#2
There is another tack on that. The article is somewhat generalizing and I would contend that flexibility, or rather a persistent ability to learn 'new tricks', does not equate immaturity. The problem may be that the educational system produces moral liliputans by means of deconstructions and moral equivalencies. The result is a person that may have a mirage of self-esteem, but cannot have self-respect.
#3
Perhaps this "psychological neoteny" was a useful thing in the industrial era, but in the information age it appears that its negatives far outweigh the positives.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
06/26/2006 6:22 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Neoteny is what happens when Wild animals are tamed and become pets.
Mikio Ikuma, Deputy International Editor of Yomiuiri Shimbun, calling for a strike on North Korea:
Tokyo, Japan -- North Korea has been toying with dangerous weapons for so long, wrongly hoping that it can intimidate neighboring grown-ups. It is time to teach the ill-bred child that bad behaviors are not tolerated in the real world.
"There is no way to prevent North Koreans from developing weapons of mass destruction. We would blockade the country, strike and destroy the sites." - These are not the words of Messrs. Carter and Perry. A senior Japanese defense official told me that eight years ago while the other two were still in the Clinton Administration. When the Japanese official said "we", he was, of course, referring to the Japanese Defense Force, which would in no way carry out such a bold action under the current political and constitutional constraints in Japan.
But he knew perfectly well that what Messrs. Carter and Perry wrote in the Washington Post was the best way to deal with the North Korean regime.
Nearly a decade after the Clinton Administration rewarded North Korea for its blatant lies about WMDs; we have consistently witnessed the rogue regime just getting worse. The country renewed its nuclear options, demanded another rewards from the Bush Administration and now threatened the entire region by provocatively making preparations for a test launch of Taepodong 2. Worse, the regime tries to make money out of dangerous weapons. Meanwhile, North Korean people are in dire poverty and desperately trying to flee the country at whatever the cost.
A successful strike will not only teach the childish dictator a lesson, but also effectively derail the country's WMD program. There will be some debates in Japan about the military option. But even those arguments are welcome, because, after all, the Japanese people will know that a friend in need is a friend indeed.
By Mikio Ikuma | June 23, 2006; 1:00 PM ET
Posted by: john ||
06/26/2006 16:46 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Yeah! Go for it! Turn the clocks back to 1945 and send the Japs in to recolonize NKor. They'd behead Kimmie publicly, they can afford it and the NKor people are so damned desperate they'd probably be grateful!
Posted by: mac ||
06/26/2006 18:37 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Think about if Japan destroyed the missile on the pad. Loan them a SM3 right now...
NK won't do shit, neither will their master China
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/26/2006 19:25 Comments ||
Top||
#3
This is a crucial juncture in Sino-American politics. Somehow aborting the missile launch is a line in the sand we must draw for China. If we do not, the communist Mandarins will flinch at nothing when it comes to using their North Korean pit bull to antagonize the West.
#4
Both FOX and CNN have reported [Guam time] that the USA has formally asked North Korea to explain and clarify its missle launch, i.e. to explain whether it is testing a satellite or a de facto warhead-capable LR military missle, and its anticipated landing range. Iff Pyongyang refuses to explain the purpose of its launch, the USA + World have the right to presume a military utility + potential surprise attack. AND ANY "ATTACK" BY CHICOM-CONTROLLED NORTH KOREA MAY, AND LIKELY WILL BE, NARROWLY INTERPRETED AS A DE FACTO ATTACK BY COMMUNIST CHINA, US-ALLIED MIL RESPONSE = NON-RESPONSE NOTWITHSTANDING.
#5
There a legalist bloggers on the Net whom argue that, aside from Taiwan, China gave Japan sovereignty over both Taiwan and all of the two Koreas, which Japan in turn gave over or surrendered to America after WW2. These legalists argue that America post-WW2 is in fact responsible for the sustenance and protection of both Taiwan and North Korea by virtue of victory over Japan in the Pacific war, which includes domain over Japan's pre-WW2 Asian colonies.
#6
Seems many of the kids on the block do not understand (anymore) that Japan on the rage is not a pretty sight. Jihadis need to think about this as well.
They probably shouldn't push too much more. Though they are on our side this time, hmmm.
#1
Em>As bad as all this sounds, however, it should still be remembered that despite the concerted efforts of the umma, the Danish elites and the largely pro-islamist thought-police departments of such international bodies as the EU, the UN and the Council of Europe, the Danish population is still largely in favour of freedom and free speech although popular support behind Jyllands-Posten's decision to print the cartoons has dropped from 57 pct. half a year ago to 47 pct. according to the latest poll.
The battle isn't lost, but it's getting late in the day.
Hugh Hewitt has the best point-by-point rebuttal to this. I'd suggest you start with him and then to the other bloggers.
I don't always have time to answer my mail as fully as etiquette demands, but our story about the government's surveillance of international banking records has generated some questions and concerns that I take very seriously. As the editor responsible for the difficult decision to publish that story, I'd like to offer a personal response.
Some of the incoming mail quotes the angry words of conservative bloggers and TV or radio pundits who say that drawing attention to the government's anti-terror measures is unpatriotic and dangerous. (I could ask, if that's the case, why they are drawing so much attention to the story themselves by yelling about it on the airwaves and the Internet.) Some comes from readers who have considered the story in question and wonder whether publishing such material is wise. And some comes from readers who are grateful for the information and think it is valuable to have a public debate about the lengths to which our government has gone in combatting the threat of terror.
It's an unusual and powerful thing, this freedom that our founders gave to the press. Who are the editors of The New York Times (or the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post and other publications that also ran the banking story) to disregard the wishes of the President and his appointees? And yet the people who invented this country saw an aggressive, independent press as a protective measure against the abuse of power in a democracy, and an essential ingredient for self-government. They rejected the idea that it is wise, or patriotic, to always take the President at his word, or to surrender to the government important decisions about what to publish.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/26/2006 11:02 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#3
nobody should think that we made this decision casually, with any animus toward the current Administration, or without fully weighing the issues.
The fact that the NYT still calls it the NSA evesdropping program gives the lie to this.
If you want to hurt the NYT, ignore it. It is simply and attention getter for advertisers. The advertisers are now going away because the readers are going away. We can expect more and more outrageous behaviour from the NYT as it struggles to keep our attnetion. The cruelest thing we can do is to ignore it.
#4
Better yet get a list of the advertisers in the NYT and write them letters telling them, in no uncertain terms, that you will *not* consider their products as long as they advertise in the NYT.
If they get enough letters then the NYT's revenue will dry up.
This is a way that all of us can help fight the WOT.
This is beyond average joes writing "sternly worded letters". Bush needs to prosecute the NYTs. Anything other shorter then that is as usefull as banging your head on the wall in frustration.
Posted by: Yosemite Sam ||
06/26/2006 15:11 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Exactly. Arrest and prosecute Keller for espionage. The two reporters, too. Let a federal court sort it out. Hopefully, they'll all get 25-to-life at hard labor and old Schultzie will go broke when the Times gets remaindered.
Shoot the goddamn leakers. That'll send a message.
#9
I understand the frustration and anger, YS. I share it. But I think if Bush prosecutes the NTY he will be doing exactly what Keller and his buddies want. That could be disastrous for the WOT *UNLESS* there is a clear groundswell of public opinion against both the press and the leakers.
#10
I heard NY Congressman Peter King on the radio.
He is livid and claims that this IS an attempt to
aid and assist al Qaeda. He says there is no other reason to make this process known. It is entirely legal, has been going on for years, (after all, why does SWIFT provide this service) and the need to front page this story smells of desperate provocation.
King said that freedom comes with responsibility and now freedom of speech has been compromised.
#11
"But I think if Bush prosecutes the NTY he will be doing exactly what Keller and his buddies want. That could be disastrous for the WOT..."
Yes, it could; and maybe it would. Then again, it might not.
But one thing's absolutely certain, and that is that a disaster has already befallen this struggle against the evil of Islamic imperialism: the ongoing, continual, relentless campaign by the entire liberal establishment in this country to undermine the war, including the Democratic Party, their paid propagandists in the media, and their indoctrination cadres in our schools and universities. Day after day it goes on, without end. And with each passing day, their cynical, defeatist murmurings, urging America to give up and go home, work their insidious evil.
Do you seriously think we have ANY chance whatsoever, so long as this goes on? I don't.
Prosecute the bastards who've been feeding the media classified information. Try them. Convict them. Sentence them. AND THEN EXECUTE THEM.
All of them.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
06/26/2006 18:45 Comments ||
Top||
#12
If I was prez I would have the IRS deal with the NY Times.
Suddenly, chief editors and such would all find 6 or 7 year IRS audits randomly choosing them for detailed investigation.
#14
I sent the obligatory letter to the NYT, but I also sent one to our local UnionTrib, which subscribes to the NYT news service. In San Diego, this might make a diff, if more readers demand the local find an alternate news source
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/26/2006 19:29 Comments ||
Top||
#15
"Dave, I just don't think prosecution by itself will work - or even will go the way you might hope."
You may be right; but if so, why are we putting our sons' and daughters' lives on the line over in Iraq and Afghanistan, if we're not willing to guard their backs against sedition here at home, sedition that is not only negating everything they have done, but making life infinitely more dangerous for them while they are over there?
Posted by: Dave D. ||
06/26/2006 19:35 Comments ||
Top||
#16
We DO need to guard against sedition. The problem is that there is a vocal group who are determined to sabotage both the war and the Administration. Right now they control much of the media as well, so they influence the attitudes of enough people to make Administration action difficult.
My point is that we all need to counterbalance that. We need to get the word out to everyone who's not a true believer in that other camp. You can bet your stock options that Keller would never have published this if Bush's poll ratings were in the 60-70% range.
#17
Thought about this, lotp. Bush has blown it. This and the NSA are Plame cases. Government employees have broken the law by talking to the NYT. The NYT should be forced to finger the miscreant or see it's ace reporters spend time in the slammer till their lips looses. Bush has everything he needs.
#18
Lock Keller and other executives up. 10 Years in the Pen.
He keeps mentioning "the power given by the nation's founders" as if he is trying to influence anyone reading his trash that the power to put lives of Americans to the edge of the enemies blade is what the founders gave him.
Lets show him the true interpretation of what his paper has done, counter-intelligence for Al Qaeda, openly and publicly.
#19
In times of war you can have a presidental finding that remains secret but is of a Marshal Law type force. Since Lincoln we have always had a few on the book. Bush could take care of the Times iffen he wanted to.
#1
"The blunt reality here is that there is a war against the war."
Except for a few on the Left, this is not primarily a "war against the war." It is a war against a) George W. Bush, b) Republicans in general, and c) against American society the way it has traditionally, and is presently, configured. America is under assault by two enemies simultaneously: the Left, and Islamic imperialism. And I am convinced we have little chance of winning the war against the latter unless we first declare-- and win-- a war on the former.
"It is the jihad of privacy fetishists whose self-absorption knows no bounds."
Wrong. It is a jihad all right, but it is one in which its antagonists only pose as privacy fetishists. Allow them to regain power, and you'll quickly find out how little they really care about quaint notions like "privacy."
Posted by: Dave D. ||
06/26/2006 6:53 Comments ||
Top||
#2
You know, I really, honestly, believe they are just plain stupid. Stupid is as stupid does, right? There can be no other answer. If they had half the intelligence of a 12 year old they would understand not just the damage to our security apparatus but also how it makes the Dems and LLL look to those much sought after Indies.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
06/26/2006 7:25 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Wrong, Jack. They know of the damage they cause, but they are, if nothing else, arrogant. Arrogant enough to think that once back in power, the democrats can fix any damage caused by them, the Drive-by-Media.
By definition, they drive by spraying bullets with the intent to destabilize American society.
They challenge our security and undermine our efforts. Dave is right, they must be stopped.
#4
Nothing stupid about this. Given the timed and coordinated release of the SWIFT article across multiple news outlets, this was performed by the NY Slimes for impact.
Posted by: Captain America ||
06/26/2006 10:04 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Lincoln has his temple in Washington. His is one of the face upon Mount Rushmore. His face adorns the second denomination of paper and first of coin within our commerce. He is an undeniable element of the Republic. All the editors and media pundits who savaged him and his war remain largely veiled and hidden today. They are not celebrated. They are not honored. Lincoln jailed editors for far less damage to the war effort than the actions displayed today by the egotists of the Times, both New York and Los Angeles. Somehow, though easily understood, the Republic survived and survived well even though said personages of the MSM did end up in jail. The Republic will survive again without the presence of those who do damage to the war effort.
However, as a lasting impact upon their thinking, let us urge our law makers to alter the torte laws, to make such action accountable to future victims of terrorism which potentially could have been avoided if such secrets had not been revealed. Make the finding of culpability determined upon reasonable expectation rather than some higher standard. See deep pockets. Wonder what the operating costs will be when the insurance rates go through the ceiling? Isnt this the same penalty that MSM urges upon other business and industries as a solution for substandard performance that endangers life and limb?
#6
They are not stupid. They are actively engaged in warfare against the United States and in that war have allied themselves (with full knowledge and understanding) with our enemies.
In order for the Democrats and the left/media to 'win' is for America to lose the WOT - and lose big. And the more Dead americans they can plaster on their front pages the better. And they will do anything - *anything* to advance their goals.
They are fully aware that revealing these secrets place our men abroad and civilians here in danger. They are counting on it - the more bloodshed the better.
They are hoping and striving to create a repeat of the 'Vietnam War'. The 'Glory Days' of Kerry and the left.
And it isn't 'stupidity' - they fully understand what they are doing. Remember these are 'professional' journalists and politicians.
The news that the most paranoid government on the planet, communist North Korea, may have a nuclear-capable missile that can reach the American West Coast set off a flurry of fear and diplomatic activity this week.
Meanwhile, no one in Ottawa appears to give a rat's rear end that the same missile might be able to reach British Columbia, and perhaps even Alberta.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned the North Koreans that testing such a missile would be regarded as "a provocative act." Washington also switched on its new and untried ballistic missile defence shield, just in case.
Australia, one of the few democracies to have diplomatic relations with North Korea, hauled in that country's ambassador and warned him that developing a missile that could threaten Australia's major cities would be a very bad idea.
"North Korea would be gravely mistaken if it thinks that a missile test would improve its bargaining position" in nuclear disarmament talks, said the Aussie foreign minister, Alexander Downer. His New Zealand counterpart said much the same thing.
So what's missing here?
A notorious rogue state has developed a missile that may have a range of 15,000 km, and could threaten Australia, New Zealand and the West Coast of the U.S. At that extreme range, it would also be able to vapourize Edmonton and Calgary, but apparently that's not enough reason for Canada to join the chorus of voices warning off the North Koreans.
Now, we don't want to terrify the population of Alberta and B.C. unnecessarily. Even the Americans don't know for sure the full range of the new rocket - called the Taepodong 2. It could be anywhere between 6,500 km and 15,000 km.
We also don't know enough about the capabilities of North Korean military technology. Lobbing a missile across the Pacific requires a rocket capable of reaching low-Earth orbit, so maybe they can't even do it.
But it would be foolish for Ottawa to make those assumptions, or to decide that Canada would not be a potential target. In 1941, Washington and Ottawa still doubted that Japan would enter the Second World War, and the notion that it could launch a pre-emptive attack on Hawaii seemed utterly ludicrous.
The North Koreans know that developing a long-range ballistic missile will seriously disrupt relations with South Korea, Japan, and the West. It would also be a serious embarrassment for China, North Korea's only significant trade and aid partner, which has been trying to broker talks that would halt North Korea's pursuit of nuclear weapons.
But maybe the North Korean leadership doesn't care. This nutty Marxist dictatorship is either on the verge of becoming a nuclear power or is already there. And it sells arms and weapons technology to anyone with the money to buy them, including Iran.
This is very scary, yet publicly at least, Ottawa appears blissfully unaware of any potential threat to Western Canada. Alberta is fast becoming America's fuel depot, and an obvious target for anyone wanting to disrupt the U.S. economy, but the strategic implications of this have yet to sink in.
So what could Ottawa do? Fire off a couple of strongly worded messages to the North Koreans? No doubt that would have them shaking in their hardened bunkers.
Or we could do the logical thing and provide Canadians with the only potential defence against rogue states armed with long-range weapons. We could sign onto the U.S. ballistic missile defence system (BMD).
Britain, Australia, Japan, Germany, Italy, Israel and Denmark have already done so (a development that received almost no media coverage in Canada). NATO, of which Canada is a founding member, is apparently considering buying American technology and equipment to create its own missile shield - covering Europe, not Canada.
The Americans say they want nothing from us apart from moral support in return for covering us with their BMD system, but when it comes to accepting the U.S. missile shield the Harper Tories have been almost as coy as the anti-American Liberals. Perhaps it might make a difference if Edmonton, Calgary and Vancouver fall within range of North Korean missiles.
Last week John Kerry revealed his plan to "redeploy" U.S. forces from Iraq. This plan is different from fellow Defeaticrat Jack Murtha's plan to "redeploy" U.S. forces from Iraq to Okinawa, which Congressman Murtha seems to think is in the general neighborhood of Iraq. Iraq's in the Middle East, Okinawa's in the Far East: C'mon, how far can it be to get from the Far to the Middle? After all, the distance between the farthest fringe of the kook left and the center of the Democratic Party seems to be closing up every week.
Anyway, Sen. Kerry doesn't want to waste time "redeploying" to Okinawa. When America "redeploys," it's not going to take a connecting flight via Japan and risk its luggage getting "redeployed" to Bratislava. No, sir, in John Kerry's America, we "redeploy" nonstop, straight back to Main Street in time for the Redeployment Day parade.
You gotta hand it to these guys: "Redeployment" is ingenious. I'll bet the focus-group consultants were delirious: "surrender," "lose,","scram," "scuttle ignominiously," "head for the hills" all polled poorly, but "redeploy" surveyed well with all parts of the base, except the base in Okinawa, where they preferred "sayonara" -- that's "redeploy" in any language. The Defeaticrats have a clear message for the American people. Read da ploy: No new quagmires.
This is the most artful example of Leftspeak since they came up with "undocumented immigrant." In fact, if it catches on, I'll bet millions of fine upstanding members of the Undocumented-American community now start referring to themselves as Redeployed Mexicans.
The only teensy-weensy problem is this: If America ever adopts the Kerry plan, the Murtha plan or some variation thereof, does anyone think al-Jazeera, the BBC, Le Monde, Der Spiegel et al will be using the word "redeploy" in their headlines? Or will they use a word closer to what's actually going on?
In a sense, the Democrats have already psychologically redeployed. Last week they unveiled their "New Direction for America." It's a six-point plan, two of whose points are "Cut College Costs" and "Ensure Dignified Retirement." On the first point, it's true the education system remains a problem: Many hardworking Americans are trapped in low-paying dead-end jobs as U.S. congressmen because an inadequate education left them with the impression Okinawa's in the United Arab Emirates. On the second point, I'm all in favor of a "dignified retirement": Why not try it on Kerry as a pilot program? As for the other four points, none has anything to say about national security or foreign policy.
The Defeaticrats' "New Direction for America" foresees a future for this country as a kind of Lesser France. That would be problematic enough: The dependency culture favored by the Dems has mired much of Europe in permanent double-digit unemployment, a moribund economy and unsustainable social programs. Presumably, Nancy Pelosi and Co. would respond by saying that their pledge to "give America a raise" -- i.e., increase the minimum wage -- shows that their party is in tune with real people's real needs rather than a lot of foreign adventuring that's got nothing to do with how real people really lead their really real lives. Sorry, it doesn't work like that. Not even the Democrats can redeploy from the whole planet.
If you were a 5-year-old boy standing in the London streets in 1897 for Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee parade and marveling as the hussars and lancers of the mightiest empire the world had ever known passed before your eyes, it would have seemed inconceivable that you'd be celebrating your 80th birthday in a decrepit ramshackle broken-down strike-bound basket case of a state. Permanence is the illusion of every age. And, if you're interested in a "dignified retirement," you might want to give some thought to the shape of the world the day after tomorrow.
Today, lots of experts crank out analyses positing China as the unstoppable hegemon of the 21st century. But the real threat is not the strengths of your enemies but their weaknesses. China is a weak power: Its population will get old before it gets rich. Russia is a weak power: If Africa has health crises, the Middle East has Islamists and North Korea has nukes, then Russia's got the lot: a dying population whose men have a lower life expectancy than Bangladeshis with a Muslim separatist movement sitting on top of the biggest pile of nukes on the planet. Europe is a weak power, remorselessly evolving month by month into Eurabia.
Islam is a weak power: In the words of Dr. Mahathir Mohammed, the former prime minister of Malaysia, one of the least worst Muslim nations in the world, "We produce practically nothing on our own, we can do almost nothing for ourselves, we cannot even manage our wealth." But in Iran they're working full-speed on nukes that will be able to hit every European city.
North Korea is a weak power: Its population is starving but it's about to "test" the latest variation on its aptly named No Dong missile. I mean "test" in the sense that I test my new shotgun by firing it through your kitchen window. They're going to launch it and see where it comes down -- maybe Tokyo, maybe San Diego; maybe they'll aim for Los Angeles but it'll fall in Vancouver. Hey, that's why we call it a "test," right?
The danger we face is not a Chinese superpower or an Islamist superpower: If it's a new boss, you learn the new rules and adjust as best you can. But the greater likelihood is of a world with no superpower at all in which unipolar geopolitics gives way to nonpolar geopolitics, a world without order in which pipsqueak thug states that can't feed their own people globalize their pathologies. There would be more stories like that one the other day about the three decapitated policemen whose heads were found in the Tijuana River. But Pelosi would carry on talking about college tuition as the world sinks into economic decline, arbitrary bombings and kidnappings, and the occasional nuking.
Kerry gets all huffy if he thinks you're questioning his patriotism, so let's be charitable and assume the Defeaticrats are simply missing the point: For the rest of the world, what's at issue in the Iraq war is not the future of Iraq but the future of America. Can the world's leading nation still lead or is Kerry's Vietnam Syndrome "seared" (as he'd say) into its bones? Luxembourg can be Luxembourg. America doesn't have that option. In a nonpolar world, there's nowhere to redeploy to.
#4
"Deployment", as for "Redeployment" often infers the movement of organized forces or units to possibly hostile operating areas. KERRY, then, is indir surreally arguing that US forces will be needed either to defend-protect their own country, andor against their own country. As for the so-called "weak power(s)", where Amer's anti-reform enemies are concerned its come down to self-/ideo-survival by taking by unilateral violence and force, aka WAR TO THE DEATH [OF AMERICA-WEST]. ARMISTICE = STALEMATE > MEANS ONLY AMERICA-AMERICANS GET TO DIE LATER, NOT SOONER, BUT AMERICA-AMERICANS WILL STILL DIE OR STILL BE DESTROYED, NO MATTER THE PC INTERIM PERIOD(S) OR WHAT THE DIPLOMS SAY TO THE CONTRARY. As Dubya correctly interpreted, America rules the world, or the World = Amer's enemies will destroy America. Now lets all be good Clintonians, or the MSM, and pretend the above is NOT true.
BILL KELLER ISN'T VERY BRIGHT, or else he thinks you aren't. How else to explain this passage in his apologia for the Times' publication of classified information about the terrorist financial surveillance program:
Some of the incoming mail quotes the angry words of conservative bloggers and TV or radio pundits who say that drawing attention to the government's anti-terror measures is unpatriotic and dangerous. (I could ask, if that's the case, why they are drawing so much attention to the story themselves by yelling about it on the airwaves and the Internet.)
I realize that the Times' circulation is falling at an alarming rate, but it hasn't yet reached such a pass that its stories are only noticed when Rush Limbaugh mentions them.
A deeper error is Keller's characterization of freedom of the press as an institutional privilege, an error that is a manifestation of the hubris that has marked the NYT of late. . . . The founders gave freedom of the press to the people, they didn't give freedom to the press. Keller positions himself as some sort of Constitutional High Priest, when in fact the "freedom of the press" the Framers described was also called "freedom in the use of the press." It's the freedom to publish, a freedom that belongs to everyone in equal portions, not a special privilege for the media industry. . . .
Characterizing the freedom this way, of course, makes much of Keller's piece look like, well, just what it is -- arrogant and self-justificatory posturing. To quote Keller: "Forgive me, I know this is pretty elementary stuff but it's the kind of elementary context that sometimes gets lost in the heat of strong disagreements."
Or institutional self-importance. As Hugh Hewitt observes, at the conclusion to a much lengthier critique: "He doesn't have any defense other than his position as editor of a once great newspaper."
And the Constitution does not permit titles of nobility.
Posted by: Mike ||
06/26/2006 12:28 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#3
Maybe Bush jabbing his finger for emphasis will scare him enough to not publish further secrets.
Posted by: Yosemite Sam ||
06/26/2006 14:16 Comments ||
Top||
#4
The NYT and LAT are trying to lure Bush into prosecuting them. He would be on solid grounds to do so IIUC, but it would be a disastrous move overall.
GW is a poker player. They are amateurs. He knows the fight is in the arena of public opinion and he will respond there. But ... we ALL should be making our outrage very very vocal. He's not the only one holding cards here, folks -- if you are fed up with what these papers are doing and with those govt employees who are leaking, MAKE THAT PLAIN. Write to your congress critters, your local paper, everyone you can rally on this issue.
If you think it's only GWB's job, it won't get done no matter how articulate he might be.
#8
Nothing will be done until Americans die as a direct result of these crimes
Not by the government, perhaps ... but the first step is to help shape public opinion about the NYT and LAT on these stories. And that's something we all should be working at IMO.
The Indian nuclear deal trades away our credibility on North Korea and Iran.
By Henry Sokolski
In a desperate attempt to get Congress to approve the U.S.-India nuclear deal free of any modifications, the State Department and the deals backers have been forced to defy the laws of physics, known geology, and the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). Their latest claim, made just before Congress prepares to mark up legislation to implement the deal this week, is that U.S. exports of uranium will not help India make more bombs in any way. This is a knee slapper.
India currently produces 300 tons of uranium annuallyjust enough to run its current fleet of heavy-water power reactors. The additional 150 tons it needs annually to fuel its military facilities is being drawn from a pre-existing stockpile thats due to peter out in the next 12 months. Thats why Indias own nuclear hawks (and recently a former top Indian intelligence official) are so supportive of the nuclear deal. As they have observed, if India gets access to foreign uranium (as the U.S. nuclear deal provides), it will not only allow India to expand its civilian power program, but will also free up most of Indias domestic uranium to build more bombs. Pakistan has already responded by announcing plans to ramp up its military nuclear production.
Why are the deals backers so intent on denying this? Simple: They have to. Otherwise, the deal would be seen as violating the NPTs central provision, laid out in Article I, which prohibits states like the U.S. from in any way (directly or indirectly) assisting the nuclear-weapons efforts of countries, such as India, that did not have nuclear weapons prior to the treatys completion. The deals backers sold the agreement on the grounds that it will be a clear net plus for nuclear nonproliferation. This is difficult to maintain if the deal violates the NPTs central prohibition.
How do they, then, go about denying this? They contend that India has such a large reserve of uraniumover 78,000 tonsthat it already has all it needs to run its civilian nuclear program and to make thousands more nuclear weapons without any foreign uranium imports. This sounds persuasive until you realize that the uranium reserves they are talking about are not in some neat pile above ground and ready for use, but locked instead in very low concentrations well beneath the earths surface in strata that have yet to be mined and milled to produce usable yellowcake.
Indian uranium is notorious for its poor quality. India has had great difficulty in expanding its uranium production beyond its miserly 300 tons mined and milled per year, largely because its uranium mines are so uneconomical and their possible expansion has drawn fierce environmental protests. It costs India approximately five times as much to mine and mill its domestic ore as it does simply to buy uranium on the international spot market.
Whats blocking India from importing foreign ore? The Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), of which the U.S. is a member. This control cartel prohibits nuclear suppliers from selling uranium to any nation that did not have nuclear weapons prior to 1967 unless it opens all of its nuclear facilities to international inspectionssomething India refuses to do. Thats why India is so keen on the U.S.-India nuclear deal: It obligates the U.S. to get the NSG to make an exception for India to allow it access to foreign uranium and other controlled nuclear goods.
This isnt a point the deals backers dwell much on. They hope their audience will buy their pitch, which conflates potential Indian uranium reserveswhich they emphasizewith Indias actual meager uranium productionwhich they are loath to specify. When pressed, they do concede that India may be facing a current shortage of uranium but claim that this shortage is merely a transient production bottle neck. Perhaps, but the Indians cant wait to get at foreign uranium fuel: They know that Indian production can hardly increase anywhere as fast as they need it to.
Whats the rush? Indias dwindling stockpile of surplus yellowcake is one explanation. Yet another is Indias desire to upgrade its civilian reactor fleet and modernize its nuclear weaponsboth of which will require using much more enriched uranium. Specifically, India plans to acquire more reliable, powerful and modern light-water reactors that use lightly enriched uranium. (So far, India has relied almost exclusively on less efficient, natural-uranium-fueled, heavy-water reactors.) India also wants to perfect more powerful, smaller, and readily missile-deliverable warheads that use both plutonium and highly enriched uranium to supplement Indias current generation of plutonium-only bombs.
Relying on enriched-uranium fuels for civilian and military purposes, though, will dramatically drive up Indian demand for uranium and uranium-enrichment capacity. The only way this higher demand can be met is by immediately importing lightly enriched foreign fuel to run all of Indias light-water reactors. India has two U.S. light-water reactors operating, two modern Russian light-water reactors soon coming online, and is planning on buying at least another six before 2020. It takes 800 tons of natural uranium just to start one light-water reactor (i.e., nearly as much uranium as Indias total production for three full years). Multiply this figure several fold and you get the picture: Without foreign nuclear fuel, Indias nuclear-weapons modernization will be reduced to an unhurried slog.
The urgency to secure foreign uranium for Indias power and military programs is compounded by Indias low uranium-enrichment capacity. All of Indias current enrichment facilities are dedicated to supplying Indias military. If any of this limited capacity had to be diverted to enriching uranium to make fuel for Indias light-water power reactors, it would deprive Indias military of the highly enriched uranium it is counting on to make smaller, more powerful warheads for Indias advanced missiles, including the Agni IIIa system thats now ready to be tested. Again, the only way out of this dilemma is to import foreign fuel, fuel that can only be had if the U.S.-India nuclear deal is implemented.
These facts are hard to dismiss. The contention that the deal violates the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is hardly, as some of the deals more ardent backers contend, some petty canard. Its a real problemone which, as the U.S. and its allies plead their case against Iran and North Korea, is only likely to become more and more of a headache.
This week, Congress will mark up legislation to implement the deal. Some congressmen will suggest that the U.S. get India to stop making fissile material for military purposes. Russia, the U.S., France, and the U.K. have already publicly announced that they've stopped such production and its rumored China has privately told U.S. officials it has as well. Other congressmen will recommend the U.S. require that India not use any more of its domestic uranium for military purposes than it did before the deal was struck.
Its unclear which if any of these ideas will prevail. If the deal is not conditioned by something like them, though, this much is certain: The U.S. will be joining the ranks of North Korea and Iran as NPT violators. The timing here couldnt be worse.
Henry Sokolski is the executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center in Washington, DC, and is editor of Taming the Next Set of Strategic Weapons Threats.
Posted by: john ||
06/26/2006 16:31 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Please be serious.
India is a member of the Anglosphere, alias "The Axis of Good," alias "the short list of countries we can trust with nukes." I don't mind India having the bomb because, like Great Britain or Japan or Israel, we can safely consider it a friendly country that won't use the bomb against us or against our interests. To claim, as this writer implicitly does, that India having the bomb is morally equivalent to North Korea having it is to reveal oneself as being afflicted with Murtha-like levels of personal idiocy.
Posted by: Mike ||
06/26/2006 16:47 Comments ||
Top||
#2
we can safely consider it a friendly country
I would not make so definitive a statement. While India having the bomb does not make me as uncomfortable as Iran or Korea, I'm not sure I'd rate it with the UK. It will be interesting to see what the long term implications of this decision are.
#3
The focus on capping the Indian arsenal is quite peculiar.
India has had nuclear weapons since 1974 - more than thirty years - and has built a very small arsenal, far smaller than it was capable of.
It has preferred to siphon off very small amounts of nuclear material from its civilian energy program rather than build dedicated plutonium production reactors (apart from two small reseach reactors that produce weapons grade plutonium)
It was only in 1983 that Rajiv Gandhi ordered actual weaponization - an aircraft deliverable bomb followed by a missile warhead.
Even today, 8 years after the 1998 second series of Indian tests, less than half of the modest Indian stockpile of weapons grade Plutonium (450 kg) has been separated and made into warhead pits.
It has not run its heavy water reactors in low burnup mode to produce weapons grade plutonium.
Each reactor can produce 150 kg of plutonium a year in this mode and India has 14 unsafeguarded heavy water reactors, in addition to 4 light water reactors, 2 more heavy water units, a prototype fast breeder, an experimental U233 reactor (the only one of its kind in the world), a test fast breeder that uses plutonium carbide fuel, plus its small research pool type NRX reactors.
The Indian fast breeder is being designed to generate power, not simply produce Plutonium and Uranium 233. If it were operated in such a mode, it could make tons of weapons grade material in its breeder blankets.
Forcing India to choose between operating the reactors in civilian or military mode will have one result - it will simply build more coal fired power plants (it is constructing ten 4000 MW coal units now) and use its limited Uranium to run the heavy water reactors in low burnup - making tons of weapons grade plutonium.
It can't use coal in warheads but its limited Uranium can be used for other purposes besides power production. And Indian coal is particarly foul - high ash content that will pollute the entire Indian ocean region and beyond.
India has agreed not to transfer missile or nuclear technology to any other state and its has an awful lot of tech that states may want - it mines uranium, produces yellowcake, fabricates its own fuel rods, enriches uranium to HEU level (it has centrifuge and laser enrichment facilities), builds its own heavy water reactors, reprocesses the fuel to produce plutonium, makes MOX fuel etc.
Not to mention the weapons specific technology - the ability to make small thermonuclear weapons - up to 300 KT, perfect for a missile warhead.
It has laser inenertial confinement facilities that are used for fusion research - quite usable for TN weapons design.
The Indian PSLV has a solid rocket first stage that is one of the largest in the world.. perfect for a long range heavy ICBM.
The PSLV and GSLV have delivered multiple satellites into different orbits, the basis for a MIRV capability. The Indian Agni missile has a manuevering warhead that is meant to evade Chinese ABM systems.
Under the deal, all this stays locked away from states desiring this sort of technology.
Posted by: john ||
06/26/2006 17:26 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Yes, that's a major reason for the agreement IMO.
#5
And does forcing India to look for Uranium elsewhere make sense?
The Canadian and Australian Uranium Ore deposits have about 20 % Uranium.
The Indian deposits have 0.1 % That is not a typo.
The waste tailings from the Canadian mines probably have far more Uranium in them than Indian mines. India would jump at the chance to mine the waste material from an Aussie mine.
Yet they manage to produce Uranium yellowcake from this. It must be quite an efficient operation.
Forcing them to turn to states not party to the NSG cartel - say Iran or North Korea that have large Uranium deposits makes no sense. Do we want the Indian mining technology to be used in Iran? What then would their yellowcake production be like?
And what would NoKO or Iran want in return? Help with reentry vehicle design perhaps?
I'm sure both would love to get their hands on an Agni RV - made of carbon-carbon-phenolic resin on a non-metallic carbon fibre aeroframe. That thing probably has a very low radar signature.
Plus it has high alitude thrusters to maneuver during reentry.
Plus GLONASS and GPS guidance, backed by C and S band terminal guidance - similar to the pershing -2 for low CEP (high accuracy).
Iran bought Kilo submarines from Russia and then discovered that the Russian batteries sucked in warm water conditions. Guess who they turned to for submarine batteries? An Indian company that makes batteries for the Indian Kilos.
Do we want the Iranians to get their hands on say, submarine launch technology for cruise and ballistic missiles (available from India)?
George Bush and Condi Rice have a well thought out strategy for bringing India into the American orbit.
Forcing them away, into the hands of rogues, isn't very smart. And for what? A desire to cap the Indian arsenal that is aimed at China?
Posted by: john ||
06/26/2006 18:13 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Hell, I'm for sending India D-5s if it comes down to brass tacks and ass kicking.
#8
In 2 decades, the Indian economy will be firmly integrated with the American one.
Combine that with a security alliance aimed at combating Islamic terror and the threat from China and all Indian pretences at "non-alignment" will be dead and buried.
And it is China that will probably drive India into the American orbit.
A lot is written about India and China making up and forming an alliance. This will never happen.
Ths history of bad blood is too strong.
Today they started the eight round of talks on their border - the LAC - line of actual control from the last border war. It will probably be like the last seven rounds - going nowhere.
China seized large chunks of Indian territory and still holds onto it. It claims most of an entire Indian state as Chinese territory.
The Chinese transfer of nuclear weapons and ballistic missile systems to Pakistan, a country that lacks the ability to fabricate a high speed lathe, to say nothing of a tractor, is something that will never be forgiven - giving the ultimate weapons of mass destruction to the jihad dreaming enemies of India is an unpardonable affront.
Posted by: john ||
06/26/2006 19:31 Comments ||
Top||
#9
India doesn't have to be in our orbit. They can be part of the Anglosphere and help out where indicated.
John, thanks for the info. Rantburg U. lives!
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/26/2006 21:38 Comments ||
Top||
#10
The USA knows that the Commies-Maoists support India's various insurgent movements, including but not limited to Radical Islam. China's materiel' and advisory support of India's Communist, Socialist, and Radical Muslim movements is well-documented. IFF HISTORY IS ANY MEAUSURE, ONCE IN POWER BOTH THE INDIAN-SPECIFIC COMMIES-MAOISTS ANDOR RADICAL MUSLIMS WILL MOVE TO DESTROY ANY OPPOSITION. In addition, China is heavily involved in the GWADAR PORT DEV and other projects on both of India's flanks - the CCCC/CPC historically does not engage in any such activity unless it anticipates, i.e. planning to, eventually control the entire area or region, from origin to end.
The discovery of America profoundly altered European consciousness, and the great French essayist of the period, Michel de Montaigne, wrote of his unhappiness with the attitudes of his fellow countrymen who, whilst critical of the savages that were the indigenous inhabitants of the New World were blind to their own faults and inadequacies. He concluded:
Every man calls it barbarous anything he is not accustomed to. We have no other criterion of or right reason than the example and form of the opinion of our own country. There we also find the perfect religion, the perfect political arrangements, the most developed and perfect way of doing everything. Despite the fact that Montaigne was writing centuries in the past his words have a penetrating relevance here in Pakistan today. Reason is increasingly absent from the collective consciousness in Pakistan, and the flight of reason from the minds of ordinary men and women bodes ill for all of us who live here.
A mullah was lynched recently close to Bahawalpur by a crowd incited to murder by a mullah from a rival sect. The rival mullah had accused him of an act of desecration or blasphemy. He died, along with a man who came to his aid, as the result of collective madness. As if this were not enough proof of the flight of reason the police compounded the lunacy by registering a case for blasphemy against the dead man. One presumes they will arraign his decaying corpse at some future hearing before a judge as similar in thinking as the police who filed the charge.
Two women teachers and their young children were shot to death in the last couple of weeks by unknown assailants for the heinous crime of teaching girls how to read, write and number. They were working for an NGO on a government-sponsored scheme to raise education levels for women and girls in the tribal areas. Recent arrests may or may not turn into hearings and convictions. Acts of barbarism? Some would say so, but sadly many possibly even a majority here - would not.
No processions have been taken out to protest the murder of these innocent people and beyond some hard-nosed editorials in the English-language press there has been scarcely a ripple in the murky depths of society generally. Once again deaths murders have come into the lives of hitherto blameless people for no other reason than that they have put a pleat in the paradigm of some demented obscurantist and his followers. The religious lunatics can, it seems, rouse the populace to whatever levels of violence they feel like and then walk away from the carnage and destruction; secure in the knowledge that nobody will make a serious or sustained effort to catch and punish them.
Now come with me and sit on the roof of my house, and listen as I do every day to the faithful at their prayers. Look at the infidel goras! Look at how they insult our Holy Prophet (PBUH) and defame our culture! Look at their immorality, their skirts and shorts and uncovered hair! Their sinful adulterous habits! Their filthy education systems that mix boys and girls together! Single-parent families! Should we not wipe them from the face of the earth? Kill them? All of this, and far worse, came from the speakers of the mosque close to the house of this correspondent last Friday. Say anything like that publicly in the UK and you are before a court in no time. Say it in Pakistan and your congregation cheers you to the echo.
Yes indeed, please do look at them, those barbarian goras. Then look back at yourselves. Not just the mullahs reading this (a number hardly above the fingers of your hands) but all the rest of you. And then look again at the quotation from Montaigne that opens this piece. He penned a universal truth; that man finds few faults in the world that is his, and faults aplenty in worlds that are not banishing reason from his mind. It is to protest the flight of reason that people should be thronging the streets, not answering the call of the creeping madness.
The writer is a British social worker settled in Pakistan. Email: manticore73@hotmail.com
Posted by: john ||
06/26/2006 16:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The only quibble I have is that I think the madness is closer to running than creeping.
#2
Yet there is a just arbiter of the superior and inferior creature. It is Darwin. Darwin who decrees that only the fittest of creatures survive in the next generation; who says also that quality of offspring shall often outweigh sheer quantity.
Darwin takes the long view. He can be thwarted for a while. With effort the dross can be preserved and the superior creature corrupted to some extent. But in the end his way will win out, as it is written in every living cell in every living creature.
Darwin despises prayer and supplication, instead honoring only the struggle for survival and the success which comes from success. He damns those who fail in the contest, who do not test their world and their fate, and also those who are content with the status quo.
So looking at Pakistan, one can see it in the clear light of Darwin. What percentage of its people are condemned to extinction? Surely there are at least some who path is to survival and success. The nation itself will stand or fall based not on its members who fail, but on those who pass the great test.
#3
Darwin who decrees that only the fittest of creatures survive in the next generation
Sorta of playing with words. Its more like those able to adapt to their environment are around to reproduce. There's a lot of baggage when using 'survival of the fittest' that doesn't mean necessarily the biggest, strongest, swiftest that survives a changing environment. It's adaptation that Darwin covered. Ask any dinosaur.
By Michael Nazir-Ali, Bishop of Rochester In many ways, the United States is a study in contrasts. It is full of clashing colours and jangling messages. Socially and politically, it is very divided. The "neocons" have clear views on everything from Iraq to abortion, and the "progressives" have the opposite - but also equally clear - opinions on such matters. We would expect, then, to find these divisions reflected in broadly-based organisations such as the Churches and we would not be wrong. All of the so-called "mainline" Churches have this fault-line running through them.
It's a faultline that seems to separate the clergy from the laity, in many cases. Across the board, it separates the congregations making up the National Council of Churches from the evangelicals, and churches with growing memberships from those without.
Why, then, should I have been shocked on entering the Greater Columbus Convention Centre in Ohio, where the General Convention of the Episcopal Church (the Anglican Church in the USA) was being held? Should I not have expected tension, difference and debate? There was, first of all, culture shock. It felt to me like a trendy exhibition put together by some ultra-politically-correct organisation, with all the favourite causes of the fashionable prominent. There was, however, a more profound reason for feeling uncomfortable: it became plain quite quickly that this was not a conflict merely of styles, attitudes or even opinions but of two quite different views of religion.
I think that smug political correctitude might have something to do with the declining memberships, but let Bishop Nazir-Ali explain it:
One tendency that was informing the culture of the convention, in a major way, was to do with the diffuse religiosity of the present-day West. Such religiosity, in my view, has much in common with New Age ideas, vague as these often are, such as nature mysticism, or a sense of oneness with the world around, and pantheism, the belief that everything is divine: God is identified with Mother Nature and also with our own souls. Jesus then becomes just a special example of a god-self. Such a world-view is likely to be optimistic, inclusive and non-judgmental. It regards the world and the people in it as more or less as God intended them to be. Such people should be accepted as they are and, if they wish to be, fully included in the life of the Church without further question.
We can all be friends, and it doesn't take any effort to be good. Evil is, depending on the circumstances, either misunderstood good, or it's something like pooping not to be watched or discussed...
My natural friends in ECUSA, however, are those who want to hold on to the historic, Biblical and catholic faith as it has been received through the ages and in every part of the world.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
06/26/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Even if all are marching toward God, it's pretty obvious that some are walking, some shuffling, some meandering from one side of the road to the other, some goose-stepping, some fox-trotting, and not a few actually standing and staring at the parade, rather than participating.
Crickey, Fred, that's some great commentary. The above was absolutely priceless, and I'm a devout agnostic.
#2
FREEREPUBLIC.com and other websites are reporting that Spain's first homosexual married couple are planning to divorce. This case could well be a test on national and international laws, protocols, or methodisms regarding the division of Gay-Lesbian properties and assets post-Marriage. IMO the litmus test remains the issue of children - if adult homosexuals want the sanctity of marriage, they cannot deny any personal responsibility, i.e. un-adopt or be non/un-related, to any child just becuz their relationship ends. They gotta support the kid(s) whether they are biologically related or not.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
By Paul Stanway
In many ways, the United States is a study in contrasts. It is full of clashing colours and jangling messages. Socially and politically, it is very divided. The "neocons" have clear views on everything from Iraq to abortion, and the "progressives" have the opposite - but also equally clear - opinions on such matters. We would expect, then, to find these divisions reflected in broadly-based organisations such as the Churches and we would not be wrong. All of the so-called "mainline" Churches have this fault-line running through them.
