French Follies, Number XLII in a Series (revised Sun. Mar. 21)

Bulletin from the front: French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin is a moral cretin. You remember de Villepin: the "dashing," "eloquent" diplomat who "speaks excellent English in that oh-so-sexy French accent." He's a poet and author, including a Napoleon biography that "laments the dream that was lost at Waterloo ('a defeat which gleams with the aura of victory')." He favors "dialogue, persuasion and negotiation," and used those skills on behalf of a France that supported at least 18 U.N. resolutions condemning Saddam Hussein's Iraq and threatening force to ensure compliance. France promised to support Bush's U.N. resolution--which was a lie. When Saddam didn't play nice, de Villepin said "just foolin'": "nothing justifies envisaging military action." Somehow, the snobby Frenchman hasn't yet rebuked America, Britain or Canada for military action beginning June 6, 1944 that liberated his country from the Nazis. Given de Villepin's sensitivity, perhaps we should apologize and de-liberate France.

Of course, none of de Villepin's blather prevented continuing French colonialism in Africa (which aids African elites, but not African people) or invading the Ivory Coast--without explaining why prior U.N. authorization was no longer a prerequisite. Moving beyond former colonies, de Villepin also welcomed Zimbabwe dictator Robert Mugabe to Paris, abandoning a Europe-wide boycott of the racist murderer who destroyed Africa's second most prosperous nation. And like many on the left, de Villepin's "anti-war" policy morphed into "aiding those killing Americans" policy--the moment we liberated Iraq, he jetted to Syria to "discuss defence [sic] against U.S. accusations that Syria is helping fleeing Iraqi war criminals and . . . [that Syria was] providing support to anti-American forces in Iraq."

When terrorists toppled the Spanish government last Sunday, France and de Villepin were among the biggest winners. And de Villepin's so elated, he's discarded diplomacy. In an interview in Friday's Le Monde, the minister says what he really thinks:

Terrorism didn't exist in Iraq before. Today, it is one of the world's principal sources of world terrorism. . . It is a conviction I never ceased expressing.

Got that? As many as 290,000 Iraqis murdered and stacked in 270 mass graves--but that's not terrorism. Thousands of women raped while their husbands or fathers watched--and the men thereafter tortured and killed--a tea party, not terror. Indeed, prior to Iraqi liberation, Saddam's oldest son made rape a "hobby" (according to the son's press secretary!)--no terror there, says de Villepin. No, France wanted Iraqi oil. Last year's "anti-war" protesters were right: it's all about oil--for France, not the U.S. (More foreign policy "mirror imaging!" (see tpfp post 2:13 9:56pm.)) Small wonder de Villepin's attitude remains: "No killings, rape or torture. . . nothing to see here. . . move along. . . " (Same for Russia and Germany.)

Global Islamic terrorism, Iraqi or otherwise, wasn't a response to the liberation of Iraq. But contrary to ravings of Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy and other Dems, Iraq and radical Muslim terrorists are related. As Jonah Goldberg writes, "If there's no link between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq, why did al Qaeda blow up those trains?"

Because it's the same enemy. Everyone knows the terrorists now murdering Iraqi civilians also are liable for 2996 dead in lower Manhattan, including one French citizen--but perhaps de Villepin assumes they perished from natural causes. An Algerian flying Air France to Paris on Christmas Eve 1994--de Villepin thinks the hole in his head was a stroke. American Leon Klinghoffer, wheelchair-bound on the cruise ship Achille Lauro--France's Foreign Minister assumes he was tossed overboard by an unexpected gust (at least until Klinghoffer's killer was caught in Iraq). The gaping gap in the hull of French-owned supertanker "Limburg" (killing a crew member)--de Villepin suggests below-deck sailors sought a sea breeze. 500 Israelis dispatched by Palestinians between 1994 and Iraq's liberation (most of them women and children and the elderly)--de Villepin supposes 500 heart attacks, many simultaneous. 202 revelers blasted to bits in a Bali disco--France blames the "electric slide." Eleven athletes and a policeman massacred in Munich at the 1972 Olympic games--the frogs suspect steroids. Perhaps de Villepin can team with O.J.--to find the real killer.

France always had trouble with truth. The nation still overlooks its record of Nazi collaboration, substituting the myth of the Resistance. As Adam Gopnik observed, the French routinely alter facts to fit theory--and theory alone endures. Only a dedicated ideologue could pretend the Palestinian and Al Qaeda murder-sprees began after Saddam. Indeed, as explained in tpfp post 3/13 5:42pm, Bin Laden began because of Russia (Afghanistan invasion, 1979) and Spain (re-taking the country from Moors, 1492). Iraq's just terrorism's latest excuse--and the French know it. Such official ignorance dishonors the innocent victims--including murdered Frenchmen.

Radical Islam's goal isn't slaughtering Americans, Israelis, the Trilateral Commission or CIA agents who terminated Kennedy. Or, rather, it isn't just them. Terrorists want the whole enchilada--to extinguish the civilized, enlightened West. Last time I checked, that included Europe. However tolerant we are, radical Islam won't return the favor. They believe the war between secular democracy and Islamic government is a zero sum game. So appeasement works like Pavlov's bell--it makes murderers hungry for more.

After the Limburg bombing, the Islamic Army of Aden mused, "We would have preferred to hit a US frigate, but no problem because they are all infidels." Not just Americans, not Jews, not Spaniards, Poles or even left-handed one-legged lesbian Lithuanians. Infidels. We're all infidels. Christians and agnostics. Buddhist monks and Voodoo witch doctors. Terrorists don't distinguish--so an ACLU card or San Francisco Chronicle subscription won't protect you. A "Kerry for President" bumper sticker won't bomb-proof an "infidel's" car. I grant them this--radical Muslims are equal opportunity murderers; they even kill other Muslims.

The dashing diplomat disregards it all. So to hell with France. Starting today, "Lafayette, you're on your own."

Where's Waldo?

Beeb bias update! Under the headline "Mass Rape Atrocity," an article on the BBC website describes an assault by "Arab militiamen" on the small village of Tawila, Sudan, about two weeks ago:

75 people were killed in the attack. . . All houses as well as a market and a health centre were completely looted and the market burnt. Over 100 women were raped, six in front of their fathers who were later killed . . . A further 150 women and 200 children were abducted.

Although the BBC says the Arab militia was "backed by the government" and engaged in "ethnic cleansing," the article elides the fact that Sudan's civil war pits the Arab government against the Christian and Animist south of the country. The Beeb provides no context, as if the horror sprang out of the air.

Which, for the BBC, it did. Were the Beeb actually trying to inform the audience, the article would have contained three obvious, but missing, words:

Terrorist.

Islam.

Muslim.

"How many times must a man look up/Before he can see the sky?"

The Second Coming will arrive before the Beeb gets its head out of radical Islam's ass--meaning before its news has any relation to the truth.

Kerry Tales, Part XXXVI

John Kerry, March 8, 2004:

I've met foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly, but boy they look at you and say, 'You've got to win this, you've got to beat this guy, we need a new policy,' things like that," he said."

The same John Kerry, on March 14th:

Kerry refused on Sunday to name names. "No leader would obviously share a conversation if I started listing them," Kerry told reporters.

Kerry campaign spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter, March 15, 2004, claiming Kerry was misquoted (emphasis added):

I've met more leaders who can't go out and say this publicly, but boy they look at you and say, 'You've got to win this, you've got to beat this guy, we need a new policy,' things like that," he said.

Didn't her boss just confirm he said "foreign," not "more?" Moreover, the "correction" is implausible--even the liberal New Republic magazine agrees the tweaked version makes no sense.

Kerry foreign policy advisor Rand Beers, March 18, 2004:

This election will be decided by the American people, and the American people alone. It is simply not appropriate for any foreign leader to endorse a candidate in America’s presidential election. John Kerry does not seek, and will not accept, any such endorsements.

Flip.

Flop.

Res Ipsa Loquitur. Look it up.

Of Mice and Men

Maybe there really are two Americas: California and the rest of the country. Today's evidence is a letter to the editor of the San Francisco Chronicle printed March 17th. It's from San Leandro resident Vernon S. Burton, and it says, in its entirety

Editor -- It was very encouraging to see how the people in Spain responded this past weekend to the devastating terrorist attack they suffered last week. Instead of whining about being innocent victims and listening to a lot of jingoistic nonsense, the people of Spain accepted that they were targeted because their leaders sided with the United States and the Israelis in the Middle East. Congratulations to the Spanish people for sending their misleaders packing. Too bad Americans aren't that smart.

If Burton, or San Francisco, represent the "other" America, I'm glad they're 3000 miles away.

Kerry Tales, Part XXXV

HumaneUSA, the political action group arm of the various animal rights/humane groups, sent a questionnaire to some of the Presidential candidates. (It's not clear whether HumaneUSA sent one to President Bush, but never mind.) Senator Kerry responded (so did Dennis Kucinich, confusingly labeled "John Edwards"). Here's an excerpt from one of the Haughty Hairdo's answers:

Q: Do you have any pets that have made an impact on you personally?

A: I have always had pets in my life and there are a few I remember very fondly.

When I was serving on a swiftboat in Vietnam, my crewmates and I had a dog we called VC. We all took care of him, and he stayed with us and loved riding on the swiftboat deck. I think he provided all of us with a link to home and a few moments of peace and tranquility during a dangerous time. One day as our swiftboat was heading up a river, a mine exploded hard under our boat. After picking ourselves up, we discovered VC was MIA. Several minutes of frantic search followed after which we thought we'd lost him. We were relieved when another boat called asking if we were missing a dog. It turns out VC was catapulted from the deck of our boat and landed confused, but unhurt, on the deck of another boat in our patrol.

As James Taranto says: "Everyone knew Kerry was a pet lover, but this is the first we've heard of his having served in Vietnam." And blogger Steve Sturm says Kerry's lying. Even if he isn't, Senator Kerry's a preening poindexter, the kind we all hated in school.

I have no idea why anyone would vote for this man.

Kerry Tales, Part XXXIV

Today's NY Times quotes the Haughty Hairdo's explanation for his frequent changes of position, especially about the war in Iraq:

I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.

Let me translate: Ok, break's over--everyone back on their heads!

Does anyone share my worry about a President Kerry?

Liberal Professors Invent Bad Law

I'm pleased that someone else challenged Yale Law School Professor Lea Brilmayer--because I was sure she was nuts. Brilmayer published an Op Ed in the March 9th WSJ (mirrored here) making the extraordinary claim that authorizing gay marriage in one state would not necessarily affect any other state:

[N]obody bothered to check whether the Full Faith and Credit Clause had actually ever been read to require one state to recognize another state's marriages. It hasn't. Longstanding precedent from around the country holds that a state need not recognize a marriage entered into in another state with different marriage laws if those laws are contrary to strongly held local public policy. The "public policy doctrine," almost as old as this country's legal system, has been applied to foreign marriages between first cousins, persons too recently divorced, persons of different races, and persons under the age of consent. The granting of a marriage license has always been treated differently than a court award, which is indeed entitled to full interstate recognition. Court judgments are entitled to full faith and credit but historically very little interstate recognition has been given to licenses.

She said the same in a February 15th WaPo Op Ed and when testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee in early March. At about the same time, I concluded exactly the opposite, based on an hour of legal research. Clearly, one of us was wrong.

But first some background about Professor Brilmayer. A Boalt Hall graduate, she specializes in international law and conflicts of law. She's published books (e.g., American Hegemony: Political Morality in a One-Superpower World (1994)) sharply critical of US policy since becoming the sole-superpower, and several articles (e.g., International Justice and International Law, 98 W. Va L. Rev. 611 (1996)) championing global treaties and bureaucracies instead. Brilmayer's an anti-globalist theorist and condemns torture (who doesn't?). But she also opposed U.S. intervention in Afghanistan, doubting

the legality of a U.S. offensive against the sovereign state of Afghanistan given the "private actor" status of the terrorists. 'What responsibility does the government of Afghanistan have?' she asked. 'Do they have to turn him over? Former war criminals of other countries live in the U.S.'

Forewarned is forearmed.

Ok, back to the law. Remember, Brilmayer claimed the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution would allow courts of one state to ignore an out-of-state marriage that violated the "public policy" or "morality" in the state where the court was located. She cited a half-dozen refusals to recognize out-of-state marriages, only one of which--Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726 (Conn. 1961)--was decided after 1950. By contrast, I conceded older rulings did indeed say that, but more recent cases narrowed the scope of any "public policy" exception (citing a 1953 New York case that recognized a Rhode Island marriage between uncle and niece, both of whom were New York residents, despite a law prohibiting uncle-niece marriages in New York). I also claimed that any residual exception to Full Faith and Credit was unlikely to survive last year's Lawrence v. Texas decision of the United States Supreme Court, which seemingly invalidated morality as a basis for law:

The issue is whether the majority may use the power of the State to enforce these views on the whole society through operation of the criminal law. "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code." Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 850 (1992).

And, I challenged the oft-cited analogy to the (aptly named) Loving v. Virginia decision, where the Supreme Court overturned Virginia's refusal to recognize an out-of-state interracial marriage that was unlawful within Virginia--that case was decided under 14th Amendment "equal protection," not the Full Faith and Credit clause.

So who's right? I am. I've double checked. And I'm supported by Matthew J. Franck, a professor and chairman of political science at Radford University. Writing in today's NRO, Franck accused the liberal Yalie of distorting the law for political purposes:

Professor Brilmayer's argument was actually a clever piece of misdirection, a bit of legerdemain in which we were invited to fix our attention on the left hand while the right hand picks our pockets.

Franck also confirmed that cases undermine the continuing constitutionality of any public policy exception. He cited two Supreme Court decisions:

Romer v. Evans (1996), where Justice Kennedy concluded that "anti gay" laws could never have a "rational basis" because they were based on "of animosity toward the class of persons affected."

Lawrence v. Texas (2003), where Justice Kennedy (again) invalidated Texas law for failing to show sufficient solicitude for "personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education."

Given these decisions, Franck concludes--and I agree--that a refusal to recognize an out-of-state gay marriage (based on "public policy" or "morality") would likely be unlawful.

I still oppose any national definition of marriage--either including or prohibiting gay marriage. But I'm really steamed when lawyers lie. Particularly when law professors lie for liberalism, without investigation or challenge by the mass media. So, I say again: under current law, one state's adoption of gay marriage will decide the issue for the entire country. That's why we need a Constitutional Amendment ensuring marriage remains a state-law issue. Such an amendment has been suggested by Vice President Cheney, is being mooted by Senator Orrin Hatch, championed by fair-minded conservatives and proposed by others, including former Senators and young-ish conservative journalists. And me--because devolving controversial decisions to the smallest feasible unit of government (the principle of "subsidiarity" for you legal theory fans) is the least coercive solution.

In the current National Review, John Derbyshire wonders why "homosexual marriage -- an idea that seems not to have occurred to anyone at all in the entire span of human history until about five years ago -- is now a daily topic in our newspapers and TV programs." I'm kinda confused about that too. But the founding fathers made America a federal republic, meaning that issues not specifically allotted to the national government must be resolved by citizens under state law. Neighboring states may differ--but such a "laboratory" of varying approaches helps everyone understand the merits, and consequences, of their decisions.

Federalism's worked exactly as the founders intended for over 225 years. You don't junk the jurisprudence just because you disagree with one or the other outcome. Let 50.1 percent of the voters in each state decide.

America's constantly promoting the rule of law and voting rights in the Arab world and elsewhere, for example urging an Iraqi federal state permitting Shias, Sunnis and Kurds to co-exist. The same advice applies here at home. Democracy--it's the American way.

Update:

Today's New York Times parrots the same wishful thinking as Professor Brilmayer. The Times' article quotes gay rights advocate Andrew Koppelman, a law professor at Northwestern University and the author of "The Gay Rights Question in Contemporary American Law." Koppelman concludes that "[n]o state has ever been required by the full faith and credit clause to recognize any marriage they didn't want to." I have no idea how Koppelman can be so positive, or even whether he's considered the Lawrence and Romer cases. But, as usual, the Times writes the lede before researching the story: Koppelman's argument "demonstrates that the president misunderstood the legal terrain."

No it doesn't. It just "demonstrates," as usual, that the Times doesn't fact-check liberals but will use any excuse to bash Bush. Why should anyone still believe the NY Times?

More:

Reader, and 10th Amendment fan, Michael Y disputes my narrow focus:

Why should the federal constitution single out marriage and not any other issue of states rights? Are the only things that are worthy of a constitutional amendment protecting states rights booze and sex? If you must have an amendment to preserve the states as laboratories (. . . I agree with you on the merits) I propose something more general: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people, AND THIS TIME WE REALLY MEAN IT!”

I like it! Still, a marriage-only amendment has a better chance.

Climbing Down the Spanish Steps

As usual, Derb's right, in at least two respects. On this topic, Andrew Sullivan agrees with Derb--a rare event.

First, "the Spanish election result is the worst thing to happen yet in the War on Terror. It is a huge victory for Al Qaeda, their greatest to date." I'm profoundly depressed my Saturday analysis (see tpfp post 3/13 5:42pm) was wrong; that, rather than defiant, the Spanish people heaved morality over the side of the ship of state. I actually thought the horrific bombings in three Madrid train stations would force Europe to confront terrorism. So did the French paper Le Monde, in an Editorial on Friday:

It is Europe and the democracy which were tackled Thursday March 11 in Madrid. It is the European Union which was attacked in one of its capitals; it is one of the democracies of the Union, Spain, which is aimed at three days of its general elections. . . .

Europeans share the mourning of the Inhabitants of Madrid; they must be organized together for a threat which relates to them all. If it did not know it yet, it knows it today: Europe belongs to the battle field of hyper-terrorism.

And so did Mark Steyn, writing in Monday's Australian:

In his penultimate public appearance, the late Osama bin Laden, broadcasting from his cave in the early hours of the Afghan campaign, listed among his principal grievances "the tragedy of Andalusia" -- that is, the end of Muslim rule in Spain in 1492. That's 512 years ago, but the al-Qa'ida guys are in no mood to (as the Democrats used to urge Republicans in the Clinton impeachment era) "move on". After half a millennium, even Paula Jones would have thrown in the towel. But not these fellows. They're still settling scores from the 15th century. They might not get around to Johnny-come-lately grievances such as Iraq until the early 2600s. . . .

Even if you'd avoided Iraq or Andalusia or British banks or Pilger or any other affront to Islamist sensibilities, you'd still be a target. As the PR guy for the Islamic Army of Aden said after blowing up that French tanker: "We would have preferred to hit a US frigate, but no problem because they are all infidels."

Even the hilariously mis-named "Seattle Post-Intelligencer" (perhaps the third most liberal newspaper in America) saw the light:

The struggle to defeat Islamist terrorism is necessary for America's national security and for world peace. Simply put, that is why the public continues to support the war. . .

Recall, in contrast, what critics predicted. Hundreds of thousands of U.S. and Iraqi deaths. The "Arab street" was going to rise up. Hordes of new terrorists would be recruited and descend on us. Friendly Moslem governments in the Middle East would fall and unfriendly ones become bellicose.

But none of that happened.

The Arab street, for the first time, is learning that democracy is possible in their region. Press freedom in Iraq is the envy of other Arab countries. Women's civil rights have increased. Friendly governments were not destabilized; rather, unfriendly ones, including Syria and Iran, have come under new pressure. With Saddam gone, Iraq no longer finances suicide bombers in Palestine.

The United States, meanwhile, showed its lack of imperial ambitions by removing its troops from Saudi Arabia and the Saudis finally are cooperating in eliminating al-Qaida-affiliated cells in their country. Destroying such cells is crucial to preventing the funding and training of terrorists who could mount new attacks on the American.

This weekend in Spain, as the Seattle paper said, none of that happened. Instead, Spain's incoming Prime Minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, "vowed to withdraw troops from Iraq and criticized US President George W. Bush." According to Zapatero, "The war in Iraq was a disaster, the occupation of Iraq is a disaster." Worse still, European Commission chief Romano Prodi (a leftist former Italian Premier), agreed, in an interview published by Italy's La Stampa newspaper Monday: "It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with terrorists," Prodi said. "Terrorism is infinitely more powerful than a year ago," and all of Europe now feels threatened, he told the paper. Well, all of Europe always was threatened; but I thought a consensus was building that force was the only effective response.

Silly me. I forgot Europe's history of appeasement, which began well before Neville Chamberlain proclaimed "peace for our time." The Genus "European," Species "Chicken," was fully evolved by the early 16th Century, when faced with the Barbary Pirates:

The Barbary Coast of Northern Africa consisted of the four states of Algiers, Morocco, Tripoli, and Tunis. The "Barbary Pirates" had for centuries captured vessels sailing the Atlantic and the Mediterranean. They occasionally raided coastal villages to capture Christian slaves, such as a village in southern Ireland, which was said to have been entirely captured by Muslim raiders.

Earning their living by blackmail, tribute, piracy and slavery, the Barbary Pirates received yearly sums of money, ships, and arms from foreign powers. Those who paid their tribute were allowed to sail unmolested along the Barbary Coast, and trade in the African ports. Those who did not had their ships seized and their crews held for ransom or sold into slavery. In 1662, England agreed to pay an annual tribute, in return for free passage along the Barbary Coast.

By the 18th Century, the fearsome reputation of the Barbary Pirates, and self-interest, had led most of the European powers to routinely pay the tribute demanded. The Europeans, who had strong navies, found it easier to pay tribute to the Barbary states than to try to suppress it, since it achieved the strategy of reserving the Mediterranean to those who were wealthy.

The first American ship to be captured was the brig Betsey, captured in the Atlantic by Moroccans in 1784. America was a new nation, and the Moroccans had never before seen an American flag. Any Christian ship was assumed to be fair game, however, as it was taken for granted that they were at war with every Christian nation, unless a peace treaty had been signed.

The United States Congress initially seemed disposed toward appeasement (i.e., paying tribute). But, wiser policy soon prevailed:

Secretary State Thomas Jefferson, told Congress it must choose "...between war, tribute and ransom." He believed war was the only reasonable choice, and advocated the creation of a navy. Tribute paid to the pirates was "money thrown away," and the only thing they truly understood was gunpowder and shot. . .Jefferson called for a united military alliance among the European powers, along with America, to blockade North Africa and provide for a military solution against the pirates. Europe chose to continue paying tribute.

"Would to Heaven we had a navy to reform those enemies to mankind, or crush them into non-existence," said George Washington in 1786. Said one American envoy, "There is but one language which can be held to these people, and this is terror."

By 1800, a phrase first uttered by founding father Charles Pinckney (1746-1825) became America's rallying cry: "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute!" In 1801, Jefferson, now President, "sent American ships and U.S. Marines to the coast of North Africa to put an end to the piracies. In 1815 the Barbary rulers agreed to abolish all demands for annual payments from and acts of piracy against the United States." This victory against pirate terrorism was memoralized in the second line of the Marine Corps Hymn: "To the Shores of Tripoli." And it's worth remembering that the Tripoli triumph freed Europe from further payments.

It's now clear, as Victor Davis Hanson writes, that America's perceives justice and morality quite differently than other nations:

[W]ith the exceptions of some English-speaking allies and eastern Europeans, are in fact absolutely alone in our larger struggle for Western civilization and have been all along well before Iraq, which was merely the latest excuse for ongoing European appeasement. The Spanish will never go after the killers of their own citizens, much less the countries who provided them support and succor, just as the Western Europeans did nothing to stop Mr. Milosevic, just as they sent a token force to Afghanistan, and hardly any to Iraq, and just as the Greeks will do nothing if their Olympics are destroyed by waves of Islamic terrorists.

Western Europe has no guts--never had. They're risk adverse--remember, the peoples of Western Europe are descendents of those that didn't have the get-up-and-go to get-up-and-go to the United States, to anywhere in the Americas. Immigration to the New World mostly comes from the right side of the bell curve, each time leaving the Old World incrementally less able, less agile, less aggressive, less alert. It's our gain--and Europe's loss.

Which brings me to Derb's second point. Britain aside, Europe won't stand on principle. They have none. The continent was content to accommodate Hitler--so long as it didn't cut-off the course of coffee and croissants (think Sartre during the occupation at Les Deux Magots). Western European democracies counseled U.S.-Soviet detente--and ignored the peoples of Hungary (1956) and Czechoslovakia (1968). No, Europe's "stategy" is nothing more than long-term bribery of its enemies (Barbary Pirates for 400 years, West Germany to Soviet Russia for 40). And Europe's spinelessness has been S.O.P. for more than a millennium.

Don't believe me? Just listen to Rudyard Kipling, the great English Imperial writer, from his poem "Dane-geld (A.D. 980-1016):"

It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation,
To call upon a neighbour and to say:--
"We invaded you last night--we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away."

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld
And then you'll get rid of the Dane!

It is always a temptation to a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say:--
"Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away."

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray,
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say:--

"We never pay any one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost,
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!"

Too bad Europe's stuck in appeasement which, though inefective, is a thousand year vintage. I doubt they'll pull up in time.

So let's be sure Europe doesn't take America down with 'um.

Lomborg Exonerated

Three years ago, Bjorn Lomborg published an English language translation of "The Skeptical Environmentalist," the single best source for rebutting the enviro-crazy. The book collects facts about the environment, uses those facts to demonstrate environmental improvements over the past 35 years, and refutes claims of environmental "Chicken Littles." You know who they are--scientists, college professors and "public interest" advocates whose funding depends on doomsday scenarios.

Lomborg has been pilloried ever since. See tpfp posts 2/13 3:13pm, 2/7 11:37pm. Within a year after the publication:

a global smear campaign has attempted to discredit the Danish academic who had the audacity to question the hysterics and distortions of the modern day environmental movement. So threatened were the professional environmental pessimists in academia, NGOs and think tanks by Lomborg's arguments and ideas, they lashed out and viciously attacked him, seeking to destroy his credibility. The attack included a one-sided smear in the pages of Scientific American, protesters throwing pies at him at speaking engagements, and a website, www.anti-lomborg.com, devoted to discrediting him.

Lomborg smearing soon went from sport to farce--a so-called "Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty" condemned the book as "objectively dishonest" and "clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice." This decision was widely reported in all the old familiar places, i.e., the NY Times, Washington Post, etc.

You'd think lefties, especially the liberal media, would be suspicious when a quasi-government committee denounces science as heresy--as the 17th Century Catholic church did to Galileo. Not so. The left barely noticed when Timothy Wirth, U.S. Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs for President Clinton, proclaimed "We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing." Rarely reported was the fact that the Danish Committee didn't conduct it's own analysis, but relied solely on articles from Scientific American and that famous science publication, Time Magazine, written by people Lomborg had challenged--who had incentives to defend their work (and funding) to the last footnote. Few mentioned that one of the anti-Lomborg authorities, Stamford Prof Stephen Schneider, admitted that global warming pessimism wasn't neutral, but advocacy:

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people, we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.

I guess it depends on the meaning of "honesty."

Fortunately for science, the greens' campaign to suppress heresy failed. Late last year, the Danish Ministry of Science and Technology overturned the DCDS's "kangaroo court decision." Then, on Friday, the dishonest Committee on Scientific Dishonesty waved the white flag. Acknowledging the Ministry found its "judgment was not backed up by documentation and was 'completely void of argumentation,'" the Committee "Withdr[ew]" the case against Lomborg. Issue closed. That's good for Lomborg--and for science.

Still I wonder: why is the left so passionately committed to unproven fear mongering? Genetically modified foods, which could increase farm yields and reduce death from starvation, are widely vilified--without a single fatality. The press faithfully headlines every pronouncement of warmer (or cooler) weather, without checking their facts. The media rarely acknowledges scientists who predict no or insignificant global warming. This puts assumptions about man-made warming to the left of even the United States Senate, which called the Kyoto treaty "dead on arrival," and refused to consider ratification, by a vote of 95-0.

It's hard for layman like us to dispute science experts. But it's easy to take account of incentives and bias. Few lefties bother. The newly exonerated Bjorn Lomborg counseled skepticism. It's still the most appropriate environmental policy.