Foreign Policy Archives

Who won the second British election debate depends on which poll results one reads. The point, in summary, is either that people's views are volatile, or that you can't trust polls.

The British Parliament has overspent, over-regulated and over-taxed. That is what needs changing in the U.K. It's that simple, and yet none of the candidates for prime minister seems able to say so clearly.

The current election matters, of course, to to British, but also to the West, generally. The U.S. needs a European partner and NATO needs a leader. Unfortunately, British party leaders still can't find their way. Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats has shot up in the polls, entirely because of a good showing in the first TV debate. But underneath his attractive appearance is a lack of substance. Moreover, the built-in national weakness of his party in various ridings (districts) means it would be hard for it to win a majority of seats even with a majority of votes. The Conservatives--who seem to have raised the taxation issue only to let it slip away--still lead in polls but are offering one plastic phrase after another. So is Labour. The Liberals are retreading Obama's posters and offering "Hope."

They all want "Change", of course. But no one seems serious about it.

The leader who takes on spending, taxes and regulations in a convincing way may not get an instant response. The British public may be too divided into special pleading factions to appreciate the message at once. But leadership is about looking ahead and seeing the truth that others avoid. At some point in the campaign the voters will respond positively.

Most disappointing is David Cameron of the Tories. As Theodore Roosevelt said of William Howard Taft, "He means well feebly." His abstract chatter about "The Big Society" is numbing.

The great English Conservatives of the past--Disraeli, Churchill, Thatcher--were brave as well as prescient. They trusted their principles. They took chances, not surveys.

The first of three TV debates in the British national campaign brought Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg to the considered attention of many voters for the first time. He made a strong impression as the reasonable man in beteween two parties that, for various reasons, fail to inspire. By most accounts he "won" the debate.

The last time the Liberal Party constituted a majority in Parliament was in the 1920s when it was eclipsed on the Center/Left by Labour. Since then the Liberal ticket has been a kind of retirement home for protest voters and those too fastidious to back a party with a real chance of governing.

Could that change in 2010? Clegg'ssupport grew by three percent after the debate, according to one poll, while Labour P.M. Brown's vote dropped a point. The Conservative leader David Cameron did well enough in the debate to sustain the overall plurality the Tories enjoy in current surveys, but not well enough yet to secure a solid Parliamentary majority and avoid a hung Parliament.

If Cameron merely emerges with a plurality it would be very hard to form a Government. It might be even worse for them long term if they do form a government and have to compromise their principles even more than they do now.

The former president of the Seychelles Islands is in New York to warn of increased piracy in the Indian Ocean along the Horn of Africa. James R. Mancham will speak at Columbia University and later at the Discovery Institute-sponsored World Russia Forum April 25-27 in Washington, D.C.

Piracy also was also discussed in Seattle last night at an appearance by Koshin Mohamed, a Somali-American who recently returned from combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mohamed, 31, a community leader in Seattle whose childhood was spent in Somalia, said that international military aid is needed to stop the pirates and drive out the Al Shabaab (al Qaeda linked) terrorists that control 80 percent of southern Somalia. The country also needs development of economic options for youth if the opportunist crime-wave of piracy is to be stopped. As is, Mohamed said, impoverished and uneducated young men are easy prey to ideological Islamist encouragement to defy international law and raid innocent trading ships far out to sea.

Koshin Mohamed spoke at Seattle Pacific University

David Cameron has just revealed a manifesto that finally adds spark to the election campaign underway in the U.K. The spark is the Tory pledge to reduce taxes.

Without the tax cut issue, the Conservatives would appear as little more than the familiar budget slashers, and while slashing does need happen, the take home pay of the electorate probably matters more to the economy and to the fate of the Tories.

The rest of the campaign will revolve around the sad stories of (mostly) Labour MPs who abused their expense accounts--a juicy, but old scandal--and the sheer weight of growing government control of ordinary people's lives.

One of the most successful campaign posters in history was that for Fidesz, the party of youthful, free market and pro-Western Hungarians in 1990. In an election that year to establish a new constitution that would mark the end of Communist rule, Fidesz' message was that voters should make a choice between the stolid old Communist ideology and the freedom policies promoted most strongly by the Fidesz Party. "Choose!", the poster insists, with a hilarious picture of two Communist leaders (the Soviets' Leonid Brezhnev and East Germany's Erich Honecker) giving each other an airport greeting smootch. The "choice" in the lower panel was an attractive young Hungarian couple wearing Fidesz buttons.

Fidesz originally was libertarian and limited to members under age 35. Over the years it eliminated its age restriction and moved toward overall center-right policies, emphasizing a pro-growth, lower-tax. After the primary elections just completed, the party seems to be set for a majority victory, not just a plurality, in the final round. The Socialist opposition that united most of the left is fighting for second place with a far right, populist party, Jobbik. The Socialist collapse and the rise of Jobbik is what seems to have captured most press interest, but the real story is Fidesz and its program.

The Government of Gordon Brown and his Labour Party is frazzled and care-worn as the Prime Minister, at the end of his mandate, finally calls an election for May. But if you are expecting inspiration from the nominally Conservative opposition of David Cameron, you will be relegated instead to retread Obamaisms, such as "Hope, Optimism and Change", as if the original "Hope and Change" didn't connote false optimism enough. Then there is the Tory leader's wobbly spin on JFK, "It's no good asking what can government do for me but what can we all do together to make our society stronger."

What next from the sloganeers? "A Chicken in Every Wok"?

Labour is bureaucratic, sclerotic and divided. But Cameron's Conservatives seem to offer mere marginal improvements to an economy that is grotesquely over-regulated and nearly strangled with taxes. In recent weeks Mr. Cameron has lost a big lead in polls, thanks perhaps to his failure to offer any relief, or even sympathy, to taxpayers. Neither party seems much interested, either, in defending Britain from the greedy reach of Brussels' EU pests. The election choice therefore will be fought out on familiar, flatter ground: the Ins versus the Outs.

Conservative leader David Cameron

We read that the Obama Administration is proud that America finally has "professionals" in charge of foreign policy. Such an improvement over G.W Bush, they tell the Financial Times, in a much-noticed recent article. ("U.S. Foreign Policy: Waiting for a Sun King," by Edward Luce and Daniel Dombey, available online only for registered subscribers.)

So where does all the vaunted Obama Administration "professionalism" come from? Why, from the very top.

"For better or for worse," say the authors, "Washington has grown used to the fact that Barack Obama runs the most centralised -- or 'White House-centric' -- administration since Richard Nixon. When Nixon wanted foreign policy advice, everyone knew where he got it from: Henry Kissinger, variously his national security adviser and secretary of state.

Rachel's Tomb in Jerusalem

Americans tend to assume that all Muslims are anti-Israeli. Americans--or at least the media--also often fail to see through the stratagems of Iran's meddling in the Palestinian territories, Lebanon, and, for that matter, Iraq.

Two examples of outspoken Iranian expatriates who defeat the stereotype are Nirs T. Bom and Ido Mizrahi. They published "On Tombs and Rage" originally in the Israeli daily, Haaretz, and then in The Caspian Weekly, a journal that covers various events in the Middle East/East Asia.

In this article, the authors examine the ploy of taking umbrage over Israeli efforts to preserve two historic sites that actually are worth protection for the heritage of Muslims, as well as Jews and Christians. The Palestinian Authority could have used these projects to illustrate a willingness to cooperate on matters of common interest; eventually, after all, the restored sites could attract pilgrimages and tourist support. But at the least the Palestinian officials could have ignored the prservation developments. Instead, they chose to make propaganda out of distorting the issue, as the writers explain.

The national election in Iraq was almost a tie among the two leading parties, with plenty of minor parties gaining seats. The losers are complaining, the "victors" celebrating, but the reality is that no government can emerge quickly from the results. A coalition will develop, and that slowly.

Let us pause, meanwhile, to admire the reality that Iraq has held another relatively solid and fair election. For its part of the world, that is a major accomplishment. Real contests took place, real politicking went on. What other country in the region has such freedom?

Well, sure, Israel. But, who else?

There is hand-wringing about possible violence, even "civil war", in the days ahead. But Iraq has horrible bombings all the time. They come from terrorists who didn't want this election to happen, not from the democrats of various allegiances and persuasions.

One other thing. For several years after the Coalition invasion, we were told that sectarianism would dominate Iraq. The refreshing thing about the elections just completed is how diminished a role sectarianism has played. I admire the Iraqis. They may be the pivotal power (again, other than Israel) in the region in years to come. It is partly because whatever government comes about now, it has ballots behind it.

Two friends (of each other and of mine) have written well-publicized articles about the true condition of Turkish democracy today. They both seem reasonable and they overlap a bit, but they also clash.

First, look at Claire Berlinski's article from the Wall Street Journal.

Then read Mustafa Akyol's article from Newsweek.

I want Mustafa to be right. I am not sure that he is. I do know that the United States has not handled Turkish relations well for some years. For those of you who think it doesn't matter, Claire and Mustafa both could set you straight.

Sometimes, educational experiences are unpleasant. Vice President Biden was in Israel this week to cheer his "old friends," declare his joy at being "home" and, oh, by the way, encourage Israel not to build any more settlements in Jerusalem and the West Bank. But during his visit the Israelis announced (by cooincidence or the unilateral decision of a faction in the Netanyahu government) that they were going to allow another 1600 new settlement housing units in (East) Jerusalem.

This provoked Joe Biden to rebuke the decision, and his mission more or less ground to a halt right there.

In The Israel Test, George Gilder argues that Jewish settlements have not hurt the Palestinian economy of the West Bank, Gaza or Jerusalem, but have greatly improved it. Before the intifadas of the 90s, Palestinians moved into the areas where Israelis settled and gained greatly from the collateral prosperity. Palestinian per capita income tripled in the period.

The Obama Campaign in 2008 opposed George W. Bush's efforts on behalf of free trade, including the permission of qualified Mexico truck drivers to bring their goods into the United States. The reason was simple: big labor was opposed; in the Mexican case it was the Teamsters.

Now we are experiencing a near collapse of free trade progress and, in the case of the Mexican trucks, strong retaliatory measures by Mexico that, according to the Wall Street Journal, already have cost us $2.6 billion in export trade and some 25,000 jobs.

CNN interviewed Winnie Maneda, divorced spouse of Nelson Mendela, today and made the woman who once advocated "necklaces" of burning tires for inadequately motivated revolutionaries in South Africa seem proper and almost prim. But another interview, in the U.K., printed in the Daily Mail, gives a truer sense of the woman and her poisoned perspective.

Invictus, the film starring Morgan Freeman as Nelson Mandela, did not get much attention at the Oscars show last night, but it deserves to be listed in the pantheon of films of political redemption. Whereas Winnie's hatred pointed in one direction, the suffering and reflection of Nelson Mandela headed him--and South Africa--in another, and history was transformed. It is not perfect, but, still, it is one of the quiet, beautiful triumphs of our time.

Some German parliamentary members are advancing an idea for their country to to obtain a base on "Mittelmeer"-- at last, after all these centuries, a seaport on the sunny Mediterranean. It is a proposal to the Greeks to help them alleviate their notorious national debt by lightening their real estate.

Bismark would be astonished and delighted. However, since Germans today are mostly pacific (pardon the pun), do not expect them to build a naval base near Athens. Instead, Germany's new possessions probably will sport casinos and resorts where die Frauen can frolic as Nature intended, outside the gaze of formerly native Greeks. (Not that the Greeks have ever minded.)

Would you like a little spanakopita with your Kielbasa, Mein Herr?

Reserve used to be a characteristic trait of Canadians. Not patriotic. Defined by what they weren't--that is, not Americans.

No more. Canadians these days can't stop singing, "O, Canada" and painting their faces red and white. They shout and carry on like, well, I can't help noting, Americans.

Tonight they deserve congratulations and thanks. They have staged a magnificent Winter Olympics in the fabulous world city of Vancouver and the superb modern resort of Whistler-Blackcomb. They could have been stumped by the unseasonably warm weather, but they weren't. They could have been undone by the pressure of media and transportation. They weren't. Their guests are flying out of town feeling happy and grateful.

Especial praise goes to our Cascadia ally, British Columbia. What incredible strides the province has made in a generation or so!

Some said that Canadians should feel chagrined that they didn't win as many medals as the U.S., or even the Germans. Nonsense. Canada is a fraction of the population of the U.S. (even if you only count the states that have winter sports), and yet they managed a huge haul, including, of course the men's hockey gold, which was about all they seemed to care about this sunny Sunday afternoon.

Well, let them have it. We, in turn, are fortunate to have such fine, fun neighbors. They are excellent hosts and friends.

Americans remain justifiably concerned about al Qaeda and related terror groups, but it is worth pausing to note the considerable progress that already has been made in Muslim countries since 9/11 to undermine the jihadis. G.W. Bush correctly insisted that democracy should be promoted in the Middle East, even though democracy is not always an unmixed blessing.

Fareed Zakaria has a good wrap-up of the situation in Newsweek that actually provides some credit to Bush and to King Abdullah in Saudi Arabia, where real and potential terrorists are being re-schooled or, if necessary, physically thwarted. In both Iraq and Afghanistan, huge efforts are made by the West to promote republican institutions (not just democracy, but ordered liberty, including minority rights and free speech). Economic development is included, but mainly on the basis of infrastructure. There is no particular emphasis on free markets, though all you have to do is look at the Kurdish region to see the relevance--how free markets encourage peace as well as vice versa.

However, one of the most interesting and under-appreciated models within the Muslim world is Turkey. There the old guard are the Kemalists who are such ardent secularists (though not as bad as the Baathists of Syria and Iraq) that they persecute Muslims as well as other religious peoples. Mustafa Akyol has written extensively on Turkey's history, politics and culture, and has tried to help the West understand that while the arch-secularists control the bureaucracy, the military and most of the media and academia, the pro-Muslim party in Turkey is actually the more tolerant of diversity of religion and of political opinion. Most crucially, Akyol is showing that the Kemalists are mercantilists (though that is not the word he uses) who advance business activities through government connections, while the conservatives--almost all of them Muslim--promote free enterprise. You can get much of the story from Mr. Akyol's frequent columns and articles, but watch also for his forthcoming book on the topic.

George Gilder's op-ed article, "Why Antagonize China?" appears in tomorrow's Wall Street Journal. There is much to criticize China for, but the Obama Administration seems to have made finding fault with the Chinese a strange pre-occupation. This is not the way to get ahead. As Gilder asks, "How many enemies do we need?" in a world where we are challenged by implacable foes such as al Qaeda, not to mention Iran, North Korea and Venezuela.

Technology is an especially crucial arena for careful interaction with China. Notes our colleague Bret Swanson,

"From 2000 to 2009, the number of Internet users in China rose from 23 million to 338 million. http://www.internetworldstats.com/asia/cn.htm

China passed 700 million mobile phone users in fall 2009.

China and Taiwan together produce about 650+ million of the global annual total of 1.2 billion mobile phones. Still trying to pin down exact numbers. (China ~550 million; Taiwan ~100 million; Korea probably another 300 million)."

"As China becomes a larger portion of the global Internet community," Swanson continues, "it would be wise to keep them within the fold of global standards and (American private-sector led) governance (ICANN, etc). Pushing them away could lead to unpredictable fragmentation of the universal Net fabric. Not to mention possible disruptions to physical supply chains and knowledge flows in this seamless tech market.

"It is true China has stepped up enforcement of its previously ineffective 'Great Firewall' and blocked Twitter and Facebook on several occasions over the last year. China this winter also restricted new registrations of domain names to registered companies, blocking many individuals from acquiring new domains. But the overwhelming evidence suggests the Internet in China still mostly thrives."

Nir Booms of Cyberdissidents and Shayan Arya, Seattle-based Iranian-American activist, describe the increasing use of kidnapping and hostage taking to intimidate foes of the theocratic regime in Iran. Hostage taking is a barbaric practice to which the Iranians have added modern police state methods.

From Nir Booms' blog site is the article reprinted from The Washington Times.

If there is any cheer in the article it is the description of 21st century ways that have developed to resist the dictators.

Time magazine, often accused of being a cheerleader for the Obama Administration, has been striking some questioning poses, including lately on Iran. Writes Massimo Calabresi:

"Now Obama faces the unpleasant reality that neither the engagement track nor the sanctions track appear to be going anywhere. His defenders at home and abroad say it was the right way to proceed, but skeptics of Obama's policy are emerging, even in his own party. 'What exactly did your year of engagement get you?' asks a Hill Democrat."

It is not at all convenient for anyone that the string is running out on Iran. Even the Administration would like to focus on domestic issues, or Haiti relief, or even al Qaeda. But Iran either is getting nukes or it is not. If not, then the U.S. can bluster indefinitely, as Iran's government is doing. But if the nukes are coming, it will be very hard for the U.S to look away. The entire region that Iran aims to dominate could come apart.

Discovery senior fellow John Wohlstetter is all over the issue of whether it is wise and just to try terrorists like Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Underwear Bomber, in American civilian courts. His article today at The American Spectator takes apart the idea that this is another policy traceable to Bush.

During the Cold War there were people on the democratic Left in the U.S. and (especially) in Europe who, practically speaking, were more antagonistic toward anti-communism than to communism. In virtually every respect they were sanctimonious, self-dramatizing and tragically wrong.

The Underwear Bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab

We are now dealing with a similar liberal mindset on terrorists and the struggle against them. The former most-liberal member of the U.S. Senate is now President and beginning to realize what he--and we--are up against. He still cannot bring himself to use the phrase "war on terror." He does speak, belatedly, of a "war with al Qaeda."

Well, if it is a war, why is the al Qaeda recruit who tried to blow up an airliner Christmas Day being tried--at great cost and at great propaganda risk--in a civilian court?

Frustration finally is getting hotter in chilly Britain tonight as more snow is predicted for Sunday and ordinary citizens are put to increased inconvenience and even hardship. The supposed political news is about rump Labourites nagging Gordon Brown on military matters and legal questions that are being raised about Conservative fundraising. But the real political news surely should be the conspicuous failure of the central government to provide backup supplies of salt and "grit" for roadways (one of the two big salt mines says its supply runs out tomorrow). The same may apply to natural gas, an even more serious matter. In general, the Government seems lax on preparedness.

Prime Minister Brown has been very keen about the dangers of global warming, but he still appears rather absent-minded about the serious and more immediate British Cooling. That, more than inside-Parliament squabbling, could hurt him with the public. It actually affects people's lives in ways they experience.

I'm a long way off and don't see anyone else coming to my opinion about this yet, however. Let's see.

Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Cristina Kirschner of Argentina (and Nestor, her husband and predecessor as President) have been the most powerful opponents of the United States in South America for the past decade. The Bush Administration tried to ignore them. The Obama Administration tried to mollify them.

Both Administrations' policies erred. But, never mind. "Historical necessity," as the Marxists say, seems to be catching up to the two bullying regimes. This not only is encouraging for the cause of freedom in the Western Hemisphere, but a potential blow to Iran, Cuba and other pals of the two South American far leftists.

The latest examples of political decay and financial impotence are Chavez' decision Friday to devalue the Bolivar by 50 percent and the failure of the Kirchners--so far--to force out the chief of Argentina's Centeral BAnk, Martin Redrado. (Redrado has refused to let President Kirchner raid foreign-currency reserves for her own agenda.)

It is one of the ironies of economics that these ardent foes of capitalism-- Chavez and the Kirchners--suffer when their adversaries do, only perhaps worse. Their governments are even more reckless and spendthrift than ours. And our recession leaves them in even worse shape.

Not being in England during the worst weather in at least fifteen years, it is hard to know whether the stories of breakdowns in road operations (the government is flying SALT in from Europe and the U.S.), gas shortages and rampant transportation delays make much difference to the average Brit. But they mattered so little to the Labour Party that it chose this moment to battle with itself over leadership issues. That high priority apparently couldn't wait.

UPDATE: Weather conditions don't seem to be getting any better today in Britain and P.M. Gordon Brown seems still to regard the matter as relatively routine. Entering the coldest night in 15 years, The Telegraph reports on the shortage of "grit" for roads, and much else:

"Cheshire's Winsford salt mine also said it only has a few days' supply of surface salt left as a No 10 spokesman said there was no provision for central Government to take control of stocks.

"The National Grid issued its second gas alert in three days as the UK's freezing weather pushed demand to record levels.

"The operator's gas balancing alert came with gas demand expected to hit 454 million cubic metres today - higher than the all-time record of 449 million in January 2003.

"Roads, trains and airports were subjected to another day of havoc."

Prime Minister Brown is one of the world's most outspoken alarmists on global warming. He presently is one of the quieter spokesmen on the subject of his freezing country.

Labour has been running behind the Conservatives in British popularity polls, though lately the Tories have been fading a bit. But that was before a record-breaking and determined blast of cold and snow descended on the Sceptered Isle, and before the taciturn Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, failed to find the weather very invigorating.

Mr. Brown's reported response is a classic: "I think Britain can deal with these problems. There are always difficulties when we have a long spell of bad weather. But we can cope."

That may not be exactly what people want to hear, however. The U.K. is in the one of the worst winters in a century. Local governments are running out of "grit" to put on roads. The National Grid energy authority has warned that gas supplies are running low. People are losing income because they cannot get to work. Businesses are hurting. Some lives are being lost. What a leader needs to do in a situation like that is to show personal involvement.

Of immediate concern is that later today the U.K. may be getting still more snow. That, not political responsibility for governmental inadequacies, is what is on people's minds.

Nonetheless, looking ahead, one might observe that freezing weather has put more than one political career on ice in America, and the same might happen in the U.K. The powerful Mayor of Chicago, Michael Bilandic, was defeated in a Democratic primary election in 1979 after his perceived inattention to a stiff blizzard a few months earlier. Something similar happened to Greg Nickels, an otherwise politically well-situated Mayor of Seattle, who endured criticism after the Emerald City was shut down for several days during a December, '08 storm. He failed, though only narrowly, to survive a primary election challenge late the next summer.

Water, if not ice, damaged the re-election chances of George W. Bush when the President was slow to react strongly to Hurricane Katrina.

These are American examples, of course, but human nature and democracies share much in common on both sides of The Pond.

Maybe Gordon Brown should take a turn shoveling snow.

The Weekly Standard does a good turn in its New Year's issue by highlighting the work of Spirit of America, the philanthropy that provides funds for troops in Afghanistan and Iraq to use as they sit fit in encouraging the local population.

One of the long standing frustrations of even top U.S. government officials who try to prosecute a war is the rigidity, red tape and second-guessing of bureaucracies when asked to supply funds quickly to troops on the ground who see first hand a need and want to fill it. You can rail against this sort of thing, but it has been the case for many years. No bureaucrat wants to make a mistake--by trying something new that isn't predictable and commonplace--the very expenditures, often small, that can make a big difference. The rule book is at hand to punish those who deviate.

That is why private groups are important. They can get things done--especially in building community support for U.S. objectives--in ways the government is not well organized to accomplish. Spirt of America is such a group. It warrants our financial support.

President Obama has tried to deal with Iran on the basis of reasoned diplomacy. Now we see a regime that has its vehicles run down demonstrators and blame "Zionists" and the Americans for the popular protests.

The President aims to empty Guantanamo prison and either prosecute the terrorists in U.S. courts--at enormous cost--or to send them back to their country of origin, such as Yemen. This approach is becoming an embarrassment as we learn that many returnees released by the Bush Administration (under pressure from Congress, please recall) have rejoined al Qaida.

Presumably the underpants bomber will be treated as a mere criminal, too, and given all the rights afforded to American citizens. He will be allowed to make grandiloquent propaganda statements along the way.

What makes President Obama think that the rest of the world understands and appreciates his policy of diplomatic niceness for dictators and criminal court cases for terrorists? After all, even most Americans don't understand--or agree--with it.

You would think that our northern neighbors would be glowing with cheer these days. Contrary to the backbiting on television and in the blogs, Canada's economy is better off than ours and the Conservative party government of Stephen Harper seems reliable, if (in the classic Canadian manner), dull.

Dull is good, actually. Meet someone who complains about the dry cleaner ruining his shirt and his teen-ager denting the car and you are in the presence of someone who really should be counting his blessings instead.

Canadians on the cusp of the 2010 Olympic Games in Whistler/Vancouver, B.C., similarly, should be counting their blessings. There are reports that the country will benefit greatly--to the tune of "billions and billions of dollars"--and there are reports of the Games being of little or no benefit (and little popular enthusiasm), and reports that indicate "modest" benefits. But, what is lost in all the pseudo-economic models and opinion surveys is that no one really knows how much the province of B.C. and Canada generally will benefit--or lose--financially in the short run.

What they should know is that hosting such a prestigious event will confer lasting, positive attention on Canada as a first ranking winter tourist destination and a highly desirable place to work and do business. That usually has been the history of such events. Several billion people will watch the proceedings on TV. Journalists from around the world once again will admire the host country and the people. And British Columbia will acquire some good new infrastructure and sports facilities. (Another nice development is added passenger rail service to the U.S., via Seattle.)

If I were a Canadian looking for something to worry about right now, I would focus on something very practical: assuring airline security coming into the country and venue security for those Games.

Afterwards, relax and bask in the glory.

The President should acknowledge that there is, after all, "a War Against Terrorism". Authorities should be plain, of course, that the enemy is not Islam or Muslims, per se, but radical Islamists--and that that includes not just al Qaida, but also Iran, through its paid surrogates, Hamas and Hezbollah, assisted by the totalitarian communists in North Korea that ship nuclear and other armaments and the dictatorship in Venezuela that attempts to destabilize democracies (Honduras, Colombia) and makes common cause with Iran. Islamist radicals in Europe (especially the U.K.) and now inside the U.S. have been recruited, so they are properly identifiable as foes. What these allied terrorist groups and terror-supporting regimes have in common is hatred toward freedom and democracy as Westerners understand them. They hate Jews and Christians and will kill them in Iraq, Pakistan or wherever they can find them. They also have no compunction about killing fellow Muslims, so CAIR, et al, should spare us the argument that targeting Muslim extremists is targeting Muslims in general.

Be grateful for Muslims who have joined in the fight against the Islamist radicals, reporting them to authorities. They often do so at personal peril, which is why you don't hear about them much. We need to protect and encourage such people. Muslims arguably are suffering more than anyone from the radicals in their midst.

The uncommonly intelligent and courageous Iranian people are trying hard to get the attention of the world as they open new lines of protest against the dictatorial theocratic regime. The British seem to find a way to reply. What is holding up the Americans? Moral support is surely the least we can provide!

The people of Iran do not want the dictators. There will be a way found to extricate them from the hold of the authoritarians. We need to be with them when they do.

The Copenhagen climate summit has certain elements of conspiracy theory to it, including an attempt by IPCC Vice Chairman Jean-Pascal van Ypersele to blame the Russians for release of the ClimateGate emails. Why? Because a Russian server may have been used.

Here is a report by the London Telegraph writer James Delingpole on the pathetic attempt to turn the whole U.K./U.S. fiasco into an international spy story. (It was Delingpole who coined the "ClimateGate" name, by the way.)

The motive that the ClimateGate defenders attribute to the Russians is a desire to distract the Copenhagen negotiators from their work. It is hinted, moreover, that the Russians could have been paid. However, surely the ClimateGate defenders can come up with something better than that. For example, they could speculate that the Kremlin wants to keep oil usage respectable, since Russia is the world's number one producer. Natural gas, too. Or, just as likely, the Russians really would like the world to get a little warmer. A longer growing season, as V. Putin has joked. And perhaps the prospect of January picnics in the park outside the Kremlin.

If Congress and the British Parliament were doing their duty to their respective publics, hearings would be held in each body on the nature and extent and possible answers to man-made climate change. Opponents would be allowed to call an equal number of experts to testify. Put the whole thing on television and let the public see and hear it all.

There is a spectrum of informed voices on this topic, ranging from those convinced of global warming and its man-made aspect (these are the folks invited to Copenhagen); to critics who think warming is real and man is responsible, but that the CRU was irresponsible; to those who think warming is real and man may have contributed, but that the proposed cures are inappropriate and extreme; to those who think global warming is real, but not man made; to those who doubt that long term global warming is underway and therefore, human beings are not crucial agents. All these voices should be heard.

Meanwhile, trying to blame the Russians for hacking the CRU computers is so phony that it suggests desperation.

I am not even Russian, but I cannot help being overcome by a sense of melancholy, nostalgia and loss when I see these glorious century-old color photographs of Imperial Russia and her people. These were taken in the decade before the First World War ruined so much that is here presented.

The pictures by the intrepid chemist and photographer Sergei Mikhailovich Prokudin-Gorskii, who departed Russia in 1918, were purchased by the Library of Congress in 1944 and appeared recently on the Denver Post blog site ( brought to our attention by Mike Averko).

The conservative candidate for president won in Honduras and it is likely now that the United States will recognize his government, as will Panama and Costa Rica. The way the Washington Times plays it in early reports (big, legitimizing turnout, show of rejection for the ousted Zelaya) versus the Washington Post story (small turnout, many voters not happy with choices) is telling, isn't it?

Mainstream media, being liberal, are unhappy that the Hondurans upheld their own constitutional ban on added Presidential terms and--with united Honduras Supreme Court and congressional backing--ousted Manuel Zelaya. T They also aren't very happy that Zelaya's antics thereafter, backed by Hugo Chavez, failed to sway either major party in Honduras or that country's courts.

Actually, the election results are a big victory for democracy and freedom in Latin America and a setback for Latin America's authoritarian regimes like Chavez' and Castro's. Had Zelaya come back, Honduras could well have been muscled into a situation like that afflicting Venezuela.

Iran is now more isolated than at any time in over three years as the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors, meeting in Vienna, rebuked the theocratic Muslim regime for its disregard of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and efforts of the international community to find a peaceful resolution. Russia and China voted with the West, as did India. Only Cuba, Venezuela and Malaysia voted with Iran, while a number of Iran's neighbors bravely abstained--Turkey, Pakistan, Afghanistan among them.

Russia's growing impatience with Tehran is the big development here, especially if it leads to a Russian vote at the Security Council that backs the IAEA position with real sanctions. Give some quiet applause to the Obama Administration (quiet, because matters are still delicate) and also credit Russia's increasing realism about economics and terrorism.

On the other hand, Iran's contemptuous reaction to the IAEA resolution and its announcement that it will build even more centrifuges is hardly a laudable achievement for Obama Administration diplomacy, is it?

When it comes to technology, entrepreneur Jonathan Medved told George Gilder's Telecosm 2009 conference in Tarrytown, New York this week, Israel is the world's "startup nation," now eclipsing everyone else in the world (even the U.S. on a per capita basis).

There was great enthusiasm for Medved and other speakers at this year's Gilder show, which was built around The Israel Test, George's new book. A video greeting from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu opened the conference.

On "Street Insider" at CNBC TV later, Jonathan Medved also described the remarkable prominence of Israel in green technologies, including desalinization, geo-thermal power and electric cars (thanks to Shai Aggaziz, who spoke last year at Discovery's Cascadia conference, "Beyond Oil".)

Another Medved, radio star/author/Discovery senior fellow Michael, was also a resounding success at Telecosm 2009. We hope to have his and other speeches at the event posted soon.

Two trends of Russian government policy seem to be shifting, as witnessed by President Medvedev's major address today in Moscow. The first is the tendency in recent years for government to punish those individuals and companies deemed guilty of economic misbehavior. Now, it seems, the Kremlin is taking a more free market approach.

In foreign policy--connected to business, as well--the Kremlin seems eager once again to bring foreign capital back into the country, and to protect it. Russian leadership also seems to be warming a bit to the U.S., and cooling to Iran.

At least that is the interpretation many are putting on the fairly general statements in the Medvedev speech. See the following report from Stratfor:

Thursday, November 12, 2009
A Speech, the Russian Economy and U.S. Relations

"AS RUSSIAN PRESIDENT DMITRI MEDVEDEV was preparing to make his second State of the State address on Thursday, some major shifts in Russian domestic and foreign policy appeared to be taking place. Those shifts seemed destined to affect not only the speech, but Russia as a whole."

I can't join those denouncing moderate Muslims for not disassociating themselves from the Islamists, because I know a number of moderate Muslims who have done just that. In the Middle East and Central Asia, of course, many moderates are standing up to the Islamists, to the extent of losing their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq.

On the other hand, one might demand that supposed Westerners who learned the lessons of the Holocaust might be counted upon to resist anti-Semitism. But, as a story from Sweden points out, the ancient bigotry has a way of re-gaining fashionability.

Two Muslim Americans of Iranian background (Shayan Arya and Nir Boms), meanwhile, publish in the Jerusalem Post what should be a source of great anticipation; namely, the hostility of the people of Iran to the theocrats who currently rule.

George Gilder's Telecosm annual conference on technology and society is underway today in Tarrytown, New York. The theme is technology in Israel and what it signifies for America's economy and the defense of the West. If you haven't purchased Gilder's The Israel Test yet (and are not at the Telecosm conference), you can order directly from the Discovery.org website.

Ingratitude is part of human nature. So, too, is the convenient memory lapse. In Germany itself we see reports recently of East Germans who mourn the loss of the old DDR, though they quickly add that they surely wouldn't want the old system to return. West Germans, in turn, are quick to count the cost of rehabilitating the East after reunification, but they fail to mention the priceless gift of increased national unity and security.

Our friends at CEI have made a perfect short video to help us all remember and keep this anniversary of the Wall's fall in historic context.

Meanwhile, this afternoon at Discovery Institute we are hosting Steven Hayward, whose truth-telling chronological history of the Reagan Administration--The Age of Reagan--is a riveting reconstruction of a period too often represented now in a kind of gauzy glow. In fact, as Hayward shows, the Reagan years were tumultuous and sometimes even frightening for those who fought its battles. The judgement that they had been hugely successful was not clear until well after President Reagan left office. Unfortunately, human nature also can create a false nostalgia.

Hayward's book is like a splash of cold water in the face in the morning. It wakes you up. It is not agreeable at once, but then it refreshes and encourages. It helps you face the pessimism of now.

Patrick McDonald, whose regular job is with the Elections Division of the Washington Secretary of State's office, is a member of a 200 member Washington National Guard unit that just returned from a second tour of duty in Iraq--helping train elections officials and providing logistics for its Iraqi hosts. Master Sergeant McDonald has two Purple Hearts from his tour three years ago, but this time he came home in much better shape, healthy and happy. Among the things he told us in a speech this week at Discovery Institute:

* Safety is much improved, despite the recent violent bombings. You can drive from the airport ("Route Irish") without fearing for your life, you can shop on Haifa Street, you can dine out--unless you look like a really good target. A few years ago, none of this was possible.

* The crucial oil industry has recovered to pre-invasion levels of production and shipment, about two and a half million barrels a day, enough to fuel many of the needs of the new government.

* Electricity is up to about 20 hours a day, far better than even under Saddam--before the war.

Benjamin Netanyahu

Israeli prowess in technology is the subject that started George Gilder on the path to writing The Israel Test, and it is the subject also that Gilder will emphasize in the upcoming Gilder/Forbes Telecosm 20009 conference in Tarrytown, New York November 10-12.

In Israel last week to promote his book and to meet with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Gilder talked to many old and new friends in the remarkable Israeli technology industry that now is second only to America's. Among the topics he investigated was the invention of new long life batteries at Technion, "the MIT of Israel."

The batteries seem destined to revolutionize electronics and eventually to lead to the long-sought, long term electric automobile battery that was discussed this past week, also, at the "Beyond Oil" conference sponsored by the Cascadia Center at Microsoft's Redmond, WA campus.

(Reminder to the media: Gilder is director of Discovery Institute's Technology and Democracy program, and Cascadia is a center within Discovery Institute.)

"Bibi" Netanyahu, in his meeting with Gilder, apparently expressed enthusiasm about the varied themes of The Israel Test, which he recently read; not just the explanations for Israel's dramatic contributions to technology in the past decade, but also Gilder's original insights about Jews, Israel, capitalism and the nature of creativity.

Gilder has lined up a stellar cast for Telecosm 2009, a project co-produced with Forbes, and he says he expects the political and cultural vibrations to nearly equal the investment and technology interest this year. The annual Telecosm conference is not a program of Discovery Institute, although a number of our fellows, in addition to George Gilder, take part.

In Israel, The Israel Test already is the number one book (in English) on Israel.

Western fears that Russia may use its dominance in gas production and distribution to influence political decisions in Europe are dealt another blow with word that the Azeris and Turks are making considerable progress on an alternative route.

The Russian "threat" thereby diminishes.

Slim Pickens rides a missile down in Dr. Strangelove

Discovery Senior Fellow John Wohlstetter, author of The Long War Ahead, is working increasingly on the topic of nuclear proliferation. Here is a lecture that he gave at the Discovery headquarters in Seattle on September 30. I asked John to "terrify us", but also "give us some hope at the end," and he complied beautifully.

The political left is looking for a safe and relatively easy way to continue the war in Afghanistan while lowering American casualties. Strategist Max Boot shows why that won't work (except to exasperate the American public further), and why painstaking counterinsurgency is the way to go. Over time, the hard way is the shortest way.

It is helpful when the media cover major industry conferences, for seemingly boring meetings sometimes reveal real news. That is what happened at the World Gas Conference in Buenos Aires recently, as reported by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard at The Telegraph in England.

The confirmation of new gas supplies is cheering Americans eager to diminish the nation's reliance on foreign oil and Europeans who feared over-commitment to Russian resources.

By the same token, it is upsetting to some Russians, understandably.

"Needless to say, the Kremlin is irked. 'There's a lot of myths about shale
production,' said Gazprom's Alexander Medvedev.

"If the new forecasts are accurate, Gazprom is not going to be the perennial
cash cow funding Russia's great power resurgence. Russia's budget may be in
structural deficit."

We wrote about the Canadian and U.S. potential supplies years ago. Now the visions apparently are coming true.

Those who say that President Obama has achieved nothing in foreign policy are wrong. He has achieved the Nobel Peace Prize. That's something.

In the real world, however, we are left with terrible indecision on Iran, North Korea and Afghanistan. (On Israel, we are left with a terrible double standard.)

Charles Krauthammer is at his best when things are at their worst. I can only laud this column.

America's national interest and the safety of the world lies in successful prosecution of the war on terrorism--by whatever name you call it. Accordingly, a full year before the next Congressional election it ought to be possible to forge a bi-partisan consensus on a crucial element in that struggle: the war in Afghanistan. This is not just about tactics. It is about political will and a determination to sustain it.

If the two parties in Washington, DC can get their respective acts together, the public will agree. In to win--and there is no other reason to be there.

Silva de Lula of Brazil is coming under well-deserved domestic criticism for his bizarre decision to allow former Honduras President Manuel Zelaya--a pal of Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro--to use the Brazilian embassy in Tegucigalpa as his campaign headquarters in a running dispute with the current leaders of Honduras.

Why the U.S. is playing along with Zelaya and his far left cronies is a mystery. Zelaya defied the Supreme Court of his country when it ruled his actions to perpetuate his rule unconstitutional. There has been almost no discussion of the reality on the ground, except by Anastasia O'Grady of the Wall Street Journal and the paper's editorial writers.

Silva de Lula plainly is pandering to his otherwise-neglected far left base; he has not proven to be the demagogue he first appeared--except in this instance. In so doing, he gives assistance to Hugo Chavez who usually is his hemispheric foe.

The role of the USA is even stranger, part of a general policy, it seems of attacking our friends and giving comfort to our foes.

Instead of abating, terrorist threats have increased in recent weeks and months as allied resolve in the face of Muslim extremists' pressures has wavered. In an effort to influence the Sunday elections in Germany, the Taliban and al Qaeda are proposing attacks on that country--naming today's Oktoberfest crowds in Munich as a prime sensitive spot--unless the Germans remove troops from Afghanistan. Most famously, a terrorist attack in Madrid in 2003 led to a change in Spain's government and the removal of Spanish troops from Iraq. In other words, the tactic is known to work.

Meanwhile, the FBI is busy rounding up terrorism suspects in Dallas, New York and Seattle, among other places. A Dallas plot was at the point of execution when foiled--the FBI had had a secret agent in place.

In Seattle, we heard as early as 2006 of efforts locally to recruit for al Qaeda among the population of immigrants from Somalia. So, fortunately, did the FBI.

On the world stage we have the spectacle of Iranian perfidy and the biggest terror plot possible, the development of nuclear weapons and a stated desire to see Israel and the U.S. destroyed. Now the Russians are noticing, which could be progress. (However, this commentator thinks the Russians will never get serious about Iran because their own purposes are better served by distracting and weakening the U.S.) We'll see. Actions will speak louder than words now.

But what about "words"? The Obama Administration has all but banned use of the phrase "War on Terror". A lot of good it has done. Does anyone still really think we merely are facing assorted criminals?

One of the most important elections not covered much in the (US) media in recent years is the one taking place this Sunday in Germany. The question seems to be whether Prime Minister Angela Merkel's conservative coalition can manage a substantial enough victory to claim a clear-cut mandate or whether the P.M.--who sought headlines at the G-22 Summit in Pittsburgh as her best last-minutes chance for publicity back home in Germany--will be forced into another coalition with the Social Democrats.

I'll be watching to see if the Linke leftists, successors to the old communist party of East Germany, as well and the Greens, continue to pick up the support slipping away from the lackluster Social Democrats.

The outcome matters more than people here in America seem to have noticed. Even though Merkel has joined the panders blaming the greed of bankers for the current recession, her real causes are tax cuts that can revive the German economy (and indirectly help ours) and continued support for NATO's war in Afghanistan.

The linked story from The Independent ends with some funny combinations that victory might bring, depending on the various political parties' traditional colors. Here in America, we are stuck with basic red (state) and blue (state) imagery, and even that isn't very well-established. I'll still take our two party system to the confusion of theirs.

A developed country does not cancel its regularly scheduled census of population, especially when one is constitutionally required. So it is not a surprise that the decision of Rosstat, the Russian State Statistical Service, to "postpone" the 2010 census on budgetary grounds was taken over the objection of Rosstat's highly regarded professional staff and at the behest of politicians in the Kremlin. The political leaders don't realize the seriousness of their mistake.

This may seem like a minor matter, except that it reflects high-level confusion about reality--the kind of reality a census captures. Indirectly, it damages economic prospects because it shows that public statistics cannot be accepted as reliable for planning and marketing purposes. If the Kremlin hopes that a several year delay will help it disguise negative demographic trends, it is deluded. Observers now will imagine far worse than an accurate census would show.

The decision is particularly unfortunate in light of the notorious statistical deceit that characterized the USSR. In that grim era statistics might as well have been another branch of state propaganda. Population and other numbers were so decrepit that the best analysis of the true condition of Russia demography probably came from Dr. Murray Feshbach, a brilliant analyst at the United States Census Bureau and, later, the State Department.

Feshbach, an amiable, chatty person in private, was amazingly adept at collecting and deconstructing official Soviet numbers, cross referencing with odd information--such as train schedules and shipping notices--to gain an insight into the truth that the Kremlin in those days hid. He was so good that Soviet statisticians repeatedly sought him out at international conferences to obtain copies of his reports to help them fill in the holes in their own. Feshbach was able to give them the kinds of data that they were not allowed to collect, or--in some cases where they did collect it--data they were not allowed share with their own domestic colleagues.

Are we going back to those days? Dr. Feshbach, now 80, retired in 2000, but maybe he can be pressed back into service--not service to the US government, but to beleaguered statisticians and businessmen in 21st century Russia.

Iraq--other than Egypt, perhaps--is the essential Arab country. With a free, democratic Iraq you have the potential for serious long term peace in the Middle East. Afghanistan is important and Iran must be prevented from gaining nukes, but even victory in Afghanistan and a peaceful revolution in Iran would not generate the dynamic and models that a stable, Western-friendly Iraq would provide the region.

Iraq has a relatively educated population with a long, noble history. Iraq has oil--the fourth largest supply. It has water (the Tigris and Euphrates of storied past) and therefore agriculture. It has sunshine--albeit with the liability of terrible heat in summer. It has fishing in the south and pasture land in the rolling green north. It has access to the sea and shipping lanes. It could be peaceful and prosperous. It could provide leadership for peace in the Middle East.

Our friends at "Iraq the Model", the popular, prize-winning Iraqi blog-site, Drs. Muhammed Fadhil and Omar Fadhil, with their bother, Dr. Ali Fadhil--have matured in the process of reporting on developments in Iraq in a style and with a sensibility that should bring encouragement to Americans. They have a faithful following of about 1000 visitors a day.

It was a mystery to me over the years how they kept safe. But, in fact, they were not safe. The terrorists eventually found and killed their brother-in-law. So it was that the Fadhils joined their political ally, Mithal al-Alusi (a member of Parliament) in making blood sacrifice for their country's future. (Mr. al-Alusi, as I have reported in the past, saw his two sons killed before his eyes and has been attacked himself many times and nearly went to prison for daring to travel to Israel. Fortunately, the new Iraqi court system has protected him from his enemies.)

I met with Muhammed and Omar today and concluded that their admirers in America need to help them establish a permanent program. If you have any ideas how to do so, contact me. There needs to be an American outlet for their talent that will assist them in promoting the cause of liberty in their part of the world.

Despite the hundreds of billions the US government is spending on the Iraq war and reconstruction, there apparently is almost nothing to build the civil society that needs to emerge now. This is a call to the private and non-profit sector. Who will answer?

Russian authorities are happy, Czech and Polish officials feel as if they have been used and abused by the United States, and Republicans are outraged that President Obama has decided to scrap plans to build a missile defense in Eastern Europe. The stated purpose was to guard Europe against intimidation by a nuclear Iran, but Russia professed to feel threatened and encircled. Now, presumably, Russians don't feel threatened and Iranians feel liberated to move ahead with nuclear development.

But here is the real test of this decision: did the U.S. gain anything by it in terms of protection of Europe (and Israel) against Iranian nukes? The next few months will tell.

The USSR and the USA were strangely but truly united in working against nuclear proliferation for a couple of decades--the 70s and 80s. In my time as US ambassador to the UN Organizations in Vienna in the 1980s this was the one field of relations in which mutual cooperation was sincere and real. Indeed, the way in which the United States came closer to the USSR at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) after the Chernobyl nuclear accident in the Ukraine in 1986 may be cited as a key turning point in the Cold War. The Soviets realized that we really didn't want to humiliate them, but only to help them deal with a real crisis. It led to a breakthrough that extended beyond the nuclear realm.

In those days the Soviets were clear that they did not want Iran to develop nuclear arms. Now, with the new Russian regime, oddly, the government's posture is not so sure. If the Russians really do think that Iran--snuggled right up against them--poses no nuclear danger, their leadership surely has lost its sense of long term strategy.

As is, it appears that the Obama Administration has managed to offend our Eastern European allies and to make a unilateral concession to Russian sensibilities. Other allies are sure to take note and become cautious. Maybe (as I believe) the missile system was over-rated and presented in a strangely maladroit manner. Still, it hardly makes sense to give it up for nothing in return.

But what if there is a background understanding between the White House and the Kremlin? If there is, and Russia comes around to joining Europe and the US in firmly opposing Iranian nuclear ambitions, it will be a major Obama accomplishment as well as a real "reset" of US-Russian relations.

If nothing is given in return, just more weapons sent from Russia to Iran, well, that will say something, too, won't it?

Think, meanwhile, of that recent, very quiet visit to Moscow by Israeli P.M., Benjamin Netanyahu. No comments were made by any of the participants.

(Cross-posted on RussiaBlog.)

There is much to be grateful for tonight here in Washington. Our senior fellow John Wohlstetter, who is writing on nuclear proliferation, a public policy topic so old it is new again (or going to be), just held an exquisite book party to celebrate his Discovery colleague George Gilder's The Israel Test (#590 on the Amazon list, #1 on the subject of Israel). In John's apartment in the famous Watergate, looking over the Potomac at sunset, George described the inspiration of his father, who visited Germany in 1936 and vowed to come back to the U.S. and do all he could to defeat Hitler. His father did that--a mere 22 year old, but well-connected in New York society--and then enlisted as a pilot in what became the Second World War, and died.

In The Israel Test, George has written an astonishing love letter to Israel that somehow also manages to be a new treatise on his long time theme of capitalism as a system that prizes human exceptionalism. He sees the need to defend Israel and the potential for Israel truly to become again a light to the nations.

Human exceptionalism is also the theme, as it were, of Stephen Meyer's Signature in the Cell. As George Gilder says, Meyer's book is a debate changer, the most comprehensive examination yet of the issue of Darwinism versus design. No one can claim to understand that debate without it. (The American Spectator reviewer, Dan Peterson, described himself as "Blown Away".) It's 700 on Amazon's list, and tops in at least two science categories.

Then there are all the books that have come out lately from Ben Wiker (Darwin's Myth) and Jay Richards (Money, Greed and God), among them, and hold your breath for David Berlinski's forthcoming The Deniable Darwin. Senor fellow Wesley J. Smith's current cover story in National Review, on Creeping Euthanasia, is a prelude for his new book this winter.

I add the film on the Cambrian Explosion of life forms 580 million years ago--"Darwin's Dilemma"--by Illustra Media that is just about to premier at the Oklahoma Museum of Natural History, featuring many Discovery fellows. Adolescent-acting Darwinists are trying to disrupt the opening, but their Acorn-style agitation only will add to the piquancy of the film's signal achievement. I was a guest at an early screening and conclude that it is going to be another winner.

The materialist Left is losing out.

One walks down Sixteenth Street near the White House and sees the monstrous, four story posters for "card check" and "full employment" on the lobbying organizations that now sidle up to power. One hears the stories, on the other hand, of the plain folk who showed up on the Mall in the hundreds of thousands last week to protest government health care, and one sees the cracks in our social consensus.

But that is the present. The future is in the minds--and writing--of colleagues like Gilder and Meyer, et al. In a gloomy time, they are a reason for gratitude and good cheer.

The prospect of an election in Canada was put off another indefinite period as the Bloc Quebecois decided to vote in favor of the Conservative Government's budget. But a no-confidence vote could be raised by the Liberals in a couple of weeks anyhow. This can't be good for the Conservatives--to have their position determined entirely by the opposition parties.

That's what you get with a minority government.

Parliamentary government has its strengths. And its weaknesses.

Turkey had a serious, Katrina-like major flood last week, that somehow has not been much noticed in in the rest of Europe and U.S. The scene apparently was messy and residents are complaining that Prime Minister Erdogan, when he was mayor of Istanbul, bears some responsibility for faulty planning.

Turkey also has been hit by a number of earthquakes recently that, likewise, have not been reported much outside that country. Claire Berlinski, author, has seen the hand of corruption in certain building failures and worries that a big quake could be disastrous.

If the flooding hasn't made the news in the US, I have to imagine
that the series of small earthquakes we've had here in the past few
weeks hasn't, either.

It's hard to know what this means. Seismologists are divided. Some
think it's good news (pressure is being relieved in small quakes,
making a bigger quake unlikely); some think it's very worrying -- a
sign that things are unusually active below the ground. The building
I'm living in now was recently renovated to bring it into compliance
with earthquake safety codes. A few days ago I spoke to the engineer
who supervised this work. He told me that every day he walks through
the city and feels unspeakable dread."

Turkey has suffered worse than most nearby countries from the current international recession. Putting it all together, a major U.S. ally could be in for inevitable political upheaval in months to come, in addition to its other woes.

In something of a surprise, Canada seems to have turned the corner on jobs, adding 27,100 this past month, according to Statistics Canada. That's not a lot and they are all part-time and the unemployment rate still climbed a notch, to 8.7 percent. But new jobs represent a kind of fresh breeze in a long, stale recession. They point up the fact that Canada has done better on the jobs scene than the U.S. American unemployment is up to 9.7 percent now.

Even some limited good news in the economy will be a boon to Conservatives if, as expected, the Liberals force an election this fall. (See my post below, from September 3.)

The Israel Test by George Gilder continues to get stunningly positive reviews by conservatives, such as this one today by Clifford May in National Review.

Somehow, however, the liberal media are pretending not to notice.

Canadian Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, lacking patience, has decided to force a vote of no-confidence in the Stephen Harper-led Conservative government, and thus precipitate a national election this fall. He may succeed in winning that election.

But then what?

The latest poll shows the Liberals and Conservatives tied at 32.6 percent each, with the balance supplied by Canada's three other contending parties--the labor-left oriented New Democrats, the Bloc Quebecois, and the Greens. Even last spring, as the international recession worsened, the Conservatives held a strong polling lead, largely because Canadians had just had a string of national elections that had led to more, rather than less, turmoil. Canadians don't like turmoil. They wanted to give the Tories more time.

Now the boredom factor may be setting in, however, and a jolly election campaign might be just the thing to enliven the lengthening autumn gloom. If the vote were to take place, oh, say, next week, one suspects that the Liberals might win it. Ignatieff is the most articulate politician in Canada, with real intellectual heft and campaign stump appeal. He looks good, sounds good and inspires confidence.

That doesn't mean, however, that he necessarily wears well or is a magician who can turn thin gruel into Beef Stroganoff. Upon inspection, the Liberal complaints against the Tories seem small, if not contrived. Supposedly the Harperites are responsible for raising the budget deficit from an expected $32 billion (Canadian) to $52 billion and have done to little to promote international trade. They also are said to be deficient on issues as pension insurance and limiting ATM fees. As a platform, these planks appear too weak to carry the burden of even Canada's relatively short federal campaign of six weeks' duration.

Anyone want to go to the barricades over ATM fees?

Of course, the real issue, as everywhere, is the economy. But 1) Canada is hardly alone in suffering from the recession and it just doesn't ring true to blame the Harper government for--say--the auto industry's woes. 2) Harper has avoided the wild budget spree of the Obama Administration in the U.S., while nonetheless giving the economy a big Canadian goose of stimulus spending. In all this, Harper (correcting an earlier inclination) has consulted with his opposition a lot more than previous prime ministers in similar situations.

Mr. Ignatieff reproaches the p.m. for not doing more for trade. Mr. Harper has been in office four years and yet "he's never visited China," Ignatieff charges. An outsider might observe that it is hard for a prime minister to tour the world when he has a minority government whose opposition threatens an election at any moment. As for China, Mr. Ignatieff just cancelled his own China tour because of election considerations.

The Conservative campaign has its own problems. Tory TV ads trying to paint Ignatieff as a elitist dandy don't seem to have worked at all. But, eventually the Tories will figure out that people care about interests closer to home. Expect Stephen Harper to jab Michael Ignatieff hard on his current promise to close the budget deficit without added taxation, a position that is especially suspect in light of his statements a few months ago that more taxes might be needed. Blaming Conservatives for the deficit is not persuasive. Worrying voters that the Liberals will raise their taxes potentially is persuasive.

So why do the Liberals pine for the polls? Well, even Canadians, as I say, get bored and there usually is great fun in the prospect of a big fight.

Yet, if the big fight is merely tendentious, public boredom can turn to annoyance. And even assuming that they do win, the danger for the Liberals is that, once back in office, but as a minority, they may find themselves even more hogtied than the Tories today. How patient will the public be then with the currently impatient Liberals?

by Mathias Brucker

All smiles in the CDU

This month may see one of the world's most important elections for the year. Germans will decide on September 27 whether their country--by far the largest economy of Europe--will get a relatively conservative government (with lower taxes and spending and support for the Afghan war) or another "Grand Coalition" of the Conservatives and their current government partners, the Socialists. Not only would spending and taxation remain high, support for the allied cause in Afghanistan would continue to erode. The Conservatives (the CDU) would be under constant pressure to slip further left in order to keep the Social Democrats (the SPD) from going on the attack.

Today the CDU forces seems to be on the path to victory, but the scene was much the same during the 2005 campaign, when the actual election turned out to be so close that a coalition government became necessary. What helped the SPD close the gap in that campaign was a barrage of claims that CDU tax reform was "socially unjust".

A similar thing seems to be happening now. In addition, public support for the Afghan War is dropping

So there are two possible outcomes: the conservative parties (CDU and the Free Democratic Party, the FDP, its smaller ally) will get a majority and form a conservative government. The other possibility is that the same will happen as it did in 2005, and the conservatives won't have a majority of seats in the Bundestag, and neither will the SPD and its Green Party allies. The party making the difference would likely be Germany's fifth party, the post-communist "Linkspartei" (literally, the leftist party). As no one wants a coalition government consisting of three parties, especially with the communists, a Grand Coalition would be the only option.

Ominously, the Linskspartei did pretty well in the state elections that were held last Sunday, whereas conservatives as well as social democrats lost votes. This surely adds momemtum to the leftist party's federal campaign. However, it should not be exaggerated; the left won in the former East as well as the party leader's tiny home state of Saarland, "the Delaware of Germany." Its standing in the far more densely populated western Germany is still small.

A more conservative government in Germany might help slowly to move Germany as well as Europe to the right, but there will be no sizable conservative revival, even then. The German "conservatives" are just too centrist to instill enthusiasm for true conservative reform. Come to think of it, Germany is probably one of the most leftist countries in Europe, with but a few conservative strongholds here and there. The incorporation of formerly communist Eastern Germany really hurt Germany as a whole. It made a conservative country -- and one of the richest in the world, one might add -- much more leftist. Since reunion the German economy has been doing not as well as before, with the country spending some 6% of its GDP on "structural reform" in the former East (more even than the entire American defense budget as a percentage of GDP). Also, many formerly eastern Germans still have communist sympathies and perspectives. Overall, whatever else it accomplished, reunion has damaged the right.

Americans will want to watch the German elections closely. The policies that are adopted after it will bear greatly on the German contribution to world economic recovery and NATO support for the War in Afghanistan.

The best book reviews are the ones that add not only to what one knows about a subject, but also to what the book author knows. That is what characterizes Sol Stern's City Journal review of George Gilder's The Israel Test. Stern knows how Tel Aviv is faring in the current economy--which is, great--and how French Jews are buying condos on the new Israeli Riviera. And how, if the Palestinians had some control on their rage, Gaza's sandy beaches could become a huge tourist draw, too.

Needless to say, this all supports Gilder's themes in The Israel Test, and Stern, needless to say, thinks Gilder's book itself is outstanding. He goes on to express an amused observation about the likelihood that Gilder's "stark, almost apocalyptic terms will bring out all the old Gilder haters." Who might they be? Discovery Institute friends will know.

"Just as his seemingly elitist defense of the traditional capitalist virtues and of the nuclear family infuriated them, just as they were enraged by his objections to modern feminism and, more recently, his evangelizing for Intelligent Design, they will surely reject out of hand (Gilder's) understanding of the underlying factors behind the current conflict in the Middle East. That's too bad."

I'll say. But for all those who appreciate the full Gilder canon, The Israel Test will prove an exciting adventure.

The news from the election in Afghanistan, as was true in 2005 in Iraq, is not accurately reflected in the major media reports. As in Iraq, the Western media mainly are interested (as one reporter told me when I was in Baghdad) in explosions and blood. Here is an interesting report from a serious journalist on the ground, living in Kabul.

Notice once again the quality of courage in the population.

The release of Abdel al-Megahi, the Lockerbie bomber, to Libya--where he was given a hero's welcome--may just be the beginning of another damaging scandal for the Labor Party in the U.K.

At first it looked like a naive good-will gesture to Muammar Gaddafi, who, instead of welcoming it in a low-key way, made a humiliating homecoming display of the bomber-terrorist. But now questions are being asked about what deal may have been involved between the Government led by P.M. Gordon Brown and Gaddafi. Was there some quid pro quo, and if so, what?

Americans understandably are upset at what looks like appeasement of terrorism. But there is silence from the White House itself. This raises the question of whether our British cousins bothered to consult on this one and what assurances were given them--and on what basis.

This has the feel of a story with legs. Even if the U.K. Government did not have efforts going to secure gas rights in Libya, as some have charged, the whole episode seems to have been a first class blunder.

The battle over privacy issues that has delayed creation of standard I.D. cards for Americans should be drawing to a close. After all, whatever privacy we enjoyed in the past, the safety requirements of the post 9/11 world have overridden them. As a plain fact, you cannot fly in a commercial airplane or transact other business without a driver's license or similar official identification. What a uniform I.D. card would do, of course, is help establish citizenship and the rights that go with it. A driver's license does not. And a passport is issued only to those who request it, mainly for foreign travel.

In this light, it is interesting to note that the Mexican government has few of the scruples that have held up an I.D. card for Norteamericanos. The government of Mexico is on the cusp of requiring the same for everyone. I don't think anyone on this side of the border has begun to think through the consequences of this development.

John Wohlstetter is prejudiced in his praise of The Israel Test; he's a friend of the author, George Gilder. Of course, a review by an author's friend has never happened anywhere else, has it?

Regardless, John is a friend and colleague of mine, too, and I know what he does when he disapproves of a friend's views: he goes silent. This article in The American Spectator is, in fact, a very good introduction to the George Gilder's book.

The best lines are these, at the end:

Israel could be the economic engine for the entire Mideast. This is the new Israel, no longer a financial ward of America. It is this Israel that most Americans know not of. "Israel Inside" would be a great slogan for an ad campaign educating Americans about the new Israel, and its supreme value to America and the West. In lieu of an ad blitz, Gilder's book does the job beautifully.

Israel does need an "ad campaign" right now because its foes seem to have a great many people intimidated. George is fearless. His book goes where many media voices seem afraid to go.

See also this interview in National Review online, with Kathyrn Lopez. The Daily Telegraph's Stephanie Guttman just blogged her review, available here.

Russia is being accused of support for Hezbollah in the terrorist group's war with Israel. The pro-Israeli Debka file makes the assertion in a dispatch from earlier this week that ought to cause serious concern in Washington. If it is not true, it should cause some efforts in Moscow to contradict the claim.

Unfortunately, the Kremlin cannot yet see straight in the Middle East. The interests of Moscow are not the oil lines, but the ideological lines that divide the region. By allowing Hezbollah to roll up Israeli spy rings in Lebanon the Russian intelligence agency FSB may have made Israel more vulnerable to attack from the North. In the end, that means the Israelis will have to punish Southern Lebanon yet again when Hezbollah rockets rain down on Israel. If the Kremlin has facilitated this future, they should be held to account. If Debka's report is a slander, let's hear a reply, please.

Here is the Debka story:

Russian secret service helped Hizballah bust Israel's Lebanese spy rings
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report
August 5, 2009, 10:16 PM (GMT+02:00)

Russian FSB agent in action
Western intelligence sources in the Middle East have disclosed to DEBKAfile that a special unit of the Russian Federal Security Service - FSB, commissioned by Hizballah's special security apparatus earlier this year, was responsible for the massive discovery of alleged Israel spy rings in Lebanon in recent months with the help of super-efficient detection systems.
Those sources report that the FSB and Hizballah have amassed quantities of undisclosed data on Israel's clandestine operations in Lebanon and are holding it in reserve in order to leak spectaculars discoveries as and when it suits their purpose.
This disclosure, if borne out, would indicate that the Russian agency, which specializes in counterespionage, is engaged for the first time in anti-Israel activity in the service of an Arab terrorist organization. An Israeli security sources describes this turn of events extremely grave. It also cast an ominous slant on Moscow's deepening strategic involvement in Syria.
It was generally assumed until now that new electronic devices supplied by France to the Lebanese army were instrumental in uncovering the suspected Israeli spy rings. It now transpires that the Lebanese army was not directly involved; it only detained the suspects handed over by the Shiite Hizballah.
Those same sources disclosed that FSB agents, by blanketing every corner of Lebanon with their sophisticated surveillance systems, were able to detect the spy rings one by one and additionally hack into Israeli intelligence data bases.
The Russians dated Israel's massive clandestine infiltration of Lebanon to shortly after its 2006 Lebanese conflict. The Lebanese Shiites sustained heavy casualties and, fearing an Israeli surprise attack at that point, began conscripting thousands of young Shiites as fighters pell mell, without checking their backgrounds. In their haste, they also rounded up Syrian and Egyptian migrant laborers in Lebanon.
Israel used the opportunity to recruit large numbers of agents in both these groups, especially among the conscripts sent to Revolutionary Guards camps in Iran and Syrian military facilities for training.

Maybe Aljazeera is a Sunni operation, or maybe it just feels the need to acknowledge the reality of Iran's governmental disaster. This essay by Berend Kaussler tells the tale.

The essay also may say something about the changing personality of Aljazeera.

George Gilder's new book, The Israel Test, is starting to get around. We ourselves have already filled over 1,000 book orders in house. (Actually, we recommend that purchasers go to Amazon.com to order. For both orders you can still come to us.) Mona Charen had a terrific column a few days ago on George's appearance at the AEI. David Pryce Jones has a fine article out in the National Review, and The American has published a long excerpt of the book.

The growing buzz may have somthing to do with the fact that there really is an Israel test going on right now in international affairs. We definitely are on the case -- led by George.

Journalist Anna Politkovskaya, killed in 2006 in what appeared to be a contract murder.

Political killings have declined in recent years in Russia, but still tend to blot Russia's image in the filed of human rights. Several recent contract murders have been tied to Chechnyan politics, where complex rivalries have been taken to Moscow in a violent manner.

Now comes the story of an apparent murder attempt that was foiled by police. A plausible suspect seems to be in hand. If so, this gives the Russian government a chance to show its determination to strike back at terror-tactics, regardless of their source.

I am skeptical of assertions that the Kremlin itself has backed such political terror tactics. But now--with a live suspect in police hands--is the time and the chance for the national government as well as the police to demonstrate their true resolve. It also is time for the international community to pay more attention to these matters.

If there is no domestic constituency that is offended, a gaffe is not treated as a gaffe. But Vice President Joe Biden's snarky remarks about Russia fall into the gaffe category anyhow. What is the point?

You haven't seen much at all about the elections just held in the Kurdish region of Iraq, perhaps because they were relatively uneventful. But that should be big news. Not only were the elections apparently fair and free of violence, but all sides seem to agree that a new third party, "Change", captured the second highest number of seats. As usual, the distinguished Iraq the Model blog has the report (two, in fact). http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/

Contrasts should be drawn with the continuing disgrace in Iran.

A new Kremlin plan to teach students religion or secular ethics is meant to combat the aimlessness of youth.

Perhaps it will--to some extent.

The approach is probably unique--teach what is again the dominant state religion (Russian Orthodoxy) as the one acceptable Christian faith, and also teach--according to student desires--Islam (the religion of a sizable minority, particularly in the South), Buddhism or Judaism, and give the students the alternative of a coarse in secular ethics. It will seem fair to many, maybe most, Russians. It is quite different, obviously, from the "scientific atheism" of Soviet days.

The program will get a lot of criticism, however. First, the most eager evangelists in Russia today are probably the various kinds of Christian pentecostals, and there is a sizable Roman Catholic population in certain ethnic centers. So the government apparently is starting a new struggle with these groups in schools, of all places.

Then arises the question of how smart it is to have Islam taught in state schools. Who is going to teach it? What is going to be taught? Might the government find itself trying to deal with hostile Friday mosque sermons because of the kind of Islam it promulgates in the schools? Where does that lead? How will populations in areas where Islam is a majority faith react to state school classes that offer instruction as well in other faiths?

Regardless, the new Russian model is so jarringly different from what is on offer in the United States that it may be worth careful monitoring by Americans. We no longer provide much at all in schools of the old, slightly Protestant civic religion of yore. The struggle in the U.S. is over whether to allow any expressions of faith in schools, whether in Commencement speeches by students or in after-school religious clubs.

Overall, America has benefited by a general separation of religious instruction and public education, as in other fields. A state religion gets lazy. It becomes synonymous in students' minds with state politics, which cannot be good.

On the other hand, there is something to be said for students learning more about the religious heritage of their country. If the Russians are erring on one side of that objective, Americans may be erring on the other. If nothing else, comparisons of results should be interesting.

One place where the outcomes may be studied closely is....China.

I don't know The Caspian Weekly, but two writers there, Nir Boms and Shayan Arya, are making a good case that the West should impose economic sanctions against the Ahmadinejad regime in Iran. The reason is that the Iranian government seems determined to defy the international community and its own agreements regarding nuclear weapons development. Even the U.N. seems clear on this.

The question is, would sanctions hurt or help the cause of peace? Very likely help, in my opinion. President Reagan certainly confronted the Soviets on many subjects in many ways, but he also was willing--and did--negotiate with them. In the case of Iran, we could negotiate after imposing sanctions, at least in theory.

But the truth is that it doesn't matter much whether we want to negotiate: the theocrats in Iran have made it clear they are not going to indulge that fantasy. Therefore, all the "realists" recommending caution actually are recommending inaction. One way or another, as the authors say, the Iranian regime must be pushed--hard. Maybe they will respond to real pressure. Maybe the people will find a successful way to rebel. Regardless, there is not much time left. The present drift is not a strategy.

The Ahmadinejad regime in Iran has been wounded internally, thanks to the brave advocates of freedom who took to the streets, but it probably will try to stabilize its position by foreign policy truculence and a "breakthrough" on nuclear weapons.

It is in this incendiary environment that George Gilder's incredibly timely book, The Israel Test, is coming out (pub date, July 23). It already is getting noticed.

Here is a tiny excerpt--and an admonition at the end!

"The central issue in international politics, dividing the world into two
fractious armies, is the tiny state of Israel.

"The prime issue is not a global war of civilizations between the West and
Islam or a split between Arabs and Jews. These conflicts are real and
salient, but they obscure the deeper moral and ideological war. The real
issue is between the rule of law and the rule of leveler egalitarianism,
between creative excellence and covetous "fairness," between admiration of
achievement versus envy and resentment of it.

"Israel defines a line of demarcation. On one side, marshaled at the United
Nations and in universities around the globe, are those who see capitalism
as a zero-sum game in which success comes at the expense of the poor and
the environment: every gain for one party comes at the cost of another. On
the other side are those who see the genius and the good fortune of some
as a source of wealth and opportunity for all.

"The Israel test can be summarized by a few questions: What is your
attitude toward people who excel you in the creation of wealth or in other
accomplishment? Do you aspire to their excellence, or do you seethe at it?
Do you admire and celebrate exceptional achievement, or do you impugn it
and seek to tear it down? Caroline Glick, the dauntless deputy managing
editor of the Jerusalem Post, sums it up: "Some people admire success;
some people envy it. The enviers hate Israel."

". . . . Today in the Middle East, Israeli wealth looms palpably and
portentously over the mosques and middens of Palestinian poverty. But
dwarfing Israel's own wealth is Israel's contribution to the world
economy, stemming from Israeli creativity and entrepreneurial innovation.
Israel's technical and scientific gifts to global progress loom with
similar majesty over all others' contributions outside the United States.

"Though Jews in Palestine had been the most powerful force for prosperity
in the region since long before the founding of Israel in 1948, more
remarkable still is the explosion of innovation attained through the
unleashing of Israeli capitalism and technology over the last two decades.
During the 1990s and early 2000s Israel sloughed off its manacles of
confiscatory taxes, oppressive regulations, government ownership, and
Socialist nostalgia and established itself in the global economy first as
a major independent player and then as a technological leader.

"Contemplating this Israeli breakthrough, the minds of parochial intellects
around the globe, from Jerusalem to Los Angeles, are clouded with envy and
suspicion. Everywhere, from the smarmy diplomats of the United Nations to
the cerebral leftists at the Harvard Faculty Club, critics of Israel
assert that Israelis are responsible for Palestinian Arab poverty. . . .
Denying to Israel the moral fruits and affirmations that Jews have so
richly earned by their paramount contributions to our civilization, the
critics of Israel lash out at the foundations of civilization itself--at
the golden rule of capitalism, that the good fortune of others is also
one's own.

"In simplest terms, amid the festering indigence of Palestine, the state of
Israel presents a test. Efflorescent in the desert, militarily powerful,
industrially preeminent, culturally cornucopian, technologically
paramount, it lately has become a spearhead of the global economy and
vanguard of human achievement. Believing that this position was somehow
captured, rather than created, many in the West still manifest a primitive
zero-sum vision of economics and life. . . ."

Get an advance copy now! This is classic Gilder and on a "new" subject. I had the pleasure of editing it in two stages. This is going to be a winner.

The Internet provides occasional news that doesn't seem to make it into the print media, as in this interesting assessment (though biased, to be sure) of the situation in Honduras. Now that I think about it, Chavez does appear to have let up about Honduras, and so has the Obama Administration. This is another situation that actually is under-reported. The key developments seem to be occurring without much external notice.

Source: The Wall Street Journal Vendors in Accra, Ghana, hawk memorabilia Friday in anticipation of President Obama's visit, his first to sub-Saharan Africa since taking office. News International/ZUMA Press

When it's all over, on his first presidential trip to sub-Saharan Africa, President Barack Obama, the first black U.S. president, will have spent only one day in Ghana on a visit that began today following the G-8 summit in Italy. But what this trip lacks in duration is more than made up for by what it symbolizes.

The only sub-Saharan stop on the president's visit, most analysis indicates that Ghana is being singled out for good behavior in a region where rule of law is the most endangered of concepts. While not perfect, unlike many sub-Saharan African nations, (including Nigeria, that despite its oil-fueled potential for great wealth and power, continues to be the picture of instability) Ghana has instituted market and political reforms that have grown the economy and resulted in smooth transitions of power in the most recent presidential cycles.

As Reuters has reported, "Obama's Ghana visit has triggered a bout of angst in Kenya, his ancestral homeland, and Nigeria....Nigeria has an appalling record of organizing transparent polls and ethnic violence after a disputed election in Kenya in 2007 killed at least 1,300 people and shattered its image as the region's stable economic powerhouse."

Despite all of Ghana's progress, observers and Ghanaians alike say the country needs to guard against "democratic setbacks," according to the Los Angeles Times.

Transparency is still weak, checks and balances ineffective, news media independence isn't well established and power is too centralized....

Cautious appraisals of the current situation should be understood against the backdrop of the past, which for Ghana was quite different than the present.

In the early days of post-Colonialism, in the late 1950s and early 1960s, Ghana was the very picture of far-left authoritarianism. The cultish nationalist leader was Kwame Nkrumah, who was treated as a demi-god. Even school children were encouraged to sing, "Kwame Nkrumah, he will never die!." Nkrumah did die, of course, and many of the Africans who went for higher education to Moscow--where Nkrumah was celebrated--came back, ironically, with a distaste for communism. Meanwhile, a failing economy and corruption--and a bit of CIA help--precipitated a coup in 1966 and Nkrumah, who was more popular in the rest of Africa than at home, wound up in exile, ultimately dying in communist Romania. Now Ghana even has a free market think tank, the Imani Center in Accra. But the past is never too far away: Accra also boasts a major monument to Kwame Nkrumah.

Ghana has made tremendous, positive strides and President Obama's visit underscores that. For a country independent only since 1957, and with transparent multi-party elections for less than two decades, it has done much more than most of its neighbors to create democratic and market stability. For those reasons alone, it's nice to see good governance, market and other reforms rewarded.

Authoritarian regimes from China to Iran have made it their business to try to control what their peoples can see or do on the internet. It is usually about politics. Now Turkey joins the pack, even while its leader quips about how easy it is to thwart the government's censorship efforts.

Claire Berlinski

In this useful article from Radio Free Europe, Claire Berlinski wonders how Turkey thinks it is going to get into the European Union when it employs such behavior.

The media template has crises erupt, fasten our attention for, maybe, a week, then surrender to some new sensation--say, the death of Michael Jackson. But revolutions like the slow boiling one that appears to be going on in Iran don't yield to the media's requirements any more than they do to the squeamishness of Western leaders. They will persist after the cameras and reporters have left.

Michael Ledeen is always a stern, but reliable source on developments in Iran and should be getting more attention. His dedication is inspiring.

Had you heard before the account of the fly that buzzed Ahmadinejad during a live broadcast and obviously threw him off? The Twitter joke that Ledeen reports receiving--that the fly was about to be arrested and would soon appear on state television issuing a confession--expresses the spirit of the place and panache of the brave, mostly young, people who are on the rooftops chanting and silently conducting a strike on the streets.

Summer still has a long time to go in Iran. The people there are not giving up. Let's not give up on them.

What George W. Bush named "The Axis of Evil" included Iraq, North Korea and Iran. Iraq is relatively, if perhaps deceptively, quiet, but Iran is "hot" and North Korea seems bent on getting into our faces whether we want to see them there or not. This AP story by Lolita Baldor should push the federal government--as well as the private sector--to greater defensive action. Computer security is national security, and in that light it is worth noting that cyber attacks have increased almost three fold in three years.

This is the kind of story that, in retrospect, may be seen as a lot more significant than what is daily emphasized in most of our hedonistic, anesthetized media.

Both hardware and software defenses are being evaluated and, in some cases, mounted by the feds, as well as by OEMs (original equipment manufacturers) and the private companies that purchase their products. But the general public is still in the dark about all this. There doesn't seem any over-riding interest in computer security options yet. But that may be about to change.

(UPDATE JULY 8: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/newspid=20601087&sid=aVEB6XhdZTFA)

Dear President Ahmadinejad:

Have you ever considered the possibility that the Russians might secretly be conspiring with the United States against your government? I know it sounds far-fetched, but, after all, far-fetched is practically your middle name. (As, for example, your denial of the Holocaust. That is about as far-fetched as anyone can get.)

Take it from me, Mahmoud, these days a Russo-American secret entente is just about the only explanation that makes sense when one reviews the strange, strained, nearly strangled relationship between the U.S. and Russia. That relationship is so odd at times that there must be more there than meets the eye. However clichéd, I can't avoid the image of the Matryoshka dolls; you know, the ones with an image of Medvedev on the outside, Putin "nested" underneath, then, underneath them both, Barack Obama. Beneath them all may be the Bibi Netanyahu doll. Have you ever thought of that?

It's possible, I grant you, that the truth is something else. The truth may be that since the Cold War the Americans and Russians have no natural reasons to be adversaries, but they still can't seem to get out of the habit of baiting each other. Fortunately, however, you are likely paranoid and have no truck with the merely apparent truth. Yes, on one level--the level of evident reality--the U.S. and Russia seem to be floundering. But, Mahmoud, that could just be a very clever act.

Barack Obama, having decided recently not to criticize your election and then criticizing it, this past week announced that he was going to Moscow to see President Medevev and was relieved not to have to deal with V. Putin. That would be a bit like Medvedev coming to America and expressing his pleasure at not having to deal with Obama's Congressional leaders, Pelosi and Reid. It had to be a calculated opinion, don't you agree, or else Mr. Obama would have "clarified" it later. The customary kind of Obama clarification would have been, "Actually, after my lengthy official meetings with President Medvedev, I look forward to having tea with Prime Minister Putin, while Michelle hopes to go shopping at the GUM Department Store with Mrs. P."

First ladies Michelle Obama and Svetlana Medvedeva in Moscow

Are serious people (I am imagining you, Mahmoud) to believe such a line as Mr. Obama gave? Yet, did you notice that no one in the Kremlin protested it? Russians and Americans could well be throwing sand in your eyes, Mahmoud.

Ask yourself about the issue of the proposed U.S. missile shield in Eastern Europe, Mr. President. Is it possibly just a designed distraction? Supposedly it is to protect Europe from Iran. After all, Poland and the Czech Republic are probably right on top on your military's target list, right? The Russians object...supposedly. But, Mahmoud, you weren't born under a date palm tree, as Omar Khayyam might have put it. Even you can figure out that any missile shield would take years to produce and meantime....well, the fate of your nuclear weapons capability is not exactly "years" away, is it? So what is all the fuss about?

Maybe the Russians are just annoyed because the people that sent them "Bush's legs" (chicken) to dine on when the Wall fell are now building a guard against possible future Russian military expansion into the "Near Abroad." But while the Russians want influence in those former satellites they are horrified at the prospect of having to pay for them, which is what occupiers have to do. So the main problem appears to be one of what is called public relations. The Americans are stepping on the Russians' pride and the Russians are not at all happy about it. At least, that is how it seems.

Meanwhile, we Americans say we badly want the shield, even though I don't recall the Congress ever debating the matter or it's gaining more than passing interest in the media.

Now, our new American president, the one who planned to demolish the foreign policy of his predecessor and instead mostly has cast it in bronze, is hinting on hard dealing with the Russians about the shield. Obama does not want to give up the shield for which he previously had no use, any more than he now wants Congress to have access to Presidential internal memos of the kind he used to demand that George W. Bush release. (Sorry for the domestic detour here, Mahmoud.)

Anyhow, if someone is gullible enough to believe that Barack Obama and his imperial retinue flew several plane loads of aides and press to Moscow to talk about prospective nuclear missile reductions, and to disagree again about the shield, as the accounts of the Medvedev-Obama talks indicate; well, those persons probably also could be persuaded that you just won a fair re-election in an unprecedented landslide. (By the way, in his days in Iraq, Saddam didn't settle for two-thirds of the vote; he counted 99.9 percent. Congratulations on your much more becoming modesty.)

To conclude, therefore, maybe it only seems that the relationship between the United States and Russia is a fairyland play of mist and mystery, where leading actors walk about in confusion, mistaking others' identities and purposes, making speeches to no one in particular. Maybe they only appear to be stuck in a midsummer's night's dream.

Naw, don't believe it, Mahmoud. The Americans don't have three worthwhile spies in your fair republic, while the Russians are all over the place "helping" you build your nuclear plants. How eager do you think the Ruskies really are to see your demented theocracy get The Bomb? No, Mahmoud, the clever way to see the combined fumbles of the old rival great powers is that deep down, they are combined in a conspiracy. Against you.

You believe a lot of other things. You might as well believe that.

Bruce Chapman, president of Discovery Institute, is a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Organizations in Vienna.

Portland's Union Station

Always make time to celebrate your victories; when it comes to mourning, your defeats will make time for themselves.

One victory to celebrate tonight is the announcement that the Canadian government has okayed a "second train" between Portland/Seattle and Vancouver, B.C. We at Discovery Institute (home to the Cascadia Center) have long promoted passenger rail nationally, and especially the re-connection of the U.S. and Canada on the West Coast. The "first train" came between Seattle and Vancouver, B.C. came some years ago. Now the second is opening in time for the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver and Whistler/Blackcomb resort.

Passenger rail is not the solution to clogged freeways and the long delays at airports. But it is part of the solution. That is widely recognized in transportation circles, but it is a particularly dicey idea to forward when one is dealing with foreign governments. Amtrak, to its credit, has been positive all the way on the line up to Vancouver. In contrast, the Conservative government in Ottawa was slow to take on the issue--some bureaucrats wanted to charge Amtrak for Customs processing--but it did come around at last. Congratulations to them.

This is one more sign of the renewed cross-border friendship Cascadia Center has promoted tirelessly for nearly 17 years now. It's nice to have The Seattle Times make mention.

The producers of The Stoning of Soraya M. could not be opening their film at a better time than now. The fictionalized telling of a true story from Iran's post-revolution is hard to watch at times and it leaves an audience feeling drained and frustrated. But when I watched a preview a couple of months ago it was clear that everyone present had been affected deeply by the experience. This is about the kind of "evil" that won Iran a position in George W. Bush's "Axis of Evil" category. You understand again the kind of hypocritical theocrats that would bludgeon peaceful demonstrators in Tehran these past few weeks and loot their homes.

The fine acting by Shoreh Aghadahloo is a revelation. She is someone I have never seen before. The nominal co-star, Jim Caviezel (of Passion of the Chris fame), is also excellent, though his role is much smaller than the top billing would indicate.

You can see it nation-wide starting tomorrow. http://www.thestoning.com/

First President Obama had little to say about the demonstrators in Iran, saying he didn't think America should "meddle". A number of liberal US pundits praised this posture. Then, the President apparently changed his mind and started using tougher language about the brutal regime of Khamenei and Ahmadinejad. In fact, "Administration" spokesmen are now suggesting that the President's Cairo speech may have inspired the demonstrators in the first place.

Moral: if you don't like President Obama's position on a foreign policy issue, wait a minute. It may change. Not only that, you'll find out it was always what it has changed to now.

This is from Huffington Post, implicitly confirming my earlier post (June 17) that speculated about the behind-the-scenes role in Iran of Shia Grand Ayatollah Sistani (who lives in Iraq). So far as I know, nobody else has raised this possibility:

6:00 PM ET -- Where is Rafsanjani? "According to an online reformist news source Rooyeh, Rafsanjani has been in Qom meeting some members of Council of Experts and a representative of Ayatollah Sistani.

According to the source that asked to remain anonymous, during this meeting they recounted memories of the days of the Revolution.

A reasonable purpose of these meetings, according to the source, is that Rafsanjani is looking for a majority to possibly call for Ahmadinejad's resignation.

As one reader points out, Sistani is "one of the most respected Grand Ayatollahs within Shia Islam in the world. He's Iranian (from Mashhad, same city as Khamenei), but spends most time in Najaf/Karbala in Iraq."

As this is posted, it is high noon Saturday in Iran. Mousavi and his aides, and former President Rafsanjani who supports the protests, are being threatened personally, say bloggers and the tweets. This is a fateful day.

It no longer is a question of whether Iran is in a revolution, but whether the revolution will succeed. There is still a question, as in many revolutions, about the revolutionaries' ultimate goal. Until now, at least, there would have been great happiness among the protestors if Supreme Leader Ali Kahmenei had simply agreed to reform--another election, in this case. But the stakes are being raised. Kahmenei is signaling worsening repression. The thuggish Basij milita, in plainclothes with knives, clubs and guns, are being given increased freedom to attack the peaceful protestors and the homes of suspected supporters. Unknown scores are dead, hundreds, maybe thousands, are in prison. The foreign media are being evicted. The fierce response of a government against its own peaceful citizens is incitement for more far-reaching revolutionary ambitions.

To its lasting discredit, the Russian government of Medvedev and Putin has recognized the highly doubtful election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=29285 China joins in. According to the South China Post (Hong Kong), mainland government authorities are ordering the media to downplay protest events in Iran. Wouldn't want people getting ideas.http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2c913216495213d5df646910cba0a0a0/?vgnextoid=1991d1a7a69f1210VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&vgnextfmt=teaser&ss=China&s=News

In the next stage, the huge crowds of protestors in Iran's cities--accessible to the world largely through cell phones and Twitter--will crumble under the assault of the state. Or the state will make concessions to gain time. Or the revolution will take a new direction and state violence will be answered with popular violence. It would take overwhelming numbers for the latter to succeed. That, and expanding divisions within the current ruling class.

Many observers are assuming that even if the protestors prevail and the government collapses--in one way or another--and Mousavi accedes to the presidency, the West will still still face an antagonistic regime bent on developing nuclear weapons. I'm not so sure. Revolutions famously take on a life of their own. After all this, why should Iranians put up with an authoritarian dictatorship, international isolation and a crippled economy for sake of a belligerent defense and foreign policy? The achievable alternative is a relatively liberal state with genuine elections (where a Supreme Leader and his Guardian Council don't get to vet candidates), international cooperation and economic growth.

The top Shia cleric in the world is Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, 78, born in Iran, living in Najaf, Iraq since 1951. Ayatollah al-Sistani had a major influence in calming sectarian violence in Iraq after the American invasion, turning Shia voters away from the extremists, led by Iran-backed Ahmed Mukhtar al-Sadr. The senior cleric and scholar seldom leaves Najaf; indeed, he seldom leaves his house.

But in the battle over legitimacy in Iran, if Ayatollah Sistani says much negative about the repressive present government in Iran--the backers of Sadrites in Iraq, as well as of Hamas in Palestine and Hezbollah in Lebanon--it could have serious consequences for Iran's government under Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The Grand Ayatollah doesn't even have to say his piece publicly. Many Iranian mullahs could switch their allegiance rapidly.

Discovery Sr. Fellow John Wohlstetter (author, The Long War Ahead: And the Short War Upon Us) was on the Dennis Miller program today discussing the so-far inadequate response of President Obama to the sham election in Iran and the need for a new, internationally supervised election.

Time is important. The anti-Ahmadinejad demonstrations are widely supported, but not well organized. The government owns the power of force and the will to use it. If the White House imagines that failing to state a stronger view will somehow appease Ahmadinejab, they haven't been paying attention. As Wohlstetter says, our President apparently is being put to school the way Jimmy Carter was, but the lesson has not yet sunk in. Is this the crisis (as I suggested in this blog) that Joe Biden had in mind when, during the campaign, he predicted one within six months of the new Administration?

John Wohlstetter also says on the Miller show, there may well be connections between Iran and North Korea (remember "the Axis of Evil"?). And, meanwhile, Al Qaida is watching closely, as are Iran's clients, Hezbollah and Hamas.

Almost unnoticed, Mohammed El Baradei, Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is stating about as plainly as possible that Iran seeks nuclear arms.

Some mullahs are breaking away from the theocratic core in Iran and its current driving force, the security services. Division grows. The legitimacy of the government is being undermined. The least we can do is show moral support for the cause of real democracy and reform.

A Tehran University student's computer, purportedly broken during a militia raid.

The discussions in the White House right now must be fascinating and maybe heated--should we openly side with the Iranian demonstrators or hold to the neutrality pose? Just now the President's spokesman said he hopes Twitter will continue to delay needed maintenance downtime so that direct news can be reported from the Iranian people. That's a positive step. After all, Western reporters are being ordered to stay in their offices and not to report from the street. So brave reports from Iranians are all there are to get the truth out. (Two top Twitter sites #IranElection and #CNNfail--a running reproach to CNN's less than helpful coverage.)

Right now there are a spate of Twitter messages saying that there are more deaths today and raids of homes and offices; also that the Army has entered Tehran to confront the demonstrators. If so, this escalation raises the prospect of rank and file Iranian soldiers being called upon to attack their fellow citizens. It is a different prospect from the actions of the Basij ("Mobilization") militia that are a kind of kind of palace guard for the theocrats and have been beating demonstrators with batons over several days. In many revolutions, a critical moment comes when ordinary citizens in Army service are asked to fire on other citizens. They may do it once, even twice. But eventually, they may refuse their orders and then, whether planning it or not, may switch sides. If that happens, the revolution reaches a new, more explosive stage. Remember, too, the soldiers are young, and so are most demonstrators. They are all Iranians.

An alternative scenario is that the supposed reformer Moussavi goes on TV (which the Twitterers also say he is trying to do) and essentially cools down the protests with minimum demands, whereafter the regime regains control.

Regardless, as Amir Fakhravar, the former head of the Iran Student Confederation and a prisoner tortured repeatedly in the infamous Iranian prisons, said today, the people of Iran have not had a chance to express their will about the main contours of the government. The real powers in the theocracy merely present them with pre-approved candidates they can choose among. Fakhravar spoke eloquently at Discovery Institute two years ago; today he pointed out on FOX News that the Iranians are expressing themselves in the street as never before. The demonstrators are an appealing lot, not hateful, but peaceful, almost too pleading. And they are braver than the demonstrators of 30 years ago who were standing up to forces that already were crumbling.

They need to know our moral support.

Twitter in San Francisco must be uncommonly proud. Its service is defeating the Iranian censors. As this article indicates, Ahmadinejad government is playing "whack a mole", wielding centralized technology by theocrats against distributed technology in the hands of democrats.

(UPDATE: The most disturbing Twitter reports are of non-Farsi-speaking thugs attacking students and others in Teheran. Twitter reports believe they are Hizbollah and other imports. Many are on motorbikes. Michael Ledeen has fine analysis at Pajama Media. (Final note: It's nearly noon Tuesday in Iran. The country is literally on its own time--eleven and HALF hours later than Pacific Coast time, which is to say, eight and a half hours later than the East Coast.)

The tens of thousands of protestors are now hundreds of thousands. The outbursts in Teheran now turn out to be occurring in "every town", according to Iranians here in Seattle hearing from friends and relations. (Iranian Americans number about one million, a sizable and largely unrecognized group.) The TV in Iran apparently continues to downplay the demonstrations, if not ignoring them altogether, a sure sign of a dictatorship in panic. Trying to pretend that nothing is happening when the streets are full of people and gunshots are heard around the capital is another indication to the people that the government and its agents are out of touch and frightened.

I just heard from one immigrant here that a group of Revolutionary Guard leaders--from the 150,000 or so elite force supposedly most loyal to the mullahs--has been arrested in Teheran for suspected sympathy to the demonstrators.

In the Iranian news recently was a story about how much money--reportedly $700 million--was pent by Iran to bolster Hizbollah in Lebanon's elections (Hizbollah lost). That sort of news account may have added fuel to popular discontent, since Iranians understand that money that could be used to ease the local economic distress has gone instead to political adventurism abroad.

Bribery is a big problem in the Middle East and some of that $700 million may have gone down that particular rabbit hole. The mullahs inside Iran are corrupt themselves. That feeds the outcry, too.

Meanwhile, repression like that of the past few days--raiding the University dorms and putting student leaders in prison--can only work if the problem has not grown too large. When protestors are too numerous to arrest and the prisons too full, neither brutality nor partial capitulation will prevail.

Americans should be outspoken in support of the forces of freedom.

If Canadians could have voted in the 2008 American elections, Barack Obama would have received a runaway landslide. So the slow realization that the new Administration and its allies in Congress are quite indifferent to the neighbors to the North is only slowly dawning on Canadians. It doesn't fit their expectations. They don't know what to do with the information.

The same goes for Mexico. You just don't hear a lot of protest about the trucking policy from Latino political groups, almost all of whom backed Obama. Punishing our Southern neighbor just doesn't fit their expectations, either. So they are mostly silent.

The adroit and insightful Deroy Murdock nails it. I'm sorry if the reality makes free trade advocate friends uncomfortable. But it turns out that the new crowd really does not completely respect NAFTA. Face it.

Iran cannot sustain its authoritarian regime, that's the message from this week's elections. Street crowds of angry youth--and youth are a majority in Iran--are bold now. Even if they are crushed tomorrow, as the mullah promise, the anger is not going away. It will incite division and intrigue within the government. The military may grow restless.

"Vox populi, vox Deo" is not just an ultimate reality in the West. Opposition leader Hossein Mousavi himself is only a latter-day reformer, after all, riding the wave of revolt the way the mullahs rode it in 1979. Only now the revolt is against the theocrats, not a pro-Western government. This is an election that got away from the the repressive anti-democrats.

Two weeks ago it didn't seem possible that the theocrats could be put into such a panic. President Obama then was only too eager then to find common ground with them. Only toward the end did it become clear that the public mood was different. The claim of a landslide for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was too clever by half; it confirmed the suspicion of fraud.

Now the illegitimacy of the regime is on display. It has an eerie familiarity, doesn't it? It is the feeling of freedom let lose when the Communists fell in the old Soviet bloc.

(Sunday morning update.)

The Liberals have decided not to try to force an election this pleasant summertime in Canada. There were a couple of only mildly interesting provincial elections recently--in BC and Nova Scotia--and there is a business-as-usual mood in Ottawa, apparently. "When it is not necessary to do something it is necessary to do nothing," as Disraeli once said (I am paraphrasing, actually), and so Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff decided to read some reports and let the House of Commons snooze on.

Spring, following late frosts, was tardy in Canada this year, and now our neighbors are greedy for a little summer sunshine. They don't want an election. Who can blame them?

by John R. Miller

President Obama's speech in Cairo has been praised, and rightly so, for its effort to reach out to the Muslim world. But amidst the idealistic exhortations to practice democracy, further women's rights, practice religious freedom and of course avoid violence and take responsibility, there continues to sit--almost incongruously--only one very specific prescription for action, and it is directed at only one country--Israel.

"The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israel settlements" the President proclaimed to loud applause. Commentators have assumed that the President was asking Israel to not extend existing settlements in the disputed West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the following sentence does refer to "this construction". But the President in his applause line did not talk about merely discontinuing the settling process; he puts himself on record against the continuation of "settlements", which appears to mean the settlements that are already there.

This indeed is a prescription, all right, but if the words mean what they seem to mean--and we must assume every word in this speech was carefully vetted--the President's speech marks a new direction for the United States' policy regarding Israel. There is a big difference between telling Israel that it should stop allowing new settlers to take up residence on the West Bank and East Jerusalem and telling Israel to evict the nearly 500,000 Jewish settlers already there. No U.S. President has ventured this way before. When President Clinton urged a comprehensive settlement on PLO leader Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Barak, he asked that additional settlements be stopped but asked that the bulk of existing Israeli settlements remain with Israel offering in exchange pieces of Israeli territory.

President Obama's departure from traditional U.S. policy plays well in the Arab world but it will not enhance peace in the Middle East nor is it in keeping with the "universal ideals" the President proclaimed. No Israeli government can follow the President's advice, no matter how much pressure Obama exerts. To evict 500,000 settlers would set off a war within Israel that would leave Israel looking less like a modern state and more like the Palestinian territory riven by conflicts between Hamas and Fatah. And as for the "universal ideals" that the President urged his listeners to follow, what "universal ideal" says that people should be evicted from living somewhere based on race, religion or national origin? True, such anti-Semitic policies were pushed by Czars in Russia and by Hitler in Nazi Germany, but no modern democratic government has or does so. President Obama would not suggest such a rule in the United States. Certainly Israel does not suggest that Arab settlements in what the U.S. recognizes as Israeli land should be discontinued. PLO laws today prescribe death to Arabs who sell land to Jews, a policy that presumably would continue in a Palestinian state where Israeli settlements had been removed. One trusts the President does not support this method of discontinuing Jewish settlements.

Every U.S. President fervently desires to appeal to the Muslim world, but the President should beware of embracing solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that will neither end the conflict nor be consistent with either universal or American ideals.

John R. Miller
Former United States Ambassador at Large on Modern Slavery
Visiting Scholar, Institute of Governmental Studies, University of California, Berkeley
Senior Fellow, Discovery Institute

The beating the Labour Party took in local and European Parliament elections this past weekend are described in some quarters as an ominous sign of a surge of fascism. Not only did the Conservatives gain, but so, too, did the British National Party, a far right outfit. Melanie Phillips isn't buying it.

The issues in Britain are somewhat idiosyncratic, but there is no avoiding the reality that that nation's delegation to the European Parliament is moving right, as are local governments. It could be a signal of a new election and a Tory government (after 12 years of Labour). Conservatives and even the far right made gains in other European elections this week. And the pro-Western coalition in Lebanon seems set to continue in power, despite earlier predictions of advances for the Hezbollah/pro-Iranian parties.

Meanwhile, however, President Obama is moving U.S. policy leftward as he declares the recession an unwelcome, but long term guest. It is being touted almost as an excuse for further government takeover of the economy, though the takeover and big spending are actually contributing to the country's economic woes, not to their improvement. Creating new government jobs is not the solution to the loss of jobs in the private sector.

It would seem to be a bad time for a new Canadian election and there is a question as to whether the opposition in Parliament (three parties whose ambitions clearly are not in sync) would be willing now to unite on a vote of no-confidence and bring down the minority Conservative government of Stephen Harper.

Canada is suffering from the American recession that is now world-wide. Its deficits are growing, but are paltry in comparison to ours, even given the difference in the size of the two countries. Overall, Canada's finances are pretty well managed. Still, if you are a Canadian looking out, rather than an outsider looking in, there is a natural tendency to blame the government in power for whatever is besetting the commonweal.

One might have thought, in these conditions, that the Liberals would bide their time and build up their resources--and their credit with the voters--before trying to precipitate a new election. Now, however, that common sense expectation may be in for a dramatic change.

From an American standpoint, it is hard to see that it will matter much to us whether the Liberals or Conservatives are in power. Both parties are pro-American, but quite prepared to differ with us. The Conservatives are supposed to be the party of competent management and proponents of economic growth, but their recent record could be more inspiring. On one issue that we follow here--the development of passenger rail traffic over the border to help tourism, something that clearly is in Canada's interest, especially leading up to the 2010 Winter Olympics in British Columbia--the Harper government inexplicably seems to be dragging its feet. We at Discovery Institute are always urging our own government to think more pro-actively about Canadian trade--Canada is our biggest trading partner, after all. But at the moment it is the Canadians who seem to need a bit of a prod.

I think that if I were Mr. Harper I would not want to crouch in a defensive posture, but instead come out with positive vision on the economy and actions to support it, then challenge the opposition to go along or be cited for obstruction. Either way he would win.

But then I am just a Yank--albeit a friendly one--observing the situation from a safe distance. Since Canadian pundits never hesitate to give America advice, I hope they won't mind if we return the compliment from time to time.

We now have in Barack Obama an American president who prides himself on criticizing his country's past, doing so while abroad and doing so in a way that gives undue satisfaction to our critics and undue pain to our friends. He omits points in our country's favor and exaggerates our failings.

The inconsistencies in the Cairo speech are astonishing. Here is Pete Wehner's account.

Here is another paradox to consider: we have a President of the United States who is eager to show his support for nuclear power development in Iran--a reliable foe of America--but cannot bring himself to support nuclear power in his own country, the United States of America.

What is going on?

It has been fun mocking the abuse of second-home stipends by British Members of Parliament, but the weight of the scandal is now becoming an impossible burden for the ruling Labour Party.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown is facing the front of the attack, but to some extent he is heir to a culture of entitlement that has been developing for years--at least since the cheery era of "New Labour" under Tony Blair. The latter got out and handed off the festering problem to Brown, just as Prime Minister Chretien, in a somewhat similar situation, did to his sometime rival and Liberal successor as PM in Canada, Paul Martin. Mr. Martin suffered from the scandals of his party, and, alas for Mr. Brown, the same seems fated for him.

The capper for the current British scandal is the seriousness of Members' reported failures to pay taxes. A little petty spending greed is one thing (using taxpayer funds to pay for dog food or videos), but claiming a tax break for two houses that is meant for one house -- that's really annoying to the voters.

From Baghdad Omar Fadhil writes in The Australian that the war was "worth it." Notice that he writes about the war in past-tense. Increasingly, it is clear that the path to building a more prosperous, as well as more democratic Iraq is now wide open.

Just the booming Iraqi stock market says worlds about the turnaround in the nation's stability.

One hopes the Fadhil brothers continue their fine blog and resume regular posts. One also hopes that President Obama will give credit to Iraqis--and to the American-led Coalition that liberated them--when he addresses the Arab world from Cairo.

Heather Robinson profiles one of the true heroes of Iraq, a man of courage and high principle. The cost has been terrible--the murder of his two sons, Ayman and Gamal, and a security guard. But almost alone he overturned the old Saddam era ban on travel to Israel. His passion is freedom and representative government.

A weighty commencement address is a rarity these days, mostly because the people who graduate and those who come to witness the event mainly are in a mood to celebrate, not to cogitate. Yet the grand tradition of commencement speeches is that they compel people to stand back and see where the civilization is heading. There was, for example, Churchill's "Iron Curtain" speech at Westminster College, Fulton, Missouri in 1946 and Alexander Solzhenitzen's unexpected assault at Harvard in 1978 on America's callow, materialist culture ("A World Split Apart").

The widely admired career diplomat and recent Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, has called Whitman College graduates to confront the world as it is, not as they'd like it to be. Here is a good review in Crosscut.

Whitman has a public policy asset in alumnus Crocker, who has semi-retired to nearby Spokane, WA. He may challenge their assumptions, which could explain the relatively muted response to his address. One hopes they appreciate him. Challenging the assumptions of contemporary academia is the duty of all responsible citizens these days.

The smooth funny-man, social and political critic Dennis Miller toasted Discovery Senior Fellow John Wohlstetter's ideas coast-to-coast May 21, asking, "Johnny, where have you been all my life?"

Wohlstetter, author of The Long War Ahead (Discovery Institute Press) and the regular blog, Letter from the Capitol described the trap Speaker Nancy Pelosi finds herself in with CIA Director Leon Panetta and the trap the President finds himself in with former Vice President Cheney.

On Gitmo, Wohlstetter commented: "What Obama should do to spin this is he should go down to Gitmo himself (inspect it publicly) and then turn around and say, 'Any one in the world who say's Gitmo's a terrible place, open your own jails to the photographers."

Miller loved the idea (good for the country, good for national security and even for President Obama). "Look at you, Johnny! Christian (his producer), we have to get him back on as soon as possible."

Wohlstetter continues to build an audience and appeal on interview programs nationally.

British Columbia, site of the 2010 Winter Olympics

Thanks to pressure on the U.S. side of the border with Canada, Amtrak is ready to launch a second train per day to Vancouver, B.C. from Seattle. That represents a big commitment of time and money. It is especially topical now that Canada is getting ready to host the winter Olympics next year.

But the Canadian national government seems to be holding things up because it doesn't want to pay for the added costs of clearing passengers through customs. If there is no way to get the passengers to pay a nominal fee ($15 is about what is required to cover the bill), then surely the Canadian feds should step in and pay.

Why? Because trade and tourism are good business bets for Canada and the U.S. is always the biggest provider of same. If the U.S. government is willing to help boost this traffic, most of which will help the Canadians, surely our friends in Ottawa should be willing to assist. In the long run, there should be three, four, many trains up and down the West Coast--from Vancouver to Los Angeles or San Diego.

All these people clamoring for a "Green Future". How about committing to energy savings right now in this modest way?

Cascadia Center of Discovery has a good commentary here by Mike Wussow. Cascadia has a major conference on rail transportation coming up next week, by the way.

In case you hadn't noticed, Russia's culture, whether the subject is politics or business, doesn't always mesh as nicely with the traditions of the West as one might suppose. The recent arrests of gay rights demonstrators in Moscow--they say they were denied any kind of demonstration permit--illustrate a continuing difference in traditions of free speech on public issues. Regardless of their stance on any given issue, such as gay rights, almost all Americans and Europeans support the right to peaceful protest. In the economic realm, the same is true. However, in the case of a demonstration in Russia against Ford Motor Co., there was no official objection to the protest demonstration, but one does wonder what really was being protested.

In the U.S., it is commonplace for companies under financial pressure to cut back employment or, in certain circumstances, to reduce the work week in order to conform to production reductions. If the company lacks orders for cars, it can't afford to build them, can it? But the work week cut still must seem novel to Russians who are more used to a general social contract that accepts low wages in return for security. In the old days of the U.S.S.R., companies just kept making products, often regardless of market acceptance. It was one reason socialism failed.

There is no lack of economic demonstrations, or strikes, for that matter, in the West; and that is not my interest in the Ford Russia situation. Rather, I am just contrasting the apparent expectations that exist in worker populations. Americans usually don't try to force a company to keep producing when it lacks sales.

Of course, we do have the very recent tradition of simply bailing out failing auto companies. Maybe Russia should adopt that cultural innovation. The trouble is, Ford isn't willing to take a bailout in the U.S. and probably wouldn't want the government's "help" in Russia, either. And, to its credit, the Kremlin doesn't seem to be inclined to fund such a bailout, either.

The sumptuary scandal in Britain that is pillorying Members of Parliament for abuse (and sometimes merely use) of the law that allows them to seek re-embursement for expenses on necessary second homes soon will be refashioned as an American story in news outlets near you. That's a prediction. You read it here first.

I suspect that there are American editors already salivating over the juicy sweetmeats uncovered by their London counterparts. Under a Freedom of Information law rashly imposed on Parliament by Parliament itself, an enterprising female sleuth was about to publish the sometimes embarrassing details of the MPs' expense charges. So a male individual with insider access to the records decided to be even more enterprising and peddle the information on Fleet Street. The London Times didn't come up with the price, but the Telegraph apparently did. (No one but the Speaker of the House seems to mind much about the rogue who profited from his privileged access to public documents.) The Telegraph is reporting day after day on the MPs who claimed questionable expenses and the rest of the press is right behind. They perform the journalistic equivalent of a strip-tease, dropping a sexy new item each day.

There is the case of the Honorable Douglas Hogg, a Lincolnshire squire who claimed expenses for clearing a moat (he's a Conservative MP, wouldn't you know?). There is Mr. Ben Chapman (no relation--though, come to think of it, we must be related somewhere back in the medieval murk, mustn't we?), a Labourite who over-claimed 15,000 pounds for a mortgage. One Tory apparently acquired funds to compensate him for steer manure for his garden (a Bourgeoise sort of temptation that the garden-mad English probably can forgive), while Margaret Moran, Labourite, charged for repairing dry rot at a seaside house that is far from her constituency and is owned by her husband. Mr. Chris Huhne, a Liberal Democrat millionaire, billed the taxpayers for "lavratory rolls" (toilet paper), "fluffy dusters" and "chocolate HobNobs".

Meanwhile, the Speaker, Michael Martin, was far too sanguine about it all, and, further, had the cheek to call for investigation of the leaker. So he has been forced to resign, the first Speaker to be defrocked in 300 years.

Much of the clamor is unfair. The country gentleman with the moat says he really didn't mean to charge for its clearing, but for some other expense that happened to be listed on the same invoice (the moat was in the eye of his accusers). And most MPs' expenses really were legal, their re-embursement merely an ill-advised, but understandable way to let parliamentarians recoup some of the cost of maintaining a house in their constituencies as well as in London. Still, the public is disgusted (or are disgusted, as the English say) or at least claims (claim) to be disgusted. I think the public is titilated, too. Hangings have always been popular in England.

But, a desire to knock off the toffs is at least as strong on this side of the Pond. Even though Members of Congress do not get paid for the homes back in their districts--and instead wisely take a bigger salary than their English cousins, $174,000 US versus about $95,000 equivalent for the Brits--they do get lots of potentially interesting little breaks in travel, per diems ands other re-embursements that can be examined and exposed. It usually is petty bounty for a slow news day, but now, in the aftermath of the English scandals, it will appear to questing reporters like El Dorado itself.

Watch for it. Will the American scandal re-make take one week or two to produce? In any case, prepare to be terribly shocked.

Gordon Campbell was re-elected Premier in British Columbia yesterday in a race that shows the strength of parliamentary politics. The actual distance between the losing New Democrat Party and the provincial Liberal Party was not great, but it was defining. Accordingly, the Liberals will continue to govern as the international recession drags on and B.C. prepares to host the Winter Olympics in 2010.

In Canadian terms, the Liberals are the more conservative of the big parties in B.C. and are not to be confused with the national Liberal Party. Campbell, as party leader, is an appealing figure, a good speaker and an adroit administrator. His third term victory should commend him to greater national leadership. (But I'm a Yank, what do I know?) He even managed to sound humble in what was a big victory. http://www.vancouversun.com/Business/election+Gordon+Campbell+wins+historic+third+term+premier/1589774/story.html

The election would seem to bode well for Northwest inter-regional relations. Campbell well reflects public sentiment in his province, as well as his own views, in supporting greater cooperation with the State of Washington on common transportation and trade concerns.

Scandal! The London Telegraph is in full-throated cry against the expense-account extravagance of Prime Minister Gordon Brown, his cabinet members and parliamentarians of all parties.

However, even the Telegraph has to admit that the problem doesn't just reside in the system of taxpayer funded "allowances" designed to cover the costs of Members' maintaining houses in London as well as in their constituencies. It is a burden for members of Parliament to maintain two homes--as it is, even more so, for Members of the U.S. Congress, covering, as they do a huge continent that seldom can be reached by less than a plane ride. If the Parliament itself decides to help cover such costs the press should not be surprised that odd-seeming expenses will show up--house cleaning services or potted plants. The unfortunate Jack Straw, Lord High Chancellor, must explain why he needed an allowance for "two toilet seats. What exactly caused such excess, the media demand to know; tell us more. Maybe they should send an inquiry to the Privy Council.

No, the real problem is that Members of Parliament make too little to live on in one of the costliest cities on Earth. The allowance fees are a sad way to get around that reality. Sixty three thousand pounds a year (about US$96,000) obviously cannot allow a two-household existence, especially if one of the houses is in London. An American Congressman makes far more ($174,000).

The cure is to raise the salaries and then cut out the allowance system for household expenses.

Of course, the deeper cure is to reduce the time Members spend in Parliament trying to micro-manage one of the largest, most complicated economies on the planet. The Parliament makes is own work, in other words, and, hence, creates the pressed conditions that make scandals--real and faux--nearly inevitable. The heavy burden of government programs in welfare-laden Britain is a major contributor to the high cost of living there. Parliament itself imposes all those programs.

Meanwhile, wouldn't the Lord High Chancellor prefer to pay the bill for toilet seats out of his own salary rather than submit a record to be scrutinized by the media?

Troubles come in bunches, as you know (read about the 1930s), but that doesn't excuse political avoidance of true catastrophes in the making. Right now, we need a lot less worry about the flu and a lot more about the danger of nuclear proliferation and the immediate issues of Iran and Pakistan.

It is hard to believe that some in circles of influence want to disarm our nuclear force--the deterrent that compensates for a relative shortage of military manpower in the world--at a time when nuclear arms may be spreading. It is hard to believe that the Obama Administration is pressuring Israel to make a potentially ruinous deal with the Palestinians as a wishful way to appease Iran. And it is hard to think that we are so impotent to curb the Taliban in Pakistan.

Tony Blankley is bringing up the comfortable truth that America needs a stronger military now and cannot strategically afford the effective build-down envisaged by so many in the new Administration. I don't agree with the seeming implication at the end of his article that a draft may be needed. Not only is that wrong in principle, it would ignite a huge political backlash in society now. Regardless, his call for more manpower is exactly right.

Political will is the problem. One good sign--from the Rasmussen Poll--is that national security is growing again in the priorities of ordinary Americans. The 70 percent figure representing those who see the issue as very important is higher than at any time in the past year and a half.

"Johnny, can you use the word 'influenza' in a sentence?"

Johnny: "I had a little bird, his name was Enza; I opened the window and in flew Enza."
---Childrens joke, 1918 (Hat tip: my late Mom)

The Spanish Flu killed millions. There seems to be some question as to whether the "Swine Flu" has killed 150 or a relative handful. Many people around the world are coming down with the flu, but it is hard to see how the disease qualifies for the hysterical reactions in certain quarters. After all, flu strains of all kinds kill about 36,000 people a year in a normal year in the United States alone. So far, one person in the U.S. has died of the new flu strain.

Right now, the over-reaction will probably do tremendous and unnecessary economic damage. Some say it might better be called the Mexican Flu, since it has almost nothing to do with pigs. Swine get it, but they don't convey it to humans through pork products. Still, Egypt has ordered the destruction of all pigs. Various countries are announcing boycotts of pig products from Mexico, the U.S. or wherever.

Come to think, it probably should not be called Mexican Flu, either. A boycott of Mexico and Mexican products is about the worst thing to do to that struggling country right now. And the flu already has spread to the U.S. and Europe. Should we stop airplane flights to everywhere?

The disease is seldom fatal and is not airborne. It is carried by droplets--people coughing or sneezing in your face or on objects you touch before putting your fingers to your mouth. It's a form of the flu, folks, one of life's familiar risks, not the end of the world.

Some Mexican immigrant advocates are arguing that illegals should boycott the 2010 Census unless a vast increase in naturalization (about 12 million) is approved first by Congress. http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/18150 It is a development that could further complicate the taking of the 2010 Census.

The development constitutes a strange turn in politics, too, since it confounds the ethnic political calculations of those who want to use new citizens to boost Democratic party fortunes. More immediately, if many Hispanics who are here illegally aren't counted in the 2010 Census, Democrats, in effect, could lose clout in Congressional reapportionment and state redistricting. The calculation of the immigrant groups is that the Democrats in Congress, facing such a prospect, now will be forced to push hard for immigration changes. But in the midst of a major recession, that calculation could be a mistake.

Add this to the mix: Many in Mexico are a lot less eager to see increased numbers of naturalized U.S. citizens from the population of illegals now north of the border than they are to get Washington to adopt a program of temporary visas for agricultural and other short term workers.

From a Mexican perspective, that nation's interests lie in retaining its labor force in the long run while increasing family remittances in the short run. It is also pointed out that most Mexicans would rather not abandon their country of birth if they can find a way to make a living there--or in legal work in the U.S. Granting amnesty to the current illegal immigrants assures that as soon as the process is over the same problems will arise for a new generation of illegals--problems for U.S. border security and problems of personal security for the new waves of illegals. It is in the interests of the Mexicans as well as the Americans to get a real reform, not just a political fix.

The obstacles to policy accommodation are not in Mexico but in the American Congress. Businesses are much more ready to improve the lot of temporary workers than they were--classically--in Grapes of Wrath days (and that story was about workers who were Oklahomans, not Mexicans). But organized labor will resist the competition. So will some ethnic voter groups aligned with the Democrats.

Still, a U. S. Administration that wanted to help Mexico to stabilize and prosper and to find a permanent solution to the worker/immigration pressure on our borders would support an increase in temporary visas and work permits, just as it would visas for skilled workers. It also would legislate to assure modern standards of housing and medical protections for temporary workers. The increase in working visas could be combined with serious border security enforcement. But with a worker visa program included in immigration reform, such border problems would be reduced anyhow, and almost at once.

We should stop thinking of Mexico as a welfare case and start regarding the country as the strong trade partner it is already and the developed first world economic power it has the potential to become.

The Obama Administration apparently has abandoned the campaign promise to re-open NAFTA. Otherwise, however, it shows little inclination to move on this path. Meanwhile, Republicans are clear that they oppose massive naturalization efforts (amnesty), but seem unable to articulate a principled and positive foreign/domestic agenda that identifies with both the interests of our border integrity and Mexico's legitimate economic ambitions and the humanitarian interests of Mexican workers. Why can't politicians put these worthy goals together?

It could be, and should be, undertaken before the 2010 Census.

There is a funhouse quality of absurdity to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his appearance at a UN Conference on Anti-Racism to denounce Israel. Besides Iran, the major sponsors include Cuba, Venezuela and Libya. How did they leave out Zimbabwe and North Korea?

The conference raises the question, if you were alive in, say, 1936 or '37 , and yet knew what you did today of the Nazis, what would you do? The thing is, we are alive now and yet find it hard to focus on a powerful latter-day Nazi, Ahmadinejad, who is getting a lot more play from the UN than Hitler ever got from the old League of Nations.

"Nazi" is a frequently and regrettably abused term. Fairly speaking, it should apply only to a vehement anti-Semite who not only wants to discriminate against Jews, but also wants to destroy them as a people--AND is prepared to use violent force to do so. Unfortunatley, Ahmadinejad meets the definitional criteria.

This is not a matter of poor taste at the United Nations. It is an urgent scandal.

Urgent because Iran is acquiring nuclear weapons.

Give President Obama an "A" for political daring in forcing the issue of "immigration reform"--by which is meant providing citizenship for 22 million illegal immigrants--and an "D-", so far, for helping our neighbor, Mexico.

The two causes are not necessarily in sync, and may actually work against each other. Mexico desperately needs help in combatting drug traffickers--and curbing sales in this country. It needs the United States to respect NAFTA by allowing approved Mexican trucks to ship here. It needs investment and other economic development assistance. It needs political reforms that will allow the private sector in Mexico to expand and boost long term economic growth. The goal in all of this is to help Mexico take care of its people. A prosperous, self-respecting Mexico is good for building a healthier relationship between our two countries.

So far, however, the Obama Administration has had a mixed record in respect to our Southern neighbor. Maybe when President Obama visits there in a few days that picture will improve.

However, Mr. Obama's prospective immigration bill does not seem to have much to do with helping Mexico and a lot to do with domestic U.S. politics. He obviously doesn't mind illegal immigration very much. He gives ample evidence for those who think his main aim in this field is adding new Democrats to the U.S. voting rolls.

Setting aside the politics, how is this new emphasis good for the United States right now? We are in a serious recession and a huge batch of immigrants to compete with current Americans for jobs is sure to spark bitter populist divisiveness. It was hard enough to argue for immigration when the economy was booming and when amnesty was set into the context of stronger border enforcement. The economy is worse now than a couple of years ago and the bill being proposed is sure to be less balanced than the one supported then by President Bush.

In addition, the current recession in Mexico is not just impelling poor people, but also the educated and skilled, to move North. That may be good for the U.S. economy in the long run, but not so good for Mexico. Such people are needed to help Mexico modernize. That nation cannot grow and prosper when the United States is the safety valve for poor economic policies and performance in the Mexican government and economy.

President Obama, of course, is busy moving the United States toward greater public sector development, so he probably doesn't have much sympathy for President Calderon of Mexico, who is trying to move his country toward freer markets.

These days, the new Administration's de facto message to Mexico seems to be: You have economic problems? Move here!

Not since Woodrow Wilson was hailed by tumultuous crowds as he appeared at the Versailles peace conference has an American leader been given such a warm welcome in Europe as greeted Barrack Obama, and simultaneously achieved so little of practical benefit. The Jazz Age was also an age of celebrity and the parties and confetti and cheers for Wilson in 1919--as for Obama ninety years later-- were reported everywhere. They were stunning, thrilling and transient.

The way for an American head of state to translate public adulation into approval from the leaders of the Old World, of course, is to capitulate to their demands and to expect nothing in return. Obama played that role beautifully and the American public was led to believe it was a huge triumph. Slowly, the truth is sinking in, however.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/5121615/President-Barack-Obama-is-going-home-with-non-nein-and-no-ringing-in-his-ears.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/5120797/Analysis-What-has-Barack-Obamas-first-foreign-tour-really-achieved.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123906007566594937.html

Bibi Netanyahu is now in charge in Israel and the contrast of his style with that of the new U.S. president, Barack Obama, could hardly be more stark.

Unfortunately, as the 1930s showed, tyrants will not give the democracies time to improve their economies before challenging them. The Obama Administration imagines that Iran can be maneuvered into a serious peace agreement that includes giving up development of nuclear weapons. But everything in their past suggests that the Iranian mullahs' word means nothing. They will build nuclear weapons when you are antagonistic and they will build nuclear weapons when you are trying to appease them.

Take your pick. But after either approach, action becomes painfully necessary.

When illegal immigration was the topic of the day, my email over-flowed with statements from supposed friends of Mexico demanding "reform". But now when the United States under President Obama has killed the use of Mexican trucks, driven by Mexicans, on U.S. roads, protests against such a patently anti-Mexican decision are noticeably absent.

Some people say that most Latino political groups in the U.S. are, in effect, arms of the Democratic Party that use the Latino label to cadge votes and little more. They will criticize Republicans, but not Democrats, no matter what. This issue--where the Mexican government is outraged by a clear violation of NAFTA, and in retaliation is damaging U.S. trade--would seem to be a test of that theory.

So far, the test is only validating the theory. The Obama Administration had to choose between Mexico (and NAFTA) and the Teamsters union, and it took the cheap political option. But if Latino political groups care, they aren't saying so.

Building a closer working relationship with Latin America should be a higher priority for the United States. But the Obama Administration failed to support the trade treaty with Colombia and now is rescinding the modest progress of the Bush Administration in allowing (safe) Mexican trucks to cross our borders.

Do we allow Canadian trucks? Of course.

Why not qualified Mexican trucks?

If the shoe were on the other foot and Bush, not Obama, had made this decision you would have a hard time avoiding the word "racism" all over the media and on the streets.

In the 19th Century the competition between the West and Russia for influence in Iran was dubbed "The Great Game." Such games can turn dangerous, however.

Iran in the 21st Century arms terrorists in Gaza and Lebanon. It has targeted Israel for destruction and, by many accounts, is building a nuclear bomb. It boasts of plans for guided missiles. Meanwhile, Iran has sought weaponry to protect its nuclear sites from Israeli preventative attacks.

Russia is helping Iran to build its nuclear plant, though it says it is not helping Iran to convert its facilities to bomb-making and to develop guided missile capacity. Meanwhile, Russia is blocking efforts at the U.N. to sanction Iran for its nuclear weapons ambitions. And Russia is continuing to arm Iran to thwart possible attacks.

We have been told that this is about nothing more than mere money. Russia has weapons to sell and needs markets.

We are told quietly that Russia really is monitoring Iran's situation and won't let it get out of hand.

Unfortunately, all such assertions are beginning to wear thin. Friends of the U.S-Russian relationship have to be sober in the face of these realities.

The remarkable Elliott Abrams, a key foreign affairs adviser in three Republican administrations, is interviewed at length by the also-remarkable Ruthy Blum Leibowitz of The Jerusalem Post.

Here in one long article is an easy and excellent way to brief yourself on the American relationship with Israel over the past decade. Knowing that the interviewer and interviewee are related (fully disclosed) only adds to the enjoyment.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304768587&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

A few years ago it was unimaginable that lovers could hold hands in a Baghdad park. It was not allowed by the religious extremists. And it wasn't safe. Now that is changing.

The recent elections saw defeat of Islamist and pan-Arab parties, whether Shiite or Sunni. Pro-Iranians were devastated politically.

Culturally as well as politically and economically, it appears that most Iraqis long to join the developed world. How much will the Obama Administration exert itself to help them?

The only vote that counts.

The Hugo Chavez regime is a failure in terms of anyone's interests other than Chavez'--all classes and groups, and certainly the nation's standing in the world.

Sunday the voters are asked again to authorize an effective Chavez-for-life amendment to the constitution. This time it is unlikely that Jimmy Carter will be around to indicate that the voting was fair. The economy is in collapse and even redistributing what wealth is left will not long sustain vote-buying handouts to the poor. The only question now is how far the Chavez regime (like Mugabe's in Zimbabwe) will go to steal the election.

If the vote goes against Chavez and is fairly reported, turmoil will mount quickly. If it does not go against Chavez or is not reported fairly, the fate of Chavez will play out more slowly. But eventually the collapse of oil prices and skyrocketing inflation means the collapse of the government's finances and therefore Chavez' schemes.

What is coming in Israel after this week's exciting elections is a coalition, as usual. But, facing stressful and consequential days ahead, this coalition could turn out to be unusually conducive to vital domestic stability.

It is in this sensitive moment that Discovery Senior Fellow George Gilder is completing the edits for a new book, The Israel Test. This work will surprise many of his fans, but it makes sense in the progression of George's interests over four decades--from war to politics to families to "wealth and poverty" to entrepreneurism to technology and technology companies to (now) the Israel of the past dozen years that concatenates new free market policies, brilliant minds and the most fecund technology, acre for acre, in the world. For Gilder, the success of the United States is now linked as never before to the success of Israel. The links are more than sentiment, and more than political and military interests. The new links are shared technical knowledge, imagination, business acumen and, most of all, mental agility.

Benjamin Netanyahu helped usher in this new era when he was finance minister in the 90s. Now, as George first found on a Discovery-sponsored trip two years ago, the country is fairly bouncing with brash young businesses that have made tiny Israel an amazing tech powerhouse. In his distinctive fashion George weaves a story of the people who made this happen and their successors today. He interprets this account in the context of the history of the Jews in modern times and gives a frank report on the undeniable genius of the Jewish people.

Our Discovery colleague David Klinghoffer, who writes often on Jewish matters, read a draft this week and tells me he found it "brilliant, visionary, original, exciting, and beautiful... The fundamental insight about an 'Israel test' we all face is so intuitive and obviously true--yet not like anything I've heard before. Once he articulates it, I know exactly what he means and have to admit I've not always passed it myself.... It snaps so much into perspective, unarguably, I think."

Gilder is original. He's also funny and challenging.

Richard Vigilante Books is the publisher. The Israel Test is slated for publication this spring.

You heard about it here first.

Now for some good news: The vultures are beginning to circle the Caracas palacio of Hugo "Little Castro" Chavez. The sitings are slow to be reported, but they do have a certain vividness to them.

If Chavez couldn't pay his bills last fall, how do you suppose he is holding things together now when oil is a half what it was in October?

The hopeful winds from Venezuela are not all that unique. The United States may be in bad shape economically, but that doesn't necessarily open up opportunities for our natural foes in the Hemisphere. This fine piece on "Latin America's Quiet Revolution" by Stephen Haber in The Wall Street Journal ran several days ago, but did not get enough attention.

President Bush in his final press conference

Less than two weeks before President Bush leaves office, the leading Iraqi blog, Iraq the Model--a light of fair and accurate reporting from inside Iraq ever since the fall of Saddam--describes the difference between the Iraq where a reporter's shoes were thrown at Bush and the Iraqi reality that is the actual Bush legacy. Who can deny the huge institutional progress? Only Sadrites and head in the sand Leftists in the West.

This has been a bad year for Somalia and a bad year for the Somalia front in the War on Terrorism. It is not a glorious account for the United States, the European Union or our supposed friends in the United Nations. A Voice of America report tells a good deal of the sad story.

But the background is even worse that what appears up frront. The Ethiopians sent troops to Somalia (partly at our request) in the expectation that we would back them up with financial support for the U.N. approved transitional government, as well at the Ethiopians themselves. If there has been support, it has been too little. Now the Ethiopians are going home, assuming that they can fight their way out of the country.

The long internecine political strife between President Yusuf and his prime ministers is partly tribal, but also partly the consequence of inadequate funds with which to pay bureaucrats and the military, let alone provide help for the general population. Don't be surprised if allies break up internally when stressed out. Mr. Yusuf's return to relatively calm Puntland is not a sign of peace ahead, but a sign of general political and military failure.

Somalia is in a critical location in the Middle East. It has oil. It is close to shipping lanes, as the pirates have shown us. It has attracted Bin Laden supporters. There are Somalis in the United States--Minneapolis, Seattle, Cleveland, etc.--raising money for BIn Laden (I am told) and Somali young men who have resided in the U. S. who have returned to Somalia to fight on the terrorists' side.

There has been very little, if any, MSM coverage of all this (except for the attacks of the pirates), even though Somalia has the markings of a prospective debacle for the United States and our allies in the months ahead. We are so preoccupied with the economy, the Israel/Palestine conflict, Iraq and Afghanistan that we seem unwilling to face the facts in Somalia. They are facts, nonetheless. They could determine a foreign policy catastrophe for the Obama Administration in 2009.

Iranian dissident Amir Abbas Fakhravar speaks in 2006 at the Discovery Institute about deposing the mullahs in his native Iran.

Is it too soon to speak of revolution within Iran? Many U.S. opponents of the Iranian regime think the U.S. is doing next to nothing to support indigenous dissidents, but are appearances accurate?

Here is a story--not much noticed in the MSM--that suggests otherwise.

Iran is not the puritanical Islamist state you think; it's worse than that, corrupt and immoral. The mullahs are on the take and there is a growing scandal of coerced prostitution (sex slavery in the modern parlance). But the social ills are not adequately covered yet in the West. We avert our eyes.

Iran today is overwhelmingly "young" and students are mostly alienated from the government, and not only from President Ahmadinejad, but also from the mullah puppeteers above him.

Here are some remarkable photos by Mehdi Gasemi, taken of demonstrations on December 6 ("Student Day" in Iran). Funny, I don't see any "Death to America" posters.

Why is our government so uninterested in helping the dissidents? Are we we afraid of a regime that already is implacably opposed to us? Would we rather let Iran's rulers build a nuclear bomb and then bomb the sites, starting a major war?

Even in the Cold War, when the Soviets were sponsoring anti-American groups in this country, we did all we could to aid dissidents behind the Iron Curtain. Why is Iran different? Please don't tell me the dissidents don't want or need help from us. Who says so--and in what context?

Al Alusi, consoled by American soldiers after his sons were killed in 2005

We have on various occasions demanded fair treatment of Mithal al Alusi, the brave Iraqi member of Parliament who has traveled twice to Israel to discuss terrorism issues. Doing so caused him the loss of friends, party membership (he had to create a new party) and official security protection. It may have cost him the lives of his two sons who were killed in a terrorist ambush that was aimed at him. It also has encumbered him twice with threats of prosecution in the courts. Had he been sent to an Iraqi prison he probably could not have survived long.

Happily, the latest assault on his official standing and freedom was taken to the supreme court--and Mr. Al Alusi has been completely vindicated. Moreover, without anyone much seeming to notice, Iraqis are now free to go to Israel or any other country. That is highly unusual in the Middle East and sets the stage for any number of future peaceful exchanges and other diplomatic initiatives. The politicians could not establish that right, but the constitution they adopted a couple of years ago did. In any case, that is what the Iraqi supreme court has ruled.

Tom Friedman uses the Al Alusi case as an illustration of the transformed Iraq that is being handed to the incoming Obama Administration. It is a good piece, although Friedman is so partisan that he cannot bear to give President Bush any credit for the changed situation. No thanks to Friedman or The New York Times that employs him, Iraq really may be a major victory for freedom in the seething Middle East.

A more dispassionate pundit would admit that Bush was instrumental in that victory.

Most Canadians, except in Quebec, seem to support Prime Minister Stephen Harper's decision to force Parliament into a cooling-off period just as the Conservatives' opponents were exhibiting a rare unified determination to vote for a new PM, Liberal Stephane Dion.

That probably also reflects the public's greater trust in the Conservatives on the economic issue. Indeed, polls show stronger support for the Tories on that issue than on the issue of prorogation (sending the House of Commons into forced recess).

Now there could well be a debilitating fight for the top leadership post among the Liberals, and their leader--and the Coalition's putative head--Dion doesn't even seem certain to prevail in it. Not only will he not become the new PM, he may not last as Liberal Leader. Dion was seen as the only horse to ride in a crisis, but now that the crisis is on hold for the next two months (when Parliament returns), the dolorous former professor's intra-party rivals seem likely to surface. It's hard to see how internecine Liberal jousting can help the Coalition, in any event.

Meanwhile, the relative popularity of Harper, as I wrote below, could easily start to evaporate if the PM does not respond strongly with an economic program the country can accept.

Harper lately has had the sense to offer to work on the program with the opposition while they are cooling their heels and sending out their Christmas cards. But he made a mistake by not adopting a more irenic approach earlier. Where did he get the idea that it was safe for a minority Government to propose taking away the public financing of the opposition parties? (Under his proposal his Conservatives would have lost the public cash, too, but they are better situated to get private funding.) If Harper & Co. had wanted to find a way to unite the usually fractious Liberals, New Democrats and Bloc Quebecois, he could hardly have found a better device. They were plotting against him anyhow, but the attempt to raid their political piggy bank gave made them genuinely passionate.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper--spiting his opponents in the Liberal, New Democrat and Bloc Quebecois parties--today asked the Governor General, Michaelle Jean, to "prorogue" the Parliament, and she agreed. (Photo below.) The national legislative body therefore is now in suspension and the House of Common doors are locked, and not just until the New Year, as many expected, but until January 26.

If the word "prorogue" is strange to American ears (and unless you studied the public life of England in the Middle Ages, it probably is), don't worry; it is mostly a new idea for most Canadians, too. In fact, it is almost as novel a device (though legal) as the three Canadian opposition parties' scheme (also legal) to close down the Conservative Government that Harper heads and install one of their own. Prorogation, indeed, is Harper's stall tactic to prevent a nearly certain vote of "no confidence" in Parliament by the opposition parties next week. Harper's Conservatives have only 46% of the House seats, the three opposition parties 54%. If they unite, they get to govern.

But now there will be a period of forced Parliamentary hibernation--and all sorts of political speculation. Which leaders and which parties are most likely to crack in the two cold, dark months ahead? Will the uneasy combine of Liberals, New Democrats and Bloc Quebecois break up as specific difficult issues arise and the three party warlords start contradicting one another? Even before that, will an ambitious insurrection within the Liberal Party undertake the ouster of the current leader, Stephane Dion, the somewhat melancholy former academic whose campaign management floundered in October's national elections? If so, will that intra-party struggle weaken or strengthen the inter-party agreement?

Or will it be the Conservatives who fall apart as the economy continues to weaken and as demands grow for stimulus programs that only a sitting Parliament can authorize? If it is this course that events take then Harper probably will not merely be voted out on January 26 but trampled underfoot.

My unbidden opinion (see yesterday's blog below) was that Harper's best option was not prorogation, but resignation, handing the palace coup makers their supposed dream: power right now. My reasoning was that triumverates are seldom stable. Put Caesar, Pompey and Crassus jointly in charge and before you know it they will be fighting one another. On the other hand, before they achieve power, members of a triumverate have every reason to collaborate amicably and forge a tight union against the incumbent, in this case, Harper. Therefore, if you are Harper and you are being a bit Machiavellian, you might have given your varied opponents (one liberal centrist party, one socialist and one separatist) the very thing they think they wanted, and then watched and waited as they started to plot against one another.

Prime Minister Harper and the Conservatives have taken a different tack, however. They are probably betting that the Coalition will melt apart over the holidays or at least in a January thaw. Meanwhile, he will present what he hopes is a popular set of new economic policies to the country.

Well, we'll see. We Americans--as is said in Kentucky--don't have a dog in this fight. But it is curious to watch, nonetheless.

The Canadian media are filled with the exciting story of a possible, even likely, removal of the Conservative government after only six weeks' tenure since October's parliamentary election. Conservatives, with 46% of the seats in Parliament, still lack a majority and now the other parties--the Liberals (who have about a quarter of the seats, the New Democrats (NDP) and the Bloc Quebecois--have decided to close ranks to form a coalition. A new Government could well be made up of parties that were last fall's election losers. The participants publicly have agreed on Stephane Dion as the new Prime Minister, even though the Liberal leader is under criticism in his own party for the recent poorly executed Liberal campaign. Internal Liberal divisions open a chance, indeed, that Dion could be sworn is as the new PM and yet get ousted before the next election in a party leadership contest.

When Discovery Institute in Seattle held a review of the Canadian results on October 15, the day after the Parliamentary election, I asked two esteemed experts on Canadian politics why the Liberals and NDP didn't just combine forces on the left. The answer was swift and stern (stupid me!). There is just too much ideological difference between the relatively free market Liberals and the socialist NDP, and too much history, too, I was told.

Well, six weeks later there doesn't seem to be so much difference. Not at the moment, anyhow. In the coalition deal, Liberals will organize the Government and get most of the cabinet seats, while the NDP will get a mere six cabinet posts--but that is more than it has enjoyed in my memory--and the Bloc, whose long term policy is separatism, will vote to sustain the coalition agenda, but not take part in the new Government ("Government" approximates a U.S. "Administration" in parliamentary terminology). There are fateful photos of the three joyful party leaders after signing their joint agreement: The NDP's Jack Layton, the Liberal Stephane Dion (center) and the Bloc's Gilles Duceppe. (Photo: The Canadian Press)

I have a feeling that that photo may come back to haunt the three. There really are differences among the parties--as well as within the Liberal Party. It is hard enough to keep the Talking Points and lines of authority clear within one party, let alone among three. Then there are the personality differences and rival power ambitions among long term rivals.

With that in mind, it would seem to this outsider that Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper would be smart to let the conspirators succeed for now. They have the votes to oust him anyhow and the most he can do (with approval of the Governor General, the seldom-more-than-nominal head of state) is "prorogue" Parliament for a few weeks--essentially, force a temporary adjournment so the Conservatives can think of something else to do and hope the Opposition Coalition plan will unravel over the Christmas holidays. That is probably a vain hope, however. Right now, the public is uneasy about changing the Government so soon after an election and in the middle of a bad recession. But even if the majority of the public are wary of the new coalition initially, Harper could find that his support in the public might recede as a stalemate wore on.

But the present strategy of the Conservatives seems to be to dig in, to do everything they can within the law to stop the plotters. So far they mostly seem to be sputtering in their surprise and indignation. Their first hapless charge is that the Liberals have made a coalition with "socialists and separatists." The charge is arguably true, and it is also true that the Bloc especially is not trusted in most of the country. But the trouble is that the coalition probably is going to be able to show that the Conservatives themselves were willing to play footsie with the Bloc in the past when it served their interests. And whatever the country is, it is not majority Conservative. The Tories got only 37.6% percent of the votes in parliamentary ridings (districts) in October, even though the electoral logistics worked out to convert that total to 46% of the seats in Parliament. If a contest were held between between the "Conservatives and Everybody Else," it hard to see the Conservatives winning.

There is another publicity tack the Tories are taking that seems ill-advised. Conservatives are trying to make it seem as if the coalition maneuver is nearly illegal, and certainly illicit--unethical, if you will. A coalition may be highly unusual and a bald power play, but it is not illegal or illicit. The coalition could have formed a Government right after the election if the three losing parties had so wanted. A party with 46% of the seats (the Conservatives) doesn't automatically have a property right to govern just because it is bigger than the next largest party.

On the other hand, if PM Harper were to go before the nation, express his dismay that the opposition parties will not let his steady leadership continue to assist Canada through a difficult economic period, and then (bowing to the express intention of the Liberals, NDP and Bloc), he were to ask the Governor General to invite Stephane Dion to form a new Government, here is what might happen: 1) After the champagne and back slapping was finished, gripes among the Liberals against Stephane Dion as Leader would re-surface. 2) With Conservatives still an imposing minority consistently voting against the Coalition, Inter-party Coalition strains inevitably would grow as various issues were raised. Inter-party coalition loyalty would be tested again and again, one controversial issue after another, and eventually would rupture. 3) Once the breakdown came, the Governor General would almost surely call an election, even though the public probably wouldn't feel ready for one. 4) If this all happened in a few months' time from now, Conservatives just happen to be better prepared to contest another election and would have a ready-made issue; namely, the demonstrated incompetence of all the opposition parties.

Of course, there is no predicting events. The Coalition could turn out to be a huge success and there might emerge a long-term stable Government from it. The Conservatives also could suddenly have their own leadership fight after the Coalition took over. (Some might ask, for instance, why Harper so antagonized the other parties after the election that they got over their own mutual antagonisms and formed their new alliance).

But, on balance, I wonder if centrifugal forces bidding to pull a coalition apart might not prevail in coming months against the centripetal forces that presently are pulling it together. Parties work well to enforce cohesion, while coalitions invite back stabbing divisions. Centuries of political experience in all countries show it.

So it seems to me that the Conservatives might be better off in both the next year and long term--and at the next election might even obtain the parliamentary majority that has eluded them so far--if in coming days they handed the opposition parties the very Government hot potato they claim to desire. The Coalition plotters could turn out in the end to have been "too smart by half." The Tories are going to lose control of the House of Commons within weeks anyhow (unless the Coalition comes unglued even sooner). Why not let necessity become an intentional choice?

Mind you, of course, I am just an American observer. What do I know?

**

Update:

Here is an online poll that does ask the question about the prospect of a Coalition Government. It is probably not scientific; still, it is interesting to see the near-even split.

News links:

These two links to CBC News - here and here - and to The Globe and Mail, provide some very useful background information to the story.

Our friend Mustafa Akyol again has a wise and irenic perspective on terrorism, this time in the aftermath of the killings in Mumbai (Bombay).

I wonder if it will register with the American left now--as a Democrat of their choice is about to enter the White House--that terrorism has to be met with force? That does not mean that one loses the ability to distinguish Islamist fanatics from ordinary Muslims (as Akyol makes clear) or to give up on diplomatic efforts, even with largely extremist elements in Iran. It does mean realism and a recognition that we are not the problem, the adversary is. You would have to be a fanatic yourself to blame America for the attacks in India.

Mohammed Fadhil of Iraq the Model has a useful post on Iraqi reactions to the American election. What is most useful about it is the open spirit with which Iraq's most famous bloggers approach the new Obama Administration. Mohammed and his brothers are grateful to President Bush for liberating their country and they liked Sen. McCain. Like most Iraqis, they are looking forward to the departure of the Americans, but they do not want to have that happen too soon. The relative peace that has raised hopes in recent months since the Surge succeeded is fragile and could collapse, precipitating an Iranian-influenced civil war.

So, we'll see. Certainly it is to America--not Bush, McCain or Obama per se--that Iraqis look for helpful leadership. It is America that will get the credit or the blame for coming events.

And, to borrow a malaprop from the new Obama Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, we can't just kick the future of Iraq down the can.

A recent missile test in Iran

At the top of the list of under-explored issues in the 2008 presidential campaign, place this one: war between Iran and Israel. It is the potential hot subject of the next presidential administration, but there is a strange silence about it. Tom Friedman of The New York Times would have us believe that the Iranian government is on the skids because of the falling price of oil and the mullah's managerial incompetence. But the Teheran theocrats have failed to conform to such wishful analyses in the past and there is little reason to think anything has changed.
 
A more likely prospect is increased belligerence in coming months from an Iranian regime that is looking for outside opportunities to shore up domestic support. Iran is building nuclear bombs and rockets to deliver them.
 
Consider this now in the context of the campaign. Media and politicians have been rather quick to pass over Senator Joe Biden's remarks to Seattle campaign donors recently, remarks that quite plainly predict a coming foreign policy crisis. The Democratic vice presidential nominee, who is privy to top secret national security intelligence, concluded his talk with the observation, "I probably shouldn't have said all this because it dawned on me that the press is here."

But he had just said earlier, "Mark my words." So, before the campaign ends, let's mark them.
 
It has long been rumored that Israel will not allow Iran to gain the weapons and delivery system to attack Israel. First, Israel will make a pre-emptive attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.
 
In the event of an attack the United States surely will back Israel logistically and we might well join the fight directly.  After all, Iran repeatedly vows to eradicate Israel and bring down the U.S. It funds terrorist groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Sadrites in Iraq.

Once the American election is over and the domestic political scene in Israel calms down (after parliamentary elections in late winter) an attack will become timely. Israelis certainly are capable and have the will to make a preemptive strike, as they did in 1981 against the Osiraq nuclear reactor in Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Strong statements of general backing for Israel suggest that both presidential nominees are prepared to give more specific support to an Israeli attack when it happens. Both may have made private commitments to that effect. But right now neither candidate wants to talk about the subject. McCain may not want to sound like a warmonger and Obama would be afraid of disillusioning his Left wing base--the peace folk who initially rallied to him because of his steadfast opposition to the American war in Iraq.

Israel's actual plans, and American possible actions in connection with them, are all highly classified, of course. Outside the Bush Administration, only the presidential candidates--and key members of Congress, such as Biden, who chairs the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations --would have been briefed. These people know what others can only suspect and wonder about.

Biden, with such knowledge, warned in Seattle,  "Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did Jack Kennedy. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

Biden also said that he expects that the Obama Administration's handling of the unnamed crisis will be unpopular with many people. "Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right...Gird your loins," he told the donors, "Because this guy (Obama) has it. But he's gonna need your help. Because I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, 'Oh, my God, why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down? Why is this thing so tough?

"There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go, 'Whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don't know about that decision.' Because if you think the decision is sound when they're made...they're not likely to be a popular as they are sound. Because if they're popular, they're probably not sound."

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright tried to spin the Biden effusion as just a commonplace notation that a new leader must always expect to be tested by events. Obama, the brilliant rhetorician, dismissed it as a "rhetorical flourish."

Instead, it sounds like someone speaking a kind of code that he half-wants to be understood and half-wants not to be understood. It also sounds like the Joe Biden who likes to demonstrate his insider status and who notoriously lacks a filter. Slade Gorton of Washington State has described his former Senate colleague as "a politician who never lets a vagrant thought enter his head and remain unspoken."

Other possible scenarios that have been derived from Biden's words include an altercation with Russia, perhaps over U.S. sponsorship of NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine. Some people imagine an Al Qaeda attack that would cause Obama to invade Pakistan, as in the primaries he suggested he might do (never mind that Pakistan is an ally that fervently does not want our troops.) But, in the case of Eastern Europe, the scenario doesn't rise to the high drama implied by Biden's fulminations, and in the case of Pakistan, an invasion any time soon seems unlikely.

In contrast, prospects of an Israeli attack on Iran have been discussed for a long time and have achieved a level of expectation, not just conjecture. Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton last summer predicted an Israeli attack soon after the American elections are over. (I think that the Israelis would want a new U.S. president fully resident in the White House so that he would have to take responsibility.)
 
Despite years of diplomacy by many countries and international organizations, efforts to restrain the Iranians have failed. The International Atomic Energy Agency of the United Nations (IAEA) has been rebuffed repeatedly. The defiant Iranian theocracy has virtually asked for attack.
 
Still, such an attack, even if successful, is bound to have huge repercussions. An open declaration of war seems probable. Iran has said it will urge its terrorist surrogates to rise up in the Middle East and to assault the U.S. worldwide and on our own territory. Iran's own naval and para-military units have the capacity to threaten shipping lanes around the Straits of Hormuz through which most of the world's oil passes. Oil prices could rocket for a while.
 
Other nations in the region, history shows, will profess outrage at Israeli and U.S. actions, even though nearly all will be relieved that Iran's atomic threat has been removed. The United Nations will condemn Israel. The U.S. will become even more unpopular in the "Arab street," including among some of our allies (not all) in Iraq.

But if the issue of a possibly impending war with iran is absent in the presidential campaign, there is precedence for such avoidance. There seems to be a hole in American awareness at election time where foreign policy ought to be. That was true in 2000 when terrorism was barely mentioned, if at all--eleven months before the 9/11 assaults. Going back, Pearl Harbor arrived a bit more than a year after FDR won re-election to a third term, pledging to keep "our boys" out of war. And in 1916 Woodrow Wilson was re-elected with the slogan, "He Kept Us Out of War," only five months before America entered World War I. We may be at such a point again.

But will anyone even remember this "crisis" issue omission when and if Biden's prediction comes true and a war with Iran "tests" a newly elected Obama?

 
** Bruce Chapman, president of Discovery Institute, was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Organizations in Vienna under President Reagan.

By George Gilder (taken from his weekly subscriber newsletter):

It is the view of The New York Times' Tom Friedman that the Israelis, who hold less than half of one percent of mid eastern territory, should trade land for peace with the Palestinians:

After thirty years covering this area, cataloguing every olive tree in the
Middle East, Friedman no can longer see the imperious forest of basic
facts before him in the region. G.K. Chesterton got it right. As I
paraphrase: "If it were true that the man who is trained is the man to be
trusted--if the man who saw something every day saw more and more of its
significance--the argument for expertise would be unanswerable. But the man
who sees and studies and practices something every day does not understand
more and more of its significance, but less and less."

Reflecting this blindness of expertise is the utterly conventional and
obviously fantastic consensus view of Friedman and nearly all the other
authorities on the subject. The key problem in the mid-East, they conclude
in chorus, is that Israel has too much land. Their remedy is for Israel to
give up land for the creation of yet another fanatical Moslem nation-state
in various areas of Palestine amazingly even more cramped than Israel.
Created would be a prospective nation with no identity to sustain it
beyond the Palestinian sense of grievance and its hatred of Israelis.

It is hard to imagine two more preposterous ideas so widely and
prestigiously upheld by experts. Chesterton's law is fully vindicated by
Friedman's follies.

Also supporting this pastiche of absurdities is French writer-"activist"
Bernard-Henri Levy. Author of a book on the killers of Daniel Pearl of the
Wall Street Journal and articles and essays galore on Israel and
anti-Semitism, he amazingly slips into an objectively anti-Semitic mode
himself. Believing that Israel must trade land for "peace," and give the
Palestinians a state, Levy fails to explain why, of all the nations of the
world, the only one not permitted to command a defensible territory,
capture the staging areas of invaders, or exclude immigrants devoted to
their destruction are Israel's Jews.

By contrast to Israel, the Palestinians are surrounded on all sides by
spacious and compatible Arab countries of whom they theoretically could
become citizens. Why not the East Bank? That's Jordan, where 100 thousand
Palestinians voluntarily fled during the 1967 war? As David Pryce-Jones
witnessed at the time on the Allenby bridge, "Fear did not seem to be the
motivation. These people had not seen a single Israeli soldier....Something
in the culture more powerful than either self-interest or common sense was
at work."

A Moslem Arab state from time to time sustained by Israel and created in
part as a home for the Palestinians, Jordan held the West Bank until King
Hussain's treacherous 1967 invasion and shelling of Jerusalem. Jordan
retains a far more compelling obligation to these people than Israel does.
In the 1980s, Palestinians taking refuge in Jordan did attempt to
overthrow the Jordanian government. So the Jordan solution may take some
work, but it is surely more practical than the seawater solution favored
by the Palestinians.

Should the Palestinians shun Jordan, perhaps they would prefer the Soviet
Jihad state of Syria, which in its guise as "Greater Syria" stretches its
reptilian tentacles throughout the region, including nearby Lebanon.
Moreover, Egypt is contiguous with Gaza and could easily absorb the Gazan
Palestinians. It is outlandish to say that, because of some democratic
nicety interpreted tendentiously by the U.N., Israel must commit effective
suicide by giving citizenship and equal voting rights to 4.5 million
anti-Semite enemies who want to kill them.

Yet Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic, in a helpful piece called "Is Israel
Finished?" reports that accepting this line of democratic thought are not
only leading Israeli writers such as the prizewinning Amos Oz and my own
favorite, the eloquent Edward Grossman, but also the then incumbent prime
minister Ehud Olmert himself. Grossman's waffles may be understandable
because of the loss of his son Uri during the Lebanon War in 2006. But
Olmert and his allies had no excuse. Nonetheless, this former mayor of
Jerusalem nominally dedicated himself to removing the some 400 thousand
Jewish settlers in the West Bank and Eastern Jerusalem. Goldberg's article
justifies this surrender by suggesting that, together with the demographic
trend, the West Bank settlements are "a castastrophe." Echoing Jimmy
Carter's ingenuous view, Goldberg even raises fears that "Israel will
become a state like pre-Mandela South Africa, in which the minority ruled
the majority."

Clinching the argument, Goldberg writes: "If the Arabs of the West Bank
and Gaza were given the vote, then Israel, a country whose fundamental
purpose has been to serve as a refuge for persecuted Jews [where they
could live as a majority], would disappear, to be replaced by an
Arab-dominated 'binational' state."

This is a democratic ideology that accords no significance to the prospect
that an Arab run Israel would quickly expel all its Jews and cripple its
capitalist economy. Such rules of democracy would make democracy a suicide
pact.

Without a functioning and legally protected capitalist system, democracies
swiftly sink into ochlocracies, ruled by mobs. Without the independent
private sources of power imparted by free businesses, unbiased courts, and
other institutions of economic order, any democracy becomes a despotism
ruled by any tribe of thug politicians that manage to gain control. If
they have oil or foreign aid they may stay in power for decades. The
failure of leading Israeli intellectuals and politicians to comprehend
this reality is far more portentous than any supposed demographic trend.

In stark terms, Israel and Palestine raise the issue not only of the
prerequisites of viable democracy but also of the nature of capitalist
wealth. Are entrepreneurs, in Israel and around the world, chiefly givers
and benefactors, or are they predators and exploiters? Should policy focus
on fostering economic growth for all or on closing "gaps" between rich and
poor? Should it seek to enable an economic spearhead of excellence and
creativity or to dispossess the successful to subsidize the wretched of
the earth? Clutching their Fanon and their Koran, their Howard Zinn and
their Noam Chomsky, the ersatz voices of the "wretched of the earth"
punctuate their claims by a flaunted fist of hate, a clenched mind of
murder. Does Israel owe anything at all to such people?

To many observers--in the army of the left--it is obvious that Israeli
wealth causes Palestinian misery. How could it be otherwise? Jews have
long been paragons of capitalist wealth. Capitalist wealth, as
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon put it in regard to "property," is "theft." Karl
Marx was said to have shaped his opposition to property rights and his
Jewish self-hatred, by reading Proudhon, who in anti-Semitic virulence,
exceeded even Marx. In an 1883 diary, Proudhon declared that, "The Jew is
the enemy of mankind. This race must be sent to Asia or eliminated." This
fits well with Osama Bin Laden's view that warping the entire U.S. economy
and its global impact has been the effects of Jewish usury.

History, however, favors the view that poverty springs chiefly from envy
and hatred of excellence--from class war Marxism, anti-Semitism, and
cleptocratic madness. It stems from the belief that wealth inheres in
things and material resources that can be seized and redistributed, rather
than in human minds and creations that thrive only in peace and freedom.
In particular, the immiseration of the Middle East stems chiefly from the
covetous and crippling idea among Arabs that Israel's wealth is not only
the source of their humiliation but also the cause of their poverty.

Most of the world, even many citizens of Israel itself, want to muddle
these issues. The favored answer to all categorical pronouncements is:
"All of the above." Democracy, equality, multicultural kumbaya, Sharia
law, gay marriage, capitalism and freedom, the children of coddled West
want it all in a cornucopian cocktail party of inebriated contradictions,
from green austerity to entitled affluence. They mix nominal political
support for Israel with celebration of Palestinian voters who elect and
applaud anti-Semite terrorists. They match a devout belief in abortion
with fears of demographic disaster in Israel, and with continual bows of
political reverence toward an ever-diminishing complement of children.
They combine opposition to nuclear weapons and defense spending with
demands for American intervention everywhere the U.S. has no conceivable
national interest, from Burma to Tibet. They oppose nuclear proliferation
while urging US nuclear disarmament that hugely enhances the incentives
for secret nuclear programs. Without peremptory US nuclear superiority a
small complement of nukes can confer global dominance and make it
impossible for the US to defend Israel or anyone else.

The Israel test forces a remorseless realism. It disallows all the bumper
sticker contradictions of pacifistic bellicosity. Either the world,
principally the U.S., makes the sacrifices to support Israel or Israel,
one way or another, will be destroyed. There are no other realistic
choices. And if Israel is destroyed, capitalist Europe will likely die as
well, and America, as the epitome of productive and creative capitalism,
spurred by Jews, will be in jeopardy.

(From Patrick Bell in Vienna)

It appears the E.U. may now be applying the brakes on its
climate and energy plan that was negotiated late last year. Expressing
concerns about the economic costs it might impose, Poland, Italy, and several
other E.U. member states are rebelling. European fans of more controls fear
that if the plan isn't solidified by late December, when the Czech Republic
gets the E.U. presidency, the whole thing might come apart. (The Czech
government is largely divided on climate change.) The E.U. Commission also
wants to have a strong plan in place to use as leverage with the next American
president.

Several vulnerabilities, meanwhile, are coming into focus with the E.U.'s cap
& trade system. For instance, mandating two policy targets (20% reduction of
emissions by 2020, and 20% increase of renewable energy use by 2020) may sound
good in theory, but under the current design of the E.U. system, these targets
may be contradictory in practice. Countries like Austria are meeting their
reduction target (cap) by importing credits from abroad (trade). The trouble
is, under this scheme, Austria, for example, actually sends valuable
investment dollars abroad that otherwise could be used for domestic renewable
energy projects, while not actually achieving reductions in its emissions.

And of course, not all industry sectors are covered, so there are plenty of
objections about favoritism.

This from Bruce Ramsey of The Seattle Times (for tomorrow).

Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and Liberal Leader Stephane Dion.

The previous post on Canada's polls questioned the wide spread in predictions, from a Conservative victory by nine points over their nearest rivals, the Liberals, down to a five point Conservative win. The actual Conservative spread in yesterday's election was 11.4 percent--and that in a contest where differences are exaggerated by the presence of five parties in contention. Moral: you can't count on polls, something worth noting especially in our own election right now.

There are a number of surprises in the Canadian outcome. First, the large Conservative numerical and percentage plurality did not enable the Tories to win a majority in Parliament. They gained 16 seats, while their top rivals, the Liberals, dropped 19, so it is a real plus for Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Tories. First, Harper responded to criticism of his modest cuts in arts funding by making light fun of people who attend expensive arts fund raising "galas" and then complain about cuts in culture. In most places he probably got a chuckle with the allusion, alienating only a few artists who don't vote Conservative anyhow. But in Quebec "culture" is a surrogate for provincial identity and the separatist cause. The Bloc Quebecois made it seem that Harper was ridiculing French Canadian culture.

Then, when Liberal leader Stephane Dion three times fumbled a CTV question about what he would have done about the economy if he had been prime minister, the Tories made fun of his inability to answer a simple question. Dion was hurt nationally, but in Quebec he was defended as a Francophone speaker who was being ridiculed for not speaking and understanding English well enough. In both cases Harper was innocent of any malice toward Quebec or French speakers, but his opponents made enough use of his statements to blunt any gains the Tories had expected.

It is hard to see how the Conservatives could have made a majority this year anyhow. They might have found a couple more seats in B.C. and in Ontario, but even with a couple of gains in Quebec, they still would have been shy of a 155 seat majority. They were not successful in Atlantic Canada, especially in Newfoundland, where Harper is very unpopular for local reasons. In any case, it is hard for anyone now to get a majority in a system that seems to so many parties.

But if the Conservatives were a bit frustrated at their failure to gain a majority, the Liberals are broken and reportedly broke. Their "green" tax policies backfired and Dion, a former professor, was not persuasive on the stump. It has to be asked of the Liberals now what was asked of the conservatives 15 years ago: are they still a national party? The fastest growing region is the West, where the Liberals now are down to seven seats (the Tories have 70). Liberals can't seem to make any more progress than the Tories in Quebec and they are fading in Ontario.

It is not clear that the NDP is much of a national party, either. If the Conservatives have trouble winning in urban areas, the NDP is vacant in most of Quebec, the second largest province, and large swaths of suburbia and rural Canada.

The parties are all tired now and the nation plainly is tired of them. Tuesday's 58.5 percent turnout was the lowest on record. There doesn't have to be an election for four years, but it is very unlikely that there will be one for at least two. What Harper and his party now face is stabilizing the Canadian economy. Fortunately, it has been outperforming others in the West, which may be one reason that the Conservatives performed as well as they did in a time of financial worry.

The next political excitement in Canada will probably be an internal leadership fight in the Liberal Party, with Dion challenged by Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff. The latter was shown in this campaign as a smart, adroit speaker for the party.

A peek at a more distant future comes with the political arrival of the Liberal Justin Trudeau, son of the late, long-serving Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, who transformed Canada into a much more liberal country two generations ago. Young Trudeau was elected in Montreal.

Why do the media treat the drop in oil prices as a problem that "darkens" the news, when they similarly greeted the upswing of prices a year ago as foreboding?

The fall in oil prices is good for the economy short term and long term. Would we be happier if the price per barrel went back up to $150?

With the presidential campaign riveting national attention, both parties should commit to a twin strategy:

1) Substitute domestic oil for foreign sources to the fullest extent possible. That means, of course, we must drill drill off-shore without delay. It is still profitable to drill at the suddenly lower prices and doing so will reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It would be folly to drop the subject now as we have in the past when prices fell. Oil exploration is not something you can start and stop according to the vagaries of politics.

2) Link the exploration policy with a concurrent policy of conservation, including hybrid cars, tax credits for heating insulation, a serious national passenger rail program and other realistic measures, including alternative fuels. Push hard on new, safe nuclear energy and stop the costly and environmentally counter-productive emphasis on ethanol (except for promising new technologies such as algae.)

Combining these strategies makes good sense economically, politically and militarily. There is no good reason why conservatives and liberals should not be able to join together on this. Can we please have some leadership from our "leaders"?

The Canadian federal campaign is full of so many follies among all parties that, ad seriatum, the advantage keeps changing. If you are following the U.S. campaign (as even the Canadians are doing) there is a kind of morbidly fascinating similarity in that respect. For political junkies I recommend a two-campaigns-at-once examination.

A couple of nights ago Prime Minister Stephen Harper--the "cool hand at the tiller," as he describes himself--was asked by Peter Mansbridge of the CBC what advice he would give Canadians disturbed about the stock market collapse. He smiled wryly and suggested that now was a good buying opportunity. Chuckle, chuckle.

The other party leaders immediately jumped on the gaffe. (What happened to, "When there is a panic, don't be the one to be panicked."?) No wonder the Conservatives have started descending in the polls. Their policies may be sound, but they seem to lack empathy for an electorate shivering in fear.

But the very next day, Liberal leader Stephane Dion was interviewed by the same Peters Mansbridge and asked if, in light of the economic times, he would delay the Liberal plan to impose a carbon tax as part of the party's response to global warming. Not at all! Dion was so excited that at certain points he lapsed into French, assuring Mansbridge that the proposed new tax was merely part of a green transformation of the Canadian economy that would wind up creating more jobs and opportunities. Unhappily for the peppy Mr. Dion, his party's other top leader, Michael Ignatieff, was saying in an interview that it would be wise to hold up for a while on a carbon tax right now.http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081009.welxndion1009/BNStory/Front

Then there is the Green Party candidate, Elizabeth May, who practically sabotaged her own party's candidates yesterday by urging "strategic voting" to defeat Harper. So far as I can tell, that means that one only votes Green if there is no chance of the Liberal candidate in your riding (district) getting elected. To put it still another way, you only vote Green if you wish to waste your vote! At best, this uncertain trumpet seems likely to confuse the Green electorate (not to mention the Green Party candidates!) and was opposed at once by David Chernushenko, the candidate who lost out to May in the most recent Green Party leadership contest.http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081009.wmaycomments1009/BNStory/politics/home?cid=al_gam_mostview

As one result of the Liberal and Green presentations, Conservative prospects may be brightening again. Tomorrow's Globe and Mail, the normally liberal-leaning national paper, is endorsing Harper. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081009.weelection2008/BNStory/politics/home?cid=al_gam_mostview

On the other hand, maybe the Dion-May entente will work somehow and the nine percent in the polls now favoring the Green ticket will switch en masse to the Liberals--thrilled by the expectation of the new carbon tax--and carry Mr. Dion's ticket to victory.

In the United States, meanwhile, Sen. Obama seems within striking distance of wrapping up the election. Polls showed a shift further in his direction after the most recent presidential debate. There were no gaffes by McCain, but none by Obama, either, and it was McCain who needed to give people clear reasons to vote against Obama and for himself. Instead, his boxing blows were glancing and almost worse than ineffectual. They appeared to be peevish.

So, advantage Obama, right? Yes, except that there is growing and deleterious information about Sen. Obama's past in Chicago that finally is coming to light. For months and maybe years it disappeared. The media failed to dig it up and in the primary campaign Hilary Clinton made only timid, McCain-like references to it. Either Obama offered himself in Chicago's South Side as a radical or he did not. At this time of economic turmoil, the truth, as opposed to the image, may matter.

The context is the economy and who can you trust in government to deal with it? Oddly, plenty of people seem to be in charge, but no one seems to be clear about what is going on. The grim sense arises that nobody really knows. Not in Canada and not in the U.S.

If you are frazzled by the endless American election campaign, go to the Canadian press and television and look into the brief, spirited federal elections that began up North a little over a month ago and will end in eleven days. If for no other reason than that it is enjoyable to watch a campaign where one is intellectually, but not emotionally, invested, Canada's election campaign offers a fascinating escape for Americans. We might even learn a thing or two.

Start with adjusting one's ideological perspective. Some in Canada apparently regard the incumbent prime minister, Stephen Harper, as a frustrating and even dangerous right winger. But he surely would be viewed as a moderate Republican or Democrat in the United States. Nonetheless, until recently Harper's Conservative Party--an amalgam of the old Progressive Conservatives that were nearly wiped out 15 years ago and the western-based Alliance party--was on its way to gaining a majority in the parliamentary elections October 14.

This may be changing. In the past couple of weeks Canada began to catch the economic jitters that already are shaking the United States hard. The Toronto stock exchange followed Wall Street down. The Canadian dollar, the "Loonie", weakened a bit, though it is still close to the U.S. dollar (94 cents). Objectively, Canada is in better shape than most Western countries, but that doesn't stop people from worrying--and premptively planning blame as conditions deteriorate. Undoubtedly, the Conservatives wish the election could be held right away, while they are well ahead.

It is not that most people love Harper or even trust him, it is just that he seems competent, frugal, unflappable and honest. He is mild mannered and yet deceptively decisive. To some those traits are reassuring, to others they are infuriating and sinister. Leftists call him radical because, well, as a leader of the minority five years ago he backed the U.S. invasion of Iraq. He has since recanted and he even has agreed to put a two year limit on further Canadian participation in the war in Afghanistan. He cut the hated GST (the value-added Goods and Services Tax). He throws money at the arts and various social ailments, though never enough to satisfy the various organized constituencies. He has begun to build up the military, but only to the extent that Canada no longer is embarrassed by its navy ships being declared unseaworthy, as was was the case a few years ago. Canada seems more assured and confident now.

A major reason Harper and the Conservatives aren't in even better shape is simply that Canada is not, in any sense but temperament, as conservative as America. It is a fluke of the Canadian multi-party system that Harper's plurality in the 2006 election, when the Liberal Party's long dominance was ended, resulted in a minority-run Conservative government. It is the continuing good luck of the Tories that the opposition parties, while all to the Tories' left, are numerous, small and don't play well together. That means that the Tories don't have to get a majority, they just have to keep their opponents divided and maintain a few points' lead on the nearest competition as the polling begins.

Accordingly, having broken through in Quebec in the 2006 federal elections and thereby becoming a true national party, the Conservatives have a shot at a "majority" led government in Parliament, albeit one elected by a decided minority of the electorate. Right now the CBC, Canada's public television station, has a poll showing the Tories with 36 percent of the vote, ten points ahead of the Liberals.

The formerly formidable Liberals, under Stephane Dion, are stuggling under a misguided decision to start wearing a campaign costume of green just as ideas like their carbon tax proposal are beginning to annoy voters who suspect anything with "tax" in it. Dion is an able French speaker who, however, can get tangled in a fast-paced English debate. The Liberals are a true national party, too, but a weak one following the scandals that helped defeat its former leaders. Crowds are sparse for Dion this fall.

The New Democrats, under Jack Layton, play to a limited labor and social libertarian base and are plumping for a cap and trade energy idea that is hard to explain. They have been embarrassed by candidates who seem to approve trafficking in marijuana or hold other exotic views that are a bit outside the Canadian mainstream. The NDP is a perennial also-ran on the national level, but this year, thanks to the campaign ardor of Layton and sagging enthusiasm among Liberals, the party may do do better than usual. The NDP stands at 19 or 20 percent in the polls.

The Bloc Quebecois, under Gilles Duceppe, never does well nationally, of course. Its whole game is in Quebec. Since the exciting days when it seemed on the verge of leading provincial voters in a transfer of sovereignty to a new and independent state, the separatist cause has waned and, with it, the fortunes of the Bloc. Now the Bloc is left with a laundry list of ethnic French cultural and welfare demands that probably don't excite young people, let alone business people and many academics. Liberals and Conservatives both eye the Quebec vote.

Finally, gregarious, ebullient Elizabeth May of the Green Party, scored big in this election campaign by forcing her way into the national televised debates. (The party has no votes in Parliament, despite a large, diffuse following.) Permitting the Green representative into the debates supposedly came over the objections of the Conservatives as well as the NDP, but it is hard to see how the Greens' growing prominence can but help the Tories in the long run. They will cut deals with Liberals in certain ridings (electoral districts) and May is clear that she supports a government headed by Dion. But might not the Greens also cut into Liberal numbers, and the NDP's, too? Could they cost the Liberals certain Quebec ridings? As of now, the Greens have nine percent support in the polls.

In the two televised debates held this week, Dion reportedly did well in the first one, conducted in French, while the dreary, kitchen table gabfest conducted in English last night, was probably a draw. It would have been a draw-and-quarter of Harper, since everyone wanted a piece of him, except that the overall impression was one of stupifying kibbitzing. Imagine five candidates trying to talk at once!

So, the Conservatives should be on their way to a substantial victory, right? Their ten point lead over the Liberals, and 15 points over the NDP, should translate into a majority in the new Parliament. In public, Tories have been modest, not claiming a majority government, but that is what many have expected.

Until now. Canadians are just as human as anyone else and part of human nature in politics--even in a country of modest size, sitting next to the gargantuan USA--is to imagine that the people in charge of one's government at the moment are responsible for any problems that exist. Canada has relatively low unemployment, low inflation, ample domestic energy (unlike the U.S.) and mortgage laws that did not permit the hideous credit crunch that has its American neighbor. Harper points all of this out, but even the media have joined the opposition politicians lately in hand wringing.

Instead of looking around the world and being grateful that they are as well off as they are it may well be that Canadians will vote to keep their Parliament splintered and their government hobbling on splints.

There is much to be said for a parliamentary system, a blessedly short national campaign being near the top of the list. But there is also something to be said for a two party system where someone is more likely to come out on top with a mandate.

**
NOTE: Discovery Institute will host a post-election review of the Canadian election results, and what we can learn from them, on October 15 at Discovery headquarters, 208 Columbia, in Seattle. I will be joined by Canadian studies professor Don Alper of Western Washington State University and former Canadian Counsel General Roger Simmons. It should be fun. Please join us for lunch. Check the Discovery "Events" column on our Home Page for details. Canadians especially welcome!

Iraq's Parliament has capitulated to pressure from Shia and Sunni extremists to punish the man who is one of freedom's bravest advocates in that country, parliamentarian Mithal al Alusi. After al Alusi attended an annual international conference on terrorism in Herzliya, Israel last week, and thereby offended the long-standing anti-Israel policy of Iraq, the Parliament banned him from foreign travel, ousted him from legislative activity and deprived him of the immunity from prosecution that parliamentarians enjoy.

Alusi at the funeral of his two sons who
were killed in an assassination attempt in
Baghdad in 2005.
Photo: AP

Al Alusi is calling the actions unlawful and citing the likely behind-the-scenes role of Iran.

The demogogic assault on al Alusi, which puts him and his family at physical risk, should be rescinded promptly and Mr. al Alusi reinstated in his parliamentary office.

The present treatment of a genuine Iraqi patriot is particularly shameful in light of al Alusi's principled sacrifices. In 2004 he also attended the Herzliya conference and subsequently was ousted from his political party, the Iraqi National Congress, and deprived of his legislative protections upon arriving home. His security detail was removed, making him an immediate target of repeated terrorist attempts on his life.

Eventually al Alusi was able to form a new political group, the Democratic Party, and raise support for personal protection. His fresh election to Parliament was a major vindication of his views.

Nonetheless, he has paid a very high price. One of the many attacks on him and his family resulted in the death of his two grown sons, his only children. He and his wife have been raising their grandchildren on their own since then. This summer, however, terrorists succeeded in blowing up al Alusi's house. (This information has not yet seen print, to my knowledge, but was emailed to friends and contacts recently.)

The crime for which terrorists hate him and craven fellow-parliamentarians are prepared to destroy him is al Alusi's sensible view that Iraq should have peaceful and official relations with Israel. Last week he even suggested that Iraq should work with Israeli as well as American intelligence to fight al Qeda and Iran's agents among the Shia.

Al Alusi's reasonable political position on regional cooperation is not too far from that of the private views of the Kurdish minority and of other Sunni--and perhaps some Shia--secularists. It happens to make great sense if the Middle East is ever to make the transition to lasting peace.

But, meanwhile, what has happened to al Alusi is a blight on Iraq's standing as a democracy. The United States no longer calls the shots in Baghdad, but surely its officials in Iraq can try to protect this brave elected official and secure his release from the sanctions just levied unjustly against him. He could not get a fair trial in the current environment and, if convicted, he would be a likely murder victim in prison--where he has many terrorist enemies among both al Qaeda and pro-Iranian prisoners. His death would be a warning to others who have resolutely stood up to terrorists.

The political silliness up North was not much different this week from the silliness in the United States. The Conservative Party had to pull an internet ad that showed a bird dropping a load on the shoulder of the Liberal Party candidate for prime minister, while in America the Obama camp fielded statements of purported outrage from Republicans over the Democratic candidate's reference to putting "lipstick on a pig", a quip supposedly directed at that most-un-piglike vice presidential nominee, Sarah Palin.

One can laugh because none of that kind of stuff matters. It is political wheel spinning.

What does matter is the bald reality that Canada only began its national campaign on September 7 and yet will hold the election on October 14. Canada's prompt and considered decision will come three full weeks before the United States' campaign stumbles to its completion, following two years of fund raising, fulsome rallies where crowds only come to life for the cameras and dissipated lifetimes of cable-heads shouting interruptions. Whether November 4, really is the elections terminus, of course, depends on having an outcome that is not close. Otherwise, as in 2000, the lawyers take over the next morning and you can add another month of nerve-jerking anxiety.

In America, we have made national campaign politics the chief activity of public life. Canadians, with their simple system of party voting, will know the results of their election soon after the polls close.

America's presidential selection process is muscle bound, demoralizing and wasteful. A billion dollars is being raised by the lead presidential campaigns, and that doesn't include the untold bucks invested by noxious special interest groups and para-partisan advocacy causes that have no accountability (thank you McCain/Feingold).

Campaigns bring out bad qualities in otherwise good public leaders, but while that means a rough couple of months in Canada or in most other civilized nations, we stew on the political stove indefinitely. Our leaders have a hard time showing anything other than their bad side.

A couple of liberal stars of Congress, Jim McDermott of Washington and Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, have so lost their composure that they are calling for impeachment of President Bush, even as the current POTUS is lassoing up his last hurricane crisis and ridin' for the ranch. How long do they think a trial would take? Would Dubyah have to come back from retirement in Crawford to face re-retirement? McDermott and Kucinich remind me of the frustrated inquisitors in the Middle Ages who had dead men dug up so the corpses could be properly drawn and quatered.

But then there is Canada, where the myrid opponents of Prime Minister Stephen Harper have a hard time developing a sincerely nasty description of him. The anti-Harper case seems to reduce to his reputed dullness and lack of imagination. What a joy for Harper!

Seriously, "dull" in politics is usually a blessing. Dull incumbents tend to get returned to office. Dull means they can't find much worse to say about you.

But in the US of A, the button and banner printers probably are planning to follow their past two years of non-stop production with either "Impeach McCain" or "Impeach Obama" campaign materials, depending on the November 4 returns. It's a rush job. They need to be ready for sale by Christmas, at least a few weeks before the unfortunate winner is sworn in.

Both Republicans and Democrats promise "change" and "reform". Well, how about "change" and "reform" of the interminable presidential election process?

The near-hurricane disaster "Gustav" and the choice of Gov. Sarah Palin as Sen. McCain's vice presidential nominee have pushed the situation in the Caucasus off the media monitor. Good. Now there is a chance to get on top of a potentially perilous situation.

Here is my take on the current situation, borrowed from Discovery's Russia Blog.

The Washington Post has perhaps the best report so far on how the war in South Ossetia and Georgia got started. It is astonishing how this episode ignited a torrent of abuse and prejudice, second guessing and histrionics on both sides (you should read our email).

By Mike Wussow and Bruce Chapman

(Note: Some of the issues described in this post - particularly U.S. oil dependency and energy security - will be the focus of a major conference hosted jointly by Discovery Institute's Cascadia Center and Microsoft on September 4-5, 2008. Participants will include Anne Korin and James Woolsey, both of whom are also referenced in this post. Details are available here.)

The Russia-Georgia conflict brings uncomfortably to the surface the question of energy security. Like much of the rest of the world, America is addicted to oil, most of it now imported. We rely on petroleum to fuel just shy of 100 percent of our transportation. America imports from its neighbors, Canada and Mexico mainly, but almost as much from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Nigeria. Russia supplies 762,000 barrels each day to the U.S. according to numbers released by the U.S. government in June.

Europe imports far more from Russia, of course. That has Europeans quaking in the aftermath of the war in Georgia and makes it difficult for NATO to speak with one voice.

It is hard to see how we will be able to work through the present crisis so long as the West seems irresolute about reducing its dependence on oil, especially oil from Russia. Even those of us who are optimistic that the long term interests of Russia and the West are reconcilable must face the fact that oil and gas pose a Western vulnerability in any negotiations.

Georgia has three major pipelines. Its two oil pipelines are capable of transporting millions of barrels of oil a day. by the country's current hostilities that it suspended some operations earlier this week. And although unsubstantiated still, as was noted on Russia Blog, an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal said Russian bombs hit one of the pipelines.

During the 110th Congress alone, more than 350 measures were introduced related to energy efficiency and renewable energy. President Bush has cleared the path for the U.S. to tap its own off shore resources to fill in the gaps while other options are perfected and made more available. But energy action has been stalled by the Congress and half-measures are all that are being considered now, anyhow.

Off shore drilling is needed as a national policy, not just a state option, and both parties need to get realistic about drilling in ANWR. New drilling will take time, but deciding to do so would send an immediate signal of American seriousness about our security. Environmentalists at home should recognize that we are going to use oil for years to come, no matter what, so the real question is whose oil we use.

But everyone also should be able to agree that the government and private sectors should be increasing energy conservation to lower to overall use of oil. Perhaps the war clouds in Eastern Europe can spur us to take the dramatic efficiency efforts that have been obviously needed for years.

Among the best long-range collective options is the electrification of transportation through the use of innovative vehicle technology, including plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. It's an idea that is at last taking hold in addicted America, but it is still an unimplemented idea. (Discovery Institute--www.discovery.org--has pushed the issue for years.)

According to the Set America Free Initiative , an alliance of security, environmental, labor and other groups promoting ways to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil, "If by 2025, all cars on the road are hybrids and half are plug-in hybrids, U.S. oil imports would drop by 8 million barrels per day." In 2006, according to the Initiative, the U.S. imported $309.4 billion in oil. At the very least, supporting the development and use of vehicles that, with the flip of a switch, dramatically reduce dependence on oil for transportation is perhaps the single best option America and Europe have for throwing off the yoke of oil dependence. Some, such as former U.S. Director of Central Intelligence, R. James Woolsey, and Anne Korin, of the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, say the key is for governments (the U.S. from in this case) to take steps that eventually diminish oil's status as a strategic commodity.

Although oil-dependent nations will the charge for change, this issue is by no means only about America, which consumes 21 million barrels a day. Global consumption of oil, especially in fast-growing China and India is only expected to rise. Global demand is at about 86 million barrels a day and rising. And this does (or should) matter to Russia too; although it currently has all the oil it needs for itself and for export, many reports say that its production has already peaked.

Energy may not seem to be at the heart of the clash in Eastern Europe, but lowering the significance of the oil pipelines there--and elsewhere--is very much a factor in any increase in the prospects for peace. It wouldn't hurt our security situation in the Middle East either, would it?

"Truth is the first casualty of war," as is always said about now,
because that statement is almost always right. And the second casualty
is surely civilized restraint. Wars are easy to start, hard to contain,
let alone end.

Right now, the surprising events in South Ossetia and Georgia
represent a clash of information and interpretations. This is getting sorted out,
but slowly. However, the events themselves are agonizingly speedy.

For a couple of years now Discovery Institute's Russia Blog has been almost unique in presenting otherwise ignored news about Russia, Eastern Europe and Eurasia. Often we provide access to news about business, culture and social developments
that are occurring in a region that the West--including the USA--has tended to neglect since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Now we are faced with a war in Georgia that is as big a surprise to most people (diplomats, too, it appears) as it is an obvious catastrophe for the peoples involved and an historic setback for Russian/Western relations. The complications for other regions will soon develop.

The most we can hope for would seem to be an immediate cooling-off period. After that must come some sober investigation of how things got out of hand. Then how to find a way ahead.

Our first task at Russia Blog has been to try to get out facts and responsible opinions, letting readers sort them out. We do not want to promote some of the incendiary options being proposed and don't want to give them space. Our second task is to help air alternatives that stand some prospect of establishing peace. in this case, people who think the solutions are simple probably don't understand the situation.

The news from Iraq remains under-reported. Three days ago, terrorists succeeded in bombing the house of Mital Al-Alusi, the courageous member of parliament who, in 2004, nearly signed his own death-warrant by urging that Iraq recognize Israel. Many attacks have been made on him since and one of them killed his two sons and a driver. There is no word yet on what has happened in the latest attack to Mr. Al-Alusi's wife and grandchildren.

Meanwhile, the best reporting by Iraqis comes, as it often does, from Iraq the Model website. Here it describes the domestic politics in Iraq had a lot to do with the Iraqis' reactions to the visit of Barack Obama.

A Rassmussen poll indicates that increasing numbers of Americans (now up to 40 percent) realize that conditions in Iraq are improving and victory is possible, but a plurality (44 percent) still believes that the United States is doomed to lose the war in that country.

However, public opinion often changes more slowly than objective conditions. People think there is a recession for months after one is declared over by economists. So eventually, the bulk of the public will realize, as even many in the MSM are beginning to note, that America is likely to prevail in Iraq. That doesn't mean all will be rosy or victory will be permanent. Success is always tenuous in the Middle East. But it does mean that U.S. casualties are most likely to continue to drop and that the U.S. will be able to diminish its troop presence. Somewhere along the continuum of news developments one might be able to say, we have won. And as the realization sinks again--countering years of almost overwhelming efforts to discredit the Bush Administration on every aspect of the Iraq War --it will make a huge difference to our foreign policy and our standing in the world, almost like the toppling of the Berlin Wall.

Read this piece by Michael Totten in Commentary, citing, in turn, the remarkable Michael Yon. The latter, by the way, should be winning journalism awards for prescience and courage. Instead, he is largely ignored by the elites. Victory will be declared when they decide to declare it, I guess.

Meanwhile, what happens when U.S public opinion fully swings on this war?

Shayan Arya is part of the remarkable Iranian community in this country that numbers over a million and is unmatched for its love of freedom and support for the democratic institutions of America, its adoptive country. The activism of Arya and his colleagues is an underappreciated asset in the U.S. struggle against the mad mullah regime in Tehran.

Here is a significant article by Arya and Nir Boms on the horrific state of human rights in Iran.

Canada jokes are funny the way WASP jokes are funny--the lack of self-awareness on the part of the joke target is what makes you laugh.

Currently, our Northern Neighbor is making news around the civilized world for its growing intolerance of diversity of views, including on matters regarded by some as fit subjects for satire. It is all done in the name of political correctness, of course. Apparently there is a new human right in Canada called "the right not to be offended," and it is being vigorously--almost relentlessly and ruthlessly--pursued by groups of official Human Rights Commissions that have been established at the national and provincial levels.

The witch hunts started on the subject of sexuality (of course) and then politics (a great subject on which a democracy should promote anti-free speech campaigns, right?). Now they are going after (hold your chuckles) the comedians. It's all good, I say, because finally the HRCs may have gone over-reached. Professional jokers are taken very seriously in Canada. After all, other than oil, gas and wood products, comedians are Canada's biggest export. Just ahead of beer.

Denyse O'Leary's Post-Darwinist news blog is a must-read for anyone trying to follow the battles over evolution and design, but now she has added coverage of the whole travesty of speech codes enforced by kangaroo courts, which is what the Human Rights commissions have become.

Read down a couple items in this link and you'll be richly rewarded.

Then, I have two cents of my own to add (currently worth about 1.9 cents Canadian): When governments set up grievance panels for any protected class, whether racial, gender or almost anything else, the people who want to be appointed almost always turn out to be passionate backers of one particular point of view. That is, they are ideologically disposed to see the complainant as always in the right. Who else would volunteer to serve on such a panel? Therefore, give these organizations real power, as has happened in Canada, apparently, and you are in for a battle if you want to preserve your constitutional rights.

Here in the land of God and Guns, at least, we have a Bill of Rights that courts usually feel obliged to protect against all well-meaning attempts to stifle the unpopular idea and to enforce the Common View. The Canadians (again, for my two cents) have written rights, too, but nonetheless are not as well protected.

But Canadians also do have great, square, normal common sense, and huge numbers of them already are rising up to protest the HRC's and the little opinion minders who run them. The HRCs lately are on the run for most of the most ridiculous cases they have brought. But it remains to be seen if popular opinion will come to see that the problem is not just bad judgement in one case or another, but the whole idea of having extra-legal enforcement panels that are allowed to act as prosecutor, judge and jury all rolled into one.

Discovery fellow John Wohlstetter opens his book, The Long War Ahead and the
Short War Upon Us, with a catastrophe scenario in which the Iranians use
EMP -- electromagnetic pulse -- technology against the United States.
Disguised as a tanker, a ship releases a missile from international waters
off the Atlantic coast. It detonates approximately 300 miles above Kansas.

No one instantly dies, vaporized by the mini-sun, no one is ignited in
flames from the blast's thermal pulse, no buildings collapse due to the
blast's immense over-pressure shock wave. But the lights goes out and
computers crash by the millions, from Boston to Phoenix, from New York to
Washington, DC, to Los Angeles and San Francisco, from Miami to Seattle.
Seventy percent of America's electrical grid is fried by the powerful pulse
of electromagnetic energy that suddenly surges through the American electric
power grid. With a 360 degree radius of 1,470 miles from the detonation
point, the pulse disables America from coast to coast.

It would seem that the danger is being heard. An editorial in the Wall
Street Journal this morning echoes many of Wohlstetter's concerns:

Iran may already have the capability to target the U.S. with a short-range
missile by launching it from a freighter off the East Coast. A few years ago
it was observed practicing the launch of Scuds from a barge in the Caspian
Sea.

This would be especially troubling if Tehran is developing EMP --
electromagnetic pulse -- technology. A nuclear weapon detonated a hundred
miles over U.S. territory would create an electromagnetic pulse that would
virtually shut down the U.S. economy by destroying electronic circuits on
the ground.

The announcement by Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida that his state will pay $1.75 billion to buy out the 187,000 acres of sugar cane grown by U. S. Sugar Corp. around Lake Okeechobee is being welcomed--correctly--as great news for the cause of improving clean water flow south into the endangered 1.5 million acre Everglades National Park.

But isn't it also potentially good news for the some 40 friendly countries, including many in Latin America, that have had trouble breaking the U.S. sugar quota all these years? The biggest thing the United States could do to help the people in certain tropical lands of limited export potential would be to end the tariff-rate quotas that artificially prop up the sugar industry in the U.S. That industry is not a very big employer, but it has huge political clout. The new Florida deal is bound to reduce that clout.

Every farm bill that seeks to end agriculture quotas finds an agile lobby opposing increased sugar imports. Cane growers in Louisiana, Hawaii and Texas, and sugar beet growers in the Mountain West, are among the foes of relaxing quotas, but some of the most weighty political opposition has come from Florida.

There will still be 300,000 acres of sugar cane in production in Florida after U.S. Sugar phases out its production over seven years. But mighty U.S. Sugar has been the key to Florida's anti-free trade mood on this issue, just as Florida has been key to sugar protectionism in Congress.

The sugar issue makes the U.S. look like a hypocrite on free trade. As the sugar lobby weakens, the free trade lobby--including not only many allies in warm climates, but also the huge domestic confection, soft drink, cereal and baking industries--should grow relatively stronger. And free trade may become more feasible.

The reliable Mustafa Akyol reminds Americans that Turkey is facing a constitutional crisis because of misplaced secularism, or, as he calls it, "secular extremism." If courts depose the current, democratically elected government--with the military standing behind the courts--Turkey will be damaged in its international dealings, its economy, its democracy (certainly) and in other ways that can't even be calculated yet.

It is the kind of issue that Americans are ignoring during the long sleep of the 2008 election campaign.

The Bush Administration is accused of never admitting mistakes, though the President did, in fact, acknowledge last year that the hope of prevailing In Iraq with relatively small forces was misplaced; and hence the "Surge". John McCain claims credit for being right all along on that point, and I don't see anyone disputing him.

How about the Left; will they admit errors on Iraq? Pete Wehner, now at Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington after years on the policy staff of the White House, has written an opinion piece that asks this question with concussive force. What he says about the columnist Tom Friedman is especially apt. The media that have done everything they could to besmirch President Bush may now start to change their representation of reality--because they must--without ever taking back their harsh previous judgements.

Pertinently, Sen. Obama now seems to be changing his most crucial views on the war, which is all to the good.

What is not acceptable is continuing to play "Blame Bush," while pretending that we are winning in Iraq through chance or someone else's efforts. That is the kind of thing the Left tried with Reagan and the end of the Cold War. History, fortunately, will be more dispassionate.

You seldom hear anymore the canard that the Iraq war was "all about oil," not when we are paying more for oil than ever. Still, it has been a nearly unmentioned truth that Iraqi oil fields contain some of the biggest petroleum reserves in the world.

Now it seems that, quietly, the flow that was about two million barrels when the war started is about to nudge close to three million. If security holds, and the much-maligned oil companies are allowed to invest in improved infrastructure, Iraq oil production will go up month after month.

The Irish voted against the new EU treaty.

But is it dead? Some of the bureaucrats in Brussels think they will just go ahead. They will try to find ways to make wholesale reductions in national sovereignty of member states, including Ireland, without ever again applying for permission to the nominal sovereigns--the people. Thus do elites overplay their hand.

The peoples of such diverse nations as Greece, Ireland and Germany are well-suited to work together on economic cooperation, but there is no crying need for much more. On defense, a stronger NATO makes more sense.

The Irish vote is especially a liberation for Ireland's neighbor and former nemesis, the U.K. It is hard to believe that the English would ever knowingly give up the ancient rights and powers of Parliament and cede them to what in fact is the world's first true bureaucracy--government by government--in Brussels. Now perhaps the British public can look at the whole European identity more honestly.

The European Community was a great achievement. So is the European Union. But there are limits, and those may have been reached.

Marvin Olasky interviews Discovery Institute Senior Fellow John Wohlstetter, author of The Long War Ahead (Discovery Institute Press, 2008) in the June 14-21 issue of World magazine. The link is good for a few introductory paragraphs, then you have to pay--and it's worth it.

John is prophetic with his warning--in an interview that took place before the new Supreme Court ruling on Guantanomo--that "9/10 judges" "would give terror detainees more rights, despite their being unlawful combatants who do not comply with the laws of war, greater rights than we have given to lawful combatans in prior wars." In fact, as he observes, lawful combatants, if freed by a court, often would be less dangerous to public safety than a terrorist who is freed on some technical ground.

Find a comfortable chair out of the sun this Saturday, Flag Day, and read The Long War.

For years the political left has fought nearly any efforts to drill in new fields in America, at least where there was any controversy at all.

The fact is, there is lots of oil in America if the government will allow the drilling. Likewise, we need clear federal encouragement of new refineries.

Conservatives and liberals alike should support conservation and new energy sources, and they should do so vigorously, from nuclear to passive (architectural) and active solar. They should support new transportation technologies (see blog below) and plug-in hybrid autos. But we also need to do whatever we can to substitute our own oil for imported oil.

Trying to blame oil company executives for the rising world-wide oil prices insults the intelligence of the voters. Unreasonable liberal government has held up U.S. oil production for twenty years or more.

Tell your neighbors: the increasingly united Iraqi government is moving from victory to victory over al Qaida and its allies. There will be elections again this December (four years after the successful ones of 2004) and most likely a new mandate. Sunnis no longer protest unfair sectarian treatment by the government and Shiites are cooperating, for the most part, in shutting down the Sadr militia (which, in turn, now lacks the excuse that it is only defending its people from the Sunnis).

The report from Iraq the Model is several days old (I missed it), but it makes several points you probably won't see in the MSM. Such as: the government's own ministers went to Mosul to help lead the campaign to clean out al Qaida. Such as: 1,100 suspects arrested--the number is big and so is the fact they were arrested, not ousted in fighting. (Al Qaida is having a hard time mounting a fight any more.) And again: the "infant Iraqi air force" could be relied upon to provide "valuable live imagery" for the ground forces. Did you even know that the Iraqi air force was being rebuilt? This is very significant.

Theodore Roosevelt is one of the nation's most popular presidents for many reasons; among them his vigorous and intelligent personality, his charge up San Juan Hill, his political reforms, the conservation work, and, of course, the Teddy Bear. But as a shirt-tail descendant (my wife, Sarah, is one of TR's great grand-daughters), I agree with those who argue that Roosevelt's greatest accomplishment was making the USA a world power militarily at a time we also were gaining prominence as an economic power. TR, by the way, held the same opinion.

The Navy was Roosevelt's main instrument for affectuating the military transformation. And nothing made it so clear that he had succeeded as his dispatch of "The Great White Fleet" on a cruise around the world from December 1907 to February, 1909. TR sent 22 war ships to show the flag, but he painted them white to show good will.

The effect was positive and striking in port after port. And it also was a hugely successful domestic gesture to the America of 100 years ago, especially in the bumpteous young city of Seattle, flush with people and cash from the Klondike and Alaskan Gold Rushes. The Puget Sound community had risen from 30,000 population to 300,000 in one decade, and toward the end of it--late May, 1908--some 400,000 Seattlites and neighbors from throughout Western Washington turned out to welcome the Great White Fleet as it prepared to go to Asia. http://www.greatwhitefleet.info/Parade-Seattle_jpg_view.htm

This past Tuesday a rather smaller group of about 150--organized by the Navy League and the Seattle chapter of the Theodore Roosevelt Society, and sporting, among others, Mayor Greg Nickels and a TR impersonator from Illinois, Joe Weigand--gathered atop the Pier 66 International Conference Center on Elliott Bay to note the anniversary. Two contemporary Navy ships, the USS Preble and the USS Rushmore, and a very noisy hovercraft, passed in review. Assistant Secretary of the Navy B. J. Penn and Admirals O'Brien and Symon were on hand, along with an impressive array of other brass--and a brass band. Later, my wife and I enjoyed entertaining many of the visitors at our house (itself a relic of the Gold Rush days). Wednesday the Navy welcomed the public on board the Navy ships and tonight there is a lecture at the Museum of History and Industry that is opening an exhibit on the Great White Fleet.

We have a vastly different and bigger, more powerful Navy now. The roles are not that different, however from what TR envsiaged. Just as The Great White Fleet wound up performing disaster relief after an earthquake that occured while the ships were in Italy in 1909, so, too, the US Navy today is one of the most efficient ways available for providing humanitarian relief around the globe. A carrier is, among other things, a floating hospital, an airfield for flying out the wounded, a desalinization plant, several restaurants and a huge team of trained relief specialists.

Of course, it also is a considerable deterrent to would-be warlords and expanionist dictators. TR very much had all of that in mind. http://www.greatwhitefleet.info/index.html

Here is another reason to go online for news features.

It seems that terrorism and the arcade game, Whac-a-Mole, have at least one thing in common: Bludgeon one and another pops up to take its place. At least that could be the conclusion after reading the U.S. State Department's annual Country Reports on Terrorism, released today.

According to the congressionally mandated annual report, attacks are down in Iraq. But as al-Qaida and its affiliates have reorganized in the last year in remote tribal areas in the Afghani and Pakistani countryside, there has also been a corresponding increase in terrorist activity in Afghanistan.

To misread Foggy Bottom's annual report would be to say, "Yes! I told you so: Putting troops and treasure toward the Global War on Terror is wasteful." But you'd be wrong. A more equitable rant would be that the U.S. decision to fight terrorists is indeed a long slog, one that may best be defined by three steps forward, two steps back.

And to say that the U.S. focus on al-Qaida is all consuming would also be inaccurate. As the report points out, El Comandante's island south of Miami is among the countries still included as a state sponsor of terrorism. Why? Can you say balmy, beachfront terrorist get away?

Cuba, which I admit conjures up more of a smirk than a shiver vis-à-vis danger at the doorstep, continues to offer haven to groups such as the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia).

For its part, the FARC most recently found its way back into the news cycle with the reported kidnapping of Cuban-American businessman, Juan Padron earlier this month. As ABC News reported, although the FARC and kidnapping have never been mutually exclusive words (some reports have their total current hostage count at 700), the most recent episode brought a new twist to their operations. It happened on Panamanian soil. Padron joins three U.S. government contractors who have been held since 2003.

If you have the time to read the State Department's report, it's worth the investment. If you have less time, spend 55 minutes watching the presentation of the report this morning from Foggy Bottom. (Dell Dailey, State's Counterterrorism Coordinator, navigates the highlights.)

Say what you will about the politically isolated Bush administration, but State's annual report is widely seen as a thoughtful, clinical assessment of the threats facing America and its allies. And between the lines, it reminds that fighting terrorism isn't just about subduing and removing the Hydra that al-Qaida has spawned. It's about making impotent terrorist groups worldwide (al-Qaida affiliated or not) that represent real threats -- strategic and economic -- to those of us who value peace, security and something called rule of law.

When Sen. McCain was last in Iraq he seemed to slip up when he mentioned that al Qaeda was getting help from Iran. Surely he meant al Sadr? After all, didn't he know that Iran was Shiite and al Qaeda Sunni?

The trouble was (and is), Iran helps almost anyone who is an enemy of the United States or Israel, witness Lebanon.

Now, my favorite Iraq blog, Iraq the Model, poses the very real possibility of a tactical alliance between al Sadr and al Qaeda, brokered by....yes....Iran.

Mohammed Fadhil reports in unique fashion (Iraq the Model is my favorite Middle Eastern blog for this reason) on what is really happening in Iraq. And that is, the majority of Shia, the Sunni and the Kurds are standing up to Muqtada al Sadr and his militia. The government is showing mettle, dismissing the troops that deserted under fire recently and thereby providing a splendid didactic moment for everyone else. This is not being adequately reported in the US (so what else is new?).

Al Qaeda and the Baathist insurgency are mostly spent. Overcome al Sadr and the Iranian imports, and Iraq is ready for consolidation of gains and the promise of real peace.

The media and politicos are ready to move right past the vital issue of U.S. relations with Colombia now that the internal U.S. political issue is resolved. That shows a sad sense of national priorities.

Mark Penn, top advisor to Sen. Clinton, as we know, was thrown overboard--the latest sacrifice of many in the major campaigns this year--because of this high crime: He met with Colombian officials who are supporting a free trade agreement with the United States.

Sen. Clinton supposedly opposes such an agreement, so Penn had to go.

Actually, we all suspect that Sen. Clinton, given her past positions, would like to support the agreement. Colombia is one of our strongest and most exposed allies in Latin America and a bulwark against the far left wing Hugo Chavez in next-door Venezuela. If we want to defeat narco-fascism, South America style, we need to be close friends with Colombia. They have suffered greatly to be our friends. Abuse friends like that and we won't have many others. Mrs. Clinton knows that. Barack Obama knows that.

But union leaders key to the nominating process don't care about it. Their self-interest is regrettable, but understandable. What is more regrettable, and not acceptable, is the reckless position of the two contending Democrats who are putting intra-party posturing ahead of national security. Also not very edifying is the supine media reaction so far. Is politics all that matters now? Is all the news just shadow-boxing?

The story should not be the impropriety of Penn (whatever his own business interests) in meeting with the Colombians, but why Senator Clinton and Senator Obama do NOT back this totally reasonable treaty that is very much in the security interests of the United States. Other than politics, what's their excuse?

The mainstream media finally are beginning to cover the indisputable good news in Iraq, but most often the real story still comes through the blogs from inside Iraq. The best, Iraq the Model, is now appearing again after a long lapse (two of the principals have been in the United States studying), offering uniquely insightful perspective from Iraqis themselves.

And here is an intriguing blog by Michael Totten, an American who has immersed himself in the country. I suppose someone could try to minimize the significance of these stories and quotations, but the pictures seem undeniably persuasive. The decent humanity of the people
--and the journalist--shines through.

I don't begrudge war opponents their views. Actually, it's hard not to sympathize. But I'd like to see a bit more reciprocity, especially in light of the reality that the Iraqi democrats and their Coalition allies are winning.

It is hard to believe that the highest court in Turkey actually will consider outlawing the governing party in that country because it is accused of crossing over the nation's division between mosque and state. Yet that is going to happen, as noted in this article. Even taking up the subject will put strains on the country for months.

I have assumed--and still assume--that the court eventually will hold back, even though many of its appointed members come from the secularist opposition party. Long term, if the Court decides to disallow the existing Administration, there will be economic as well as political consequences.

The government's supposed "religious" offenses--merely ALLOWING female students and others to wear headscarfs to schoo