Twenty years ago today world history took an amazing lurch in a different direction: Ronald Reagan ordered an invasion of the Caribbean nation of Grenada. All sorts of reasons were given for the incursion -- to protect American students at a local medical school, to prevent a Cuban airbase from being built, to restore democracy after a second Marxist coup -- but the real motive was to flex American muscle after years of humiliating setbacks in Vietnam, Iran and Beirut.
Beating up on the tiny Grenandian army and a Cuban construction battalion was the equivalent of a US college football powerhouse like Notre Dame scheduling a game against Eastern Wabash Ladies' Seminary -- no matter how easy the triumph, it counts as a win in the standings and gets the team used to victory.
Before Grenada lay a long stretch of losses at the hands of the Viet Cong, Iranian Muslim hostage-takers and Lebanese suicide bombers; after October 1983 came the thwarting of Marxism in Central America and the collapse of the Soviet Union. America had got its mojo back.
The following is a quote from a large-circulation American magazine:
The troops returning home are worried. "We've lost the peace," men tell you. "We can't make it stick." . . . Friend and foe alike, look you accusingly in the face and tell you how bitterly they are disappointed in you as an American. . . . Never has American prestige in Europe been lower. . . . Instead of coming in with a bold plan of relief and reconstruction we came in full of evasions and apologies. . . . A great many Europeans feel that the cure has been worse than the disease. The taste of victory had gone sour in the mouth of every thoughtful American I met. . . People never tire of telling you of the ignorance and rowdy-ism of American troops." The French warn that, "our policy is producing results opposite to those we planned." Meanwhile, some troops are tired of talk about grants to the war-torn nation. Says one, "Let them pay for it. It's their fault."
This article, by John Dos Passos, appeared in Life magazine, Jan. 7, 1946.
Thanks to JessicasWell.com.
There has been much head-scratching of late about the decline of the editorial content of the National Post and the lamentable absence of the great names of its early days. O Mark Steyn, where is thy sting? But has anybody glanced at the "Saturday Post" section lately?
Here is a list of the articles found in October 18th issue:
(1) Sondra Gottleib on her inability to work the tv remote
(2) Elizabeth Nickson on women's economic independence
(3) Rebecca Eckler on expensive baby accessories
(4) Rebecca Eckler on her addiction to reality tv
(5) Susanne Hiller on a trendy boutique in Newfoundland
(6) Shinan Govani with tidbits of celebrity gossip
(7) A full page of sketches of the rich and useless drawn for a magazine about the rich and useless
(8) Kate Zimmerman on a female roller-blader
(9) An article asking the question that has puzzled the great minds for centuries: "Can a man wear a pink shirt?"
(10) Rosemary Poole on Kathleen Bartels, a Vancouver gallery director
(11) A column entitled "The Advice Lady"
(12) A page of recipes
By the time I was finished leafing though this section I was in advanced stages of testosterone deficiency. What strategic calculations have the masterminds of the National Post made about their readership? Are they looking for the same people who populate "Sex and the City" and who make up the subscription list of "Eunuchs Today"? Come back Conrad, come back!
Alan Rock, Industry Minister and fading Liberal star, is in trouble these days, accused of offering financial aid to the Irving empire despite being warned off the case by the Ethics Counsellor. It seems that Mr Rock had availed himself of Irving hospitality by flying on an Irving jet to an Irving salmon lodge.
Two things are noteworthy here, whether one believes that Mr Rock was unduly influenced in the discharge of his duties by this gift or not:
(1) Cabinet ministers never seem to wonder why large corporations are eager to fly them on private holidays. Here's a hint, Alan: it's not because of your warm personality.
(2) Large corporations seem to think that the affectionate regard of Canadian cabinet ministers can be had relatively cheaply. In other climes it would take a handful of diamonds or a Mercedes SUV to win the heart of a high-ranking official. Our national politicians should loook at the hefty bribes allegedly paid to bureaucrats connected with a Manitoba native health-care facility and up their prices accordingly.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has his hands full these days trying to sort out the row in the Anglican Communion over gay bishops and same-sex marriage. Despite the demands of this crisis the worthy old Druid has taken the time to lecture the United States on its wars against terror and Saddam Hussein.
In a speech to the Royal Institute of International Affairs Williams makes two points of surpassing silliness.
In the first he reminds the US that terrorists can be motivated by "serious moral goals." He said that in ignoring this, in its criticism of al-Qa'eda, America "loses the power of self-criticism and becomes trapped in a self-referential morality." Oh my stars, this is Root-Cause wankery at its worst. No one has claimed that 9/11 was idly motivated; quite the contrary. The West realizes that it is being attacked by grim foes who mean to destroy it and replace it with an Islamic world empire. But no matter the motivation for terror, when one's innocent fellow citizens are butchered by the thousands -- in New York, Bali or Saudi Arabia -- one goes after the perpetrators first and scrutinizes their philosophy later. Even Rowan Williams must know that al-Qa'eda has no place in its world-view for an Archbishop of Canterbury. His freedom to speak palpable nonsense is owed to other men who are less interested in anguished self-criticism and more concerned about hunting down international criminals.
The archbishop's second piece of holier-than-the-Yanks rhetoric is his assertion that no government should act as its own judge on whether to launch military action against a rogue state. "Violence is not to be undertaken by private persons," he said. "If a state or administration acts without due and visible attention to agreed international process, it acts in a way analogous to a private person. It purports to be judge of its own interest." He admitted that the UN Security Council was not up to the task of legitimating action such as the war against Saddam and called instead for a panel of legal experts to render a decision in such cases.
Williams here resembles his soul-mate Lloyd Axworthy; they are twin hand-wringers who would rather rummage in their purses for a consoling tract to hand a little old lady than actually use force to fight off the mugger who is hitting her with a brick.
Let me repeat my understanding of Christian just-war theory: both individuals and nations can take up arms in self-defence and in defence of the innocent abroad, provided the violence is proportionate and the conflict is winnable. All these conditions were met in the recent Iraq rumble. Williams and Axworthy had better take a sip of sooothing liquid and thank their respective deities that they are living in the shade of the American empire instead of under the Caliphate.
Elizabeth Nickson, one of the last great writers at the NP (and their only female columnist who doesn't regularly discuss her reproductive life) has an interesting take on the first serious blow dealt to Kyoto: Putin's refusal to sign on. She makes some excellent points about why Kyoto is a bad idea, although to my mind she gives too much credit to Putin and the Russians for long range planning; this move is as likely to be attributable to luck, or Putin's annoyance with some European or other.
It is true that Kyoto is an extremist attempt to solve a problem that may not exist, and if it does exist may not be caused by human activity, or if it has been might not lend itself to remedy through more human activity. There is another, equally valid problem with this reasoning, though. Even if we were to grant that global warming is happening, is caused by humans, and could be slowed, stopped or reversed by differed human actions, the major issue is the emission of greenhouse gases caused by fossil fuels and wood-burning. This is, to put it simply but politically incorrectly, not a First World issue. In the first place it is only in developed nations that a significant amount of power is otherwise generated, that is by nuclear reactors or hydro projects. (Wind and solar power are sadly not feasible solutions just yet.) Vastly more importantly, the populations of the First and Third Worlds make this solution nonsensical. If all 30 million Canadians cut their power consumption in half (finding some radical way to heat themselves in arctic weather and preserve their food, of course) it would be negligible compared to the difference in fuel consumption that could be achieved if 2 billion Indians and Chinese could be persuaded to reduce their consumption by, say, 5%. And yet Kyoto applies enormous pressure, with financial penalties included, to the developed world while largely ignoring the rest. Pennsylvania, Toronto and Los Angeles now have quite clean air and water; Delhi, Mexico City and the vast industrial cities in China by contrast are the places where breathing can be hazardous to your health.
To be filed under: Stop Teasing Us. Another story discussing the maybe-not-dead. just-pining-away merger of the Alliance and the federal PCs indicates that maybe, if the stars align just right and everybody is in a good mood and nobody switches the coffee for decaf, these two parties might eventually in some way join. At this point, the two groups might as well issue press releases announcing "Liberals to remain in power for next two decades." I welcome as heartily as anyone the development of movement conservatism in Canada, for which almost all the credit goes to the Reform/Alliance party and its more thoughtful founders and members. I also respect the long history of the Tories, although it's pushing it to claim to be the party of Confederation on the basis of having undergone the fewest name changes of any party since 1867. But for heaven's sake, isn't it worth a mild insult to history and a slight weaking of doctrine for the possibility of ousting King Jean and Prince Paul? It must be clear to everyone that the only possible way this will happen in the foreseeable future is for a united conservative opposition. The left are too loony, too scattered and too coopted by the Liberals to achieve this.
Three Americans have been killed and one injured in the latest Islamist bombing in Israel. The US is rightly outraged, noticeably more so since these victims aren't uppity Jewish "settlers" who presumably were asking for it. Halfway through the article, though, is the real kicker: the casualities were escorting US staff who were interviewing candidates in Gaza for the Fulbright scholarship. The lovely theory of multiculturalism, with its moral relativism, refusal to condemn anything, and conviction that we can all learn from everyone, is stone dead to most people who've been reading the news for the past two years or so. If this doesn't persuade its last remaining adherents, nothing will.
The current discussion of a mandatory national ID card taking place in letters to the editor seems to have sunk to a low at which no actual thinking can occur. The number of intelligent arguments for or against is dwarfed by the number of people who feel the need to point out that Hitler also instituted national ID cards. This is as Leo Strauss put it reductio ad Hitlerem; Strauss points out that the fact that Hitler liked something does not automatically mean that it is a bad thing. Hitler was also a vegetarian; this doesn't make PETA Nazis (although they are all sorts of other bad things.) Hitler liked opera, but we don't automatically suspect opera-goers of evil racial plots.
There are probably some excellent arguments to be made on both sides of the issue of ID cards with biometrics. On the one hand it may become impossible to provide North Americans with any meaningful level of security without them. My inclination on the other hand is to oppose them, if only because with a projected budget of $7 billion it will likely end up costing half a trillion, and because the government so consistently bungles everything it attempts, from gun registration to health care to fixing potholes, that I'm reluctant to give them the opportunity to mess with something potentially sensitive and far reaching. A glance at most editorials, though, leaves one in total ignorance of good points either pro or con, but always, always aware that Hitler liked ID cards.
I'd be worried too if my newspaper carried this headline:
Residents Wary After Legs Found in Trash
The kitschiest photography trend ever is about to meet the kitschiest pop music ever.
From the Glamorgan Gazette comes the report of the police response to a reported break-in In Bridgend, UK.
A suspect was found curled up in the roof space with no trousers or underwear on, and with the bottom half of his body covered in blue ink. He was dressed in the homeowner’s pink shiny nightie, and also had a black lacy all-in-one female body suit at his feet, a torn white bra in his pocket, and a used condom stuck to his foot. He offered no explanation for his presence in the house, and was arrested on suspicion of burglary.
His defence lawyer offered the following explanation. His client “had broken into the house with the intention of stealing scrap metal, but things seem then to have taken what can only be described as a bizarre twist. While searching for an old boiler to steal, he knocked something over on a shelf, and found himself covered in an inky substance. Naturally he took off his clothes, which were saturated, then grabbed some of the homeowner’s clothes to mop up the ink, but only succeeded in smearing it all over himself. At that point, he heard the police arriving, so he naturally put on the pink nightdress, and stuffed the other garments into his pockets. As for the condom, he has no idea how it came to be stuck to his foot."
The cross-dressing scrap-metal fancier was jailed for four months.
Canada's Irshad Manji has written a book challenging the North American Islamic community to do more to counter terrorism and suppress the radicals who claim to act in their name. It looks to be an interesting book, and Manji seems in television and print interviews to be a thoughtful and insightful young woman. She does much to show Canadians (and now, perhaps, Americans) the other face of today's young Moslems: assimilated, modern and thriving in a culture they appreciate, instead of backward, hostile and pining for the caves and deserts. The optimistic reviews of her book that suppose she will trigger a great shift in Islamic thinking (with several calling her the Moslem Martin Luther, and one, more puzzlingly, the Canadian Martin Luther King), though, seems greatly misplaced.
The unfortunate reality is that Manji is likely too assimilated, too happy to be living in the West truly to change the thinking of her more violent coreligionists, as well as those who support them or tolerate them. Apart from the more superficial aspects of her embrace of Canadian life, she is also openly lesbian, something not looked upon favourably by the great majority of Moslems to say the least. Someone on the margins of a given community may do an excellent job of explaining that community to interested others, but is unlikely to cause a shift in the fundamentals of that community's life. The book (as well as Manji's other work) is a wonderful contribution, but Islamism will only be wiped out when practicing, affiliated and traditional Moslems reject it and those who preach it.