Here are two more appropriately caustic reviews of Jimmy Carter’s viciously anti-semitic and clueless new book, from Jacob Laksin at the conservative FrontPage Magazine, and the liberal Michael Kinsley. Apparently, Carter is a uniter, not a divider.
[Update at noon]
Rich Lowry writes about our creepy former president:
Carter argues that more people would see the Middle East his way if it weren
From a surprising source (the WaPo) an editorial about dictators and double standards.
The contrast between Cuba and Chile more than 30 years after Mr. Pinochet’s coup is a reminder of a famous essay written by Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, the provocative and energetic scholar and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations who died Thursday. In “Dictatorships and Double Standards,” a work that caught the eye of President Ronald Reagan, Ms. Kirkpatrick argued that right-wing dictators such as Mr. Pinochet were ultimately less malign than communist rulers, in part because their regimes were more likely to pave the way for liberal democracies. She, too, was vilified by the left. Yet by now it should be obvious: She was right.
With all the bashing of Walmart and other chains, Virginia Postrel has some palliative thoughts.
Dennis “Tinfoil Hat” (boy, now there’s an old post…) Kucinich is running for president again.
David Warren’s take on the ISG report:
I was rewriting history, while walking along some cold lakeshore the other day. My thought was: if Churchill had only come to power in 1937, Chamberlain would have been installed to replace him in 1940.
Had Churchill been in power, and refused to sign Munich, he would have been blamed for the outbreak of war.
I can just hear the prattle in an English pub, circa 1950. “He pushed Hitler to it! Had it not been for Churchill, Hitler would have been satisfied with the Sudetenland, and England would never have had to surrender. Everything was Churchill’s fault!”
Today, everything is Bush’s fault.
Read the whole thing.
David Warren’s take on the ISG report:
I was rewriting history, while walking along some cold lakeshore the other day. My thought was: if Churchill had only come to power in 1937, Chamberlain would have been installed to replace him in 1940.
Had Churchill been in power, and refused to sign Munich, he would have been blamed for the outbreak of war.
I can just hear the prattle in an English pub, circa 1950. “He pushed Hitler to it! Had it not been for Churchill, Hitler would have been satisfied with the Sudetenland, and England would never have had to surrender. Everything was Churchill’s fault!”
Today, everything is Bush’s fault.
Read the whole thing.
David Warren’s take on the ISG report:
I was rewriting history, while walking along some cold lakeshore the other day. My thought was: if Churchill had only come to power in 1937, Chamberlain would have been installed to replace him in 1940.
Had Churchill been in power, and refused to sign Munich, he would have been blamed for the outbreak of war.
I can just hear the prattle in an English pub, circa 1950. “He pushed Hitler to it! Had it not been for Churchill, Hitler would have been satisfied with the Sudetenland, and England would never have had to surrender. Everything was Churchill’s fault!”
Today, everything is Bush’s fault.
Read the whole thing.
Our Anonymous Moron troll whines that I don’t talk about Darfur.
Well, here’s an editorial by Ralph Peters about Darfur with which I agree, though I doubt if Anonymous Moron does:
Europe wrings its hands – as Europe always does – but declines an invitation to the dance. After all, “responsible” governments can’t play fast and loose with another state’s sovereignty. No dictator or president-for-life would be able to get a decent night’s sleep.
So Sudan’s Islamo-fascists continue to kill with impunity.
Our own left mourns theatrically for Darfur’s dead – but no one has formed a new Lincoln Brigade to take on Sudan’s Muslims fanatics. And the uncomfortable fact that Arab Muslims are slaughtering black Muslims goes ignored. It doesn’t fit the left’s comfortable worldview.
Oh, yes: Those on the left demanding that we “bring the troops home” from Iraq would be delighted to send American troops to rescue Khartoum’s victims. But our military is occupied with other cases of fanaticism and genocide in the Muslim world this holiday season.
Isn’t it curious that, when it comes to liberation, Iraq didn’t count? For the endlessly hypocritical left, there’s one magic difference between the half-million dead of Darfur and the 1.5 million people killed by Saddam in his internal massacres and neighborhood wars: Bush.
To be fair, I think that there’s another one. In the minds of many deranged leftists, Arabs can do no wrong, because they’re fighting against the evil West, capitalists and Amerikkka. And they only want us to liberate people when we have no national interest in doing so. And even then, of course, they’re not truly liberated unless they’re yoked to socialism.
Scientists from IBM, Macronix and Qimonda said they developed a material that made “phase-change” memory 500 to 1,000 times faster than the commonly-used “flash” memory, while using half as much power.
“You can do a lot of things with this phase-change memory that you can’t do with flash,” IBM senior manager of nanoscale science Spike Narayan told AFP.
“You can replace disks, do instant-on computers, or carry your own fancy computer application in your hand. It would complement smaller technology if manufacturers wanted to conjure things up.”
The day’s not far off that you’ll be able to carry an unimaginable amount of knowledge around in your pocket.
Jeff Foust discusses the problems that NASA is having in communicating a purpose for its lunar activities. Understanding the “why” isn’t just important in terms of maintaining public support. It also drives requirements.
There are implicit assumptions about why we’re going back to the moon intrinsic in NASA’s chosen mission architecture, though they’ve never been stated explicitly. I lay out several potential reasons for a lunar base in this post, in which I point out that NASA’s architecture is actually ideally suited to a “touch and go” approach (i.e., the only reason we’re going to the moon is because the president said so, so we’ll build a system that’s really designed for Mars instead, and just happen to use it for some lunar missions if the political establishment decides it still wants to do that in a decade or so).
If the purpose was really to enable settlement, rather than just setting up a tiny and trivial government base, we’d be spending a lot more money on systems that drive down the marginal cost of trips to the moon. Instead, NASA has chosen an approach that maximizes it.