Stephen Green wrote an interesting analysis of Russia's current state.

Thinking about Russia today, my mind made the unfortunate leap to Rocky Balboa. I don't mean the underrated prizefighter who went 15 rounds with Apollo Creed 30 years ago; I mean "Rocky Balboa," the movie – otherwise known as "Rocky VI," and due out next year.

Over the hill, past his prime, and way past anybody caring about what he does, Sylvester Stallone is donning the shorts for one last go-around as Russia. Er – as Rocky.

Russia, too, is over the hill. Need proof? Russia is the first modernized nation (don't laugh – it's true!) with a falling life expectancy. And past its prime? You betcha. Today there are about 143 million Russian citizens, down five million in ten years. Maybe 115 million are actually Russian, with the remainder divided amongst Ukrainians, Tatars, Muslims, and the various indigenous peoples of Siberia. Fifty years from now, demographers expect that in the best-case scenario, Russia's population will have fallen to around 100 million. Of those, probably not many more than 65 million will be ethnic-Russians. You can bet, however, that Russia's Muslim peoples will increase in numbers, while the Slavs fall.

He goes on to catalogue Putin's recent trouble-making and it occured to me that Russia is following the pattern of another former super-power--France.

Like France, Russia finds it politically impossible to address the fundamental issues undermining the progress of the country, so like Chirac and his predecessors, Putin focuses on those things he can do to create an image of relevancy in world affairs. Ultimately its death-spiral politics, but options are limited.

I wouldn't put a pox on his house just yet though. Green mentions what Putin is doing with something short of enthusiasm--muzzling the press, nationalizing everything in sight. Yet asserting control is just what Russia needs to turn it around. Ask yourself the question of who is more free--the Russian or the Chinese? The Russians have a facade of democracy, but the Chinese have arguably more freedom under an oligarchy. The same pattern is true in many places in the world and given a choice, I would opt for a well-functioning dictatorship than a dysfunctional democracy anytime.

Jefferson and Madison fought Alexander Hamilton tooth and nail as the latter, suspiciously in their view, implemented "royalist" institutions like excise taxes, a national bank, a standing army and a border patrol (coast guard). After Jefferson became president, he realized that this wasn't all bad afterall and Hamilton's innovations became the backbone of this country's prosperity and thereby freedom.

Russia arguably has "too much freedom" at the moment, otherwise know as chaos. What they need, and what Putin can hopefully deliver, is a larger measure of control.

A clever set of commercials advertises a new cell phone with black humor about the inconvenience of death at this time. I think a lot of people concluded this in the case of Ariel Sharon, although at 77 and grossly overweight, he really did live under Damocles sword.

Stephen Green has written what I think is the best thing I've read on the political ramifications of Sharon's incapacity and/or imminent death.

Known as "The Bulldozer," Prime Minister Sharon remade Israeli life using the same operational genius (and disregard for casualties) that General Sharon used against the Egyptian Army in 1973. Since assuming office in 2001, Sharon has completely remodeled Israel's defensive situation – by putting the Palestinian Authority on the defensive, militarily, politically, and morally. Typically, Sharon acted unilaterally and, at least in his mind, in the best interests of his country.

Still fighting new battles at the age of 77, Sharon's most recent project was to remake Israel's domestic situation. By forcing Jewish settlers out of Gaza, Sharon angered many of his rightwing allies in the Likud Party. By doing so without a formal treaty with the PA, Sharon completely alienated Israel's leftwing Labor Party. Trapped in the center – much like his division was once trapped behind Egyptian lines – Sharon came up with a creative solution: last November, he founded a new political party, Kadima. The goal was to create a centrist party to formally pursue Sharon's security goals, without being beholden to crazies on the left or the right.

Read the whole thing...

The Christian Science Monitor has a multiple choice foreign policy quiz to help you stick your round peg self in the appropriate hole.

The quiz may be "fun" but its rather useless, artifically constraining possible views on Iraq, U.S. power and other issues to predetermined and rather naive choices. I came out as neocon, but see myself as more of a realist on foreign policy issues.

I better survey would focus less on current policy questions and deal more with philosophical abstractions since realistically, this is lens through which people view issues like Iraq or Israel.

H/T Greg Prince

E-nough reports on an AOL France poll asking what Jacques Chirac's biggest success has been as head of state.

Fully 69% of respondants replied:

la fronde contre l'Etats Unis a propos de l'Irak (the rebellion against the United States with regards to Iraq).

That should tell you something very important about the nature of anti-Americanism...

The above title is a reference to Brian Mulroney's public comment on the amount of anti-Americanism present in Canada in his day--not enough to elect a dogcatcher. A curious metaphor since dogcatchers are not elected in Canada.

Apparently Paul Martin wants to test that theory. Down double-digits with just a few days to go before the federal elections in Canada, Martin has resorted to mining Canadian anti-Americanism by tying Stephen Harper to George W. Bush.

Amid growing signals of panic in the Liberal ranks, the party has launched a series of crudely anti-American commercials. One stated that victory for the 47-year-old Tory leader, Stephen Harper, would "bring a smile to George W Bush's face".

Another described Mr Harper as "pro-Iraqi war, anti-Kyoto, socially conservative... Bush's new best friend".

But despite strong anti-Americanism among voters, the adverts have had little effect on the polls. Voters appear far more concerned about domestic issues such as corruption. The Conservatives have already promised not to send troops to Iraq.

The Canadian dynamic is complicated, but fundamentally revolves around a sense of condescension. Canadians compensate for the obvious economic and politic deficiencies vis-a-vis the U.S., with a sense of moral superiority. Understanding that, it is easy to see why the Liberals are in such trouble--the corruption was a betrayal of Canadian values. All the preening about the U.N. ranking Canada as the best country to live in have gone down the drain as Canadians have had to face the prospect that their government was doing a fair imitation of a banana republic.

In the end, the anti-American propaganda failed to work because Canadians have stopped listening to the Liberals. The anger, disappointment and embarrassment simply overwhelms every other consideration.

I'm going to make an observation here that might seem surprising. The blogosphere has had a major impact in its short history--Rathergate, Easongate and more recently the Miers nomination. Yet one blogger may have eclipsed those accomplishments by being instrumental in the defeat of a sitting government of a foreign country.

I am talking about Ed Morrissey of Captain's Quarters, who provided a backdoor for the news coming out of the Gomery commission while the ruling Liberals had managed to muzzle the Canadian press. The Captain's daily numbers went through the roof as Canadians, starved for information on the subject, overwhelmed the site. Gradually other Canadian bloggers picked up the baton and then eventually the mainstream media. The news was out and the Liberals were hosed.

Had that not happened, the Liberals might still be holding court instead of fighting for their political lives.

I find it ironic that Canadian history seems to be repeating itself. In the early 80s, the Progressive Conservatives took the reigns of power from a exhausted and bankrupt Liberal government, ruling for two terms under Mulroney, he was replaced by a well-thought-of, but out-of-her-depth Kim Campbell. In the subsequent collapse of credibility the PCs went out of power and soon afterwards, out of existence. Will the same fate befall the Liberals?

Interesting days for our "boring" neighbor to the North.

Martin fiddles while the Liberals burn

The last national poll of 2000 Canadians by Ipsos has Stephen Harper's Conservatives with a 12 point lead over the Liberals. It seems likely that Harper will accomplish what seemed impossible just a few weeks ago--a majority Conservative government.

Most surprising is the Conservative appeal in Quebec, without a doubt the most liberal province in Canada. They are polling twice (27 to 14%) what the Liberals are.

Its a huge problem for the Conservatives.

Yes, the Conservatives. People are clearly voting against the Liberals and not specifically for the Conservatives which makes Stephen Harper's job very difficult indeed.

Harper will have a majority government, but a minority base in the country, mostly west of Manitoba. The Federal bureaucracy is solidly Liberal after more than a decade in power and in Canada, governments come and go, but the bureaucracy is eternal. As in the British parliamentary tradition, ministers resign when things go wrong in their portfolios, and I think we can expect a lot of things to go wrong--on purpose. The media, particularly the extreme left-wing CBC, is going to be on this government like white on rice--in other words, Stephen Harper is going to have a lot in common with George W. Bush, but without a 9/11 to change people's outlook.

I hate to be a pessimist here even before the ballots are cast, but we may simply be looking at a five year interregnum between Liberal governments. The Liberals will now have the pressure off, can find a new leader to present a fresh face and simply bide their time. Harper and the Conservatives on the other hand will have to change an entire national culture in five years.

I suppose its possible, but not very likely.

One thing that could help is Bush administration conciliation on the soft wood lumber issue. The soft-wood-what? Yeah, that's the U.S.-Canada relationship in a nutshell--we are oblivious about something that is probably the number one irritant to Canadians in their relationship with the U.S. When we talk about Canadian anti-Americanism, its hard to overestimate the contribution that soft wood lumber issue makes. Canada has sent the conflict to arbitration more than once and received favorable rulings each time--yes, the U.S. is in violation of the NAFTA. Yet powerful regional interests in U.S. lumber states have managed to get Congress to say "so what?"

If Harper can break up this log jam, it will go a long way to establishing Conservative credibility. On the other hand, if we stand pat, whoever the president is in five years will be getting single-digit salutes on the state visit to Canada and a chilly reception from yet another Liberal PM.

H/T Captain's Quarters.

It seems appropriate to use a hockey metaphor to describe the final strokes on the Canadian federal election.

The final polls have the Conservatives winning 140 seats--enough for a strong minority government. The Bloc Quebecois and the New Democrats are also poised to increase their representation in parliament at the expense of the Liberals, who are expected to win about 75 seats.

If this turns out as predicted, that's a pretty strong showing for a disgraced party and indicates how thoroughly the Liberals have leavened Canadian culture. That is the political strength of socialism--it wrecks your country, but its wonderful for the party. So many people are dependent on the government for their daily bread, so to speak, that even the merest superficial change (the conservatives are somewhat left of Ted Kennedy...) throws them into a panic. If this is the best that the Conservatives can do with literally everything in their favor, this is going to prove to be merely an interregnum between Liberal governments.

I just check the Globe and Mail live results. I'll avoid the inside baseball stuff--most readers don't know who the players are, so this will be box scores only.

I talked to an associate tonight who was on his way to vote--he usually votes Liberal, but voted for the Green Party tonight, largely because he didn't know what else to do. I think this has been rather typical--votes against the Liberals and only incidentally for other parties.

The Communists, I mean New Democrats (NDP) have done extremely well, increasing their seats by a third over the last election cycle. Those undoubtedly came at Liberal expense as the Conservative drew away the moderates and the NDP siphoned off the far left. Still, the Liberals have done much better than early projections lead us to believe. Numbers like 75 seats were being bantered around just this weekend, but they will hold on to slightly over 100.

Had they captured just a few more seats, they might have had a chance at yet another minority government.

The Conservatives will have an interesting propostion in forming a government. The NDP is socialist while the Bloc is nominally a separatist party. I predict they'll go with the Bloc as the less objectionable partner.

Not surprisingly, at least to me, nothing has fundamentally changed in the Canadian dynamic. The Liberals got only 8 seats in the four western provinces, defining the regional character of Canadian politics with the west v. Ontario v. Quebec.

Unless Stephen Harper is more clever than he's demonstrated in the past, we can expect another election within 24 months and more musical chairs.

The Captain is liveblogging the affair. Good luck with that.

Mark Steyn is also liveblogging the election. Sucker for punishment, eh?

Angry in the Great White North Winners and Losers--reflects my own views. Throws me some candy by letting me know that gay kleptomaniac Sven Robinson lost.

Martin resigns, Steyn Comments:

Given the campaign, that was a reasonably graceful Martin concession speech. But the dismal ugly desperation of the last couple of months will go down as his real swan song. This is a man who set out to reach the top of the greasy pole at all odds, only to find he had no idea of what he wanted to do when he got there. And the price of winning the big prize was a fractured party whose lean mean efficiency dissipated day by day. Ruthlessness is all very well but inept ruthlessness has little to commend it.

This guy could be next

The Wurdick Blog brings us Harper's victory speech and its excellent and instructive

Throughout this campaign, we were crystal clear about where we will lead.

Clearly Harper intends to govern as if he as a mandate, and the reason he gives above gives him some reason to do so, however a minority government is always constrain in pursuing its goals.

First and foremost, we will clean up Ottawa by proposing and passing the Federal Accountability Act. We will do this because shuffling the deck in Ottawa is not enough. We need to change the system. And we will change the system to strengthen our institutions and make them more accountable to you, the Canadian taxpayers. We will reduce your tax burden, starting by cutting the GST from seven to six percent immediately and to five percent over our mandate. We will reform our justice system to make it stronger and to ensure that we turn back the growing plague of guns, gangs, and drugs in our cities and communities. We will offer parents choice and results in child care. And we will work with our provinces to give Canadians the health care they’ve paid for by developing a patient wait times guarantee.

This is equivilent to "guns AND butter". I have my doubts that Harper can both lower taxes (that would be great) and buck up Canada's extensive net of social programs.

Perhaps most importantly, we will begin the task of re-building federalism in the province of Quebec. I am especially proud of the fact that both Anglophones and Francophones worked together to bring about real change in Quebec. Our government will build a new and dynamic voice for federalism in Quebec.

This is either an equivocation or just total B.S. Federalism in its clinical sense, is what they already have--a weak federal government and strong provincial government in Quebec. Of course most people understand federalism to be the opposition of its definition--strong central government, weak regional governments. If Canadians are expecting a U.S. style of "federal" government, Harper is in no position to provide it, much less promise it.

To the people of the West, let me say one thing and let me be clear: the West is now in. Canada will work for all of us. To people in Atlantic Canada – the very different provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, and New Brunswick and Nova Scotia We know that made-in-Ottawa solutions are not the answer. We will work to give you more control over your resources because I know that for my ancestral home the best is yet to come. To the people of the North – including the Yukon, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories – I say we see your potential and we look forward to helping you achieve your dreams.

While always charting a path in the best interests of Canada, we will seek to work cooperatively with our friends and allies, and constructively with all nations of the world. Tonight, although Canadians have voted for change, they have not given any one party a majority in the House of Commons. They have asked us to cooperate, to work together, and to get on with tackling the real issues that matter to ordinary working people and their families. I look forward to working with all of the parties and all members of parliament to build consensus and move Canada forward...

Code for we are planning to mitigate the hostile environment the Liberals created vis-a-vis the Americans....

Google joins Microsoft, Yahoo and others in agreeing to omit web content the Chinese government finds objectionable.

Google officials characterized the censorship concessions in China as an excruciating decision for a company that adopted "don't be evil" as a motto. But management believes it's a worthwhile sacrifice.

"We firmly believe, with our culture of innovation, Google can make meaningful and positive contributions to the already impressive pace of development in China," said Andrew McLaughlin, Google's senior policy counsel.

I imagine Google is going to get enormous flack for this--but not from me.

The reality is that the U.S. also imposes restrictions on Google and other public information systems in a number of ways. One that comes to mind is bomb-making instructions. Sen. Feinstein amendment to a 1997 Defense appropriations bill made it a crime to distribute bomb-making instructions in the U.S. or incur a fine of $250,000.00 and a prison sentence of up to 20 years.

Now, it worth noting that the Feinstein amendment passed 94-0. Now a real hard-core libertarian might argue that this is just evil, but to most Americans the Feinstein amendments seems a sensible action and that being the case, we have to consider that some censorship is acceptable.

The guiding principle here is that censorship serves the interests of the general public--our right to know is outweighed by the public's interest in such information being constrained, which brings me to my conclusion.

The American view of the public interest isn't a universal ethic. Notably we think free speech is a great idea--very few other countries take the same view. The fact is that Americans have a much greater tolerance for persistent public conflict than any country I've ever spent any time in (Canada, western Europe) and those were all soi-disant western-style democracies. In fact most other democracies are characterized by an abiding desire for order.

I'm not sure it is useful in applying an American ethic to a Canadian, Chinese or Dutch situation. The are entitled to determine their own "national interest". China is in tumult at the moment. The economic prosperity is creating both opportunities and problems and any government would have a devil of a time trying to keep the lid on. Relative to the Russians, the Chinese have managed their transformation from a moribund directed economy quite well. They are managing the pace of change and it seems a little ridiculous for Americans to insist on acceleration when they aren't sitting in the wagon.

While "Do No Evil" is a wonderfully idealistic motto, its still rather silly for a commercial enterprise. Google is a public company with shareholders who want one thing from their investment--a return. That is really the sole ethic that Google management should be guided by and yet for all its singularity, its very broad. Lots and lots of things affect a return on investment, including inane issues like whether or not to allow Salvation Army bell-ringers out in front of the store. They can either be in the Chinese market and profit by it, or they can sit on the sidelines eating an empty plate of ideals. Ultimately, its always a mistake to impose private morals into the public sphere.--didn't we learn that lesson during the Renaissance?

The Tension joins me in pragmatist land...

T-Salon notes that Google promises to inform Chinese users when content is censored

The Zero Point disagrees

California Conservative, Michelle Malkin, The Stones Cry Out
Kaiser Snuggle, Vodkapundit

Clive Davis spotlights some unexpected candid and fair comments from the BBC's Washington reporter Justin Webb. Webb, who during a round-table discussion, took exception to the usual Bush-America-bashing, weathered a storm of criticism in its aftermath.

One comment in particular was quite remarkable for its insight into anti-American media bias:

JW. I don't think there's a double-standard at a conscious level. I don't think the BBC has a double standard. I've never been told what to say one way or the other

RB. But you're saying there's a greater readiness to criticize America than there is to criticize China, or perhaps Saudi Arabia or other countries in the Middle East?

JW. And the reason is, I think, that it's easier, that we have a problem reporting open societies, particularly in a time of great international turmoil and war. It's just easier to criticize, it's easier to get information, it's easier to find people within the society who are immensely critical of it. Yet when you think of China, when you think of the Taliban...when you think of the situation in Iran it's just more difficult to get a handle on what's going on in those places. And I think there is a tendency, which we always have to guard against, of being tougher on democratic societies simply because it's easier.

Al Gore is here in Utah, or at least was briefly. I think I saw him shambling around Park City mumbling to himself and glaring at people occasionly. Al is here to the screening of a movie about him doing a slide show called "An Inconvenient Truth."

Now for some inconvient truths.

The Washington Post reports that the film got a standing 'O'

Has ever a little indie film faced a greater hurdle? Imagine this sales pitch: Babe, it's a movie about global warming. Starring Al Gore. Doing a slide show.

With charts.

About "soil evaporation."

Improbable? Perhaps. So it's all the more amazing that "An Inconvenient Truth" had its world premiere at the Sundance Film Festival on Tuesday night before an enthusiastic audience that gave the former vice president and his movie a big standing O.

But wait, Entertainment Weekly sheds a little more light on this standing 'O' business.

...and bringing former Vice President Al Gore to Sundance to warn about global warming drew standing-room-only crowds to "An Inconvenient Truth."

You mean people were already standing? Well yes, there is no Graumann's Chinese theater in Park City. Fifty to a hundred people will pack into the Egyptian or one of the other micro-venues to watch a film. Its the parties that are huge and the backroom deals happening all over the city.

It turns out that Al's standing 'O' was nothing more than polite applause by an extremely friendly audience who were already standing up!

While the media would love to have you believe that conservative Utahns saw the movie and a bright light, such wasn't the case.

As if to underscore how much credence his film deserves, Al managed to stick his Mukluk in his mouth in the few seconds he had microphones stuck in his face.

"The election in Canada was partly about the tar sands projects in Alberta," Gore said Wednesday while attending the Sundance Film Festival in Utah.

"And the financial interests behind the tar sands project poured a lot of money and support behind an ultra-conservative leader in order to win the election . . . and to protect their interests.".

Its always such a wonderful gift when a Crat big-wig says something idiotic about a foreign country. Al Gore appears to be Pat Robertson with a difference religion.

Darcie Park, spokeswoman for oilsands giant Suncor Energy, said she's taken aback by Gore's remarks and hopes they don't resonate with Canadians.

"Our company just doesn't do business that way. We're really puzzled about where these comments came from," she said.

"Canadians understand how elections work in Canada and understand there are these very tight restrictions around what individuals and companies can contribute to individual parties or campaigns."

The federal Elections Act limits how much money individuals, corporations and unions can donate to political parties. Individuals are allowed to give as much as $5,000 a year, while companies and unions are capped at $1,000 a year.

In their election platform, the Conservatives promised to further limit individual donations to a maximum of $1,000 and ban all donations from corporations, unions and organizations.

Parties and candidates are required to make public any contributions exceeding $200.

While John Bennett, senior policy adviser for Sierra Club of Canada, isn't certain of how much oil companies and their executives donate to the Conservatives, he's noticed their language on Kyoto is similar.

Having spend an enormous amount of time in Canada, I never encountered any of the reflexive Crat hostility towards energy companies that we see here so relentlessly, in fact the Liberals were the ones who engineered generous exceptions for the Tar Sands projects when they signed onto Kyoto. There was simply no motivation by Suncor, Syncrude and other companies up there to work for a change in government since they were getting everything they needed from the Liberals.

And why not? The tar sands have been a huge boost for the Canadian economy, increasing trade, improving the standing of the previously anemic Canadian dollar and generating that all important tax revenue for all those social programs Canadians love so much.

He should also consider that Canadian elections last a few weeks, not several years. There is simply no time nor venues to spend multi-millions in campaigning. By comparison, there is no campaigning during Canadian elections--by the time you call the election, the result is in the bag. The polls moved very little from beginning to end and this is par for the course in the Great White North.

OK, Al is a jackass, but he's a jackass with a plan. I am pretty sure he didn't expect any Canadians to be listening since all he could see was far-left maniacs like Eric Alterman, Hollywood morons and their hangers-on. The film, the comments and Al's presence was a pitch for political and financial support. This was his marketing plan--how he was going to convince the protelariat to support him and the Democrats.

So my friends in Calgary--do what we do--ignore Al Gore.

Ace of Spades

The Conservative Zone

Holycoast: The answer is "up your, eh?"

Captain's Quarters

Weapons of Mass Destruction: Asshat Alert

Vodkapundit

Anatole Kaletsky writes in the Times Online (London Times):

For the past five years, America has been led by a president who is clearly not up to the job — a man who is not just inarticulate, but lacking in judgment, intelligence, integrity, charisma or staying power. Yet America as a nation seems to be stronger, more prosperous and self-confident than ever.

Bear in mind that the author is writing for a British audience, who like the French, harbor delusions of their superiority to us stupid Yanks. Yet it is precisely this conceit that the author uses so brilliantly to highlight some interesting things about this country and some dismal failings on the part of who my brother-in-law likes to call "the Euroweenies"

Why does America’s prosperity and self-confidence seem to bear so little relationship to the competence of its government? The obvious answer is that America, founded on a libertarian theory of minimal government, has always had low expectations of politicians. In America, it is not just business that thrives independently of government, perhaps even in spite of government. The same is also true of other areas of excellence which in Britain are considered quintessentially in the public domain — higher education, leading-edge science, culture and academic research. Because Americans expect so little of their government, they are rarely disappointed. They do not slump into German-style angst when their governments fail to find solutions to the nation’s problems.

This anarchic spirit was summed up by Ronald Reagan: “The ten most dangerous words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help you’.” In Europe, by contrast, the public expect government to solve all problems, and the media try to hold politicians accountable for everything. The result is a culture of dependency that extends far beyond the welfare state, to business and to the worlds of education, medicine, arts and science.

The American approach has a powerful advantage rooted in human nature: private sector activity is powered by economic incentives, while the State must operate by rules and sanctions. Since incentives, as Adam Smith observed, are much more likely to stimulate creativity and effort than sanctions, private enterprise tends to achieve ambitious objectives, while government often fails.

Ignore the insults directed at George (he's tough, he can talke it) and read the whole thing.

Right House

Memory and Desire

Blowin' In The Wind

This isn't Writing, It's Typing

Willi's Blog

Wow. How often do I get to say that? Check it out!

Paul Wolfowitz is running the World Bank, and running corruption out

Speeches are one thing, action quite another. The Wolfensohn bank developed state-of-the-art corruption indexes, which are now used by the U.S. government to identify which countries deserve extra foreign assistance; it created a department to investigate malfeasance in bank projects. But the anti-corruption unit was understaffed and ineffectual, and the bank did not build on Wolfensohn's cancer talk by cutting off corrupt borrowers consistently. Excuses were found. Lending frequently continued.

In a series of tough decisions, some of which have been widely reported and some of which have not, Wolfowitz has challenged this culture.

The bank has held up $800 million in lending to Indian health projects. This is a vast sum, and India is one of the bank's most formidable clients: It borrows a lot, has a good economic record and tells development organizations to get lost if they behave condescendingly. But Indian politicians were said to have their hands on the health funds, so Wolfowitz blocked the loans anyway..

Some may be surprised at this, after all, the media did their best to do a Cheney on Wolfowitz, but he is simply being consistent with a hard-headed idealism that says that virtues that promote the public interest--like fighting corruption or tyrants, are the road to salvation for the perennial backwaters of this world.

The TKS blog at NRO has a piece on ugly Americans, you know--American tourists with appalling behavior when overseas.

I'm not sure I can defend Geraughty's point of view because I've seen plenty of ugly Americans in my travels, also ugly Germans, Dutch, French, and for some reason--lots and lots of ugly Brits.

I think part of the reason Americans get button-holed with this claim is simply economic. You have to be of a certain socio-economic class in Europe to travel, which generally coincides with a good education, a second or third language, and some familiarity with foreign cultures. Americans of course have a more diverse middle-class, often encompassing tradesmen, landscapers and other groups not commonly afforded the luxuries reserved for the elites in other countries.

On the other hand, ugly is in the eye of the beholder. Once when accompanying a French client on a U.S. tour of some food processing facilities (in another life), he was astonished at a loud and enthusiastic greeting between what were clearly old friends greeting each other after a long absence. Not very French, but was it ugly? On the other hand, the apparent cold formality of the thousands of Europeans who visit Utah's national parks every summer could be viewed as "ugly" by locals used to smiling and greeting strangers.

Let's face it--Americans are just friendly folk generally (outside of the Northeast...). Its hard to change the habits of a life-time for a little trip overseas. On the other hand, a couple of years ago I caught myself making an automatic culture adjustment without a second thought. While in Phoenix, I got on a hotel elevator with another passenger and just started chatting before I realized the guy was German. When he pleaded poor English, I switched to German and wished him a nice visit and then got off at my floor. As it happened, I fly to Canada the next day and found myself on another elevator with another passenger. I did not say a word, did not make eye contact, and in every way acted like a proper Canadian.

That's just long practice, but it illustrates the point that what makes one "ugly" can be so obscure, you'd never notice how offensive you were being unless you had a culture guide along. When I go overseas to a culture I am unfamiliar with, I will often find someone to confide my cluelessness to and ask that they point out "ugly" behaviors immediately. Usually I'm aware enough to ask about proper comportment before hand.

In my experience, you can know you're being ugly when you get treated badly--its not them, its you. The best thing to do in these cases is apologize and ask about the nature of the transgression. If you lack the language skills, find someone who speaks english and get them to explain it to you. If possible, go back to the offended party and make amends. The bottom line is MAKE AN EFFORT. Whether its to observe the proper comportment or speak the language, the effort is usually very much appreciated and covers a multitude of sins.

The better you understand a culture and the better you speak the language, the better you will be treated in general. Many years ago, I opened the French market for a company I was working for and had very good success, far better than they had ever had before. The difference was that my precedessors relied on the fact that their opposites in France spoke English and so the implication was that an adjustment had to be made by their hosts. I spoke fluent French, although I lacked the professional vocabulary for the job, but it was clear that I, and by extension my company, was adjusting to my hosts rather than the other way around. It was a breeze getting appointments because everyone wanted to speak to the French-speaking American guy.

At the end of the day, ugliness isn't the perserve of any one particular nationality--you can meet lovely Brits and insufferable Canadians, noxious Dutch and charming Germans. It all depends on how much effort you make and consequently how much respect you display.

Sorry Mick - it seems the old koot is still alive.

Fidel Castro, Cuba's leader since 1959, joked on Wednesday that he had no plans to be in power when he is 100 years old.

Castro, who will be 80 on August 13, made fun of his long-time ideological nemesis the United States in a speech in which he said more Cubans are reaching 100 thanks to the social services of his Communist government.

"But, our little neighbors to the north should not fear, I am not planning to be in office at that age," the left-wing firebrand said.

Apparently not even God is eager for Castro's company?

The Hugo and Mahmoud comedy special yesterday.

What was almost just as funny were the various UN apologists on cable news trying desperately to find some reason the UN should still be considered a viable entity. Believe it or not, first on the list was the UN force in south Lebanon.

As a kid I loved reading comic books. I didn't collect a lot since funds were limited, but I had some generous friends. I enjoyed Batman, Spiderman, and Sgt. Rock. Apparently Batman and Spiderman are making a comeback due to the recent blockbuster movies. Comics have long been a staple in Japan, but now Richard Branson’s Virgin group is entering into new territory:

A sexy villain swoops out of the night sky, her hands morphing into terrifying swords. She intends to kill a girl named Tara, who is driving home from a nightclub. But suddenly a secret society of caped men whisks Tara away -- aboard an elephant.

Soon Tara will learn the startling truth: It's her destiny to become a Hindu goddess.

It's a key scene in "Devi," a new comic book that's part of an ambitious effort by a unit of Richard Branson's Virgin Group Ltd. to develop story lines based on Indian religion and mythology. Others take inspiration from the Sanskrit epic poem Ramayana and traditional legends such as one involving snakes that can take human form.

The company, Virgin Comics LLC, has also teamed to develop other story lines with a broad range of individuals, including John Woo, director of "Mission: Impossible 2," and Guy Ritchie, the film director. In November actor Nicolas Cage agreed to star in a movie based on one of the new comics, "The Sadhu" -- which describes the adventures of a British man who discovers he was a sadhu (Hindu holy man) in a previous life. Deepak Chopra, the author of self-help books, will write the screenplay.

India has been a source for low cost technical support for American industries; for example the article notes how India is increasingly providing computer animation for movies, such as Narnia. As Branson taps into the creative side of the sub-continent, expect to see India expand from technology support roles to becoming outright leaders in technological innovation.

Blair's abdication is nigh. Gordon Brown has a couple of years till a general election. The 'Conservative' leader, David Cameron, is universally recognized is an opportunist, unprincipled, inexperienced, socially liberal scumbag of the most transparent sort, BUT he's had much better poll numbers than his predecessors and is given an easy ride by large elements of the MSM, especially the BBC which played a big part in getting him elected leader against the favourite, the socially somewhat conservative, David Davis. Cameron is openly ridiculed and despised in some influential quarters, so he may not win the general election despite a pervasive feeling of 'throw the bums out and give us some new bums.'

If Labour loses the next election, but more importantly the election after that, then the last 10 years will seem like a golden age to the hordes of feather-bedded pols and tax-funded nosy parkers who infest Great Britain. Then the issues of Iraq and friendliness with the Toxic Texan will have receded and Tony Blair will be remembered as the Undefeated Champion of 3 General Elections, by far the most successful leader Labour has ever had. He will still be youngish, vigourous and his reputation will have been resuscitated. He won elections and he had principles, quite Thatcheresque.

I therefore forecast that Blair will be drafted back to power within 7 years.

Democrats keep promising to restore respect for America in the world. No one seems to be asking if that "respect" is worth anything.

Jackson Diehl is:

Genocide in Sudan, child slavery and religious persecution in China, mass repression in Zimbabwe and Burma, state-sponsored murder in Syria and Russia -- and, for that matter, suicide bombings by Arab terrorist movements -- will not receive systematic attention from the world body charged with monitoring human rights. That is reserved only for Israel, a democratic country that has been guilty of human rights violations but also has been under sustained assault from terrorists and governments openly committed to its extinction.

Read it and ponder.

Ed Morrissey raises some concern about Putin’s Russia reviving their cold war practice of probing our defenses:

The Russian government continues its strange game of imperial ambitions, this time bragging about using Soviet-era bombers to overfly American-patrolled airspace. Moscow says it's reviving a grand tradition of Russian audacity by eyeballing American pilots. Americans say that Moscow is reviving a grand tradition of Russian baloney:

I’ll amen the baloney part.

We are a far cry from the Cold War. In those days confrontations were ready trip wires to turn the cold war hot. I was a teen at Clark Air Base, in the Philippines when Victor Belenko defected in his Soviet Mig-25 to a northern island in Japan. The whole base and the rest of the Pacific went on high alert until Belenko’s intentions were known. He risked being shot down by both sides. We lost nearly a hundred airmen during “cold” war confrontations directly with the Soviet Union. Soviet warships routinely dragged anchors to cut U.S. underwater communications cables, their warplanes made mock attacks against our destroyers in international waters, and the Soviets would alter aircraft navigation signals to lure our planes off course and over their territory to be shot down.