June 6, 2007

 

Download Full Content – Printable Pickings

 

 

 

Mark Steyn reports on the Conrad Black trial for the NY Sun. He’s been in the courtroom for three months and Pickerhead has often wondered why. His comments on our legal system might make the effort worthwhile.

… Point one: I’m amazed at how few trials there are. The federal courthouse isn’t one of these 19th century deals with pillars, it’s a Mies van der Rohe office block built in the Sixties and I’m in a courtroom on the 12th floor. There are two other courtrooms on the same corridor and gazillions more on the floors above and no trials are going on in any of them but ours. If you want to get away from the media hubbub of the Black trial and find a quiet corner to snore the afternoon away, the best place to go is one of the other courtrooms. You could hunt buffalo on the vast empty plains of these courts. There are no trials taking place. Trial by jury, which is one of the most fundamental rights extending back through the U.S. Constitution to English Common Law and the Roman Empire and the Athenian Republic, is in terminal decline in this country. …

 

While Mark’s been in Chicago, demographic concerns show up in Contentions as Gordon Chang worries about the effects of China’s policies.

… This massive experiment in social engineering has caused a rapidly aging China—it is often said that the country will grow old before it becomes rich—and has skewed demographics: there are now about 118 boys for every 100 girls, and in a decade there will be about 30 million excess males. Many have speculated about the social consequences of such a demographic imbalance. Some believe that the overabundance of young men—“bare branches,” in popular terminology—will lead the country to war, while others merely see increased prostitution, trafficking in females, and assorted other criminal activity. Whatever happens, it’s clear that none of the policy’s byproducts is socially desirable.

If demography is destiny, then China is in for a disturbing future. And it is clear that the one-child policy is destabilizing the present. Population control through repression, as the Rongxian and Bobai disturbances suggest, is completely unsustainable.

 

 

 

It’s timely to repeat a Victor Davis Hanson column from last August.

… For about the last half-century, globalization has passed most of the recalcitrant Middle East by — economically, socially and politically. The result is that there are now few inventions and little science emanating from the Islamic world — but a great deal of poverty, tyranny and violence. And rather than make the necessary structural changes that might end cultural impediments to progress and modernity — such as tribalism, patriarchy, gender apartheid, polygamy, autocracy, statism and fundamentalism — too many Middle Easterners have preferred to embrace the reactionary past and the cult of victimization.

At one time or another, they have welcomed all the bankrupt ideologies that traditionally blame others for prior self-induced failure: fascism, communism, Baathism, Pan-Arabism and, most recently, Islamic fundamentalism. …

That makes a good set-up for a post from the Captain.

Megan Stack writes a fascinating account of her experiences as a woman in Saudi Arabia, stationed there for the last four years by the Los Angeles Times. If anyone wonders what being a woman in Saudi Arabia means, Stack gives a firsthand account of the demeaning and oppressive existence that all women — Western or otherwise — endure in the Kingdom. …

 

 

 

Roger Simon posts on the same LA Times article.

IBD with the latest Carter editorial.

 

 

 

Great column on Rachel Carson by John Tierney.

For Rachel Carson admirers, it has not been a silent spring. They’ve been celebrating the centennial of her birthday with paeans to her saintliness. A new generation is reading her book in school — and mostly learning the wrong lesson from it.

If students are going to read “Silent Spring” in science classes, I wish it were paired with another work from that same year, 1962, titled “Chemicals and Pests.” It was a review of “Silent Spring” in the journal Science written by I. L. Baldwin, a professor of agricultural bacteriology at the University of Wisconsin.

He didn’t have Ms. Carson’s literary flair, but his science has held up much better. He didn’t make Ms. Carson’s fundamental mistake, which is evident in the opening sentence of her book: …

 

 

Michael Barone with interesting GOP numbers.

 

 

John Stossel’s weekly wonders why profit is a dirty word.

 

 

 

Quote of the day is from Mencken. Spotted by Samizdata.

 

 

 

Good Walter Williams column.

… Liberals love to talk about this or that human right, such as a right to health care, food or housing. That’s a perverse usage of the term “right.” A right, such as a right to free speech, imposes no obligation on another, except that of non-interference. The so-called right to health care, food or housing, whether a person can afford it or not, is something entirely different; it does impose an obligation on another. If one person has a right to something he didn’t produce, simultaneously and of necessity it means that some other person does not have right to something he did produce. That’s because, since there’s no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy, in order for government to give one American a dollar, it must, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American. I’d like to hear the moral argument for taking what belongs to one person to give to another person. …

 

 

 

You’ll love how Teddy’s friends in congress are going to help his fight against the wind-farm. From Classical Values.

There is a move afoot in Congress to require new wind turbine project developers to do environmental impact statements on potential bird kills by turbines and to monitor wind sites for bird deaths. …

 

 

Remember our favorite from Mark Twain is, “There is no native American criminal class, except for congress.” That would explain Nancy Pelosi’s son’s new job. Country Store with details.

 

 

 

Dilbert, Scrappleface, and Borowitz are here. www.pickerhead.com

June 5, 2007

Download Full Content – Printable Pickings

 

On the 40th anniversary of the start of the Six-Day War, we have a couple of items.

 

Bret Stephens in WSJ wants to upset conventional wisdom.

 

Richard Chesnoff in NY Daily News.

Forty years ago tomorrow, Israel wielded its terrible swift sword against the attack-poised armies of Egypt, Syria and Jordan – and saved the Jewish state from destruction.

It was the Six-Day War, and the fledgling state’s stunning victory over enemies determined to annihilate it galvanized the world and changed the Mideast map – perhaps forever.

I was one of the handful of foreign correspondents who reached the front during that monumentally brief battle. I was in Sinai on the first day, then returned north and managed to enter Gaza just as that benighted city was falling to Israel’s largely civilian tank corps. Then it was on to Jerusalem.

Like anyone who believes in the justice of Israel’s existence, I was deeply relieved by its victory on June 10. I had heard the bloodthirsty Arab threats of a new Holocaust. I had seen the “Kill the Jews” posters in Gaza schools. I had seen the bunkers and mass graves that Israel had been forced to dig in expectation of invasion, if not defeat. …


Daniel Johnson
in Contentions has something to add to yesterday’s items on Israel.

Last week’s vote by the British Universities and Colleges Union admonishing its members to “consider the moral implications of existing and proposed links with Israeli academic institutions” marks a new stage in the concerted campaign to put Israel into a kind of cultural quarantine. This boycott and others like it are not merely aimed at forcing a change of that country’s policy towards the Palestinians—they are explicitly intended to undermine the legitimacy of the Jewish state. By branding Israel an apartheid state, these academics are denying its right to exist in anything like its present form. …

… It is Britain, not Israel, that is most harmed by this vandalism. These academics are cutting themselves off from the mainstream of Jewish intellectual life—from one of the sources of their own civilization. When Alan Bloom conjured the image of the closing of the American mind, he meant just such self-inflicted amnesia. Only this time, it is the British mind that is closing.

 

Ed Morrissey of Captain’s Quarters notes a new Brit health regulation.

Many people who want to “fix” the American health-care system want a single-payor model in which the government controls the distribution of benefits, as opposed to private-sector health insurers and providers. They claim that only government control will result in equitable distribution. However, given the intimate nature of health care, such control opens the door to intrusions on personal choice unseen in American history.

Don’t believe me? Ask British smokers, who have been threatened with losing ground in seeking care: …

 

Along the same vein, Cafe Hayek posts on trans-fat regs in Montgomery County, MD.

 

And Carpe Diem posts near the subject.

 

IBD with the seventh Carter editorial. This time on his “human rights” record.

… In the Soviet Union, Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko laughed at Carter’s human rights record behind his back, but knew how to manipulate Carter in public. Gromyko browbeat Carter, telling him the USSR’s health care and housing trumped America’s. “I couldn’t argue,” Carter winced in his book, “Living Faith.” “We each had a definition of human rights, and differences like this must be recognized and understood.”

Carter’s inability to distinguish intentions from results through his “human rights” policy has led to more human rights violations around the world than any dictator could have done on his own.

But he didn’t just undermine human rights; he undermined the U.S. and its legitimate security interests. His legacy is the spread of tyranny, making him the U.S.’ worst president for human rights.

 

 

 

With Al Gore and the Fairness Doctrine, Neal Boortz starts off today’s huge Gore section. Neal segues into a post on global warming on Neptune. No SUVs there!

Ann Althouse says Gore’s too good for us.

Thomas Mitchell, editor of Las Vegas reviews Gore’s new book.

You have to give Al Gore credit for one thing: Truth in labeling.

His new book, “The Assault on Reason,” is precisely that — a relentless assault on reason, as well as science, history, Republicans, news media, the president, corporations, the wealthy and any ignoramuses who do not fall in line with his soft-core socialist friends.

It is a 320-page daisy-chain of platitudes, sophomoric clichés punctuated by vaguely relevant quotations ripped straight from the pages of “Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations” and smatterings of pseudoscientific citations to prop up lame contentions.

 

The New Editor takes a turn.

 

Time for the Gore/Unabomber quiz. Twelve quotes. You have to guess if the quote is by Al Gore or the Unabomber.

 

The Captain links to a Guardian, UK piece on the corruption in the carbon offset biz.

Do you like your irony so thick that it drips? The Guardian has a nice, juicy slice of it for you today. The main organization used by Europe to trade carbon credits has mismanaged the process so badly that they have created an increase in greenhouse-gas emissions as a result: …

June 4, 2007

Download Full Content – Printable Pickings

 

 

Israel’s treatment by the left commentariat in the West, is the subject of our first offerings

Eugene Volokh notes university lecturers in UK calling for a boycott.

Also from Volokh, David Bernstein comments on the South Africa analogy.

Advocates of boycotts of Israel and Israelis, such as the British boycott Eugene blogs below, often draw an analogy between Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and South African apartheid. And just as South Africa was boycotted, they argue, so should Israel be boycotted.

For reasons that should be obvious to any objective observer, I find the South Africa analogy to be both absurd and obscene. However, let’s assume for the sake of argument that Israel’s occupation of the lands it captured in 1967 is indeed morally analogous to South African apartheid.

The relevant analogy would then have to be as follows. …

Speaking of double standards, Samizdata wonders how the world would have reacted if Israel was abducting BBC reporters.

Power Line posts on the latest from Ahmadinejad and segues to a David Horovitz essay in the Jerusalem Post.

That essay is here.

A two-hour drive, at most, from here, in a lawless land, extortionists are holding a British journalist captive to try and delegitimize my country.

The kidnapping of the BBC’s Alan Johnston in Gaza, and now the broadcast of his taped denunciation of the fact of Israel’s existence, are only one small part of a wider campaign. And it is working.

The international community is being drip-fed the toxic assertion that, were it not for Israel, ours would be a peaceful world, a harmonious community of nations, living in tranquility alongside each other, respecting differences and working out disagreements in a spirit of compromise. If it were not for Israel, the Original Sin, the bone in the Islamic throat.

In Alan Johnston’s Britain, the campaign is proving particularly effective. So much so that the union that represents his own profession, the National Union of Journalists, along with many academics, members of the clergy and numerous other opinion-shapers, now subscribe to this notion of Israel as prime irritant, prompter of terrorism. …

 

It’s spreading to this country too. Marty Peretz spots a lying obit in NY Times.

When you don’t know history, or forget it, you confabulate the past. Sometimes in grand dimensions. And sometimes in smaller ones. But even small distortions tell big lies. And that’s what, I regret to say, is what The New York Times has done… again. …

John Fund reports from the Richmond Fred Thompson appearance.

The Corner and Hugh Hewitt post on the dem debate.

… The weirdest moment: A five minute discussion of stopping the genocide in Darfur by boycotting the Beijing Olympics? Huh? And Chris Dodd called that going “too far.” This is not exactly a strong and decisive bunch.

Ben Stein – gas-price gouging laws.

… It sounds good, but in fact it simply destroys the free market. It takes away the genius of the free market, which is its ability to respond to shortages or surpluses through the price system. It punishes one specific class of people in the economy, people in the energy business, while anyone else — plumbers, electricians, lawyers, doctors — can raise prices any time he wishes. This is an outrageous attack on the mechanism that has served America brilliantly. The price system. It also is an attack on the liberties of citizens. What if drivers want to pay more for gasoline rather than wait in line or face shortages? …

Samizdata posts on what totalitarianism will look like in UK and us too.

… We are headed for a different kind of totalitarianism than that of Stalin or Hitler or Mao, but a total state really is what a great many people have in mind for us all. They seek a sort of ‘smiley face fascism’ in which all interactions are regulated in the name of preventing sexism, promoting health, and defending the environment. The excuses will not invoke the Glory of the Nation or the Proletariat or the Volk or the King or the Flag or any of those old fashioned tools for tyrants, but rather it will be “for our own good”, “for the Planet”, “for the whales”, “for the children”, “for the disabled” or “for equality”.

But if they get their way it will be quite, quite totalitarian.

Adam Smith.org goes through one day’s paper for examples.

Jimmy Carter and Chavez by IBD editors.

Someone with relatives in Cuba gives the lie to Michael Moore.

Scrappleface and Dilbert are in the humor section.

June 3, 2007

Download Full Content – Printable Pickings

 

Ralph Peters has little good to say about any side in the Iraq debate. Says we have been out-thought by the Islamists. Perhaps, but what other strategy did they have except the one they adopted?

… Since Saddam’s statue fell, we’ve tried one grunt-level technique after another, hoping tactics would produce a strategy. That’s backward. First, you establish your strategy. Then you select the tactics that can achieve it.

Oh, we had nebulous goals regarding democracy and peace in the Middle East. But goals aren’t a strategy. And neither the Bush administration nor the Pentagon ever laid down a coherent and comprehensive strategic plan to get us from A through B to C. Even if the current troop surge works, it gets us only to B – with C still undefined after more than four years.

The terrorists have done a better job. We sent them reeling in Afghanistan, and the invasion of Iraq stunned them, but when we reached Baghdad we turned out to be the dog that caught the fire truck. …

Andy McCarthy on the significance of the JFK plot.

War is about breaking the enemy’s will. Having laid bare the sorry state of our brains and our guts, jihadists are now zeroing in on the will’s final piece: our hearts.

That is the central lesson to be gleaned from Saturday’s news that four Muslim men have been charged with plotting to blow up John F. Kennedy International Airport, and with it much of Queens. …

 

 

Charles Krauthammer gets to lead the immigration debate today with Get in Line Einstein.

 

Corner posts carry on the debate. Mark Steyn entertains first. Rick Brookhiser asks a good question and Iain Murray answers.

 

Laura Ingraham had a good debate with Linda Chavez. A post here provides a link. Laura criticizes Linda’s column claiming many of the “I” bill opponents had racist motives.

 

Roger Simon posts on a Fareed Zakaria column with claims similar to Linda Chavez’s.

 

Jim Miller in Tech Central gives the “free market case against the bill.”

 

 

Dean Barnett posts on his vindication.

 

Cato tells us what the Spelling Bee tells us about home-schoolers.

A home-schooler, 13-year-old Evan O’Dorney, is once again the winner of the Scripps National [sic] Spelling Bee. In fact, home schoolers took fully one third of the top 15 spots in the Bee, utterly out of proportion with their share (about 1/40th) of the U.S. student population. Another two spots were taken by private school students, and three were taken by Canadian public school students (hence the “sic,” above — we’ve yet to anschluss the Canucks so far as I can recall).

That left five spots for U.S. public school students — the same number taken by home schoolers whom they outnumber by 50 million or so kids. And it isn’t as though the home-schoolers are fabulously wealthy and able to hire special tutors. The winner’s father is a subway train operator and his mother oversees his education. …

 

We haven’t heard from Linda Seebach for awhile. She reviews a documentary on the lefties controlling lots of campuses.

 

Adam Smith’s birthday.

 

Carpe Diem posts on Exxon’s taxes.

 

Cafe Hayek says prices are important signals.

 

Club for Growth with interesting post on Chinese opinions of our TV.

 

Division of Labour says ethanol is raising the price of beer.

 

Adam Smith says it’s tax-freedom day in UK. And posts on an important new book.

Ross Clark is at his usual best in How to Label a Goat, which as the subtitle says, documents The Silly Rules and Regulations that are Strangling Britain. …

Dilbert’s here with some wisdom. He doesn’t make perfect the enemy of the good.

 

NewsBiscuit story about a football (soccer) ref who’s hated by his family too.

May 31, 2007

Download Full Content – Printable Pickings

 

Hugh Hewitt’s interview with Mark Steyn covers Fred Thompson’s possible bid and the immigration bill.

 

Professor Bainbridge is happy with Thompson’s run. Here’s Pickerhead favorite bullet point;

Unlike say Hillary or Romney, he hasn’t been planning to run for President ever since s/he got elected President of the 9th Grade class and the senior football players ran his/her underwear up the flagpole, as illustrated by his famous comment that “After two years in Washington, I often long for the realism and sincerity of Hollywood.”

 

Samizdata’s Quote of the Day features Margaret Thatcher.

 

 

More great posts from Contentions.

Daniel Johnson on whether Mosques should be above the law.

Max Boot and the Pew Muslim-American survey.

And Joshua Muravchik on Assad’s dissing of Pelosi.

 

 

David Leonhardt of NY Times catches Lou Dobbs with his pants down. Not a pretty sight.

 

 

And Reason’s Hit & Run nails both Dobbs and Buchanan.

 

 

Walter Laqueur is the finest European historian you’ve never heard of. Gerard Baker reviews his latest for WSJ.

… Is it possible, then, that the writers who have spent the past few years predicting Europe’s collapse could be wrong? The short answer is: no. Even a corpse has been known to twitch once or twice before the rigor mortis sets in. The longer answer is provided by Walter Laqueur in “The Last Days of Europe,” one of the more persuasive in a long line of volumes by authors on both sides of the Atlantic chronicling Europe’s decline and foretelling its collapse.

Unlike the Euro-bashing polemics of a few of those authors, Mr. Laqueur’s short book is measured, even sympathetic. It is mercifully free of references to cheese-eating surrender monkeys and misplaced historical analogies to appeasement. The tone is one of resigned dismay rather than grave-stomping glee. This temperate quality makes the book’s theme–that Europe now faces potentially mortal challenges–all the more compelling. …

 

Another book you may want to read. Freedomnomics by John Lott. Details by Newmark’s Door.

 

Spammer gets nailed. I don’t care what Andrew Sullivan says. Let’s dream up torture.

May 30, 2007

Download Full Content – Printable Pickings

Don Boudreaux, econ prof at George Mason, and blogger at Café Hayek, has a brilliant op-ed in Pittsburgh Tribune-Review with an analogy that nicely illustrates The Lesson of Henry Hazlitt’s classic Economics in One Lesson - “The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups”

I once knew two World War II veterans. Both were fine men. One, call him Bill, was a navigator on a B-29 bomber based in the Pacific. The other, call him Joe, was an infantryman in Europe. Fortunately, neither was injured during the war. Although alike in many ways, a notable difference between Bill and Joe was that Bill spent lots of time happily recalling his bomber days while Joe steadfastly refused to speak of his wartime experiences.

This difference between Bill and Joe contains a lesson about politics.

I once asked Bill why he retained such fond memories of the war while Joe recoiled from such memories. Bill’s response was revealing: “Joe fought in face-to-face combat. He saw blood and death up close. But for me the war was great. I flew lots of missions over Japan and nearby islands and all I ever saw were little puffs of smoke on the ground where our bombs hit.”

Reflecting on Bill’s response, I realized that politicians and their bureaucratic appointees are much like bomber crews: They wreak much havoc but seldom experience firsthand the destructive consequences of their actions.

Pickerhead likes this metaphor; “The political class carpet-bombing the nation.”

Shorts on immigration.

Mark Steyn on W’s choice of words yesterday.

Post in Reason’s Hit & Run reveals the bureaucrat’s mind.

Instapundit with a great cure for the bureaucrat’s mind.

David Brooks takes one for the team. He read Al Gore’s new book so we won’t have to.

If you’re going to read Al Gore’s book, you’re going to have to steel yourself for a parade of sentences like the following:

“The remedy for what ails our democracy is not simply better education (as important as that is) or civic education (as important as that can be), but the re-establishment of a genuine democratic discourse in which individuals can participate in a meaningful way — a conversation of democracy in which meritorious ideas and opinions from individuals do, in fact, evoke a meaningful response.” …

… Some great philosopher should write a book about people — and there are many of them — who flee from discussions of substance and try to turn them into discussions of process. Utterly at a loss when asked to talk about virtue and justice, they try to shift attention to technology and methods of communication. They imagine that by altering machines they can alter the fundamentals of behavior, or at least avoid the dark thickets of human nature.

If a philosopher did write such a book, it would help us understand Al Gore, and it would, as he would say, in fact, evoke a meaningful response.

 

 

Samizdata thinks Obama’s health care ideas are delusional.

 

Investor’s Business Daily continues the Jimmy Carter editorial series.

… When men of strength are presented with difficult problems, their responses are firm and decisive. Jimmy Carter spent four years as president of the United States responding with weakness.

Carter’s legacy is marked by a series of lame responses to historic challenges. His reputation as a failed president is well-deserved. From January 1977 to January 1981, Carter routinely let America down. …

 

 

John Stossel writes on trade and markets.

Some people hate me because I defend free markets. Once someone accosted me on a New York City street and said, “I hope you die soon.”

Why the hostility to commerce? What could be more benign than the freedom to trade with whomever you wish? …

 

Robert Samuelson, in dog bites man story, finds hypocrisy in DC gas on gas.

… Americans want to stop global warming. They want to cut oil imports. They want cheaper energy. Who will tell them that they can’t have it all? Not our “leaders.”

 

 

Thomas Sowell with part II of War of Words.

 

 

Nice post on the NY Times agenda from Jim Taranto.

 

 

Nice post on the Globe agenda from The New Editor.

 

 

Power Line rounds out our MSM hat-trick.

May 29, 2007

Download Full Content – Printable Pickings

More on the new French foreign minister. This time from Christopher Hitchens.

… I suppose there is some irony to be found in the fact that, while such a person takes command of the foreign policy of France, the only apparent test of liberalism in the United States is the speed with which it proposes to abandon the Arabs and Kurds of Iraq once again.

 

Volokh posts on attempts by New South Wales Islamic Council to interfere with Hirsi Ali’s visit to Australia.

 

Amnesty International has become an organ for the anti-American left. Joshua Muravchik posts in Contentions.

… Today, it may be that some U.S. actions in the war on terror are questionable or blameworthy. But such derogations are trivial in comparison with what is at issue between us and the terrorists. No one genuinely devoted to human rights can be blind to this. Those who ignore it are using the lingo of human rights to pursue some other agenda.

 

Before we start with today’s immigration debate offerings, the Captain jumps off a Richard Cohen column to a great post; Bush, the Liberal.

Richard Cohen makes the case that Republicans have noted for the last six years — that the Bush administration has not been conservative at all, but rather an exercise in big-government, liberal action. Calling Bush a “neo-liberal”, Cohen hits some convincing points in his argument that Bush resembles a cross between Woodrow Wilson and Lyndon Johnson …

 

And he has a gracious send-off for Cindy Sheehan.

 

Mark Steyn on immigration from National Review.

 

The immigration debate is joined by someone who should know a few things. He is Kris W. Kobach, professor of law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. As counsel to the U.S. Attorney General, 2001-03, he was the attorney general’s chief adviser on immigration law. His op-ed piece was in the NY Post.

 

Kris Kobach’s article spawned Corner posts from Krikorian, Steyn, Derbyshire, and Levin.

 

While at the Corner you’ll want to read this moving post by Michael Ledeen.

 

Pickerhead admitted to a weakness for Richardson’s candidacy. John Fund says nothing doing.

 

Thomas Sowell shows how words are important.

… The Constitution says that government can take private property for “public use” if it compensates the owner. The Supreme Court changed that to mean that the government could take private property just to turn over to others, so long as they called it a “public purpose” like “redevelopment.”

 

Politicians are experts at rhetoric, especially if that is all that is needed to justify seizing your home and turning it over to someone else who will build something that pays more taxes. …

 

Carpe Diem posts on the failures of Canadian health care.

 

Andrew Sullivan posts on the unending sickness of Michael Moore.

 

A WSJ review of Michael Barone’s “Our First Revolution.”

… Everything that flowed from the Whig victory of 1688–limited government, the Bank of England, tradable national debt, triennial Parliaments, mercantilism, free enterprise, an aggressively anti-French foreign policy, the union with Scotland, eventually the Hanoverian Succession and the Industrial Revolution–combined to make the English-speaking peoples powerful. Mr. Barone proves beyond doubt how much the Glorious Revolution inspired the Founding Fathers to launch their own, with Virginia gentlemen farmers seeing themselves as the heirs of England’s revolutionary aristocrats. The 1689 Bill of Rights in Britain thus unquestionably paved the way to the American Bill of Rights of 1791.

 

To comprehend how America’s birth pangs came about–and why its title deeds were drawn up in the way they were–it is therefore crucial to understand the ideals and passions of 1688. The very best introduction is this well-researched, well-written, thought-provoking book.

 

The Spine finds a cartoon.

May 28, 2007

Download Full Content – Printable Pickings

The Corner starts us off with the photo of the day.

A Manchester Guardian columnist helps us understand the surprise of Sarkozy’s choice for foreign minister. Perhaps some of the sleaze and shame of Chirac will be cleansed.

… French intellectuals are trying to recover their poise. I asked Bernard-Henri Levy what he made of his old friend’s transformation from leader of the 1968 generation to statesman. The usually confident philosopher looked uncharacteristically uncertain. He wasn’t sure how much room for manoeuvre the attention-grabbing Sarkozy would grant his old friend. (‘Sarkozy always likes to be at the centre of the photo,’ as Levy nicely put it.) But he was sure that Kouchner would use what time he had to bring aid to the victims of the near-genocide in Darfur, and may succeed.

The same thought is occurring to others watching the diplomatic revolution in Paris. Hilary Benn, the International Development Secretary, is delighted that Kouchner’s first official act was to say the world has a duty to stop the crimes against humanity in Darfur. So too was Angela Merkel and the Bush administration, which faces public pressure on Darfur far greater than any European government has to cope with. (The Janjaweed’s slaughter of Africans has become the great international cause of the black churches.) …

 

IBD’s Jimmy Carter series covers his weakness for any dictator of the left.

… In 1982, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Reagan’s U.N. ambassador, perfectly summed up the Carter administration:

“While Carter was president there occurred a dramatic Soviet military buildup, matched by the stagnation of American armed forces, and a dramatic extension of Soviet influence in the Horn of Africa, Afghanistan, southern Africa and the Caribbean, matched by a declining American position in all these areas.”

Had Reagan not beaten Carter in 1980, there’s no telling how far the unraveling of freedom would have gone.

Instead of Reagan going to Berlin to tell Gorbachev to tear down that wall, Carter in his second term might have had to go to Moscow to negotiate our capitulation in the Cold War.

 

Mark Steyn starts the immigration debate today with his Sun-Times column. He has some amusing items first and then makes us think.

…To embed lawbreaking at the heart of American immigration and to allow it to metastasize through the wider society was perverse and debilitating. Most Americans see this differently from Washington and Wall Street. They’re pro-immigration but they don’t regard it as a mere technicality, a piece of government paper: after all, feeling American is central to their own identity. They rightly revile the cheap contempt the rushed Senate bill demonstrates not just for transparent, honest small-r republican government but for the privilege of being American. Happy Memorial Day.

Michael Barone weighs in too.

… The advocates of this new bill must convince voters that their plan will work better. They have a decent case to make, such as their call for an identification card with biometric information. Technology has made this more feasible than it was 20 years ago, and the phobia against a national identification card has been weaker since 9/11. Advocates must now convince the critics that such a card would make sanctions against employers enforceable. They must also show that border security will improve: that the 700-mile fence mandated by Congress last fall will actually be built; that unmanned aerial vehicles will reduce illegal crossings; that the larger Border Patrol will be effective; and that the apparatus of state will prove strong enough to prevail against market forces.

Pollster Scott Rasmussen reports that voters aren’t dead set against legalizing current illegals. But they must be convinced first that this time, border security is for real.

 

Power Line has a series of posts on the new Hillary books.

 

Marty Peretz reacts to NY Times piece on another friend of Bill. Dick Morris wrote about this dude couple of days ago.

George Will notes one of Institute for Justice’s latest clients, a Minneapolis cabbie. You’ll never believe what a group of government’s rent seekers wants here.

… When the incumbent taxi industry inveigled the city government into creating the cartel, this was a textbook example of rent-seeking — getting government to confer advantages on an economic faction in order to disadvantage actual or potential competitors. If the cartel’s argument about a “deregulatory taking” were to prevail, modern government — the regulatory state — would be controlled by a leftward-clicking ratchet: Governments could never deregulate, never undo the damage that they enable rent-seekers to do.

By challenging his adopted country to honor its principles of economic liberty and limited government, Paucar, assisted by the local chapter of the libertarian Institute for Justice, is giving a timely demonstration of this fact: Some immigrants, with their acute understanding of why America beckons, refresh our national vigor. It would be wonderful if every time someone like Paucar comes to America, a native-born American rent-seeker who has been corrupted by today’s entitlement mentality would leave.

 

Post from Samizdata illuminates the criminal behavior behind protectionism.

WSJ editorial on the latest gas price foolishness from congress.

… No one seriously believes this law will lower prices for consumers, but you can bet that brigades of lawyers will earn fat fees sorting out what exactly is meant by “unreasonably,” “gross disparity” and “excessive.” …

 

Quote of the Week from AdamSmith. The Smithies also post on road pricing in England. Coming to a New York City near you.

The NY Times has an intelligent article on gas prices and the complaints against oil companies.

… But is that price gouging?

Because the demand for gasoline is what economists call inelastic, which means that people cannot quickly reduce their consumption when prices rise sharply, abrupt supply shortages lead to steep price increases without any immediate decline in sales.

The most common reason for such increases in gasoline prices is a steep increase in the price of crude oil. But crude oil prices are set in global markets, and even the biggest American or European oil companies are modest players compared with state-controlled oil companies in the Persian Gulf, Russia and Latin America.

Even the mighty Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, which defines itself as a competition-limiting cartel, has only a limited grip on world oil prices. OPEC countries watched helplessly as oil prices plunged in the early 1980s and remained mired below $20 a barrel for most years (excluding the time of the Persian Gulf War in 1991) through the mid-1990s.

It seems hard to believe today, but world oil prices briefly drifted below $11 a barrel in 1998. Not surprisingly, few lawmakers in Congress took that opportunity to denounce “unconscionably excessive” price declines. ..

 

Jim Taranto had a wonderful take on the MIT administrator who lost her job because of résumé fraud.

… Ostensibly Ms. Jones was forced out because she committed fraud, but one can make a strong case that MIT had to get rid of her to avoid acknowledging that there is something fraudulent at the heart of American higher education. “If she had done a miserable job as dean, MIT might have been more forgiving,” the leftist author Barbara Ehrenreich writes in an essay for the Nation, “but her very success has to be threatening to an institution of higher learning: What good are educational credentials anyway?”

Ms. Ehrenreich argues that “there are ways in which the higher education industry is becoming a racket: Buy our product or be condemned to life of penury, and our product can easily cost well over $100,000. . . . In the last three decades the percentage of jobs requiring at least some college has doubled, which means that employers are going along with the college racket. A résumé without a college degree is never going to get past the computer programs that screen applications.” …

 

Joke of the Day from AdamSmith.

 

Dean Barnett at Hugh’s site has a gracious offer to the creator of the best photo-shop of the month. Don’t miss this.

 

Nose on Your Face with related photo-shop.

May 27, 2007

 

Download full content, Printable Pickings

Joseph Skelly, history prof and army reserve officer, writes about Memorial Day in National Review.

… let us honor those who have defended our right to self-government with their last breaths. We can do so on Memorial Day by attending to their families. We have a moral obligation to comfort those who bear the brunt of the suffering, pain, and grief of our age. Let us reach out to them, with humility.

One day, history will judge our decisions to intervene in Afghanistan and Iraq. It has already judged the democratic fallen — as champions not just of our time, but of all time. The same holds true for their families. Perhaps this Memorial Day, as our nation honors the sacrifices of their sons and daughters, they can find consolation in the words of President Abraham Lincoln, who so poignantly said in his Second Inaugural, as our bitter Civil War consumed all in its path, “the Almighty has his own purposes.”

 

Mark Steyn, an immigrant to our country, tells the story of the Battle Hymn of the Republic.

… Henry Steele Commager called it “the one great song to come out of the Civil War, the one great song ever written in America.”

Whether or not that’s true, most of us understand it has a depth and a power beyond most formal national songs. When John F Kennedy was assassinated, Judy Garland insisted on singing it on her TV show – the producers weren’t happy about it, and one sneered that nobody would give a damn about Kennedy in a month’s time. But it’s an extraordinary performance. Little more than a year later, it was played at the state funeral of Winston Churchill at St Paul’s Cathedral. Among those singing it was the Queen. She sang it again in public, again at St Paul’s, for the second time in her life at the service of remembrance in London three days after September 11th 2001. That day, she also broke with precedent and for the first time sang another country’s national anthem – “The Star-Spangled Banner”. But it was Julia Ward Howe’s words that echoed most powerfully that morning as they have done since she wrote them in her bedroom in Washington 140 years earlier:

As He died to make men holy
Let us die to make men free
While God is marching on.

 

Back to the “I” bill. Yuval Levin has a thoughtful post in Contentions.

… In the current issue of COMMENTARY, I discuss why reforms to the legal immigration system (together with improvements in our approach to the assimilation of immigrants) matter more than what we do about the status of illegal immigrants, and I try to show how such reforms can help us remain a society that welcomes and appreciates immigrants. But these reforms are clearly secondary in the bill.

Washington has to take this issue up in the way the American public understands the problem—as a problem of respect for the law and of our future as a nation that can successfully integrate newcomers. Instead, the President and Congress have presented it in the most divisive way possible—treating the lawbreaker, not the law, as in need of protection.

A bill that included only the border-protection and legal-immigration reforms of the new proposal could be a unifying measure. But by assigning top priority to normalization, the new bill will only exacerbate concerns about immigration—and about the ability of our leaders to understand the public’s concerns. It has done serious damage to the prospects for meaningful change.

 

Instapundit says one of the big troubles with the I bill is the shabby way that people who want to come here legally are treated. He brings back one of his posts from January 2006 to explain. It is always worth remembering the bureaucrats who will be tasked with enforcing this new legislation. Since they are not equal to the job of preventing illegals, they justify their existence by making life miserable for people who try to follow the law.

 

Thomas Sowell writes his third piece on the bill.

… One of the remarkable aspects of the proposed immigration “reform” is its provisions for cracking down on employers who hire illegal immigrants. Employers are to be punished for not detecting and excluding illegal immigrants, when the government itself is derelict in doing so.

Employers not only lack expertise in law enforcement, they can be sued for “discrimination” by any of the armies of lawyers who make such lawsuits their lucrative specialty.

But no penalties are likely to be enforced against state and local politicians who openly declare “sanctuary” for illegal immigrants. Officials sworn to uphold the law instead forbid the police to report the illegal status of immigrants to federal officials when these illegals are arrested for other crimes.

This is perfectly consistent for a bill that seeks above all to solve politicians’ problems, not the country’s.

 

 

Michael Gerson, former W speech writer uses his bi-weekly WaPo column to talk it up.

 

Power Line doesn’t like Gerson’s attitude.

 

John Fund gives us a peak at two new Hillary books.

 

Jeff Jacoby starts off the Carter section.

… It took Americans only four years to realize what a disaster Carter had been; they booted him out in 1980 by a 44-state landslide. …

 

IBD’s fourth Carter editorial.

… the former peanut farmer, who, on taking office, declared that advancing “human rights” was among his highest priorities. The shah was one of his first targets. As he’s done with our terror-war detainees in Guantanamo, Carter accused the Shah of torturing some 3,000 “political” prisoners. He chastised the shah for his human rights record and engineered the withdrawal of American support.

The irony here is that when Khomeini, a former Muslim exile in Paris, overthrew the shah in February 1979, many of the 3,000 were executed by the ayatollah’s firing squads along with 20,000 pro-Western Iranians.

According to “The Real Jimmy Carter,” a book by Steven Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute: “Kho-meini’s regime executed more people in its first year in power than the Shah’s Savak had allegedly killed in the previous 25 years.” …

 

Power Line and Roger Simon with some campaign shorts.

 

Three good posts from Jim Taranto.

 

Something new on London’s skyline. WSJ with details.

 

Three great posts from Mark Perry at Carpe Diem.

 

NewsBiscuit says not only can’t Prince Harry serve in Iraq, he can’t serve in the royal family either.

Prince Harry will not be allowed to take up his position in the Royal Family, it was finally announced today. A spokesman for Buckingham Palace told a press conference that Harry’s inclusion would represent a ‘significantly increased risk’ to the future and respectability of the monarchy. …

 

Scrappleface explains Barack’s and Hillary’s votes against funds for the war.

May 24, 2007

Download Pickings

In the personal blogs of writers, we get to watch the development of their ideas. Victor Davis Hanson’s recent post on the growing European sympathy for American ideas is a good example.

For five years we have been lectured that George Bush ruined the trans-Atlantic relationship. But now we see pro-American governments in both France and Germany, and a radical change in attitudes from Denmark to Holland to Italy. …

Perfect illustration of same comes from the Jerusalem Post.

French President Nicholas Sarkozy called Wednesday for sanctions on Iran to be tightened if the country does not adhere to the West’s demands to cease its nuclear agenda, Israel Radio reported. …

Immigration bill time. David Brooks is first. He likes it.

… The United States is the Harvard of the world. Millions long to get in. Yet has this country set up an admissions system that encourages hard work, responsibility and competition? No. Under our current immigration system, most people get into the U.S. through criminality, nepotism or luck. The current system does almost nothing to encourage good behavior or maximize the nation’s supply of human capital.

Which is why the immigration deal reached in the Senate last week is, on balance, a good thing. …

George Will is next. He doesn’t.

… In 1986, when there probably were 3 million to 5 million illegal immigrants, Americans accepted an amnesty because they were promised that border control would promptly follow. Today the 12 million illegal immigrants, 60 percent of whom have been here five or more years, are as numerous as Pennsylvanians; 44 states have populations smaller than 12 million. Deporting the 12 million would require police resources and methods from which the nation would rightly flinch. So, why not leave bad enough alone? …

WSJ likes it.

IBD has the third Jimmy Carter editorial.

John Fund writes on Thompson’s use of the internet.

… Former Senator Fred Thompson, who is still mulling over whether to join the GOP race and to date hasn’t raised a penny in campaign funds, is the latest to pioneer a novel technique for harnessing the new medium. He inspired hundreds of comments on blogs this week by posting a short, 39-second video response to a debate challenge from lefty filmmaker Michael Moore over the propriety of Mr. Moore’s recent trip to Cuba. …

Instapundit excerpts good Examiner editorial.

Joshua Muravchik posts on Hillary’s many positions.

Much has already been said about Hillary Clinton’s shifting positions on Iraq. Having once criticized President Bush for not sending enough troops, she now has announced her intent to vote to block war funding. But Hillary’s zigzagging is nothing new. It has been the stamp of her last fifteen years. …

New Republic reviews Bob Shrum’s new book. The 0 for 8 dem campaign consultant has a knife out for Edwards.

Political junkies have been awaiting the new memoir by Bob Shrum, the famed consultant to a string of Democratic presidential candidates, including Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. After compiling an 0-8 record in presidential campaigns, Shrum has taken something of a beating from the political and media establishment of late, and he has been conspicuously absent from the 2008 campaign thus far. But it seems he’s determined to play a role after all, as is clear from his forthcoming book, No Excuses: Concessions of a Serial Campaigner.

One nice thing you can say about Jimmy Carter. He doesn’t hang around with the type of people Bill Clinton enjoys. Dick Morris has the details.

Looks like they’ve found Chirac’s cash stash.

LONG-STANDING rumours that the former French president Jacques Chirac holds a secret multi-million-euro bank account in Japan appear to have been confirmed by files seized from the home of a senior spy. Papers seized by two investigating magistrates from General Philippe Rondot, a former head of the DGSE, France’s intelligence service, show Mr Chirac opened an account in the mid-1990s at Tokyo Sowa Bank, credited with the equivalent of £30 million. It is not known where the money came from, nor whether it is connected to various kick-back scandals to which Mr Chirac’s name has been linked over the past decade.

Last year, Mr Chirac “categorically denied” having a bank account in Japan. …

Cafe Hayek posts on price-gouging legislation.

Carpe Diem says gas prices are not even close to an all-time high.

Last night Dilbert tasked the Great Blog Brain for ideas to improve his restaurants. He posts on some of the answers.

NewsBiscuit announces the launch of Google Gossip.