach of the resolution, actively hiding weapons of mass destruction, then we go to war. There is no other option besides war. We have been trying sanctions and now we are trying inspections, but obviously neither has worked. All we have left to use against Saddam is force, and the time has come for that.

Ever since Iraq handed in their incomplete weapons declaration on December 8, 2002, the inspections process has been a farce. The inspections cannot possibly accomplish what they are intended to do: peacefully disarm Saddam. Either we do not find his weapons, and he gets to hold onto them, as well as develop nuclear weapons, or we go to war and forcibly remove him from power. Given these two options, any sane person can realize that inspections are useless. They will do nothing to disarm Saddam unless force is involved. If Saddam sees that inspections will not be used in conjunction with force then he will be able to ignore and attempt to outwit the inspectors with impunity.

Given the clear choice between war and allowing Saddam to develop weapons of mass destruction it does not necessarily mean that war is the best option. I wholeheartedly support a war against Saddam, but I recognize that there could be potential negative consequences. But, part of having an honest debate is not pretending that the inspections can accomplish something that they clearly cannot. For the inspections process to work, Saddam has to cooperate. He is not cooperating; therefore the inspections accomplish nothing unless we invade.

One reason that the French have been so vexing lately is their ability to ignore the clear circumstances of the inspections process. Here is one example of their egregious ability to ignore reality:

"War is always the sanction of failure," Mr de Villepin told the chamber in New York. "The use of force is not justified at this time. There is an alternative to war: disarming Iraq through inspections."

According to Mr. de Villepin we should keep inspecting, and when we find something we should destroy it and keep inspecting. This provides Saddam zero incentive to actually disarm and shows how crazy the idea of disarming Saddam with inspections actually is. The anti-war forces have been criticizing the administration for not providing any post-Saddam plans, but at the same time they offer no long term plans themselves for how to disarm Iraq. To ensure that Saddam never develops weapons of mass destruction we would be required to keep inspecting Iraq indefinitely, and that would not even guarantee success.

The beginning of hostilities appears to be drawing close, and hopefully we will be done with this silly inspections game soon. Steven of U.S.S. Clueless is reporting that troops are in the area, post-Saddam plans are nearing completion, the UK is advising citizens to get the hell out, and Rumsfeld has given the go ahead to begin the fighting. All the inspections process was useful for was as a way to kill time while we built up our troops in the Gulf region, and now that we have enough troops present to begin the invasion there is no point to continuing with inspections. Saddam's days are numbered and the world is about to become a much safer place.

2003-02-21T12:09:00.000-08:00

Good Things in Life Not Always so Good

I hate to be the bearer of bad bad news but Drudge has the troubling news that Jessica isn't doing so well. According to the WaPo article:

Teenager Jesica Santillan, who underwent a second heart-lung transplant after the first was botched, has severe and irreversible brain injury, hospital officials said Friday.

A terribly sad situation.

2003-02-21T02:28:00.000-08:00

Good Things in Life

We are conservatives and by nature, pessimists, often disgruntled but sometimes I smile. And today I am smiling. She's gonna make it. I know many conservatives would cringe an arch conservative such as myself say this but I favor the trial lawyers more often than not. And Jessica deserves alot of money, Duke and the medical establishment needs to be taught a lesson. Sue Jess Sue. But first, Live Jess Live.

2003-02-14T15:52:00.000-08:00

Editorializing itself into Irrelevance

The Daily Cal strikes again. Winning the BP award for stupidity today, an unsigned editorial most likely the work of Mr. Thornton, the opinion editor, openly begs of its readership:

Before going to war, Bush must present the world and public with all possible alternatives and outcomes.

Rhetorical points aside, that statement is the height of inanity coming from an assumedly intelligent and educated person. ALL possible alternatives? Well, in lieu of war Bush and Saddam could compare shoe tastes, maybe GW could lend Saddam a good pair of running shoes. Saddam does look like he is packing on the pounds as of late.

All possible outcomes? This is even more preposterous. In general principle, we can't predict the future and must exist in the present as a distinction from an unknown future. Basic Hegelian philosophy makes outcomes intrinsically impossible to determine. As a delaying tactic to ask the POTUS to take on a task no human could ever accomplish, Mr. Thorton plea is effective but as persuasive and serious anti-war argumentation its plainly weak. The Daily Cal is in decline, we are all well aware but the rate of decline was not quite as evident as this editorial points to.

2003-02-14T02:04:00.000-08:00

Do you feel lucky, punk?

Dirty Harry is being put to the test as the Wash Times reports. .50 Caliber revolver is introduced.....the most powerful handgun in the world is now repeating.......awesome.

2003-02-13T19:45:00.000-08:00

'Suspicious Package' Discovered on Berkeley Streets

Parts of Telegraph and Bancroft are currently blocked off to foot pedestrians and vehicles with police tape and road flares. Officer McAllaster of the UC Berkeley Police Department said that a "suspicious package" had been discovered at 5:30 and was being investigated. More information will be posted when it can be obtained from the tight-lipped policemen guarding the scene. Anyone with additional information is invited to post it in the comments.

Update: The police are gone as are the flares and police tape and cars are back on Telegraph and Bancroft. This was either a false alarm or something else that was taken care of. I'll have more information up as soon as I know what happened.

Update II: The Daily Cal has slightly more information here, as Nate Tabak reports, "The contents of the briefcase have yet to be determined, but Berkeley police Lt. Dennis Ahearn said it was unlikely an explosive. "

2003-02-13T10:25:00.000-08:00

Bad News Should be Reserved Until Late at Night

I was inadvertently woken up this morning far before my normal wake-up time. Isn't there a law against calling college students before 12 o'clock, anyway? Irregardless, I'm up now, and ready to make probably the earliet post I will ever write. On to the bad news: One BILLION Dollars. According to Kevin's Column (of Calstuff fame) the state is threatening to cut one billion dollars from the UC Berkeley budget (which is 25 percent of the total) and there are not any easy ways to overcome the loss in funding. According to Kevin:

So we're faced with four potential options for dealing with massive deficits. The first two we can agree on: raise taxes statewide, and cut the money out of something else. This is the tactic of our elected representatives. The Graduate Assembly, ASUC external affairs office and UC Student Association have shown a rare united front in fighting to force the state Legislature to not take the money from student pockets.
But the other two options are conflicting. We could peacefully accept higher student fees, or we could accept a lower level of funding. Even assuming we narrow the deficit through taxation and spending shifts, and chances are we will, there will almost definitely be some measure of choice between the two. The temptation to tap the bank accounts of non-voting, powerless students is too severe. Already, student fees have increased by $400, with a possible $800 on the way.

They have been raising our funds already, and will probably continue to do so. The question now is whether they budget will stay on track or whether a lack of funding will actually cause the type of problems Kevin warns agains. (AHHHHH!!!! Scratchy toilet paper for all the departments, not just Economics!!!!!)

2003-02-13T00:41:00.000-08:00

Stanfurd Strikes Again

In as how we are the BERKELEY Pundits, I felt it necessary to make mention of this tid bit from the Times' today. In respect to legacies:

At Stanford, where nearly 10 percent of students in the freshman class are legacies, their admission rate (about 25 percent ) was double that of the class as a whole (12.7 percent).

Yes, as was always suspected, one in ten Stanfurd students doesn't deserve to be there. But don't infer that I have any ire for Stanford, I really don't and the generally carping that goes on at Cal about Stanford is one of a handful of annoying things the average Golden Bear can't resist talking about. Moreover, the egalitarian impluse of the American meritocracy embodied by Berkeley's admissions program should lift hearts.

In response to legal challenges to affirmative action, the public university systems of Georgia and California have dropped preferences in recent years for legacies and other so-called V.I.P. applicants

Two birds with one stone, eh? See the American Dream is being fulfilled here at Cal. Wait, read on.....

But no highly selective private college has followed suit, in large part because the economic benefit of admitting such applicants is so great.

Am I the only one seeing a correlation between the elimination of the legacy policy and my god damned tuition increases? Bastards! Screw meritocracy. Gimme money. Gimme, Gimme, Gimme. The admissions officer at Middlebury, the small private school profiled in the article, confirms my suspicions:

He also invokes a financial reality: the $36,000 that full-paying students spend annually would likely soar to nearly $60,000 without the generosity of the college's alumni, who helped raise more than $200 million in its last capital campaign.

Definitely screw meritocratic ideals, they just are getting in the way of Cal recruiting the best professors, building the best facilities, and the way our admissions committee now weighs 'personal hardship', this pseudo meritocracy is an obstacle to a more academic student body. Wasn't I railing against Stanfurd earlier? Oh jeeze I think I'm bleeding cardinal.

Go Bears! (whimper) No, really, Go Bears! Fight for California....we had a little party down in Newport.......

2003-02-12T22:54:00.001-08:00

What's the Difference Between Hitler and Bush?

Jay Kapp's Daily Cal column today, "Off the Beat: Laughing Dangerously" tries to answer that very question. Kapp makes a couple of interesting points:

Offended by the joke, I started to see our current president slightly differently—not as any redeemable politician, but as a president who has been completely demonized and who, to so many students at UC Berkeley, myself included, represents nothing other than pure evil.
This has become the biggest problem for our country—our current president and his policies are not questioned. Instead, they are immediately cast off as tragically destructive.

Contained within these paragraphs are two key observations. The first is that politics has turned ugly and it has turned personal. I watched with surprise and contempt the personal hatred many conservatives had for Clinton. Now, with Bush in power it is the liberals who hate Bush with such a passion. I do not know if politics has always been like this, I haven't been around long enough. What I have seen of modern politics is not healthy in the least bit, though.

The second concern of mine that Kapp alludes to is the knee-jerk reaction many liberals have to Bush's policies. There are legitimate reasons to oppose the coming war against Saddam, but I can guarantee, comparing Bush to Hitler will not persuade anyone.

P.S. If you have not heard that joke, read the column for the punchline.

2003-02-12T22:54:00.000-08:00

What's the Difference Between Hitler and Bush?

Jay Kapp's Daily Cal column today, "Off the Beat: Laughing Dangerously" tries to answer that very question. Kapp makes a couple of interesting points:

Offended by the joke, I started to see our current president slightly differently—not as any redeemable politician, but as a president who has been completely demonized and who, to so many students at UC Berkeley, myself included, represents nothing other than pure evil.
This has become the biggest problem for our country—our current president and his policies are not questioned. Instead, they are immediately cast off as tragically destructive.

Contained within these paragraphs are two key observations. The first is that politics has turned ugly and it has turned personal. I also watched with surprise and contempt the personal hatred many conservatives had for Clinton. Now, with Bush in power it is the liberals who hate Bush with such a passion. I do not know if politics has always been like this, I haven't been around long enough. What I have seen of modern politics is not healthy in the least bit, though.

2003-02-12T19:21:00.000-08:00

The Grinch who Stole Valentine's Day

I don't like beating a dead horse, oh maybe a little, but Iran sure looks ripe for revolution. The meanies aka authorities have outlawed Valentine's Day.Not at all surprising from my point of view but again it evidences the utter stupidity of the mullahs who stand on very thin ice as is. The crackdown includes the shutdown of stores selling Holiday wares and encourage affection between unrelated members of the opposite sex.

One young female shopper said: "The police are opposed to love and affection. They don't want us to be happy because Valentine's Day promotes happiness."

The Iranian government has the bloodbath that is approaching entirely on their hands. They deserve every single lynching and persecutory reprisal that the governmental officials receive. Damn those Mices!:

"Police even objected to a little mice couple in our window because they were embracing each other."

Indeed, Mr. Mullah cracking down on an innocent and fun loving holiday, thats the ticket!

2003-02-12T18:58:00.000-08:00

Recently Declassified: Berkeley Pundits Moving To Iowa

With the Iowa Caucuses heating up and this recent news from CIA Director Tenet, I will be asking Andrew, very kindly, to allow the relocation of the Berkeley Pundits to Iowa. I suppose we should retain our college focus and either transfer to Iowa State or University of Iowa. Surprisingly, both had excellent football seasons this year and I am sure there will be plenty to report on from the Midwest. Pretty Please, Andy!

All right, I'm kidding (but only a little). George Tenet's revelation disturbs me a great deal. Prior to Tenet's testimony most on the Pacific Coast felt as ease that the ChiComs and the Ruskies were the only nuclear powers with the capability of hitting the Left Coast. But as the Director informs us:

While testifying at a Senate committee hearing in Washington, CIA Director George Tenet was asked whether North Korea had a ballistic missile capable of reaching the U.S. West Coast.

Before answering, Tenet turned to very quickly consult with aides sitting behind him.

"I think the declassified answer, is yes, they can do that," Tenet said.

This is NOT reassuring for us here in Berkeley. San Francisco is an earthquake Mecca, I'm drowning in leftists and the structurally challenged (read hobos) and now my favorite (heavy sarcasm) man at the CIA tells me that my life is imperiled by the crazy little dictator of North Korea. At a time like this you really want a time machine so you could go back in time and slap Truman around for firing MacArthur. Dougy would have finished off the commie scum if Harry hadn't had such an inferiority complex.

My only solace can be found in this caveat (released for PR reasons presumably):

Defense Intelligence Agency Director Vice Adm. Lowell Jacoby, also testifying at the hearing, said outside the hearing room that the North Korean missile has not yet been flight tested, according to The Associated Press.

So we are not sure whether or not it works. I hope we can use the Russians as a good example for North Korean engineering, historical reviews have demonstrated that most of their missile command would not have reached its destination if they even took off before exploding.

2003-02-12T18:19:00.000-08:00

The College Student's Bible

What am I referring to? The Simpsons, of course. Chris Suellentrop in Slate has some interesting analysis, asking the question, "Who killed the Simpsons?". The death or decline of the Simpsons weighs heavily on the college student's mind, and Suellentrop comes up with some interesting reasons to explain the gradual decline in Simpsons episode quality.

2003-02-11T18:38:00.000-08:00

The War on Terror Strikes Again (in Berkeley)

Amusing Daily Cal article in today's paper. Apparently a Berkeley math professor was fortuitous enough to have the same last name as a crimminal on one of our governemnt lists. Said professor was stranded in Turkey for seven weeks and has missed class up until now, while he tried to get everything sorted out. In some ways it's nice to hear to hear that the governemnt is taking border seurity seriously enough that it could actually help prevent a terrorist from entering the country. On the other hand, the stranded professor had some good advice for those in the governemnt who concern themselves with these affairs:

Erdogan sent his fingerprints to the embassy to prove his identity. The embassy granted him permission to return Feb. 3—two weeks after classes began at UC Berkeley.
"They should improve the system," he said.

2003-02-11T11:40:00.000-08:00

Poll-a-palooza

The numbers keep rolling in and the peaceniks are disgracing themselves, repeatedly. Here is the ABC/WP poll:

Favor Or Oppose:

Having U.S. forces take military action against Iraq to force Saddam Hussein from power 66%----31%

(Asked of those who favor)

Having U.S. forces take military action against Iraq, if the U.N. opposes such action 50-- 47

(Asked of those who favor)
Having U.S. forces take military action against Iraq, if the U.N. opposes such action but some U.S. allies such as Great Britain, Australia, Italy support it 57 40

Seems as if allies/UN are the same in the eyes of the Americans. We don't need your stinkin' blue helmets!
The Jury is in:

Has The Bush Admin Presented Enough Evidence To Show Why The U.S.
Should Use Military Force To Remove Saddam Hussein From Power?
Now 2/5 2/1 1/20
Has shown enough evidence 63% 61% 54% 48%
Has not shown enough evidence 34 34 41 47

Has The U.S. Presented Strong Evidence Showing That Iraq: Yes No
Has chemical and biological weapons 69% 28%
Is trying to develop nuclear weapons 62 33
Has provided direct support to al Qaeda 55 37
Is not cooperating with the U.N. weapons inspectors 75 21

A neocon majority? Just maybe

Suppose The U.S. Goes To War With Iraq. After The War Ends,
Should The U.S. Work To Rebuild And Stabilize Iraq? 65% 32%

I think this demonstrates one thing expressly, the American people just need a little push in the right direction and the us Neocons will have seen a drastic turnaround for the better on US Foreign policy. Yeeeeehaaa!

2003-02-11T11:30:00.000-08:00

Kryptonite in the Streets

I thought this deserved mention:

LOUISVILLE, KY. (AP) More than 1,000 gallons of tequila spilled into the sewer system Monday after a worker tried to unload it from a truck into an already full storage tank at a distillery, officials said.

The tequila overflowed at a rate of 100 gallons per minute, resulting in 1,500 to 1,800 gallons entering the city sewer system, said Phil Lynch, a spokesman for the Brown-Forman Distillery.

Fire and sewer officials were called because of the flammability of the 80-proof liquor, he said. Water was used to dilute the spilled alcohol.

''It was a simple case of human error,'' Lynch said.

Human error, huh? There's a lot of frat boys I know who want that human dead!
Is the irony lost on anyone that in the heart of White lightning/famous whiskey distilleries/moonshine country that tequila is running in the streets?

2003-02-11T10:00:00.000-08:00

Welcome Visitors

Due to the links we received on Operation Battleship (Thanks Steven and E. Nough and Lawrence) we have been getting a flood of traffic. For everyone new to the blog, Berkeley Pundits is the comments, commentary, insight, and rants of two University of California Berkeley students. Feel free to peruse the archives or see what we had to say about inspections,
gun control, hippies, human shields, Neo-cons, or Nelson Mandela. Enjoy your stay at Berkeley Pundits and feel free to return anytime.

2003-02-10T23:00:00.000-08:00

Berkeley Pundits vs. The Daily Cal

Number of times Berkeley Pundits has been used to soak up raw sewage: 0

Number of times the Daily Cal has been used to soak up raw seage: Numerous Times

I was rather horrified to read in the Daily Cal that there are semi-frequent raw sewage spills occuring on Sproul Plaza. [For those not familiar with the Berkeley campus, Sproul Plaza is part of the main thoroughfare of campus.] The article, "Raw Sewage Leaks Onto Sproul Plaza" does a reasonable job of assuaging my fears by noting that the raw sewage may have an offensive odor, but does not present a threat unless it is ingested. The one part of the article I find disturbing is this, "UC Berkeley officials may distribute "spill kits" around campus, with absorbents, covers and other materials to prepare for potential spills." I don't get why they may do this. Raw sewage is spilling onto the campus multiple times per year, and as the article notes, is a threat to Strawberry Creek. "Spill kits" seems like the absolute least you could be doing to respond to a problem like this. It must have been a lesson in humility for the Daily Cal editors to run an article that contained this statement:

They're a ready supply of absorbents for an emergency," Pine said. "We don't like using them, but if the difference is saving the creek or a few Daily Cals, they do come in handy."

2003-02-10T19:33:00.000-08:00

Germans, French Propose New Plan in Attempt to Avert War

February 10, 2003

Paris, France – Chirac and Schroeder have been drafting one final plan in a last ditch effort to prevent a US led invasion of Iraq.

Berkeley Pundits has had exclusive access to the latest effort by “Old Europe” to forestall war between the United States and Saddam Hussein. A previous effort by France and Germany, leaked by Der Spiegel, would have required increasing the number of inspectors as well as adding UN soldiers as a mini-force to insure compliance. With America already attacking this proposal, a new plan has been seized upon as one more alternative to war.

In the latest effort, entitled “Operation Battleship” the United States would have the opportunity to name various coordinates in Iraq, which would then be searched by UN inspectors. It would require four successful finds that Iraq was in violation of Security Council Resolution 1441 before the United States would be permitted to attack.

Saddam Hussein, reached at a secure undisclosed location was optimistic about the new inspection plan, “The silly Americans will never sink my battleship!” Dick Cheney could be heard muttering in the background that it was not fair he had to share his secure undisclosed location with Saddam.

Gerhard Schroeder was optimistic that the plan would work. “Bush has been telling Saddam that the game is nearly over, but with ‘Operation Battleship’ the game is merely beginning, and a game like this is clearly preferable to war,” said Schroeder, after he was spotted leaving a local grocery store with a case of Grecian for Men hair dye.

Jacques Chirac could not be reached for comment due to a mix up with translators. The German translator was accidentally sent to France, and when he began to speak in French, Chirac responded in alarm. “Le surrender, le surrender,” shouted Chirac over and over again as he attempted to fashion a white flag out of his Foreign Minister’s shirt.

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld reacted immediately with anger at the proposal laid forth by the Axis of Weasel. “We have given Saddam chance after chance and now they want to give him Le Super-Duper last chance, I won’t stand for this,” said Rumsfeld, who then returned to the conversation he had been having with Richard Perle, where he was overheard remarking, “the way the Syrians have been cooperating on Iraq I think they are better allies that France could ever dream of being.”

Hans Blix expressed optimism with the new proposal put forth by the French and Germans. “We haven’t found any weapons of mass destruction yet, but with Sherlock Blix on the case, it’s only a matter of time before a barking dog or broken window will lead us to something interesting,” said Blix, who become distracted by the interview and did not notice Saddam’s bodyguards covering up stickers labeled “Powdered Anthrax” with new stickers carrying the message, “Property of the Rolling Stones”

President Bush had not yet viewed the details of the plan, but still expressed disinterest in the idea proposed. “I was never any good at Battleship. There is too much strategery involved. If this new plan had been called Operation Chutes and Ladders then I might have been willing to cooperate,” said Bush as he threw a dart at a color wheel made up of the various colors of the new Homeland Defense Security Warning system. He reacted with happiness when the dart hit the yellow part of the wheel, and exclaimed, “Yay! Orange days are so much less fun that Yellow ones.”

Kofi Annan had been briefed on the proposal and said in theory he would be willing to support it. “The French and Germans keep proposing these silly plans that won’t work and will only piss off the Americans and discredit the United Nations and I am more than happy to go along, “ said Annan, while he typed up a fund raising letter to be sent to the American envoy to the UN asking for billions and billions of dollars to renovate the UN building.

Noted commentator and supporter of the war Jonah Goldberg had been briefed on the details of the plan. “I expect the French to be acting like this,” said Goldberg, “but why are the Germans acting like cheese-eating surrender monkeys?”

2003-02-10T17:04:00.000-08:00

One More Berkeley News Source

Via Calstuff, here is the latest Berkeley News Source to appear: UC Berkeley NewsCenter. Looks like a nice variety of Berkeley news story on a whole broad range of issues. Your best source of Berkeley news will always be... Berkeley Pundits, of course.

2003-02-10T16:30:00.000-08:00

Strange bedfellows

For years, the only organization calling for American withdrawal from the UN was the John Birch Society. The JBS (aka Birchers) were always crazy firebrands, more theatre than serious political movement but significantly pushed conservatism on its path toward the now. With some anti-semitic inclinations, and a true aversion to American involvement in the world its ironic that the Neo-cons are signing on with the Birchers in their push to withdraw. The United Nations is certainly a pit of tin horned dictators and despots but it was always the tool of the Council on Foreign Relations, the neocons best friend and the Birchers sworn enemy. Now the two takes on Conservative foreign policy have intersected. Mark Steyn, a Canadian neocon with no equal, writes in the Spectator that the UN has exceeded its usefulness . This makes perfect sense in terms of the UN's footdragging regarding Iraq but it just gives me a chuckle in the sense that the CFR crowd and the JBS both hate the UN but for entirely different reasons.

For a kick, read the jabber coming from the Birchers about how Iraq will empower the UN. So at least, on the right, we have a consensus the United Nations should be told to pack up and relocate. If only the conservative movement would realize the folly of our cold war alliances in terms of the War on Terror. Can I call for a NATO pull out? These Frogs and Krauts are of no use to us, now.

2003-02-09T22:04:00.000-08:00

'Nother Cool New Berkeley News Source

NewsBerkeley.com has begun Berkeley coverage, offering just one more source for Berkeley news. With the disappearance of the Berkeley Daily Planet and its apparent imminent return there has been a groundswell of alternative Berkeley news sources. The Daily Cal had an article on the debut of NewsBerkeley.com, "News in Brief: Online Publication Debuts Berkeley Coverage" Here's what NewsBerkeley.com has to say about themselves:

NewsBerkeley.com is Berkeley's new town square, providing aggressive news coverage that holds government accountable and giving citizens a strong voice in their city's affairs. All NewsBerkeley.com stories are completely interactive with reader messages appended right at the end of each article, allowing readers to instantly provide feedback to political leaders, each other or the NewsBerkeley.com staff. Teens can sound off on their own message boards, read teen horoscopes and contribute their own columns.

2003-02-09T21:23:00.000-08:00

Cool New Berkeley News Source

The Berkeley Mic has its premiere issue up on the web. On the webpage you can find lots of great Berkeley news and commentary, including an interesting comparison between the Wheeler "occupation" and the Axe Rally that followed the Big Game, "Why Chancellor Berdahl Wishes We Had Lost the Big Game" Looking at the items included on the website the Berkeley Mic seems to have a left of center slant, and I will let the About Us information speak for itself:

The purpose of the Berkeley Mic is to promote social and environmental justice through the production of a bi-monthly magazine. Combining activism and creative expression, the Mic uses a variety of media to inform and organize students, drawing the connections between campus, local, and global politics.

2003-02-06T23:02:00.000-08:00

Behind the (Learning) Curve

The Berkeleyan reports on the University's attempt to increase faculty diversity here at Cal. Coincidentally, the LA Times reports that Americans oppose racial and gender preferences by the largest margin recorded, 2-1. These two seemingly dichotomous results do not appear to faze anyone here at UCB.
The push for faculty diversity has seen the creation of one of the most dismaying and Orwellian titles to date here at Berkeley: associate vice provost for faculty equity. Which means exactly what? She (an important distinction I would assume) ensures equity? Too many blue people congregating in one corner and the UC steps in? I have this feeling the Academic Senate seating and committee assignments are affected by her office. But more importantly lets hear what she thinks of faculty diversity thus far

We are doing slightly better than our peer private institutions and slightly worse than our peer public institutions. But we are Berkeley, and we strive to be the best at everything we do. Moreover, Berkeley is a public institution in the most diverse state in the country — a land-grant institution supported in part by the state — and we feel obligated to reflect the diversity of the state in our hiring.

She hits on something that the respondents to the Times' survey want, excellence. Berkeley "strive[s] to be the best at everything we do". Indeed. The best at diversity, though? Shouldn't the chief goal of our community, multiversity or whatever silly euphemism they are using today be producing award winning molecular biological research on pig hearts and perpetual motion machines and acclaimed historical scholarship, not assuring outsiders that Berkeley's faculty most closely resembles the state as a whole? Excellence and diversity aren't mutually exclusively, that’s true but artificial diversity, as is apparently the goal of the "equity provost" does run counter to excellence. The best nuclear physicists and medieval French language scholars should be sought out, not the best Poke-a-dotted nuclear physicist or Eskimo French linguist. If the school administrators hadn't noticed, Cal is world renowned in a myriad of fields but forcing the UC into a quota system is both unpopular as is evidenced by the LA Times poll and anti-academic. Cal is a public institution, responsible to the will of the California Voters (read Prop 209) and responsible to the public more generally to strive for excellence. Where diversity comes at the expense of either Cal's democratic or academic purposes, it must be rejected.

2003-02-05T18:56:00.000-08:00

The Evidence is Clear, Now Let's Hear the Verdict...

Via U.S.S. Clueless I got the link to some of the evidence Colin Powell presented in his speech before the UN today. You can go here and see the clearly damning pictures that show Saddam has not made an attempt to destroy his weapons of mass destruction, and is still actively trying to develop them. There will be war soon and the United States will have done everything humanly possible to make that war a part of a UN framework. If, in the face of this newly presented overwhelming evidence the UN refuses to act. then we will surely go in alone, and it will hurt the UN much more than it will hurt us.

2003-02-05T13:28:00.000-08:00

Great Daily Cal Column

Today's Daily Cal contains a column, "Proud Enough to …" that I would heartily recommend. The columnist, Ann Marinovich attempts to answer the question, "Would you die for your country?" by looking at the Columbia disaster and the looming war against Saddam.

2003-02-05T12:56:00.000-08:00

The More Free Speech the Better

I found it disheartening to read yesterday's Daily Cal article, "Students Report Enforcement of Anti-Chalking Rule". I am a big supporter of free speech (and a card carrying member of the ACLU) and I believe a rule banning chalking on campus is a needless infringement on student free speech. According to the article:

UC Berkeley officials have recently begun enforcing a little-known policy that forbids chalking on campus, students reported yesterday.
Despite the almost constant presence of sidewalk chalk on many prominent areas of campus, chalking as a form of advertisement is against UC Berkeley regulations.

Chalking on campus is one major way that groups can gain publicity for the myriad of events they hope to promote. The article linked does not present the justification for not allowing chalking. I hope it is not because of an aesthetic concern about the beauty of the campus because the lively and colorful chalk announcements usually offset the concrete and asphalt of the campus nicely. My position on free speech has always been the more speech the better. Berkeley, as the birthplace of the modern free speech movement, has a special obligation to be encouraging free speech on campus, whether it is through posting flyers, tabling on Sproul, or chalking on campus. I feel the right thing to do is to rescind the current rules, and excepting special areas which may need to be placed off limits for whatever reason, allow there to be chalking throughout campus.

2003-02-05T01:22:00.000-08:00

Viva la California

The Washington Times reports, while the SF Chronicle and the LA Times don't, that Governor Davis is under serious recall pressures. This is delightful news for a number of reasons but even more than the fact that Davis might be ousted it reflects the beauty of our state's wonderful constitution which you can read here. To be more helpful, because it is long, here is a searchable version. This constitution is truly progressive and I dont mean in that annoying Naderite 'progressive' manner but in the wonderfully responsive and democratic way that we should all aspire too. Despite California being considered a very liberal state, liberals and conservatives can be the victims of true and well organized populist revolt and our constitution allows for that. It's truly a great thing.

2003-02-03T13:56:00.000-08:00

A Cold Shoulder in the Middle East

The National Post's Robert Fulford, today, argues that the Left has abandoned Israel for the newest cause celeb, Palestine. Everything Israel does today is under scrutiny from left-liberals according to Fulford, partly because Israel matured into a 'real state'. No longer dependent on the political muscle and deep pockets of socialist, or socialist-friendly regimes Israel was discarded.

Though there is something to Fulford's persuasive contention, he flatly ignores the change in domestic policy that might have precipitated the change. Israel, differently than most Western nations, never had a strong right wing, pro market opposition movement. Socialist zionism went unquestioned. Without a struggle over policy a great deal of socialist policy was instituted without right wing counter measures and balancing. Israel's kibbutzim were failures and Israel's economy stagnated. Labor could only blame itself. When these economic woes combined with perceived weak national security policy, an obscure opposition party Likud took power. With right wing reforms and the encouragement of international profit motivated investment, Israel prospered. The Left left Israel because Israel left the Left. That's where Fulford drops the ball. The international left movement always had domestic reforms programs in direct competition with right wing alternatives. Israeli politics were never so contentious, in the early years, and a leftist programme was snapped up as national policy. As those policies proved a failure economically, Israel drifted to the right (in relative terms) and provided, though quietly, an early foreshadowing of the failure of socialism. Unfortunately for liberals, Israel's western institutions allowed for slow and peaceful domestic reform of failed policies while the Soviet bloc could continue to perpetuate the lie and subjugate their peoples.

2003-01-30T18:56:00.000-08:00

More Excellent Crime News from Berkeley

Just days after posting information here about several recent stories highlighting the dangers that crimminals in Berkeley face from potental victims ready and willing to fight back, I ran across more cool news in that same vein. Today's Daily Cal contains two articles about crime that are very reassuring. The first, "Woman Escapes From Assailants" made me laugh out loud. I'll provide a lengthy quote that captures the humor:

Two from the group split off and approached her, before one tried to grab her wallet.

"What do you want?" the victim said.

"What do I want?" one of the assailants replied. "I want to beat yo' ass."

"I want to see you behind bars," the victim said.

As you might have guessed, the woman did not lose her wallet or get her ass beaten. And, yes, the perps did get busted and are now being charged with attempted robbery. Luckily, for this woman, after the suspects tried to punch her and she ran away, a stranger on the street intervened to help her. This stranger, who ever he was, chose to actively get involved to help out this woman and that is an amazingly laudatory thing to do.

The other article demonstrates this stranger involvment which was so perversely lacking during the Kitty Genovese incident. A fight broke out on MLK between a motorist and a cyclist (scroll down) and eventually:

The man got out to meet him, and the cyclist struck him multiple times in the face before the attacker's companion handed him a pair of wire cutters.
Using the tool as a blunt object, the cyclist struck the man in the back and knocked him to the pavement. As the motorist was in a fetal position, he was punched and kicked.

This incident ended when, "passersby circled the driver and told the cyclists "to stop fighting," Kusmiss said. A 17-year-old male suspect was arrested shortly after the incident and taken into custody." It is very reassuring to read about these potential tragedies averted by benevolent strangers choosing to get involved and help make the world a better place. These anonymous strangers deserve our congratulations.

2003-01-30T17:13:00.000-08:00

Nelson Mandela: The Next Arafat?

Mother Teresa, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, and Gandhi all have a similar cache in the modern Western lexicon. Saintly figures who are infallible in every sense. When MLK's slow slide into communism and persistent infidelity was unmasked, his critics were silenced. When Chris Hitchen's issued a savage attack on Mother Teresa, he was swept aside for the moment. Any mention of Gandhi's posturing or personal failing all see the same hailstorm of resistance to even hear these figures' critics. Mandela, though, is a special case. MLK might have cheated but his pinko sympathies never reared themselves before he was martyred. Gandhi similarly saw his own death at the hands of an extremist preserve his reputation. And though I love Hitch, Mother Teresa's a god damned saint, for Chrissakes! But unfortunately for Mandela he did not get a bullet to the head in his first term as President of the newly liberated South Africa. And as far as we can tell, dementia or another mental crisis has yet to descend on this man but he continues to dig himself a historical grave.

Nelson Mandela, imprisoned in 1964 by the Apartheid regime for terrorism and political crimes, was a terrorist freedom fighter. He wasn't exclusive one or the other despite the recent attempts at hagiography penned in the Western press. His organization killed hundreds of innocents and savagely silenced dissidents:

The African National Congress (ANC), as documented by the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, carried out a number of crimes in its fight against apartheid that would accurately be described as terrorist.

But Mandela must be judged in perspective in the repressive nature of the regime he fought against. His party's corruption and crimes withstanding, Mandela suffered as a political prisoner and symbol of a movement for the nearer side of a quarter century. The ANC became radicalized in Mandela's absence and did become a terrorist organization as Thatcher and Reagan openly stated in 87 and 88 respectively. But he led his nation beyond its ugly past and became the first president in an apartheid free government. All people could freely travel, without free of government hit squads or just brutal police handling, all people could vote and voice their opinions as South Africa entered the world stage as a liberal democracy.

But whatever Mandela once could cling to has been lost. As he openly aids and abets the terrorist activities of the Libyans who shot down Pan Am 103.

Megrahi, who is serving a life sentence for the 1988 bombing, is suffering from "psychological persecution", according to Mr Mandela, who visited him last month.

With such offensive sentiments as pleading for the psychological healing of a man responsible for 250 innocent civilian deaths, Mandela is a farsical figure. Maybe those years in prison got to him. Most unfortunately, Mandela is an open supporter of Palestinian terror, lending his prestige and emotional support to a known terrorist. Despite the protestations of the victims' families and the Israeli government, Mandela was "enthusiatic" to accept the invitation to attend the trial.

"He said he was enthusiastic about coming," Khader Shkirat said. He quoted South Africa's most famous political prisoner as saying: "What is happening to Barghouti is exactly the same as what happened to me. The government tried to de-legitimise the African National Congress and its armed struggle by putting me on trial."

He openly compares his struggle to that of a known terrorist. In the minds of most reasonable folks, it only seems to shed light on what activities Mandela condones against civilians. His connections to the MK ( ANC faction) guerillas might be found in these most revealing statements. Mandela undermines himself further by condemning Israel, a western liberal democracy which grants his Arab citizens full rights, at every opportunity and touting Fidel Castro as a peoples' heroes. This again reinforces the historical image of the ANC as a communist friendly surrogate organization. Soviet underwriting of ANC terror was always known but Mandela's endorsement of repression under the guise of equality is demonstrative of his status as a figure of less repute than much of the West would like to grant him

As a world 'peace' figure, Mandela has even release his idiotic vitrol against the US. He is a truly amazing man:

One of the world's most respected statesmen, Nelson Mandela, has condemned United States intervention in the Middle East as "a threat to world peace"

. We are a threat to world peace? What about those folks called Al Qaeda or Al Aqsa's Martyrs Brigrade, oh yea I forgot you support them too. Or blame us openly for their existence. And in a final indignity, Mandela takes a seemingly anti-semitic sought at Israel:

"But what we know is that Israel has weapons of mass destruction. Nobody mentions that," he said.

But today was a unique opportunity for assinity to ooze out of Mandela's mouth. Despite his support for organizations dedicated to the destruction of the Jewish State, a state established partly in reaction to a near genocide, he has the gumption to invoke the word 'holocaust' referring to the world after a war with Iraq.

Mandela has slammed the U.S. stance on Iraq, saying that "one power with a president who has no foresight, who cannot think properly, is now wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust."

Speaking at the International Women's Forum, Mandela said "if there is a country that has committed unspeakable atrocities in the world, it is the United States of America."

Truly awe-inspiring, Mr. Former President. You are a credit to the world peace movement. Firstly, Mr. Mandela seems to have selective taste for the overthrow of repressive regimes depending on the one in which he lives. Do not all people deserve a vote? The right to attend school? To live without fear of their own government? But then again, through Mandela's consistent support of Communist and terror based regimes, his myopia is apparent to us all.

He goes on to make the idiotic "no blood for oil" argument which both Chris Hitchens and Peter Beinart have trounced repeatedly. He erroneously states Iraq produces 64% of the world's oil. CNN corrects the error in the Mandela quote with the astonishing fact that its 5% yes FIVE percent, a fact sometimes lost on people with cliched placards. And even more hilariously, Mandela directly asks regarding what he perceives to be UK-US circumvention of the UN,

"Is it because the secretary-general of the United Nations is now a black man?" said Mandela, referring to Kofi Annan, who is from Ghana.

Yes, Nelson. Anti Semitism, Anti-Americanism, Marxist analysis of complex world motives, a proven sympathy to communist and terrorist organization. A true world leader. A man of Peace. The only other man with such a distinguished record who also holds the Nobel Prize is Arafat. Welcome to his world. Maybe we can wall you up in a compound, spewing your vitrol to a very isolated and marginalized group of fanatics. But you already are, the Western Peace movement is your Ramallah.

2003-01-30T11:58:00.000-08:00

Bad Science News

I haven't been falling the Los Alamos story, but today's Daily Cal Article,"UC Control of Los Alamos Lab Jeopardized by Allegations" certainly seems like bad news. According to the article:

Allegations of systematic theft and mismanagement at Los Alamos National Laboratory have drawn the wrath of Congress and the Department of Energy, threatening UC's long-running stewardship of one the nation's most important labs.
Beyond its $1.6 billion annual contract with the Department of Energy, UC stands to lose hundreds of renowned scientists involved with thousands of projects.

Bad news for Berkeley, but maybe we'll be able to work things out. Have to wait and see.

2003-01-29T20:37:00.000-08:00

America Saving History
I was sufficiently offended by reading this article, “Attack on Iraq Will Put Ancient Sites at Risk” that I felt the need to respond. As the article relates:

A BBC film made with the co-operation of Baghdad claims that some of the ancient world’s most important monuments would be destroyed in an attack against Iraq…
Remains from Babylon, the site associated with the Garden of Eden and the oldest Christian monastery would be in the firing line, Mr Cruickshank argues in a programme, which could be accused of being an Iraqi propaganda coup.

Well, I wouldn’t go as far as to call it propaganda, but I do think this article is extremely misguided. Will valuable cultural artifacts be destroyed if we are forced to invade Iraq? Almost surely yes. But, not because we will not be doing our damndest to protect all the historical monuments and mosques of Iraq:

Military strategists said that sites of religious importance, such as mosques, would be “off-limits” during bombing missions…
A spokesman declined to comment on potential targets. However, a well placed source said: “During the Gulf War we went to great lengths to avoid hitting important sites, and ‘smart’ bombs have reduced collateral damage.

This time around we will be using more smart bombs that are even smarter than the last time around. There will be valuable artifacts destroyed, for one very simple reason:

They filmed evidence that Saddam has bases near the most important monuments, including the 2,000-year-old city of Hatra.
Mr Cruickshank believes that Saddam intends to provoke such attacks to rouse Iraqis. The sites were popular tourist attractions until Saddam came to power. Mr Cruickshank found them abandoned and derelict other than for the care of local Beduin, who were fiercely proud of their contribution to world culture.

Saddam himself will be responsible for all the destruction that befalls his country. If he chooses to place his army installations near priceless historical artifacts then he accepts full responsibility for their destruction.

Saddam is no stranger to the destruction of crucial monuments. He has been happily overseeing the destruction of the remnants of the ancient city of Babylon as part of a megalomaniacal idol worship program. Saddam, who views himself as a modern day Nebuchadnezzar II is building his own fabulous version of Babylon on top of the old one, causing irreparable damage, as well as preventing a proper excavation from occurring. This page has a description of what has been occurring:

The reconstruction project continues to this day. Inhumanly tall, bare walls with fierce crenellated teeth have sprung up alongside the unexcavated tumuli. Two or three feet off the ground, a historic tidemark shows the limit of the original remains; on top of them, a somewhat fanciful reconstruction rises. A government guide points out original bricks with inscriptions praising Nebuchadnezzar for his role in constructing the palace. Next to them, the restorers have placed replicas detailing how the structure is being restored to its former glory "in the age of Saddam Hussein."

Saddam has been actively engaging in cultural annihilation in more than one way. He has also targeted the Marsh Arabs of Iraq in a particularly brutal form of genocide of both the people and their culture. The United States Institute of Peace has detailed the damage Saddam is doing:

A society of 500,000 people who have lived in and around an enormous freshwater wetland ecosystem for some 5,000 years, the Marsh Arabs have suffered the total destruction of their economy, their culture, their habitat and their way of life.

Saddam’s attacks against the Kurds have been well documented and loudly renounced, while the Marsh Arabs have suffered in relative obscurity. The silence about them is an insult to their culture as well as the persecution they face from Saddam as he goes about wreaking environmental damage on a massive scale against the largest wetland in the Middle East.

When the United States liberated Iraq then there can finally be an attempt to preserve the history and culture of the dwindling Marsh Arab population, as well as archeological digs to uncover the treasures that await us in the ancient ruins of Babylon.

Throughout the world, the United States has been indirectly doing a great service to the preservation of valuable historical objects. When we removed the Taliban from Afghanistan we helped to secure that country’s great cultural and historical treasure trove. The Taliban made no secret of their hatred for those things non-Muslim and had been actively destroying as much of the ancient history of Afghanistan as they could get their hands on:

Journalists toured Afghanistan's national museum in Kabul yesterday to see the results of the Taliban's destruction of statues.
Only pathetic fragments of the original collection of statues remained, including broken pottery and wooden engravings. A large Buddha - briefly displayed last August - had been pulverised, officials said…
Western experts now fear that the Taliban are melting down Afghanistan's fabled Bactrian treasures - 20,000 gold objects about 2,000 years old. The Bactrians, who settled in northern Afghanistan, were a Greek dynasty founded by Alexander the Great.

The Taliban is infamous for their destruction of the Great Buddha statues of Bamiyan, and although we may have caused some limited destruction of historical objects in Afghanistan, clearly there was a major net benefit when the sadistically destructive Taliban were sent running.

I find it offensive when discussion of a potential war with Iraq turns to talk of collateral damage that could destroy the ancient monuments of Iraq. It is very likely we will go to great lengths to avoid destroying anything of historical value, even if that means an increased risk to our soldiers. Not only that, but throughout the Middle East there is example after example of despotic rulers causing wanton destruction to the cultural history of their country, whether it is the Saudis destroying an 18th century Ottoman castle or Saddam raping and pillaging Kuwait (it’s a google cache):

In Kuwait City itself, the only public reminder of the occupation is the national museum, which Iraqi forces looted of its treasures and artifacts and set ablaze as they retreated. Only a few of those exhibits have been recovered and, apart from one gallery, the museum has been left as it was found in 1991—an empty shell.

Mr Cruickshank’s documentary about possible destruction in Iraq at the hands of the United States might not be propaganda, but it definitely comes from a skewed perspective. An article that accurately summed up the situation should have been titled, “Attack on Iraq Will Put Ancient Sites at Out of Risk”.

2003-01-29T11:40:00.000-08:00

Hitchens vs. Danner Part 1:
I attended the debate earlier tonight (I tried to post this yesterday but Blogger wouldn't let me, grrrr) between Christopher Hitchens and Mark Danner on the topic, “Iraq, The War on Terror and the Use of American Power” moderated by Orville Schell (whose only role as moderator was to give time cues and read questions from the audience). For more on Hitchens, see here, and for more on Danner, click here.

In multiple posts during the next couple of days I will be posting select quotations from the debate as well as adding links, my comments, and commentary. Tonight, I will be posting on the opening remarks by Hitchens and Danner. All quotations by the two speakers will be offset, and any links or bracketed comments contained in what they say, have been added by me. Ellipses will be inserted into all quotations when I have removed anything of substance, although occasional deletions to add to the clarity of the quotations will not be noted.

Opening Remarks: Mark Danner (he won the coin flip.)
Danner began the debate by asking a number of rhetorical questions about our role in the world:

How should we use our power? On what basis will we act in the world? Will it be out of fear and distrust of the rest of the world? Will we act cooperatively or multilaterally?

Discovering the answers to these questions is tremendously difficult. We must weigh realpolitik versus idealism. Unilateralism versus multilateralism. Interventionism versus isolationism, as well as many other factors. Not only are they difficult questions to answer, but even if they could be answered, then actually applying that theoretical answer to the real world would present its own set of problems. Both debaters made an attempt to lay out answers to those pressing questions, and I will be expanding how they attempted to define their own answers.

Next, Danner, moved on to September 11th, and what has become to be called the Bush Doctrine:

Now we’re working on it [Iraq] in the shadow of an event that has terrified the country, 9/11. [President Bush] divides the world into good and evil… those who are not with us are against us.”

There has been extensive commentary on Bush’s revival of the use of the word “evil”, as well as his decision to force countries to either throw in their lot with us, or risk becoming our enemies. The wisdom of this second move may only be fully evaluated later, but for now at least, we can weigh the advantages gained versus the sacrifices that occurred as part of the Bush Doctrine. The Bush Doctrine is founded on the very clear principle that American is the Big Dog in the neighborhood, and other countries know there are rather substantial risks in angering us. Bush put this on the line, and forced countries to choose. No longer was it enough to simply say you were on our side. Now, it was time to back up those words with action. Facing Al Qaeda before the fall of the Taliban must have seemed liked a daunting, or near impossible, challenge. Faced with that, it is understandable that the administration decided that they needed everyone on board and willing to fight for us. This active support from our allies helped us to defeat the Taliban, but it has come with a price: resentment and alienation from our erstwhile allies who detest being told what to do. There is opposition to the Bush Doctrine from Europe based on two main factors. First, they know we are in a position to boss them around, and no one likes being told what to do. Secondly, being forced to pick sides goes against the European inclination to believe a problem or conflict is multi-faceted and there can be more than one right answer or more than one way to get to this solution.

Danner’s next point was about the difficulty we face:

Regime change is one of the most noxious euphemisms that American foreign policy makers and American politicians have yet devised… In fact, we’re talking about attacking, bombing, invading, and occupying a major Arab country.

For the first three actions Danner has mentioned we must undertake, the “attacking, bombing, invading,” the indicators seem to be that fighting against Iraq will be comparable to the first Gulf War or Afghanistan, if not easier. Here is one reason things will probably go well. The only real fear we should have about the invasion, is if Saddam uses biological or chemical weapons. If he were to use his weapons of mass destruction (assuming he still has them of course), this would merely highlight the righteousness of our action against him. “Regime change” could turn out to be tremendously difficult, or it could be as easy as we could hope. The difficulty of transforming Iraq from a brutal dictatorship to a stable democracy should not deter us from action though. Yes, there are those in the Middle East who may resent an American occupation of Iraq, if that is what we end up doing post-conflict. Most resentful will be the dictator’s and despots and other non-democratic leaders throughout the region. They will realize the threat a stable democratic Iraq would pose to them, as well as the dreams it would fuel in their citizens. Others might be opposed on principle to the United States interfering with Iraq, but at the same time they would realize that we are saving the Iraqis from a cruel and evil dictator.

Danner concludes by offering his non-war plans for Iraq:

It is impossible for it [Iraq] to develop further weapons of mass destruction. [We need] more inspectors… smart sanctions… The United States should declare a policy whereby it would strike from the air those facilities it suspects are making nuclear weapons.

The problem with Danner’s plan is that it was tried. After the Gulf War we had inspectors in Iraq and they were doing their best to destroy Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. Saddam was playing cat and mouse with the UN until the inspectors left in 1998, and they knew that there were still weapons of mass destruction remaining that had not been destroyed. In a country the size of Iraq, it is nearly impossibly to determine what is occurring in every corner of desert and under every mosque and school. We cannot afford to wait until Saddam has a nuclear weapon, because then we will be faced with another North Korea, where nuclear deterrence makes military intervention too costly. Sanctions have proven ineffective, in part because Saddam has not been cooperating, preferring to starve his citizens than allow humanitarian aid to reach them. Yes, as Danner notes, war is a risky endeavor fraught with difficulties, and the reconstruction of Iraq would pose as many difficulties as deposing Saddam did. But, we have tried the inspections game and it was largely unsuccessful. Putting Hans Blix in charge was one tip-off that inspections would not be able to solve our problems (more on this later). This concludes Danner’s opening remarks.

Christopher Hitchens’ Opening Remarks
Hitchens began his opening remarks by asking audience members to raise their hands if they supported lifting the no fly zones in the north and south of Iraq. From my vantage point in the second to last row I saw one hand go up. He then asked people to raise their hands if they believed, “oil isn’t worth fighting for,” and a substantial majority of hands went up. Hitchens then moved on to a discussion of the Bush Doctrine:

I come from a tradition that asks which side are you on… There is no escaping this confrontation. There is no neutralist or abstentionist position to be taken.

Similar to the Bush Doctrine is what I would call the Osama bin Laden Doctrine. Bin Laden is just as likely as Bush to force wayward countries to pick sides. He does not accept neutrality, and as Hitchens notes later on in the debate, it is nearly impossible not to offend Al Qaeda in some way. Hitchens then offers up a partial humanitarian justification for war:

I don’t know any Iraqi or Kurd who hasn’t been waiting many years for the day the Saddam Hussein regime is completely dead and buried.

Going to war on purely humanitarian grounds is problematic. When we intervened against Milosevic to prevent ethnic cleansing, we did so on purely humanitarian grounds. (I can imagine the debate Clinton would have had to go through to use NATO forces against Milosevic if he was in control of the oil resources that Saddam has.) The Kurds are safe though, based on the no fly zones we have established. Removing a brutal dictator from power, who operates at the heinous level that Saddam does, would in fact be beneficial to the citizens of Iraq, but there is no casus belli to act, unless Saddam makes an attempt to commit genocide again in the north or the south, something he is unlikely to attempt to do. Hitchens then lays out the four conditions he feels has led to the United States to favor regime change against Iraq. His first reason is:

There is a moral imperative for regime change in Iraq… We are not yet through with the discredited idea of the one party state, hysterical state of leader worship, militarism, the cult of uniforms for schoolchildren, and party salutes, and all the aggression, chauvinism, hysteria, and filth that goes with that.

This analysis is the noblest reason to support war with Iraq. As much as I would like the United Stated armed forces to traverse the world ridding it of all non-democratic governments, this is unfeasible on both a practical and a theoretical basis. We cannot use the justification for war with Iraq that Saddam is a brutal dictator, because that would make us morally obligated to move on after Saddam to other dictators throughout the world. Yes, the world would be a much better place if the world were full of democracies, at least for the reason that democracies rarely fight democracies. Saddam stands out in his perversity though, and Iraq and North Korea vie for the title of most Hellish place to live. As already mentioned, invasion of North Korea is unfeasible, but Saddam can be removed. The first reason Hitchens notes does give us a moral obligation to act for the good of the citizens of Iraq and the good of the rest of the world. Hitchens’ next reason that the Bush administration supports regime change was related to oil:

It’s quite clear the oil resources don’t belong to whoever is in charge of Iraq… Blood for oil was shed when Saddam Hussein was able to gas the Kurds at Halabja and have nothing said by the administration. That was blood for oil. It was also fascism for oil.

When I heard Hitchens speak previously, he specifically mentioned he felt oil was worth fighting over. Oil is, in many ways, tied to our way of life and if it came down to going without any petroleum products or fighting a war, the citizens of the United States would be forced to support a war for oil because we cannot survive without oil. Throughout our history we have been concerned with oil, and there is no reason to suddenly give up our interest in oil just because Saddam controls some of it. The people of Iraq are suffering and starving not because their country is inherently poor, but because Saddam has gained control of Iraq’s precious natural resources and he uses oil revenues as a weapon against his people. The Iraqi oil does belong to the people of Iraq and there is nothing wrong with us returning that oil to their possession by removing Saddam. Considering the point about Halabja, we did allow Saddam to get away with that because we did not want to anger him because he was a potential source of oil for us. We now owe it to the Kurds to right our previous wrong, when blood really was shed for oil, and the only way to do that is to remove Saddam from power.

Hitchens was not able to get to his last two reasons why the administration favors the removal of Saddam. In the coming days, I will be posting more select quotations from the rest of the debate as well as my commentary, and I invite all who made it this far to return for more of the same.

2003-01-28T23:44:00.000-08:00

First Link
Thank you to The Albatross Perch for being the first blog to link to us. Part of the frustration of having a weblog is knowing that no matter how good your writing may be, people still might not read it, so every single link is appreciated. Albratoss Perch is one of the links in our sidebar, and I encourage you to visit all the web sites in our sidebar. They are there for a reason; they have quality material. With that said, the blogging resumes...

P.S. Anyone who happens to read this and wants to link to us, or throw up a post announcing the cool blog you stumbled across, we would be eternally grateful.

2003-01-28T15:12:00.000-08:00

Crimminals Beware

I have been noticing numerous local stories recently about crimminals being confronted with potential victims who choose to resist, and refuse to allow themselves to become victims. The first incident I ran across was a Crime Alert posted in the dorms that describes an attempted robbery. Here is a link to the Crime Alert, as well as the relevant information:

On January 22, 2003, at about 12:40 AM, a man was the victim of an attempted robbery in the Eucalyptus Grove. The victim was walking alone when he noticed two males following him. The two males suddenly attacked the victim from behind, knocking him to the ground. One of the suspects demanded the victim’s wallet. The victim did not comply and was able to fight the attackers off.

The two suspects atemtping this robbery clearly did not count on their victim fighting back. Other examples of using resistance to prevent a crime can be found here and here, both cases of attempted rape, which were prevented when the women either began to fight back or scream for help. I was actually prompted to write this post after reading an article in the Daily Cal, "Police Arrest Firebomb Suspects". The article describes a molotov cocktail being thrown at a fraternity residence, and mentions that the suspects were caught because, "Sigma Chi member Beau Soares chased the pair from the College Avenue fraternity to the 2300 block of Stuart Street, calling the 911 dispatcher on his cell phone "

These connected events relate to what I had to say here, when during a discussion of gun control I wrote this, "It is difficult to tell who might have a concealed weapon tucked in their belt or hidden under their car seat, and for that reason, it becomes more and more of a risk to commit a hate crime when your victim could be armed." The same principle applies: It becomes more and more of a risk to commit a crime when your intended victim could refuse to go along with your plan, drastically increasing your chances of both being unsuccesful and being caught.

2003-01-28T14:43:00.000-08:00

Instapundit and Berkeley Pundits on the Same Wavelength!

Last night (Monday) at 7:58 PM I posted some information on Christopher Hitchens and linked to his most recent Slate column and excerpted one paragraph. Then today, while reading Instapundit, I noticed that in one of his posts, on Tuesday morning, Glenn linked to the same Hitchens piece, and also excerpted the exact same paragraph I did. Advantage Berkeley Pundits! Now we just need about 100,000 more visitors and we can equal Glenn's influence.

2003-01-27T19:58:00.000-08:00

More on Hitchens:
I've heard Hitchens speak once before. He was the guest at an event honoring Mario Savio, and I throuougly enjoyed watching him speak, as well as watching the largely leftist crowd show their anger at his prescence. One member of the audience held a sign saying that after Hitchens, the next guest should be Bush, although I think Hitchens still can be viewed as a member of the left. That is why it is particularly noteworthy when he argues in favor of a war against Saddam. He is doing so from a left or humanitarian perspective, and he is one of the few doing so. I will be attending the debate between Hitchens and Danner at Zellerbach Hall Tuesday at 7:30, and I will post some rather lengthy observations later on. My other source of Christopher Hitchens has been his column in Slate. He has a weekly article, Fighting Words, where he has discussed such topics as Anti-Americanism, Imperialism, and Evil. You can find all his past Slate writings here. Today, Hitchens discussed the use of the word cowboy in describing GW Bush. The whole thing is worth reading, but this paragrpah jumped out at me:

To have had three planeloads of kidnapped civilians crashed into urban centers might have brought out a touch of the cowboy even in Adlai Stevenson. But Bush waited almost five weeks before launching any sort of retaliatory strike. And we have impressive agreement among all sources to the effect that he spent much of that time in consultation. A cowboy surely would have wanted to do something dramatic and impulsive (such as to blow up at least an aspirin-factory in Sudan) in order to beat the chest and show he wasn't to be messed with. But it turns out that refined Parisians are keener on such "unilateral" gestures—putting a bomb onboard the Rainbow Warrior, invading Rwanda on the side of the killers, dispatching French troops to the Ivory Coast without a by-your-leave, building a reactor for Saddam Hussein, and all the rest of it.

2003-01-27T15:40:00.000-08:00

Ward Connerly Goes to Far?

The Daily Cal has an article today reporting on Ward Connerly's confusing (to say the least) remarks about segregation. In the article, "UC Regent Assailed for Segregation Remarks", Connerly is quoted as saying, "Supporting segregation need not be racist. One can believe in segregation and believe in equality of the races." Connerly, famous for Proposition 209 and the Racial Privacy Intiative has always strived to make government color blind by eliminating government action based on race. Whether or not you support Connerly's efforts, his recent comments still appear oddly out of place. Why would you support segregation unless you didn't believe in the equality of the races? Connerly should have taken the time to explain what he really meant with these comments, because they can obviously be interpreted as supporting segregation, which I can't imagine is what he actually believes. His actual reaction when pressed for an apology was not to try to clarify his remarks or apologize, but to say, "I'm not apologizing; tell them to go to hell."

2003-01-27T14:42:00.000-08:00

Can we kick Germany out of NATO for this?.....

It turns out the pesky Germans are at it again. Yahoo News reports that German-Danish scout leaders led a rousing game of tag one evening. The kids were enjoying a nice evening at scout camp and their parents decided an organized activity would build community ...or something.

Parents of more than 100 Danish scouts were outraged over a game of tag at a scout camp in which children acted as Jews wearing yellow Stars of David and tried to escape from adults pretending to be Nazis

In Northern Danish Speaking Germany, its always a bad idea to mock Nazism or the holocaust or to just chase kids around at night. All bad ideas. So like the Danes were one of a handful of nations to not see their Jewish populace decimated (as much) by the Nazis but thats no reason to play tag in honor of it. Did they really pass out little Stars of David to the kids and make them wear them?

The school yard was turned into a concentration camp with swastikas on the windows.

Well, if they went to all that trouble I'm guessing they bought little stars of David. The AP even reports they affixed a sign: "with the German words "Arbeit macht frei," or "Work will set you free," the infamous inscription over the entrance to the Auschwitz concentration camp in Poland." See now thats just sick but it does make me think we really should review our relationship with Europe and Germany specifically.

Okay, attempts to decimate the Jews:
Europe Holocaust plus countless pogroms, US none.
Historic support for Israel: Europe weak to say the least, US unwavering.

So far its coming out pretty loppsided. This will be a running tally. But I think It sheds light on other world events like the Iraq question. Germans chase their kids around decorated school yards mocking the near-genocide they almost committed 60 years ago and call us imperialist monsters. We, differently, don't do the whole 'mock the holocaust involving children' but are a bunch of war-mongerers. Seems reasonable to me.

But those parents did one thing right, they pinned a sign on the school yard but they got the words wrong. I'd amend that sign like the French amend UN resolutions about terrorism to read, "Abandon hope all ye enter here." Europe, you are hopeless.

2003-01-26T21:20:00.000-08:00

Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys

From Not a Fish I stumbled across a link to a useful guide on French military pursuits. [Spoiler: the French have not been doing so well] Oh wait, that's not a spoiler, everyone knows the French's singular moment of military glory was helping us win our Revolution. The best part of the post is the clever metaphors and asides denigrating the French: When it comes to war, France gets rolled more often than a Parisian prostitute with a visible mustache.

2003-01-26T21:03:00.000-08:00

Privacy vs. Community

The New York Times discusses the privacy craze that is blazing through college campuses as the children of boomers demand their own rooms. Privacy is at odds with socialization at colleges. Bowles Hall (at Cal) is a case study in this phenomenon. Most of the residents (all male) requested Bowles over the uber-dirty but social Units and the distant Foothill complex expressly for the single rooms. (The rooms are laid out in quads with a double with two singles on each side but all sharing a common door to the hall). The students who would opt for such a lay out are extremely studious, reclusive, private or all of the above. The Times' Sara Rimer puts it like this:

The roommate, a source of vivid memories for generations of former students, is no longer the staple of campus life it once was.Students, who grew up with their own bedrooms in the prosperous 1990's, are increasingly demanding — and willingly paying for — the same privacy they had at home.

Mr. Rawn [an architect for the newly styled dorms] recalled the opening of his first student residence, at Bates College in Maine, in 1993. He had designed the building with mostly four-person suites, each with two shared bedrooms. One mother came up to him, he said, and demanded: "How can you design a dorm where kids have to share a bedroom? My daughter has never shared a bedroom in her life."

Rimer pins the culprit, in typical Times' fashion, on affluence. 'Damn those richies! They are ruining our kids futures by denying them healthy social interaction!' She hammers this home by ironically quoting Mr. Rawn on his experience at Yale in 1965.

"I told her, I went to a rather well-known college," said Mr. Rawn, who graduated from Yale in 1965, "and I shared a bedroom all the way through." (He and his roommate, Ed Townsend, who slept on bunk beds in a 112-square-foot room in a suite at Yale's Saybrook College, are still best friends, Mr. Rawn says.)

Firstly, Yale was all male in 1965. Opposite sex interaction was a non-issue. The nearest girls college was miles away.The only children, which seem to be driving this 'problem', that Rimer admits have had no experience living with members of the opposite sex are insecure. At Yale in 1965 those same introverted but smart (and rich) kids did not fear public humilation in front of the opposite sex. At Cal, the same kids who ran home after school to do homework and did not make an appearance at Prom are now asked to coexist on a huge scale with various members of the same and opposite sex in very intimate environs. Rimer does not correct her article for that clear distinction. Bowles Hall's is filled with these shy and reclusive but bright kids that (if their parents were well off) would fit in just fine at 1965 Saybrook College.

Moreover, the spoiled middle class kids that Rimer blames on this phenomenon have nothing on the luxury that the average 1960s Yale grad grew up in. Are we honestly expected to believe Mr. Rawn is representative of the average college student back then, let alone today? He might have spent the four previous years at Andover or another elite prep school in the Northeast in indentical circumstances that he encountered at Yale. Even if he didnt, he probably had a similarly lavish childhood to that of the average middle class kid requesting a single today.

But Rimer makes a more important point that she tries very hard to mask. Her chief subject Jaron Friedman, a senior at BU, enjoyed his first few years in a communal living atmosphere. It's only now that he wants his own room. Sexile, a term all too familar to most college students, is an inconvenience but not the issue Rimer seems to make it out to be.

Rebecca Hoskins, a 21-year-old nursing student, has a single bedroom in an apartment in Mr. Rawn's new high-rise on Northeastern's campus, not far from Boston University. "It is convenient that you don't get sex-exiled for the weekend," she said, referring to students who are banished from their rooms when their roommate's boyfriend or girlfriend spends the night.

Freshman and sophomores don't have the long term relationships that require such privacy. The hookups that occur, ironically, are intra-dorm. Poll your friends and find out where they met that special someone. I am sure that proximity played a major role in their choice, besides the fact they "have the cutest eyes". But older students like Jaron and Rebecca are exactly who demand the privacy communal living denies students. They have their lives. These upperclassmen have their lives sorted out, long term relationships are much more frequent and social cliques are less fluid at this age. Punk freshman constantly hitting them up to make a beer run is the last thing they need let alone their dirty, uncooth roommate leaving their dirty clothes around the room. College is about balancing freedom and responsibility. The implication that these kids are seeking the same luxury and pampered environs they had at home is entirely wrong. The juniors and seniors who want out of doubles and god forbid triples or quads want freedom not to shut themselves in. They wish to come as go as they please, bring whom and what they like in and out. Roommates need accommodation and stewardship even. Singles allow for people with lives (ie Upperclassmen) to run their own lives.

The universities collectively claim they are attempting to keep important community members on campus when in reality all they are doing is stabilizing revenue as the upperclassmen live in their own worlds. They have that class, their job, and the club meeting to get to not to BS with the frosh down the hall. The College administration of these institutions are deluding themselves if they believe they are building community and Rimer is deranged if she thinks affluence is driving the push for singles. I dont like this phenomenon at all though. The seniors are kept from getting homes with their buddies, frat brothers (sorority sisters), or even having to sustain a household and deal with a landlord while the underclassmen rarely see seasoned students except in a blur as they grab the elevator for their next outing.

Rimer misses the point on this one entirely. Changing social environments are partly to blame, privacy is masked by the real issue: freedom (and responsibility). College who coddle their upperclassmen are doing them a disservice but they aren't hurting the 'socialization' process one bit.

2003-01-26T12:07:00.000-08:00

Neo-Conservative Honesty Part II

Politically, it has to be admitted: neo-conservatism is untraditional and therefore un-American. If the American public were asked to vote up or down the proposition of Empire, the neocons would be decisively defeated. As is evidenced by the visceral anti-Imperialist reaction after the Spanish-American War. Ike wanted the US out of Germany by the 1960s. Korea and Japan have always had military-civilian conflict. And the US is wary of doing another country's bidding. "I won't send American boys to do what Asian boys should be doing for themselves"-LBJ?? Suffice it to say that Imperialism doesn't sit well with Americans. Despite the annoying and ubiquitous cries of Lefties, We (repeat) DO NOT HAVE AN EMPIRE!

But should we? Neoconservatives answer simply with an updated verse of Kipling's poem., The burden is ours. The world, humanity, and most of all America demands empire. But Neocons understand the political opposition to such statements. They would never dare utter such heresies against the American credo, so unfortunately we have to operate by deception much like Ted Kennedy on healthcare. Empire, not by accident like our former empire, but by incrementalism. Its good politics and good policy but I'm going to spill the beans. We want more than Iraqi democracy. The House of Saud has to go. Bye-Bye Mullahs in Tehran. Kim Jong Il and his father's days are numbered. Michael Ledeen, one of the most astute and articulate neocons, had made the case for a laundry list that I would happily check off for him, or maybe with Libya and Syria we could enlist Israel. The CIA needs the funds to knock off these governments. And if that just won't work. I have no qualms sending in a few squadrons and a couple of divisions. The American way of life, which is slowly becoming the world's way of life will triumph. It just remains a difficult proposition to dedicate yourself to when you must guise your intentions. When countries like Syria and Libya come to the forefront their terrorist present and past will provide justification. And that's how and why 9-11 changed everything. Evil dictators who underwrite terror are implicitly our enemy now but that visceral anti-Imperialism is difficult to expunge. An American presence in post war Iraq will be needed to ensure that a liberal western friendly democracy is secure but do we as a nation have the stomach for all that entails. The British did. The Ottomans did. But we aren't enriching our bank accounts or flying our flag. It's an empire of charity, of necessity. Terror has moved the neocon dream of American greatness and a Charity, ironically a Christian Charity, impulse into the realm of national interest. Economic stability and law and order aren't what we must hope for, we must demand them. NATO expansion, intervention through the IMF, nudging regional allies, and covert ops must all move toward a more stable and secure world order. If American empire is the price, so be it.

In a moment of Neocon clarity you wont get from the Center for Strategic and International Studies

The American hit list is as follows:

Iraq
Iran
North Korea
Venezuela
Syria
Libya
Sudan
Cuba
Burma (yes, Burma)
Zimbabwe
Belarus
Saudi Arabia
Yemen
ehh Jeeez....We should just knock off all the purple countries on this map

Additions are welcome, as I am sure the Bush Admin and its Empire Builders (good connotations) are on the look out for uppity nations.

2003-01-26T02:16:00.000-08:00

Jordan Re-Absorbs West Bank...?

Accepting a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip always seemed like the best of many bad possible solutions (how a non-contiguous state would work, I have no idea) to the Palestinian problem. No one else wants the Palestinians, and if they are allowed to be considered part of Israel, the Jewish state faces the very real demographic disaster of losing a Jewish majority. Now, a possible solution could be in the works. According to Debkafile, Jordan could potentially re-absorb the West Bank. In a news update, Turkey, Jordan Are (partway) Back on Track, Debka has this to report:

DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s political sources interpret this as a move by the Jordanian monarch to set himself up as the senior Arab arbiter of the destiny of the Palestinians after Saddam’s passing further diminishes his long-time ally, Yasser Arafat. Abdullah cherishes hopes of reclaiming the authority over the West Bank and Arab Jerusalem, which his father, Hussein, forfeited by losing the 1967 war.

If this prophecy becomes a reality, it could potentially eliminate the justification for Palestinian terrorism against Israel (not that I am saying this would stop the Islamokazes in their bloodlust attempt to eradicate the Jews of the Middle East) because Jordan, not Israel, would be in control of the West Bank. Jordan also would probably be more likely to make concessions about control of Jerusalem and settlements than Araft and company would. Here's hoping that the Jordanians can play a key role in solving the Palestinian problem.

2003-01-25T21:23:00.000-08:00

Hitchens to Speak:

The venerable Christopher Hitchens will be speaking at Zellerbach Hall, for all of our Berkeley readers (you do exist, right...?). These are the details, found here:

Christopher Hitchens and Mark Danner

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tue 1/28/2003 7:30 p.m.

Zellerbach Hall

Bancroft Way and Telegraph Ave.

Berkeley, CA 94707
(510) 642-9988

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Writers debating “Iraq, The War on Terror and the Use of American Power”, with moderation by Orville Schell.

--Chronicle

2003-01-25T16:29:00.000-08:00

Remembering to Close the Door was Hard Enough...

Wonderful news in this article, Master Key Copying Revealed, for anyone living in an apartment, dorm, or other such room that can be openend by a master key. Now, along with having to put up with the homeless who sleep outside the dorms and leave their urine puddles for us in the morning, the constant car alarms and emergency vehicle sirens, we have to be concerned that anyone who has a key to a room can make a master to get into any room. I'll be intrested to see if publishing this article leads to an increase in the number of thefts related to this process.

2003-01-25T16:22:00.000-08:00

Addendum to "What the Hell?!? II"

The Bug Chaser article originally posted here has turned out be most likely sensationalist and inaccurate. Here is the Rolling Stone article, plus criticism of it from Andrew Sullivan in Salon, and another article at MSNBC, which contains this quotation:

While the fringe phenomenon of gay men looking to get infected has been known about for years, the Rolling Stone story asserts that “bug chasers” are a significant phenomenon in the gay population. The piece’s most eyepopping statistic comes from Dr. Bob Cabaj, the director of behavioral-health services for San Francisco County. The story says that “Cabaj estimates that at least twenty-five percent of all newly infected gay men” are either purposefully seeking infection or are “actively seeking HIV but are in denial and wouldn’t call themselves bug chasers.”

But Cabaj says that attribution is made-up. “That’s totally false. I never said that. And when the fact checker called me and asked me if I said that, I said no. I said no. This is unbelievable.” Cabaj said there’s no way of knowing what percentage of gay men are looking to get infected but that it’s likely very small.

All evidence seems to indicate that Bug Chasing is not a legitimate problem, but is more likely part of the vast scope of messed up people doing creepy things. Yeah, there is probably some extremely small group of people who want HIV, just like there are others who will molest little boys and kill other little boys and serve their remains to the unsuspecting neighboors, or urinate on underage girls and then have sex with them. There are some really crazy people out there, but all indications seem to show their numbers are small.

2003-01-25T12:03:00.000-08:00

What the Hell?!? III

I found this lovely tidbit of UN incompetence via the indispensable Little Green Footballs. Two guys tried to break into the UN compound, possible for asylum, and the UN guys caught them and turned them over to the Iraqis. How incompetent can you get? The article hints at what is about to come for these unlucky men:

In the first incident, about 7:50 a.m., a man identified in a preliminary report as an Iraqi government employee tried to enter the U.N. compound through a gated roadway entrance but was apprehended by U.N. and Iraqi security men, Baghdad U.N. spokesman Hiro Ueki said. Journalists saw the man wrestled to the ground by about a half-dozen U.N. security men.

"He was carrying three knives and a piece of metal," Ueki said. "He was handed over to the Iraqi police. He is being interrogated by police." Ueki said he had no further details, including what kind of metal implement the man may have carried.

Yeah, he is being interrogated by the police with cattle prods and bludgeons to the face. The other guy was shouting, "save me" in Arabic and English and they turned him over to the Irais also. When the UN is actively turning over possible defectors to the Iraqis they have demonstrated their utter moral depravtity, as well as their disinterest in finding any real weapons of mass destruction.

2003-01-24T15:19:00.000-08:00

Neo-Conservative Honesty Part I

While Neo-conservatism has seen its ranks embattled recently it must be defined as to what neo-conservatism is in modern America and more importantly where it’s going.
Though Pat Buchanan invokes it to me “Jewish Conservatives”, and in an increasingly anti-Semitic tone he believes these neo-cons to be disloyal republicans. The Tricky Jews of Lore come to take away the principles of his Republican Party. These neocons in the paleoconservative or Buchananite world view are the wolves in sheep’s clothing and unfortunately for Pat, the conservative movement is sick of this little boy crying ‘Wolf’ on immigration, trade, and now war. Oddly enough, Buchanan does have a point about Neo-cons. They were originally predominantly Jewish and a different type of conservative. Coming over from the dark side (i.e. Intellectual leftism) in the early 70’s to support Nixon against the McGovernite hordes, the original neoconservatives had an internationalist foreign policy agenda and embraced the permanence of the New Deal Welfare State. Irving Kristol and others proclaimed themselves Republicans and dedicated themselves to slowing the onslaught of liberalism, in government, in culture, and in life more generally. These men in a sense were more conservative than their Old Believer conservative counterparts who wished to turn back the clock on creeping socialism, civil rights and unrest, and a general decline the American way of life as Goldwaterites saw it. In a traditionally pessimistic (therefore conservative) view of the world, neoconservatives held that the New Deal was not to be turned back but reformed. Society had progressed. To regress is to die. To conserve, to slow further detrimental but inevitable progress was the stated goal of this movement.

Because of the intellectual and cosmopolitan roots of Neo-conservatism, the war against communist expansionism became their fixation. Many of them embraced Scoop Jackson’s version of rollback and pushed for a hard-line against the Reds. Coexistence was not an option. As the rest of America began to oppose the Vietnam War, Neo-cons jumped on the bandwagon, a moment of conservative contrarian clarity. In the 1970s, the ranks of neo-conservatism expanded exponentially and ceased being a Jewish enterprise as men like William Bennett signed up. By the time the Reagan revolution was underway, the classic conservative camp had broken with the Neo-cons on foreign policy. The phrase “direct national interest” was absorbed into the talking points of the National Review and other cold warriors to mean unless the Soviets were involved we had no reason to involve ourselves. Unless AK’s were being airdropped over a friendly government’s airspace to communist-friendly insurgents, the US has no interest in continuing to prop up that government. Two episodes clearly illustrate this new cold war view. William F. Buckley’s Firing Line hosted Ronald Reagan at the time Carter was signing away the Panama Canal. Buckley took express issue with the Reaganite view that the Canal would prove strategically important in the future if not symbolically important that America had key interests in and around the canal. Buckley, a Yalie Wordsmith, resoundingly trounced Reagan in that exchange but saw Reagan embracing the neo-conservative ideology of power: symbolic, principled, and overwhelming. The neo-cons weren’t Taft’s standpatters. They weren’t satisfied to not give an inch; they wanted to take a few. They fought hard and won control of Reagan’s foreign policy.

The second such episode was the weakening in the late Nixon, Ford, and Carter administrations of support for the Shah. His human rights abuses led to cut in overt and covert aid to his regime. This political move on the part of these administrations threw light on the growing divide between neo-conservative foreign policy and Washington Consensus foreign policy. Though the Shah was an ugly guy, he was our ugly guy. Democratic reforms, if they were to come at all, should be guided by the benevolent hand of American overseers, neo-cons pleaded to no avail.

This aggressive foreign policy again intersected Buchanan’s anti-Semitic conspiracy theories: Israel. With an odd coalition of Jews, Evangelic Christians, and secular Empire seekers, Israel slowly outpaced all others to become America’s go-to-man on Middle East Intelligence and largest recipient of foreign aid. As the first line of defense against a phalanx of Soviet Backed Arab enemies, Israel became an American client state. Mossad collected intelligence for the US in devious and political impossible ways if the CIA were charged with the task. Democracy and capitalism flourished in the face of state run autocracy in the same unusable desert lands that make up the Middle East. A number of Conservatives held to the axiom of Lord Byron, “A people which wishes to be free must strike the first blow.” They called for an end to some foreign aid. And saw our relationship with ‘client states’ as troublesome.

As the Berlin Wall fell and the iron curtain was lifted to reveal the bile that was the communist infestation of Eastern Bloc and its client states, conservatism was vindicated. But the war for the Neo-cons had just begun. Tyrants, former clients and enemies, oppressed their people, threatened the world economy with war, and placed American values in jeopardy. “National Interest” and “Isolationist” conservatives, though animals of a different breed, were ready to scale down the armed forces. Put the guns away and stand as a symbol of freedom and democracy.

Neo-cons felt the fight for democracy, capitalism, and world order would require more work and struggled to civilize the World. Samuel Huntington and Francis Fukuyama stood at the forefront of Neo-con ideology in the publishing of their great works, "The Clash of Civilizations” and “The End of History” respectively. They forecast the triumph of Western liberalism over the forces of autocracy and orientalism. Tolerance, democracy, freedom, and prosperity were due to conquer the globe. Neo-conservatives were elated and saw this future as one for the taking. Clinton, for all the hand ringing conservatives give him, was an immense foreign policy success with only one caveat: he wasn’t aggressive enough. The Bosnia campaign should have been launched earlier, Haiti was nearly flawless, Kosovo was a glorious. He staved off Chinese aggression in 1996 after their war games exercises in the Straits. He didn’t hesitate to launch strikes against Saddam when he stepped over the line no matter how expedient the strikes were. Clinton’s massive failures were all due to his timidity. He didn’t take out Osama or give the CIA room to roam. He deserves as much blame as he does credit. But from the Neo-con POV he successful demonstrated to the American people the feasibility and ease by which we could launch and carryout the “savage wars of peace”.

In the 2000 Presidential Debates, GW Bush explicitly stated he opposed a number of the Clinton foreign policy initiatives because they deviated from “National interest” criteria. Humanitarian wars were not wars of the American armed forces. Amnesty International, the UN, the Red Cross should fight these battles not the Green Berets. The Neo-cons were cast aside as foreign policy extremists. But as we all know September 11th changed that. We want peace, prosperity, democracy and freedom to prevail and we aren’t afraid to intervene overtly to accomplish such ends. And we are all Neo-conservatives now!

2003-01-23T15:25:00.000-08:00

What the Hell II ?!?
Readers of Berkeley Pundits might have noticed a previous post, which contained a similar title. I am thinking of having a semi-regular feature of the news I discover, which leads to that "What the Hell?!?" reaction. For those who do not mind occaisionally cleaning soda or other drinks they have spit out while reading news that brings about that type of reaction, I encourage you to check back often. Here is the latest example of rationality-defying news, brought to you by way of the Drudge Report: Bug Chasers, The men who long to be HIV+. I will post again on this article when I have had a chance to read it, and do some more research.

2003-01-22T23:10:00.000-08:00

Uh Oh...
"Al Qaeda terror strategy turns to assassination" says CNN. The only good news (at least for US leaders) is that right now:

Al Qaeda's current strategy is to assassinate two world leaders, the leader of Afghanistan, President Karzai, and President Musharraf, the leader of Pakistan," Gunaratna said. "It is because al Qaeda wants to create friendly governments in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

They assassinated one of our diplomats in Jordan a while ago. This seems profoundly counter-productive though. Nothing infuriates citizens like killing their elected leaders. Then again, most terrorism directed at civilians is counter-productive anyway. The possible implication of this report is that al Qaeda has been damaged enough through the war on terrorism that they are not capable of producing large scale operations like they formally relied on. That would be a very good sign, but only time will tell how much al Qaeda has been degraded.

2003-01-22T20:37:00.000-08:00

Feminists Drop the Ball

While volunteering with Tom Bates (stealer of newspapers) during the Fall Semester, I found myself receiving a ride from a middle aged woman, also volunteering. During the car ride, we discussed the looming war with Saddam. One peripheral topic that came up was the successful military operation in Afghanistan, which had led to the overthrow of the Taliban. This woman, while proclaiming herself an ardent feminist, mentioned that she opposed what Bush had done in Afghanistan. Her answer was the standard anti-war argument, mentioning American imperialism/hegemony/civilian casualties/worsening humanitarian conditions, and the like. I recall being perplexed that this woman could have such a visceral opposition to the Taliban, based on their egregious record of abuse against the women of Afghanistan, yet not support the only conceivable action that could lead that regime’s demise.

I was reminded of that conversation when I read this post from Ampersand, which stated:

Ms. Hymowitz's thesis is ridiculous. Not only have feminists (including the academic feminists Ms. Hymowitz disdains) been speaking on these issues for decades, until recently feminists have been almost the only Westerners speaking. There have been literally thousands of feminist speaking (in books, websites, articles, fundraisers, letter-writing campaigns, conferences, etc) about women under Islam and Sharia law.

The above quotation was referring to an article, "Why Feminism Is AWOL on Islam" by Kay Hymowitz, which made this claim:

[Feminists] have averted their eyes from the harsh, blatant oppression of millions of women, even while they have continued to stare into the Western patriarchal abyss, indignant over female executives who cannot join an exclusive golf club and college women who do not have their own lacrosse teams.

The claim Hymowitz makes is demonstrably wrong, as Ampersand goes on to demonstrate, in the post I linked to above. I know from personal experience (belonging to my high school’s chapter of Amnesty International) that the feminists have been covering the Taliban’s abuses like stink on the Berkeley homeless. Hymowitz made a factually incorrect attack on feminists, when she could have been attacking them not because they opposed the Taliban, which they clearly did, but because they opposed the war on the Taliban.

One widely disseminated article about feminists' reaction to the war against the Taliban can be found here and here and was written by Sharon Lerner. The article begins with this:

A year ago, when women's rights and peace advocate Hibaaq Osman was giving a speech at the United Nations, she cited only one cause for which the use of military force might be justified: to oust the oppressive Taliban regime from Afghanistan.

I find this sentiment reassuring. If any government in the world was truly in need of a beat down, it was most likely the Taliban. And after the September 11th, attacks, well, then they really had it coming. What then, is Hibaaq Osman’s reaction to a US sponsored liberation of the women of Afghanistan?:

Now that the bloody effort is under way, however, Osman, who heads the Center for Strategic Initiatives in Washington, feels differently.
"I said it, but I was just making a point," a distraught Osman recalls.

Yes Hibaaq, I realize that you probably despise President Bush, and that if Clinton was still around, and it was him promising to liberate all those oppressed under the Taliban, you would be supporting him. But, the Taliban regime was so odious and vicious they had to be eliminated. And military force was the only way to accomplish that goal. The obviousness of this can be seen in a Call to Action put forth by the National Organization for Women found here. The web page contains this wonderful denounciation of the Taliban:

Women and girls are under attack:
• The extremist Taliban government in Afghanistan is denying women and girls even the most basic human rights.
• Prohibited from going to work or school and forbidden from leaving their homes without a male relative, women and girls in Afghanistan are under house arrest.
• Women and girls are prevented from getting adequate health care since male doctors may not care for female patients.

That part is all well and good. Everyone agrees how scummy the Taliban were. What I can’t understand, not in the least bit, not even a tiny amount, is what NOW says next:

You can help!
• Demand that the U.S. take action to stop the abuse of women and girls in Afghanistan. Call upon the U.S. and the U.N. to continue to refuse to recognize the Taliban government!

It kills me. It really does. NOW, after all their denunciation of the Taliban tells us to… keep doing exactly what we were doing already. A strategy which had accomplished absolutely nothing. Zero. Zip. A single daisy cutter did more to free the women of Afghanistan than did six years of diplomatic rubbish. Why can’t NOW understand this?

Feminists peculiar opposition to the war against the Taliban can in part be explained by another quotation of Osman in Lerner’s article:

“But do I support war?" Osman pauses to consider her own country, Somalia, with its brutal history, before bursting out with an emotional "No. No. No. War is not OK under any circumstances," and then concluding, "The whole thing simply breaks my heart."

This sentiment is surely part of the problem. The position “war is always wrong” is absurd on face. WWII was not wrong. It was a war that had to be fought. The United States did not start the fight, we were dragging in, and we did what had to be done to protect the world from fascist aggression. We won, and now the world is a safer, better place. Osman has entered an alternate universe where all war is wrong, and as long as she holds that view I consider her opinions on world events to be essentially useless.

More problematic, are those other feminists who do not accept the view that all war is bad, but still opposed Bush’s take down of the Taliban. Possibly politics plays a role in this resistance to Bush’s foreign policy, but regardless of the reason, when the most destructive force against women in the planet is removed from power, it is time to rejoice. Thankfully, there were women who are glad to see the Taliban gone, as is expressed by a quotation from this article:

Holmes contrasts this with Eleanor Smeal and the Feminist Majority Foundation which maintains that "the United States has a unique obligation to end the Taliban's atrocities toward women" and explicitly calls for the United States to remove the Taliban and replace it with a constitutional democracy which will guarantee the rights of women in Afghanistan. Though that may not be possible -- although the Northern Alliance, the main threat to the Taliban, is certainly an improvement over the Taliban, they are hardly a group of liberal democratic constitutionalists.

2003-01-21T15:20:00.000-08:00

Berkeley Pundits One Day Crusade is Over!

After pointing out in this post yesterday that James Taranto of Best of the Web Today had mocked an editorial in the Boston Globe here, I sent an e-mail pointing out the science behind the editorial. Lo and behold, today there was this entry in Best of the Web Today:

Science Marches On
In an item yesterday, we expressed mystification at the Boston Globe's claim that "global warming" increases the risk of skin cancer. It turns out there is a hypothesis according to which it would. The Web site of a company called Environmental Support Solutions explains how it's supposed to work:

Ozone depletion gets worse when the stratosphere (where the ozone layer is), becomes colder. Because global warming traps heat in the troposphere, less heat reaches the stratosphere which will make it colder. Greenhouse gases act like a blanket for the troposphere and make the stratosphere colder.

Ozone, the theory has it, acts as a filter for the sun's ultraviolet rays, which cause skin cancer; thus, if all this is true, "global warming" would increase the risk.

Of course, there's a lot that science doesn't know. We were reminded of this by the headline of an Associated Press dispatch: "Scientists Study Why the Elderly Fall." One of these days they'll discover gravity.

The one day crusade has ended. Berkeley Pundits: Getting things done!

2003-01-20T19:50:00.000-08:00

Protesting the Protesters

Declan McCullagh has some great pictures from the D.C. protest here. My favorite was this one, which shows drinking smoking guys holding a sign that says, "Hippies Go Home". It is as if some of the Vietnman protesters have been in suspended animation and they've been brought back now that there is a potential war afoot.

2003-01-20T18:50:00.000-08:00

Human Shields: Civilian Casualities in the Making

One of the repeated claims by opposition groups to military action in Iraq is the sheer number of civilian causalities that would make the whole endeavor pointless. I think anyone would grant that civilian casualties are unfortunate, but they are obviously necessary (witness the millions of civilians killed on all sides during WWII). Although a war should never be prevented solely based on the fear of collateral damage, if there are legitimate reasons to be fighting, the fear of massive civilian deaths does make war seem like a less desirable option.

The problem for anti-war activists is that there are a number of indications that the actual number of civilian casualties in Iraq could turn out to be quite low. The number of precision guided weapons we will be able to use, along with their increased accuracy, could drastically reduce the number of Iraqi civilians killed. Estimates are that up to 80 percent of our weapons could be precision guided (using lasers, GPS, or other systems), compared to 60 percent in Afghanistan and 7 percent in Gulf War I. We have also been attempting to convince the Iraqis not to fight, which could lead to mass defections or an uprising against Saddam, including spamming his soldiers with emails telling them to resist Saddam.

This has not stopped anti-war groups from loudly trumpeting the risks of war to Iraqi citizens. The International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) are opposing a war against Iraq (even though it is highly unlikely that nuclear weapons will be used, unless Saddam has one lying around in a Presidential Palace that he can lob at us). In a report, the group claims:

The estimates of Iraqi casualties from collateral damage range from 50,000 to 250,000 for the first three months of a conventional conflict. There will be no way to know how much civilian causalities there will be until after the war, but a quarter of a millions is almost surely an exaggeration meant to dissuade people from supporting war with Iraq.

One way that the number of civilian causalities would be inflated is through the use of human shields. Saddam Hussein is certainly no stranger to the use of human shields. There is much evidence that he employed human shields during the Gulf War, both voluntarily and involuntarily. According to the article, “Group to send 'human shields' to Iraq” from iafrica.com, “During the Gulf War Iraq detained foreigners and tried to use them as "human shields" at vulnerable sites.” Victims of this attempt by Saddam Hussein to be used as human shields actually brought a lawsuit and may receive funds frozen from Iraqi bank accounts.

Since the first Gulf War, others have engaged in the illegal and unethical use of human shields. Milosevic used human shields as a defense against the NATO led assault on his forces. An article from the American Foreign Press Service claims:

There is compelling evidence Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic is using this "diabolical" tactic to kill refugees and then blame NATO, Bacon said here May 17. A third of the people killed in NATO attacks may have been put near military targets by Milosevic specifically as human shields, he noted.

With a war against Iraq looming on the horizon, Saddam is doing everything he can to ensure that there will be an abundance of human cannon fodder in Iraq to feel the brunt of any US bombing. One article, “Jordan: human shields to protect the Iraqi establishments” (yes, I realize it is the Arabic News) claims:

The Jordanian national committee in defense of Iraq, stemmed from the Jordanian opposition said it had decided to form a human shield campaign and honorary lists for Jordanian citizens who desire to join the International human shields around the Iraqi establishments.

The chairman of the committee, Hakam al-Fayez, said that the campaign aims at registering the names of 100,000 volunteers from various areas in Jordan for this purpose and that the registration by Jordanian citizens who desire to join this campaign will continue until January 17, 2003.

There are plenty of other reports about the human shields already in Iraq and on the way: Iraq Turns to Human Shields and Saddam's best weapon: Human shields.

The use of human shields is in violation of International Law (see here for an article that explains the issue in depth). Even if you grant that the human shields have good intentions, they will almost certainly turn into pawns of Saddam Hussein. Ideally, a human shield who cared about protecting Iraqi citizens would go somewhere like a school or hospital. But, that doesn’t make any sense because we wouldn’t want to bomb those places anyway. So Saddam will send the human shields to bridges and command centers and radar units and WMD labs and we will end up bombing the places anyway.

Perversely, the inflated claims about civilian causalities could actually come true, but not because 100,000 Iraqi civilians get killed. The hundreds of thousands of dead citizens might actually end up being human shields.

Update: In this post I described how our massive technological advantage could lead to minimal civilian casualties in Gulf War II. Then, I stumbled across even more evidence that our armed forces are preparing a serious ass-whipping for the Iraq army, with the use of (drum roll please...) America's Ultra-Secret Weapon. The Time article the previous link will send you too is about High Power Microwave weapons. Here is Time describing the damage they can do:

HPMs can unleash in a flash as much electrical power—2 billion watts or more—as the Hoover Dam generates in 24 hours. Capacitors aboard the missile discharge an energy pulse—moving at the speed of light and impervious to bad weather—in front of the missile as it nears its target. That pulse can destroy any electronics within 1,000 ft. of the flash by short-circuiting internal electrical connections, thereby wrecking memory chips, ruining computer motherboards and generally screwing up electronic components not built to withstand such powerful surges.

2003-01-20T14:47:00.000-08:00

Doing the Hippie Hop

For the oddest of reasons, I was in two hippie infested zones in the matter of hours and on the subways with them no less.

Firstly, I was in DC over the weekend visiting relatives and was invited to the massive demonstration to protest the imminent (good/just) war. I decline subtly by managing to sleep through the morning and thereby missing my ride to the Capitol. My cousin and aunt did go though and marched dutifully in the armies of resistance. (They are old school liberals, or at least anti-Bush partisans.) But I digress. I went to the Smithsonian on Saturday afternoon (its on the National Mall) and my touristy day collided head on with the ravaged hordes of the 60s. Coming out of the Metro I was deluged with protesters who decided their day fighting the MAN was over and it was time to rejoin their comfortable suburban home life. I dont blame them I was rushing to get inside the Gallery since with wind chill it was 16 degrees on Saturday. But I did notice one of the most distressing things, children being forced to espouse (or should I say mouth) epithets against our government, our way of life, and generally against all rules of grammar and lyric. Walking to meet a friend I passed a whole family of "protesters", a father, his wife (live in girlfriend...you never know with these people) and their two children. One about 3 and the other 5. I shook my head in disgust and in desperation to warm up, it was damn cold I remind you. It harkened back to the Berkeley incident with Pre-schoolers. But it was more disgusting for the incident did not occur in sunny California but in blistery DC. These secular warriors often shoot back at the right that forced Church attendance is just as burdensome on small children for its indoctrination just the same. But differently, Churches have heaters and last only an hour or so not the 6 hour frozen gulag inspired march that these tikes were subjected too. It is unfortunate that this father and mother couldnt just send the CPUSA (Communist Party USA) their monthly dues and felt contented to have done their part but No! Their small children must witness the flag burning (first hand reports from my relatives), hear (read) the obscene words (signs), and anarchist violence (though admittedly limited) without giving their consent. They were dragged their parents driven by narrow and conspiracy ladened ideology (for quotes see Dan Flynn's Piece in NRO).

Much of the crowd was rowdy and young I have to admit but the Gray Panthers and every 60s leftover group stood shoulder to shoulder with the legions of the green party who are incapable of divorcing one cause from the next. They all seem to flow together. (See Andy's Iraq War Piece and ANSWER). The speakers which included Reverend Jackson and Sharpton ( I had a heated argument about the lack of honor in these men and their unworthiness for the title of Reverend). The stage was also graced by the eloquent Jessica Lang and a half dozen other lefty airheads who made appearances. They could not separate causes as anti SUV and Bush Bashing signs held a prominent position in the antiwar signage on the train ride home. My personal favorite is "Iraq won't solve America's problems" which begs the question, what exactly are America's problems? Private health care, lack of centralized production, Private property?!?!? .

Oh I neglected to mention something critical. After I frowned and shook my head in disgust at my hippy child abuser friend, he yelled at me. "You shouldn't talk youre wearing a Cal [hat]!" And he was right. I flew home the next day and arrived back in my city, my Berkeley. I really shouldnt remain the corrupted warmongering hypocrite that was epitomized by the Golden Bear pride I displayed that day. Everyone at Cal as we all know, is bereft at the situation in the Middle East. We all want peace to prevail at any cost. Violence hasnt solved anything. One of the protesters put it aptly, "Smoke WEED not IRAQ".

2003-01-20T13:53:00.000-08:00

What the Hell?!?

I have no idea how reliable the folks over at Debkafile are. They do seem to have some inside sources, and in general there reports turn out to be accurate. I was shocked and amazed when I stumbled across this post from Monday, "DEBKAfile: Blix, ElBaradei accord with Baghdad Monday extends Saddam Hussein's grace period and bars US military action before March - even if Washington presents conclusive proof of concealed prohibited weapons." You can find the full report here. This is an unbelievable turn of events if it turns out to be accurate. Every indication I heard was that the shooting would start by early February, and this development could definitely halt Bush's war plans. I'll be watching in the next couple of days for any more information on this startling new development.

2003-01-20T13:37:00.000-08:00

Global Warming = Skin Cancer:

James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web Today attempted to discredit an editorial about global warming by applying his powers of intuition. The article, found here, from the Boston Globe, is called Burning Kyoto's Bridges. You can read the whole article, but I will quote all of what Taranto had to say (for today you just have to go to the earlier link and scroll down, on Tuesday I'll post the link to Monday's entries):

The Greenhouse Effect--II
A Boston Globe editorial beating the dead horse of Kyoto makes the odd claim that "global warming extends the areas of high risk for skin cancer." How could this be true even if global warming is real? Skin cancer is caused by sunlight--specifically, ultraviolet rays--not heat.

Apparently all Taranto needs to dismiss a claim is his own common sense. After reading what he had to say, my immediate though was, 'who ever wrote this editorial isn't an idiot.' So maybe there is some link between global warming and skin cancer. After a quick google search, I determined that there is some evidence to show that there is a possible link between global warming and skin cancer. Here is the money quote from an article called, "Today's Science:Global Warming and Ozone Hole Linked":

A team led by Drew Shindell at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York created a computer model to see how this phenomenon affects the ozone hole. The atmospheric simulation was the first to take ozone chemistry into account. The team found that the greenhouse effect was responsible not only for heating the lower atmosphere but also for cooling the upper atmosphere where ozone exists.

Ozone molecules are most unstable at low temperatures. [See Today's Science On File, March 1997, page 154; February 1997, page 127] This explains why holes in the ozone layer tend to form over the poles, where the atmosphere is the coldest. By trapping heat in the lower atmosphere, greenhouse gases prevent it from rising to the ozone layer. The colder the upper atmosphere stays, the more its ozone degrades.

Before you dismiss a claim, at least make an attempt to verify if it is correct. I will send an e-mail to Taranto and see if he cares to correct his sloppy attempt to attack the Boston Globe editorial.

2003-01-14T18:48:00.000-08:00

The Great Equalizer

In one corner we have J.C. Adams; a 74-year-old convenience store clerk, currently using a walker while he recuperates from knee surgery.

In the other corner is Cameron Lemont Glover, 17, Glover's 19-year-old brother, Leonard, and Tammy Crystal Jones, also 17.

As far as boxing matches go, a round or two featuring this disparate cast of characters would end with a quick knock out by the young threesome and poor J.C. in a world of hurt. Luckily for Adams though, their actual confrontation occurred in his convenience store. The Glovers and Jones were trying to rob the Pac a Sac, which Adams owns. As this article (and this one too) explain, Adams noticed the would-be robbers on the store cameras from the back of the store, hobbled out with his walker and shotgun, and while balancing with one arm on the walker, fired off a single shot killing Cameron and wounding Leonard.

I first noticed this story at U.S.S. Clueless, along with some commentary from Steven about his views on guns and gun control. The most interesting comments were contained in this lengthy post, where he wrote:

But when individual citizens not only lay quietly and wait for the police to save them, but are actively punished for doing anything else, then the overall result is a rise in crime. That's why we generally have exceptions to the laws about murder which spell out when it's considered "justified" and thus not punishable…
So what do you get when you punish people who are actually willing to do that for their citizens? A couple of things.
One thing you get is a lot more crime of that kind. Even criminals are making something like a cost-benefit analysis when they decide whether to commit crimes, and if you reduce the potential cost, then crime becomes more attractive.

I read and agreed with most of what Steven had to say, and his comments were lingering in my mind the next day when I read this article, They’re Here, They’re Queer, They’re Armed.

The article is about the Orange County Chapter of the Pink Pistols. The Pink Pistols are gun groups for gays. The idea behind the Pink Pistols groups was first proposed by Jonathan Rauch, in an article for Salon.com called Pink Pistols.

The Orange county group is just one of many across the nation which is adopting the spirit of J.C. Adams and refusing to be victims. The part of the article that jumped out at me was this:

John has had opportunities to kill. Perhaps as many as three, but there’s only one he’ll talk about—the aforementioned nut with a tire iron. John’s car was parked by the side of a freeway; the nut was chasing John around the car.
"Nobody came to help," he recalls. "I was screaming for help, running around my car with my gun in the air, and no one did anything. I was completely on my own."
When the police finally came, one of them confided he was amazed at John’s restraint, remarking that he would have "popped the guy."
"A gun is a huge responsibility," John says. "You have to be prepared to use it, and you have to want to avoid using it at all costs." Regarding the man he didn’t shoot, that cost John a broken arm courtesy of one well-swung tire iron. Still, he thinks he did the right thing. "I didn’t want to kill that man if I didn’t have to."

If it had been J.C. Adams being chased around a car by a guy with a tire iron I have a pretty good idea what he would have done, if he had a gun. And if the nut with a tire iron had whacked J.C. and broke his arm, well I’m quite certain I know what J.C. would have done. Maybe he would have aimed for the knee or shoulder, or maybe he would have aimed for the chest or head. Irregardless of how much damage J.C. might have done in the same situation, it would have meant that one more citizen would have defended him or her self in the face of a substantial threat.

And if that incident got a whole ton of publicity, then it might have deterred other nuts with tire irons from thinking that they could act with impunity. The same way that all the would be robbers hearing about the attempted robbery at the Pac a Sac, now realize that the next time they go into a convenience store with a gun it could be them who ends up being shot. For a whole long list of guns being used in self-defense go to True Self Defense Stories. The more people (especially criminals) hear about guns being used in self-defense the less likely they are to commit more crimes.

I don’t fault John for not shooting “the nut with a tire iron.” He weighed the situation before him and decided that it could be resolved without him using his weapon. I certainly would not fault him either, if he had decided that he felt endangered enough to shoot Mr. Tire Iron.

With the spread of the Pink Pistols groups, eventually there will come a time when a gay-bashing incidence will lead to those who are being attacked using guns to defend themselves. A single incident where armed gay men shoot and kill one or more of their attackers receiving national publicity will do more to prevent violence against gays than any number of sensitivity classes or hate crime laws. For this reason, other groups, like Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership have been forming as a way for those groups of people disproportionately victimized by hate crimes to begin to defend themselves.

More importantly than every gay/black/Hispanic/lesbian/Jewish/etc. potential victim owning a gun is the fear by those committing hate crimes that they might. It is difficult to tell who might have a concealed weapon tucked in their belt or hidden under their car seat, and for that reason, it becomes more and more of a risk to commit a hate crime when your victim could be armed. Rauch echoes this sentiment in his article proposing the Pink Pistols idea:

Thirty-one states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible.

2003-01-11T12:27:00.000-08:00

Vancouver Vice

Another figure of great importance has met with scandal in the same day! The BC Premier (ie Governor) was arrested in Hawaii on Drunk Driving charges. Premier Campbell is a Liberal (his party) but BC's Liberal Party isn’t the Liberals of Chretien. After the dissolution of the Tory party in the early 90s, the emergence of the Reform/Canadian Alliance in the late 80s, Canadian Politics just got weird. The Liberals predominate federally as Ontario's provincial government is still controlled by the vestiges of the Progressive Conservatives (Tories), Quebec has the Bloc. Alberta, the only province to be disputing the Kyoto protocol and resisting national gun registration, is dominated by the Tories In Name Only (TINOs). Wait can I coin that? The Alliance's agenda is that of the Alberta Provincial Tories while the Alliance has a iron grip on the federal delegation from Alberta. Manitoba and Saskatchewan are slowly becoming Alliance strongholds. The Atlantic States, the welfare queens of Canada, were NDP stronghold's but the Liberals are making inroads. The NDP (New Democratic Party) could only be described as old socialists. They rail against any privatization and insist the workers are being oppressed without further strictures on the market. That brings me to BC.

British Columbia is the most eclectic of the provinces in the sense that it has a very hippy, environmentalist population in conflict with its natural industries of logging and fisheries. The rural culture also gave birth to American and Canadian migrants who are more religious, and down home. Roughnecks is the best description of these people. As that internal population boom was happening, Vancouver became a metropolis in its own right. An extensive computer industry and business culture has emerged creating an atmosphere of fluidity. The NDP, with help from the poor socialist rough necks and hippies had a stranglehold on the policies of BC for decades. The BC Liberals marketed themselves as NDP lite and occasionally made it into power. Gordon Campbell and his allies remade the Liberals of BC as business friendly, anti-federal (i.e. Canadian states' righters), more lenient on marijuana, and fiscal conservative tax cutting government trimmers. Campbell swept into office with a huge majority and was off to the races. The budget crisis, self-created by NDP accounting in the late 90s, became a stumbling block as the scope of the problem became clear. BC Liberals fought amongst themselves as the Alliance-esque Liberals and Ottawa type Liberals were at odds as the money pot shrank. Campbell deftly avoided a good deal of crises and eventually solved some of the problems he set out to, though to a lesser extent than expectations held. He has been a moderate success in policies but his total dominance of the politics with a remade Liberal party was awe-inspiring. The Alliance found inspiration in the free market vision intersecting electoral success and still hope to parlay such a vision into federal success.

The significance of this scandal lies inside that context. Campbell's position is threatened inside his party. "Campbell is the latest in a long line of B.C. premiers who have come under investigation, although he is the first in recent history to be charged with any form of drunk driving." His predecessor came under fire for improprieties involving the issuances of gambling licenses. Campbell's previous public statement, in opposition, also held that public servants should resign if they were tainted by scandal or criminal charges. This scandal imperils the movement of liberating Canadian policy from the creeping socialism and utter lack of new ideas that has characterized it in the last decade. I hope I won't be posting RIP BC LP anytime soon.

2003-01-11T11:58:00.000-08:00

Shame, Shame

Pete Townshend, the guitarist and songwriter for the Who, is a paedophile? According to British tabloids, who are reporting on leaks out of Scotland Yard, the musician has been caught in the possession of illicit sexual material involving children. His claim that it was research seems more and more incredulous as you hear him explain it to reporters.

As an admitted fan of the Who, this is difficult to read but necessary. When Drudge initial broke the story he left the artist unnamed and I was hoping it was some poppy icon that I could leave or take. Maybe a Doobies Brother, Boy George, or maybe even another Jackson but nooooooo It had to the Who. First, they kill Keith Moon and now Pete Townshend likes the kiddies. Its just sick.

2003-01-09T17:42:00.000-08:00

Progress:

I have made much headway with the sidebar (thank you to Kevin at Calstuff for the help). I'm still working on adding more blogs, as well as tidying up some other stuff on the site, but once I get all those little glitches worked out, posting will resume in earnest.

2003-01-07T17:43:00.000-08:00

Disingenuity

I have been noticing something interesting occurring throughout the debate over possible war with Iraq, which requires comment. As far as I can tell much of the opposition to war with Iraq is being blatantly disingenuous about a key part of the debate. Some people seem to actually believe that Saddam Hussein does not posses any weapons of mass destructions (WMD) and does not have any programs in place to develop them. For those people who believe that Iraq may be indeed WMD free, then the weapons inspections are vitally important to determine whether Saddam is in fact hiding WMD in his palaces or perhaps in secret underground or mobile laboratories. One example of a group that is coyly pushing the WMD-free Iraq line is International A.N.S.W.E.R., which is one of the leaders in the anti-war movement. In one of their press releases the group claimed, "Despite the fact that weapons inspectors have found no trace of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons in Iraq after unfettered access and 200 searches across the country, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld has ordered the doubling of troops near Iraq to over 100,000 by early January."

This excerpt is clearly implying that because inspectors have not found any evidence of WMD, then they must not exist. This position is in line with others who oppose a war, who are claiming that Bush has not yet provided any “evidence” to support a war with Iraq. On the website of Campaign to Stop the War Against Iraq, the group quotes Hans von Sponeck, UN humanitarian coordinator for Iraq from 1998-2000, saying,“Iraq today is no longer a military threat to anyone. Intelligence agencies know this. All the conjectures about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq lack evidence.”

All the available evidence indicates that Iraq does in fact posses WMD. The first clue that Saddam may in fact have WMD comes from history, when he was using those weapons of mass destruction that he doesn’t have now against his enemies. During the Iran-Iraq war he repeatedly used biological and chemical weapons. According to one article, “As Iran's battlefield gains forced Iraq to retreat, starting in 1982, Saddam used chemical weapons against massed Iranian troops. Mustard Gas, Tabun (GA), Chlorine gas, Arsenicals, Nitrogen mustard, anthrax, and Mycotoxins were all used against massed Iranian troops.” When it came time to deal with the Kurds, once again Saddam resorted to his usual tricks, decimating the town of Halabja with chemical weapons. We even helped out Saddam by transferring supplies and technology to him for help with his biological and chemical weapons programs. While some people have claimed that we have no right to attack Saddam because we armed him, if anything, that just makes us even more responsible for cleaning up the mess we made.

Now having established beyond a reasonable doubt that Saddam did in fact posses WMD at one time, we can begin to look toward the present circumstances. After the Gulf War, Saddam was supposed to end his WMD programs, and limits were placed on the type of missiles he could posses as well. Inspectors began searching Iraq to see if Saddam was in compliance with the conidtions of the cease fire. What these inspections revealed was that Saddam was still working on his WMD programs. A report from PBS’ Newshour with Jim Lehrer has all the damning details:

The recent refusal is just one highlight in the troubled history of U.N. attempts to verify that Iraq has destroyed its WMD. The 1991 ceasefire agreement that ended the Gulf War included Iraq's agreement to eliminate its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and missiles with a range over 150 kilometers. Set forth in U.N. security resolution 687, the agreement tied the lifting of U.N. sanctions to the destruction of Iraq's WMD arsenal.
In the early 1990s, inspectors met with relative success. The United Nations Special Commission on Iraq [UNSCOM] reported in 1992 that Iraq's ballistic missiles had been destroyed.
Over the next few years, however, UNSCOM inspectors met with growing resistance from the Iraqi government. UNSCOM reported that Iraq had offered false documents about their arsenal, destroyed fewer weapons than they claimed and hid weapons at "presidential sites" that were off-limits to inspectors.

Clearly, while the inspection charade was occurring, Saddam made no attempt to end his WMD programs. Recently, Iraq was busted again for trying to buy high-strength aluminum tubes to enrich uranium to the extent required for a nuclear weapon. Reports of Saddam’s WMD programs have also come from defectors who managed to escape Iraq. The Washington Times carried this information about one such defection, “Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, defected to Jordan in 1995 and disclosed that Iraq's government was violating U.N. sanctions and the 1991 Persian Gulf war cease-fire agreement by hiding chemical and biological weapons."

Now with all that evidence at hand, there are people still in doubt about whether Saddam has WMD. Saddam himself has claimed that Iraq is actually free of any weapons of mass destruction that the inspectors are now searching for. His denial is no surprise, but it is surprising that so many people seem to believe him. One official involved with the inspections even claimed that no “smoking gun” had been discovered yet. Do we really need a smoking gun to convince us? If Iraq really has no WMD then that would require Saddam to have destroyed all of them without leaving a trace. Not only that he would need to have destroyed all his WMD without a trace, and also not left any trace that he had even destroyed them. You would think when he is suffering from sanctions costing billions of dollars a year that he would videotape and meticulously record his attempts at destroying his WMD, not do so in complete secrecy. I guess conceivably Saddam could have snuck around to all his palaces and vaporized his WMD without leaving any evidence that they had existed, but even for those who oppose war with Iraq, isn’t it a little tiny bit disingenuous to claim that Saddam kept it a big secret that he had eliminated all his WMD programs. That the inspections have not found any signs of the WMD yet could in part be due to the possibility that the inspectors are trying not to succeed, a position advocated by Steven Den Beste at U.S.S. Clueless here.

To sum up what I have been arguing, it does the debate over war with Iraq no good to continue to claim that Saddam has no WMD just because we have not found them yet. Those supporting war with Iraq know he has them, and those opposing the war know he has them, and Saddam knows that we know that he has them. There has been a sustained and nuanced debate over the virtues of war with Iraq. The consequences of leaving Saddam in power with the potential ability to develop nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons needs to be weighed against the possible consequences of war; higher oil prices, an uprising of the “Arab street”, or perhaps increased terrorism against the United States. It only diminishes the debate by trying to claim that because we have not found Saddam’s secret stash of WMD, they do not exist.

I suspect that sometime before February when the shooting starts, we will have some firmer evidence to show the U.N. I highly doubt the administration blundered into the inspections with their fingers crossed that they would find something. But even if they do not have a smoking gun, do we really need to photograph Saddam with a vial of anthrax before people will accept that he does in fact still have WMD.

Update: Apparently the U.N. is as skeptical about Saddam's claims as I am. It is going to take more than Saddam's denials about WMD to convince them, especially after this article, which mentions, "Iraq's arms declaration, to be analyzed by U.N. inspectors on Thursday, fails to clear up murky questions on biological and chemical weapons programs, including 6,000 missing poison gas bombs, U.N. experts said." The article also has information on Saddam's other WMD such as, "Another key area that Iraq failed to explain were the whereabouts of stocks of biological agents, such as anthrax, and the nutrients used to grow them.
Blix, in his initial evaluation last month, said Iraq had not provided sufficient data on 50 conventional warheads it claims were destroyed, 550 mustard gas shells declared lost after the 1991 Gulf War, production and weaponization of the deadly VX nerve agent."

It does not look like Bush will have much trouble declaring a material breach once the inspections have concluded.

2003-01-06T17:23:00.000-08:00

Though I will certainly delve deeply into national issues on occasion, I want to give the outside world some greater insight into Berkeley. Rumors, gossip, and all things Berkeley may be sent here.The impending meltdown at the Daily Cal, the repeated coups in the BCR, and administrative failings will certainly be the subject of examination. I am not one to plug blogs but TNR,
NRO, and Mickey Kaus have respectable blogs and therefore are worthy of mention. And with that, I bid you adieu.
Let's Roll!
-Sean-

2003-01-06T15:22:00.000-08:00

Introduction:
This weblog will contain my assorted comments on a whole range of issues. Nothing is too small or insignificant to be covered by the Berkeley Pundits. Although, for the most part I would like to concentrate on issues of national interest, in the hopes of capturing an audience of national scope, instead of just disillusioned Berkeley hippies, I will also be sure to report on interesting Berkeley events. Besides, Berkeley has quite a knack for making the national news, whether it is our infamous mayor, infamous September 11 remembrance , infamous children's protest over war with Iraq , or infamous protest in support of the Palestinians. Blogging will commence in earnest when school begins in mid-January, but until then you can expect semi-regular updates. Although I have read probably close to fifty different weblogs by now, there have been a few that have been influential in my life and in part inspired my to start this blog, along with Sean. Those people I owe thanks to are Rory Miller, Andrew Sullivan, Glenn Reynolds, and Steven Den Beste. In the future there may be a Paypal link, but for now the only reason I feel the need to take part in a weblog is for my own personal satisfaction. As long as I enjoy myself I will continue to blog, and I wouldn't want to think of what I am doing as a job. With that being said, if you enjoyed your visit to Berkeley Pundits, then I encourage you to return often and tell all your friends about your exciting new discovery.
Sincerely,
-Andrew Ratto-