If Attacked by Terrorists

France vows to bomb itself into submission.

In all seriousness though, Chirac seems to understand on some level that the way to deal with terrorists is to meet strength with strength. Witness bin Laden's latest message. The combination of spin and chutzpah in that tape would make Baghdad Bob proud, and the fact that Osama sees the need to make such a laughable statement, particularly his insistence that al Qaeda is winning in Iraq and Afghanistan, indicates that things are not going well for al Qaeda. Indeed, the reason things are going so badly for al Qaeda is because following 9/11, the Bush administration decided to meet their strength with ours, and in doing so, we have found that al Qaeda cannot stand and fight, never mind actually take and hold territory. As devastating as the Iraqi insurgency may be, its success is predicated upon our perceived weaknesses, not their actual strengths. This could never be said about Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan or the Soviet Union. We had to actually defeat them; with al Qaeda we simply have to keep on doing what we're doing, occasionally swatting at them like a horse swats at flies with his tail.

States like Iran, Syria and North Korea are another matter. We need to figure out how to deal with them effectively, and there aren't any palatable options. As with WWII and the Cold War, our biggest problems are with nation-states. Al Qaeda is just a nuisance to be slapped down when the opportunity arises.

Into the Great White North

Apparently, the United states has a contingency plan for invading Canada. I suspect our primary weapons will be profanity, loud music and the battle frenzy brought on as a result of hearing "eh" aappended to everything.

What Do You Leave Behind?

This article is rather long, but it's a must-read.

Disturbing

The New York Times is reporting that Iran has resumed its nuclear program, including uranium enrichment. That Iran is able to do this without fear of repercussion shows the inherent limits of the diplomatic process. Iran has determined that it is in its vital interest to acquire nuclear weapons, and only physical intervention will prevent this acquisition. This isn't necessarily a call for military intervention, even if it would satisfy the demands of some that our forces be withdrawn from Iraq. The military option should not be taken off the table, but there are other ways to exert pressure on the Iranian regime, such as working with dissident groups to undermine the regime from within the country. It's about time we started realistically considering these options and expressing our consideration of them publicly.

Important Column

Spengler delivers another excellent, excellent column on the differences between Islam (and Mormonism) on the one hand and Christianity and Judaism on the other. I do disagree with him on one point, though.

Spengler states:

"It is dangerous to publish anything that Muslims might interpret as blasphemy, as Jyllands-Posten, Denmark's largest newspaper, discovered when it published 12 cartoons of Mohammed, some portraying the Prophet in violent acts. Muslim protests and threats caused two of the cartoonists to go into hiding. After Arab foreign ministers condemned Denmark for refusing to act against the newspaper, Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen offered a near-apology in his New Year's address.

"Strange as it may seem, the pope must whisper when he wants to state agreement with conventional Muslim opinion, namely that the Koranic prophecy is fixed for all time such that Islam cannot reform itself. If Islam cannot change, then a likely outcome will be civilizational war, something too horrific for US leaders to contemplate. What Benedict XVI thinks about the likelihood of civilizational war I do not know. Two elements of context, though, set in relief his reported comments concerning Islam's incapacity to reform."

The implication here is that Benedict is making his statements quietly because he fears retribution. This strikes me false. Instead, it seems to me that Benedict made his statements in the forum he did not out of fear, but out of prudence. His opinion on the reformability of Islam is certainly not one to be disregarded lightly- indeed, I am inclined to agree with it, but Benedict realizes that he may be wrong. Furthermore, active Western engagement with Islam, be it American foreign policy or French attempts to restrict the wearing of the hijab by Muslim girls in French schools , are premised on the notion that the West and Islam can be reconciled to some degree or another, and a statement such a statement as the one Benedict made, made by a figure with his standing in a public forum risk undermining these efforts at a time when the jury is still out on this count. In other words, I suspect Benedict hopes he is wrong but fears he may be right and doesn't want to issue what may end up being a self-fulfilling prophecy. What's more, if he is right, it is essential that people are aware of the irreconcilability of Islam and the West and that steps be taken to ensure that we are prepared to deal with what would be the inevitable failure of Western policy both in the Middle East and Europe.

And I Thought the Government Couldn't Do Anything About Fuel Prices

Apparently they can. Of course, I doubt it's what most advocates of government action had in mind.

Osama Dead?

Apparently so, according to Michael Ledeen. If this proves to be true, it's good news from a symbolic standpoint. However, I don't know how much of an effect it will have on a practical level. Osama wasn't terribly involved in the day-to-day operations of al Qaeda, and he hadn't exactly been making many public appearances to bolster recruiting. If he is dead, there may be some drop-off in new membership in al Qaeda as a result.

But even if al Qaeda is devastated by his death, Iran has long been the area of greatest concern. Should they acquire nuclear weapons, it seems a near certainty they will use them against Israel, and there is nothing to stop them using elements of, say, Hezbollah, to detonate other nuclear devices in various European or American cities.

Christianity and Capitalism

This piece, when read in the proper context, makes one of the best evidentiary cases for the superiority of conservatism that I have ever seen. I'll give my reasons for saying this later, but right now I'm going to bed.

I Wish I Could Get Paid $65/hr to Cut the Grass

That's apparently what Delphi pays it's grass cutters, once benefits and such are factored into the equation. No wonder Delphi filed for bankruptcy, and no wonder General Motors is having to make such severe cuts in an attempt to avoid it. I'd like to think of something thoughtful to say in reaction to this information, but I'm just too flabbergasted at the notion that a forklift driver can make $103,000 a year at GM. How absurd. No forklift driver is worth that much, at least not for his forklift-driving abilities.

There are two things severely hampering American automotive companies, and I suspect the first is caused in part by the second. First of all, American car companies have not been able to adapt their product to be competetive in current market conditions. Not that they haven't tried, mind you. They've just failed miserably. I mean, who can take a look at the Ford Focus and say "Hey, that looks like a great car." The same goes for GM's remake of the El Camino. It's a piece of junk. If I were to buy a car right now, I'd just as soon buy a Toyota or a Honda. They're better cars for better money, and this brings me to my second reason American car companies are in such dire shape.

American car companies spend way too much on labor. Personally, I can't complain about this too much. My grandpa worked for GM and got a great, great pension out of it. My grandma still gets survivor benefits from it and has to pay very little for her prescriptions. However, the fact remains, American car companies pay their workers too much. Certainly people in any line of work should be fairly compensated for their work, and companies that require a significant investment of time from their workers should try to pay them enough to ensure their financial security (assuming reasonable financial stewardship on the part of the workers), but you don't have to make six figures to live comfortably. Furthermore, the more a business pays its workers, the more it has to charge for its product to be successful. This is all well and good if the price set by the market is high enough to cover the costs to the business to produce its product, but if the market price falls below this level, the success of the business is undermined. If the price falls far enough relative to the cost of production, the very existence of the business is threatened. That's what has happened to Delphi, is happening to GM, and could well happen to other American car companies.

In determining wage and benefit levels, a balance must be struck between just compensation for workers and the ability of a business to function in the market. Instead of attempting to strike this balance, the UAW has grabbed for more and more and may have fatally undermined the American automobile industry in the process.

What Would Men Be Without Women?

Quite scarce. So said Mark Twain, and rightly so.

Jim Pinkerton puts forth a thoughtful piece on Maureen Dowd's new book.