Largely unnoticed over here, Bolivia’s president Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, duly elected, an economic liberal and a friend of the United States, was forced out of office. He’d made some hideous mistakes (not least the use of the army against protestors – a decision that, tragically, left many dead), but originally the source of much of his difficulty was action taken against his country’s coca farmers, action taken at US insistence, action that left many unemployed. It’s a familiar story – US drug prohibition creates a lucrative market for the farmers’ coca, the profits from that market have enriched not, of course, the farmers themselves, but criminal cartels. They have also been a good source of funds for guerilla groups. The distortions, dislocation and corruption that follows would be bad enough for the chances of reform, progress and economic development in Andean countries even without the added difficulty caused by the impoverishment of so many poor peasant farmers.

Drugs prohibition has been a disaster in the US. Its extension to Latin America has been a catastrophe, a catastrophe that risks creating more of the failed states in which terrorists, it’s worth noting, can thrive. The answer to this mess, naturally, is to scrap prohibition, but in the meantime, here’s a suggestion. The US should stop pouring dollars and military resources into this Latin American extension of the fruitless and counter-productive war on drugs.

There are better uses for both elsewhere.

The development of an effective intellectual response to the ideological challenge posed by Islamic extremism remains elusive, and one of the reasons is the bogeyman of “Islamophobia,” a bogeyman that the enforcers of multiculturalism have used to chilling effect.

Here’s a translation (a little hard to read but, I hope, accurate - I couldn’t find the original subscription-free) of an interesting piece from Le Figaro. It’s not necessary to agree with it all (many readers will not like the author’s very French brand of secularism) to think that it has some useful insights on this phenomenon:

“Islam is untouchable: to criticize or be suspicious of it is a proof of racism. Such is the new vulgate which MRAP [an anti-racist movement], certain sections of the media, academics and political leaders are trying to have accepted. What is this all about in reality? Removing the religion of the Koran from the test to which the two other existing monotheisms have long been subject: the test of self-examination…

The piece is a review of a book, about which the writer has this to say:

“[This] book amounts to what we must call a contemptible police operation worthy of the Stalinist era: by treating democrats as villainous Poujadists [right-wing chauvinists], opportunists, careerists, crude secularizers, persecuted figures from operetta, it turns them into quasi-apostates, traitors to their religion, even harkis [Muslims who worked with the French during the Algerian war], collaborators, enemies of Islam (even if these words are never employed).

”They are guilty then, the Arab women who want to rid themselves of the veil, guilty all those children of immigrants who demand the right to religious indifference, the right to believe in nothing and who do not automatically feel Muslim because they come from Moroccan, Algerian or Tunisian backgrounds? The invention of Islamophobia fulfills several functions: to deny, in order to give it more legitimacy, the reality of an Islamist offensive in Europe, to intimidate and silence bad Muslims, those who impiously seek change and, finally, to block any hope of a religious transformation in the lands of Islam.”

And it concludes as follows:

"Islam is part of the French landscape; it has a right to public recognition and respect; on condition that it respects republican rules and does not demand separate rights, special dispensations for women, various privileges and favors. The best thing we can wish for it is not "phobia" or "philia" but benevolent indifference in a market of spirituality open to all beliefs. If it no longer wants to suffer suspicion, it should engage in a reform as radical as that performed by Catholics or Protestants in the course of the past century. Until then it will remain, moderate Muslims included, the object of justified caution. There's something stupefying in seeing an "anti-racist organization" criminalizing the adversaries of fanaticism and superstition. If Voltaire were alive today, we can bet that certain "anti-racists" would have him thrown in prison."

Quite what the author means by “justified caution,” I don’t know. There’s nothing to fear from an Islam that is genuinely ‘moderate,’ but there’s plenty in this piece that applies to the US as much as France.

Angela Merkel is the head of the CDU, the ‘Northern’ half of Germany’s right-of-center CDU/CSU, the country’s main opposition to the ghastly Gerhard Schroeder. Blogging away from Austria, the invaluable Bill Dawson links to a fascinating speech Merkel made recently and highlights a couple of key segments, one on the question of Islamic head scarves in schools (a source of considerable controversy in a number of European countries) and, another on Germany’s relationship with the United States. Merkel is no Thatcher and it's not necessary to agree with everything she says, but this extract is worth repeating:

”How do we also, after September 11th, keep our word when it comes to the defense of democracy? The path from the so-called absolute, unqualified solidarity with the United States in September 2001, to the so-called "German Way" in September 2002 was certainly quick and breathtaking.

”This path led to the American President, in an interview in September 2003, defining -- naturally with good cause, I don't dispute that -- the posture of the German government as "pacifism."

Pacifism? After the binding with the west via Konrad Adenauer and the double NATO resolutions of Helmut Schmidt and Helmut Kohl? What is to be made of this? I would like Germany to take seriously its leading role in Europe. I would like Germany to contribute to the unity of Europe, not disunity. I would like Germany to develop this Europe not against the United States, but with the United States.”

Contrary to the impression too often generated over here, America still has its friends in Europe.

Ralph Peters is often a provocative and enlightening read, but I have to say that I read this piece with nothing less than astonishment. Here’s an extract:

“Of course, there are good Germans. Plenty of them. But they live in Philadelphia, not Frankfurt. They or their ancestors all left Germany by 1938. Those who stayed didn't just support Hitler - they loved him and fought for him to the bitter end.”

That is, quite simply, nonsense. Yes, far too many Germans supported Hitler, something that will stain the name of their country so long as history is written. And yes, a shocking number stuck with that monster until the very end. At the same time, even a quick glance at the historical record shows that, by early 1945, Wehrmacht troops were to surrendering in droves in the West. On the Eastern Front, of course, it was a different matter. But against Stalin’s Red Army, surrender was never a realistic option. For the men it meant the Gulag or worse and, well, just read any account of the fall of Berlin to see what it meant for the women.

There’s more too. Mr. Peters’ comments about von Stauffenberg are, I fear, are an insult to the memory of a brave man. They also reveal a profound misunderstanding of the nature of the German resistance to Hitler (grossly insufficient though that resistance undoubtedly was) and they ignore for example, the role that the Allies’ insistence on the unconditional surrender of even a Hitler-free Germany played in undermining the development of that resistance. As a start, Mr. Peters should take a look at the career of Adam von Trott, a man whose opposition to Hitler began in the late 1930s and ended with his grotesquely cruel execution in Plotzensee Prison in 1944.

But this historical debate is to miss the point. Germany’s horrific past will forever mean that any hint of a resurgent anti-Semitism is deeply, deeply disturbing, but to move from that to suggest that, nearly sixty years after the war, this entire nation in some way still dreams of the old Reich is wrong. Yes, Germany’s role in the run-up to the Iraq war was a disgrace. Yes, Chancellor Schroeder’s manipulation of anti-American sentiment to secure re-election was repellent, and, yes, there’s no doubt that a particularly malign form of anti-Americanism is currently on the rise in Germany and elsewhere in Europe. The US response to such stupidity should not, however, be to descend to equally crude ‘anti-Europeanism’.

This country is better than that.

Okay, I leave in the AM for ten days on the high seas with the NR cruisers. I assume/hope/pray that I'll have access to the web while I'm gone. So I should be checking in from time to time.

Meanwhile allow me to say a few words about movies. Lots of folks have been writing me in defense of Citizen Kane. I didn't say -- or didn't mean to imply -- that I hate the movie or always enjoy watching Roadhouse more than CK. However, I do think when you subtract the historically significant stuff Citizen Kane, as a movie, is a bit disappointing.

Moreover, a great many people have gotten their dander up about the idea of me not enjoying arty or significant films in the first place. Several have decided, for reasons that elude me, that I don't like "The Seven Samurai." Where did that come from? (maybe there's a blog out there making this charge?). None of this is true. There are some historically significant or just plain old artsy-fartsy movies that I love. I don't just mean the easy ones like "Lawrence of Arabia" or "The Warriors" ("Caaaaannnnnnn Yooooooouuuuu Diiiiiiiiiiig Iiiiiiiiit?"). "A Face in the Crowd" is certainly one of my all time favorite films. Yes, I liked "Seven Samurai", though it takes some work to watch it more than a few times. I'm sure I could think of others, but I've got to pack.

According to the AP.

Headline from Fox News:

Arabs Say Bush Words Are Pretty in Someone Else's Mouth

I read this rather paranoid rant with amusement.

we all KNOW that it is BORIS who ghost writes for the Derb.

Cosmo is merely a squirrel-killing machine bent on destroying the local fur-pidgeon population and sleeping on Goldberg's couch when Jonah isn't watching...

Ronald Reagan was a internationalist hawk who believed in the power of ideas. He was a pro-lifer. He was, well, Reagan. He was the first Republican President from the ranks of Goldwater conservatism. Back then, the Goldwaterites were still the insurgents and so he made a marriage of convenience with George H. W. Bush, the standard-bearer of classic blue blazer Republicanism, picking him as his VP. But it is now clear that Bush's own son takes far more after his father's old boss than he does his own father, at least politically speaking. From tax cuts (and deficits, alas), to his personal conviction on aborrtion, to aligning America with the historical tide of liberty in the world, Georrge W. Bush has proved that he's a Reaganite, not a "Bushie." He may not be a natural heir to Reagan, but that's the point. The party is all Reaganite now. What better sign that this is now truly and totally the Gipper's Party than the obvious conversion of George Bush's own son?

Mike - I'm with you on the "Shining." I'm with you on the precocious wisdom of Eve Tushnet. But do you really like everything by Kubrick? Personally, I think 2001 is very overrated. "Barry Lyndon"? I found it unwatchable. The first half of "Full Metal Jacket" I liked but much like that other classic war film, "Stripes", it sort of fell apart in the second half. But "Eyes Wide Shut" was a disaster. I did love "Paths of Glory" and "Dr. Strangelove" though.

I am second to no one in my admiration of Jonah Goldberg; I will even go so far as to borrow from Mencken and say (without the irony) that "he compares favorably with the rising of the sun and the aurora borealis". But isn't all this Kosmo business a bit much? It appears to me that NR is in danger of falling prey to the Cult of Personality. Sure, Kosmo SEEMS like a fine dog, but how do we know we can trust him? For example, many of his sayings and attitudes strike me as distinctly feline. And the notion that he writes some of Jonah's copy is just plain silly; everybody knows that he's ghost-writing Derbyshire.

K-Lo: Did you watch CNN's coverage of Bush signing the PBA ban. If so, you probably saw their blurb on the left of the screen saying that "Critics say the partial birth abortion ban infringes on a woman's constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy." Last I checked, the Constitution didn't contemplate such a right.

I would like to take the time to thank you for your article, "Partial Truths." As a Family Nurse Practitioner and a mother of two toddlers, I am strongly opposed to "partial-birth" abortions. I wasn't always aware of how abortions were actually performed until I became a nurse. I admit I even marched in a "pro-choice" parade in my college years. I guess I always thought having choices was important. I still do. But murder and infanticide is not a choice that ought to be granted to us. If it weren't for the internet, I would never have seen the horror. And until I saw my daughter at 7 weeks on the ultrasound, with her little heart beating, I never realized she was already a person before I knew she existed.

I speak from experience. My first child was a "surprise," but there was never a choice to make. My husband and I did decide to marry before her birth, but many are not as lucky as I have been to have such a wonderful, loving husband. However, I reiterate that there was never a choice to make regarding her life. She was very much wanted, just as her sister, who came a year later, was wanted. I cannot imagine my life without my daughters, and would give my own life freely for them.

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ), a member of the Senate leadership, today issued the following statement one day after Senate Democrats' refused to repudiate a staff memo outlining a strategy to use a nonpartisan Intelligence Committee investigation for political attacks next year against President Bush.

The Senator called on Democrat leaders to publicly denounce the strategy. He also suggested that if staff members deserved the blame for drafting the memo, they should be fired.

"First, Democrats sought to blame an unnamed staffer for this memo, saying it had never been approved by any Senators. Next they tried to argue the memo's merits without accepting responsibility for it. Then, on CNN, Senator Rockefeller attributed it to his three staffers but claimed it was just one 'option' or 'idea' adding, 'I disavow nothing.'

"Further failing to accept responsibility, Democrats had the audacity to suggest the Senate investigate how these attack plans might have been obtained - the equivalent of offenders blaming the cops because they got caught. This effort at spin control is patently absurd in any event, since by Senator Rockefeller's own admission, this strategy memo was not an official committee document and certainly contained no intelligence information.

"Another Democrat explanation is that they simply are frustrated that the administration has not provided as much intelligence information to the committee as they have demanded. But what makes them think they would get more information by signaling in advance that they intend to use the information politically or that they've already begun to do so? The White House could be excused for taking a dim view of the Democrats' demands.

"All of the Democrats' artful dodges are attempts to obscure what must be the central questions in examining this serious matter. Does the Democrat leadership repudiate this strategy or does it embrace it? Does the Democrat Party intend to use what is supposed to be a nonpartisan intelligence investigation as a political weapon or doesn't it? Will Senate Democrats demand accountability for the inappropriate partisan use of the Intelligence Committee or won't they?

"The American people have a right to hear the answers to these questions. I, for one, am not satisfied with what I've heard so far."

WASHINGTON, Nov 6 (AFP) - The number of Americans lodging new claims for jobless benefits plummeted unexpectedly last week to a near three-year low, the government said Thursday.

New claimant numbers plunged 43,000 to 348,000 in the week ending November 1, the lowest level since the week George W. Bush was inaugurated president on January 20, 2001, the seasonally adjusted data showed.

A four-week average of new claims dropped 10,000 to 380,000, the lowest since March 10, 2001.

His "apology" yesterday was not only weird and oddly insincere-sounding, it also was patently dishonest. Anyone who watched the CNN debate on Tuesday night -- as recounted in yesterday's G-File knows that Dean wasn't trying to "start a discussion." He was trying to defend his position and he did it badly. Once he conceded that the confederate flag is a "racist symbol," he no longer had any defense. Mainstream defenders of the confederate flag don't say "damn straight, it's racist." They say the flag stands for heritage and tradition etc. Dean wanted it both ways, he wanted to say the flag is a badge of bigotry while at the same he wanted those who wear that badge to vote for him. This allowed Sharpton to -- rightly -- condemn him for wanting racists in his column and Edwards to -- rightly -- condemn him for claiming that Southerners are nothing but a bung of ignorant redneck bigots. Dean can claim this was an attempt at starting a "discussion." But that's all nonsense. He messed up and now he's trying to spin it away.

Thank you very much. Good afternoon. I'm pleased that all of you have joined us as the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 becomes the law of the land. (Applause.) For years, a terrible form of violence has been directed against children who are inches from birth, while the law looked the other way. Today, at last, the American people and our government have confronted the violence and come to the defense of the innocent child. (Applause.)

I want to thank you all for coming. Many of you have worked long and hard to see this bill come to fruition, and we thank you for your efforts.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you, Mr. President. (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: I see some members of my Cabinet have come. I appreciate the good work of the Attorney General, John Ashcroft. (Applause.) Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson, is here. Thank you, Tommy. (Applause.) There are a lot of members of the Senate and House here today, I want to thank you all for passing this important legislation. I'm glad you're here. (Applause.)

The primary Senate sponsor is with us, Senator Rick Santorum. (Applause.) Senator Orrin Hatch and Senator Mike DeWine helped, as well, in the Senate. Thank you all very much. (Applause.) Steve Chabot was the primary House sponsor, and Steve is with us. Thanks for coming, Steve. (Applause.) I'm thankful that our Speaker is with us today. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate you coming. (Applause.) The Majority Leader, Tom DeLay, as well. Thank you for coming, Tom. (Applause.)

I'd like to mention three other members of the House. Henry Hyde is with us today. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate you coming. (Applause.) Jim Oberstar is with us. Jim, thank you for being here, sir, I appreciate you coming. (Applause.) Bart Stupak, from Michigan, is with us, as well. Thanks for coming, Bart, glad you're here. (Applause.)

I appreciate His Eminence, Cardinal Egan, is with us today. Thank you very much, sir. (Applause.)

In passing this legislation, members of the House and Senate made a studied decision based upon compelling evidence. The best case against partial birth abortion is a simple description of what happens and to whom it happens. It involves the partial delivery of a live boy or girl, and a sudden, violent end of that life. Our nation owes its children a different and better welcome. (Applause.) The bill I am about to sign protecting innocent new life from this practice reflects the compassion and humanity of America.

In the course of the congressional debate, the facts became clear. Each year, thousands of partial birth abortions are committed. As Doctor C. Everett Koop, the pediatrician and former Surgeon General has pointed out, the majority of partial birth abortions are not required by medical emergency. As Congress has found, the practice is widely regarded within the medical profession as unnecessary, not only cruel to the child, but harmful to the mother, and a violation of medical ethics. (Applause.)

The facts about partial birth abortion are troubling and tragic, and no lawyer's brief can make them seem otherwise. (Applause.) By acting to prevent this practice, the elected branches of our government have affirmed a basic standard of humanity, the duty of the strong to protect the weak. The wide agreement amongst men and women on this issue, regardless of political party, shows that bitterness in political debate can be overcome by compassion and the power of conscience. And the executive branch will vigorously defend this law against any who would try to overturn it in the courts. (Applause.)

America stands for liberty, for the pursuit of happiness and for the unalienable right of life. And the most basic duty of government is to defend the life of the innocent. Every person, however frail or vulnerable, has a place and a purpose in this world. Every person has a special dignity. This right to life cannot be granted or denied by government, because it does not come from government, it comes from the Creator of life. (Applause.)

In the debate about the rights of the unborn, we are asked to broaden the circle of our moral concern. We're asked to live out our calling as Americans. We're asked to honor our own standards, announced on the day of our founding in the Declaration of Independence. We're asked by our convictions and tradition and compassion to build a culture of life, and make this a more just and welcoming society. And today, we welcome vulnerable children into the care and protection of Americans. (Applause.)

The late Pennsylvania Governor Robert Casey once said that: when we look to the unborn child, the real issue is not when life begins, but when love begins. (Applause.) This is the generous and merciful spirit of our country at its best. This spirit is reflected in the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which I am now honored to sign into law. God bless. (Applause.)

(The bill is signed.) (Applause.) Thank you, all. (Applause.)

Dog shoots Frenchman

PARIS (Reuters) - A French hunter was shot by his dog after he left a loaded shotgun in the back of his car with two dogs, one of which stepped on the trigger, police said Wednesday.

The man, from the village of Espelette in the Basque region, was admitted to a hospital in the nearby town of Bayonne Monday with injuries to his hip.

"As he was driving along, one of his dogs accidentally set off the gun," a police official said.