(NRO) Conrad Black: Ukraine will prevail...sort of

Here is the bleakly optimistic (excuse the non sequitur) upshot on Ukraine from Conrad Black over at the conservative NRO [emphasis mine]:

Ukraine will be independent, possibly after a partition to save Russia’s ill-favored face, possibly even after repulsing a general Russian assault, and it will join the West. German influence will prevail over Russian in Eastern Europe, and the West will ultimately show Russia the way to being a great nationality not only in cultural, folkloric, and geographic terms, but as a civil society. This is a contest we cannot lose, not because our leaders seem to have much idea how to deal with it, unlike some of their recent forebears, but because they have every moral and material advantage over Russia, and if their incompetence deprives Ukraine of a swift resolution of this conflict, it will only be because that incompetence will induce Putin into adventurism Russia cannot support, a minor updated reprise of the failed occupation of Eastern Europe after World War II and the insane foray into the unremitting primitiveness of Afghanistan. Putin’s ego and braggadocio will, if necessary, insure us against the maladroitness of most of the West’s current statesmen. We could do worse, though some days it seems otherwise.

For my part, I aver that the West cannot accept any partition of Ukraine.  Partition = defeat!

Ukraine Will Prevail 

By Conrad Black

March 5, 2014 | National Review

URL: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/372496/ukraine-will-prevail-conrad-black

Lowry: No longer a referendum on Obama

So here's the editor of the conservative National Review acknowledging what most people (but not all) have known for a while now: Romney's going to have to run as himself, not as Not Obama.  Here's how Rich Lowry put it:

Mitt Romney has to win a choice election.  If you had to pinpoint the exact moment when Romney’s strategy to make the election largely a referendum on President Barack Obama collapsed, about 10:56 p.m. EST on Wednesday, Sept. 5 would be as good a guess as any. That’s when, roughly 20 minutes into his sprawling oration at the Democratic convention in Charlotte, N.C., former President Bill Clinton said that no president — not even the 42nd — could have done a better job fixing the economy than Obama, given the problems the incumbent inherited.

[...]  There’s been nothing to match it for the Republicans, which is one reason that Romney is now tied with Obama on the economy in many recent polls. Election Day is nearly six weeks away and there’s still a sense that the Romney campaign has not yet — although it is moving this way — fully begun to make its case on substance.

The problem is that Romney doesn't have much substance.  His ideas conspicuously lack specifics so as to avoid scrutiny or criticism.  (Seriously, go to the Issues section of his campaign website, if you don't believe me.)  Nevertheless, Lowry thinks Romney's got reams of data in his CEO's brain that he hasn't shared with us yet: 

[N]o miraculous intervention from the outside is going to save Romney. It all comes down to him. Romney is not a natural ideologue, nor — obviously — a natural backslapper. But he is a data-obsessed salesman. He should be pitching his program with all the zeal and airtight attention to detail of a presentation for a Bain Capital business deal.

Oh my, I truly hope Romney takes Lowry's advice.  I'll be looking forward to this: finally, a debate on ideas.  I'm really, really curious to learn how Romney plans to return $15.5 trillion in lost wealth, get back 8.8 million lost jobs, and pull 24 percent of all U.S. homeowners out from $690 billion in underwater mortgages -- all a result of Dubya's Great Recession.  This is not to mention how Romney plans to deflate the $1 trillion student loan bubble that is just waiting to pop and ruin 22 million young Americans' futures... assuming a) Romney knows about it, and b) he gives a care.  And then there are those pesky 50 million Americans without health insurance who Romney thinks already do have medical care... in emergency rooms.  

Yeah, I want to see numbers, charts, graphs... everything you'd expect from a "data-obsessed salesman."  Let's see what an impressive, experienced "pitchman" Romney really is.  

End of the referendum

By Rich Lowry

September 26, 2012 | Politico

URL: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81723.html

Lowry: Romney's argument 'flawed & dangerous'

You won't hear (see) me say this often, so get ready: arch-conservative Rich Lowry, the editor of National Review, is right.  He's correct.  Take his conclusion:

This tendency [to demand that poor people pay federal income tax] represents a backdoor return to country-club Republicanism, with the approval of part of the Republican base. Fear of the creation of a class of “takers” can slide into disdain for people who are too poor — or have too many kids or are too old — to pay their damn taxes. For a whiff of how politically unattractive this point of view can be, just look at the Romney fundraising video.

Wow.  He actually gets it this time.  No further comment necessary.

Romney’s 47 Percent Blunder 

His tax argument is flawed and dangerous.

By Rich Lowry

September 21, 2012 | National Review

URL: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/327961/romney-s-47-percent-blunder-rich-lowry

Goldberg: The lazy uninformed elect our leaders

This op-ed below, from a conservative Republican, is one of the most elitist (and ageist) articles I've read in some time. I mean, Republicans are supposed to be the defenders of Joe Sixpack, Joe the Plumber and "flyover country," while liberals are supposed to be snobby coastal elitists. Go figure. Nothing like an election to bring out a man's -- or a party's -- true colors.

Without a doubt there are many dumb Americans, on the left and the right. (And when you think about it, it's not exactly as if our two-party system encourages much creative thought or dissent; it's much more about the party faithful coming up with fancy new ways to market two very old and worn-out products.) Yet when it comes to politics, even smart people can be abysmally stupid. By "smart," I mean educated people who have experience, skills and knowledge that I will never have. A lot of smart Americans continue to believe that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, for example. Whereas most "dumb" (read: under-educated) blacks never bought into the rationale for invading Iraq, and are overwhelmingly against the war to this day. Turns out they are politically much savvier than the rest of America. Again, go figure.

So, accepting the above, and realizing that the right to vote is the most important right we've got, then by gum I want every eligible "idiot" in America to vote, and let the chips fall where they may. (The root of "idiot," by the way, means somebody who is rough, crude, or unrefined.) After all, it's their (your?) country too. And indeed, it might just be the idiots who save us from the smarty-pants who come up with brilliant, expensive ideas like invading and occupying Middle Eastern countries without provocation, and giving $700 billion bailouts to greedy coastal elitist bastards who knew better.

Also, consider this: common law requires convening, by force, a jury of your peers (read: a group of idiots) who are granted the legal power to take away your money, your freedom, even your life. We hail that principle as one of the great achievements of democracy and rule of law. Yet when it comes to our elections, our system makes it downright inconvenient for common idiots to cast a ballot. In fact, hundreds of thousands of registered voters can be deleted from the rolls within 90 days of the election, a clear violation of federal law, and our MSM and political elites say nothing. But in which case is the common man's vote more consequential, the 1 out of 12 life-or-death vote in a jury, or the 1 out of 100,000,000 vote in a national election where the popular vote doesn't even elect the president? Then why such outsized fear of "one man, one vote" in one little election? In fact, this is a very old and very elitist fear: our uber-"smart" Founding Fathers constantly fretted about the deplorable possibility of "mobocracy," hence they restricted the right to vote to white land-owning men, and established the Electoral College.

Finally, Jonah Goldberg's benefactor, National Review, spent a heck of a lot more time examining Obama's pastor and past associates than it did his policy proposals. Why? Because conservative elites correctly figured it better served their purposes to selectively inform their party faithful, in order to stir up their worst fears and passions with all kinds of half-truths, rumors, and fabrications. Media outlets like NRO, Human Events, Townhall, FOXNews, and right-wing talk radio did a horrible job of informing the electorate. (To put it more accurately, they did a great job of dis-informing them.) Over the past 21 months, rarely could they be bothered to talk about anything except Rev. Wright, Randy Ayers, Tony Rezko, Obama's "Marxist" mother, his "Muslim" grade school, his "terrorist" college roommates, his "missing" birth certificate, and the like. This pharisaic elitist Jonah Goldberg should remove the beam from his own MSM eye first.

Election Questions No One Asks

By Jonah Goldberg

November 6, 2008 | USA Today

No doubt everyone is relieved to have the election behind us, even if some of us are less than ecstatic about its result. The president-elect and Democrats in Congress very much want to move forward, talk about the future and get busy on their agenda. After all, the oceans aren't going to stop rising on their own.

Of course, how we move "forward" (quotation marks are necessary because one man's forward is another man's backward) depends very much on how we view the larger meaning of the election. Was this a vote for radical leftwingery or a vote for moderation? Is the electorate pro-liberal or merely anti-Republican? What did voters have in mind? What do they expect?

The nice thing about such questions is that you actually get real debate about them, and we'll be hearing lots of that in the weeks and months ahead. But there are other questions no one ever asks, in part because our political discourse is choked with stupefying clichés and gassy assumptions about what matters and what doesn't.

So while the election is still fresh in our minds, let us look at some of the goofy assumptions and buzzwords that defined so much of the coverage discussion this year.

Ever since the primaries, Democrats have been promising to be "agents of change" (which kind of sounds like a brand of James Bond villain; watch out -- he's an agent of C*H*A*N*G*E). It's a weird quirk of our television-soaked culture that we think change is a good in and of itself. The phrase "change the channel" is a ubiquitous explanation for voters' desire to be done with President Bush. Fair enough, but change has no moral content. Winning the lottery is change, and so is catching a ball peen hammer to the bridge of your nose. The desire for change for change's sake is the stuff of children and attention-deficit disorder.

Speaking of children, the national obsession with the "youth vote" is one of the great embarrassments of deliberative democracy. Why is the participation of youth so vital? According to "youth activists" themselves, it's because they bring so much "passion" to politics. Passion, again, is not necessarily a good thing. Mobs and small children are passionate. There was a time when voting was supposed to be a matter for sober, mature reflection. Now it's more like a fashion statement. "In America," remarked Oscar Wilde long ago, "the young are always ready to give those who are older than themselves the full benefits of their inexperience." The only difference now is they get to vote.

In fact, everyone gets to vote, or at least that's the hope of vote-voluptuaries. The country is experimenting with ever-more-novel ways to make it easier for people to join "the process," which makes democracy sound like a digestive phenomenon. Gone entirely is the tradition of Election Day. Now it's Election Week or even Election Month in some states. Voting by mail, online voting, even voting by phone are increasingly in vogue, all because it's assumed that we desperately need input from voters who couldn't be bothered to get off the couch for a normal Election Day but can be coaxed to vote if it doesn't interfere too much with their video game schedule. In Arizona, there was an aggressive movement to make voting into a lottery, where casting a ballot could also lead to a big payday. The logic seemed to be that having the same folks who hang out at the local liquor store or keno parlor move their action to the polling station would enrich our democracy.

Of course, helping the infirm, the handicapped or soldiers overseas cast ballots makes sense. But do we really think the outcomes will be improved if we triple the turnout of the lazy and uninformed?

Apparently, the answer is yes, particularly judging by the virtual deification of "undecided" voters this year. I understand why campaigns care so much about the undecided voter in the last days of the election: They're kingmakers of a sort. But the press lionizes these people as geniuses and, judging from some of the focus groups we've been subjected to, these proudly indecisive and lazy voters actually believe all their good press.

After each debate, some network would convene a focus group of undecided voters who then preened over their lofty status. Pollster Frank Luntz, CNN's Soledad O'Brien or some other enabler would gush over how fascinating it was to talk to "real people." Indeed, so exotic are these creatures, most of the journalists actually observed them from the other side of a two-way mirror, like visitors to the "Earthling Exhibit" on some alien planet in that old episode of "The Twilight Zone." During the debates, the creatures were monitored every second, their instant reactions to the candidates' every vowel and burp were charted, often in real time, for the rest of us to decipher and applaud. Invariably, they shook their heads, more in sadness than anger, and complained they didn't get enough "specifics," as if presidential debates are the proper source of basic campaign information.

And that proves the point. These people are undecided because they don't do their homework. CNN profiled an undecided voter from Nebraska the day before the election who said he is "definitely pro-life" and a single-issue voter on abortion. But, according to CNN, he was still trying to figure out which candidate was pro-life. Um, really? Don't strain yourself trying to figure that one out.

Taibbi's smackdown on cause of financial meltdown

Taibbi throws this National Review pseudo-intellect to the mat in this debate on what really caused the financial crisis.  Taibbi is my hero of the week for this.  Read this and weep, all you Fannie haters!

 

Matt Taibbi and Byron York Butt Heads Over Whether McCain Deserves Blame for the Wall Street Meltdown

October 14, 2008  |  New York Magazine

 

Every day (or close to it) until November 4, a series of writers and thinkers will discuss the election over instant messenger for nymag.com. Today, Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi and National Review's Byron York argue over the headwinds facing McCain, what Phil Gramm had to do with the financial crisis, and the importance of credit default swaps.

 

M.T.: So how are you feeling about McCain's chances today?

 

B.Y.: I've just finished an article for National Review — the actual magazine — about the headwinds McCain faces. I was going to look at three, and then I started to list them. I stopped at ten. New Gallup numbers out today show that George W. Bush's job approval rating remains at 25 percent, while his disapproval rating has ticked up to 71 percent. How hard is it to succeed a two-term president of your own party who is at 25-71? We don't know because it's never been done.

 

M.T.: Yeah, that's a damned shame, too. I feel really badly for the guy. I suppose you think the media coverage is also a headwind?

 

B.Y.: Actually, I did not list media coverage among the headwinds. I listed the succeed-a-two-term-president problem, the right-track/wrong-track problem, the Republican-Democrat-enthusiasm gap problem, the Republican-Democrat-I.D.-gap problem, the financial meltdown, Iraq, Republican gloom on Capitol Hill, Obama's fund-raising advantage, and McCain's historical problems with the GOP base.

 

M.T.: But all of those "headwinds," or almost all of them, are the direct result of McCain having supported policies that are now unpopular. There is absolute justice in his facing a "headwind" from the financial meltdown, from the unpopularity of the Iraq war, and so on. How is that a "headwind"? That's just self-created unpopularity.

 

I mean, his onetime campaign co-chair and top economic adviser, Phil Gramm, basically created the credit-default-swap market back in 2000. Why shouldn't he get hammered on the financial crisis?

 

B.Y.: Did I suggest that headwinds are unfair? But on the financial meltdown in particular, if you're suggesting that that is a Republican creation, or even more specifically a McCain creation, I think you're on pretty shaky ground.

 

M.T.: You don't think the unregulated CDS market was a major factor in the current crisis? Were you watching when AIG almost went under? Were you watching the Lehman collapse?

 

B.Y.: I think that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were also major factors. And I believe that many of the problems in the mortgage area can be attributed to the confluence of Democratic and Republican priorities: the Democrats' desire to give mortgages to people, particularly minorities, who could not afford them, and the Republicans' desire to achieve an "ownership society," in part by giving mortgages to people who could not afford them. Again, I believe that if you are suggesting that the financial crisis is a Republican creation, or even more specifically a McCain creation, I think you're on pretty shaky ground.

 

M.T.: Oh, come on. Tell me you're not ashamed to put this gigantic international financial Krakatoa at the feet of a bunch of poor black people who missed their mortgage payments. The CDS market, this market for credit default swaps that was created in 2000 by Phil Gramm's Commodities Future Modernization Act, this is now a $62 trillion market, up from $900 billion in 2000. That's like five times the size of the holdings in the NYSE. And it's all speculation by Wall Street traders. It's a classic bubble/Ponzi scheme. The effort of people like you to pin this whole thing on minorities, when in fact this whole thing has been caused by greedy traders dealing in unregulated markets, is despicable. 

[Thank God Taibbi said in plain English what so many of you have smugly accepted as the truth: That black people who couldn't pay their mortgages destroyed the entire U.S. financial system.  That's what many of you have been trying to tell me.  Some have even claimed Wall Street was a "victim!"  But pinning this on blacks doesn't pass the smell test, or the brain test. I can almost understand why people like Al Sharpton are so paranoid, because at the first opportunity, blacks get blamed for everything that goes wrong in America.  - J]

B.Y.: I was struck by the recent Senate testimony of James Lockhart, who is head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, about the sheer recklessness of Fannie in recent years. Despite "repeated warnings about credit risk," Lockhart testified, Fannie became more reckless in 2006 and 2007 than they had been in the scandal-ridden tenure of Franklin Raines (who departed in 2004). In 2005, Lockhart said, 14 percent of Fannie's new business was in risky loans. In the first half of 2007, it was 33 percent. So something terribly wrong was going on there, and it became a significant part of the present problem.

 

M.T.: What a surprise that you mention Franklin Raines. Do you even know how a CDS works? Can you explain your conception of how these derivatives work? Because I get the feeling you don't understand. Or do you actually think that it was a few tiny homeowner defaults that sank gigantic companies like AIG and Lehman and Bear Stearns? Explain to me how these default swaps work, I'm interested to hear.

 

Because what we're talking about here is the difference between one homeowner defaulting and forty, four hundred, four thousand traders betting back and forth on the viability of his loan. Which do you think has a bigger effect on the economy?

 

B.Y.: Are you suggesting that critics of Fannie and Freddie are talking about the default of a single homeowner?

 

M.T.: No. That is what you call a figure of speech. I'm saying that you're talking about individual homeowners defaulting. But these massive companies aren't going under because of individual homeowner defaults. They're going under because of the myriad derivatives trades that go on in connection with each piece of debt, whether it be a homeowner loan or a corporate bond. I'm still waiting to hear what your idea is of how these trades work. I'm guessing you've never even heard of them.

 

I mean really. You honestly think a company like AIG tanks because a bunch of minorities couldn't pay off their mortgages?

 

B.Y.: When you refer to "Phil Gramm's Commodities Future Modernization Act," are you referring to S.3283, co-sponsored by Gramm, along with Senators Tom Harkin and Tim Johnson?

 

M.T.: In point of fact I'm talking about the 262-page amendment Gramm tacked on to that bill that deregulated the trade of credit default swaps.

 

Tick tick tick. Hilarious sitting here while you frantically search the Internet to learn about the cause of the financial crisis — in the middle of a live chat interview.

 

B.Y.: Look, you can keep trying to make this a specifically partisan and specifically Gramm-McCain thing, but it simply isn't. We've gone on for fifteen minutes longer than scheduled, and that's enough. Thanks.  [That's called tapping out, folks.  Byron York just cried "Uncle!" - J]

 

M.T.:  Thanks. Note, folks, that the esteemed representative of the New Republic has no idea what the hell a credit default swap is. But he sure knows what a minority homeowner looks like.  [Boo-yah!  - J]

 

B.Y.: It's National Review.  [Who cares? - J]

NRO's Rich Lowry on Bush's democracy problem

I agree with National Review's Rich Lowry up to a point: there is little or no history of democracy to build on, and very little civil society to get democracy kick-started, in the Middle East.

But my agreement ends and my vociferous objection begins with U.S. influence and meddling in these countries, including U.S. support of dictators. For example, right now Pakistanis are trying to defend their feeble democracy; they're being arrested and beaten for protesting the suspension of their constitution and supreme court by an unelected dictator who came to power in a bloodless coup... and Bush is doing nothing, saying nothing. Why? Because Pakistan has nukes; and because it is somewhat controlling al Qaeda, hence it's a nominal "ally" in the War on Terra.

Bush's failure to assert his "grandiloquent" vision of Mideast democracy and condemn Gen. Musharfaf bespeaks either Bush's cowardice, or good old-fashioned American self-interest. Lowry neglects to mention that Bush's notion of America's interests -- not spreading democracy -- determines Bush's foreign policy, just like it has guided other presidents' foreign policy. Bush is no better or worse in that regard; he is just more of a hypocrite for preaching otherwise.

(Remember, Bush is supposed to be the President who doesn't agonize over decisions because the "right" choice is always readily apparent; he says he carries no regrets; and he sees no shades of gray, only moral black & white.)

On Nov 7, 2007 4:50 PM, Mom wrote:

I agree with this summary:

Pakistan is a microcosm of the difficulties of establishing liberal democracy in the greater Middle East. Its institutions — except for the army — are weak, its politics traditionally have been clan-based, and it is riven by ethnic divisions. This is the worst possible starting point for establishing a true constitutional democracy, but is basically the same cultural material we have to work with in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority.

This is the reason that the Bush administration's Middle East policy so often has sunk to abject hopefulness. There is always a chance that key local players — your Malikis or Musharrafs — will act responsibly and in the interest of greater political openness, but old habits usually triumph over hope. Bush isn't wrong to promote democracy, but he never should have done it in such a sweeping, grandiloquent way that set him up for failure on his own terms. His freedom campaign should have shown keener appreciation for the fact that he was dealing with countries that had missed the wave of democratization of the latter part of the 20th century for a reason. Our ability to dictate their political development was always going to be limited.

Something for Bush to contemplate as he watches an ally he has done so much to support string barbed wire up around his Supreme Court and jail political opponents.

Nat'l Review: U.S. education is risking our economic competitiveness

As far as Lampkin goes in stating the problem, I agree. (Although I'm a little wary of his statistical predictions for GDP growth if America improves its standards of education.) The real question is: What can we do about it? "National leadership" could mean a lot of things. A former aide to President Bush, Lampkin (thankfully?) doesn't elaborate.

I'm all for lengthening the school year and/or making the school day longer. After all, nowadays kids don't have to reap the harvest in summer; and most parents are gone until 6 or 7 p.m. each day anyway, leaving their kids with too much time to spend on the wrong activities. (I'm a radical, I know, but I also think school-funded after-school sports programs should be eliminated. Replacing after-school sports with 30-40 minutes of in-school exercise per day for all kids, no exceptions, would do wonders for students' health and academic performance.)

We shouldn't forget, however, that the per capita productivity of American workers continues to increase. The problem is that lower-skilled jobs are going to countries like India and China that can do them more cheaply. The great danger is that we'll lose even those high-productivity jobs as India and China increase the productivity of their labor force relative to ours, thanks to their superior educational systems.


Rapidly Losing Our Edge
Lagging behind in education is hindering our economic competitiveness.

By Marc Lampkin
September 14, 2007 | NationalReview.com

Pew poll: Not everybody likes us... Worms, anyone?

Popularity Contest
By Victor Davis Hanson
August 3, 2007 | National Review

The latest Pew poll of June 2007 purports to offer a comprehensive survey of what the world thinks of the United States. Polls, of course, can be unreliable; and much of the commonly expressed anti-Americanism seems to be a mere reflection of disdain shown by our own intellectuals and academics, Hollywood, and the media. While it is hard to separate what foreigners feel about Americans in general from their opinions about the United States government in particular, the results of this latest survey are both predictable and astonishing.

[I'm sorry, but that's just idiotic prose. How can anything be "both predictable and astonishing"? That's called covering yourself in any situation, rhetorically, which is nonsense. Not a good start for VDH. – J]

The nations of the Middle East and other Islamic countries, of course, poll anti-United States across the board, from Palestine to Morocco.

[Why "of course"? Why so fatalistic, VDH? Since when did we completely give up on the Arab-Muslim world? Or is this at last acknowledgment from one of Dick Cheney's foreign policy gurus that the Iraq occupation has only harmed America's standing in the Mideast? – J]

And therein arise some interesting paradoxes. Kuwait, once extinguished until the American military restored it, is the most pro-American nation of the Arab Middle East. Yet, even there, as many Kuwaitis have an unfavorable opinion of America as a favorable one.

[Seriously, if you're a 3-year-old, what does this fact tell you? That's right: America is deeply unpopular in the Mideast, even in the country whose ass we saved in 1991 (Kuwait). Shouldn't that tell us something?! – J]

Turkey is democratic, a NATO ally, and a recipient of substantial American military aid. Yet it reveals the highest level of anti-Americanism of any country polled — 83 percent express an unfavorable view of the U. S. Perhaps that enmity is due to our support for Kurdistan and the resentments of Ankara's own Islamist government.

[Yeah, Dr. Dipshit, America's support for a resurgent Iraqi Kurdistan just might have something to do with Turkey's resentment against the U.S. Where do "intellectuals" like this dipshit VDH come from?!

If I were President, my first overseas trip would be to Turkey to say, essentially, "I'm sorry," and "You guys rock." In terms of U.S. strategic interests, Iraqi Kurdistan has nothing to offer America beside PR on how well our occupation of Iraq is going. I feel sorry for the Kurds, but history has screwed them, not us. – J]

In any case, so much for the ballyhooed American efforts to bolster Turkey's bid to join the EU. In theory, if we opposed Turkish membership, or suggested that Ankara leave NATO, would our image then improve? Again, something is terribly wrong when four out of five "allied" Turks feel so unfavorably toward the United States.

[America is directly supporting Iraq's Kurds, who harbor anti-Turkish separatists ("i.e. terrarists," in Bush lingo), hence Turkey is predictably and justifiably P.O.'d at America. And since when should Turkey's candidacy for the EU depend on U.S. support? What the fuck!? I mean, I realize VDH is just being refreshingly candid, but since when has the EU admitted that decisions regarding EU enlargement depend on America's say-so? – J]

Egypt has received collectively well over $50 billion in American help, but only 21 percent of its population seems to like the United States. [That's called "poor return on investment." – J] In fact, whether we save countries like Kuwait, or lavish money on Palestine, Egypt, and Jordan (20-percent approval rating), or send billions to rebuild Afghanistan, or try to help Muslim Turkey get into the EU, or buck up Pakistan (15-percent approval), or feed poor Muslims in Somalia, or chastise the Russians about Chechnya, or bomb the Muslim-killing Serbians, or lead the effort to save Muslim Indonesians after the Tsunami, it all apparently matters very little. It may sound counterintuitive, but Russia (the country that leveled Grozny and exterminated Chechen Islamic rebels) seems to be better thought of in the Middle East than we are — or perhaps more feared, which in the region is apparently the same thing.

Apologists, of course, will cite our policies in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Israel as catalysts for Middle East hatred. [Um, yes. Count me among the "apologists." –J] But clearly there is some preexisting venom involved that makes the Muslim Street ignore all the good we have done, and focus only on what is considered bad. ["All the good"? I wish VDH would be more specific. What f-ing good have we done in the Mideast? – J] It is most likely modern Islam's inability to confront Western-inspired modernism, particularly the hypocritical desire for practices and things American, combined with the concomitant religious embarrassment over those only partially fulfilled appetites. The mindset of the Middle East is best summed up as something like "I deserve what you Americans have, but won't ever become like you to get it."

[This comment is petulant and stupid. Can we really say that this alleged sentiment of "Muslim envy" is what's driving the Iraqi insurgency, or the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, or the Taliban in Afghanistan? Of course not. VDH's point here is specious. It's a whiny cheap shot from the cheap seats of U.S. think-tank academia.. – J]

In turn, what enrages America about the petulant Islamic world's dislike is mostly the unwillingness of these nations to translate their popular anger into any concrete action. We would expect these belligerents to refuse U.S. aid, cease immigrating to the United States, keep their students from visiting the Great Satan, or kick the U.S. military out of the Persian Gulf.

[What a crock of shit this paragraph is! As if most citizens of the Mideast have any say in the matter of how much aid their respective countries accept, and for what in return! America's best Arab-Muslim allies are monarchies and dictatorships (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan). Turkey, to whom we've recently given the middle finger by invading Iraq, is the only secular, democratic country in the region who is a staunch U.S. ally – and look what we've done to them! Let's be honest: Mideast public opinion has no bearing on U.S.-Mideast relations. The Pew poll figures simply reflect this fact. – J]

In response, while the Arab masses seethe, thousands of American scientists are working overtime on remedies for their anger — namely how not to import any oil from this dysfunctional region that makes us vulnerable to its blackmail while enriching unstable regimes that do real harm to the world at large.

[If we're going to point the finger, we have to point first at the undemocratic regime of Saudi Arabia. Their petro-economy funds Sunni-Wahabist terror all over the world, even as they purport to be a U.S. ally. – J]

Even more perplexing are the attitudes voiced by some key European countries — France (60 percent unfavorable to the U.S.), Germany (66-percent unfavorable), and Spain (60 percent). Millions of Europeans in these countries express a much more negative view of the United States than do Hugo Chavez's Venezuelans. So much for the supposedly sweeping changes in France and Germany that brought the Sarkozy and Merkel governments to power.

[More petulance from VDH. What about democracy? Majorities in France, Germany, and Spain are all opposed to the Iraq war. Why is it so surprising then that they oppose the Iraq occupation and distrust American power? – J]

For this unspoken implosion of the Atlantic Alliance, we can fault the usual suspects — Iraq, the war on terror, George Bush's 2002 unilateralism, America's failure to ratify Kyoto, or the envy that these erstwhile imperial powers feel about being upstaged by a mongrel democracy.

[Yes, yes, yes, yes, and no. – J]

But who really cares to calibrate all the reasons why the Germans hated us when Ronald Reagan deployed Pershing missiles to protect them, or why the Greeks hated us when Madeline Albright tried to stop Balkan genocide, or why the French hated us for ending the once lucrative Baathist regime in Iraq? Instead, at some point Americans should ask themselves how they can continue to be allied militarily with countries whose populations have a more negative view of us than do our supposed rivals in Russia (48 percent unfavorable) and China (57 percent).

[Yeah, totally! Who needs allies? I mean, we're a hyperpower, right? We can do whatever we want, no matter what our traditional allies think of us. (Wrong.) – J]

Contrast all that dislike with those nations who appreciate the United States, which tells us something much different about America's role in the world. The Kenyans and Ghanaians, for example, reveal more admiration for the United States (87 and 80 percent, respectively) than do we Americans ourselves.

[Great. Super. Next time we're assembling a "coalition of the willing" to attack some country, I'm sure those Kenyan and Ghanaian troops and materiel will prove indispensable to achieving victory.. – J]

In fact, all of sub-Saharan Africa — poor and with a past of exploitation — has an unbelievably high regard for the U.S. Perhaps black Africans appreciate our support for democracy, realize that we were not colonialists, see that blacks are succeeding in the U.S. in a way unthinkable elsewhere, know that we spearhead the global effort to bring AIDS relief and stop the genocide in Darfur, and sympathize with their own long struggle against radical Islam.

Much of Eastern Europe is similarly well-inclined. Poland, for example (61 percent approval rating), does not trust Russia — and does not trust Europe to offer any help in a future hour of crisis.

Likewise, many countries of Latin America — Mexico, Chile, Peru — poll staunchly pro-American. We have tried to support these shaky Latin American democracies, welcomed their immigrants, and allowed billions of dollars to be sent back as worker remittances. And unlike a Spain, France, Germany, the Muslim Middle East, Russia, or China, such confident emerging nations also are not hung up on perceived past grandeur, blame-gaming the new superpower for their own subordinate roles.

["Welcomed their immigrants?" Has VDH been listening to his fellow conservatives, who advocate surrounding America with walls and alligator-filled moats?

"Allowed billions of dollars to be sent back as worker remittances"? I ask you, how would we stop Latin workers from sending their earnings back home? – J]

Indeed, how strange that these poor countries in Africa, Eastern Europe, and South America are more favorable to America than are oil-rich sheikdoms, rich European socialist republics, and Middle East recipients of massive U.S. aid.

Or perhaps it's not so strange at all.

The more confident a nation is, even when poor, the more likely it seems to admire America. Some of our best supporters turn out to be one-billion person India (59 percent favorable rating), Japan (61 percent), and South Korea (58 percent) — all democratic, capitalist juggernauts, and appreciative of liberal American trade policy and U.S. military support. Again, should we Americans value the friendship of such democracies — or that of a China that cheats on international trade accords and intimidates its neighbors?

So it is encouraging to be admired by idealistic populations in Africa and Eastern Europe, and shown friendship by India and Japan. But perhaps it is equally to our credit that a bullying China and Russia, a dictatorial and intolerant Middle East, and smug nations of Western Europe seem to resent us, especially our support for democratic change abroad.

No doubt when the Bush administration leaves office, and should a Democratic one replace it, our approval ratings will rise with our present detractors. But they may also decline among our friends who will learn that U.S. open markets, free trade, and reliable military support in times of crisis are now objects of left-wing criticism. Note in this regard that world opinion toward both China and Russia is turning unfavorable. That distrust will only increase as both begin to flex their muscles — the former gobbling up oil contracts from the most murderous regimes, the latter selling the same rogues anything they need to foment unrest.

A number of British diplomats have expressed weariness over the old special relationship with America. Likewise, the British public now barely expresses a favorable impression of the United States (51 percent). But given the emerging world landscape, such a change in attitude would be suicidal for the United Kingdom. History would instead counsel the British people that Europe has nearly destroyed them twice in the twentieth century, while America sought to save them — and would again in the twentieth-first.

Britain should tread carefully, since it is even more likely that a growing number of Americans is turned off by Europe, British anti-Americanism, NATO, and the Middle East. And in the long history of this country, isolationism, not intervention, has been the more natural American sentiment.

[In other words, Britain ought to fear, realistically, that jingoism and nationalism are the fall-back positions of most Americans in times of distress. Britain can either be America's lapdog, or be lumped in with our myriad of "enemies." – J]

If the British think their Tony Blair was George Bush's poodle, they may soon see a British prime minister reduced to a Chinese, Iranian, or Russian hamster — as we already have witnessed with the Russian assassination scandal and the even more embarrassing Iranian hijacking of a British boat.

Unfortunately, Russia and China will only grow wealthier from oil and trade surpluses, while the chances improve of a petrol-rich dictatorship in the Middle East gaining nuclear weapons within missile range of Europe. What will keep the U.S. engaged as a powerful ally of a Britain and Europe in their coming hour of need will not be brilliant statesmen or Atlantic-minded Presidents, but only American public opinion and goodwill that are predicated on some notion of reciprocal friendship.

[Yeah, dream on. Right now, the only major power worried about a Mideast country aiming its nukes at Europe is… America. If indeed Europe can't see what's in its best security interests, then f---- 'em. Seriously. If they're not scared for themselves, why should we be scared for them? – J]

In that regard, such polls continue to be mostly one-sided. What we need now are new comprehensive surveys of what Americans themselves think of the United Nations, the Islamic world, and Western Europe — so that they can try to square the results with our present foreign policy of aid, friendship, or military assistance to those who apparently don't want or appreciate what they receive.

[Nice try, VDH. But truthfully, Americans are so ignorant of institutions like the UN, EU, and NATO, that their opinion doesn't mean anything. Americans do know, however, what is best for America. Sooner or later, people cut through the MSM spin and government rhetoric and ask the most basic, important question: "How is this going to make America better?" When it comes to foreign relations, that's a pretty simple question, but it's also darn tough to answer. And asking this question of our democratically elected leaders often enough is all we've got to defend ourselves against military zealots, economic opportunists, and political ideologues in our midst. – J]

Alternative explanations to VA Tech massacre don't cut the mustard (NRO)

Below are responses at the conservative NationalReview.com to the VA Tech shooting rampage. Alternative explanations are given, most notably (and conveniently) "inexplicable evil," but all these pundits carefully avoid the obvious: How "evil" combined with easy access to guns is a potently lethal combination.

Wake up! Write your Congressmen and demand action. We can't stick our heads in the sand, or pretend we're in the 18^th century fighting King George, anymore.

___________________________________________________

Virginia Tech Massacre

SYMPOSIUM: Fr. Thomas Berg, Matthew Franck, Anne Hendershott, and Michael Pakaluk look at evil. "Comprehending the Incomprehensible " 04/17 2:52 PM

NANCY FRENCH: There are no answers to be found in the details. "The Search for Good News " 04/17 11:30 AM

JOHN O'SULLIVAN: How can a murderer be "dispassionate"? "Radical Evil " 04/17 2:08 PM

JACK DUNPHY: Blame the killer, not the school's administrators and police. "Misplaced Anger " 04/17 7:05 AM

PETER WOOD: Why schools? Why so often schools? "Higher Mayhem" 04/17 7:00 AM

ELI LEHRER: We need to rethink campus security. "Good Security vs. Bad Police Work" 04/16 6:03 PM

W.F. Buckley, Jr.: Say nay to surge

With the exception of a few forgivable misconceptions, Buckley hits the mark. Must read!

Yes or No To Bush?

By William F. Buckley Jr.

National Review Online

January 15, 2007, 3:20 p.m.

You are a Republican legislator, retiring after this, your fifth term. Last night, into midnight hours, you composed a questionnaire for yourself. You vowed to submit to it before your committee speech. You'd flower up the language a bit — but not the thought. You wake up this morning and turn to last night's self-quiz.

(1) Is it a strain to send more troops to Iraq?

No. A country of 300 million has resources insignificantly depleted by the proposed increase in troops.

Yes, there would be sacrifices. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to spend 10 seconds describing the anguish of the families of soldiers wounded or killed, which does not diminish that anguish. We are talking in clinical language. Hospitals don't pause to bemoan the deaths that occur on their premises. America has been at war in Iraq for nearly four years. No sacrifice of a corporate character has been asked of the American people. Taxes haven't been raised, gasoline hasn't been rationed, passports haven't been recalled.

Life in free countries produces victims in every field. In the past four years, 3,000 American soldiers have died in Iraq. In the same period, about 170,000 Americans have died in car accidents, and about 1.6 million have died from tobacco-related illnesses.

(2) Is our Iraqi enterprise worth a corporate commitment by America?

That is the taxing question. If success in Iraq would bring an end to the movement of which Iraq is now the apex, the answer would clearly be yes. Has the president persuasively argued that it would do so? No. He has said that "failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States." He hasn't said why. Great countries do lose great engagements. We did in Vietnam and Korea, and the Soviets did in Afghanistan.

Would America be less threatening to its armed enemies if we pulled out of Iraq? That depends on a single element: Iran. Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria are all, in this epoch in history, living direful lives. But only Iran has or is developing the dispositive weapon.

(3) How does the Iraq question bear on the Iran question?

If Iran did not exist, Iraq could proceed with its sectarian strife with consequences only for Iraqis. But Iran is critical in several ways. Iran is training, inflaming, transporting, and supplying all Muslims within reach to join in the fighting. We have moved to toughen sanctions against Iran, but they have not proved sufficient to effect a regime change.

(4) Then doesn't it follow that the American role in Iraq is indeed critical?

No, actually. America could help the Maliki government in Iraq fight the insurgents. But the evidence, in the last two years especially, is that the strength of the insurgents lies not in their military organization but in their techniques. Our losses are mostly from IEDs — improvised explosive devices. An elevation in American fighting forces in Iraq doesn't diminish, pro tanto, the number of IEDs that will be set off.

The threat in Iraq is from the apparently inexhaustible flow of insurgents who plant the IEDs and who engage in wanton killings of Iraqi defenders. What no strategist, American or Iraqi, has successfully addressed is the question of how to diminish that noxious flow. One American general petitioned the Iraqi government to be more forceful with captured insurgents, many of whom are simply released. But nothing like a galvanized rout of apprehended insurgents is in prospect, which problem touches on -

[Important comment here: The statements "Our losses are mostly from IEDs" (emphasis mine) and "The threat in Iraq is from... IEDs" don't mention that many "insurgents" play, or double in, the more pivotal role of civil warriors, who employ entirely different techniques against their fellow Iraqis -- assassinations, kidnappings, torturings, beheadings, and extortion. If all the insurgents could manage to do was kill 3,000 U.S. soldiers in four years, then they wouldn't have been very successful in deterring us, and Americans wouldn't be clamoring for withdrawal. But Americans can see the forest for the trees. They see that Iraqis are dying and suffering, too, and in dramatically larger numbers, instead of enjoying the peace, prosperity, and democracy that America promised them. Americans are smart enough to have realized, finally, that if we're not part of the solution in fighting sectarian violence, then we must be part of the problem. -- J]

(5) The sectarian character of the Iraqi population, which is the source of divisiveness extending beyond any dislike or resentment of America.

A geographical division of Iraq is inevitable. The major players are obvious. It isn't plain how America, as an outside party, could play an effective role, let alone one that was decisive, in that national redefinition. And America would do well to encourage non-American agents to act as brokers — people with names like Ban Ki-moon.

On the basis of this analysis I will vote against supplementary American involvement in Iraq.

Nat'l Review: What "Winners" Want Is Blood

Goldberg is basically correct on a few points, most importantly: "If you believe the war can't be won and there's nothing to be gained by staying, then... (y)ou should demand withdrawal." Here-here. But not only can we not win, we've already lost. It's over. Done. The side for whom "there will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship" is our side. Unfortunately, Iraq's rival sects are too busy killing to arrange for us such a quaint 20th century courtesy.

Secondly, he's correct that: "(N)obody — and I mean nobody — has made a credible case that the Iraqis can get from A to B without more bloodshed, with or without American support." So, the next question is, do we want to be the ones genocidally slaughtering innocent women & children, and putting men in concentration camps, in order to make Iraq nice & quiet? Or are we going to leave that to the Iraqis? I hate to put it so bluntly, but this is the diabolical either/or Bush has left us with, and "surging" has only delayed it for the next U.S. president to choose.

But if you do opt for U.S.-sponsored genocide -- the only possible way to snatch a bloodier victory from the bloody jaws of defeat --over Iraqi civil war, then take out your meat grinder and tie on an apron. It's gonna get red & messy.

What Winners

They flip and they flop, but the Dems don't want to win.

By Jonah Goldberg | National Review Online

Americans are torn between two irreconcilable positions on the Iraq war. Some want the war to be a success — variously defined — and some want the war to be over.

Conservatives are basically, but not exclusively, in the "success" camp. Liberals (and those further to the left) are basically, but not exclusively, the "over" party. And many people are suffering profound cognitive dissonance by believing these two positions can be held simultaneously. The motives driving these positions range from the purely patriotic to the coldly realistic to the cravenly political or psychologically perfervid.

Parsing motives is exhausting and pointless, but one fact remains: "End it now" and "win it eventually" cannot be reconciled.

With Wednesday night's speech, President Bush made it clear that he will settle for nothing less than winning. He may be deluding himself, but he at least has done the nation the courtesy of stating his position, despite an antagonistic political establishment and a hostile public. What's maddening is that the Democratic leadership cannot, or will not, clearly tell the American people whether they are the party of "end it" or "win it."

Give Senator Ted Kennedy his due. He not only wants the thing over, consequences be damned, but he's got the courage to admit it, as he did Tuesday at the National Press Club.

But when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid come to a fork in the road, they follow Yogi Berra's advice and take it. On one hand, they tell the president they want this war brought to a close. On the other, they refuse to use their power of the purse to do exactly that, opting instead for a symbolic resolution. It may be the wisest political course for them, but it does a disservice to the nation by making the Iraq debate the equivalent of boxing with fog.

Here we have a president forthrightly trying to win a war, and the opposition — which not long ago favored increasing troops when Bush was against that — won't say what it wants.

This is flatly immoral. If you believe the war can't be won and there's nothing to be gained by staying, then, to paraphrase Sen. John Kerry, you're asking more men to die for a mistake. You should demand withdrawal. But that might cost votes, so they opt for nonbinding symbolic votes.

Another Democratic dodge is the demand for a "political solution" in Iraq, the preferred talking point among Democrats these days. This is either childishly naive or reprehensibly dishonest. No serious person thinks that peace can be secured without a political solution. The question is how to get one. And nobody — and I mean nobody — has made a credible case that the Iraqis can get from A to B without more bloodshed, with or without American support.

Saying we need a political solution is as helpful as saying "give peace a chance." Peace requires more than pie-eyed verbiage. In the real world, peace has no chance until the people who want to give death squads another shot have been dispatched from the scene. It reminds me of the liberal obsession in the 1980s with getting inner-city gangs to settle their differences with break-dance competitions. If only Muqtada al-Sadr would moonwalk to peace!

Wednesday, Bush finally acknowledged what Americans already knew: The war has not gone well. But he also acknowledged what few Democrats are willing to admit: If we leave — i.e. lose — it will be a disaster, a geo-strategic calamity for America and possibly a genocidal one for the Iraqis.

One moral argument against the Iraq war in 2003 was that it would create an enormous humanitarian crisis in the form of refugees spilling over the borders, which in turn would destabilize the region. That didn't happen. But it would be the most likely result of a U.S. withdrawal now. Yet that's a risk the antiwar crowd is suddenly willing to take.

Bush declared that "victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship. . . . A democratic Iraq will not be perfect." This sober, stubborn emphasis on victory puts Bush at odds with much of official Washington. He wisely refused to abdicate his war responsibilities to lead to the Iraq Study Group and instead launched a broader effort to find a way to win in Iraq — a goal former Secretary of State James Baker explicitly dismissed.

Bush came up with the "surge" plan. Will it work? Nobody knows. But the one thing the American people know about George W. Bush is that he wants to win the war. What the Democrats believe is anybody's guess.

Review of: Children of Men

I have to say, Peter Suderman's review of the best movie I've seen in at least a year, Children of Men, doesn't do this powerful film justice. But he and I do agree on a few things: Clive Owen is understated and brilliant in this film; and it's visually extremely compelling, even unique.

Suderman's main gripe is that this movie doesn't "mean" enough; that is, Children of Men throws out or touches on many important themes, like the War on Terror, Islamic radicalism, tradeoffs between freedom and security, etc., but doesn't stop to dwell on them. Personally, I found that one of the film's secret strengths.The pacing is steady, the action sequences gripping and believable, and the story refuses to get bogged down in heavy, preachy messages and monologues, like so much familiar muddy English countryside.

This is a film -- thanks to its perfect cinematography and good score -- that's more about mood and emotion than selling ideas. It is a "smart" movie that lets you know it's considered all the moral and contemporary angles, but it doesn't try to corner you into any of them. What you take away from this film depends very much on what ideas and beliefs you bring into it. Director Cuaron's approach seemed to be, to swipe a slogan from FOX, "We film, you decide." I find that refreshing. Peter Suderman of the political mag National Review finds that annoying. He wants strident (preferably conservative) political statements artfully wrought, like: "Abortion is murder;" and "Immigration dilutes our nation's resolve." Yawn.

For sure you can watch this film with just about anyone, and afterwards have a lively, interesting debate. But the film itself doesn't lower itself to petty didactic arguments: it has a story to tell. Again, how refreshing!

Moroever, this film is not "just" genre entertainment, although it is part action and sci-fi escapism. (Despite plenty of shooting and violence, Owens' character never once picks up a gun, even when one would seem to come in handy.)

Refusing to beat you over the head with messages, Children of Men nevertheless does stand for some important things which, upon further examination, humbly approach the universal. Without being hackneyed or trite, Children quietly and movingly stands up for the sacredness and dignity of each human life. Owen's character is the only one who "gets" this. Both the liberal-lefty terrorist "Fish" fighting for immigrants' rights, and the fascist security forces using violent, repressive means to stave off anarchy, lose sight of dignity and preciousness of life in pursuit of their zero-sum goals.

Even I was tempted to think Owen just didn't get it when the motley Fish leaders, the erstwhile protectors of a young pregnant African refugee, asked him what he thought should be done with her, i.e. how best to use her for the Cause. "I think she needs a doctor," he answers immediately, "I think she needs proper care." The Fish can only scoff at such short-sighted naivete. With humanity on the brink, I thought to myself then, surely Owen's character was missing the big picture, the pressing political fate of millions? But as events prove, Owen is right and the Fish are wrong. I ended up reproaching my initial reaction as the film reached its climax. Owen is the only one, absent a few non-English speaking refugees, who recognizes the moral imperative to protect innocent life.

The awesome, unifying moment of this film, when time slows down several dozen heartbeats, takes place in a tenement building in a refugee city. Suddenly, both jackbooted soldiers and dreadlocked terrorists lose the will to fight each other when they're abruptly face-to-face with a miracle: a real live crying infant, the first in 18 years. The truth's liberating effect on them is fleeting, however, as characters revert to form. The moment passes and the fighting resumes in earnest, continuing a masterpiece of real-time, first-person-view urban warfare, but it gives Owen just enough time to stumble away to safety with the future of humanity in his arms.

Owen's character also embodies another significant but understated theme, related to the above: politics without a hope & vision for the future is a footrace to the grave. Owen is a "retired" liberal activist who retains strong sympathies for the old Left, including his politically active ex-wife (Juliette Moore), and forest-dwelling hippie mentor (Michael Caine). Director Cuaron contrasts Owen's liberal simpatico with his apparent resignation to "sell out" and work in a dull, gray government bureaucracy for The Man. As the action unfolds, Cuaron makes us think that Owen will surely have to choose: either the unstable leftist Fish, or the fascist forces holding anarchy at bay. Yet Owen's actual choice -- the correct choice -- is neither.

Owen, unlike the radical and increasingly violent Fish, has realized that once hope for life is out of the picture, his liberal politics stops meaning anything. For that matter, when life consists of waiting to die, everything stops meaning anything. More broadly, this film shows us that when politics become divorced from mankind's real circumstances -- which have a knack of ignoring our left-right paradigms and pre-conceived notions -- society becomes grotesquely pointless, even dangerous to itself.

You nihilists out there who are tired of "dark" Hollywood heroes being redeemed in the end may choose to hate this film. But if you do, you'll be missing the point. It's not so much that Owen's character changes, it's that circumstances do -- and amazingly so. He shows that he is really the same man he always was, and, once his (and mankind's) outlook suddenly changes, he becomes his former self.

Giving us spare but effective snippets of Owens' bland, rote, hopeless existence at the start of the film, Cuaron invites us to believe that Owen is a washed up drunk beyond renewal. But Owen's character shows his true mettle as soon as he realizes that, quite literally, hope has been reborn. Without fake bravado, or "dramatic" bouts of doubt a lesser film might give us to increase the suspense, Owen simply and unhesitatingly does the right thing: protecting against all comers the mother-to-be of humanity's first baby in 18 years.

I never read the novel upon which this movie was based. Maybe it's great; and I'm sure it's different than the film. But all that is irrelevant. Children of Men stands alone as a great film, and the building inertia of its simple but irresistible narrative and momentous power of its visuals carry all the meaning a viewer can hope for in a film.

Finally, not to ruin the ending, but it's just not true that "everyone dies in vain" in this film as Suderman claims. Maybe the ending is not suitably Hollywood enough for Suderman, but that's his problem. Even if everyone did die in this film, and all of Owen's selfless bravery and humanity sans sappy sentiment failed to carry the day, it wouldn't mean that hope was in vain. If there's one thing this movie shows us, it's that hope is the sin qua non for humanity. And like Owen's character, we can only do our humble, stumbling best, as Jesse implored, to keep it alive.