Google+
Close
‘Brides’ for Chinese, &c.


Text  


You may have been wondering: “Where are Chinese men going to get wives, what with female infanticide leaving such an imbalance between men and women?” One answer, as this article tells us, is Burma: Burmese girls are sold into slavery, or “marriage,” or whatever you wish to call how they end up.

Bear in mind that the U.S. vice president recently extolled the one-child policy on his visit to China. The White House’s backtracking cannot really efface that.

Advertisement
So, I’m reading an article from the Associated Press, headed “Theology a hot issue in 2012 GOP campaign.” And I’m thinking, “No, it isn’t, not really. It’s a hot issue among the liberal media.”

Is that too fringy for you? Or just true?

In the current National Review, I have a piece on Saif Qaddafi, one of the dictator’s bad, bad sons. (Saif is complicatedly bad, however.) The funny thing is, Saif was one of the most interesting and incisive commentators on the recent war. (Is it over?)

For instance, here he is on the subject of NATO’s desire to get things over with in a hurry: “They want to finish as soon as possible, because they are hungry, they are tired. For them, Libya is like fast food, like McDonald’s. Because everything should be fast: fast war, fast airplanes, fast bullets, fast victory. But we are very patient . . .”

In the end, NATO was patient enough too, or so it seems.

You may enjoy reading more about this fellow, Saif — a piece of work, at a minimum (and now wanted at The Hague for crimes against humanity). (Saif called the ICC “a Mickey Mouse court.” That doesn’t mean he doesn’t belong there.)

Did you catch this, in the rush of daily life? “NATO and Afghan forces have killed a former Guantanamo detainee who returned to Afghanistan to become a key al-Qaida ally . . .”

Ah. The article continues, “The militant’s death was a reminder of the risks of trying to end a controversial detention system without letting loose people who will launch attacks on Americans.”

You don’t say? I thought the boys at Guantanamo were all innocent victims of the stupid Texan and his Torquemada vice president.

In the summer of 2001, a minor miracle occurred: Harvard named a president who respected the U.S. military. He was Lawrence Summers. He has an article in the current New Republic, recalling how it was.

“While university presidents are routinely called upon to be on hand to cheer athletic triumphs and to lend their presence to student cultural performances, no Harvard president spoke at an ROTC commissioning ceremony from 1969 until 2002.”

And I had forgotten — or never knew — this repulsive fact: “Harvard refused to permit undergraduates doing their ROTC training at MIT to note their service in the Harvard yearbook.”

You have to wonder whether these SOBs really deserved the protection of the U.S. military.

Needless to say, NR praised Summers for his words and actions. Was he embarrassed by that? Not that I could tell. When I met him at a reception in Davos, he said, immediately, “Thank you for your support.”

Would Summers have stepped up on the military if not for 9/11? Don’t know. Don’t know that it matters all that much.



Text  


Sign up for free NRO e-mails today:

NRO Polls on LockerDome

Subscribe to National Review