Iran's War on US Costs It a Bundle

Ever since the Khomeini revolution in Iran the mullahs have been running a low-grade war against the United States. We often complain about the annoyance and the cost of Iran and its Islamist terrorism. But Amir Taheri gives us a glimpse of the cost to Iran.

Nowhere is the cost of the so-called "War against the Infidel" more apparent than in Iran's oil industry. Projections made in 1977 envisaged the Iranian oil off-take to reach a daily capacity of 6.5 million barrels, with another 1.5 million available as emergency reserves. The capacity of the Kharg terminal, the chief export facility for Iranian oil, was increased from 5.5 million barrels a day to 8 million.



But lack of investment, and the virtual impossibility of accessing highly complex technology, has meant a steady decline. Today, the Islamic Republic produces something like 3.8 million barrels a day - a level Iran had surpassed in 1973.

And that is saying nothing about the cost of having the economy run by a bunch of politicians and activists. We arranged the 20th century, remember, as a demonstration of the economic ability of politicians vs. businessmen.

But what has Iran gained strategically? It is true that Iran has obtained a foothold in Lebanon and in Palestine.

The United States, on the other hand, has made a spectacular incursion in what could be regarded as Iran's geopolitical habitat in West and Central Asia, the Caspian Basin, Transcaucasia and the Middle East. The Americans are now militarily present in all but two of Iran's 15 neighboring countries.

Where have we seen that before? Didn’t the Soviet Union boast that it would bury the US and find itself, in the end, surrounded by the US and its clients?

Shelby Steele Goes to San Francisco

You wouldn’t think that libertarian conservative Shelby Steele would get a fair shake for his White Guilt in the San
Francisco Chronicle. You know what they are like in San Francisco. But he does.

Unlike many over-the-top liberal writers Edward Guthmann is almost generous to the writer who has written that black rage and white guilt have wrecked the civil rights revolution.

Unlike so many conservative pundits, the ones who bait their liberal opposition with inflamed rhetoric, Steele is soft-spoken, avuncular in his approach.

Well, Guthmann is writing for San Francisco Democrats, after all. But he does allow Steele’s argument to be made:

What sets Steele apart is that he's saying things many people, even those who secretly agree with him, would rather not hear. He says that blacks should take responsibility for their own disproportionate crime rates and poor academic performance and not blame a system imposed on them by whites; that whites support affirmative action and other "silly racial policies" out of fear, to avoid accusations of racism.

Steele acknowledges that he’s caught his “share of hell” from his writing. But

one of the great benefits is that I can talk now to anybody about anything, racially and otherwise. And people feel comfortable with me: They know I'm not going to hold it against them if they make some sort of little faux pas. I'm not going to take a knife out and tell them they've defamed my whole race.

It’s an interesting point. If you are talking to someone of a different race, you are almost certain to “step on his sensitivities without knowing it.” But imagine if people just quietly informed you of your faux pas instead of putting you down by playing the victim card. It’s a thought.

But that would collapse the whole race game, in which a lot of people are making a lot of money.

Tired Bush Not Leading

President Bush tonight offered a quick fix to the immigration issue. More border enforcement, an amnesty program, and a biometric ID card “for every legal foreign worker” as part of a vague promise to build ”a better system for verifying documents and work eligibility.”

Will it be enough to bring the Republican base onside? Hard to say.

It would be more comforting if the president had proposed something to put the Democrats on the spot. For instance, if he had proposed a program to deport all illegal immigrants arrested in the United States for ordinary infractions of the law, it would put liberal jurisdictions that ignore illegals on the spot. And it would distance Democrats from the American people.

And it would be nice to put the bite on Mexico, whose corrupt, unreformed economy is at the base of the illegal immigration problem.

But this commentator can’t get away from the feeling that Bush is sleepwalking. Nothing wrong with that: he’s had a rough time as president. But we Republicans need fresh leaders. We need people brimming with energy and eager to lead. And that is something we ain’t got right now.

Don't Be Downhearted, Writes Barone

If you are a conservative this morning you are probably feeling downhearted. After all the heavy lifting that conservatives have done, since 9/11 under George W. Bush, and back in the 1980s under Ronald Reagan, how come conservatives don’t get no respect? Here we are with $3.00 gasoline, no end in sight in Iraq, a big immigration problem, a spendthrift Congress, and the president’s poll numbers are down in the low 30s.

Just don’t forget, writes Michael Barone, that despite all the gloom and doon we are living the legacy of Reagan and Thatcher and that they were never that popular.

Clinton and Blair, the center-left response to Reagan and Thatcher, were popular because they didn’t challenge the status quo, the status quo created by the hard work of Reagan and Thatcher.

It is in the nature of things that the right, while sharply defining the issues and winning most serious arguments, should also stir more bitter opposition than the soothing, consensus-minded center-left. All the more so because Old Media in this country, more than in Britain, is dominated by a left that incessantly peppers the right with ridicule and criticism, while it lavishes the center-left with celebration and praise.

The other thing to remember is that the left can’t deal with criticism. Bill O’Reilly reports on efforts to disinvite mainstream conservative politicians from giving commencement speeches at two major universities. What are we to think of the professors and students at the New School in New York who want to disinvite Senator John McCain from the school’s commencement, and at Boston College who want to disinvite Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice from attending?

Ex-Brit conservative writer John Derbyshire tells the awful truth about liberals who don’t want to pollute their delicate minds with the voice of the other side.

Here you see one of the paradoxes of our strange times. Our women dress like sluts; our kids are taught about buggery in elementary school... yet so far as anything to do with the actual reality of actual human nature is concerned, we are as prim and shockable as a bunch of Quaker schoolmarms. After 40 years of lying to ourselves, we are now terrified of the truth.

Let us admit that we conservatives lie to ourselves. And we deserve to face the consequences. But imagine you are a liberal. Think of all the things that liberals have been lying about to themselves for the last 40 years. And then think about how it makes complete sense for liberals to be shouting down and disinviting distinguished conservative visitors to the university, and forbidding uncomfortable ideas from seeing the light of day on campus.

If you had got everything wrong for 40 years, how would you react to disturbing and frightening ideas?

Chavez Wows Economic Fundamentalists in London

They had a grand old-time revival last week in London. Pastor “Red Ken” Livinstone had Venezuelan pastor Hugo Chávez in town for a rousing witness to the faithful. Said host Livingstone to the assembled faithful, according to Richard Beeston in the London Times:

“Those who a decade ago said that socialism was dead, see it now very much alive in Venezuela,” Mr Livingstone said, adding that the march against capitalism was now too strong for America to resist.



“When they predicted the death of socialism they could not have predicted what was to come,” he said. “It is not that socialism failed, it is that socialism has not come.”

Yep. Those economic fundamentalists certainly have a way with words. Here’s George Anthony, a retired engineer:

“I think Chávez is doing a great job for the people of Venezuela,” he said. “He is showing that socialism works in Latin America and the rest of the world.”

But Edward Lucas, in an address during Christian Aid Week, had another take.

Christian Aid Week is rightly a time for warmheartedness. But that is no excuse for softheadedness. It is sloppy thinking, for example, to believe poverty in one place is caused by wealth in another.

...

Hernando de Soto, the Peruvian economist, has shown convincingly how abuse of property rights by the powerful and corrupt prevents subsistence farmers and shantytown dwellers from getting on to the first rung of the wealth-creating ladder. No property rights mean no collateral for loans, no mobility and no investment.



That still eludes much of the anti-poverty lobby.

Shall I go on?

Without enforceable contracts, the rich and powerful are free to plunder the poor and weak. Debts are uncollectable; assets unprotectable.

Commentators have been remarking for some years about the decline of property rights under the Bolivarian Revolution of Hugo Chávez.

[T]ragically, anti-poverty campaigners in the West have allowed themselves to be conned by the protectionist arguments of rich people in poor countries. The protection of corrupt, incompetent and uncompetitive producers and providers of goods and services in poor countries levies yet another tax on the weakest.

And of course the most corrupt, incompetent and uncompetitive producers can be found in thug oil regimes from Saudi Arabia to Iran to Venezuela.

Meanwhile the thug dictator Chávez today

will be the guest of honour at City Hall, visit the House of Commons and deliver a speech in Whitehall before departing for Libya to meet his fellow revolutionary, Colonel Gaddafi.

And when the thug regime of Bolivarian socialism collapses in misery and violence will Pastor Red Ken and his followers still be saying that socialism has not been tried?

"Connect the Dots" but Don't "Collect The Dots"

Do you mean to say, Senator Leahy, that you had no idea that the NSA was doing data mining on phone records? That you, as the ranking minority member on the Judiciary Committee have never been briefed on this program?

"Are you telling me that tens of millions of Americans are involved with al-Qaida? These are tens of millions of Americans who are not suspected of anything. ... Where does it stop?" _ Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Notice that the Senator did not express suprise. He just expressed shock and outrage. His words are, if you can believe it, rather artfully chosen.

And Senator Leahy, if you are shocked and appalled by the efforts of the NSA to “collect the dots” about terrorists operations are you going to remain respectfully silent the next time that the government fails to “connect the dots?” What would be your position on that?

This business of “collect the dots” vs. “connect the dots” is the idea of columnist and humorist James Lileks, interviewed here (perm) by Hugh Hewitt. It’s nonsense, says Lileks,

because what they're telling you, essentially, is that the Democratic platform is not to do any data mining, any sort of pattern matching. They want us to connect the dots, but they do not want us to collect the dots. The dots should apparently just walk up and volunteer, here I am. I'm a dot. And that's the extent of the War On Terror.

The liberal obsession with government eavesdropping is intriguing. For this conservative, the government eavesdropping on all my financial transactions and complete access to all my salary records is profoundly disturbing. But really, I should care about the government listening in on my phone conversations?

Liberals think differently. They imagine themselves involved at some future time in some political conspiracy, valiantly battling against the fascist US government, and dissenting against its illegal and immoral foreign policy. One thinks of John Kerry negotiating with the North Vietnamese back during the Vietnam War. Imagining such a heroic future for themselves they want the rules set up now so they can conspire against the government of the United States in the future without being monitored. But finances? Well, they work for the government, and the government is going to be paying ttheir pension.

But the rest of us who are not liberals have to wonder. Is this liberal concern for “privacy” real, or is it just liberal conceit?

What's In a Name?

The Social Security Adminstration recently announced the most popular names given to American children.

Emily is the top name for girls. Again. And Jacob is the most popular name for boys. Again.

Things aren’t changing at the top very much. Emily has been the top name for girls every year since 1996, and Jacob has been the top name for boys every year since 1999.

Here is the top twenty for 2005.

Rank Male name Female name 1 Jacob Emily 2 Michael Emma 3 Joshua Madison 4 Matthew Abigail 5 Ethan Olivia 6 Andrew Isabella 7 Daniel Hannah 8 Anthony Samantha 9 Christopher Ava 10 Joseph Ashley 11 William Sophia 12 Alexander Elizabeth 13 Ryan Alexis 14 David Grace 15 Nicholas Sarah 16 Tyler Alyssa 17 James Mia 18 John Natalie 19 Jonathan Chloe 20 Nathan Brianna Note: Rank 1 is the most popular, rank 2 is the next most popular, and so forth.

What is really interesting is how the Briannas and Alexises have gone right down. It’s back to the good old names, just like George M. Cohan said it.

For it is Mary, Mary

Plain as any name can be

But with propriety, society will say Marie

But it was Mary, Mary

Long before the fashions came

And there is something there that sounds so square

It's a grand old name

George M. Cohan says you better watch out for that Marie.

Don't ever fear sweet Mary

Beware of sweet Marie

That high-falutin Marie is trouble.