Robin Hood in Reverse
There is more evidence today that the fruits of Robert Mugabe’s reverse-Apartheid land policies are bypassing his poor countrymen. Actual beneficiaries of the racial land-grab include such people as his wife, sisters, brother-in-law and cabinet ministers. I can imagine Madame Mugabe collecting vacated farms by the dozens like a kind of African Imelda Marcos. Not only was over 30% of the land officially distributed to the President’s family and senior government officials, another 40% initially allocated to landless blacks has since been redirected to ruling party members and assorted presidential cronies. This despite the fact that even Zimbabwe’s own courts have ruled the eviction notices served by the government are unconstitutional. Imagine Roger Clinton being granted half of Yellowstone National Park or the Everglades being given to Jeb Bush.
Respond
Thursday, August 22, 2002
Tuesday, August 20, 2002
As You Sow, So Shall You Reap
The question would warrant a wager if the results weren’t so grotesque: How many Zimbabweans are going to die unnecessarily of famine in the next year? Despite the warnings of international aid agencies and impartial observers, President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe is proceeding with his plan to force white farmers off of their lands, allocating the land to black citizens instead. This comes at the same time as a severe drought, which would have required that the nation’s farms be as efficient and productive as possible just to keep yields stable. With the current owners of the farms being harassed, attacked and imprisoned and the new “owners” lacking the necessary experience and equipment, that is clearly not a goal that is going to be attained. Thus, the very landless peasants that Mugabe is purporting to help are the ones most likely to die in fly-covered droves over the next several months. And perhaps not surprisingly, diplomatic observers have noticed the flood of appropriated land flowing not in the direction of the average poor Zimbabwean, but into the already bulging pockets of Mugabe’s cronies and ruling party apparatchiks. Just when you though things in Africa couldn’t get any worse.
Respond
The question would warrant a wager if the results weren’t so grotesque: How many Zimbabweans are going to die unnecessarily of famine in the next year? Despite the warnings of international aid agencies and impartial observers, President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe is proceeding with his plan to force white farmers off of their lands, allocating the land to black citizens instead. This comes at the same time as a severe drought, which would have required that the nation’s farms be as efficient and productive as possible just to keep yields stable. With the current owners of the farms being harassed, attacked and imprisoned and the new “owners” lacking the necessary experience and equipment, that is clearly not a goal that is going to be attained. Thus, the very landless peasants that Mugabe is purporting to help are the ones most likely to die in fly-covered droves over the next several months. And perhaps not surprisingly, diplomatic observers have noticed the flood of appropriated land flowing not in the direction of the average poor Zimbabwean, but into the already bulging pockets of Mugabe’s cronies and ruling party apparatchiks. Just when you though things in Africa couldn’t get any worse.
Respond
Millions of Acres and a Mule
I was here in D.C. on Saturday, but somehow I missed the massive gathering of reparations advocates and their demonstration on the Mall. As usual, Rep. John Conyers of Michigan cheered them on, declaring “All Congressmen ought to be here today.” That would have been quite a success for the organizers – perhaps they shouldn’t have scheduled their rally in the middle of the summer recess. The Rt. Rev. Louis Farrakhan was also in attendance. Going far beyond pervious demands for billions in government cash, he harkened back to the black separatist goal Malcolm X (among others) was identified with, saying "We need land for political independence, we need millions of acres." It’s been a while since a recognized black leader called for an autonomous nation-within-a-nation status in the U.S. Note to reparations fans who want to make their goal politically palatable to the majority of the country: you might leave Farrakhan at home next time.
Respond
I was here in D.C. on Saturday, but somehow I missed the massive gathering of reparations advocates and their demonstration on the Mall. As usual, Rep. John Conyers of Michigan cheered them on, declaring “All Congressmen ought to be here today.” That would have been quite a success for the organizers – perhaps they shouldn’t have scheduled their rally in the middle of the summer recess. The Rt. Rev. Louis Farrakhan was also in attendance. Going far beyond pervious demands for billions in government cash, he harkened back to the black separatist goal Malcolm X (among others) was identified with, saying "We need land for political independence, we need millions of acres." It’s been a while since a recognized black leader called for an autonomous nation-within-a-nation status in the U.S. Note to reparations fans who want to make their goal politically palatable to the majority of the country: you might leave Farrakhan at home next time.
Respond
Friday, August 16, 2002
The General, Not a Team Player
Why is Brent Scowcroft stabbing the Bush administration in the back over invasion plans for Iraq? Hopefully obtaining the fawning attention of the left-wing British press is an insufficient reason. Part of the reason may stem from the perception cited by The Guardian’s Julian Borger that the current President Bush “has surrounded himself with far more radical ideologues on domestic and foreign policy.” In other words, he’s actually a conservative instead of a middle-of-the-road establishment Republican like his father. Unlike George H.W. Bush who was clearly uncomfortable with the allegedly simplistic world outlook of Ronald Reagan, Bush has ended up being for more Reagan Jr. than Bush Jr. when it comes to matters of both policy and style.
Bush and his advisors are making the War on Terrorism a matter of clear moral distinctions - as they should. Just as the cosmopolitan diplomats shuddered when Reagan called the Soivet Union an Evil Empire, so their counterparts today deride Bush for his "cowboy adventurism" and embrace of unilateralism. Yet that strategy is the only way the U.S. will be able to make any progress. And until the foreign ministers of Europe come up with a convincing explanation of why Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to his own citizens, the rest of the reigon and American lives everywhere, we'll all be better off for it.
Respond
Why is Brent Scowcroft stabbing the Bush administration in the back over invasion plans for Iraq? Hopefully obtaining the fawning attention of the left-wing British press is an insufficient reason. Part of the reason may stem from the perception cited by The Guardian’s Julian Borger that the current President Bush “has surrounded himself with far more radical ideologues on domestic and foreign policy.” In other words, he’s actually a conservative instead of a middle-of-the-road establishment Republican like his father. Unlike George H.W. Bush who was clearly uncomfortable with the allegedly simplistic world outlook of Ronald Reagan, Bush has ended up being for more Reagan Jr. than Bush Jr. when it comes to matters of both policy and style.
Bush and his advisors are making the War on Terrorism a matter of clear moral distinctions - as they should. Just as the cosmopolitan diplomats shuddered when Reagan called the Soivet Union an Evil Empire, so their counterparts today deride Bush for his "cowboy adventurism" and embrace of unilateralism. Yet that strategy is the only way the U.S. will be able to make any progress. And until the foreign ministers of Europe come up with a convincing explanation of why Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to his own citizens, the rest of the reigon and American lives everywhere, we'll all be better off for it.
Respond
Wednesday, August 14, 2002
Experts for Life, Meet Dictators for Life
The forces in American political life opposed to an invasion (“regime-change”) of Iraq seem to have started grasping at straws. The New York Sun examines a couple of anti-invasion spokespeople today, one dispensing advice under a spurious title and another with direct financial ties to the Saudi royal family. But because once you’ve held a government job in Washington you’re an expert forever, two people who each spent less than three years in Iraq twenty years ago are now referred to as distinguished sources of current wisdom.
Respond
The forces in American political life opposed to an invasion (“regime-change”) of Iraq seem to have started grasping at straws. The New York Sun examines a couple of anti-invasion spokespeople today, one dispensing advice under a spurious title and another with direct financial ties to the Saudi royal family. But because once you’ve held a government job in Washington you’re an expert forever, two people who each spent less than three years in Iraq twenty years ago are now referred to as distinguished sources of current wisdom.
Respond
Tuesday, August 13, 2002
Hands Off the Economy
Why do people think that the President controls the economy? Congress can pass tax cuts and the Federal Reserve’s Open Market Committee can change interest rates – both of which can have large and somewhat predictable results of the nation’s economy. But the President of the United States has no such power, which makes comments like today’s so odd. According to the Associated Press “President Bush assured Americans Tuesday that his administration has a steady hand on the economy.” Not only does the Administration not have “a steady hand” on the economy, it shouldn’t even if it were possible. I trust the President is familiar with nations where the executive has kept a guiding hand on the economy; they didn’t work out so well.
Respond
Why do people think that the President controls the economy? Congress can pass tax cuts and the Federal Reserve’s Open Market Committee can change interest rates – both of which can have large and somewhat predictable results of the nation’s economy. But the President of the United States has no such power, which makes comments like today’s so odd. According to the Associated Press “President Bush assured Americans Tuesday that his administration has a steady hand on the economy.” Not only does the Administration not have “a steady hand” on the economy, it shouldn’t even if it were possible. I trust the President is familiar with nations where the executive has kept a guiding hand on the economy; they didn’t work out so well.
Respond
Lobster: A Magnet for Freaks
A speech by U.S. Representative Bill Delahunt (D-MA) was interrupted by the hysterical ravings of a madwoman this week, as she attempted to rescue several lobsters from almost certain death at a Boston-area clambake. While she succeeded in absconding with the first five, which she subsequently released into the waters of a nearby cove, she caused some friction when she returned and went from table to table offering other guests cash if they would give up the lobster meal they had paid for. According the unbalanced larcenatrix, the lobsters spoke to her: “I went by the pot where they had the lobsters, I peeked in and saw a lot of them wiggling their tails,” Ellis told the [Boston Herald]. “They were saying, ‘Take me back to the beach.’” Area police, upon assessing the situation, declined to become involved.
Respond
A speech by U.S. Representative Bill Delahunt (D-MA) was interrupted by the hysterical ravings of a madwoman this week, as she attempted to rescue several lobsters from almost certain death at a Boston-area clambake. While she succeeded in absconding with the first five, which she subsequently released into the waters of a nearby cove, she caused some friction when she returned and went from table to table offering other guests cash if they would give up the lobster meal they had paid for. According the unbalanced larcenatrix, the lobsters spoke to her: “I went by the pot where they had the lobsters, I peeked in and saw a lot of them wiggling their tails,” Ellis told the [Boston Herald]. “They were saying, ‘Take me back to the beach.’” Area police, upon assessing the situation, declined to become involved.
Respond
Thursday, August 08, 2002
How Scorched Was My Valley
The New York Times actually ran an op-ed about federal land management that was more than an environmentalist screed about the need for more public land purchases. The author points out that for decades state and local governments have been subsidizing the risks taken by people who build homes in areas where large forest fires are a significant hazard. Thus, when the people in these newly affordable homes are beset by the peril they knew they were living amongst, the government must spend millions of dollars and risks the health and safety of thousands of firefighters trying to put out a blaze that otherwise could have been allowed to burn itself out. Insanity. He advises tree thinning and brush removal – exactly the common sense techniques vociferously opposed by large environmental groups who claim they represent a stealth reintroduction of commercial logging onto federally-owned forests. Not only is that not so, even if it were, a limited reintroduction of commercial logging would be a small price to pay for federal forests that were actually managed to minimize expense and injury – to local residents, taxpayers, and firefighters alike.
Respond
The New York Times actually ran an op-ed about federal land management that was more than an environmentalist screed about the need for more public land purchases. The author points out that for decades state and local governments have been subsidizing the risks taken by people who build homes in areas where large forest fires are a significant hazard. Thus, when the people in these newly affordable homes are beset by the peril they knew they were living amongst, the government must spend millions of dollars and risks the health and safety of thousands of firefighters trying to put out a blaze that otherwise could have been allowed to burn itself out. Insanity. He advises tree thinning and brush removal – exactly the common sense techniques vociferously opposed by large environmental groups who claim they represent a stealth reintroduction of commercial logging onto federally-owned forests. Not only is that not so, even if it were, a limited reintroduction of commercial logging would be a small price to pay for federal forests that were actually managed to minimize expense and injury – to local residents, taxpayers, and firefighters alike.
Respond
Digging Out of the Cesspit of Stability
The always entertaining Mark Steyn has written another piece of insightful and counter intuitive analysis for The Spectator. As we move ever closer toward our long-anticipated land invasion of Iraq, voices of protest increasingly fret that such an invasion would have terribly consequences for the stability of the other regimes in the region. It certainly would, and all the better for it, writes Steyn:
“What’s the real long-term war aim of the United States? I’d say it’s this — to bring the Middle East within the civilised world. How do you do that? Tricky, but this we can say for certain: you’ll never be able to manage it with the present crowd — Saddam, the Ayatollahs, the House of Saud, Boy Assad, Mubarak, Yasser. When Amr Moussa, secretary-general of the Arab League, warns the BBC that a US invasion of Iraq would ‘threaten the whole stability of the Middle East’, he’s missing the point: that’s the reason it’s such a great idea. Suppose we buy in to Moussa’s pitch and place stability above all other considerations. We get another 25 years of the Ayatollahs, another 35 years of the PLO and Hamas, another 40 years of the Baathists in Syria and Iraq, another 80 years of Saudi Wahabbism. What kind of Middle East are we likely to have at the end of all that? The region’s in the state it’s in because, uniquely in the non-democratic world, it’s too stable. It’s the stability of the cesspit.”
With the current governing factions we’re faced with in the Middle East, who wouldn’t want destabilization? Some observers fear that less stability means more radicalism and unpredictable use of force. But the U.S. is already being hunted from the shadows by a global network of terrorists covertly financed and encouraged by the same regimes who’s stability were are supposed to be so protective of. And after all, how exactly are the people who are willing to become suicide bombers supposed to become any more radical? Organized militaristic Islam wants every Jew on the face of the earth exiled from Palestine or dead, whichever is easier. Any degree of radicalism past that is a distinction without a difference.
Respond
The always entertaining Mark Steyn has written another piece of insightful and counter intuitive analysis for The Spectator. As we move ever closer toward our long-anticipated land invasion of Iraq, voices of protest increasingly fret that such an invasion would have terribly consequences for the stability of the other regimes in the region. It certainly would, and all the better for it, writes Steyn:
“What’s the real long-term war aim of the United States? I’d say it’s this — to bring the Middle East within the civilised world. How do you do that? Tricky, but this we can say for certain: you’ll never be able to manage it with the present crowd — Saddam, the Ayatollahs, the House of Saud, Boy Assad, Mubarak, Yasser. When Amr Moussa, secretary-general of the Arab League, warns the BBC that a US invasion of Iraq would ‘threaten the whole stability of the Middle East’, he’s missing the point: that’s the reason it’s such a great idea. Suppose we buy in to Moussa’s pitch and place stability above all other considerations. We get another 25 years of the Ayatollahs, another 35 years of the PLO and Hamas, another 40 years of the Baathists in Syria and Iraq, another 80 years of Saudi Wahabbism. What kind of Middle East are we likely to have at the end of all that? The region’s in the state it’s in because, uniquely in the non-democratic world, it’s too stable. It’s the stability of the cesspit.”
With the current governing factions we’re faced with in the Middle East, who wouldn’t want destabilization? Some observers fear that less stability means more radicalism and unpredictable use of force. But the U.S. is already being hunted from the shadows by a global network of terrorists covertly financed and encouraged by the same regimes who’s stability were are supposed to be so protective of. And after all, how exactly are the people who are willing to become suicide bombers supposed to become any more radical? Organized militaristic Islam wants every Jew on the face of the earth exiled from Palestine or dead, whichever is easier. Any degree of radicalism past that is a distinction without a difference.
Respond
Wednesday, August 07, 2002
Billboard of the Beast, Sign of the Times
It may come as a shock, but it seems there are some residents of Maryland that have very little appreciation for controversial art. A billboard featuring Jesus endorsing a Budweiser-esque beer was vandalized with white paint this week by an as yet anonymous assailant. It brings to mind the many people who were horrified by the Sensations exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum in 1999 and Chris Ofili’s allegedly blasphemous “Holy Virgin Mary” in particular. Yet in this case, the use of Jesus as a advertising pitchman is meant to reinforce just the kind of reverence the witless paint-wielder assumably though he was defending. The artist is lampooning the advertising industry, one he clearly thinks has no shame and probably would stoop to putting Jesus in a beer ad. If he didn’t expect a certain reverence for the image of JC from his audience the piece would have no impact. So, Unnamed Vandal, he’s on your side - which you might have realized if you spent more time contemplating art and less time destroying it.
Respond
It may come as a shock, but it seems there are some residents of Maryland that have very little appreciation for controversial art. A billboard featuring Jesus endorsing a Budweiser-esque beer was vandalized with white paint this week by an as yet anonymous assailant. It brings to mind the many people who were horrified by the Sensations exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum in 1999 and Chris Ofili’s allegedly blasphemous “Holy Virgin Mary” in particular. Yet in this case, the use of Jesus as a advertising pitchman is meant to reinforce just the kind of reverence the witless paint-wielder assumably though he was defending. The artist is lampooning the advertising industry, one he clearly thinks has no shame and probably would stoop to putting Jesus in a beer ad. If he didn’t expect a certain reverence for the image of JC from his audience the piece would have no impact. So, Unnamed Vandal, he’s on your side - which you might have realized if you spent more time contemplating art and less time destroying it.
Respond