Fantastic collection of Coalition military images.

Wife arrested [for racism] after calling her husband 'lazy'.:

"Belgium’s history of linguistic bickering between Flemings and Walloons entered a new phase this week when police arrested a Flemish woman for calling her Walloon husband lazy, Belgian media said on Thursday.

The 48-year-old husband filed a complaint for racism against his spouse for scratching him and calling him “a lazy Walloon, a slave and an inferior creature,” De Standaard daily said.

The 47-year-old woman will appear before a magistrate later on Thursday to face charges of racism, the newspaper said."

Those goofy Europeans.

HT: Dean Esmay.

4th Infantry better trained for Iraq return:

"The massive deployment of the "Ironhorse" division, with 71,000 pieces of equipment that include tanks, helicopters and artillery, was marked in a solemn ceremony Friday in which unit flags were rolled up and stored for shipment back to the theater of war. Tanks and other vehicles will be placed on railcars next week, and troops will leave in a string of flights into December.

The division served more than a year in Iraq before returning in April 2004, and 80 of its soldiers were killed in action during the early days of the insurgency. Only about one-third of the total 20,700 troops in this deployment have previous experience in Iraq because of extensive reorganization of the 4th Infantry, officials said.

...

The division will be based in Baghdad when it replaces the 3rd Infantry Division from Fort Stewart, Ga. Also serving under him will be three divisions of Iraqi forces, bringing the total number of troops under his command to about 50,000.

"This is the largest heavy combat formation that our Army has and it is the most modern one that our nation has built," Thurman said, adding that, "I expect a lot out of the Iraqi forces."

He said the division has trained since January to fight a "tough insurgency" by using "full-spectrum combat operations."

Rather than prepare for a mellow peacekeeping role, soldiers were prepared for "a mid- to high-intensity land campaign," Thurman said.

Further, Thurman said, the Sept. 11, 2003 [sic], attacks "should never be forgotten ... That's what's at stake here, and prosecuting this global war on terrorism."

If I remember correctly, the 4th ID is also the most technologically advanced unit in the Army, featuring M1A2 SEP tanks.

PETA officials collide with deer:

"There's plenty of laughter and a little sadness in the hunting community over an incident involving a deer that collided with an automobile driven by two animal rights campaigners who belong to the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. The folks who worship at the altar of animals now want to sue a New Jersey game department over the incident, claiming it's the state's fault that it happened."

Multiculturalism and the Repeal of Universal Human Rights

Via Jeff Goldstein, in Australia:

"Police are being advised to treat Muslim domestic violence cases differently out of respect for Islamic traditions and habits.

Officers are also being urged to work with Muslim leaders, who will try to keep the families together.

Women’s groups are concerned the politically correct policing could give comfort to wife bashers and keep their victims in a cycle of violence.

The instructions come in a religious diversity handbook given to Victorian police officers that also recommends special treatment for suspects of Aboriginal, Hindu and Buddhist background.

Some police officers have claimed the directives hinder enforcing the law equally.

Police are told: “In incidents such as domestic violence, police need to have an understanding of the traditions, ways of life and habits of Muslims."

Says Goldstein:

"Sad to say, but this is the predictable result of a culture in which the kind of identity politics that follow from the institutionalization of multiculturalism as the foundation for a political system essentially forces lawmakers into treating each “Other” on its own delineated terms.

In such circumstances, there is no coherent method of governing that can appeal to a uniform equality under the law—other than the structural “equality” that comes from the premise that it is the right of each identity group to negotiate its compliance with the host country’s pre-existing laws."

In cases such as these, it is clear that for many, the notion of multiculturalism has effectively caused a rejection of the notion of universal human rights that came out of the Enlightenment. No longer do these people see natural rights of liberty, given by God, ones that cannot be taken away from you. Instead, natural rights are defined by the culture in which you developed. Indeed, even natural development is sometimes impeded by individuals who want specific group members more strictly adhere to their stereotype (i.e., Condoleeza and Powell are really black people "acting white", rather than a more intellectual black culture).

The irony is that by doing away with inalienable and natural rights elsewhere, these people undermine their own positions and liberty. If Middle Eastern women can be oppressed, why are our own immune? If there is nothing fundamentally and universally wrong with oppression of any sort, due to what notion of natural justice were woman or African Americans owed equality? Woman's liberation and the end of segregation no longer become a matter of justice, but war spoils, to be overturned when the opposition is stronger. Nothing relating to justice or morality stops Western culture from digressing ["progressing," since we're avoiding moral judgments].

In short, there's no longer any bedrock of universal rights that guarantee our own freedom - if the morality of other countries is not accountable to universal liberty and justice as understood by the Rights of Man or the Declaration of Independence, neither is our own.

Thanks to Outside the Beltway, Basil's Blog, Mudville Gazette.

Is Classical Liberalism Doomed?

Jeff Goldstein links to an extremely pessimistic post at the NRO Corner by John Derbyshire.

Says Derbyshire:

"There aren't going to be any more Coolidges or Reagans. It's over. Fuggedaboutit.

Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher came to power not because people were fed up with socialism. People -- practically everybody, practically everywhere -- LIKE socialism. In Britain, people were fed up with the overweening power of labor unions, which were the vehicle for socialism in that age. The wheels of that particular vehicle were coming off, that was all. In the USA, the humiliations of Iran and Afghanistan, obvious mismanagement of the economy (though not a particularly too-much-socialism kind of mismanagement), and the unattractive personality of Jimmy Carter got the Presidency for Reagan. Not by much, though: in the 1980 election, Reagan only got a tad over 50 percent of the popular vote. (In 1984 it was 58.8 percent.) Thatcher I believe never made 50 percent.

All the windsocks are now pointing in the direction of more socialism. As the population ages, Americans will want more leisure, drugs, health care, nursing homes, security. As the Jihadist threat continues to metastasize (from the MidEast to Indonesia, Thailand, Africa, the Caucasus, Europe), we shall want the state to have more police powers, more scrutiny of us and our lives. The trend of the last 40 years away from the old Anglo-Saxon rights and liberties -- private property rights (google "tobacco settlement," "Kelo," etc.), freedom of speech, contract and assembly ("speech codes," anti-discrimination laws, etc.), limited government (is Washington DC shrinking? looking poorer and shabbier? not that I've noticed) -- will accelerate. And everybody will be fine with all this, because that's what everybody wants, except for a few freakish intellectuals like ourselves."

I hesitate to use the term "the Left," because it is really a lazy abstraction, ablbeit sometimes a necessary one. Furthermore, many people, especially centrist American Democrats, consider themselves part of "the Left," but are really not. To quote a commentator at Free Republic, Marron:

"Republicans are really not "conservatives" in the traditionalist sense. We are "conservative" only in the sense of adhering to the constitution, which is classic liberalism on parchment. We are God's troublemakers, we upset applecarts, overturn orthodoxies, regimes and dynasties, whole economic systems, just by breathing. Just by going about our daily affairs.

It astonishes me, but it is true, that while there are "conservative" parties in the world, there is no equivalent anywhere to the Republican Party, which is the blend of classic liberalism with moral principle. Most political parties outside the US, from right to left, would fit within our Democratic Party.

Rousseau won the argument in most of the world. Locke won his case only in America, and there only just barely. There aren't many of us, but there weren't many in Gideon's band either."

Even the American Democratic party has traditionally been isolated and distinct from the international left and socialist parties of Europe. Seperated by the Atlantic and archaic modes of travel, and drawing upon traditional American free market principles, American politics created almost an entirely different politically spectrum, much distinct from Europe's. This partially explains why the Communist Party and socialist movements in general never found large followings in the United States, while attacting large percentages of the electorates in France, Italy, Germany, and other European countries. Locke, not Rousseau, was the American deity, even on its "left".

However, this isolation changed somewhat in the past 50 years, as members of the "New Left" filtered through the Democratic party's leadership, the schools, and the intelligentsia. More pink than red, they eventually proclaimed themselves anti-anti-communists during the 1960s, and their views and agendas reflected it. They deeply distrusted American patriotism, the military, supported the advance of the nanny-state, peeling back American power and self-righteousness, and promoted multiculturalism, which in practice meant the subservence of American culture to that of its immigrants and unassimilated minorities. The American New Left made common cause with similar minded and also rebellious movements in Europe, movements which cultiminated in the almost continent-wide social disorders of 1968. These people continued to rise through the aforementioned institutions, and their views did evolve, but most did not break free from many of their original prejudices and beliefs.

By 9-11, the Democratic Party's transition to a party oriented alongside its socialist and post-modern compatriots in Europe and Canada was well underway, but not completed.

Where did they run into problems?

In the first place, as Marron stated, Europe's free-market and individualist tradition was already much weaker than America's from the start. When Friedrich von Hayek wrote his essay entitled "Why I Am Not a Conservative", he was disparaging European conservatism, which has often opposed capitalism as a threat to social stability and traditional values. In the second place, the Republican Party did not undergo the same moderation and ostracism that the true classical liberal parties in Europe and Canada underwent. These moderated themselves to deal with the social and economic entitlements promised by their opposition on the continent, a continent whose political thought was badly distorted by the strength of Communist and socialist influence, some of which was paid for with Soviet money and some of which was completely indigenous, drawing upon Europe's already deep socialist tradition.

The result of these conditions was that the classical liberal parties on the continent, the real counterparts of the Republican Party and the Old Democratic Party and believers in individual rights and free markets, found themselves on the defensive, and giving increasing ground to their opposition as they fought on the International Left's turf. Canada is perhaps the best example, and by the 1990s had effectively become a one party state, with a cowed, watered-down, and self apologetic Conservative Party.

The Republicans, drawing upon an American populace much more fiercely independent and self-reliant, was given the opportunity to go this route, but ultimately went the other way. In 1968, they were presented a choice between the East Coast liberal Republican Rockefeller wing of the Party and the more conservative (though hardly reactionary), and staunchly anti-Communist Richard Nixon. After Carter's disasterous Democratic presidential term, the stage was set for the even more conservative Reagan revolution. Britain too, underwent a similar revolution with Thatcher, but it was neither as complete, nor could British Conservatives as easily seperate themselves from mainland Europe's political thought.

Like Derbyshire, I can see the trends. Fundamentally, it is difficult to compete politically with bribery. For the average person, principles and abstract theory do not compete easily with outright financial bribery. De Tocqueville realized this early, saying that "the American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."

It's become standard to describe the core of Democratic problems to be its lack of message. Weeks ago, however, a Vodkapundit commentator described the problem much more accurately:

"I don't know where this meme that the Democrats have no ideas came from, but it's clearly false. It's easy to list off a bunch of positions the Democrats support that aren't just "hate Bush".

They're pro-choice on abortion.

They support race preferences.

They support transnationalism in foreign policy.

They want justices who are policy-driven.

They want to raise taxes.

They want to increase government control over health care.

They want to increase funding for education without imposing performance standards.

They want more stringent environmental policies.

They want weaker protections for property rights.

They want to prevent ANWAR drilling.

That's just off the top of my head. With a bit of research I'm sure I could double or triple that list.

The problem the Democrats have isn't a lack of ideas. Their problem is that the majority of their ideas are not popular with the electorate, and the Democrats have figured that out. That's why they typically don't state their views clearly and run on them proudly. Unfortunately, they aren't willing to abandon their unpopular ideas, and that leaves them without a positive program that they are willing to articulate. The result is that their public face becomes strongly negative -- "hate Bush".

Think of it another way. If the Democrats truly stood for "nothing", then we would have no idea what they would do if they came into power. But we *do* have a pretty good idea of what they would do if they had the power, and that's what they stand for."

This is why Dean's big mouth and Daily Kos can be such an embarassment - when candid they are a clear view into some of the core, but unpopular principles of the Democratic Party.

Another Democratic problem is that the transition to post-modernism got hit smack dab in the middle by blogs, the wider Internet, and 9-11. The first two badly handicapped at least one of the transition's one-two punch, as the New Left media no longer has the ability to set the agenda, as Canadian and European state-controlled media did 10-20 years ago. The last badly damaged the transition to transnationalism, resulting in anguished howls of "unilateralism", and "global tests", the "International Community", "illegal war", and various other sleights of hand meant to restrict American freedom of action.

It remains to be seen whether these factors will turn back the Democratic Party's descent into post-modernism. This fight isn't over yet, because the their own base is still divided, with much of the leadership having undergone the transition but not much of the rank and file. Even more dangerously, their opposition is not yet completely cowed, although it too has given ground to New Left dominance of the traditional media, academica, and intelligentsia.

Thanks to the Mudville Gazette, Stop the ACLU, Basil's Blog, and Outside the Beltway.

On Crickets Chirping

Jeff Goldstein has a fantastic summary of news coverage of the Iraqi referendum...make sure to read the selections all the way to the very bottom.

Latest News

Run down of interesting links:

US, Syria border clashes reported.

"The New York Times says U.S. and Syrian forces have already been involved in skirmishes on the border, including one this summer that left several Syrians dead.

One official told the Times the United States has taken the struggle right up to the border but not beyond. Other officials said U.S. forces have entered Syria both by accident and design."

Happy hunting.

More Palestinians [than Israelis] killed in internal strife this year.

"In the report, the Palestinian Authority's Interior Ministry cited 219 deaths as a result of inner-Palestinian violence compared to 218 deaths at the hands of Israeli security forces over the course of the first nine months of this year. The statistics reflect the relative calm in the territories vis-a-vis Israel as well as the increasing anarchy in PA-controlled areas."

And the revolution swallows Robespierre...Some suggest that the anarchy is pulling in Egyptian administration, which would be the best possible outcome in my opinion. Otherwise, I believe the PA risks losing control to more efficient groups, specifically Hamas. The Egyptians administrated the Gaza strip from 1948 to 1967, so we appear to be coming around full circle, and the Palestinians have not failed to miss yet another opportunity to prove they are not hopeless.

[French PM Villepin defends French diplomatic honor.

"Prime minister Dominique de Villepin of France said claims that two former high-ranking diplomats exploited the corruption-riddled UN Iraqi oil for food programme should not be allowed to sully the reputation of French democracy.

Both men, including France's former ambassador to the UN, have been placed under judicial investigation -- the first stage toward possible charges -- on suspicion of benefitting from Iraqi money."

Meanwhile, in that bastion of common sense otherwise known as the UN:

"The US appears set on a collision course with the rest of the world, this time over a treaty to promote cultural diversity that Washington claims could provide protectionist cover for restrictions on US exports of films and television programmes.

... "The US is trying to do everything it can to reopen the negotiations when the rest of the world is in favour of the current text," said a Paris-based European diplomat.

"There is very strong support for the treaty, not only from Europe, but from Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, Arab nations and the Asia-Pacific region," he said, noting that the US was earlier outvoted on a related procedural matter by 158 to 1.

The US is worried that countries such as France and Canada may use the treaty to justify restrictions on US audio-visual exports as a way of supporting local cultural industries."

I don't know about you, but I was happy to know that the UN is debating issues of "cultural diversity". It made me almost as happy as when I heard of a UN attempt to internationalize control of the Internet. Worthwhile commentary at the Belmont Club - make sure to check the usually inciteful comments. It is noteworthy that as late as 2 years ago, the EU was supporting the American position. Welcome to socialism on a global level.

The usual optimism from Strategy Page:

"Most Sunni Arabs are now willing to go along with a democratic Iraq, there being little enthusiasm for trying to vote the constitution down on October 15th. There is an increase in terrorist attacks to try and stop the vote, but the scale of these attacks are pathetic. All this terrorism is doing is reinforcing the hatred most Iraqis have for al Qaeda and the Sunni Arab terrorists. The enemy, as many Iraqis see it, is the Sunni Arab world. They can see this clearly by just tuning in the foreign Sunni Arab radio and cable TV news. These media outlets warp the news from Iraq to make it sound like the country is in an uproar against "foreign occupation." This sort of reporting is surreal to most Iraqis, who know very well that the Sunni Arab community simply wants control of Iraq, despite what the majority of Iraqis want, or how many of them are killed by Sunni Arab terrorists."

More detailed stuff here:

"October 12, 2005: Despite the controversy over independent operations certification, that has been in the news recently, the Iraqi military has clearly been coming into their own. Iraqi combat divisions have taken over security work in several parts of the country. On October 3, the 6th Iraqi Division assumed formal authority over Baghdad's central and northern districts, where it has been operating for several months. Also operating in the Baghdad area is the Ninth Iraqi Division (Mechanized), which has been teamed up with the U.S. 1st Armor in raiding operations over the major road networks. The Iraqi 4th Division has been conducting raids and cordon and searches along the Tigris River Valley north of Baghdad, up to Tikrit. The Iraqi 2nd Division has been operating with good success in extending control in and around Mosul out to Tal Afar. A battalion of the Iraqi 2nd Division was moved to Tal Afar at the end of August by the Iraqi 23rd Air Transport Squadron (operating C-130 airplanes). This was the first report of the new Iraqi Army supported by the new Iraqi Air Force.

The on-going Anbar (central Iraq) province campaign has been firmly anchored by the 1st Iraqi Division, which is also called the Iraqi Intervention Force (IIF). This Iraqi Division has and continues to conduct operations in and around the gateway cities of the Euphrates River Valley – Fallujah, Ar Ramadi, Rawah, and Al Khalidiyah. Units of this Division have a year or more of combat experience. The Division consists of 4 brigades (each with 3 battalions). The IIF has received intense training for urban operations including the art of street fighting and building clearing. In addition to the Intervention force, the Iraqi Army has two elite battalions. The Commando Battalion is a Ranger-type strike force. The Iraqi Counter-terrorism Battalion is trained for insertion and extraction to conduct hostage rescue or leadership raids. These elite forces are selected for experience and undergo extensive screening and background checks. The operations by their nature are more elusive to track.

The Iraqi 5th Iraqi Division has been undergoing training exercises in and near Kirkuk including raids and mass casualty training. The training includes actual operations. At the end of August, elements of the Iraqi 5th Iraqi Division performed six-day combined operations involving elite Iraqi Special Operations Forces. The 8th Iraqi Division operates and trains on the road network between the two rivers south of Baghdad. Several battalions of this Division have completed initial certification toward independent operations. The training is focused on counter-insurgency operations, cordon and search, check points, and patrolling. The training for independent brigade and division operations is continuing. Like all training beyond basic in the new Iraqi army, “live” action is involved, since Iraqi 8th Iraqi Division units have reportedly conducted over 100 operations capturing weapon's caches and apprehending suspected terrorists."

Gaza Developments

I've been watching the reports of chaos in Gaza, gunbattles between the PA and Hamas, and lawlessness on the Gaza-Egyptian border with interest. The "international community" got what it wanted, and now the Potemkin Village of Palestinian responsibility is about to burn down in flames.

The Palestinian Authority as a monolithic organization is quite possibly doomed in unoccupied Gaza. Arafat had charismatic authority that noone else is going to be able to replace. As a whole, the organization was propped up by the Israelis themselves, under the pressure of the world, as the representative of the Palestinian people. The Israelis gave them 15,000 M-16s due to Oslo [which were later used against them], treated them as the only negotiating power, thereby giving them credibility, and scared off even more radical rivals such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

In reality, the PA was merely a mafia that had little internal legitimacy besides being the world sponsored monopoly. They could be propped up when Gaza was under outside [Israeli] control, but now the UN and its affiliates aren't as effective so long as the Israelis are gone - they were the normalizing and deterring force.

So the PA has lost much of its international subsidation, and is forced to survive on its own credibility - a decades long legacy of corruption and violence. Only, if you want violence, and I believe the Palestinians do, there's more efficient killers than the PA. Furthermore, Gaza, as opposed to the West Bank, has traditionally been Hamas' stronghold. For these reasons, it is my opinion that Hamas or a derivative will likely be in control of Gaza before it is all over, absent external intervention.

Thanks to the Mudville Gazette and Outside the Beltway.

Update: Weighed down in mid-terms, graduate school applications, and mononucleosis. Apparently that strep was only a part of something bigger. Such is life.

WPost Insider: Colleagues "Cheer Unabashedly for the Democrats".

"Too often, we wear liberalism on our sleeve and are intolerant of other lifestyles and opinions," an editor working for the Washington Post's Sunday "Book World" section charged in a contribution to a daily internal critique of the newspaper quoted by Howard Kurtz on Monday. Marie Arana disclosed that "if you work here, you must be one of us. You must be liberal, progressive, a Democrat. I've been in communal gatherings in The Post, watching election returns, and have been flabbergasted to see my colleagues cheer unabashedly for the Democrats."

Media's coverage has distorted world's view of Iraqi reality.

So says an American Lt. Colonel in Iraq:

"The inaccurate picture they paint has distorted the world view of the daily realities in Iraq. The result is a further erosion of international support for the United States' efforts there, and a strengthening of the insurgents' resolve and recruiting efforts while weakening our own. Through their incomplete, uninformed and unbalanced reporting, many members of the media covering the war in Iraq are aiding and abetting the enemy.

The fact is the Coalition is making steady progress in Iraq, but not without ups and downs. So why is it that no matter what events unfold, good or bad, the media highlights mostly the negative aspects of the event? The journalistic adage, "If it bleeds, it leads," still applies in Iraq, but why only when it's American blood?"

...

"I have had my staff aggressively pursue media coverage for all sorts of events that tell the other side of the story only to have them turned down or ignored by the press in Baghdad. Strangely, I found it much easier to lure the Arab media to a "non-lethal" event than the western outlets. Open a renovated school or a youth center and I could always count on Al-Iraqia or even Al-Jazeera to show up, but no western media ever showed up – ever. Now I did have a pretty dangerous sector, the Abu Ghuraib district that extends from western Baghdad to the outskirts of Fallujah (not including the prison), but it certainly wasn't as bad as Fallujah in November and there were reporters in there."

Things may not be as rosy as Mr. Ryan portrays it, but it is clear that we can't trust mainstream war coverage. Call it the Vietnam effect, everything must be taken with a grain of salt, the result of piss-poor journalism, sensationalism, local stringers, and ideological blinders.

HT: The Gun Guy.

The Bennett Flap

"BENNETT: All right, well, I mean, I just don't know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this, because you don't know. I mean, it cuts both -- you know, one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well --

CALLER: Well, I don't think that statistic is accurate.

BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know. But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky."

A week ago, before this entire episode, I said the following:

"More and more, however, I realize that ultimate freedom is the ability to say what you believe, and let the pieces then fall into place as they may, accepting both the unfortunate and fortunate consequences of your words. Or in Orwell's prose, to admit that 2+2 = 4, and then allow it all to follow from there."

I believe the Bennett incident very much ties into this. Intellectually, there was nothing dumb or factually incorrect about what Bennett said. He's a philosopher, so he's used to dealing with hypotheticals. If anything, it was too sophisticated, leaving his words vulnerable to misquotation. Unfortunately, some on the right are so used to the predictable and perpetual outrage of race baiters that they're tolerating it, instead of pushing back for the sake intellectual sanity, honesty, and discourse.

The problem with Bennett's words wasn't that he proposed aborting black babies, there's no way that distortion can be sustained even among liberals. The problem with Bennett's words is that he noted the statistical correlation between African Americans and crime. That's a big no-no today, you're supposed to close your eyes and pretend the statistics do not exist in polite company, because racial discrepancies are to be poo-pooed, unless they can be used to justify affirmative action and racial pandering to minorities.

It is clear that Bennett said nothing about causation, leaving all this fluff about poverty and social condition irrelevant. They had nothing to do with his argument, and he merely stated the basic mathematical truth. If black crime rates are above the average, and you remove that outlier, the average goes down. Do you actually think that even liberal and urban Democrats are unaware of the crime rate disparity? The emperor has no clothes.

"In this climate we have to be careful...", so eff-ing what? The only reason we have to be careful is we've surrendered political discourse and language to people who are hostile to us. But alas, noone's willing to stand up to it, too afraid of the media...so we give more ground to fake charges, rake our own over the coals, apologize, and hope it will just pass over.

In a perfect world, Bennett wouldn't give an inch, and the White House wouldn't throw him under the bus for the real race baiters. We just had the opportunity of a lifetime to discredit their ilk. You think the majority of people in this country welcomed the Katrina racial demagoguery? I would have loved to see a Republican politician tear into the accusers for dividing Americans during a moment of crisis in such an opportunist and ridiculous way. Yet, once more the Republican Party took its licks, and swept it under the carpet with moderate language, too afraid of bad press to actually respond energetically.

Politically speaking, I don't think we're out of the mainstream here. Perhaps 10 or 20 years ago Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, et al, held the advantage, but I think today Americans are generally fed up with racial demagoguery. They just want to live and let live. And, furthermore, I suspect the average American would be insulted by the notion that he can't handle the truth with regard to crime statistics. But of course, few high profile people have the stones to actually say that that's the liberal party line. But that's exactly the argument you have to fight, because it is the most important element of the entire episode. The growing idea that we cannot say things that are true, but are also politically inconvenient.

I can't help but think that we're seeing the gradual change of the formerly libertarian-oriented and small government Republican Party into a big-government politically correct party very similar to more traditional Canadian and European Conservatives. They’re so gun shy of the media wing of the Democratic Party that they’re letting them frame the issue and are apologizing instead of fighting back.

Look, the open secret on the right is that George Bush may be right on the war and foreign policy, but he isn't really a small government conservative of the same cloth as Goldwater or even Reagan. Yes, it's true, we got tax cuts, and positioning on Social Security reform. At the same time, he's proven that he has no problem with big-government and high spending, so long as it is to support his projects and tie down Republican voters. He hasn't done a thing to enforce border laws, and he's taken a page from Democratic play books to pander Hispanics as Hispanics, rather than as Americans. Now, perhaps I'm archaic and simple, but I generally believe that you can neither outspend socialists, nor outpander racial demagogues [sombreros be damned] - and the Democrats have both covered. The only thing we've got is open political dialogue and values, and if we give that up by throwing people like Bennett under the bus, we're done for.

We'll pay down the line, after we’ve allowed the enemy to redefine what is politically acceptable to deny or assert. In my opinion, the end game is neutered and politically defensive classical liberal parties of Canada and much of Western Europe, in favor of big-government Conservative parties that try to compete with the leftists on their own turf, with the media stacked against them. As a libertarian small-government Conservative, that is very disconcerting.

Thanks to Outside the Beltway and the Mudville Gazette.

Arab World Jittery of Attacks Before Ramadan.

"The Middle East is jittery as it heads into Ramadan, the Islamic holy month of fasting and spiritual introspection that has become a time of increased attacks by suicide bombers who believe they receive extra blessings."

What? I could have sworn Muslim leaders were suggesting a Ramadan cease-fire 4 years ago...You're telling me that Islamists actually fight during Ramadan?

Oh-my...who would have thought. Someone better alert the Israelis.