Andrew Hagen

The Italian newspaper Il Giornale reports that an Al Qaeda online statement—since removed by the FBI—threatened New York City with destruction by the 2nd of February. (*) Threatened destruction methods include nuclear weapon attack.

February 2nd is Groundhog Day, a light-hearted holiday in the US. This year, that day falls within the three-day Muslim holiday called the Feast of Sacrifice, Eid al-Adha. (†)

It is the worst threat so far. The terrorist assault on civilization continues.

Update: 7 January 2004. Second link changed to a working site.

The Quad City Times of Iowa catches Howard Dean.

Last Sunday, Howard Dean offered an unusually revealing answer.

The candidates were asked to complete this sentence: My closest living relative in the armed services is…?

Dean’s reply: “…my brother is a POW/MIA in Laos, but is almost certainly dead.”

Dean’s truthful answer provided an inaccurate response. His brother was never a member of the armed services.…

The U.S. Department of Defense classified Charlie Dean as Missing in Action, meaning that he was among those officially sought by our government. He wasn’t the only civilian with such a classification.

But he was a civilian, not a member of the armed services.

(*) In Vermont the former governor is said to frequently “shoot from the lip.” That appears to be the case here.

It’s also strange that Howard Dean still believes his brother his only “almost certainly dead.” In fact, Charles Dean’s remains have been found and brought back to the US. (†)

The Associated Press reports on the Iranian election process.

Iran’s Interior Ministry began screening some 8,200 prospective candidates Sunday for February legislative elections, state-run Tehran radio reported.

The list of candidates approved by the ministry must be ratified by the hard-line Guardian Council, however, and, in the past, the council has disqualified those seen as opposing the absolute rule of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Reformers, who have long sought social and political change in Iran, fear the council may disqualify many of their candidates.

(*) The very fact that candidates must be vetted by the existing government is reason enough to term these elections unfree and phony.

How would it sound if George W Bush had the power to disallow Howard Dean from running against him? Not good.

Robert D Kaplan criticizes the overly bureaucratized and centralized fighting force in Afghanistan. A large portion of US troops in Afghanistan are concentrated at the Bagram air base. When fighting a guerilla campaign, a lack of troop dispersion is non-strategic. To fight the still restive insurgency, a flatter command structure is required. (*)

Dennis Prager paints a disturbing picture of current wars, real and otherwise. In the larger conflict, Prager says, the US stands alone as the only Judeo-Christian nation devoted to capitalism. (*) Some may wish to quarrel with the notion that America is a Judeo-Christian nation, but the larger question is whether he is basically right.

This is an occasion to analyze the nature of what war we actually fight.

Fortunately, despite the barbaric 9/11 attacks, we have averted a war of civilizations. Western Civilization is not at war with Islam, and Islam is not at war with Western Civilization.

War has not been averted between Islamic militants and its primary opponents: Western Civilization, the Jewish people, Hindus, and moderate Muslims. War between militant Islamism and its secondary opponents including Buddhists and atheists has been relatively mute. For the most part, the secondary opponents are not currently engaged. Through their words and deeds, from 9/11 to the hundreds of suicide bombings, militant Islamists have started this war of Islamofascism against the peace-loving peoples of the world. This war continues to rage.

The third war Dennis Prager speaks of is what is commonly called “the culture war.” This is the political conflict within Western societies over what is proper in government and in morality. Patrick Buchanan’s famous 1992 speech at the Republican Party convention is one of the major statements in the conflict. In my view, this conflict should not be called “the culture war,” because we are fighting an actual war, the War on Terrorism. To refer to a domestic disagreement, even a wide-ranging one, as a war is to lose focus on the real war.

The cultural conflict is reckoned by conservatives like James Bowden to have begun in 1962. (†) The reference is unclear, but it seems to refer to Engel v. Vitale, a Supreme Court decision on school prayer. (‡)

The cultural Left is not allied with militant Islamism, however. Such a link has been the subject of speculation, but thus far, there is no reason to believe it exists. Most importantly, the cultural conflict is not fought with violence. Therefore, the cultural conflict is not a war.

It is important that a starkly drawn civilizational war not occur. Furthermore, it is vastly preferable that a general bipartisan foreign policy be forged. We liberal hawks bear the true mantle of liberalism and the Left. For conservatives like Prager to put into the same category terrorists and cultural Leftists is counterproductive. It works against the possibility of a bipartisan consensus in foreign policy. Bipartisan support for the Cold War was important to marshalling sufficient force for victory. It may also be critical in the War on Terrorism.

Avoiding a war of civilizations abroad and keeping the cultural conflict in perspective at home are both necessary to best fight the War on Terrorism.

Weekly news magazine Time selects the American Soldier for its Person of the Year. (*) Formerly named “Man of the Year,” it highlights an important newsmaker, particularly one with a significant impact that year. Technically speaking, it is not an award. Some villains have been Man of the Year. (†) Most of the selectees have been positive figures, however.

There is no question that the American military deserves to be named. Thanks to the American military fighting alongside coalition partners, Saddam Hussein was ejected from power and captured, Iraq was liberated, and steps were taken toward the rebuilding of that great country.

American servicemen and women do deserve an award for their distinctive valor, especially in 2003. To begin to award their virtues in the field, we should live up to our promises to veterans. We should also create a national memorial to all of the troops who fought Saddam.

Marines often prefer the term troops to soldiers, but I hope they and all members of the armed forces see themselves as part of the selection for Person of the Year, as they rightfully are.

The Department of Homeland Security has just raised the national threat level of foreign terrorist attack from elevated to high, orange. (*)

The DHS has an explanation of the levels. (†)

Update: Tom Ridge said that the level is not raised only because of the holiday season. It was also raised because of the greatest danger of a major attack since 9/11. He specifically warned of “aircraft as a weapon.” (‡)

In the wake of the liberation of Iraq, Libyan leader Colonel Moammar Gadhafi has taken significant steps to dismantle his country’s WMD program. (*) American and British officials have already inspected sites in Libya. Libya was found to have mustard gas and a biological program. In addition, it admitted to an advanced nuclear weapons development project. (†)

Negotiations began last March, after the Lockerbie talks. (‡)

The Nuclear Threat Initiative has more on Libya’s WMD program. (§)

Howard Dean says that toppling Saddam did not make the US safer. (**) It could be argued that Libya would have wanted to rejoin the international community even before Operation Iraqi Freedom. It cannot be ignored, however, that Libya has gone ahead and done the responsible thing. If the liberation of Iraq had hurt our ability to fight terrorism and WMD, there is no sign of it in Libya’s move today. If anything, it appears Libya’s move was spurred by what happened to Saddam.

Thanks to Libya’s move, the world is safer.

Wikipedia has an accessible background article on enemy combatants. (*)

Lynxx Pherrett has some in-depth explanations of the Geneva Conventions, and the extent to which the United States might be bound by them. (†) (‡)

The term “illegal combatant” is explained. (§)

Ronald D. Rotunda analyzes the issue. (**)

Update: 21 December 2003. Lynxx Pherrett also has an article on the legal landscape of the enemy combatant issue. (††)

First Things argues that a marriage protection amendment would keep in the hands of the people the decision of whether to radically revolutionize marriage. (*)

In addition to concerns that scientific advances may have profoundly negative consequences for human reproduction (*), there are also concerns about post-conception biological engineering. Bill of Walloworld asks why are rushing to cast aside our nature. (†) C Christopher Hook is also concerned. (‡)

As Hook mentions, transhumanists call for an end to the human race and a new race of beings of their own design. (§)

The US government’s commission on bioethics was headed by Leon Kass. Its report is online. (**)

Arnold Kling says that only totalitarianism could stop the bioengineering revolution. He, too, is worried, but believes it is better to bear the risk (††) except in some specialized areas like baseball, where centralized control is the answer. (‡‡) This appears to miss a significant point. That is, human free will may be inextricably linked to our biological human nature. If we fail to regulate bioengineering, we may irreversibly deprive humanity of freedom.

Jürgen Habermas is apparently rejecting the extreme consequentialist approach of Peter Singer, who has advocated for animal rights. (§§) Habermas calls for a teleological “species ethic.”

Sheila O’Malley makes a good case for refraining from metaphors when writing about 9/11. (*)

Update: 4 April 2004. Phrasing.

The Guardian looks into the findings of researchers that levels of sunlight reaching the Earth have decreased significantly. It’s called global dimming. (*) We don’t know what causes global dimming, but we do know that it is not caused by a change in the sun. The dimming is occurring in that part of the electromagnetic spectrum made of visible light and infrared radiation.

A good guess of the cause is the level of dust and soot in the air, sometimes called “particulate matter.” These microscopic specks of free-floating matter may be absorbing sunlight, preventing it from reaching the surface of the earth.

The potential implications for the global warming debate are high. If the globe has not been warming up on average as fast as current models predict, it may nevertheless be the case that we are experiencing a greenhouse effect from carbon in the atmosphere. The lack of an increase in average global temperature may be attributed to reduced infrared radiation associated with global dimming. The greenhouse gas effect and global dimming could be acting together to occlude our insight into global warming.

It is not clear whether global dimming will become a major problem, or when. This phenomenon is very important and needs to be studied.

It occurs to me that France uses the US and Israel as scapegoats to deflect public criticism in France of the unpopular French government, just as Saudi Arabia and other Muslim dictatorships use the US and Israel as scapegoats to deflect public criticism in Muslim countries of their unpopular regimes. The comparison is striking.

Roger L Simon has a moving essay on France. (*) Sadly, the nation of France creaks under the weight of enormous welfare payments to neverending streams of Muslim immigrants. The French political establishment is paralyzed. The French government is bureaucratized and corrupt. Something must give way. Simon forecasts change.

French Jews are leaving to escape the lash of Jew-hatred.

It should also be noted that the right-wing movement in France, headlined by Le Pen, gained a surprising number of votes in the last election. As the right-wing is outside the existing political order that would be a good thing. Unfortunately, the French right-wing is even more anti-Semitic and more anti-American than the establishment. Le Pen could be even worse for France than is Chirac.

The French political establishment is pinning its hopes on integrating its failing nation into the EU. Unfortunately, that appears to have been an imprudent play. The EU has nothing that can forge it into a nation-state. There is no shared language or culture. Nothing leads me to believe the EU can succeed. Dissidents are calling it the “EUSSR.” The EU may not last nearly as long, however.

Responsible French reformers should consider rejecting the EU, rejecting anti-Semitism, rejecting anti-Americanism, and rejecting the Fifth Republic in favor of what may become the Sixth. What France is in desperate need of is a new constitution to decentralize political power, privatize industry, and better guarantee individual rights.

Do not count out France. The French have a history of appearing to be on the verge of their own end, only to recover. Charles Martel, Joan of Arc, and Charles de Gaulle come to mind. Let’s hope there is someone who can save France.

We Americans should encourage the French people to find their own solutions. Currently, this requires us to criticize the French government vociferously. Yet, with France we ought to always maintain an atmosphere of respect. We should treat France with respect because that is how we want France to treat us.

Update: 20 March 2004. I changed “anti-Semitism” to “Jew-hatred” to avoid confusion. Muslims are the primary instigators of Jew-hatred at this time, and many Muslims are ethnically Semitic.

Victor Davis Hanson describes how Europeans are suffering from a lack of valor. If they don’t value their unique civilization, why should Americans? (*) They should and we should.

Two different US Courts of Appeal issued rulings yesterday that have impact on the War on Terrorism. One said that the US government cannot hold Abdullah Al-Muhajir (frequently called by his former name “Jose Padilla”), a US citizen, without trial despite his enemy combatant status. The other ruled that the Guantanamo detainees must be given trials in US courts. (*)

These rulings are unfortunate, but should not have been unexpected.

The Bush Administration has claimed the right to create its own system of justice by executive order. While that may indeed be the better interpretation of the Constitution than that offered by the majorities yesterday, it is politically inadvisable. It unnecessarily pushes the legal envelope. It would have been far better if President Bush had introduced legislation two years ago to create some kind of basic judicial process for these enemy combatants.

For example, an executive branch court could be created. Every detainee labeled as an enemy combatant would be given a hearing at a prudent time where an administrative law judge could determine his status. The proceedings would be limited for reasons of national security. Evidence relevant to a detainee’s status would be admissible. If the burden of proof is met, the government could hold the prisoner under the appropriate international rules. In some cases, that might mean for the duration of the war.

That is not what Bush did. Now the Administration is faced with the nightmarish dilemma between letting enemy fighters go free and turning them over to the US criminal justice system. They are not criminals. They are enemies. In the courts they would make a mockery of the process and engage in relentless politically-oriented fishing expeditions, all calculated to play to the hands of the self-hating American media. Zacharias Moussaoui’s courtroom shenanigans are nothing compared to what could happen.

Most likely the rulings will be appealed to the Supreme Court. Before filing the paperwork and crossing his fingers for a favorable decision, President Bush should first introduce legislation to give some Congressional oversight to the handling of these people. That might negate the rulings. Better to preserve executive authority in this way than gamble it in an uncertain Supreme Court case.

Update: 20 December 2003. This is commented upon at Walloworld. (†)

Remember somewhere back there, last year, when they were saying that liberating Iraq would mean increased danger for the United States and her allies? Remember when they were saying that attacking Saddam would cause increased terrorism? (*)

Throw that out the window.

In Howard Dean’s major foreign policy speech this week he said, “The capture of Saddam is a good thing which I hope very much will help keep our soldiers safer. But the capture of Saddam has not made America safer.” (†) The previous criticism was that helping Iraq would make the US less safe. Now the criticism is that helping Iraq should have made us more safe. Dean has conceded that helping Iraq has not made us less safe.

Interesting is the word chosen. Safety is what Howard Dean wants—not victory, but safety. The v-word was not even mentioned in his speech.

We are fighting a war. The proper standard of success in war is not whether we are safer. In war the yardstick measures whether we are advancing toward victory or retreating before a superior opponent. By any measure the United States and her allies are not retreating from any battle in the War on Terrorism. We are advancing. There is some question about whether we are going to continue our assault on Islamofascism by liberating Iran, or by putting the squeeze on Syria and Saudi Arabia. If Howard Dean does want victory he would display an impressive level of boldness by calling for greater attention than Bush is giving to those three fronts.

Howard Dean made some good points in his speech.

[O]ur most important challenge will be to address the most dangerous threat of all: catastrophic terrorism using weapons of mass destruction. Here, where the stakes are highest, the current administration has, remarkably, done the least.…

The Nunn-Lugar program has been critical to securing the vast nuclear, chemical, and biological material inventory left over from the Soviet Union. Incredibly, despite the threat that the nexus of terrorism and technology of mass destruction poses, despite the heightened challenges posed by 9-11, the current administration has failed to increase funding for these efforts to secure dangerous weapons.…

There is a global struggle underway between peace-loving Muslims and this radical minority that seeks to hijack Islam for selfish and violent aims.… The tragedy is that, by its actions, its unilateralism… this Administration has empowered radicals, weakened moderates, and made it easier for the terrorists to add to their ranks.

The next President will have to work with our friends and partners, including in the Muslim world, to persuade people everywhere that terrorism is wholly unacceptable, just as they are persuaded that slavery and genocide are unacceptable.…

Our alliance with Israel is and must remain unshakeable.…

Unfortunately Howard Dean does not understand that many Muslims find slavery and genocide very acceptable. He may not have heard of the concept of dhimmitude. He should also consider what radical Muslims do to animists in Africa. Perhaps he could be educated.

So far, however, there is no evidence that Howard Dean understands that this is a war for survival. He wants to cut the military to the bone and to avoid at all costs military confrontations with radical Islam. That is the great weakness of his strategic vision. Unless he reckons with his blindspot, I would hope he is defeated either in the primaries or in the general election.

Seemingly tedious issues vex me.

One of the poorest understood and most widely relied upon subjects is statistics. In modern society, the educational system should teach basic statistics to all pupils. Unfortunately, it does not. A primer is online. (*)

Three of the most common offenses are a misuse of percentages, statistical surveys of factual questions, and the employment of web polls for anything other than entertainment.

Every educated person knows something about percentages. The trouble is that so many people do not understand the fundamentals of the concept. Take a person who flips a coin 1,000 times, recording the results of each toss. Let’s say the coin is perfectly balanced. Let’s say that there were 550 heads, and 450 tails. That is, 55% of the tosses came up heads. Now he prepares to toss the coin again. What is the probability of heads in this toss? 55%? No. It is 50%. This is because in probability the past does not matter. There is always a 50% chance of heads, no matter how many heads or tails came before.

Another common, glaring error is the use of a percentage to characterize an upcoming event. Say one sports team is playing another. The first team has ten victories and no losses. The second has ten losses and no victories. A sports commentator might say something like, “The first team has got a 75% chance of winning this game.” Yet, there is no validity in that statement at all. It is unfortunate that this mistake really happens. It happens every day and in all walks of life. Think about it. How many games are these teams playing? Just one. They are not playing four times. Only once. Therefore, at the end of their playing the game, one team will be 1–0 against the other team; while the other team will be 0–1 against the first team. Therefore, the actual chance of victory is 100% in favor of one team or another.

Instead of saying, “this event will probably happen,” say “this event will happen because…” or “this event will happen if….” The misuse of percentages tells your audience nothing of what you really know. Tell your audience why you think what you think.

Sometimes perfectly valid, scientific polls are taken of whether the public believes in certain facts. The trouble is the results seem to have more importance than they really do. For example, imagine a poll that found that 83% of American adults believe Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction when his regime was attacked in March 2003. (I just made this figure up.) Why would it matter? Such a poll has no bearing in any way on whether that is a true statement or a false one. Popular perceptions cannot make a false statement true or true statement false. Perhaps in some cases such a survey could be of help in understanding why other popular opinions are what they are. Surveys of factual beliefs should be carefully framed when presented. Commonly, however, they are presented as if they were in some way intrinsically important.

The last is the worst of all. Web polls are inherently untrustworthy. (†) First, web polls are frequently “freeped.” That is, groups of people who support one position or another, sound or unsound (”We must stop flouridating the water!”), can network online and all take the poll together. This skews the results. Second, polls are frequently sabotaged by those with basic technical skills. They are able to vote more than once. Finally, even if such elementary issues were reckoned with, web polls are open to anyone with a modem, and to no one without. As a result, the poll taker cannot know whether his sample is normally distributed. Most likely, it is not. A scientific poll requires careful design. A web poll requires five minutes and no thought. Draw your own conclusions as to their comparative validity.

Just going through the mantra of “It’s unscientific” is not enough. Major television news networks, newspapers and other sources of information to the public routinely trumpet the results of their dreadful web polls, doing the minuet of it being “unscientific.”

It is time to face the reality. Web polls are not merely unscientific. They are lies. Anyone who believes in a web poll, or uses it for anything other than the object of comedy should be ashamed, embarrassed, and deeply shaken at his having falling into an abyss of avoidable deception.

Some defend web polls as “participation.” That is bunk. Sheer unadulterated bunk. Web polls are a way of fabricating what popular perceptions really are. They provide only the illusion of participation.

Benjamin Disraeli had the privilege of not living to see web polls. If he had, he might have remarked that there are four kinds of lies, “Lies; damn lies; statistics; and those damnable abominations of mendacity, web polls.”

The great, astounding levels of statistical ignorance that are everywhere abundant is a danger to the continued freedom and prosperity of our modern society. Our educational system must teach every student basic statistics. We adults must continue to educate ourselves. For all that is at stake, we must stamp out statistical insanity.

Update: 20 December 2003. Linked by Walloworld. (‡)

Anne Cunningham tells her tale of sexual harassment in the classroom at a major institution of higher education in the United States. (*) She did the right thing and got help.

There are two famous TH Whites who lived in the 20th century. The more famous is Terence Hanbury White (1906–1964), usually called “TH White,” who wrote the King Arthur book The Once and Future King. (*) The other is Theodore H. White (1915–1986), usually called by that name, who wrote The Making of the President, various years. (†)

I’m sure remarks have been made before on the coincidence of two people with similar names who wrote books within a relatively short period of time about figures associated with myths called Camelot. (‡)

Updated 2004.07.10 for accuracy.