Stephen Colbert, Cheap Shot Artist

I recently found myself drawn into a genial discussion with a couple of much-more-liberal-than-I colleagues that started with Stephen Colbert's execrable performance at the White House Correspondents' dinner. My opinion was that it was pathetically unfunny; they, like much of the lefty blogosphere, thought it was hilarious because Colbert told off the president. This confirmed to me that liberals have a very peculiar sense of humor. Funny for them is being rude to people, especially Republicans. Their brain's humor module is stuck at the level of laughing hysterically when someone breaks wind.

Anyway, I allowed to my colleagues as how I thought that Colbert displayed exceedingly bad manners, whether the president was Bush, Clinton, or any other human being. They thought he gave a bravura performance, courageous in the manner of Nathan the prophet telling off king David in the Old Testament. I had trouble thinking of Colbert as Nathan. Nathan was risking his life, Colbert was taking advantage of the President's graciousness and inability to control the event to beat him up in public. This wasn't prophesying, it was an ugly bully punching a man who wouldn't, and couldn't, fight back.

The conversation evolved into a discussion of Iraq and the reasons for going to war. One of my interlocutors said that he could have perhaps been supportive of the invasion had Bush made the case on human rights grounds, but that since the President lied about WMD my colleague couldn't support the war, much less Mr. Bush. I thought this strange for two reasons.

I suggested that it just seems extraordinarily implausible that Bush lied about WMD. Everybody in the world thought Saddam had them, defectors were telling us he had them, we know he used them in the nineties. The only people who were giving countervailing evidence were the weapons inspection teams who merely said they couldn't find them. And besides, Saddam was acting just like he would be expected to act if he were indeed hiding the proscribed weapons. In light of all the testimony that this notorious killer did have them, which was opposed only by the testimony of the inspectors who might well have been duped, the only responsible thing for Bush to do was to assume that Saddam did indeed have WMD. It would have been folly to assume otherwise or to give Saddam Hussein, of all people, the benfit of the doubt. Besides, if Bush really knew there were no WMD he also had to know that the truth would come out eventually, and his presidency would be ruined. Why would he risk that? It just doesn't make sense to me, I said.

This line of reasoning was received as if it had never been heard before, which didn't surprise me much.

Moreover, I pointed out to my colleague, if you acknowledge that there in fact was a case out there that you would have found a compelling justification for war, then you can't be disappointed that we invaded just because that wasn't the argument stressed by the White House. After all, by your own lights there was good reason to invade. It's just that your reason wasn't the reason that the Bushies chose to present most forcefully to the public, so how can you now argue that Bush was wrong to go in?

There were shrugs and foot shuffling and coffee cups being refilled, and the subject was changed as others came into the room. Seeing that the conversation had run its course, I returned to grading papers, reaffirming silently to myself my conviction that Stephen Colbert was still an embarrassment and a cheap shot artist.

On Happy Cinco de Mayo

While some may take this lightly, I'd like to take this opportunity to relate a recent event that happened to me. I was traveling to the city where my daughter attends college to bring her home for the weekend and it was raining cats and dogs. I was on a six-lane highway in the middle lane when a car entered the highway from an entrance ramp. As the car came onto the highway, it lost control and started spinning. I didn't see it until it was next to me and it was too late to avoid it. It whacked the right rear side of my car sending me into a clockwise spin and as I tried to recover, I went into a counter clockwise spin...traveling down the highway at 65 miles per hour with other traffic eventually passing me in both the left and right lanes. This continued for several hundred yards. I felt like I was in a NASCAR race.

Finally, I came to rest and got my car off the highway and backed up to where the other vehicle was stopped along the side the road. I got out and checked on the people in the other vehicle to make sure no one was injured. That wasn't easy to do as no one spoke English. As it turns out, the driver had no drivers license, and no identification to speak of although while he was fumbling around in his wallet I couldn't help but notice several hundred dollar bills. He showed me a social security card that said "Good Only In New York". What's with that?

I called 911 and eventually a state trooper arrived to take information on the accident. After he was done collecting the information from the other driver he proceeded to get my account of what happened. In the process he casually mentioned that "this happens all the time" i.e. Mexicans flaunting the law and causing damage to Americans.

The other driver was sited for driving too fast for conditions and for driving without a license but it's unlikely he'll ever pay the fines as it will be next to impossible to find him.

The experience could have been much worse. My car could have rolled and been totaled and I might have been killed. After it was all over and I pulled away proceeding down the highway and despite the fact that I had to hold the steering wheel at a 45 degree angle to go straight I said a short prayer to God to thank him that I was alive.

Some Perspective Please

There are those who would have you believe the fact that the DOW is only 200 points from its all-time high!

The truth of the matter is that the old all-time-high of the market was at 11,723 but that was in January 2000...in January 2000 dollars. If you use an inflation calculator you will see that works out to 13,785 without taking into account another 2% for the inflation this year. In other words we'd have to hit approximately a Dow of14,000 to truly make an new high.

One has to ask themselves what the agenda is for the media to misrepresent the situation. As I mentioned here only last month.

The DOW at 11,700 still only equals 17 oz gold, whereas Dow 11,700 in Y2K was equal to 46 oz.

Now ask yourself which investment preserved one's wealth better over the last 5 years.

From The "R" Man

Richard Russell has been writing the Dow Theory Letters for 48 years. He is gifted with a combination of knowlege and wisdom in things concerning the markets. Here's some of his latest thoughts...

Looks like the Fed has the nation on steroids. And it's not only the Fed, it's the central banks of the world. You see, nobody wants an "over-priced" currency, because everybody wants to sell to the US. And it's a very competitive world (think China and India and Asia), so if you want to sell to the US you have to compete, and that means you have to have a competitive currency. How do you keep your currency cheap against the dollar? Easy, you churn out a load of your own currency and with it you buy dollars. This keeps the dollar up and in comparison, your currency remains competitive.

Of course, when you're manipulating like this, there are always problems. One problem, if you want to call it that, is that there is one hell of a lot of paper money swishing around the world. In fact, you can say that the world economy is floating on an ever-rising ocean of paper money.

Well golly gee, isn't that inflationary? You bet it is, and the inflation is starting to hit full force. First it hit world real estate and housing, then it hit raw materials and oil, and now it's hitting everything consumers use -- such as food, transportation, college tuition, medicine -- well you name it.

You think gold is going up because of Iran or Iraq or because of less production from the gold mines? Forget it, gold is going up because it's reflecting and discounting coming inflation. You can call gold "real money" or you can call it the "golden barometer of inflation." Either description is accurate and either one will do. When the world goes mad, men seek the protection of gold. It's as basic as that.

What we're seeing now in gold and silver is the biggest story of the year and probably the biggest story since the great bull market since stocks topped out in 1980. Only the public, the crowd, the masses, don't see the story yet. But the markets see it. And I see it, which is why I keep writing about it. I've been on this story for about five years -- pushing, urging, cajoling my subscribers to "get with the story," and, of course, the story is the coming inflation and the revival of gold.

The alchemists of old spent their lives looking for a way to turn lead and other base metals into gold. They never succeeded. But there are alchemists today -- these latter-day alchemists have found a way to turn junk paper into gold. Here's how you do it -- you take your junk paper dollar to a coin dealer, and you tell the dealer you want to swap your dollars for gold. And presto, you can change your junk paper dollars into gold. Try it, I guarantee that it works. But don't let all your friends in on this secret, because in time they'll all try it -- and in doing so they'll drive the price of gold higher. I don't want them to do that -- at least, not until I'm finished buying all the gold I want.

...

Subscribers probably remember my discussions of the 50% Principle as applied to gold. The 50% Principle should be used very carefully -- and only in situations where an average or an item such as gold has traveled a long way over and extended time period.

When gold declined from 850 (1980) to 250 (2000) I noted that it has lost a total of 600 points. Half of that loss would be 300. Adding 300 to 250 gave us 550, which was the halfway point of a protracted 20 year decline. When gold closed decisively above 550 and held there, I stated that under the 50% Principle, gold should approach and probably better the old high of 850. On that basis, I became even more bullish on gold, and I personally bought a lot more gold, while urging subscribers to do the same -- "buy gold and sit." So far, the upward ride on the back of the gold bull has been fairly easy. It may not always be this way.

When gold passed the 550 level and clearly held above the level (with a lot of backing and filling around 550), I turned even more bullish. And I continue to see gold heading for a test of the old 550 level. But this time, unlike 1980, gold will hopefully move to and above 550 with a lot less excitement. So far, incredibly, the bull market advance in gold from 250 to 684 has stirred up little excitement. This suits me fine. Let's hope it continues -- as the great "stealth bull market" in gold moves on.

What about the stock market? I not only follow the money, I try to go where the money is, and I try to direct my subscribers on the same path. Of course, there's money to be made in the stock market. The stock market advance has been very selective, and if you can locate the right sectors, you can make big money. But I continue to insist that the real story is in the undervalued area -- it always is.

The essence of Dow Theory is in its emphasis on values, in the purchase of undervalued items and the later sale of overvalued items. Right now, the great value is in gold, which is still well below its peak price recorded more than 20 years ago.

The best estimate I've seen for price inflation since 1980 is around a 400% increase. I bought my house in 1979, and that's about the increase I've seen in the value of my house. I've seen restaurant prices increase by 400% since 1980, I've seen ice cream cones increase 400% since 1980. So with gold at 800 in 1980 and gold at 684 today, I see gold as flagrantly undervalued. That will change. And it is changing. Markets aren't stupid. Sometimes they're ahead of reality, sometimes they're behind. But ultimately they always adjust to reality.

What's the stock market doing now? The stock market is obviously being "fired up" by surging liquidity and inflation (well, surging liquidity is inflation). But with the Dow selling at over 20 times trailing earnings and yielding less than 3%, I'd say the market is expensive. Most stocks are expensive, but that doesn't mean they can't go higher. I just don't feel that stocks are great values here, and I like to buy great values. Or let me put it this way -- I don't have the nerve to load up with stocks here. And to make real money, you've got to take a big position. Before I can take a big position, I've got to have faith that I'm buying bargains.

...

As I said earlier, I believe the biggest story in the markets today is the bull market in gold. The irony is that everybody seems to be looking somewhere else. Which is fine with me. The higher gold rises while everybody is looking the other way, the better. Let the great "gold stealth bull market" express itself. My subscribers and I hear the song.

Charlie Daniels on Illegal Mexicans

Charlie Daniels is obviously a patriot. Here's his take on The Mexican Standoff.

It's an "in your face" action and speaking just for me I don't like it one little bit and if there were a half dozen pairs of gonads in Washington bigger than English peas it wouldn't be happening. Where are you, you bunch of lily livered, pantywaist, forked tongued, sorry excuses for defenders of The Constitution?

Have you been drinking the water out of the Potomac again? And even if you pass a bill on immigration it will probably be so pork laden and watered down that it won't mean anything anyway. Besides, what good is any other law going to do when you won't enforce the ones on the books now?

This country needs more people like Charlie.

Stopping Illegals

Mickey Kaus at left of center Slate has evidently been reading Viewpoint on how to handle the illegal alien problem. Well, at least his solution is similar to ours:

Two consequences follow:

1) Any system of employer-based enforcment should probably be applied only to new hires, not existing employees. Existing illegal employees wouldn't be "legalized," but they wouldn't be subjected to non-charade, computerized checks of their social security cards, for example. They'd just continue working as before.

2) A border wall or fence, widely denounced as the crude favored scheme of the meanest, yahoo, Know-Nothing elements of the Republican House, is in fact the most compassionate enforcement solution. A wall intrinsically blocks only new entrants. It's a physical grandfather clause! It leaves current illegals where they are.

Would this "grandfathered" solution--leaving existing illegals working in their current jobs--amount to legalization or amnesty, and thus act as an incentive to would-be illegals still on the other side of the border? I don't think so, because the benefit of already being here--being left alone--would only be valuable to the extent border controls were effective. If the border remained porous, existing "grandfathered" illegal workers would only have obtained the ability to avoid border controls that were meaningless anyway. If the border controls weren't meaningless, would-be illegals now in Latin America and elsewhere would have an incentive to sneak into the country and work--in the hope of being grandfathered-in later--but by the same token they'd have less ability to do so. (They'd have to get over a wall and get around an effective system of employer-based document verification.)

Also, the existing, left-alone "grandfathered" illegal workers a) still wouldn't be legal and b) couldn't change jobs without subjecting themselves to the non-phony, computerized document check. Eventually, as they left those jobs, they'd be put to the same choice (self-deport, or work underground, etc.) as would have been put to them if they'd never been "grandfathered." But the process would be drawn out over years. And by then, there might be a guest worker program for which they could qualify (perhaps by returning home and waiting at the end of the line, perhaps more easily).

Let's hear it for a "mean, Yahoo, Know-Nothing" solution to a serious problem.

Of course, strict enforcement of the border would require that politicians be able to withstand allegations of racism and sundry other mean epithets. This reality drains away any hope we might have had that an effective border security system (i.e. a fence) would ever be implemented. Politicians, after all, are not distinguished by their willingness to risk public obloquy to defend a principle.

Happy Cinco de Mayo

Today being Cinco de Mayo we were reminded that Monday was the day when immigrants, both legal and illegal, sought to shut down the economy by staying home all day - a rather peculiar way to make the point that you want to come here to the U.S. in order to work.

Anyway, I have to say I didn't notice any inconvenience caused by the absent immigrants, but perhaps some of you did. In fact, the only noticeable impact of Monday's protest for most of us was that, as one wag put it, there was a lot less tension on the highway since the fear of being hit by an uninsured motorist was substantially diminished.

He Can't Help it and Neither Can We

That Zacarias Moussaoui was given life in prison rather than the death penalty disturbs us much less than the jury's reasoning for their sentence. They, or at least several of them, evidently felt his life should be spared because he suffered an abusive childhood.

Very well, but if a miserable childhood means the terrorist doesn't deserve to die then why does he deserve to be imprisoned for the rest of his life? If he is the way he is for reasons he cannot help then why does he deserve punishment at all? The answer, an enlightened juror might give, is that he actually doesn't deserve to be punished. No one does. We are creatures at the mercy of forces we don't control, forces which mold and shape our behavior in ways of which we are only dimly aware, if at all, and we are not, therefore, in any sense responsible for what we do. Our behavioral decisions are really not our doing. We, like everything else in the cosmos, are little more than particles subject to the laws of physics. We are enchained and cannot free ourselves.

Then why imprison him at all, you might ask. The reply our enlightened juror would offer is that we need to protect ourselves from such as Moussaoui and prison is the best way to do it. Thus, no one in prison really deserves to be there. There is no such thing as guilt, at least not moral guilt. Prisons are just ways of protecting society from people whose determined choices have harmful consequences to others.

But if there is no guilt, if all of our choices are determined for us, why shouldn't society simply decide, as a consequence of the influences shaping its judgment, to execute the lot of them?

Unfamiliar Weapon

Breitbart.com tells us that:

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is shown wearing American tennis shoes and unable to operate his automatic rifle in video released Thursday by the U.S. military as part of a propaganda war aimed at undercutting the image of the terror leader.

Yeah, but I'll bet if they gave him a butcher's knife he'd feel a lot more comfortable with it.

Chip Off the Old Block

History repeats itself:

Police labor union officials asked acting Chief Christopher McGaffin this afternoon to allow a Capitol Police officer to complete his investigation into an early-morning car crash involving Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.), son of Sen. Ted Kennedy.

ROLL CALL reports: According to a letter sent by Officer Greg Baird, acting chairman of the USCP FOP, the wreck took place at approximately 2:45 a.m. Thursday when Kennedy's car, operating with its running lights turned off, narrowly missed colliding with a Capitol Police cruiser and smashed into a security barricade at First and C streets Southeast.

"The driver exited the vehicle and he was observed to be staggering," Baird's letter states. Officers approached the driver, who "declared to them he was a Congressman and was late to a vote. The House had adjourned nearly three hours before this incident. It was Congressman Patrick J. Kennedy from Rhode Island."

Baird wrote that Capitol Police Patrol Division units, who are trained in driving under the influence cases, were not allowed to perform basic field sobriety tests on the Congressman. Instead, two sergeants, who also responded to the accident, proceeded to confer with the Capitol Police watch commander on duty and then "ordered all of the Patrol Division Units to leave the scene and that they were taking over."

A source tells the DRUDGE REPORT: "It was apparent that the driver was intoxicated (stumbling) and claimed he was in a hurry to make a vote.

"When it became apparent who it was, instead of processing a normal DWI, the watch commander had the Patrol units clear the scene. The commander allowed other building officials drive Kennedy home."

This morning's incident comes just over two weeks after Kennedy was involved in a car accident in Rhode Island.

At least this time nobody drowned.

Every Play Needs a Director

From the website of Marc Kirschner, systems biologist at Harvard Medical School and ID critic:

In the development of an organism, as in the theater, timing is everything. Imagine if, one night, the actors in a play were to miss every single cue, delivering each line perfectly, but always too early or too late. The evening would be a disaster. The same is true in embryonic development. Starting at the moment when sperm and egg meet, cells in the embryo send signals to each other to coordinate the growth of organs, limbs, and tissues. Not only do the signals have to be correct, they also must be perfectly timed. Otherwise, disasters like cancer can result.

The Kirschner lab studies, among many other things, the way a developing frog embryo orchestrates numerous signals to yield the final, complex organism. Just as multiple cues would destroy an actor's ability to deliver his lines at the right time, it would seem like the existence of multiple signals ought to result in cellular cacophony. But, somehow, the cells in the embryo can sort out the meaning of the different signals that are bombarding them.

It almost sounds as if Kirschner is suggesting that there is a "director" of this cellular play, but, of course, we know that that can't be. That wouldn't be "scientific." Everyone knows that the incredibly choreographed machinery of the cell is the product of an incredible series of tens of millions of fortuitous accidents occuring blindly over eons of time.

Any student who might be skeptical about this gets sent to a re-education camp in Siberia.

Thanks for the tip to Uncommon Descent.

White Guilt

Shelby Steele, an African American writer, elaborates on the dismal consequences of "white guilt" and in the process says something that desperately needs saying. Historically burdened with the twin taints of racism and imperialism, Western countries find themselves paralyzed when action against third world nations, populated by brown-skinned people, is called for. The United States, in an attempt to avoid the charges that it is racist and imperialist, bends over backwards not to offend the loathsome Saudi potentates or the corrupt politicians in Mexico. Steele's essay in Opinion Journal is so filled with rhetorical gems that it's difficult to excerpt only a few, but here are some:

[Western countries] struggle, above all else, to dissociate themselves from the past sins they are stigmatized with. When they behave in ways that invoke the memory of those sins, they must labor to prove that they have not relapsed into their group's former sinfulness. So when America--the greatest embodiment of Western power--goes to war in Third World Iraq, it must also labor to dissociate that action from the great Western sin of imperialism. Thus, in Iraq we are in two wars, one against an insurgency and another against the past--two fronts, two victories to win, one military, the other a victory of dissociation.

The collapse of white supremacy--and the resulting white guilt--introduced a new mechanism of power into the world: stigmatization with the evil of the Western past. And this stigmatization is power because it affects the terms of legitimacy for Western nations and for their actions in the world. In Iraq, America is fighting as much for the legitimacy of its war effort as for victory in war. In fact, legitimacy may be the more important goal. If a military victory makes us look like an imperialist nation bent on occupying and raping the resources of a poor brown nation, then victory would mean less because it would have no legitimacy. Europe would scorn. Conversely, if America suffered a military loss in Iraq but in so doing dispelled the imperialist stigma, the loss would be seen as a necessary sacrifice made to restore our nation's legitimacy. Europe's halls of internationalism would suddenly open to us.

Because dissociation from the racist and imperialist stigma is so tied to legitimacy in this age of white guilt, America's act of going to war can have legitimacy only if it seems to be an act of social work--something that uplifts and transforms the poor brown nation (thus dissociating us from the white exploitations of old). So our war effort in Iraq is shrouded in a new language of social work in which democracy is cast as an instrument of social transformation bringing new institutions, new relations between men and women, new ideas of individual autonomy, new and more open forms of education, new ways of overcoming poverty--war as the Great Society.

This does not mean that President Bush is insincere in his desire to bring democracy to Iraq, nor is it to say that democracy won't ultimately be socially transformative in Iraq. It's just that today the United States cannot go to war in the Third World simply to defeat a dangerous enemy.

White guilt makes our Third World enemies into colored victims, people whose problems--even the tyrannies they live under--were created by the historical disruptions and injustices of the white West. We must "understand" and pity our enemy even as we fight him. And, though Islamic extremism is one of the most pernicious forms of evil opportunism that has ever existed, we have felt compelled to fight it with an almost managerial minimalism that shows us to be beyond the passions of war--and thus well dissociated from the avariciousness of the white supremacist past.

Anti-Americanism, whether in Europe or on the American left, works by the mechanism of white guilt. It stigmatizes America with all the imperialistic and racist ugliness of the white Western past so that America becomes a kind of straw man, a construct of Western sin. (The Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo prisons were the focus of such stigmatization campaigns.) Once the stigma is in place, one need only be anti-American in order to be "good," in order to have an automatic moral legitimacy and power in relation to America. (People as seemingly disparate as President Jacques Chirac and the Rev. Al Sharpton are devoted pursuers of the moral high ground to be had in anti-Americanism.) This formula is the most dependable source of power for today's international left. Virtue and power by mere anti-Americanism. And it is all the more appealing since, unlike real virtues, it requires no sacrifice or effort--only outrage at every slight echo of the imperialist past.

Today words like "power" and "victory" are so stigmatized with Western sin that, in many quarters, it is politically incorrect even to utter them. For the West, "might" can never be right. And victory, when won by the West against a Third World enemy, is always oppression. But, in reality, military victory is also the victory of one idea and the defeat of another. Only American victory in Iraq defeats the idea of Islamic extremism. But in today's atmosphere of Western contrition, it is impolitic to say so.

Whether the problem is race relations, education, immigration or war, white guilt imposes so much minimalism and restraint that our worst problems tend to linger and deepen. Our leaders work within a double bind. If they do what is truly necessary to solve a problem--win a war, fix immigration--they lose legitimacy.

To maintain their legitimacy, they practice the minimalism that makes problems linger. What but minimalism is left when you are running from stigmatization as a "unilateralist cowboy"? And where is the will to truly regulate the southern border when those who ask for this are slimed as bigots? This is how white guilt defines what is possible in America. You go at a problem until you meet stigmatization, then you retreat into minimalism.

Possibly white guilt's worst effect is that it does not permit whites--and nonwhites--to appreciate something extraordinary: the fact that whites in America, and even elsewhere in the West, have achieved a truly remarkable moral transformation. One is forbidden to speak thus, but it is simply true. There are no serious advocates of white supremacy in America today, because whites see this idea as morally repugnant. If there is still the odd white bigot out there surviving past his time, there are millions of whites who only feel goodwill toward minorities.

Steele, of course, is right. At some point Americans have to start responding to the accusation of racism, whose promiscuous employment renders it farcical in almost every case it is used but which still has the power to make a politician's heart turn cold, with the contempt, disdain and indifference it almost always merits. Only when this becomes the standard response will the charge lose its intimidating power and cease to be used except in those rare instances when it's genuinely merited.

Join the Discussion

Byron has a thoughtful response on our Feedback page to our post titled Why We Just Can't Leave. Others are welcome to join in the discussion.

It's About Contempt

Time has an essay by a woman named Caitlin Flanagan, a liberal Democrat and supporter of many of the correct causes, who feels herself being driven, by Democrats, into the Republican party. You'll have to read her entire essay to see why, but she concludes with this:

The Democrats made a huge tactical error a few decades ago. In the middle of doing the great work of the '60s--civil rights, women's liberation, gay inclusion--we decided to stigmatize the white male. The union dues--paying, churchgoing, beer-drinking family man got nothing but ridicule and venom from us. So he dumped us. And he took the wife and kids with him.

And now here we are, living in a country with a political and economic agenda we deplore, losing election after election and wondering why.

It's the contempt, stupid.

I'm sure there are lots of women like her in the Democrat party who feel estranged because the Democrats have abandoned traditional liberalism for a radical leftism that carries the banner of every minority group with a grievance, no matter how bizarre. This abandonment of traditional values in favor of pushing the envelope of social revolution is alien to what many people in the country believe is just and fair. As long as the Democrats are perceived as the party of "anything goes" they will continue to lose voters who, in terms of their values if not in terms of the policies they would enact, are intuitively conservative.

Thanks to Andrew Sullivan for the tip.

Our Congress Is In Control

In 1970 the US clearly saw that it had a dependence on oil that was owned by members of OPEC and the dependence was detrimental to our security as a nation. 36 years later we are revisiting the issue only to see that there is still no will on the part of our congress to truly do anything about it. Rather we read news like this.

The price gouging legislation passed 389-34. It must now go to the Senate for a vote. The White House has not weighed in on the legislation.

So now our congress is trying to do something about "price gouging" on oil. It might be funny if it wasn't so sad. We've alienated most of the oil-producing world with our military belligerence and our dollar hegemony and now congress is looking to penalize the oil companies because the resulting high price of oil may be unfounded???!!!

Before the vote, lawmakers looking for ways to get ahead of public outrage before the November midterm election expressed their support.

Democrats are sure to raise the issue in the fall elections. The president and Republican leaders are trying to buttress anger against the majority party by crafting a strategy that will help take the sting out of prices. Senate Republicans on Tuesday suggested a $100 per driver rebate to help pay for gas. House Majority Leader John Boehner called the suggestion insulting.

Good for the House Majority Leader. It's not only insulting, it's stupid.

Now we're getting closer to the real issue...disgruntled voters. Heaven forbid the American public holds the incumbents responsible and tosses them out into the street (where they belong) come election day. We've had 36 years to develop an independent energy policy that freed us from dependence on OPEC and we have done nothing.

As I stated before here the oil companies make only a fraction on sales of what some internet companies make. But it looks like the oil companies will be the scapegoat that pays the price for the sins of our government.

This is democracy in action. Elected officals making legislation in the hope of votes. Ultimately, the many deciding, by their vote, what will be. Democracy is three wolves and a lamb voting for what they'll have for dinner.

Why We Can't Just Leave

Byron responds to our post on 4/30 titled Can You Live With That? wherein we close by asking two questions of the antiwar protestors:

Here are two questions every protestor should be required to answer before they get their official protestor certificate: "What do you think will happen in, and to, Iraq once American forces are withdrawn?" And secondly, "Can you live with that?"

Byron's entire reply is posted on the feedback page, but the gravamen of his e-mail is that in focussing on a couple of looney signs held by antiwar protestors last weekend (one announced that "Bush is more evil than bin Laden") we're only making ourselves irrelevant to the discussion about the war. He says this:

But my reason for writing is to suggest that some anti-interventionist folk believe, rightly or wrongly, but sincerely, that U.S. troops are making things worse. They have indeed asked themselves the first question (although they may not have researched the geo-politics of it all very well, I don't konw.) But they believe that what will happen if we leave will be better for the people than if we stay. Call it naive if you will, but it isn't as if they haven't considered that. If they didn't think it mattered, they wouldn't be protesting. They protest because they think we are in the wrong.

The second answer follows from the first. If they think that things will be better off without our troops there, then, obviously, they will happily say that they can live with those (better) consequences.

Rather than imply that protesters are all as muddled as the odd sign-carrier you ... highlighted, why not tackle the serious anti-war policy think tanks, critical Pentagon staffers, etc, that have, in fact, speculated on these things, and thought hard about them. To imply that the peaceniks aren't caring enough, or smart enough, to grapple with these tough questions may post well on the conservative side of the blogopshere, but it doesn't really contribute to the discussion much.

Ouch. The fact is, though, we have several times posted on what the likely consequences of withdrawing from Iraq would be, most recently here, but also here and elsewhere (including numerous personal communications with Byron). Byron suggests we're picking on easy targets by pointing out the foolishness of some of the signs carried by protestors of the war demanding that we get out of Iraq without giving any thought to the consequences of such a move. He suggests that we should take on "the serious anti-war policy think tanks, critical Pentagon staffers, etc, that have, in fact, speculated on these things, and thought hard about them." Perhaps so, but I can't imagine the word "serious" appearing in the same sentence as any recommendation that we withdraw from Iraq before it is stable. He also notes that many on the left believe that our presence is only making things worse for the people there, but it's difficult to see how this could be so, or how withdrawing would be better for anyone except the jihadis.

Iraq has rich oil resources, a fractious population, and predatory neighbors. Anyone who thinks that we could withdraw and leave Iraq to placidly work out its problems is living in a fantasy world and is ipso facto quite unserious. Given Arab temperament and history a very likely consequence of an American withdrawal would be some or all of the following:

Various Shia militias would be at each others' throats in a struggle for control. Al-Sistani and "Mookie" al-Sadr would be forced either to fight each other or acquiesce to the other's dominance of the Shia population. That latter isn't likely. There is also the prospect of a probable civil war between Shia and Sunni as the Shia seek to redress old grievances and the Sunnis seek to regain the power they had under Saddam. Such a war would rip Iraq apart and would have the potential to cause, both directly and indirectly, the deaths of tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands of people. Anti-war people would have us believe that a state of civil war exists even now in Iraq. If they think that then surely they don't think that the struggle for power would diminish once we had left.

Whoever wins the civil war will probably proceed to eliminate anyone thought to be colluding with the other side. Vengeance will insist on the blood of one's enemies and this attempt to avenge the deaths of friends and family will certainly extend the slaughter.

Al-Qaeda, whose numbers have been attrited by coalition operations in Anbar province, will pour back into Iraq to seek to establish a base of operations and safe haven there. Their presence will add to the chaos and bloodshed, and they would likely take their revenge on anyone who had been cooperating with the coalition or the current government. Such unfortunates and their families would provide enough fodder to keep the head-slicers busy for weeks and months.

These are merely the probable internal consequences of our premature withdrawal. There would likely be additional strategic sources of chaos and destruction.

Turkey may well be inclined to sieze the opportunity of a military vacuum in an essentially defenseless Iraq to move against the Kurds in order to eliminate the Kurdish irritations on their eastern border. Iran will almost certainly move into the southern oil fields around Basra and maybe in the Kurdish north as well. Syria will see an opportunity to grab a chunk of territory from western Iraq along with some oil wealth. Saudi Arabia will no doubt be tempted to join in the fun. There is little likelihood that the Iraqi military will be in any condition to effectively deter these incursions, especially if there is civil war raging in the country, and there is precious little reason to think that all that oil wealth will be just left to sit in place without Iraq's neighbors succumbing to the temptation to claim it for there own.

In short, there is a very high probability that our withdrawal will precipitate utter chaos and perpetual violence in Iraq. There will be little or no food, water, electricity, or medical care for the population. Disease and starvation will be rampant. The people will be living in constant fear of grisly death. The hardships visited upon the Iraqi people by the sanctions of the 1990s, which so outraged the left, will be seen as minor inconveniences compared to what would likely follow upon the removal of American troops.

These are the immediate aftershocks it is prudent to expect following an American departure, but the long term consequences are also frightening. As Victor Davis Hanson points out a stable Iraq is probably our only hope of avoiding the necessity of war with Iran. If Iraq is stable and democratic its example will ripple across the border into Iran and may cause the Iranian people to demand a true democracy in Tehran. A collapsing, chaotic Iraq, on the other hand, will only serve to spur Iran on in its determination to establish an Islamic hegemony in the region, to develop nuclear weapons, and to destroy Israel.

Moreover, an Iraq in turmoil would become an ideal training and staging ground for terrorists. Turbulent, failed states are their favored milieu, and once we've left we would certainly be loath to go back, certainly if it were to engage in more combat with the terrorists who would infest the country.

Not all of these things may happen if the U.S. withdraws prematurely, of course, but they very easily could. Surely the probability is high that at least some of them will. In other words, we do the Iraqi people a grave disservice if we abandon them before they're ready to fend for themselves. It would be a colossal betrayal. The notion that we're making things worse by being there is unsupported by any evidence of which I am aware and seems instead to be a claim necessitated by the bizarre assumption that America corrupts whatever it touches.

The left must assume that if we leave Iraq the imams and baathists will solve their problems peacefully and with a minimum of suffering inflicted on the people. It has to be asked, though, what there is in Iraqi (or Arab) history which affords any justification for this assumption? The fact that there is absolutely no warrant for such an optimistic scenario leads me to believe that the left, in believing that we can just abandon the Iraqi people and everything will be relatively copacetic, is either incredibly naive or they simply don't care about what happens to the Iraqis when we pull out.

Perhaps some reader is aware of a serious analysis done by left-wing anti-war think tanks or disenchanted pentagon staffers, such as Byron describes, which would indicate that the concerns we've expressed above are groundless. Maybe there is an argument for pulling out that makes sense and gives us reason to think that none of these awful consequences would ensue. I haven't seen one yet, but if anyone knows of one I hope it'll be passed along.

NEWS FLASH: Dick Cheney is Human!

When the next issue of Vanity Fair hits the stands enemies of the current administration will be disappointed to learn that the caricature of Dick Cheney that they have conjured for the last five years is nothing at all like the reality, not that that revelation will make any difference to them. Drudge has this about the Vanity Fair article:

In her new memoir, Now It's My Turn, Mary Cheney writes that when she told her parents she was gay, the first words out of her father's mouth were exactly the ones that I wanted to hear: 'You're my daughter, and I love you, and I just want you to be happy.'

Vanity Fair editor Todd Purdum reports that Mary Cheney tells her story in a voice very much like her father's, and that she came out to her parents when she was a junior in high school, on a day when, after breaking up with her first girlfriend, she skipped school, ran a red light, and crashed the family car. Cheney writes that her mother hugged her, but then burst into tears, worried that she would face a life of pain and prejudice.

When Purdum asks the vice president whether he thinks gay people are born that way, Cheney scrunches up his mouth, fixes him with a look that says "Nice try," then says: "I'm not going to get into that. Those are deeply personal questions. You can ask."

Mary Cheney tells Purdum that her father "has very little tolerance for bull****, pardon my French." She also says that one common reaction from people who have read the manuscript of her book is 'Wow, you guys really have this close-knit, loving family,' and it always strikes me as 'Yeah, of course we do.' It was very surprising to me that people would think we didn't.

Purdum asks Cheney if, during his darkest night, he has even a little doubt about the administration's course. "No," he tells Purdum. "I think we've done what needed to be done." Of the debate over whether or not the administration hyped the pre-war intelligence, Cheney says, "In the end, you can argue about the quality of the intelligence and so forth, but ... I look at that whole spectrum of possibilities and options, and I think we did the right thing."

Cheney rejects the caricature of him as the power behind the throne, insisting, "I think we have created a system that works for this president and for me, in terms of my ability to be able to contribute and participate in the process." When Purdum says that the cartoon characterization of him must not be accurate, Cheney says, "My image might be better out there, this caricature you talk about might be avoided, if I spent more time as a public figure trying to improve my image, but that's not why I'm here."

Doesn't sound much like Darth Vader, does he?

Flaunting the MultiCulti Catechism

Ordinary people often do noble deeds, and it is probably true that their noble deeds often go unnoticed. Such was almost the case with a Michigan State professor who refused to be cowed by either the Muslim Students Association or a university community fearful of offending anyone other than Christians or Jews. FrontPage Mag.com (link unavailable) has the story:

On April 27, the State News of Michigan State University carried an editorial titled, "Poor choice, professor" in which a professor named Indrek Wichman was castigated for comments he made in a private e-mail to the Muslim Students Association (MSA).

In the e-mail, Wichman gave his opinion of a protest led by the MSA. The e-mail read, in part:

Dear Moslem Association:

As a professor of Mechanical Engineering here at MSU I intend to protest your protest. I am offended not by cartoons, but by more mundane things like beheadings of civilians, cowardly attacks on public buildings, suicide murders, murders of Catholic priests (the latest in Turkey!), burnings of Christian churches, the continued persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt, the imposition of Sharia law on non-Muslims, the rapes of Scandinavian girls and women (called "whores" in your culture), the murder of film directors in Holland, and the rioting and looting in Paris, France.

Professor Wichman later explained: "I used strong language in a private communication that I would certainly not have used if this communication would have gone public."

But this failed to satisfy the leaders of the MSA. They wanted blood in the form of a letter of reprimand; diversity training for faculty; and a mandatory freshman seminar on hate and discrimination.

The Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations had to get its shot at Wichman in as well. Executive director, Dawud Walid, had this to say: "It was upsetting, yet sad...it's scary when you think about the power that this gentleman has." Walid then added that the university should denounce the e-mail, conduct a formal investigation, and, of course, conduct "sensitivity training" on how to deal with Muslims on campus.

However, before the MSA demands anything, let's look at some of its history.

In 2003, the MSA of Penn State invited the chairman of a racist and anti-Semitic organization, the Populist Party, to speak at events celebrating "Islam Awareness Week".

In 2002, during a protest in front of the Israeli consulate in Los Angeles, former MSA president Ahmed Shama shouted, "Victory to Islam! Death to the Jews!..."

Prior to the Islamic terrorist attacks of 9-11, the MSA formally assisted the Holy Land Foundation, Global Relief, and the Benevolence Foundation in fundraising. Following the attacks, all three so-called "charities" were ordered closed. The reaction of the MSA? "How three of the nation's largest Muslim charities could be made inoperable at the peak of the giving season of Ramadan seemed unbelievable." Never mind that these three groups were providing funds to Islamic terrorist groups.

Notwithstanding its self-serving claims, the MSA is not a "Muslim civil rights" organization. The MSA is here to promote the intolerant, bigoted, and hateful cult of Islam known as "Wahhabism". From inviting bigots to speak; calling for the death of Jews, and denouncing the closing of Islamic terrorist linked "charities", the MSA has clearly shown that they are on the wrong side in the battle against Islamist terror.

Were Professor Wichman's words a little strong? In light of the facts about Wahhabi Islam, he is telling the truth. The Wahhabis are one of the most intolerant sects of Islam and have a very brutal history that includes neglect for basic human rights, misogyny toward their own women, the imposition of the most strict forms of Sharia Islamic law and a hatred for Western culture that borders on fanatical. In calling attention to this reality, the professor made the right choice.

Indrek Wichman should be feted everywhere free speech is prized for speaking the truth. Instead, he's vilified and criticized for having flaunted the multicultural catechism which states as its first commandment that thou shalt not speak any disparaging word, no matter how true, of any campus group that might make a fuss.

News From Iraq

Check out Bill Crawford's latest report on Iraq, especially his inspiring description of the actions of Col. James Coffman who was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for valor. The account of Coffman's bravery is at the end of Crawford's piece.

ID vs. Darwinism in Seattle

The Discovery Institute's philosopher of science Stephen Meyer discussed the topic of Intelligent Design and Evolution with astrobiologist Peter Ward (and co-author of the book Rare Earth) recently in Seattle. IDers are calling it a blowout for Meyer. You can decide for yourself by going here to listen to the exchange.

I don't know if anyone asked the question of Peter Ward, but had we been there we'd have liked to ask him what it is, exactly, that an astrobiologist studies.