Andrew Hagen

It looks like I paced Glenn Harlan Reynolds by a month and a half. Reynolds observes that the media’s swoon for John Kerry is likely to destroy the credibility of the media. (*) I made the same observation a while back. (†)

Reynolds adds a superfluous point on the new Internet “competition” for the old media barons. In fact, the primary news sources are the same on the net as on TV and in print. The media’s real problem is that when their credibility lies in ruins, demand for their product will dry up. People will be less willing to pay to read it, and advertisers will see less value in ad placements.

Building new media brands would be a costly investment.

To avoid disaster, the liberal media should just take the masks off and admit their biases, like Fox News or AM talk radio. Credibility comes from honesty and fairness, not feigned objectivity. The big media would temporarily lose some of their audience, but they would be protecting their credibility for the long run.

Of course, NPR and PBS as government-sponsored media don’t have that option.

“[T]he President of the United States did nothing for 18 minutes,” according to William Manchester, a historian describing President Franklin Roosevelt’s immediate reaction to the Pearl Harbor attack in 1941.

Columnist Diana West dug out that historical nugget. (*)

And so ends the canard about how George W Bush is somehow blameworthy for being stunned for a few minutes when he first heard of the 9/11 attacks in a schoolroom in Florida.

Onward to the real issues.

Rumors swirl of the protests turning ugly. The Republican National Convention in New York has the potential to rival the riot-torn Democratic convention in Chicago of 1968.

Rick Perlstein is desperate to teach the Bush bashers and the left-wingers a lesson based on history. Rioting doesn’t work. Direct action without a feasible political goal doesn’t work. After Chicago ‘68, Nixon cruised to an easy victory on a promise of law and order. (*)

Perlstein does not realize he speaks to a stone wall. The whole premise of the Left is to ignore history, and to ignore human nature as well. Telling leftists to learn from history is like teaching a dog to grow leaves. Hence, the Left relies on “the great leader” (Martin Luther King, for example) to give orders from above. Without “the great leader” the Left is little more than an angry, congealed blob that achieves nothing.

Should riots break out in New York, the effect will be just like that of “N30,” the violent anti-WTO Seattle protest. There will be no effect. That which is protested will grind along as before.

All that we can do is stand back in awe at their sanctimony, and hope no one else gets hurt. Already one policeman was beaten.

To their detriment, chimpanzees idolize humans. (*) To our detriment, humans imitate chimps. (†)

Did George W Bush really earn a varsity letter for cheerleading at Yale? The newly formed group Yale Cheerleaders for Truth demands answers. (*)

Could there be any issue in the election more critical than this?

The danger of a flu pandemic is highlighted by the recent discovery in Japan that influenza viruses are more resistant to key drugs than had been previously known. (*)

The influenza pandemic after World War I killed millions.

I don’t see how the swift boat issue is relevant to the 2004 election.

If Bush and Kerry were truly “swift,” they would “move on” to something that matters today.

The Vietnam War does have historical importance. Nevertheless, more than just history ought to give us guidance as we look ahead to the future.

The year is 1944. The Allies have broken through at Normandy and are racing to Germany. At a certain point, however, the fighting ceases so that dozens of ocean freighters carrying wienerschnitzel, sausage, beer, and other German products can get through from Germany to the US. In this alternative history, the US was dependent on German exports during World War II. As the fighting resumes, wave upon wave of Panzers and ME-262 jet fighters, financed by Germany’s enormous export income, push back the liberators and defeat the Allies soundly. Nazi Germany wins the war. Fortunately, that did not happen because the US was not dependent on German exports during the war.

Today, we fight a war against terrorists even as our economy and the economy of the world are dependent on Middle Eastern oil. Inevitably, oil money filters through to militant Islamist terrorists. We probably can never cut off the flow of funds unless and until competitor fuel sources are developed. Once we cut off the flow of funds, we will near victory in the war.

George W Bush has done very little for energy independence. Should we drill in Alaska or off the coast of Florida, we would still be dependent on Middle Eastern oil.

We need the will to kick the habit.

John Kerry’s plan for energy independence is bold and creative. (*) It could stand major improvement, but spending $10 billion is what matters. Of course, we should spend more.

Energy independence would be a more effective weapon against terrorism than a fleet of bombers and a phalanx of missiles. Energy independence ought to be a top priority.

We need to lavishly finance scientists and engineers in research and development projects. We need something on the scale of the Manhattan Project or the Apollo program. We need to direct funds into research like fusion, cold fusion, zero-point energy, and pretty much everything short of Dr Klimp’s perpetual motion machine.

Of the two major candidates, only John Kerry has thus far shown the vision to undertake the necessary investment.

Unless something changes, I’m supporting Kerry for President on the basis of his determined plan for energy independence.

The book, In Defense of Internment: The Case for “Racial Profiling” in World War II and the War on Terror, is Michelle Malkin’s new book. It is coming out in a few days. (*)

It turns out that FDR had a lot of intel guiding him when he made the decision to intern many American residents from Japan, Germany, and other countries. The intel suggested that saboteurs and spies were very prevalent amongst those populations.

The implications for the War on Terrorism today are obvious.

This is an important debate to have, and a timely one. We should have this debate before an American city gets hit with a new 9/11–scale attack, or a radiological, biological, or nuclear device. In the aftermath of such an attack, emotions will run high. We should discuss internment and racial profiling logically and carefully now, so that anger and outrage do not control our actions later.

Out of: (1) civil liberties and privacy; (2) security from terrorism; and (3) open borders; the cold, hard reality is that we can only have two.

Since the political establishment is committed to both security from terrorism, and open borders, inevitably civil liberties will suffer.

Put it in perspective. The Patriot Act reduces civil liberties by a relatively tiny margin. The proposals of the 9/11 Commission to centralize domestic intelligence gathering will likely deal a crushing blow to our civil liberties. Racial profiling, not to mention internment, would significantly reduce our freedoms as well.

Ultimately, because the political consensus is to keep us safe even as we keep the borders wide open, even as we catch (some of the) Islamist terrorists crossing the Mexican border, our civil liberties are now on the chopping block.

We don’t need to close the border. We just need to guard it better, and to tighten the rules on who can get in. Congressional commitment is needed.

The objection to open borders is not a moral one, but one based on policy need.