Friday, November 21, 2003

Miami Anti-Globo protests fizzle

Maybe it is the fact that they came to one of the most cosmopolitan cities in the United States. Maybe it is because the people of South Florida realize that free trade is good for them, and good for the country. Maybe it is because of the beefed-up police presence in the city. Maybe it is because they couldn't stay away from the beaches. In any case, the protests against the Free Trade Area of the Americas summit, held in Miami, were a bust. The Miami Herald reported this:

Several protest groups planned additional demonstrations today, but the main event -- a march scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. from the Miami Arena—apparently evaporated.

Five thousand people had been expected; only three showed up, and they were outnumbered by reporters and photographers.

''This is ridiculous,'' said Rob Ward, 21, who joined two friends in the six-hour drive from Gainesville, only to find the demonstration canceled on account of no demonstrators.

(Gainesville, in central Florida, is home to the University of Florida, which has its fair share of leftist academics and their student bootlickers.)

What if they held a media-driven protest, and nobody came? Warms my heart...

Although the police arrested over 150 people, it is a far cry from the 1300 people arrested in Washington DC last year, or the 570+ arrested in Seattle in 1999. Additionally, there was no destructive activity like the $20 million of damage in Seattle when the protests turned into a full-scale riot. More information about the few confrontations that occured can be found in this Miami Herald piece, with some sniveling from the leftists about the heavy police presence. Screw 'em; they've already demonstrated that they are utterly incapable of behaving in a responsible, civilized fashion, so police presence was a must.

posted at 09:54 AM | permalink | Comments (0)

Misha says it best

Emporor Misha links to an article on National Review Online, and, in his totally inimitable style, exapnds upon the points Amir Tehari originally wrote. Misha's style is blunt (and a bit profane), but wholly on the mark. Take a look.

One thing to note: in the original article, Taheri refers to George Galloway as a member of the Labor Party. This is no longer longer true, as he was expelled from the party for his serious ethical and moral lapses. Tony Blair has worked hard to move Labor toward the center, and dumping Galloway was absolutely neccessary.

posted at 09:24 AM | permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, November 19, 2003


Dodd Harris, over at Ipse Dixit, pulls a trio of paragraphs out of this Rich Lowry column that are particularly brutal towards the nine dwarfs. If they are going to try and tie a presidential candidate to one of the more spectacular fiscal disasters in our nation's history, they need to check their preconceived notions first.

posted at 08:14 AM | permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, November 18, 2003

What he said.

Gordon, at Damn the Man, has a few things to say to the naysayers and Bush-bashers, as well as to the "quagmire" prognosticators. It's not politically correct, which is why it is so good. Check it out.

posted at 04:43 AM | permalink | Comments (0)

Sunday, November 16, 2003

Sullivan on Tariffs

Andrew Sullivan links to a piece in the Guardian, noting how the EU is proposing selective tariffs against the US, since the WTO ruled against the American tariffs on steel, which has hit the EU particularly hard. He notes that the EU is targetting exports in key states (such as citrus fruit from Florida, and paper from Wisconsin) in an effort to influence the election. While it is a bit sleazy, I disagree with Sullivan's characterization that it is a watershed in European anti-Americanism.

It's politics. When the WTO ruled against the EU on their banana tariff a few years ago, the US imposed tariffs on imports from CERTAIN EU countries (the nations which opposed the EU tariffs, Denmark and the Netherlands, were specifically exempted). Similarly, the United Kingdom was exempt from tariff retaliation in regards to a dispute over hormone-treated beef (the other 14 EU countries all had exports that were targeted in retaliation). A link to the US Trade Representative's website with data on these two cases can be found here.

The two cases are comparable, although the effects will likely be different. Because the EU and the US government are structured differently, the result of targetted tariffs is much more likely to have an effect on the US, where states have much more autonomy and exert a greater pull on the central government. The EU is targetting certain industries in certain states, just as we did. The fact that Bush may well need these states in the upcoming election is not the EU's concern (although the anti-US types in Brussels are no doubt overjoyed at the opportunity presented to them). Bush needs to drop the tariffs, not only because of the potential for retaliation, but because it's hard to present as a free-trade advocate when one is imposing tariffs to guard one's reelection chances (which was the rationale behind the steel tariffs).

posted at 11:22 PM | permalink | Comments (1)

Are the two cases really comparable? As I understand it, the US targeted the supposed beneficiaries of EU protectionism. On the contrary, the EU is threatening to target states regardless of whether they benefited from US protectionism in order to influence the upcoming election. The latter strikes me as being morally quite different from the former.

In any event, I agree with your ultimate conclusion.

posted by Oscar Jr. on November 18, 2003 06:14 AM

Bombs in Turkey Bush's Fault?

I am speechless.

Al Qaeda blows up two synagogues in Istanbul, and somehow, readers at the BBC website manage to make it the fault of George W. Bush. I kid you not. From their website, feedback on the attacks include gems such as this:

The events in Turkey only highlight the fact that things have got worse since September 11. I think it's about time the world leaders of all faiths come together, rather than let Bush make the problems worse.

(From an idiot university student)

or this:

Winning a war on terrorism is impossible. It was a doomed project from the start similar to the war on drugs and it will take some very brave and courageous leaders to take a more radical approach and reverse the failed policies of Blair, Bush and the Israeli state.

...which seems to imply that we should let the terrorists continue unimpeded.

Both of the above commenters were from Arabs living in the United Kingdom (judging from their names and stated locations), but other BBC fora make it clear that plenty of non-Arab Britons hate George Bush with a frightening, pathological intensity. America has its xenophobes, but (outside of France, which goes out of its way to antagonize us) there is little hostility in the US to countries that don't host people who try to blow us up. Hatred towards Britain or Germany is far lower than the obverse; in fact, a clear majority of Americans LIKE Britain, especially so given their government's support (morally and materially) of ours in the War on Terror.

The thing that amazes me the most is that those who blame Bush for the attacks either forget or willfully ignore Al Qaeda's similar ventures during Saint Bill's term of office, including the attacks on the USS Cole, and the attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, or the first WTC attack in 1993. Even the September 11 attack had its roots in the Clinton Administration; Al Qaeda was known to plan attacks up to three years out, and a complex undertaking such as the simultaneous highjacking of four airliners (and the training required to fly the aircraft to their targets) was not a snap decision on the part of Al Qaeda, in response to the election of Bush. Those who criticize Bush conveniently forget that it is extremely unlikely that Al Qaeda would have cancelled the attacks had Gore been elected, as their hatred of America and western values goes beyond the Democrat/Republican split.

posted at 04:03 AM | permalink | Comments (1)

I thought the anti-Americanism in the UK was already pretty bad, but I think it has got much worse recently. What has prompted my comment is that in contrast to what you say, I think many Brits are sure the Americans dislike them, partly due to all the English-accented villains in Hollywood films, and partly because there is a belief that Americans did nothing to stop US funding of the IRA (I am only passing this on, don't shoot the messenger it's not my personal view at all!) After the Oklahoma bombing talk radio here was full of people saying that after their support for the IRA the Americans finally had learnt what terrorism was like (disgusting and dumb I know, as the US suffered many terrorist attacks on its citizens in different parts of the world if not on its own soil and IRA support was hardly a majority thing). I don't know if argument can reach people who have already made up their minds, I am at a loss to account for why people hate America. It seems to have got to a stage where rational arguments have no effect. That doesn't mean all is lost but it makes life more difficult of course...

posted by s in the UK on November 17, 2003 03:35 AM

Back to Horologium