Useful Fools

The sad state of elite academia is indicated by the statement of Columbia’s acting Dean of the School of International and Public Affairs regarding Iranian terrorist leader Ahmadinejad’s visit.

Dean John Coatsworth seems unaware of 20th century history.

From The New York Sun:

[He] told [us] that if the Nazi leader had agreed to speak and answer questions at Columbia University in 1939, the event could have helped changed Hitler’s views of America and this country’s understanding of the intentions of the Hitler’s regime.

Obviously Dean Coatsworth doesn’t know his history:

• Hitler was an intelligent sociopath who could almost hypnotically mesmerize his audiences. A stunningly effective speaker, he crafted his speeches to his targets, just as Ahmadinejah targeted the left with his assertions that the US is seeking a pretext to attack Iran.
• Americans would have “learned” how good Nazi Germany was from a speech by the charming monster.
• Hitler would have “learned” how soft and easily mislead were Americans.
• The Nazi’s had significant support within the US - the German-American Bund and others.
• By 1940, the isolationist 800,000 America First Committee had Charles Lindbergh on its executive board and its views were prevalent among Americans. These and other isolationists wanted nothing to do with a “European War,” and would have seized upon Hitler’s statements (some no doubt aimed at them) to buttress their position.
• Reports of Nazi oppression of Jews were often greeted with skepticism, with anti-Semitism, perceived Jewish influence in media, and the sheer excess of the Nazi brutality leading many to disbelieve the accounts.

It would appear that, just as Columbia’s School of Journalism will issue a Masters Degree to students who have not taken one hard (math-based) science course, the Dean of International and Public Affairs is ignorant of history.

Would you want your kid to go there?

Roger L Simon has been doing a great job of keeping the UN Oil-For-Food scandal alive, scooping the MSM on the depth of Kofi Annan’s family involvement.

Enough of this raises a basic question about the UN: can an organization largely composed of individuals from culture where corruption is rampant be effective at other than lining the pockets of its staff?

History says “no” - corruption, once it reaches a certain level, becomes the daily purpose and modus vivendi of the corrupt organization, be it a government, an NGO or a corporation. Corruption is a corrosive agent that threatens to dissolve the working structure of any large human organization. It is also a cultural norm in most societies, a vestige of feudalism or tribalism, where the “powerful man” solves social problems in return for money or other favors. Corruption is why Mexico, rich in natural resources, consistently turns in pathetic economic performances while producing billionaire presidents. Corruption is one reason the USSR fell. Corruption is the biggest reason that most 3rd and 4th world countries remain in poverty.

It should come as no surprise that the United Nations has long been an inefficient body with lofty goals and expectations towering over low achievement and disappointment. When a bureaucrat is chosen from a member nation, what are the odds that corruption, not merit led to the choice? When huge amounts of money are spent by unsupervised bureaucracies, how much is steered by corruption?

The United Nations may be the last great myth - a corrupt and venal organization believed, out or pure romanticism, to be useful and good. It is time for UN supporters to look at it with the same bright light used on the projects they dislike. The results will be instructive.

Unexpected Whiff of Freedom Proves Bracing for the Mideast writes Neil MacFarquhar in the New York Times.

Unexpected? Do they pay attention to trends at all? The Iraqi government and the Bush administration both promised free elections in Iraq on Jan 30th, and they happened.

So what is unexpected? To the Times and the rest of the “main stream media,” any success of any policy by Bush is unexpected - the MSM cannot imagine that Bush might be right - about anything.

Just remember, these idiots are the considered the cream of the crop of American journalism.

Sad, isn’t it?

The Boston Globe reports:

BOSTON (AP) Two civil rights groups filed a lawsuit in federal court to stop the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority from randomly inspecting passengers’ bags, saying it’s an unconstitutional violation of personal privacy.

A judge scheduled an emergency hearing for Tuesday afternoon in the case filed by National Lawyers Guild and American Anti-Discrimination Committee.

The random inspections began Thursday, just in time for the Democratic National Convention, which started Monday at the FleetCenter. The policy is the first of its kind in the country.

The groups say the searches violate the Fourth Amendment because they don’t require information that the person searched is suspected of criminal activity. They’ve urged customers not to consent to the searches.

”There is no way the MBTA can implement this policy in a constitutional manner,” said National Lawyers Guild national president Michael Avery.

Showing once again that “civil liberties group” really means “People Who Don’t understand Terrorism,” two groups want to insure that those wanting to blow up innocents on Boston’s public transit can do so with minimal disruption. Don’t they remember that two of the 9-11 aircraft took off from Boston’s Logan Airport? How about the Madrid train bombings?

Then there’s the question of why it’s okay for airport personnel to check bags but not for train personnel. Their arguments are nonsense.

Bruce Schneier is a cryptologist and security “expert”. He’s generally a very smart guy, but he seems to let his passion for privacy and distrust of government get in the way of reason. His latest Cryptogram publication is an example. It analyzes the three Supreme Court rulings on war detainees and finds all appropriate from a security standpoint. In other words, the granting of habeas corpus rights to foreign illegal-combatant prisoners at Guantanamo magically improves our security.

Yeah, I didn’t believe it either.

Counter arguments are below, followed by an argument for the pre-emptive involvement of civil liberties sensitive technicians in the design of some inevitable systems.
Read the rest of this entry »

Recently I encountered a comment on Roger Simon’s excellent blog by a former leftist vaguely moving to support America’s defense in the war on terror. The following old-left views and language, coinciding with the celebration of Ronald Reagan’s life, led me to offer a strong response.

For much of our lives the U. S. has been a pretty reactionary country and supported some pretty unsavory individuals to oppose Communism.

I opposed Gulf War I and Kosovo for pretty much the same reasons. First, we really had no dog in those hunts. Second, who do you root for? It was like vampires vs. werewolves—no good guys there…

I dedicate this to all leftists and former leftists who hold to their erroneous views of American history - who would still use the tired word “reactionary:”
Read the rest of this entry »

Today has been very significant in the Iraq war, with an uprising by a minor but well armed Shiite militia backed by Iran, an uprising by Baathists, a coalition seige of Fallujah, battles in Fallujah, and a lot of people killed on all sides.

Here is your challenge: Guess what Ted Koppel considers the most important story:

1. The Implications of Iranian Backing of the Sadr’s Army
2. Iraq Reconstruction - Will The Attacks Set It Back?
3. Surprise in Iraq - A New Tet Offensive?
4. Security Contractors in Iraq - What Are The Issues?

Ryan at Tasty Manatess appeals to whatever residual sense of honor may still exist in John Kerry to do the right thing about terrorism.