London Times: The Origins of Anti-Americanism

Kathryn at the Corner points out this commentary in the Times of London. The writer asks, "So why are we all anti-Americans now?" The answer is not America's unilateralism.

The US is never less popular than when it is aroused and determined in defence of democratic freedoms, never less trusted than when the world is most reliant on its unmatched ability to project power.

Democracies are psychologically ill-adapted to open-ended confrontations where there can be no decisive victory, the essence of the effort to subdue global terrorism. Eternal vigilance is a wearisome business. The more vulnerable that Europeans feel, the more liable they are to shift blame across the Atlantic.

The strength of disdain is a measure of Europe’s weakness. Smugness is one of Europe’s great contemporary exports.

The writer goes on to say what Europeans forget about America:

We may all think that we know America, its music, its culture, its self-confident exceptionalism. We tend to forget that Americans fight only with extreme reluctance. We overlook their penchant for agonised self-criticism; everything bad we know about the US, we know because Americans inexhaustibly rehearse their society’s shortcomings. There has never been greater transparency, whether than on the battlefield or the boondocks, and there has never been more open debate about the country’s virtues and vices. . . .

Finally:

America-bashing may be a popular sport, but its adherents prefer not to contemplate its consequences.

Fewer and Fewer

Glenn Reynolds relates, via Strategy Page, this good news: of theTaliban counter-offensive into Afghanistan of 1000, 1/2 of them are killed or captured. Reynolds says:

Yes, as Bill Roggio noted, and Michael Yon confirmed, the news reports, rather exaggerated to begin with, are of the form "Dozens killed in renewed fighting," without mentioning that most of those killed are people who should be killed.

Economic Article for the Day

John McIntyre has this to say today:

The Washington Post's Sebastian Mallaby is on a crusade to discredit pro-growth or supply-side economic policies. Today's column titled "The Return of Voodoo Economics" makes one wonder about what he doesn't like about 4% growth, under 5% unemployment, housing and the stock market higher, wealth being created and tax revenues at all time highs. I guess he pines for the pre-Voodoo Economics days of the 1970's when the highest marginal tax rate was 70% and the country had anemic growth, high unemployment and a Dow languishing below 1,000.

(ht: JPod at Corner)

Another Remarkable Muslim: Farish Noor

I wanted to expand on my claim below ("Romance of Multiculturalism") that there are reasons to hope for a moderation of Islam, particularly, the exclusiveness of Islam. For unlike its other monothesitic siblings (Judaism and Christianity), Islam, at least in its contemporary manifestations, not only holds its exclusive rights to truth and right recognition and worship of God but a complete lack of regard of anyone outside Islam. There are only two possibilities, those who are in the House of Islam or those in the House of War. In other words, for good neighbors it does not make .

Enter Farish Noor:

For Farish Noor, the great challenge for contemporary Muslims is to overcome this exclusive parochial thinking and to extend their solidarity beyond the Muslim community to embrace all of humanity. For a long time, Noor found himself torn between his feelings of solidarity with his fellow Muslims and his belief in universal ideals.

A turning point came when he lived in Britain in the early 1990s. During the first Gulf War, he found a group of elderly women in a small provincial church praying during a night vigil 'for the people of Iraq.'

"Here was an example. Here were Christians in England praying for Iraqis who were being killed; people whose idea of Christian charity did not stop at the Christian community. For a while I felt a sense of shame because never had I been to a mosque where I saw Muslims praying for Christians, Hindus or Buddhists. We show charity, love and sympathy but only for fellow Muslims."

Noor went on to advocate what he describes as an 'Islam without borders'. Islam, he argues, has always claimed to be a universal religion which is not limited to one race or people. As such it was able to unite different peoples across ethnic and cultural boundaries. The real challenge for Islam presented by globalisation is now to rid itself of this last vestige of cultural partisanship and to reaffirm its universal message across the boundaries between Muslims and non-Muslims:

"I think for Islam to progress, we have to progress beyond the Muslim community. We talk of a universal God of love. If God's love is infinite, if it does not stop at your colour, race or religion, then why should ours? If we want to be real Muslims we have to go in that direction."

Here for more. (ht: Ayaan Hirsi Ali)

Ayaan Hirsi Ali Moving to USA

I don't know all the details, but apparently Ayaan Hirsi Ali (blogsite) lied to attain citizenship in the Netherlands, where she went on to become a member of Parliament and helped Theodore van Gogh make Submission (2004), the film about women in Islam that later provoked his violent murder.

At any rate, news (Michele Malkin) has it that she will be emigrating to the States to take up a position at the American Enterprise Institute this September. This is good news for us and her I think. She is one of the people I listed below as reason to hope about the moderation of Islam, especially seeing how she, a woman, was in a position of influence and power in Europe. But, alas, for our mulish allies, she will be leaving.

UPDATE (17 May): Here is her account of these developments. Among other things, she says:

I am therefore preparing to leave Holland. But the questions for our society remain. The future of Islam in our country; the subjugation of women in Islamic culture; the integration of the many Muslims in the West: it is self-deceit to imagine that these issues will disappear.

Mother's Day

Now, for something completely different....

Jozsef Cardinal Mindszenty (1892—1975):

“The most important person on earth is a mother. She cannot claim the honor of having built Notre Dame Cathedral. She need not. She has built something more magnificent than any cathedral—a dwelling for an immortal soul….The angels have not been blessed with such a grace.”

(ht: Peter Robinson at the Corner)

"The Romance of Multiculturalism"

As always, pithy about the particular as well as the universal situation, Victor Hanson pens a great term about what enables Islamicist's success....

Q: I just finished Oriana Fallaci's Force of Reason. She paints a very dark and foreboding future, while you seem much more optimistic, at least for the Islamic world. What is your take on her work? Is Europe finished? Is there no reconciliation with Islam and modernity? Are the Kurds the exception not the rule?

Hanson: I just finished it as well. If one puts aside the bombast and furor, which is the charm of her style, and sticks to her message and courage, then one sees her point is unmistakable. We in a tired West just want our blessed lives not to be interrupted, so we invent all sorts of exemptions, euphemisms, and considerations for a fascist core of radical Islamicists who brilliantly have played on the entire multicultural romance [emphasis mine] that we embrace. That being said, Turkey, the Muslims in India, Kurdistan, and Muslims elsewhere can and do live under democratic auspices.

The problem is the toxic brew of autocracy, statism, oil revenue, and terrorism that leads to creepy results whether in Iran or Saudi Arabia. The Islamist is parasitical on the West for his critique of the West, and, usually of the middle and upper classes, hates himself for wanting what his own culture cannot produce, and always finds victimhood in his own feeling of inadequacy. If Hamas declared a truce tomorrow, reformed its economy, became truly democratic, and copied a Singapore or Switzerland, then it would have little beef against Israel — but then it wouldn’t be Hamas, would it?

Remember how in ages gone by it was thought noble and the mark and ideal of a civilized person to be chivalrous? As a matter of fact, much literature of the Middle Ages and after was dedicated and most people harkened to the 'romance of chivalry'. But now, it is mostly discredited, through ridicule (see Monty Python's Search of the Holy Grail for but one contemporary example) and, to be sure, through radicalization of western notions of equality of the sexes but not, and this is key, through some failure of its ideals.

Today chivalry is replaced with the 'romance of multiculturalism', wherein no one culture is better or worse than the other. It prevails even while it recedes due to the sudden and ruthless intervention of the real, that is, events such as 9-11 and every other subsequent terrorist action. Before 9-11 (go back to 1972, the Olypmics in Munich), when the threats were distant or rendered innocuous by leaders using euphemisms like 'blowback against Orientalism', or a 'criminal activity' which would be prosecuted with the 'full weight of the law'--thereby lulling us into a false sense of security and the slumber of the '90's--, the multiculturalist believers could and did turn a blind eye to the dozens of terrorist actions all over the world; usually justifying the terrorist and their horrific actions with a 'Well, what can we expect? We deserve it! Moreover, it's what our founding fathers did!'

You see the infernal situation multiculturalism put us in: we are either as bad as they are; or they are as good as we. It can't be any other way. It cannot be that this particular radical faction of Islam--whose men brutalize and subjugate their women to domestic servitude (indeed, their rewards in the afterlife indicates their true opinion of woman--the man with the most sexual slaves after death is the man among men), which cultivates homicidal bombers out of their children, whose best idea of government does not recognize the fundamental human aspirations for life, liberty and happiness for its denizens let alone its enemies, and whose recourse with those they disagree, in word and in deed, is untethered to anything good, moral, sane, or civil--it cannot be that this cultural is inequal, or less worthy, or (Cole or Chomsky forbid!) more evil than our culture! That would be just too imperialistic and perhaps even a racial thing to say!

But, some are worse than that! One might be tempted to say what Churchill said:

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities — but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome. (The River War, 1899, p. 248-50)

Unlike Churchill, I hold the hope that the problem is not with Islam, but with either a medieval understanding of Islam or, what's more likely, a decadent, hyper-critical western understanding of medieval Islam and the West. (I suppose that Churchill's damning observations, based on his exposure to the Sudanese Muslims whose problems pre-date the Muslim invasion in 9th Century, are not quite applicable to all Muslims. Indeed, the Muslims he refers to could not have built an empire which rivaled the Roman Empire in breadth and arts of civilization that the Islamic Empire did, in fact, do in its prime.) To be sure, I think we see the fruits of moderate, modern Islam here in the West today--in the growing presence and influence of people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Irshad Manji, Salman Rushdie, Farish Noor, among others).

So, while it may be the case that the truly noble has been displaced through the ridicule of the low, but it is reality, 9-11 in particular, that has begun and will thoroughly discredit the vacuous idealism masquerading as a virtue in our day. And ideals more sane, moral and humane will then prevail.

"The Present Debacle"

Continuing to pluck the cord I know so well...

Following up Robert Scales hypothetical history (below) Victor Hanson has just written a column as if from near the end of WWII in the persona of a contemporary MSM critic of our current war, harping on all the mistakes and failures.

It begins:

May 21, 1945 — After the debacles of February and March at Iwo Jima, and now the ongoing quagmire on Okinawa, we are asked to accept recent losses that are reaching 20,000 dead brave American soldiers and yet another 50,000 wounded in these near criminally incompetent campaigns euphemistically dubbed “island hopping.”

Meanwhile, we are no closer to victory over Japan. Instead, we are hearing of secret plans of invasion of the Japanese mainland slated for 1946 or even 1947 that may well make Okinawa seem like a cake walk and cost us a million casualties and perhaps involve a half-century of occupation. The extent of the current Kamikaze threat, once written off as the work of a “bunch of dead-enders,” was totally unforeseen, even though such suicidal zealots are in the process of inflicting the worst casualties on the U.S. Navy in its entire history.

God Bless Atwar Bahjat

Now, someone might legitimately say, given all my calls for spine and resolution in our war effort (below), that this specific war is not right, or worthy. Germany and Japan were without question valid threats and we were rightly unified against them. However, he might conclude, until someone could prove that the current Islamic jihadists were actually a threat, or were actually, say, evil (to use a term problematic to our day and age but one that haunts us), dissent and not unity is not only permissable but perhaps even called for. After all, are the lives of our young men and women worth it?

To that challenge then, consider the following incident: the murder of a woman journalist Atwar Bahjat, one of the best examples of the future of a moderate, good Iraqi, and see where now things stand. --And it's not just that she was good that makes this threatening; she represents a western woman (at least, that's what the Iraqi terrorists seem to think....), someone who think women should be equal, who esteem a free and vigilant press and a tolerance of religions, and whose life and death speaks volumes for her faith in the hope and love of goodness to overcome evil.

Mind you, this is not for the faint of heart. But, then, neither is self-government or adulthood or anything great or that gives great joy.

In truth, it represents a depth of depravity achieved over centuries. From the description, her killers hadn't just conceived or improvised their method of execution on the spot - they seem to have been well practiced. But such is the nature of the enemy in this war, and perhaps this is their most sacred and well honed knowledge: if a brutality can be inflicted that exceeds all human ability to comprehend, the humans will find a way to deny it.

Or excuse it.

Or simply look the other way.

Robert Scales' Useful Hypothetical History

This article lays out the best analogy I have yet seen to the current and ongoing criticism 3 years into our war effort. Robert H. Scales asks us to consider what a book critical of FDR and American war effort would have looked like a similar length of time after Pearl Harbor.

Such a book would have hit the bookstores at Christmas time in 1944. Messrs. Gordon and Trainer would most certainly have written about the unconstitutional arrogance of an administration that violated international neutrality laws by taking sides with Great Britain against Germany. They would have recognized that Pearl Harbor was the greatest intelligence failure in American history. We would have read the whole horrific story of the humiliating surrender at Corregidor that signaled the shameful loss of the entire American Army in the Philippines.

The condemnatory tenor of the book would continue with depictions of the useless slaughter at "Bloody Buna" in New Guinea, the humiliating loss to the German Army at Kasserine Pass in North Africa, the failure of Dwight Eisenhower to trap the retreating Germans in Sicily, the horrifically wasteful daylight bombing campaign against Germany in 1943. Messrs. Gordon and Trainer would have reserved their worst for the conduct of George C. Marshall and Dwight Eisenhower in their abortive "Crusade in Europe."

(HT: Michael Barone)

AMBER ALERT!

Doing my utmost to keep you posted....










(H/T: Jonah at the Corner)

The Solution to Mistakes in War

Below, I spoke on Churchill and the vagaries of war. To that, I would add this excerpt from Victor D. Hanson's reply to an "Angry Reader" about the place of humility in wartime when facing the "unforeseen" and, it is safe to say, mistakes:

You suggest I am arrogant, but repeatedly I have called for some humility in understanding that in war, whether in the summer of 1864, in Okinawa in 1945, or at the Yalu in 1950, the unforeseen happens and is corrected only with resolve not self-incrimination. If you review American history, I think you will see the context in which a Grant, even after Cold Harbor, proved wiser than the loud McClellan or a calm Ridgeway even during the chaos of retreat was more sober than a hypercritical and publicly furious MacArthur.

And, to all the shrill alarmists, this advice:

There is currently a great illness in this country, but it is mostly on the hysterical left that cannot stand any support for the effort in Iraq that it equates not with idealism or support for democracy, but with either ignorance or arrogance. Yet, grant that if we are successful, in five years people like yourself will look back and think the democratization of Iraq following the removal of a mass-murderer was a good thing, with all its attendant ripples from Lebanon to Libya. So get a grip, tone down the slurs, and learn to reason rather than vent.

Gas Profits II

Glenn Reynolds points out Thomas Bray's recent column in the Detroit News. He helpfully quotes from FTC 2005 report, after the last clamor for investigations:

"From 1986 to 2003, using 2004 dollars, the real national annual average price for gasoline, including taxes, generally has been below $2 per gallon," noted the Federal Trade Commission in a 2005 report absolving the industry of collusion. "By contrast, between 1919 and 1985, real national annual average retail gasoline prices were above $2 per gallon more often than not."

In other words, gasoline prices were lower than at anytime since 1919 for much of recent history. Some conspiracy! Maybe somebody should have been investigating consumers for "gouging" the oil companies.

And just who is the profiteer here? While the average profit on the sale of a gallon of gasoline is nine cents, the average state and federal tax on that same gallon of gasoline is about 45 cents (and 52 cents in Michigan). And if we must have an investigation, how about investigating the extent to which government regulations drive up prices and block new production?

Management guru Peter Drucker once remarked, with his usual drollery, that profit is "whatever government lets a company keep." But most folks have a vastly inflated view of corporate profits. One regular survey of Americans found that the majority believes the average corporate profit is between 30 percent and 40 percent of sales, while the real figure is closer to 4 percent.

Gas Profits

Inspired by Rush today:

Exxon's profit per gallon of gas: $.09
Exxons's 3-month record profit: $8,400,000,000

Federal government's tax per gallon of gas (as per Neil Cavuto): $.19

Mathematically, that means that the government, in the same time period, made essentially twice as much as Exxon. That is:

.09/8,400,000,000 = .19/x
x = 17,733,333,333

In other words, the Federal government's (unmentioned) record revenue last quarter: $17,733,333,333

And, it must be pointed out, the government made that proportionally greater revenue for work, risk, and investment they are disportionally NOT at all involved in. But that is the nature of taxing in general (hence, some think of taxing as robbing) and not of this situation demonstrating, once again, the failure of American economic education. At any rate, it is hypocritical, ingrateful, and a blinkered demagoguery that condemns a party making its just share while the demagogue takes twice as much.

UPDATE:
from Powerline, John quotes Republican Congressman Mike Conaway of Texas:

Congress's actions must be rationally based on economics and the realities of global energy markets. We must not fall into the political trap of knee-jerk reactions that will only worsen our problems.

There is a great hypocrisy in America's national energy policy. As long as politicians continue to demagogue energy companies and oppose legislation that addresses the long-term problem of rising energy costs, we will continue to fail the American people.

Yes, oil companies are making large sums of money in real dollars; however it is disingenuous to simply look at the raw dollar amounts without looking at these numbers in the proper economic context. We need to look at the percent of return these companies are making. In reality the oil and gas industry's earnings are easily comparable to other industries and in many cases lower.

According to Business Week and Oil Daily magazines, the oil and natural gas industry earned 5.7 cents for every dollar of sales compared to an average of 5.5 cents for all U.S. industry over the past five years. By contrast in the third quarter of 2005 the pharmaceuticals industry made a profit of 18.6% per dollar of sales versus 7.6% for the oil and gas industry. The average profit per dollar for all US industries is 7.9%. ***

It is time for Congress to look at the facts. It is the global market place and the law of supply and demand, not greedy oil companies that are responsible for higher prices. The price of a barrel of oil is set by the global market not by multinational energy companies. When some in Congress refuse to allow for domestic and deep sea energy exploration that would increase supply and reduce cost, the problems get worse. We must enact legislation that would open ANWR, expand refinery capacity, reduce costly fuel regulation and allow for deep sea exploration. These are long-term issues that could have made a difference today had we avoided political posturing and addressed them years ago. It isn't too late for us to do the right thing now and begin enacting common sense legislation like increasing supply and increasing research and development regarding alternative sources of energy.

We must stop allowing the issue of rising energy costs to be clouded with misinformation and politically motivated emotion.

John wraps up with this reflection:

I want the oil companies to make enormous amounts of money. I want them to make enormous amounts of money so they can spend it on drilling wells and building pipelines and refineries. I talked to an oil executive recently who told me that the fact that we can't expand our refining capacity is a scandal in terms of the public interest, but is actually good for the oil companies' profitability. Look at it this way: if the oil companies agreed among themselves not to drill for oil in new locations like ANWR, and not to build new refineries, so as to limit the supply of oil and thereby drive prices higher, it would be illegal; indeed, it would be the greatest price-fixing conspiracy in American history. But it isn't the oil companies that have conspired to limit supply and thereby drive prices higher. It is our government that has foreseeably, if not intentionally, achieved this ignoble end.

UPDATE 2 (Friday):
Further context for the record energy industry profits from the AP:

WASHINGTON - Casting off an end-of-year lethargy, the U.S. economy bounded ahead in the opening quarter of this year at a 4.8 percent pace, the strongest growth spurt in 2 1/2 years.

Bush Breaking News to the WH Press Corp

You got to love this chutzpah and wit; Bush announcing his new press secretary, Tony Snow:

BUSH: Good morning. I'm here in the briefing room to break some news: I've asked Tony Snow to serve as my new press secretary. Tony already knows most of you, and he's agreed to take the job anyway.

(Via Drudge)

Spring Back Home Today

Mom sent this picture of Wyoming today.

And, yesterday, here, it was 88 degrees and 55% humid....

Price Gouging defined

Courtesy of Powerline, Craig Harrison defines the terms for the day:

Price Gouging. Price Gouging is defined to be any profit made by a company in an industry that is defined to be a Suspect Industry.

Suspect Industry. Any company that is engaged in any energy activity, or any company or industry that is designated by any elected official of the Democratic Party to be a Suspect Industry by any public statement. Under no circumstances will trial lawyers, the health care industry, unions or the abortion industry be included within this category.

(HT: Peter Robinson at NRO.)

Churchill on Vagaries of War

The fellows over at The American Thinker posted this quote just yesterday but I can no longer find it. So, I looked elsewhere; found it over at Wikipedia's Wikiquote for Churchill (a very handy feature it appears). The context for their quoting this bit was the recent criticisms of Rumsfeld (and continuing ones of Bush) by the "arm-chair generals".

* Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realise that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events. Antiquated War Offices, weak, incompetent, or arrogant Commanders, untrustworthy allies, hostile neutrals, malignant Fortune, ugly surprises, awful miscalculations — all take their seats at the Council Board on the morrow of a declaration of war. Always remember, however sure you are that you could easily win, that there would not be a war if the other man did not think he also had a chance.
- Roving Commission: My Early Life (1930)

Churchill's observation seems to me to be not only an additional consideration before jumping into war, but also the context in which denizens of a modern democracy should think of how a war is prosecuted by its leaders. That is to say, war is not, has not, will never be a phenomenom that is managed like inflation, the price of oil, the Stock Market, or any other part of our life that our foresight, ingenuity, and experience have slowly and progressively insulated us from Fortune's ill winds. The expectation that the Comander-in-Chief or any general or a committee of generals or Secretary of Defense--or any leader--can control and is in control of the unfolding war situation, and that somehow, someway, somewhere there was a better choice, a choice with no bad consequences, removed from repercussions, from chance, a perfect solution that all good people could agree upon is as false and ultimately suicidal idealism as could arise in a democracy in wartime. For further illustration, read Thucydides.

Euston Manifesto

Michael Ledeen pointed out this remarkable document/website. Actually, "The Euston Manifesto" is a group of self-described (British?) democrats and liberals, who by opposing tyranny, terrorism, and esteem the United States, call for a new political alignment on the Left. This is indeed good news.

They warrant support and watching.

Re-Enlistenment Up

Glenn Reynolds point out this recent article the continuing trend of increased re-enlisting--among the branch that suffers 69% of fatalities!--over at Strategy page:

Why U.S. Troops Re-Enlist in Record Numbers

April 14, 2006: In the last six months, the U.S. Army is seeing 15 percent more soldiers re-enlist than expected. This continues a trend that began in 2001. Every year since then, the rate at which existing soldiers have re-enlisted has increased. This despite the fact that 69 percent of the troops killed in Iraq have been from the army. New recruits continue to exceed join up at higher rates as well.

All this is extremely important, especially when there is a war going on. Experience saves lives in combat, and more of the most experienced troops are staying in. This means that, a decade from now, the army will have a large and experienced corps of senior NCOs. That, in turn, means the younger troops are likely to well trained and led.

Steyn's Humorous Exercise

From his latest:

You know what's great fun to do if you're on, say, a flight from Chicago to New York and you're getting a little bored? Why not play being President Ahmadinejad? Stand up and yell in a loud voice, "I've got a bomb!" Next thing you know the air marshal will be telling people, "It's OK, folks. Nothing to worry about. He hasn't got a bomb." And then the second marshal would say, "And even if he did have a bomb it's highly unlikely he'd ever use it." And then you threaten to kill the two Jews in row 12 and the stewardess says, "Relax, everyone. That's just a harmless rhetorical flourish." And then a group of passengers in rows 4 to 7 point out, "Yes, but it's entirely reasonable of him to have a bomb given the threatening behavior of the marshals and the cabin crew."

Cheney

Victor Davis Hanson, in his "Response to Readership" section of his website, had this to say on a question about Dick Cheney:

Vice President Dick Cheney, in my mind, is a most intriguing character. I admire and respect his intelligence, calm demeanor, and toughness, especially since the U.S. has been at war with Islamic fascists. I subscribe to Cheney's view of this war as a fight for the future of civilization. Is there a man from the Greek age that held a similar position of power and that reminds you of Vice President Cheney?

Hanson: A good question. A good book could be written about how a formerly much admired public servant has become demonized by the far Left to such a degree that his general poll ratings reflect a newfound public antipathy—despite his constancy and rock-solid views that are not predicated on adulation. But I doubt Cheney cares much for the polls of the age, and counts on history's verdict that more likely will see us in a long war against Islamic fascism, and thus his own tough worldview substantiated. Many of the media hate him because they sense he is on to them, and sees them as vain and in constant need of affirmation and adulation. Whether true or not, it matters little, since no felony is worse in Washington than seeing the press there as childish rather than cutting-edge. Remember something from the Greeks: every statesman of any account — a Themistocles, Aristides, Pericles or Epaminondas — who functioned in democratic society was at one time either exiled, fined, or put on trial. No real Greek leader wished to be liked rather than respected or even feared. So yes, in that sense Cheney's perceived disdain for shot-term fawning is, in the age of Clintonism, both Hellenic and welcome — however unwise for his increasing his popularity.

Priceless Mansfield

Harvey Mansfield has just published a new book on Manliness in age of feminism. New York Times interviews him. It is just too funny.

Andre Glucksmann

Andre Glucksmann -- an interesting find during my Dostoevsky studies. Here is a site dedicated to the French philosopher. It contains a lot of his writings, 1/4 of it is in English.

From America and Democracy:

Human rights measure our ability to resist the inhuman, the evil that faces us like a devil and that each of us carries within him.

Also these interviews:
Gehlen, Liss and Jens Heisterkamp, Bin Laden, Dostoevsky, and the Reality Principle: an Interview with Andre Glucksmann, Info 3 (March 2003) (5 pages, pdf)

Restan, Jose Luis and David Blazquez, "Terrorist Nihilism and the Crisis of the West: Interview with Andre Glucksmann" Traces (June 2004

Western Weapon of Terrorism

According to the AP caption: "An unidentified Kenyan woman demonstrates in Nairobi, Kenya Friday Feb. 10, 2006." (AP Photo/Sayyid Azim)

(Hat Tip: Volokh Conspiracy)