Cold War, Part II...?

Back in October, a British paper reported that UK security sources believe Russian espionage in the UK was "back to Cold War levels".

Now, US officials are saying the same thing about agents in this country. (via Drudge)

Remember, Vladimir Putin himself was a KGB agent during the Cold War. He was a relative unknown when he came to power. He acceded the presidency following the collapse of his country, no longer the superpower it had been. He has steadily made attempts to further the nationalistic spirit of old Russia and concentrate his power. He is attempting to strenghten the perception of Russia in the face of the still-powerful United States and his own dwindling sphere of influence.

Last year, an opponent of Putin's was mysteriously drugged and blackmailed. The head of Yukos, Mikhail Khodorovsky, also a Putin opponent was jailed and his company was virtually confiscated. Victor Yushchenko, pro-Western candidate in Ukraine was poisoned by pro-Kremlin intelligence agents. It seems for Putin that the geopolitical games of the Cold War are preferable to reform and progress. After all, one does what one knows, right? Once KGB, always KGB.

UPDATE: Russian spying has crept to near-Cold War levels in Germany as well.

Flying the PC Skies

Recently, CNN ran a special called "Defending America". They interviewed the airport gate agent who first encountered Mohammed Atta and Abdul Aziz al-Omari on September 11. This was at the airport in Maine as they were trying to get to Boston to board the flight they intended to hijack and fly into a building in New York City.

Michael Touhey, the agent, said that his first gut instinct was that these men were terrorists. He said Attas eyes were stone-cold, the "eyes of a killer".

TOUHEY: They had a tie and jacket on. All right? And as I'm looking at them, you
know, they're holding their IDs up, and I'm looking at them, (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
It's not nice, but I said, Jeez, if this doesn't look like two Arab terrorists,
I have never seen two Arab terrorists.

But then, he felt bad for thinking such a thing and went ahead and issued them passes.

Now, I can't imagine how this man must have felt following that tragic day knowing what he knew and I don't blame him for having been hesitant toward his gut instinct. But, I think such an example tells us something very significant. It tells us that the liberal idea of political correctness that has so permeated our society that is has become a danger to our society.

GRIFFIN (voice-over): His instinct to label the Arab men that morning as terrorists, to slow down their check and to search their bags, to possibly make the ringleader miss his flight, all of that is post-9/11 thinking.

On that September morning, hassling two men simply because they were Arabs
would not have been politically correct, Touhey says. His job was to get them on
the flight, and he did.

Even now, however, screening personnel have been told that "racial profiling" is not allowed. They must conduct random searches. The political correctness remains official policy. I have nothing against law-abiding foreigners and as a traveler in today's world, one should expect a certain level of scrutiny. It's just reality. I don't even mind the random searches and certainly, there are people who will break profile stereotypes. What puzzles me is that when I have flown since 9/11, on at least one occasion, I have been in the security line behind a Middle Eastern male who looked not unlike one of the 9/11 hijackers was waived through normally and then looked to my right to see an 80+ year-old woman being wanded and frisked. I know the system is not without flaws. We know that weapons are still getting through. There just seems to be a disconnect here between tact and reality.

Inauguration Cost

Saturday, I posted here and at Redstate about the cost of the inaugural relative those of President Clinton. I mentioned that relative to inflation, Bush's inaugural was no more expensive than his predecessor's. Well, the Washington Times confirms this today. My numbers were a little off from the final official tally of Clinton's second inaugural. The Times reports Clinton's second inaugural cost 25% more than Bush's second. I heard this discussed on C-SPAN today also.

Either we just had the same thought, or...maybe the Times' Mr. Curl is a Redstater?

UPDATE: Hat tip to Erick Erickson, Redstate contributor and MSNBC blogger who picked up the story and posted it at Hardblogger.

Third Party Spoiler

Last week, Howard Fineman over at MSNBC proclaimed the death of the "Media Party". It struck me that a member of the MSM (mainstream media) would say this in such terms, but he is right. I've been telling family and friends for a while now that the MSM has essentially been acting as a de facto third party in American politics, and for what? What has been the media's goal? They seem to take pride in deceiving and dividing the country. What good does that do?

Lt. Col. Tim Ryan of the Army's 1st Cavalry expressed recently exactly what "good" it does. He says the media has been complicit in aiding and abetting the enemy. I couldn't agree more.

I don't know if the CBS scandal has really killed off the Media Party just yet, as CBS still refuses to admit bias, but the whole ordeal was certainly a blow to them. There are other elements of this party that have not yet learned enough from this either, but all in due time.

The New Media is here it and isn't going anywhere.

Hail to the Chief

Well, the Bush haters are complaining again. This time they’ve decided to complain about how much the inauguration festivities are going to cost – reported to be some $40 million.

All of this money does not come out of taxpayer coffers, however. Corporations and individuals give private money to cover most of the cost. The inauguration is an event for the people, and with their willing donations…by the people.

See, I view the inauguration as a time when the nation is supposed to be united. It’s a chance for the President to reach out and inspire. It is a day to be proud as a nation and to celebrate our freedom and the fact that our democracy works. The only reason liberals are complaining about this is because they so hate President Bush that they nearly feel suicidal when they wake up in the morning and they can’t enjoy life as we know it.

Now, these liberals - still frustrated that a majority of the country voted for him over their guy, are making up all kinds of reasons why this money shouldn’t be spent; why it should all be canceled; why nobody should have any fun; and why Republicans are insensitive to everyone and everything. These people just have to politicize everything.

They’re saying, “Well, we should spend that money for tsunami victims…or, the war in Iraq…or buying drugs from Canada” or whatever-else they can come up with to sound self-righteous. These issues have nothing to do with the inauguration. Why don’t they tell Hollywood and the sports world to stop paying people $40 million apiece and mayb they can contribute something useful for once? “Next!” CBS quoted political heavyweight, check that, obnoxious NBA owner and billionaire Mark Cuban as saying the inaugural should be canceled due partly to the “declining economy”. Well, that’s just idiotic (and he voted for Bush!). One congressional Democrat said it was against precedent to have a celebration during wartime. I ask, what better forum for the Commander-in-Chief to speak to the nation about our wartime commitment?

So, I decided to look up how much Clinton’s (pre-9/11) inaugurals cost. As usual there is a double standard to the liberals’ complaints in that restraint in such extravagance does not apply to them and their kind.

Clinton’s first inaugural - $33 million.
Adjusted for inflation (1992 dollars vs. 2004 dollars) = $ 44,525,302.92.

Clinton’s second inaugural - $29.6 million.
Adjusted for inflation (1996 dollars vs. 2004 dollars) = $ 35,712,428.30

Bush’s first inaugural - $40 million.
Adjusted for inflation (2000 dollars vs. 2004 dollars) = $ 43,972,125.44

Bush’s second inaugural - $40 million (2004 dollars).

(Source for inflation adjustment: Consumer Price Index Calculator, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis).

Maybe it is all overdone, but if private money covers the tab, what’s the big deal?

(crossposted at Redstate)

Kerry Any Weight?

Well, the junior senator from Massachusetts has been on a 13-day trip to the Middle East visiting U.S. troops, regional leaders, and observing the Palestinian elections.

The absence of John Kerry from my television screen since the election has been fantastic. Add to my surprise when I heard he was making what seemed like a self-appointed diplomacy tour of the Middle East. I thought it grossly inappropriate (though, was not surprised) that he lambasted the Commander-in-Chief, from the warzone while visiting our troops. It's a wonder he didn't make some sort of Cheney-Halliburton reference while he was at it.

One of the stops on his tour is Syria. Question: Why are we letting John Kerry discuss relations with the Syrian president? Does that seem strange to anyone else? Maybe the State Dept. figures what's the harm since Kerry obviously doesn't speak for the Administration.

I haven't noticed very many news stories covering Kerry's trip, however I did run across this revelation of a headline, "Kerry: Arabs frustrated by U.S. policies ". Really? I had no idea. As comedian Brian Regan would say, "You're breakin' some new ground there, Copernicus."

Once again, Kerry is quick to blame America for the world's problems. How about this for a headline, Senator, "CP: American frustrated by Arab policies". How does that strike you? I find it hard to believe that all of the streets in the Arab world are one-way.

Finally, this cartoon pretty much sums up Kerry's Carter-esque diplomacy.

I've been watching a lot of the coverage of the aftermath of the tsunami on television. I don't normally watch CNN, but they've dedicated a lot of time to the story and have had pretty good coverage. However, I found one particular angle they covered the other day quite inappropriate. If they were going to cover this particular topic, they really should have shed a different light on it. Instead they brushed over it lightly as if it were some quaint novelty.

In discussing the economic impact of the disaster, they mentioned how it would have an adverse effect on the sex trade because it is part of the tourism industry.

Here's the exchange (underlines added)...

SOLEDAD O'BRIEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: And revitalization, a very strong push by both the government and private industry to bring tourists back to Thailand. Tourism is a $10 to $12 billion industry here in Thailand, and, of course, there is another industry of another sort of wealth sort, as well, to talk about Matthew Chance, who's been covering this disaster from the very beginning, talks
a little bit about the sex trade. Matthew?

MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Thanks very much, Soledad. And that's right. Well, the search for bodies does continue, but the emphasis is perhaps shifting a little to reconstruction and revitalization. Thailand's tourism industry is extremely important. It accounts for about 12 percent of the country's economy. And there's a great deal of concern about how it may have been affected by the tsunami, and that means all aspects of it. We traveled to the resort of Patong Beach here in Phuket to see how about tourists and Thais were coping with the situation.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CHANCE (voice-over): They dance like the tsunami never happened, Thai sex workers of Patong Beach acting out the party tourists come to see.

But the seedy glamour, always skin deep, now masks real grief and anxiety. Around a television at the bar, customers and staff are reliving the horrors they've witnessed. But it's the aftermath that matters most.

Yam (ph) serves drinks at the Happy Night Bar, already back in business after being flooded by the tsunami wave. But business is bad, the seats half-empty.

"We never believed this could happen to us, that so many people could be lost," she told me. "It will take a year at least, but we must rebuild."

The sandy beaches are Patong's more innocent attraction. The tsunami struck in peak season. The few tourists who stayed on now tan amidst the rubble. Edward from Austria says it's his way of helping out.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We think it's better to stay here, because if we
leave the country, our money leaves the country too. And I think it's important
to help the people here to begin a normal life on the beach.

CHANCE: And it's an urgent task. Here, the once-popular Sabai (ph) Beach Restaurant is being refitted after the tsunami left it ruined. No one was killed here, but the owner, Wilapong (ph), showed me where the seawater had come to, and the clock that stopped at the exact time the tsunami hit."

If the tourists stay away, none of us will have a job or any money," he says. "It will be another disaster."

(on camera): These are incredibly difficult times for everybody who was caught up in the tsunami. We have been walking along these sands, still slightly odd, knowing that so many people were lost at sea. But everybody we've spoken to shares that sense of horror at the terrible loss of life. But they're looking to the future as well, picking up the pieces of their lives and starting to try and live them again.

(voice-over): And that means luring valuable tourists back to Phuket every way the island can.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CHANCE: Well, we can't overemphasize how important the tourism industry is to the Thai economy. And that includes the seedier aspects of it as well....


Source: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0501/07/se.02.html

Now, monetarily speaking, I'm sure it will have an effect. Everything will be affected and much will have to be rebuilt.

But, is the sex trade something that should be rebuilt? Hardly. One of the biggest concerns in this whole crisis has been the fear that traffickers would abduct children for use in the sex trade. This concern should highlight the need to reform policy toward the sex industry. The traffickers, thugs and pimps of Southeast Asia have grossly profited from this modern form of slavery and it should be labeled for what it is.

I have sympathy for the lives that have been lost in the tsunami, but I do not empathize with panderers who are having trouble drumming up business in its wake.

President Bush has been speaking to the problem of human trafficking. Information about his initiatives on this issue can be found here.

This Is The Enemy

The recent "controversy" over General William Boykin's comments about the War on Terror being a religious war was evidence of liberals' bent toward waging a more "sensitive" war. This whole thing was pushed by the PC thought police/ACLU types who want to remove all acknowledgement of religion (as though it doesn't exist) from the public square. I was disappointed that the Pentagon did not defend him more vigorously. He was eventually reprimanded (sort of), but not too much was made of it.

Northwestern University Library hosts an online collection of U.S. Government World War II posters. Looking through the collection, one of them struck me. It struck me first because of the pointed image it depicts and second, that it was put out by the government. In 1943, the Office of War Information released this poster. It depicts a Nazi-uniformed arm holding a knife and driving it through the Holy Bible with the caption, "THIS IS THE ENEMY". There is no subtlety in the poster's message. Apparently, some felt that World War II had characteristics of a religious war. I doubt many people were very worried about offending Nazis or their sympathizers at the time. So, why when Islamic extremists themselves have declared war on not only our country, but on Christians and Jews as well, are people outraged that a member of our military, who is tasked with knowing and understanding the enemy and the threat, states that he thinks we are engaged in a religious war? These liberals cry foul when one of these extremists doesn't get an extra pillow when he arrives at Gitmo, but they demand resignations from our generals who violate the code of political correctness.

Below is the original poster. Next to it is one I altered, with the black flag of al-Qaeda on the sleeve instead.

Break's Over

I took a little time off from blogging here during the last part of December and first part of this month due to work, events during the holiday season, traveling, internet access issues, etc. But, I'm back and hope to keep posting regularly again. Also, I'm looking at getting a new cell phone and if I get the one I'm looking at, I should be able to post anytime from wherever I am. How cool is that?