Go and cast your vote to the pick the 2008 Republican nominee. George Allen is leading and my pick, Giuliani, is a close runner-up. What is interesting is that results are broken up by blog so I assume that if you follow this link and vote we will learn how Peaktalk readers see the 2008 GOP contest.

Given the many "Good News From ..." editions, we all know by now that Arthur Chrenkoff has way too much time on his hands. He now points us to some very addictive, visually compelling and time consuming geographical tests, for Europe and America.

OK, on the European one I scored 44 out of 45 for Europe because I dropped Austria too quickly on the map. Well, they're Germans anyway. On the US tests I scored 49 out of 50 at the "expert" level (putting states on the right geographical location), but that should have been 50/50 because I dropped Arizona too fast. I know where Arizona is ...

Europe's Steady Decline continues to be the single-most read post of this site and still generates mail because new visitors when they decide to hang around a bit longer often pick this post for further reading. Glenn was kind enough to instalanche it, and to be frank having read it again for the first time in a long time, it looks pretty good. And this is because it's personal, but more importantly because most of it stands as of today although events have impacted the content somewhat, consider this:

Note that this may also be why al-Qaeda and similar groups are avoiding Europe as a terrorist target. It is a great place to recruit and set-up operations, but more importantly a direct attack on any EU member state might solidify the slowly evaporating link between the US and Europe. Don’t count on a bomb on the Paris metro or Amsterdam’s Schiphol airport. And an attack on a densely crowded London Underground station is not on the cards, as yet.

Well, here we are almost two years later and Western Europe is now solidly under the gun. That in theory should mean a closing of cross-Atlantic ranks following the logic of the initial post. Has it? So far, only partly. Former Delaware Governor Pete Du Pont opined yesterday that events have sparked movement and that Western Europe’s rude awakening will eventually strengthen the bond between US and Europe: rallying behind a common cause to secure common interests. Du Pont is shrewd enough to point out that some leadership changes need to take effect; Schroeder for instance definitely needs to go. I would add Chirac to that list (due to retire in 2007) but we should be careful that other changes will not disrupt the fragile partnership. Tony Blair is expected to retire in the same year as Chirac and it remains to be seen if a Bush successor will stay the course in the War on Terror.

But even if there’s a political alignment across the pond then there may still be different approaches and not every Euro-leader may jump happily onto the US-defined plan to bring democracy to Muslim world as a means to defeat jihadists, as the Economist noted this week:

“Trying a few radical experiments to see if you can turn Morocco into an all-singing, all-dancing democracy might be fun if you are on the other side of the Atlantic. It’s a bit different if you are in Spain, and living just a few miles across the water”

And not just in Spain, for the rest of Europe is filled with agitated Muslims ready to create mayhem wherever they see fit. For that reason alone, Europe’s solution will never be exactly the same as America’s. It is therefore too premature to confidently project a rebirth of a western alliance, as much as we would like to see it. If that will spell Europe’s ultimate decline remains to be seen, but from today’s vantage point I am not overly hopeful that European's homegrown solution can reverse it.

Q & A: Where does Canada fit into all of this? They have been told to stay out of it altogether.

A reader weighs in following my earlier post:

"I can't resist mentioning that new cars became unaffordable in the US for so many (which comprise 25% of all retail sales in the US) because of the oligopoly that has bowed to every demand of the UAW, throwing up the defense that they couldn't " afford " a strike. Now that Toyota has a larger market cap than all the American makers, together, I hope their owners no longer will tolerate this level of irresponsibility in those they entrust with their capital"

The deep irony of course is that unions have worked so hard to render the industries upon which their members depend so uncompetitive that their short term gains translated in long term losses for America (and other industrialized economies) as a whole. That by the way applies to public sector unions too. The numerous privatizations that took place in many countries over the past few decades removed a large burden from taxpayer's bills.

Tomorrow.

When I argued yesterday that we are entering a less pleasant world, the death of a suspected terrorist at the hands of London police is a prime example. Some of course are unwilling to accept these new realities and will waste no time to highlight the mistakes that were made and imply that an effort to prevent terror equals a racist killing.

No, we shouldn't rejoice over the death of an innocent man, but neither should we abandon the better safe than sorry approach or in Tony Blair's words:

" We are desperately sorry for the death of an innocent person. I understand entirely the feelings of the young man's family. But we also have to understand that the police are doing their job in very, very difficult circumstances and it's important that we give them every support "

" Had the circumstances been different and for example this had turned out to be a terrorist and the police had failed to take that action they would have been criticized the other way "

Logic you can't argue with, but expect that many will do exactly that in the weeks and months ahead.

Arguing that the AFL-CIO hasn't done enough to stem the rapid decline in membership, four of its constituent unions are pulling out, effectively forcing a break-up of America's largest organized labor federation. The immediate reaction is of course centered around the impact it will have on fundraising for the Democrats. However it's far more important to note that in today's global economy the scope for organized labor to play a role is rapidly diminishing. Think about it: (a) low-level jobs are increasingly exported overseas; (b) labor legislation protecting workers rights for jobs that stay in North America has made unions largely superfluous; (c) the shift of a manufacturing based economy to a services driven economy has created a wealthier and far more mobile working population; (d) western countries have deregulated and opened up their economies over the past decades and unions are no longer compatible with the spirit of free trade and free markets; and resulting from all of this is (e) an erosion of public support for unions and the tactics they tend to employ.

So, organized labor is in decline and that may explain the level of desperation that characterizes the actions of some North American unions, here and here. In the past I pointed to the Dutch model where unions during the 1990s became partners of government and employers by agreeing to wage controls, a system often referred to as the "poldermodel":

" ... mechanism encourages wide consultation between employers and unions, and not only over wages. This is made much easier by the country's small size, and by its traditionally sensible trade unions. Lodewijk de Waal, head of the unions' federation, talks openly of the need for higher profits and more labour-market flexibility"

Of course, the fact that The Neherlands is largely a services based economy with a political culture based on consensus has made it a unique case. Still, it's notable that a country noted for its leftist traditions produces union leaders who argue convincingly for market driven solutions. It has turned Dutch unions into consultative entities with little economic power and that's what they essentially should be in today's global economy.

Have you lived life? Not unless you've had one of these meals.

More burger-blogging here.

Now that Spain's socialists have been in power for more than a year, Iberian Notes has a round-up of the key issues combined with some well-meant advice for Spain's conservative opposition:

Part of our problem is image. Our least popular leaders are Acebes and Zaplana. They're attack dogs. Only the base likes them. Keep using them while we're still riding the right wing hard, since they keep the core voters fired up. But when we swing center sometime in 2007, get rid of them. Well, no, don't just kick them out, they've been loyal, but they have to drop out of sight for the campaign. Center voters hate these guys.

Canadian conservatives, pay attention.

Europe is desperately scrambling for a solution in the wake of the jihadist attacks in London and yesterday the Dutch NRC Handelsblad on its editorial pages threw out the time-tested option of more government money for social services and education:

There is no simple measure to prevent this orthodox alienation of Muslim youth. Yet, more can be done than what’s being done today. Terrorists flourish in a sea of sympathizers who themselves do not feel at home too. European governments should pro-actively promote the integration of poor immigrant families, not just on a national level but also on a local and community level where problems occur. The huge influx of immigrants from poor areas has necessitated increased social work, youth work and education but in most European countries these areas have suffered budget cutbacks. In The Netherlands cutbacks on parole and social work have turned prisons into breading grounds of orthodoxy.

Social integration is not just a task of the government. The example of immigration nation America has made it clear that self organization in communities and churches is equally important.

What we have learned so far from pro-active integration and laissez-fair multi-culturalism is that they both have pros and cons, but neither provides a safety blanket against the kind of terror that we are witnessing today. Firstly, a pro-active government approach is almost a guarantee for more Muslim radical elements to withdraw from state-sponsored community centers or “approved” or “moderate” mosques. They simply disappear from the radar screen and start operating in a twilight zone where they are out of reach of law enforcement as well as well meaning social workers. Secondly, allocating more funds for integration fails to address that other – often ignored – factor of non-Arab or non-immigrant individuals converting to a radical brand of Islam. The Dutch Hofstad group counted some Dutch-American members among its ranks and one of the 7/7 bombers was of Jamaican descent, hardly examples of disgruntled and impoverished Arab youths who are desperate for a helping hand from the government. Thirdly, the editorial does refer to the US experience where less government seemed to have worked. But comparing Europe’s Muslim immigrants to the multi-ethnic experience that has been so successful in America is walking right into another fallacy as historical, economic and socio-cultural factors make these two very hard to compare. From that perspective the failed integration of Mexicans as described in Victor Davis Hanson’s Mexifornia is far better material to refer to.

Professor Bainbridge has a good round-up on the issue of multi-culturalism spawning terror and it appears that he favors a far more aggressive approach to integration which is what I advocated as the iron fist, based on the experiences that Malaysia has had with managing a multi-ethnic society. That means that there is a clear role for the government, but not the along the traditional “soft-hand” lines that the NRC Handelsblad advocates.

Yet, a more direct approach for integration is in and by itself not sufficient, it needs to be combined with actively waging the war against those radical fringes that have the ability to organize and create harm under whatever integration-scenario governments opt for. Above all, that means breaking with traditional and time tested concepts and it means the acceptance of a tougher and far less pleasant world than the one we’ve been used to.

There has been a lot of excitement in the blogosphere about China and it all started a few weeks back with this article in the Washington Times which kicked off with the following ominous paragraph:

China is building its military forces faster than U.S. intelligence and military analysts expected, prompting fears that Beijing will attack Taiwan in the next two years, according to Pentagon officials.

The article went on to discuss the Chinese military build-up and the increasing likelihood of a military conflict with the US. Regular Peaktalk readers will know that I have always been deeply skeptical of those looking to cast China as our next big enemy, especially at a time when it seems that we’ve already found one in the form of radical Islam. There are, and there continue to be, good reasons for this position. With regards to Taiwan, China has always been testing the waters – literally – and the recent saber rattling is no different although the fact that US forces are stretched thin may have emboldened some Beijing-based adventurists. Going to war over Taiwan could potentially invite a third world war and it is unlikely that China will pursue such a route as it would have a devastating impact on its nascent and successful economy. The reason for it is simple as the US would have no problems obliterating the People's Liberation Army (PLA) whose power continues to be vastly overrated.

The belligerent tone of the article - pushing the idea of such an armed conflict – bothered me, but towards the end common sense sets in. China’s military build-up is far likelier driven by the need for regional muscle in order to help secure its voracious appetite for natural resources. While Taiwan is a plum prize for any Chinese leader, if you’re sitting in Zhongnanhai your immediate worry is how to keep 1.3 billion people happy and fed. Economic necessities drive China’s power play most of all as it is crucial in keeping the Communist Party in power as any serious economic deterioration would immediately eat away at its legitimacy.

That brings me to Max Boot who this week in the LA Times (via Our Way of Life) sets out that China is not pursuing a conventional war but something a PLA study coined “Unrestricted Warfare”:

Their different approaches include financial warfare (subverting banking systems and stock markets), drug warfare (attacking the fabric of society by flooding it with illicit drugs), psychological and media warfare (manipulating perceptions to break down enemy will), international law warfare (blocking enemy actions using multinational organizations), resource warfare (seizing control of vital natural resources), even ecological warfare (creating man-made earthquakes or other natural disasters).

What we’re seeing today is “Unrestricted Warfare Lite”, if that, as China will need for its economic supremacy the West to help it get there, voluntarily or involuntarily. Pundita – a new blogger to me but one that you should check out regularly – sums it up compellingly:

“ ... it's easy to understand why some observers are seeing a new cold war developing, along the lines of the struggle against the Soviets. However, the situation is completely different; e.g., the Soviets did not hold US debt. And American businesses didn't depend on cheap Soviet labor to help US companies stay competitive in global markets. The Cold War was a pre-globalization struggle”

Therefore no clash of titans, armed struggle or replay of Cold War style scenarios and hyperventilating about China being a new fascist power is equally ludicrous. China is a shaky and corrupt nation which has had some luck in combining Communist power structures with capitalist reforms and a steady influx of capital from successful neighbors such as Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore. China is an opportunity, not a threat.

China and the US have now become too interdependent to risk letting relations descend to the level of an armed conflict. We should also seriously question certain components of “Unrestricted Warfare” although an ecological attack on the US directed from Beijing would make a nice Hollywood script. The focus will be on making money first and we’re up against a potentially strong economic player who doesn’t necessarily want to play according to the rules of the game and that requires some serious attention. But we’re light years away from an armed struggle or a Chinese economy that is so successful that it can erode the American ability to fund and operate the world’s strongest armed machine.

NOTE: As it happens China just announced it would let its currency, RMB, move into a managed floating exchange rate regime, effectively revaluating it by a few percent. Dan Drezner has a round-up with comments.

UPDATE: Via Roger I discovered the Carnival of Chinese Blogs. Take a look.

Check out the Unite Against Terror website, an initiative from writers, journalists and bloggers from both the left and the right to help build a coalition of people from all over the world to combat terrorism. The underlying message they have is crucial to understanding the current conflict:

This terrorist violence is not a response by 'Muslims' to the injustices perpetrated upon them by 'the west'. Western democracies have been responsible for some of the ills of this world but not for the terrorist murders of these deluded Bin-Ladenists.

These attacks did not begin in 2003. The first attempt to blow up the World Trade Center took place ten years before, in 1993.

These terrorists do not hate what is worst in the societies they attack, but what is best. They despise individual liberty, critical thought, gender equality, religious tolerance, the rights of minorities and political pluralism. They do not criticize democracy because it sometimes fails to live up to its principles; they oppose those principles.

You can also sign a petition on their site, but I think that has limited value. Above all, it's the message that needs to be reiterated so that the free West can unite both its right and left voices, something that after four years of direct jihadist violence somehow remains an elusive goal. Internal divisions are as lethal as bombs, time to unite.

UPDATE I: Read Michael Ledeen too, with some apt comparisons to communism and fascism.

UPDATE II: Read this post by Glenn explaining why the media can play such a detrimental role in creating these divisions.

Hardly of the magnitude that we witnessed on 7/7, but disturbing nevertheless: a series of explosions in London. Tim Worstall has all the details.

From the looks of it this could be the sub-franchise, al-Qaeda inspired amateurs. Disruptive, not lethal but it again highlights there's huge potential to expand and recruit in Europe.

There's no telling what you'll find after a few days away from the daily news. The line-up to appease, justify or even a call for more terror keeps getting longer.

On the appeasement front, London Mayor Ken Livingstone (via LGF):

Ken Livingstone yesterday blamed western policies for contributing to the spread of the extremist beliefs that inspired the London bombers. The mayor of London highlighted the West's role in the creation of al-Qa'eda by saying: "We created these people. We built them up. We funded them."

A trainee writer in The Guardian seeks to justify the attacks (via Norm):

Shocked would be to suggest we didn't appreciate that when Falluja was flattened, the people under it were dead but not forgotten - long after we had moved on to reading more interesting headlines about the Olympics. It is not the done thing to make such comparisons, but Muslims on the street do.

And then there's Atta Sr. ready to call for more attacks on innocents:

The man, who gave his age as "at least 70," said he had no sorrow for what happened in London, and said there was a double standard in the way the world viewed the victims in London and victims in the Islamic world.

Cursing in Arabic, el-Amir also denounced Arab leaders and Muslims who condemned the London attacks as being traitors and non-Muslims. He passionately vowed that he would do anything within his power to encourage more attacks.

If you think that it will be difficult to physically detroy these terrorist networks then think about the vast challenge of trying to change people's minds. Yes, there will be many more attacks and after each new atrocity you'll find new recruits to the army of appeasers, justifiers and ultimately the terror groups themselves.

Whenever there's an update from Spirit of America I try to link to it for I think they're doing a great job. Not just by delivering goods to the Iraqi people but by fostering a bond between them and those who liberated their country:

Organizers said they will be shipping 7,200 individual kits - filled with pencils, pens, markers, paper, sharpeners and glue - and 1,000 hygiene kits filled with toothpaste and toothbrushes, floss, shampoo and soap. The kits will go to two units, the 5th Civil Affairs Group in Al Anbar province and Regimental Combat Team 8, which is renovating three schools near war-torn Fallujah.

These friendships bags may be a small token but they go a long way to develop the spirit that's rebuilding Iraq. If the left had its way, none of this would be taking place.

It's a busy week combined with guests as well as lots of sunshine so a bit of a summer schedule. More in the next day or so.

More good news.

David Shribman discusses the increasing likelihood of a Clinton-McCain run-off in 2008. There can be no doubt that if Hillary enters the race she will move it to the center of American politics. In that case the Republicans may well decide to opt for a candidate that can capture that center, which happens to be a white-haired war hero in his seventies who is detested by his party’s conservative base. But he may be the most experienced, determined and above all visionary candidate the Republican Party can field. Remind you of anyone?

As I mentioned before the debate about Islam in The Netherlands was shaped most intelligently by a gay professor, an errant moviemaker and a Somali immigrant. Irshad Manji has a bit of all three and she's Canadian too. Excerpt:

Muslims, adds Manji, must find positive role models rather than jihadists: “Martyrs are the rock stars of the Muslim world, shown on the internet against a background of funky music. They feed on the self-esteem crisis of young Muslims.” That could be addressed by history lessons paying greater tribute to the Muslim contribution to the Renaissance.

She denounces terrorism and the response to terrorism, which is not sufficiently robust. It is no good, she argues, for respectable Muslims to say “violence is not the Islamic ideal” if violence has become Islamic practice. And she attacks the proposed religious hatred laws, saying: “Society needs people who offend, otherwise there will be no progress.” [Bolding mine - ed.]

More Manji, please.

A reader sent me a link to an editorial on Expatica, arguing that is time for Dutch justice to get tough, looking in particular at Bouyeri's case:

Long-term isolation of prisoners in solitary confinement is, in most instances, abhorrent; it is a sadist tactic use by oppressive regimes to break an opponent's spirit.

This case is different. B. has challenged society and it is time for society to fight back: if isolating him is the only way to stop him trying to recruit others to his cause, so be it.

The column is puzzling and probably a veiled call for the Dutch to set up their equivalent of Guantanamo Bay. While I appreciate the need for additional restrictions on terrorists in captivity – which are by the way adequately provided for under Dutch law – a move away from the fundamental rights of criminal justice in a free democracy is probably the last thing the Dutch need now. What they need is a better functioning intelligence service and the ability of prosecutors to demand far harsher penalties. Change is possible within the system; you don’t have to dismantle it.

For your Sunday reading pleasure I will translate this piece from NRC Handelsblad in its entirety. It will add some empirical evidence to the often heard claim that Europe is facing a demographic disaster:

The Netherlands are bracing themselves for a record low number of babies per 1,000 inhabitants since 1900, projects the Central Bureau for Statistics (CBS).

During the first five months of this year 77,391 babies were born, compared to 78,961 in the same period last year and 85,257 in the same period during 2000, the last record year. If this trend persists the CBS projects around 190,000 babies this year, some 17,000 less than only a few years ago. With a population of 16.3 million that translates to 11.7 babies per 1000 inhabitants. “that 11.7 is the absolute lowpoints since 1900, and it’s half the number of babies that were born during the 1950s, says Jan Latten professor from the University of Amsterdam who is also a social-demographic researcher with the CBS. “Babies have become a scarce commodity in The Netherlands”

If a more extreme scenario is realized – since there are some margins in the projections – The Netherlands will in a few years time will hit an absolute low number of babies born ever, below 170,000, the low recorded in 1983.

Births have become largely an immigrant story” says Latten. Fifteen percent of the babies, 33,000, is currently from non-Western descent and another 10,000 from immigrant Western descent. It’s only because of immigrant offspring that we haven’t reached low birth rates earlier. Another fact that he finds remarkable is the fact that higher educated couples have less babies.

Latten calls the developments astonishing. “Not only do we reach the lowpoints from the 1980s, it’s happening with a population that has grown by 2 million since then”. He doesn’t expect the number of babies to increase soon: "Given the low number of women in their thirties in the years ahead, the pessimistic views that consumers have, I can only conclude that the numbers will have to go down further in the years ahead"

These numbers are not that surprising, especially the reduced birth rate for the well-educated and the high-rate for immigrants have been a matter of fact for years, but it’s good to see that solid numbers now support these claims. It will change the Dutch landscape for good: an aging population, a rapidly changing ethnic composition of the population and a huge socio-economic shift with relatively more births in lower income groups. Dutch society has always been good in supporting social mobility by government funded education and it seems to me that it has to be stepped up in order to: (a) maintain a relatively highly educated workforce, and (b) dramatically increase the productivity of a shrinking labor force that has to support an increasing elderly and in-active population. Productivity gains need to actually go beyond supporting these changed demographics, at the same time they need to address the pressure from increasingly competitve economies (North America, Asia).

NOTE: The Dutch 11.7 babies per 1,000 inhabitants compares to a solid 13.9 recorded in the US and a shockingly low 10.4 in Canada, explaining no doubt why the latter is so hungry for immigrants.

Leon de Winter today sums up the situation in Holland for the NYT in Tolerating a Time Bomb, calling for the emergence of a politician with Fortuyn-like qualities. While De Winter too easily attributes the "time bomb" to the traditional explanation that the Dutch have been too tolerant, he makes a few worthwhile points and some clear political leadership is certainly one of them.

As some of you may remember, he staunchly defended Van Gogh after his death even though the latter ripped him apart relentlessly in his many columns. Here's his reaction after Van Gogh was killed:

The act is representative of the intolerance practiced by many immigrants. Homophobia, anti-Semitism and religious and cultural intolerance have since their arrival in our country started a new life. Theo van Gogh lost his. He was an asshole, but he was my asshole and he had the right to be an asshole. I am furious, desperate and perplexed.

Most of us are still furious, but the time to be desparate and perplexed is long over. It's time to focus and channel our feelings in a determined strategy to combat jihadist crime.

Today Jeff Jarvis jumps on the moral debate by arguing that jihadist terror is nothing else but criminal behavior:

But when we treat it as something else, when we try to understand it, when we grant the veil of political correctness -- of understanding, even tolerance, invoking fuzzy words like "otherness" -- we risk spreading the crime, making it if not acceptable then at least understandable for others. It is a cousin of glamorizing crime, of turning these scum into ideological, religious Bonnies and Clydes.

And there are Bonnies too. Last night the Dutch Minister of the Interior, Remkes, admitted in a TV-interview that radical groups monitored by Dutch security services have seen an increased participation of women and Dutch nationals who have converted to Islam. He added that in Holland there are now some ten to twenty radical groups and that some 200 suspect individuals under surveillance. That's Remkes' estimate and that of course does not take into account the numerous groups and individuals that take advantage of Europe's porous borders.

Winds of Change has launched a new regular round-up of posts and news that looks at "hate" or in their own words:

This briefing will be looking hard at the dark places the mainstream media sometimes seem determined to look away from, to better understand our declared enemies on their own terms and without illusions. Our goal is to bring you some of the top jihadi rants, idiotarian seething, and old-school Jew-hatred from around the world, leaving you more informed, more aware, and pretty disgusted every month.

Good initiative. It's sad and sobering to note that many media often fail to address this phenomenon appropriately.