Michelle Malkin picks up on a NYT piece that discusses the increased level of threats directed at Dutch artists in the wake of the Van Gogh murder, with some pointing to the fact that the last time creativity was curbed in Holland was during the occupation by Nazi Germany. Here’s the core of the NYT article:

“ … have reinforced fears among many Dutch that fast-growing non-Western immigration is having a negative impact on social attitudes in the Netherlands. Newspaper columnists and members of Parliament have warned in recent days that if people capitulated to intimidation, they would only encourage Islamic militants.

Some have pointed to the recent events as signs that militants are trying to impose their agenda and are undermining the constitutional right to free speech in the Netherlands. A few people have quietly asked if self-censorship might be acceptable to keep the social peace.

Fear leading to self-censorship in order to keep things nice and smooth, this is a death sentence for any free democracy and in particular The Netherlands where freedom of expression has become almost an industry onto itself. It’s good to see that the social impact of Muslim militancy is getting more and more attention in mainstream media, albeit slowly, and in that respect I would like to point to DC-based artist James Bailey who so far seems to be a lonely voice in the art community warning of the dire consequences if artists are forced to shut up. He wrote a lengthy piece in DC Art News earlier this month which I highly recommend.

UPDATE: More here.

The media and the bloggers have been all over the Iraqi elections and I don’t really want to recycle the various reactions around the world or the implications of the impressive turn-out and the solid defeat that was dealt to the insurgents, or terrorists. Last night I watched CNN for a while and it was pretty clear that yesterday’s celebrations will not continue for much longer, in Washington partisan rhetoric resumed almost immediately and the terrorists will likely resume their operations soon.

Still, the election was an important milestone because of the sheer determination of Iraqis to brave the danger and vote. And, it was a booster for the Bush Doctrine to have a nearly flawless election carried out by people starved of democracy for fifty years not long after a US-led invasion. It will not silence all the critics but their arguments have lost quite a bit of strength and three things should now be feasible in a way they weren’t before:

(1) Iraqis’ performance yesterday is the strongest indication yet that the coalition should indeed be able to rapidly build up an Iraqi army or security force that can play an important part alongside coalition forces, eventually replacing them. It was not only Bush, Iraq's national pride got a boost as well, now let's use it.

(2) After the American heavy lifting Bush will be fully justified when he goes to Europe next month to once more ask for on the ground European assistance. His request and supporting arguments have now gained both in strength and momentum. If we can step up in East-Timor, if we can contribute in Bosnia and Kosovo and if we were able to make elections work in Cambodia then surely the world - with or without the UN flag - should now commit itself to help further stabilize Iraq.

(3) Convincing Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Syria and Iran that little is to be gained from an Iraqi civil war should top Condi Rice’s to-do list. This is as true as before the election but the nascent democracy should now more than ever be protected from the regional spoilers and with the massive Iraqi turn-out a few of them may be well advised to start looking inward rather than outward: a domino-effect is in the making.

There are now two more important milestones ahead, the referendum on a new constitution in October and a subsequent general election in December. The preparations for these activities should run parallel to the points outlined above and they will together contribute to a steady draw down of American troops, an imperative that will give another boost to both Bush and the Iraqi people.

Many scholars are putting forward the notion that Europe is the new superpower on the block, creating once more a bi-polar world. Jonathan Rauch compares this phenomenon to the Japan hype that dominated the 1980s to conclude that a Japan dwarfing America never came to pass, but Japan is still there as a - somewhat bruised - economic powerhouse. I’ve been very skeptical about any potential for Europe as an economic or political powerhouse, here’s what I wrote last year in the wake of Jeremy's Rifkin's European dream:

While that diversity should benefit those that resist the stifling encroachment of the centralist EU, it at the same time will hinder a pan-European consensus on how to deal with threats to the very fundaments of the continent’s future: security, immigration, cross-Atlantic relations and yes, the environment. It will be an uneasy road ahead for European countries, hardly the dream that Rifkin paints. On the contrary: instead of eclipsing the American Dream as he argues, Europeans are struggling to define if there is such a thing as a European dream.

I'll admit that it’s way too early to write the old continent off, but it’s hardly justified to consider them the new superpower acting as a counterbalance to the USA. And European elites refusing to help out in Iraq believing that the burden of that mission will somehow cripple America' status as a powerhouse may get some short-term political traction at home, in the long run they will face a hefty bill for failing once again to douse the flames of a regional crisis with global repercussions.

The ambitious agenda abroad that George Bush defined during his inaugural address is a logical extension of Ronald Reagan’s vision and it’s not hard to see how the current president learned from Reagan.

This weekend I got a chance to look at the various DVDs I picked up at the Reagan Library during my California trip and I was particularly glad to see the Gipper’s speech at the Republican National Convention of 1992 in its entirety as it was by far one of his best speeches ever. What struck me though was that at the very moment that Reagan called passionately for delivering balanced budgets the camera zoomed out and refocused on the assembled family members for a close-up of Barbara Bush and yes next to her, a youthful future president who looked pretty disengaged the moment the camera caught him. It was of course a coincidence but from today’s vantage point it was an extraordinary moment: Bush looking the other way in the face of mounting deficits.

A reader writes:

The best indication of success in the Iraq elections (in the coming months) would be if a one party does get the upper hand but still respects the rights of other Iraqis.

Yep. Let's see how the millions of Iraqis have cast their ballot and how quickly the newly elected representatives can get to work.

Not only is the impressive turnout good news, the spirit in which the elections have been conducted is extremely encouraging as well, here' s a snippet from Iraq the Model:

The first thing we saw this morning on our way to the voting center was a convoy of the Iraqi army vehicles patrolling the street, the soldiers were cheering the people marching towards their voting centers then one of the soldiers chanted "vote for Allawi" less than a hundred meters, the convoy stopped and the captain in charge yelled at the soldier who did that and said:

"You're a member of the military institution and you have absolutely no right to support any political entity or interfere with the people's choice. This is Iraq's army, not Allawi's".

But they can vote:

The blue finger or the blue marker, the symbol of freedom and democracy and the sign of a determined people rejecting terror.

The initial reports from Iraq are more than encouraging, turnout apparently stands at well over 70% and even Reuters is compelled to be frank about events:

Suicide bombs and mortars killed at least 33 people, but Iraqis still came out in force for the first multi-party poll in 50 years. While in some areas turnout was scant, in most places, including violent Sunni Arab regions, it exceeded expectations.

Condi Rice confirms:

“Every indication is that the election in Iraq is going better than expected”

This will force even the most skeptical voices to not only acknowledge that freedom in Iraq can indeed work, but that there are no longer any excuses to stand on the sidelines and start helping those brave people who risked their lives today to cast their vote. It will also be a very harsh awakening for Iraq's immediate neighbors and the first reactions from the Arab world are encouraging:

Arab commentators said that the voters had sent a strong message that insurgents failed to wreck the poll. The most upbeat reaction came from the Abu Dhabi-based daily Al-Ittihad, which declared jubilantly "The new Iraq is born today" on its front page.

The Arab News newspaper in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia called the vote "a very historic moment in the country's long history," and said it was "a much needed victory for moderation."

It's still early and there's a lot of work ahead but I expected a far different report when I switched on my laptop this morning.

.

The Iraqi general election is only a day away and Andrew Sullivan asks:

How do we tell if the Iraqi elections are a success? That they happen at all? Surely we should have a higher standard than that. Here are my criteria: over 50 percent turnout among the Shia and Kurds, and over 30 percent turnout for the Sunnis. No massive disruption of voting places; no theft of ballots. Fewer than 500 murdered. Any other suggestions for relevant criteria?

The fact that the elections are proceeding at all and on schedule is a success in my book, despite all my optimism I was leaning towards a postponement. Still, Andrew is right to point out that now that they’re on, we need a higher standard. In addition to all his quantitative criteria I would add one that has more to do with quality and that is a good result. Above all we should hope - and the system of proportional representation is of some help here - that no party gets the upper hand but that at the same time the resulting coalition is strong enough to stabilize the country and neutralize terror while adhering to the basic democratic principles on which the new Iraq will be built. We're hoping and looking for a very fine balance. This is not the answer we will have on Monday morning, but we’ll know if the outcome of the election is likely to support such a scenario.

NOTE: Remember to check out the Friends of Democracy site for news and coverage of events.

And while we are all focusing on Iraq, another election in the Middle East took place, yesterday, in the Gaza Strip no less:

The Islamic group Hamas won an overwhelming victory in local elections in Gaza towns, election officials said Friday, in a setback for the Fatah Party of Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas.

The Hamas victory reflected widespread support in the Gaza Strip for the Islamic movement, which provides welfare, schools and kindergartens to the impoverished residents of the territory and is the strongest militant group carrying out attacks against Israel.

The Hamas strategy of picking up the pieces of the late Arafat's disastrous domestic policies is starting to bear fruit, so I can't say that I share Roger's optimism, yet.

Europe’s unease with the Bush administration is not just anchored in a natural dislike or because of policy differences over Iraq or the War on Terror, or even social policies for that matter. The world; and Europe in particular, is starting to feel the pain of the ever sinking US Dollar, a process that is wiping billions off the value of overseas investment in the US and making fortress Europe a pretty expensive place to do business these days. For now it’s hardly an issue for Americans but Europeans are more than likely to remember the dollar crisis of the 1970s when US Treasury Secretary John Connally dispensed some plain logic in relation to the collapsed greenback:

The dollar's our currency; but it's your problem."

And for now the rest of the world is indeed picking up a part of the tab. Getting others to do so is only deferring the real crisis, say some of the experts currently gathered in Davos:

"There's nobody home on economic policy in America right now," said Stephen Roach, the chief economist at Morgan Stanley. The twin burdens of household and public debt in the United States, he said, are unsustainable. He described American consumers as "an accident waiting to happen."

With the dollar trading above $1.30 to the euro, near its economically tenable limit for Europe, Roach said, the United States could not rely on currency markets to right the imbalance with the Asian countries that finance American deficits by buying Treasury bills.

The answer, he said, was in the hands of the Federal Reserve, which he said would have to raise rates aggressively to curb the spending binge.

And that would land the dollar crisis right on the doorstep of every American household, literally, as mortgage rates will prick into an asset bubble that has sustained the US economy ever since the technology-boom turned to bust a number of years back. That may be the wake up call for monetary experts in Washington to start making some serious moves to try and intervene and prop up the flagging currency. The question is when, for if it will happen too soon it may taint the Bush presidency in a way that can seriously offset any potential successes in the foreign arena. And it is precisely there that Bush can use some solid international assistance and collaboration in order to deliver on his ambitious agenda and make the world a safer place. Footing the bill for that endeavor could hamper its successful execution. Politics and markets go always hand in hand and Condi Rice may start to build bridges across the ocean much sooner than anyone could have expected.

Entered in today's OTB Traffic Jam.

The Inaugural Speech is now a week old, but still news. Today Peggy Noonan defends her initial criticism:

But loyalty consists of many things, including being truthful with our friends. As Reagan used to say, candor is a compliment.

Read the whole thing.

UPDATE: And Mark Steyn is at it as well, and as was to be expected he likes the Bush Doctrine:

In other words, Bush is doing what the leftie professors spent the days after 9/11 shrieking he ought to do: look at the ‘root causes’.

And that is one of the key drivers of the inaugural's idealism, it neutralizes the opposition.

(hat tip: Maderblog)

Today it is sixty years ago that Auschwitz was liberated by Soviet forces and many survivors and dignitaries from all over the world gathered for a ceremony at the site that once housed the infamous concentration camp. There’s very little that I can add today that others haven’t already said and I recommend you to check out Norman Geras who has dedicated all of his posts today to this tragedy and to the IsraPundit with reflections, comments and links.

Still, I want to say something. It’s hard not to come to the conclusion that the lessons of the Holocaust are slowly but steadily evaporating. Despite all the guilt and compassion professed by European nations after the Second World War – notably by my ancestral grounds with their abysmal record in this matter – they failed miserably when real cases of genocide manifested themselves, in particular during the mass slaughter that took place in the former Yugoslavia only ten years ago. The latter was a failed test and it was followed by resurgent anti-Semitism and very depressing statistics that younger generations had become increasingly unaware of the horrors fascism had inflicted upon humanity. It’s questionable if we will ever see an exact repeat of the holocaust and its final solution, but the evidence since 1945 points to the coninued omnipresence of inflicting mass suffering on one particular group of people in order to further political agendas and solidify the authority that some evil dogmas have been able to acquire.

Let’s do all we can to remember Auschwitz and the many other human tragedies in which complete innocents perished en masse, but let’s not delude ourselves that by remembering we will prevent them from ever happening again. They will come back in many different guises. Not only do we need to fight them, we need to emulate those that lived to tell the story of Auschwitz: survive and preserve humanity.

For those of you that didn’t read my post on the mother who inadvertently killed the man that robbed her and who was subsequently arrested on manslaughter charges and spent three days in custody, please read it first. Then look at this story which today got the necessary traction on a number of blogs:

When two men walked into a popular country store outside Atlanta, announced a holdup and fired a shot, owners Bobby Doster and Gloria Turner never hesitated. The pair pulled out their own pistols and opened fire. The armed suspect and his partner were killed.

Most of the attention was focused on what will surely find its way into some Hollywood script:

"I just started shooting," said Gloria Turner, 56. "I was trying to blow his brains out is what I was trying to do."

My focus however is, in light of my earlier post, on this:

The owners won't be charged, according to local officials, because they were acting in self-defense.

That pretty much sums up the difference between an American and European approach to dealing with crime. No further comment necessary.

The trial against Van Gogh’s killer kicked off yesterday with preliminary hearings. In a surprising move the prosecution asked that the defendant be subject to a psychiatric evaluation, something the defense strongly rejected:

Defence lawyer Peter Plasman said his client can and wants to be held responsible for his actions. "I made a decision and I acted accordingly," Plasman said, quoting his client.

So, the prosecutor is not ruling out the “lone nut” approach, which generally yields a lenient sentence and the defence is more than willing to accept full responsibility, potentially setting the stage for the most severe punishment available under Dutch law. Note that the Dutch justice system does not employ a jury to determine guilt; both sides make their case for a council of three judges who will decide on both guilt and penalty.

Well, the prosecutor got his way and the case will resume in three months when the psychiatric reports are in. Will keep you informed.

UPDATE: A lot more detail from a new Dutch blog written in English (hat tip: Roger Simon).

A prominent German speaks out on the absence of a moral compass in Europe:

These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces of jewelry when she notices a robber breaking into a neighbor's house.

Read the whole thing.

It was only a little while ago that I pointed to some American sites qualifying me as a “moderate conservative” or "center-right". In the department of more evidence of the growing gap between Europe and North America, I give you Fistful of Euros – by the way a very good site – who have listed me on their blogroll as "radical right”. What more can I say?

Professor Bainbridge discusses the well-known Instalanche phenomenon and those of us that have experienced it know all about its phenomenal impact on your site counter and how it can make your day.

What I find interesting though is the retention level, i.e. how many new visitors that come to your site through an Instalanche return and become loyal readers? Without running a full reader survey, my back of the envelope calculations tell me that these days it’s somewhere between 1 and 2 %. That’s is low because Glenn’s audience is wide, although you can counter argue that only those with a specific interest click-through when they see something on Glenn’s site that they like. Still, if you get a flood of visitors from a blog with a much narrower audience that happens to identify with your site then the retention levels go up to 10% and above, in my experience. Following the phenomenal explosion in blogging and available sites you will need multiple Instalanches, Sullivanches or PowerSurges in order to build up a sizeable readership. Or just write a damn good blog.

The last time I voted in a Dutch election must have been in the late 80s and although Dutchmen living abroad are eligible to vote I never did. From someone so politically engaged as myself that may be a strange admission, but I always felt that democracy is best served by actual tax-paying residents voting and in addition I never made time to go through the paperwork that off-shore voting entails. The latter part is a bit lame, yes, but my voting behaviour may change now that for the first time in history the Dutch get to have their say in a referendum. And this referendum, although not binding, may have far reaching implications as the question voters are expected to address is a “yes” or “no” to the draft European constitution, setting the stage for final ratification. I am leaning to a “no” but I am prepared to study the document in detail and assess the various implications before it is time to cast a vote next spring.

It will also be interesting to see how a lot of pent-up anger in Dutch society (recent political turmoil, unpopularity of the Euro) will impact the vote. It’s expected that if any one member state rejects the document it will mean a return to the drawing table and start drafting anew, or, and that has happened before, a re-run of the referendum until the desired result is achieved.

To further illustrate some of my earlier ruminations on the different work ethic on both sides of the ocean, here’s what an American expat in Holland is saying about the situation she found in her host country:

This is also what I have noticed at work — people here do their job and go home at five. I am used to people working from 7am to 7pm. I wanted to work here in the office on the weekend once, but that was not possible.

Yes. Dutch are more comfortable going into crime infested neighborhoods during their weekends than the office, the absolute no-go zone. And as our American in Amsterdam explains, there’s some background to it:

Americans spread their work out over the day, the first few hours they have a cup of coffee, a chat with colleagues, play a little on their PC. The Dutch are living for life, instead of living for work like the Americans. It's a different perspective.

A little while ago I pointed to another motivator to stay as far away from the office as possible: taxes.

Yesterday Bjorn Lomborg was in town to do one of his energetic pitches to look at the world’s problems and impending tragedies from a completely different perspective. He focused on the results of his Copenhagen Consensus, some intense brainstorming by a group of the world’s leading economists who had been given the task to allocate scarce resources over a number pressing issues with a view to make significant progress for each problem with as little resources as possible and, as early as possible. I hadn’t really looked into this study when it got media traction last year, but when I saw what projects made the top of the list, I wasn’t that surprised. Lomborg targets these as “good projects”, having met the criteria laid out to the Copenhagen forum:

1. Diseases - Control HIV/Aids and avoid adding 28 million sufferers to the list by 2010;

2. Malnutrition - Provide micro-nutrients such as with iron, zinc, vitamin-A

3. Trade Barriers and Subsidies – Removal is a very low cost solution with potentially lots of winners, especially in poor countries.

4. Diseases – Control of malaria and contribute to productivity increases.

The inability of large organizations, like the UN, to provide adequate help is often a result of a lack of prioritizing and efficiently providing direct relief in the areas where it is needed most. And Lomborg also lamented the fact that the media overplayed and hyped recent world problems such as climate change which as an issue ended up low on the Copenhagen’s forum final list of worthwhile projects. Without delving into detail, Lomborg wasn’t too pleased with the billions that are now being poured into implementing Kyoto and argued for carbon-taxes as a much more efficient tool to deal with global warming.

There’s a strong argument to re-assess relief work around the world and re-prioritize not only the various tragedies but also look closely at what institutions are best suited to address the most immediate needs around the world. The commendable efforts to help the tsunami victims and the quest to do something about global warming have overshadowed phenomenal human tragedies that are equally, if not more, deserving of attention and funds. It is perhaps an emerging domain for private foundations to target specific problems and deal with them, unhindered by political and institutional roadblocks. Iain Murray and Zack Klein echo the Danish oracle appropriately:

While some could disagree on the methodology of the Copenhagen Consensus's results, it is important to bolster the discussion of prioritizing the world's resources to solve global challenges. Environmental alarmism — including scientists emphasizing unlikely worst-case scenarios and Hollywood making up impossible catastrophes — merely moves us away from a rational, dispassionate assessment of the issues. There is no reason why a warmer world cannot remain an enlightened, rational world.

UPDATE: Within a time span of twenty-four hours two good examples of each approach: alarmist environmentalism and Bill Gates stepping up with more cash for the immunization of Third World children.

Here are a few more thoughts on Bush and his speech, taking on criticism from the army of pundits that have been working around the clock to take the speech down, dissecting even the explanatory notes from Bush Sr. To take on the critics directly I have two key points briefly summarized to go with the Monday morning coffee rather than the long essay that was going nowhere and pretty much wasted a Sunday evening:

Idealism Underpinned by Realism
If you state you’re going to be the world’s leading supplier of freedom and democracy it doesn’t mean that you’re going to be that tomorrow, nor does it mean that you have to achieve that by supplying only that and nothing else. It’s a long term vision and if in the meantime we have to team up with the Mubaraks and Musharrafs of this world then so be it. Note that thanks to the latter the people of Afghanistan were able to recently cast their ballots. To try and define and set the world on a course to realize an ideal by underpinning it with some hard-nosed realism is already a major departure from plain old Kissengerian realism. My advice: translate the speech to the everyday world.

Incrementalism
No, no. No one is arguing to roll into Tehran or Pyongyang tomorrow. Hardly. The pursuit of freedom and democracy will be a guiding principle to not only combat terrorism, but to create a better world. Trade, diplomacy, alliances, disaster relief, applied step-by-step over a long period of time can all help to foster freedom and democracy. Countries like The Philippines and Indonesia have been gradually nudged towards early stage democracies in no small part thanks to American efforts, and that was well before last Thursday. My advice: look around you to see what incremental steps have achieved already; with speech momentum we’ll see a lot more of them.

That’s it.

UPDATE: Some good commentary from the Belgravia Dispatch along similar lines. (Greg's trackbacks are now working so I had to link to it).

It doesn’t stop. Here’s blog for socially conservative points of view and a counter-terrorism blog.

The amazement that someone would not be willing to see his or her country defended against incoming missiles is nowhere better illustrated than by the words uttered by George Bush when during a meeting with Canada’s Prime Minister he was told a missile defence shield was a politically difficult proposition:

‘I don't understand this. Are you saying that if you got up and said this is necessary for the defence of Canada, it wouldn't be accepted?' ”

It’s hard to believe, but that appears to be the case. In the Canadian press this exchange of words has now been branded as bullying, but Bush couldn’t have been any more diplomatic when he argued that:

I'm not taking this position, but some future president is going to say, Why are we paying to defend Canada?'

Ouch.

Imagine being robbed of your bag when you are stepping into your car, what would you do? It’s hard to say but I’ll bet that most of us will act on impulse without coherently thinking through the implications. You can stay in the car lock it and call the police, you can step on the gas and flee the scene in fear of violence, or you can throw the car in reverse to attempt to cut off the fleeing thieves to retrieve your stolen property. Alas, if you attempt the latter you so happen to nail the perpetrator between the car and a tree and he dies instantly. I really would like to hear from my readers how the criminal justice systems in their respective countries will deal with something like this, but let me proceed first by telling you how the Dutch district attorney’s office dealt with this real case earlier this week. They wasted no time to make it clear that they (a) would press manslaughter charges against the unfortunate woman who got robbed, a mother of two; and (b) would try and extend her initial arrest period without bail.

Dutch public prosecution has always been skewed in favor of the perpetrators but the zeal on display this time is not only jaw-dropping, it’s an affront to the very notion of right and wrong. But of course there’s more. The deceased thief not only had had an appointment in court that very morning for another - apparently armed - robbery, he also was Moroccan:

Meanwhile, heated discussion has opened up in Amsterdam East, with some Moroccans in the area claiming that B.'s death was murder. Soon after the incident, youths started yelling and screaming at the scene and the situation threatened to get out of hand as they tried to cross police lines to get at the victim.

Feelings are running particularly high between the native Dutch and immigrant communities, particularly in light of the fact the incident occurred just 50m from the spot where filmmaker Theo van Gogh was murdered last November, allegedly by a Islamic militant with Dutch and Moroccan nationality.

I won’t even bother to comment on the word “allegedly” in the quote above, but you can probably get a sense of the atmosphere in The Netherlands these days. There was however some relief for the vigilante mother because since the Fortuyn and Van Gogh murders there is a slow but steady move to start applying some common sense to situations like this. In a surprising move the Dutch Immigration Minister, Rita Verdonk, came out in support of the woman yesterday and pointed out - for those that had missed the obvious point - that the robber’s death was a direct result of his crime, but at the same time she ruled out interfering with the prosecution’s approach to this case. No interference, fine, it’s not her territory but the message was clear.

With a victim acting to defend her property and a dead Moroccan, the Dutch media had a field day this week. There’s no telling how this case will develop but expect a lot of pressure on the public prosecutor to get the woman convicted on manslaughter charges in order to not only protect the unfortunate victim but also to quell any racial tensions. At the same time the renewed common sense attitude will likely ensure equal pressure to drop the case as early as possible which sane minds should applaud, but you never now with prosecutors that reward first-degree murder with a paltry eighteen years. Will keep you informed.

UPDATE: Apparently the unfortunate mother has been set free, but remains, what else to expect, a 'suspect'.

If anyone believed – on the Democratic side especially – that the “world will never be the same notion” after 9/11 could somehow be reversed and that after a Bush presidency older foreign policy concepts could be revived, well, Bush ended any feelings in that direction this morning. The bold agenda summarized in his speech and its legacies are going to stay well after Bush will leave office four years from now. As I said earlier, there’s a lot to chew but by making the point that no one can credibly argue against spreading freedom he has thrown down the gauntlet and we’re in for an interesting and challenging ride. Basically, we’re back to the dream of the 1990s when after the collapse of the iron curtain we appeared to be moving to a happy free trading world of democracies, the difference is that now there will be a fight for it as there’s not only some very strong opposition, there are some out there ready to destroy the very notion of freedom. Of course, there’s always a fight for realizing a dream and the quest for a free world at peace is going to be monumental, with America leading the charge. I have yet to see some solid comments on the resource aspect of it all, given the the scope of the effort it will put a lot of strain on an already heavily challenged budget. Less government at home to subsidize more abroad?

Here are some significant voices from around the blogosphere:

Capitain Ed: Read the speech and thought it was brilliant and historic.

Stephen Green: Sees an even greater focus on international affairs after 2006 and a likely second-term scandal.

Kathy Kinsley: His best speech yet.

Joe Gandelman: Has a valid point, noting that inaugural speeches have a limited shelf life. Indeed, grand words have to backed up by action and that goes back to my point about resourcing the vision.

Cadmusings: Argues that this may have been one of Bush’s most personal speeches, freedom being the core of his beliefs.

Andrew Sullivan: Wonders how the reconcile freedom with the expansion of government.

Kevin Drum: is uninspired today, so disappointingly no commentary from him, so far.

Just switched on the TV and listening to Trent Lott who is opening the ceremonies.

There's Rehnquist, looking frail but good, an impressive appearance given his serious illness.

LaShawn Barber is also liveblogging, with lots of details.

Dick Cheney has taken the oath. As I said earlier today his biography and capabilities make him a very suitable guy for 2008 but it won't happen. He'll retire and remain a strong and influential player behind the scenes.

Denyce Graves performs.

There were some comments that former Vice President Dan Quayle was present but that Al Gore was a noted absentee. Not surprising. Watched the Clinton's, both in good spirits.

It's a little before noon and George Bush has taken the oath, four more years have just started. Now let's wait for the speech.

The Inaugural Speech

Starting off with the Cold War and standing watch on "distant borders" and pointing to the mortal threat that has now emerged. The only force that can take on the hate, tyranny and resentment we now see is human freedom. Here's the Bush doctrine: spread democracy and freedom. Expect to see more of it soon. He's right to point to this as the only weapon to defeat terrorism.

"Ending tyranny in our world" is our ultimate goal, says Bush. He goes on to describe the limits of American power and the toughness of the task at hand.

"Some have unwisely chosen to test America's resolve"

If Bush is going to act on what he's setting out here, the US is going to be extremely engaged in the next four years, all over the world. Nope, it won't stop in Iraq.

Positioning the US as the benevolent saviour of the oppressed goes a lot further than pro-actively defending US borders, it's an interesting move to start building alliances in the Third World. That's where a lot of the focus will be going forward. More partnerships to spread freedom and democracy. Recasting it this way will make things easier for American efforts, Bush is on a mission and wants others to join, making the argument that no one can reject the principles of freedom. Take that Old Europe.

He now appeals to the younger generation: they are going to be needed to roll out this strategy abroad. Yes, more military recruitment will be necessary and here's a veiled call to effect that.

On to domestic affiars: widen ownership, retirement savings: "making every citizen responsible for his or her own destiny". Music to the ears of libertarian-conservatives. Yes, Social Security reform is coming and it will be a template for other free-market societies with demographic strains, pay attention rest of the world.

He now takes on racism and bigotry as it conflicts with the message of freedom. By setting out this doctrine he's raising the bar for Americans to a high level, no more Abu Ghraibs please.

Reform at home and abroad go hand in hand. An ambitious and determined agenda, who would have thought that four years ago?

Bush compared to four years ago is now far clearer on his misison and he brings it across with purpose and gravity, he deeply believes his message. He has emerged as the statesman that few expected him to be. He's defied and challenged his critics and he's giving them lots to chew on here.

Lots of applause, the crowd tunes in to his sincerity.

In Summary
Truthfully, there was nothing really new for those that have been following this administration's journey, but it was a clever move to condense everything that has happened since 9/11, the situation it has created and the path ahead in a short and powerful speech directed not only at America but at the world at large, friends and foes alike. Unite by explaining, so to speak.

The resources for it all: that will be the key challenge for this administration and it wil not be just money and manpower. Partners, politcal capital and purpose are equally important in executing this highly ambitious but morally just agenda.

More later.

With today’s inauguration a good deal of attention has already shifted to who will step in George Bush’s shoes when he leaves office four years from now. It’s an interesting question and it is not at all strange that it is getting a lot of attention since there seems to be a broad consensus that the Democratic nomination is essentially Hillary’s. John Hawkins polled the blogosphere and they have picked their most favorite and least favorite candidates. The hands-down favorite is Condi Rice who was no doubt boosted by her strong performance during this week's senate confirmation hearings, but I remain to be convinced that she's material for an elected position. This was my submission for preferred candidates:

Rudy Giuliani - On the basis of experience, leadership, determination and vision Giuliani leads the pack and in addition to that he is the only one in the Republican camp (together with Schwarzenegger) who is credibly carrying the Reagan torch. Some have argued he got burned by the Kerik affair, but that’s insignificant in the long run. His personal life may well be compensated with his 9/11 record and he will carry the state of New York.

John McCain – He may be a little past his peak and he will have a hard time uniting the Republican umbrella, but I have always had a soft spot for the Vietnam veteran from Arizona. In a time of war his vision and experience are of paramount importance. And although he may not get the Christian right behind him in its entirety, he will be the man to capture the center and that may be the right strategy for 2008. If Hillary is the competition, McCain, like Giuliani, has a good shot.

Marc Racicot – The former Montana governor is hardly ever mentioned but if there’s one Bush-camp enforcer that would have access to their support and phenomenal fundraising machine it would be Racicot (pronounce “Ross-co”). He appears to be a sensible conservative with hands on executive experience and his tenure as Chairman at the GOP could be seen as “being groomed” for more. Watch him.

Tom Ridge – The former Homeland Security boss was rumored as one of the candidates to be on the Bush ticket in 2000 and with good reason. Experienced leadership capabilities, the right credentials for the War on Terror and able to stake out centrist positions if need be, which could prove to be the decisive skill in 2008. He may however opt to stay in the private sector raking in some good cash.

Dick Cheney - Look, I know Cheney won’t run but to me he is the solid rock on which the Bush-house is build. Clever, informed, shrewd, more experience than any other contestant and most of all I think Dick is the guy that would allow you to go to sleep knowing that the world is in safe hands. Pity he won’t run.

Out of the group often mentioned for 2008 I would not be comfortable with Jeb Bush, as much as I like him as a human being and politician. Professor Bainbridge also likes him and quotes from the excellent piece on Jeb in the Economist’s Lexington although he failed to quote the gem of that piece, arguing the following about Jeb Bush:

“He drank deep of products of conservative think-tanks at a time when George was drinking deep of the world’s distilleries”

The reason is that another Bush would be counterproductive is that too much dynasty building is just not compatible with a dynamic and open democracy. If either Jeb or Hillary gets in in 2008 there will have been two families to have controlled the White House over a period of twenty-four years with a worst case scenario of a thirty-six year Clinton-Bush era. Attempting to promote democracy around the world may run into some unavoidable jeers and a consequent credibility gap.

Of course all options are open but I think it’s fair to say that with a likely Clinton effort the Republicans may have to go with someone that can capture the center. And of course, we may well end up, as usual, with an untested Governor.

It's less than two weeks to the Iraqi election and the question is where to go get good information that complements what mainstream media will be serving up. In addition to some of the well-known local Iraqi bloggers (and this week’s paper edition of the Economist which had an excellent piece with a table detailing all the participating parties), do check out the brand new Friends of Democracy which provides ground-level news and information on Iraq's upcoming election. The site is trying to provide the viewpoint from the perspective of the Iraqi people and comes both in an English and Arab version. Check them out on a regular basis in the weeks ahead I would say.

Robert Tagorda has pretty much shut down his shop and moved to Outside the Beltway in what seems an increasing trend towards group-blogging. Another notable move is Stefan Sharkansky who is now spending the bulk of his time over at Sound Politics a move probably inspired by the ongoing political mess in Washington State. Andrew Ian Dodge put it this way last week:

Solo blogs, except in rare cases, will not stand the test of time. Establish yourself as a decent blogger then get yourself into a good group blog.

There’s some truth to that and it’s probably a good solution for those whose daytime activities don’t allow regular quality updates of their weblog. The flipside is that you, and there’s my concern, probably have to give up a bit of your independence and flexibility. That’s why for now I am quite happy to remain on my own even though sometimes I lack the time to produce the quality type of posts that I would like to.

It’s strange but in the post-Giuliani era there are still major North American cities where a mix of extreme tolerance and poorly defined policies contribute to the decay of once thriving city centers. Seattle-based blogger Matt Rosenberg - whose Rosenblog I highly recommend - points out what happened to Vancouver's historic center, creating a blot on an otherwise spectacular urban landscape. Spending a significant amount of time in an office on the edges of the now infamous Gastown district I can only concur with Matt’s comments.

To Dutch parliament after a two month absence in a safehouse under police protection (persistent rumors have it that she was in the US), vowing to continue her fight against radical Islam:

"I am scared now and again, but I will go on. I must go on," Hirsi Ali told reporters. "I am convinced that you cannot give in to threats and terrorism," she told a packed news conference broadcast live on television.

Hirsi Ali, those running in Iraq's upcoming election, they are the brave willing to put their lives at risk for freedom and against violence:

"There is no place for violence. Not against women, not against artists, not against writers."

They deserve our respect and support.

UPDATE: Sered Pov has some comments too and asks:

Shouldn't she have been in the parliament on the day the Van Gogh murder was discussed with the government? What's the state of a democracy if an elected MP can't do her job for two and a half months, because of security concerns?

There’s a lengthy interview with me up over at Andres Gentry’s site. He sent me a list of interesting questions - both personal and political – and once I had answered them there were some follow-up questions. Do have a look and browse around Andres’ site while you’re there.

One of the key questions I got after the Van Gogh murder was from readers all over America arguing that this was surely the wake-up call that would help Europeans, and in particular the Dutch, re-assess their general dislike of George Bush and abandon their skepticism about the global War on Terror. And many pundits followed in the weeks after the killing with theories about the Dutch having their 9/11. I wasn’t so sure about all that and remained very doubtful about a Dutch 9/11-style awakening. But since I am not on the ground I referred the issue to a new Dutch blogger, Sered Pov, who has started to provide good coverage on events in English. His conclusions are not encouraging and he found little evidence on which he could credibly base an opinion but his thoughts are instructive nonetheless:

My gut feeling is that most people do not think of the war on terror, as being a war against islamist fundamentalism and -extremism. Frankly, I don't think many of my countrymen and -women like to think about the war on terror at all; it might interfere too much with the politically correct, multicultural, viewpoint. And so, no one talks about it. It's just not a subject of conversation.

The essence of this attitude however is this:

But most normal Dutch people would rather not be disturbed by more unrest. They'd rather sleep and rest assured, though no one seems to know what to be assured of.

So, there’s no measurable evidence of a lasting attitude change to get engaged or an increased appreciation of George Bush. Would circulating the CIA’s latest findings on the near term prospects for Europe help? Or would a 9/11 or Madrid style assault change Dutch minds? It’s questionable. While 9/11 and Van Gogh are different in size, scope and location they both carried the same warning. So if we treat them as equals why would there be far more support for a war on terror in the US compared to The Netherlands?

One explanation is in the attitude or mentality-department. Dutch are not used to waging wars nor are they built to endure hardship. Having to forego the fruits of the social paradise that they have created is a tough call and likely one that the majority would like to defer to the next generation. On the other end of the spectrum is the lack of political leadership. Again, cultural aspects make it less likely for the Dutch to align themselves behind a visionary leader, a flag and a battle hymn, but there have been political leaders from both the left and right that were able to strike a chord with the stoic Dutch. Unfortunately none of these are around at this critical juncture. A mixture of political correctness, self-induced apathy and poor leadership, it doesn’t get any more toxic than that.

... to go to the elections in Iraq. As usual, Chrenkoff offers some positive counterweight to the dim scenarios that are making the rounds in the traditional media.

Former Chinese leader Zhao Ziyang passed away earlier today. He was Deng Xiapoing’s second pick to lead China after his death into a new era after his first choice Hu Yaobang fell from grace in 1986. It was Hu’s death in 1989 that sparked the Tiananmen protests which in turn became Zhao’s undoing after he sided with the student demonstrators. He spent the remainder of his life under house arrest and was only allowed to leave his house for the occasional round of golf, giving the press a rare opportunity to once in a while snap a photo of him. One of these pictures emerged in the Hong Kong press in 1997 shortly after Deng’s death with the suggestion that Zhao might return to lead China after the old man’s death. The possibility of that happening was remote as the hard-liners around Jiang Zemin had consolidated their grip on power by, among other things, ensuring that Zhao remained well out of the public eye. Zhao Ziyang grasped the urgent need for reform, he did not grasp that its first phases were to be restricted to the economy only.

UPDATE: Dan Drezner makes it clear why Zhao's death will not spark the same protests as Hu's death.

Here’s a perceptive reader:

“I find tax levels in Canada to be higher only because Canada is now more realistic about having its citizens pay for the cost of its extremely huge government. The overall size of government in the US is at least as large (and getting much much larger alarmingly fast), but the administration is deferring the tax bill for a later generation. These things take time to work themselves out, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if, 20 years down the road, you'd read some popular blog celebrating Canada's lower taxes and healthier attitude to freedom.

This train of thought has some merits and it has crossed my mind before. There are however two points that make this scenario somewhat unlikely. For starters, increasing taxes in the US are close to political suicide and it may be far likelier to see ongoi