Thanks for the e-mails checking if I was still around. The resounding answer to that is: yes.

I have been back to The Netherlands for a vacation and the annual family tour. The first week was spent on a farm in the east with no internet access and the second week was primarily fun and family. And there are times when the blog just has to take a backseat to all other activities and this was one of them. More later.

The emergency debate turned into a marathon session of the Dutch lower house and early in the morning an apparently emotional Immigration Minster Verdonk accepted two separate motions to reconsider revoking Hirsi Ali's Dutch nationality. She will now have six weeks to see if there are mitigating circumstances that will allow Hirsi Ali to remain a Dutch citizen.

What to say? It is a moral victory for our embattled heroine that much is certain, but at this point it is of course of little help to her. As she mentioned during her press conference yesterday, it was the court ruling that led to the eviction from her apartment a few weeks back that forced her decision to resign from parliament and leave the lowlands in search for greener pastures overseas. Upon joining AEI she will most likely be in a position to apply for US citizenship and consider her Dutch passport as a tainted relic that will forever remind her of her dreadful last few months in The Netherlands.

For Verdonk, the story is truly extraordinary, and not exactly in a positive sense. She gambled that a tough stance vis-à-vis Ayaan would pay her political dividends in the leadership race for her party, but the gamble failed to pay off. Not only were the motions against her actions supported by a wide spectrum of the Dutch left and right, during the debate she also lied about certain issues according to writer Leon de Winter on Dutch TV last night. A group of Dutch celebrities published an open letter yesterday in which they stated “we are embarrassed about our own country”, and if you read it, it is patently clear that – without mentioning her name – the finger is pointed directly at the erstwhile Dutch 'iron lady'.

The real iron lady would probably tell us that ruthless political power play is perfectly fine, as long as it is supported by sound moral principles, by separating right and wrong. And by taking a risk, rather than by reckless gambling. Rita Verdonk failed across the board, on all counts and it would seem that her political career is pretty much history.

My friends at The Augean Stables nail it once again:

Anyone who thinks that Holland “woke up” after Theo Van Gogh’s murder needs to rethink. Not only was it the “progressive camp” that did Ali in politically, and her good, cautious, bourgeois neighbors who wanted her out lest they share in the dangers she ran, but that segment of the population that supposedly did wake up has done little to nothing to save her.

It were the neighbours who represent more than anything else the self-induced sleep that Hirsi Ali's former countrymen appear to prefer. So much that they were willing to go through the trouble of using the courts to allow them to stay asleep.

While you're at the stables, make sure to also check out Richard Landes' account of Hirsi Ali's recent visit to Harvard.

From an American reader:

Surely there must be some way for the Netherlands to resolve its political difficulties without lurching from crisis to crisis and without violence.

If not, there's not much hope for the rest of us.

It seems to me that many European countries have consensus-style governments (either through formal mechanisms such as proportional representation or widely held social and political customs) that tend to produce paralysis through a combination of political fear and narrow self-interest.

The oddity is that such arrangements were designed in part to limit personality based politics; but in moments of paralysis and crisis that is exactly what they produce, because only a 'super-star' politician (or a demagogue) can cobble together a majority large enough and stable enough to push through needed reforms.

I hope the Dutch people will be able to find a way through these difficulties without settling into a fragile but stifling center-left consensus to do nothing, punctuated by growing violence and unrest, but it doesn't look good at the moment.

The outlook is bleaker than ever, in my opinion.

For posterity, in its entirety:

I came to Holland in the summer of 1992 because I wanted to be able to determine my own future. I didn’t want to be forced into a destiny that other people had chosen for me, so I opted for the protection of the rule of law. Here in Holland, I found freedom and opportunities, and I took those opportunities to speak out against religious terror.

In January 2003, at the invitation of the VVD party, I became a member of parliament. I accepted the VVD’s invitation on the condition that I would be the party’s spokesman for the emancipation of women and the integration of immigrants.

What exactly did I want to achieve?

First of all I wanted to put the oppression of immigrant women -- especially Muslim women – squarely on the Dutch political agenda. Second, I wanted Holland to pay attention to the specific cultural and religious issues that were holding back many ethnic minorities, instead of always taking a one-sided approach that focused only on their socio-economic circumstances. Lastly, I wanted politicians to grasp the fact that major aspects of Islamic doctrine and tradition, as practiced today, are incompatible with the open society.

Now I have to ask myself, have I accomplished that task?

I have stumbled often in my political career. It has sometimes been frustrating and slow. However, I am completely certain that I have, in my own way, succeeded in contributing to the debate. Issues related to Islam – such as impediments to free speech; refusal of the separation of Church and State; widespread domestic violence; honor killings; the repudiation of wives; and Islam’s failure to condemn genital mutilation -- these subjects can no longer be swept under the carpet in our country’s capital. Some of the measures that this government has begun taking give me satisfaction. Many illusions of how easy it will be to establish a multicultural society have disappeared forever. We are now more realistic and more open in this debate, and I am proud to have contributed to that process.

Meanwhile, the ideas which I espouse have begun spreading to other countries. In recent years I have given speeches and attended debates in many European countries and in the United States. For months now, I have felt that I needed to make a decision: should I go on in Dutch politics, or should I now transfer my ideas to an international forum?

In the fall of 2005 I told Gerrit Zalm and Jozias van Aartsen, the leaders of the VVD, that I would not be a candidate for the parliamentary elections in 2007. I had decided to opt for a more international platform, because I wanted to contribute to the international debate on the emancipation of Muslim women and the complex relationship between Islam and the West.

Now that I am announcing that I will resign from Dutch politics, I would like to thank the members of the VVD for my years in parliament – to thank them for inviting me to stand for parliament, and -- perhaps more importantly -- for putting up with me while I was there, for this has been in many ways a rough ride for us all. I want to thank my other colleagues here in parliament for their help, although some of our debates have been sharp. (Femke Halsema, thank you especially for that!). I would also like to thank the 30,758 people who in January 2003 trusted their preference vote to a newcomer.

But why am I not remaining in parliament for my full term, until next year’s election? Why, after only three and a half years, have I decided to resign from the Lower Chamber?

It is common knowledge that threats against my life began building up ever since I first talked about Islam publicly, in the spring of 2002. Months before I even entered politics, my freedom of movement was greatly curtailed, and that became worse after Theo van Gogh was murdered in 2004. I have been obliged to move house so many times I have lost count. The direct cause for the ending of my membership in parliament is that on April 27 of this year, a Dutch court ruled that I must once again leave my home, because my neighbors filed a complaint that they could not feel safe living next to me. The Dutch government will appeal this verdict and I grateful for that, because how on earth will other people whose lives are threatened manage to find a place to stay if this verdict is allowed to rest? However, this appeal does not alter my situation: I have to leave my apartment by the end of August.

Another reason for my departure is the discussion that has arisen from a TV program, The Holy Ayaan, which was aired on May 11. This program centered on two issues: the story that I told when I was applying for asylum here in Holland, and questions about my forced marriage.

I have been very open about the fact that when I applied for asylum in the Netherlands in 1992, I did so under a false name and with a fabricated story. In 2002, I spoke on national television about the conditions of my arrival, and I said then that I fabricated a story in order to be able to receive asylum here. Since that TV program I have repeated this dozens of times, in Dutch and international media. Many times I have truthfully named my father and given my correct date of birth. (You will find a selection of these articles in the press folder). I also informed the VVD leadership and members of this fact when I was invited to stand for parliament.

I have said many times that I am not proud that I lied when I sought asylum in the Netherlands. It was wrong to do so. I did it because I felt I had no choice. I was frightened that if I simply said I was fleeing a forced marriage, I would be sent back to my family. And I was frightened that if I gave my real name, my clan would hunt me down and find me. So I chose a name that I thought I could disappear with – the real name of my grandfather, who was given the birth-name Ali. I claimed that my name was Ayaan Hirsi Ali, although I should have said it was Ayaan Hirsi Magan.

You probably are wondering, what is my real name?

I am Ayaan, the daughter of Hirsi, who is the son of a man who took the name of Magan. Magan was the son of Isse, who was the son of Guleid, who was the son of Ali. He was the son of Wai’ays, who was the son of Muhammad. He was the son of Ali, who was the son of Umar. Umar was the son of Osman, who was the son of Mahamud. This is my clan, and therefore, in Somalia, this is my name: Ayaan Hirsi Magan Isse Guleid Ali Wai’ays Muhammad Ali Umar Osman Mahamud.

Following the May 11 television broadcast, legal questions have been raised about my naturalization as a Dutch citizen. Minister Verdonk has written to me saying that my passport will be annulled, because it was issued to a person who does not hold my real name. I am not at liberty to discuss the legal issues in this case.

Now for the questions about my forced marriage. Last week’s TV program cast doubt on my credibility in that respect, and the final conclusion of the documentary is that all this is terribly complicated. Let me tell you, it’s not so complex. The allegations that I willingly married my distant cousin, and was present at the wedding ceremony, are simply untrue. This man arrived in Nairobi from Canada, asked my father for one of his five daughters, and my father gave him me. I can assure you my father is not a man who takes no for an answer. Still, I refused to attend the formal ceremony, and I was married regardless. Then, on my way to Canada -- during a stopover in Germany -- I traveled to the Netherlands and asked for asylum here. In all simplicity this is what happened, nothing more and nothing less. For those who are interested in the intimate details of my transition from a pre-modern society to a modern one, and how I came to love what the West stands for, please read my memoir, which is due to be published this fall.

To return to the present day, may I say that it is difficult to live with so many threats on your life and such a level of police protection. It is difficult to work as a parliamentarian if you have nowhere to live. All that is difficult, but not impossible. It has become impossible since last night, when Minister Verdonk informed me that she would strip me of my Dutch citizenship.

I am therefore preparing to leave Holland. But the questions for our society remain. The future of Islam in our country; the subjugation of women in Islamic culture; the integration of the many Muslims in the West: it is self-deceit to imagine that these issues will disappear.

I will continue to ask uncomfortable questions, despite the obvious resistance that they elicit. I feel that I should help other people to live in freedom, as many people have helped me. I personally have gone through a long and sometimes painful process of personal growth in this country. It began with learning to tell the truth to myself, and then the truth about myself: I strive now to also tell the truth about society as I see it.

That transition from becoming a member of a clan to becoming a citizen in an open society is what public service has come to mean for me. Only clear thinking and strong action can lead to real change, and free many people within our society from the mental cage of submission. The idea that I can contribute to their freedom, whether in the Netherlands or in another country, gives me deep satisfaction.

Ladies and Gentlemen, as of today, I resign from Parliament. I regret that I will be leaving the Netherlands, the country which has given me so many opportunities and enriched my life, but I am glad that I will be able to continue my work.

I will go on.

Thanks for your e-mails, links and comments, there will be more later.

Dutch parliament has convened for an emergency session following the highly controversial maneuvers from Immigration Minister Rita Verdonk to declare that Hirsi Ali’s citizenship is likely to be revoked. Arjan Dasselaar is liveblogging events as they unfold in his usual trenchant style, it seems he is not exactly pleased to be Dutch on this particular day.

To be clear, Hirsi Ali was scheduled to leave parliament and join AEI long before both the eviction-affair and the documentary about her entry into the The Netherlands became headline news. Both Hirsi Ali and some of her closest associates must have determined a while ago that there was probably a better and safer future in America. The court ruling which gave her four months to vacate her apartment essentially brought that decision forward. That in essence raises even more questions about Verdonk’s heavy handed approach which it appears is now backfiring and could well derail her political career – and leadership ambitions – for good.

So, there have been five political and/or public talents in The Netherlands who have tried to initiate a debate and tried to change the direction of the troubled nation. Here’s what has happened to each of them:

Frits Bolkestein: Retired
Pim Fortuyn: Murdered
Theo van Gogh: Murdered
Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Humiliated and expelled
Rita Verdonk: Disgraced

And then I didn’t count the many that have decided to stay quiet out of fear or refrain from getting involved in politics out of total disgust. Any guesses about the future of political debate in The Netherlands?

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a brave, intelligent and unique woman but she is a spent force in Dutch politics. Yes, she’s a star and that is precisely her problem. If you want to succeed in Dutch politics the one thing you can’t have is star-status and on the policy front you need to be able to show some ability for compromise and moderation. Hirsi Ali fails on both counts. She has caused her party, the right-leaning liberals, incredible headaches and they have not been doing well in the polls at all. It’s not Hirsi Ali’s fault of course, but I expect that her outspoken manner, star-status and the fact she’s a security issue will all be huge liabilities for the party going forward.

So in a way it wasn’t surprising to hear Hirsi Ali answer to the question how an asylum seeker could make it from factory worker to Dutch parliament as follows: “the American Dream”. She pointed to her journey so far but she is now well positioned to continue her mission on the other side of the ocean, the book she’s working on for instance is written in English rather than Dutch. She’ll be an asset to any think-tank and be able to influence a far larger audience if she’s given the time and room in a less politicized and much safer place.

I wrote this on March 13, 2005.

I will be on Rob Breakenridge's The World Tonight at 6:30 PST to talk about, yes, Hirsi Ali.

Rita Verdonk has just driven the final nail into Ayaan Hirsi Ali's coffin by stating that the hunted ex-parliamentarian and fresh AEI-employee "cannot be deemed to have received the Dutch nationality". Arjan Dasselaar has the latest and concludes that it is indeed Hirsi Ali's own party that has put the dagger in her back. There is a difference between someone resigning over past mistakes and delivering the K.O. to someone who is already down. This is it and it is a pretty disgraceful spectacle. More comments later.

UPDATE: Leon de Winter is both appalled and embarrassed and I am getting lots of Dutch e-mails arguing that I was probably wise to leave the place behind a while ago. No one there believes things will get better anytime soon, if ever.

Well, that didn't take long. Ayaan Hirsi Ali will in September leave The Netherlands and join the AEI. This outcome was expected and in a way I think it is very good news for her, but it is not all that good for the Dutch. Not only will they lose a talented, vocal and original thinker, they allowed - quite probably deliberately - her to fall in a very public manner and I don't think she deserved that.

UPDATE: A Dutch reader writes:

You're right, it must be a relief for her to be able to move to the US. But for us? The security/eviction affair made us look pretty ridiculous. Now one of the most colorful, bravest and intelligent people is leaving The Netherlands. What does that say about the state of affairs here?

There were three musketeers in The Netherlands not too long ago, brave and unconventional free thinking individuals. Two have been murdered, the last one has now been expelled.

MORE REACTIONS: Here.

Judging form the many e-mails over the past weekend it is clear that the latest installment in the Ayaan Hirsi Ali saga is probably one of the more spectacular and at the same time more controversial ones. In short, last Thursday a television documentary (you can watch it here) tried to verify the various claims Hirsi Ali has made about her past and the way in which she became a refugee seeking political asylum in The Netherlands in the early 90s. What is clear is that she did indeed lie in order to obtain refugee status, a fact she wholeheartedly admits. Murkier are the details surrounding her arranged marriage and the way in which she tried to extract herself from it.

The tone of the documentary called "Saint Ayaan" made by the VARA – which is a left-of-center public broadcaster affiliated with both the Labour Party and organized labour – clearly underlines its intent: to take down Hirsi Ali. Leon de Winter points out in his blog that the left may have been down but hardly out, and is now in full swing to restore the Dutch age of politically correct consensus by publicly executing Hirsi Ali.

That is a correct assumption. But what has not been discussed in detail is that the Dutch right, and notably Hirsi Ali’s own liberal party (VVD) may have decided that it is time to get shot of her. Ayaan’s lies will now be the subject of a formal investigation by Immigration Minister Rita Verdonk, who as it happens is also part of the VVD and is in the middle of hotly contested leadership struggle (to be concluded later this month) in which she faces a more moderate and centrist candidate. So, if Verdonk’s aim is to gain control over the VVD she will have to not only make sure that by investigating Hirsi Ali she is living up to her ‘going by the book’ reputation, but she will have to placate her party’s more centrist members. As such, Hirsi Ali is of no real use to her, and it is Verdonk herself who has grabbed the "less-government, tough on immigration" mantle that has been vacant following Fortuyn’s and Van Gogh’s respective murders. Hirsi Ali has served her purpose by formulating a number of highly controversial positions, something that no one previously dared saying, and now that the word is out it is up to others to take the message forward.

The other aspect that should be underlined here is the deep resentment that success and ambition usually generate in The Netherlands. Dynamic careers, success, outspokenness, standing out in the crowd are things that have always been frowned upon, although that has changed a bit in recent years I guess. Still, the Dutch coined the phrase “act normal, that is strange enough” and a very ambitious black Muslim woman who built up a spectacular political career with international allure by holding a mirror in front of the complacent and politically lethargic Dutch was of course not something that would be rewarded with eternal gratitude. Intelligent as she is, Hirsi Ali must have been keenly aware that she was bound to get into real trouble and by that I do not mean a jihadist ready to kill her. No, her once receptive hosts and former friends will now have the honor of wielding the knife.

Coming so quickly after the court ruling in the case that seeks to evict her from her house it is hard not to escape the conclusion that some sort of concerted effort is under way to get rid of her. As it stands, I believe that both the left and the right have a vested interest in bringing this about and without the support of her own party Hirsi Ali’s chances to hang on and run on the VVD ticket in the general election next year are remote.

Question is, should Hirsi Ali resign or otherwise be demoted from her present prominent role in the party on the basis of her past lies? The answer to that has to be affirmative. No one holding elected office should be exempt from the most simple ethical and moral test and the same goes for Hirsi Ali. What should not happen, but what I am afraid is will happen, is a very public humiliation of Hirsi Ali and with that of a lot of the ideas she stands for. In the past I have argued that she eventually would make her way across the Atlantic to find employ at a major think tank, a notion she herself always dismissed. But the latest turn of events will probably force her to once more make a dramatic move, although this time she will not have to lie about it.

There is a lot of controversy and debate around Andrew Sullivan’s latest column where he launches the concept of ‘Christianists’. It brought back some memories about the issue.

Maybe some of you recall that Sullivan linked to my piece about a radical Muslim who was arrested for trying to bomb Amsterdam’s red light district? The idea of the post was to contrast jihadism with tolerance, but I couldn’t resist slipping in the comment “I guess Christian fundamentalists would equally cheer such an attack”. Well, the traffic deluge from Daily Dish readers yielded a lot of e-mail in particular about this one sentence. And they weren’t all that complimentary. They fell apart in roughly two groups: one chastising me for having the temerity to soil my otherwise good post with such a controversial comment, and the other educating me on all the good work churches and religious groups do in actually helping and rehabilitating (rather than bombing) sex industry workers. The latter group is absolutely right, the former I am not to sure as I do think that many Christian fundamentalists - and in The Netherlands there continues to be a particularly strong and highly intolerant Calvinist strain – would, in silence, approve of the beginning of the end of the sexual tolerance and loose morals that have become an integral part of free societies.

It doesn’t mean that Sullivan’s theory about ‘Christianists’ is sufficiently clear to delineate groups, ideologies and political platforms. For instance, I am highly supportive of legalizing prostitution and decriminalizing drugs, while at the same time I defended Terri Schiavo’s right to remain on life support and yes, I continue to be fearful of any attempts to legalize euthanasia as both private and public healthcare facilities may end up with a tool to further streamline and economize their business.

So anyway, socially liberal positions do not necessarily exclude accepting positions that Sullivan considers ‘Christianist’. The boundaries that separate these opinions and ideas are often unclear and remain blurred, thankfully. I guess that is what sets our free and open society apart from those that are actually governed by religious fundamentalists. We can combine, we can debate, we can find some common ground in order to define and shape moral dilemmas.

NOTE: An interesting example is The Netherlands, one of the few countries in the west that actually has a number of political parties whose platform is based on biblical values, most notably the Christian-Democrat Appel, which is the largest party and has routinely lead coalition governments for most of the past 150 years. Are they Christianist? No, but neither are they on the left. The have successfully captured the center while always ensuring that their religious base remained comfortable. Therefore, same-sex marriages as well as euthanasia legislation were all enacted during the brief interlude (1994-02) when they were out of power and now that they’re back they would not have a hope of nullifying any of these laws. But that is also the result of coalition-style government, prompted by proportional representation.

Jonh Hawkins has posted the results of Right-Of-Center Bloggers Select Their Favorite Columnists. For the third consecutive time Mark Steyn takes top honors.

In my opinion, unfair and unwarranted and if you read Ann Althouse’s comment section it is clear that various conspiracy theories are doing the rounds. Not sure about that, but I do think Katherine McPhee benefited from the “I feel sorry for her vote momentum”. She has a great voice, but she has to still discover her sweet spot so to speak. Over the top and Whitheyesque renditions can still bar her way to getting to the final two.

Interestingly people googling "Chris Daughtrey future" will end up on this site which comes out on top of the searches. It was the one thing that kept me busy last night following his dismissal from American Idol, but I do believe he has one. He was the best singer of the remaining three male singers and has enough character to recover from this setback and get a record deal or a contract. In addition, he is a likeable guy with integrity. He will get there.

For my daughters who were overjoyed by this:

A new eagle nest near Victoria is expected to relieve the broken hearts of millions of Internet surfers who helplessly watched two eagles on Hornby Island fail in their attempt to raise a family.

An Internet connection linked to the suburban Victoria nest was expected to start broadcasting new nest images of one and perhaps two newborn eagle chicks on Monday.

You can find the webcam here. Enjoy.

OK, to follow up on Eugene Volokh's request:

The State has bought an apartment in an apartment building and outfitted this as a maximum security house. At present the state lets the subject (Ayaan Hirsi Ali) live in this apartment. A number of occupants of the other apartments have objected to this. They feel they are running the risk of becoming a victim if the subject is attacked while she is present in the apartment building. In addition, they argue that the security measures around the subject constitute a nuisance to them. The court generally finds in favor of the occupants. It is however not demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that occupants have suffered an excessive nuisance. But that the fact that the occupants feel unsafe as a result of the fact that one of the apartments in their building is outfitted as a maximum security house is supported. The reason for this is that the occupants feel unsafe in the place where they should themselves feel safer then anywhere else: the home, so a breach of their rights to fully enjoy their homes is clear. As this violation of Article 8 of the European Treaty for Human Rights fails to have any legal justification, the State will be required to ensure that subject will leave her apartment within a period of four months. The mistake of the State to house subject without a legal basis in her present apartment can not be shifted to the occupants of the apartment building. The judgment of the court has been based on the specific circumstances of this case and more in particular on the fact that the protected house is inhabited by the subject. There are insufficient grounds to pre-emptively conclude that in the case of other protected persons a similar violation of Article 8 of the European Treaty for Human Rights can be established.

Again, it is not so much the content or the spirit of Article 8 of the European Treaty for Human Rights that is troublesome, it is the intent of the occupants and their lawyers to have used it to evict Hirsi Ali from the home that was provided to her by the Dutch State.

Hirsi Ali’s appearance at Harvard's JFK School of Government today triggered the necessary media attention and that started earlier today with a Michelle Malkin vlog, honoring the group of brave women that are challenging radical Islam.

Later today, Eugene Volokh picked up on the legal aspects raised by my initial post about Hirsi Ali’s impending eviction form her apartment in The Netherlands. Volokh is intrigued about the affair and it appears he will get someone to translate the ruling in order to give a more comprehensive review of the matter. Yes, I know, that is something I should actually have done as the native Dutchman here, but it is kind of hectic today around here, no time. As I mentioned before, the Dutch press has remained very quiet about this and there continues to be a chance that the case will end up in front of the Dutch Supreme Court who will assess whether the law was applied correctly by the lower court which issued the controversial ruling.

And finally, the first blogged accounts of Hirsi’Ali’s talk at Harvard are now available online, one by Miss Kelly (via Martin Solomon) and one by a Malkin reader.

NOTE: Shay at Booker Rising is also a dedicated follower of Hirsi Ali-related news.

Related Posts
Hirsi Ali, The Hunted (3)
Hirsi Ali, The Hunted (2)
Hirsi Ali, The Hunted

The anti-war left is now going after Joe Lieberman, leaving the folks at Daily Kos to wonder if the Democrats would really be better of without the Connecticut senator. To me the 'Dump Joe' campaign is nothing short of an incredibly short-sighted move of the hardcore left in the Democratic Party to capitalize on superficial emotions driven by Iraq. If the Democrats start 'dumping' the wiser and more centrist statesmen in their party it will risk ending up in the exact place where it can ill afford to be: the fringe.

It’s been going on for quite a while now, but today we witnessed the latest and probably most direct and telling installment of the ongoing Tony Blair resignation saga. Consider this:

British Prime Minister Tony Blair on Monday rejected calls from within his party to name a date for his departure but promised to give his successor ample time to settle in before the next election.

Trying to quash unrest in the ruling Labour Party over when he will stand down, Blair promised a smooth transition and backed finance minister Gordon Brown as his chosen successor.

Blair was forced to speak out after dismal local election results and damaging headlines of government incompetence and sleaze sparked calls from long-standing Labour rebels and previously loyal lawmakers for him to clarify the handover.

The fact that Blair is now put on the spot by colleagues and the press alike about ‘a date’ reveals how far we are in the endgame of his days in office. Labour is in now almost in full rebellion, anyone keen to preserve career opportunities is probably well advised to shift allegiance sooner rather than later. And thus we should prepare for Gordon Brown’s ascendancy soon.

Many have pointed to the analogy with Canada where a defiant and successful ten-year stint in office was not sufficient for Jean Chrétien to ward off the coup by his former finance minister, Paul Martin. What is telling is that Martin’s successful attempt to dislodge Chrétien – who like Blair had long outlived his popularity – was not based on any justifiable policy difference or other quantifiable ideological rift, but on the simple logic that it was Martin’s turn. Not the greatest rationale for seeking the highest office in the land, and we have all witnessed the incredible mess that ensued as it became painfully clear that the absence of any sound content turned Martin’s tenure at Sussex Drive into an utterly forgettable one. It was a power grab for power’s sake, nothing more and nothing less.

It is too early to tell whether Brown’s move into Downing Street will yield the same sorry spectacle, but given the relatively late stage of Labour’s tenure and the strength of a resurgent conservative opposition, it may not be a very pretty one.

NOTE: The Times is suggesting an impending coup:

It has long been contended that Mr Brown would never risk a coup against Mr Blair because he does not want to launch his leadership in a sea of blood. Yet if he senses that the Prime Minister is hostile to a smooth succession, then why not opt to challenge? Mr Brown’s mastery of the trade union section of Labour’s electoral college alone is enough to suggest that he would slaughter Mr Blair if they fought for the crown.

UPDATE: More from Andrew Sullivan who also believes Blair should step back, soon.

In the past I have touched on General Motors and the drain that its many liabilities have on its overall competitiveness. One of my investment friends forwarded me this interesting piece, As GM Goes, So Goes the Nation by Bill Gross, which argues that GM is just a harbinger of things to come. It’s up to you to think about an asset shift, but Gross makes the compelling point that given the choice would you buy a car at a premium to fund someone else’s healthcare and pension plan? Or do you buy an equally solid but cheaper vehicle, made in Asia? If you think this has serious implications for the US, think about how ugly things are going to be in Europe when sustained emerging market strength will wipe out its manufacturing sector.

Yes, my post remembering Pim Fortuyn was terribly short, but to be frank I believe that I have said most of what needs to be said about him. We wouldn’t be doing him any justice to replay the same mantras about deregulation, privatization and immigration without end – visit the Peaktalk archives for that - but we do need to remember him and the terrible way in which he died. Thanks to a reader I did discover a gem in relation to Fortuyn that warrants some attention, and believe it or not, this is a eulogy written by a member of the Dutch Labour Party, on their site, praising Fortuyn. Money quote:

I was one of the few within the Labour Party who considered some of Fortuyn’s ideas interesting. That didn’t always result in very pleasant reactions within my own circle, to put it mildly. And, yes, another coming out: I did enjoy in secret Pim’s glorious entrance into the Rotterdam city hall on March 6, 2002 (Ed: the night of his local electoral win). Many Rotterdam-based fellow party members with their appalling arrogance had asked for it.

The writer, Job van Amerongen, concludes that many things in Dutch politics have changed for the better, thanks to Fortuyn. I do believe that it requires a measure of braveness to speak out this way, even four years after Fortuyn’s death. There is still some hope out there, you would think.

Got a e-mail from Arjan Dasselaar who tells me the latest round of desecrations was most likely the work of a native Dutch skinhead gang. Good, that proves the Weimar-theory: increasing violence from the political fringes, while the center looks on hopelessly.

For bloggers: The Truth Laid Bear, the unmissable link and traffic tracker, has had a spectacular makeover. Check it out.

Read this and then convince me that death would have been better. (ht: Sullivan).

Last Friday Warren Buffett's Berkshire-Hathaway announced a major acquisition, but it was one of my readers who alerted me to the fact that it was one in Israel, and, Buffett's first outside the US. Of course, we can intepret the 80% purchase of family-owned Iscar as a vote of confidence at a critical juncture:

"This is a moment for Israel's economic standing and ability when a global investor guru such as Warren Buffett decides to make this crucial investment in Israel following the rise of the Hamas government," Shlomo Maoz, chief economist at Excellence Nessuah, told The Jerusalem Post. "It represents a high vote of confidence which will boost Israel's status in the world and attract other foreign investors to follow Buffett's lead."

The Tel Aviv 100 Index rose to record levels today. Good news, sure, but if I were living in Israel I would look very closely at how the Wertheimer family will re-invest the 4 billion they have just pocketed. That will be the real confidence test for Israel's economy.

A little late, sure, but here is my link to Cato's new blog, Cato@Liberty. Recommended piece from their initial offering is Radley Balko's Politics of Pain where the strange case of Rush Limbaugh is contrasted with the sad story of Richard Paey. Common thread: painkillers.

In his TCS-column Lee Harris finds an answer to a question which has bothered me for quite a while and that is Why Isn't Socialism Dead? Key excerpt:

Thus, in the coming century, those who are advocates of capitalism may well find themselves confronted with "a myth gap." Those who, like Chavez, Morales, and Castro, are preaching the old time religion of socialism may well be able to tap into something deeper and more primordial than mere reason and argument, while those who advocate the more rational path of capitalism may find that they have few listeners among those they most need to reach -- namely, the People. Worse, in a populist democracy, the People have historically demonstrated a knack of picking as their leaders those know the best and most efficient way to by-pass their reason -- demagogues who can reach deep down to their primordial and, alas, often utterly irrational instincts. This, after all, has been the genius of every great populist leader of the past, as it is proving to be the genius of those populist leaders who are now springing up around the world, from Bolivia to Iran.

From socialism to jihadism - perish the thought that they join forces - the hard battle is again the one of reason against the one of irrational myths. Sorry for wrecking your Sunday, but it seems to me that this century may be as bloody as the last one.

Today, four years ago.

Yesterday was remembrance day in the The Netherlands, a solemn day during which the victims of WWII are remembered. Now, sixty years on this day has become the target of incidents and deliberate desecrations, like the one three years ago which I wrote about here:

I wanted to share this with you as Dutch newspapers last week reported that Moroccan youths had disturbed a number of these ceremonies throughout the country earlier this week. In one instance by throwing eggs onto participants and in another by playing football with the wreaths. The absolute bottom was reached when during the ceremony in one of Amsterdam’s suburbs a number of these youths shouted “we must kill the Jews”.

Interestingly, the damaged wreaths were just the start of what turned out to be a long drawn out battle in the Amsterdam district called De Baarsjes where the remembrance cross was eventually removed, allegedly as part of 'renovations in the area'. A storm of indignation followed, especially in light of the comments from the Chairman of the remembrance committee, who argued that protests from the local mosque prompted to re-evaluate the Christian nature of the memorial cross and that they would be looking to install a more "universal monument", one that would deal with more than just the Second World War.

The uproar about this spread to the rest of The Netherlands and as a result the cross will now be returned to a location close to where it stood before the 'renovations', once they are completed. There is no unambiguous answer as to what exactly prompted the removal - local Muslims may have been far less instrumental in this than is widely assumed - and looking over the various news reports it appears that once again it was a native Dutch decisionmaking body that decided to appease and placate in order to avoid trouble. Much like the attempt to not erect a monument for Theo van Gogh for fear of unrest, or the entire mainstream media repsonse to the Danish Cartoons.

The Dutch news this morning however reported that yesterday again, in Amsterdam, wreaths and flowers were destroyed. This apparently happened after midnight when a professional security service - which you need these days to guard memorial sites - went home.

Let me conclude the post with a translation from a newspaper clipping from a Dutch paper which I got earlier this week:

A while ago I wrote about the life of Mientje ten Dam-Pooters. She, a devoted communist, assisted in organizing the February Strike (in 1941) which was aimed at preventing the deportation of Amsterdam's Jews. Her husband Jaap was lying down on the municipal rail transport lines to prevent NSB members (Ed: Dutch Nazi collaborators) from leaving the station.

She is 89 now and when I call her she says she wants to continue to bear witness to what happened during those years, when taking a position was not without consequences but could cost you your life, like her brother, a resistance member. What does she think about events in The Baarsjes? "Have they completely lost their minds?", she cries out.

Indeed, and once again the mindless people here are not so much the Muslim immigrants, but the governing elites who will go to every imaginable length to keep the peace, to accomodate and to avoid standing up for the basic values of a free society. In doing so they embarrass not only themselves, but they shame and indeed desecrate the memory of the few Dutch that stood up against the Nazi occupier more than six decades ago. If they continue at this incredible rate, these brave souls will indeed be forgotten. Soon.

UPDATE: A timely piece from Joe Katzman, Europe's Shame, Europe's Suicide (hat tip: Glenn).

At the Malkin dinner table ...

Prescient piece from Daniel Henninger in OpinionJournal today, key quote:

If in 2006 we think that if Iraq would go away the world would not be too different than the world before September 11, then Moussaoui may in time prove right: "America you lost. I won!"

Yes - my review of United 93 made a similar point, here.

Listen to it here. Topics include fundamentalism, Islam, women and Islam, Danish cartoons, appeasement, multiculturalism and her own security. Listen to the whole thing.

The Moussaoui debate continued today with even La Noonan coming out in favor of a death sentence. There are many good round-ups, but if you check out the Moderate Voice you will get comments from both the right and the left and it appears no one is really pleased with the outcome. Still, I suspect that would have been the case too if Moussaoui had ended up on the injection table, where unanswered questions and making-martyr theories would no doubt have abounded, on the left and the right. Either way a no win situation, so I stick to my residual asset value theory which got a boost from one reader:

Having a terrorist renounce radical Islam would be useful in the battle for hearts and minds. I don't know what the odds of him renouncing radical Islam while serving life in prison are, but I do know what they would be if he was dead.

Wishful thinking maybe, but you never know.

Here is another pretty cool interactive map (via the Herbinator) that allows you to manipulate water levels and see what the world will look like after the huge gobal warming induced deluge. It's safe to say that the global warming projections fall into the same alarmist category as the demographic doom scenarios: they will become reality only if current trends persist, unaltered. And the chances of that happening are, in my opinion, remote.

Loved Paris Bennett right from the start, but in the group of remaining candidates there was no way she could stay. Her future though looks bright, great voice and the right attitude. The final two in my mind are still Katherine Mcphee and Chris Daughtrey, with the latter being the likely winner.

Some of you may have been following the spat between Christopher Hitchens and Juan Cole, to some extent mediated by Andrew Sullivan. It was a revealing discussion on a number of levels, both on the subject matter, Iran, and the way in which Cole resorted to a low level personal attack on Hitchens. Hugh Hewitt wraps it up in a very engaging interview with Hitchens, here.