I do hope John Derbyshire did not contribute to The National Review Treasury of Classic Children’s Literature. Here, a bedtime story from Derb:
Actually, my favorite story of victor’s justice is the treatment given to the defeated Sultan Bayezid “the Thunderbolt” by Timur after the battle of Ankara in 1402. Bayezid was pulled around in a cage in Timur’s baggage train till he died, and his wife was forced to serve naked at Timur’s banquet table.
(Brought to my attention by Justin Logan.)
Thanks to Matt for bringing the Select Smart 2004 Presidential Candidate Selector to our attention. It’s true that looking down the preference hierarchy list creates absurdities, like my own Sharptonite Libertarianism. But in defense of the candidate selector I have to point out that the carefully-hidden result analysis instructions (found only on the “Your ideal theoretical candidate” page) resolve the absurdity:
“If your top candidate scores in the 90’s or the high 80’s then you’ll be very pleased with this candidates positions. If your top candidate scores in the low 80’s or less, retake the selector…”
No need to vote Democrat just yet.
Pro-Saddam demonstrations are on the rise and being put down by US troops.
Meanwhile, the initial spurt of anti-Saddam demonstrations seems to have dissapated, with “Only small groups of Communist Party supporters were seen celebrating in the capital.”
Iraq’s Communist Party has organized demonstrations all over the country.
As Matthew Barganier pointed out, the should drive the neocons crazy.
Apparently, winning the peace will take a while:
‘About as far as we are looking is through the next couple of years,’ Myers said at Baghdad’s airport, where he addressed troops.”
Via Franklin Harris, the Select Smart 2004 Presidential Candidate Selector. My results certainly look odd, which suggests a BCS-like inscrutability in the formula, as well as a lack of exhaustive choices on some questions. Here’s what I got:
1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%)
2. Libertarian Candidate (90%)
3. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT – Democrat (47%)
4. Sharpton, Reverend Al – Democrat (45%)
5. Bush, President George W. – Republican (42%)
6. Socialist Candidate (39%)
7. Phillips, Howard – Constitution (36%)
8. LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. – Democrat (35%)
9. Kucinich, Rep. Dennis, OH – Democrat (35%)
10. Kerry, Senator John, MA – Democrat (28%)
11. Clark, Retired General Wesley K., AR – Democrat (27%)
12. Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol, IL – Democrat (23%)
13. Edwards, Senator John, NC – Democrat (23%)
14. Lieberman, Senator Joe, CT – Democrat (17%)
15. Gephardt, Rep. Dick, MO – Democrat (16%)
Clearly, this blog’s detractors are right, at least about me: I am a Socialist (#6). Oh, and I love George W. Bush (#5). What really amazes me, though, is Howard Dean’s ranking. Granted, the agreement percentages drop dramatically after Libertarian, from 90% to 47%, but I think this highlights how unreliable rhetoric is. If I agree with Dean or Bush nearly half the time, it must be on the basis of vague campaign promises, not anything either has actually done or will do.
The always intriguing Paul Cantor on imperialism vs. trade in the Black Sea hood:
What drove one empire after another to try to take over the Black Sea, despite the enormous expenditure of resources, human and material, that was always involved? Different motives were advanced at different times. But beneath the variety of religious, ideological and other impulses feeding imperial designs upon the Black Sea, one assumption remained central: that to have influence in the area, and to benefit from its resources, one had to conquer it militarily and also forcibly impose one’s way of life on all the people of the region. But an alternate model of penetrating the region was, as far as we can tell from the archaeological evidence, always available. Merchants plied the Black Sea far in advance of their homeland navies and armies, showing that peaceful trade could accomplish what warfare, with all its dreams of imperial conquest, could not.
