Download Full content – Printable Pickings

• July 15 (word)

• July 15 (pdf)

Zimbabwe’s problems profiled in the Economist.

ZIMBABWE is an increasingly wretched place and, sadly, will grow more miserable for some time yet. This week an outspoken Roman Catholic Archbishop, Pius Ncube, who has become the strongest voice of opposition in the country, described the economic situation as “life-threatening”. That was an understatement. Years of economic collapse, provoked by dreadful misrule, have already taken a huge toll on Zimbabwean lives: the population has been battered by hunger, poverty and AIDS; some 3m people are estimated to have fled abroad; life expectancy has dropped to medieval levels. …

 

… Choked by hyperinflation and arbitrary restrictions Zimbabweans have had to become increasingly creative to survive. Many of those left behind in the country are staying alive only thanks to remittances from migrants in South Africa, Britain and elsewhere. A local businessman repeats the widely-held prediction that the current system will collapse within six months—and that Zimbabwe, under new management, will become Africa’s fastest growing economy. “Then again”, he smiles, “we have been saying this for years.”

Claudia Rosett keeps us up to date with UN shenanigans.

Another UN moment. There is truly no end to it. Someone ought to set up one of those giant digital counters that tick off things like the growing population of the planet, only in this case, it could have the caption:

“Every 45 seconds, somewhere on earth, a UN official heaps praise on a tyrant.”

Charles Krauthammer features the John Burns article from last Sunday to launch a column.

… It is understandable that Sens. Lugar, Voinovich, Domenici, Snowe and Warner may no longer trust President Bush’s judgment when he tells them to wait until Petraeus reports in September. What is not understandable is the vote of no confidence they are passing on Petraeus. These are the same senators who sent him back to Iraq by an 81 to 0 vote to institute his new counterinsurgency strategy. …

Bill Kristol says the defeatists may have over played their hand.

The Defeatist Democrats have lots of support from the mainstream media, most of whom have simply given up on reporting the war or analyzing arguments about the war. Actually, the newsmen who know something, like John F. Burns and Michael R. Gordon of the New York Times, have produced some terrific reporting. But run-of-the-mill foreign policy and White House reporters have little interest in what is actually happening in Iraq, or in a real consideration of the likely outcomes of different policy options. They’re not even reporting what’s happening in Washington. They’re simply committed to discrediting the war and humiliating the Bush administration.

As for the foreign policy establishment and its fellow travelers in the punditocracy, one might have thought they could be serious about this war–actually analyzing events, engaging in a grown-up debate about the real-world consequences of different courses of action, keeping calm amid the political posturing. Many in the Bush administration who care for their standing in the establishment’s eyes have spent an awful lot of time cultivating these masters of nuance and complexity. All for naught. The establishment, like the media and the Democrats, wants to discredit and humiliate an administration that too often (though not often enough!) dared to think for itself, and to act without their permission. They’re out to destroy Bush, his ideas, and his supporters, no matter the consequences for the country.

Over the last few weeks, all of these estimable entities–the Democratic party in Congress, much of the media, and the foreign policy establishment–have joined together to try to panic the country, and the Bush administration, into giving up. The story of the past week–an important week–is this: They failed. Many around Bush wobbled. But Bush stood firm. Most Republicans on the Hill stood firm. And, so far as one can tell, the country as a whole pulled back a bit from the irresponsibility of cutting and running.

Theodore Dalrymple, a retired psychiatrist, comments on the doctor’s plot for National Review.

Karl Rove was in Aspen last week addressing a group of liberal democrats. Clive Crook has details.

Almost everybody who stayed to listen to Rove on the festival’s last day went there mainly in the hope that heavy equipment might fall on him from a great height. This was the same crowd that had gazed wide-eyed and enchanted at their beloved Bill. Why does Rove accept these invitations, one wondered on the way in? Possibly, he does it for fun. He gave every impression of having a good time. And, in fact, he ran rings round an audience that came not to praise him but in the hope that somebody might bury him.

The Captain posts on BBC’s oldest trick – lying. This time to trash the Queen.

Melanie Phillips on the same subject.

If it transposes a picture sequence like this to sex up a story about the Queen by transmitting an outright falsehood, just think what it is doing in the Middle East.

Greg Mankiw takes up the fairness issue for NY Times.

DO the rich pay their fair share in taxes? This is likely to become a defining question during the presidential campaign.

At a recent fund-raiser for Hillary Clinton, the billionaire investor Warren E. Buffett said that rich guys like him weren’t paying enough. Mr. Buffett asserted that his taxes last year equaled only 17.7 percent of his taxable income, compared with about 30 percent for his receptionist.

Mr. Buffett was echoing a refrain that is popular in some circles. Last year, Robert B. Reich, labor secretary during the Clinton administration, wrote on his blog that “middle-income workers are now paying a larger share of their incomes than people at or near the top.”

“We have turned the principle of a graduated, progressive tax on its head,” Mr. Reich added.

These claims are enough to get populist juices flowing. The problem with them is that they don’t hold up under close examination.

Bret Stephens gets a ride on the USS Harry Truman off the Virginia Capes.

An hour before dusk, the air crew of the USS Truman — several hundred men and women of every rank and job description — gathers at the front end of the deck to walk its 1,100 foot length, looking for tiny pieces of debris. A stray piece of metal sucked into the intake of a fighter jet could cause catastrophic damage to the plane and the pilot and terrible damage to the ship. “We don’t think of this as a dangerous business,” says Rear Adm. Bill Gortney, an F-18 pilot who also commands the Truman’s battle group of cruisers, destroyers and submarines. “It’s just a terribly unforgiving one.” …