what if?

The Holocaust Shrug

Escaping to my bridge world is a much loved pleasure. Time now, however, to return to the real world.

"The Holocaust Shrug," by David Gelernter in the Weekly Standard, is more reality than some may wish.

Whatever your opinions about WMD, be certain that the fruits of coalition efforts in Iraq are sweet.

Home At Last

The Spring Nationals of the American Contract Bridge League have concluded. After hours in the air, I'm safely home in the Minneapolis suburbs, recovering from two weeks of hundreds of bridge hands, little sleep and socializing with bridge players from around the world.

In response to the questions of my friend Keith Burgess-Jackson (Anal Philosopher), here is some of what you need to be a top tournament bridge player.

Intelligence is key. Bridge players as a whole are exceptionally bright people.

An excellent memory is imperative. Bob Hamman, good friend and top ranked player in the world for the past 20 years can recall, card for card, hands that he encountered over forty years ago.

Nerves of steel matter. If the opponents sense you are in trouble, you are in trouble! But a calm demeanor may allow you to escape disaster.

A good understanding of statistics helps, as do fine spatial-relationship skills, logic and general game theory. One of my own strengths is creativity. It isn't a necessity, but having it allows you to get away with some larceny now and then.

As for training.... Well, being in excellent physical shape does help a player. Competing day after day, from early afternoon to way after midnight is far more readily tolerated when you are physically fit.

However, take a look at these people: Jeff Meckstroth, Geir Helgemo, Bob Hamman and Paul Soloway.

They are among the most respected and feared bridge players in the world. But hard bodies, they are not!

While good physical condition assuredly helps, it is lower on the food chain in importance than in most sports.

National Champ

My friend Keith Burgess-Jackson, aka AnalPhilosopher, knows that I am at the Spring American Contract Bridge League Nationals in Reno, Nevada - and as a result, blogging will be light. In this post, Keith wondered what exactly is necessary for competing at the top levels in bridge.

When you get some time, tell us which character traits bridge selects for. Aggression? Patience? Courage? Timidity? Dastardliness? Is it physically demanding; and if so, how does one train for it? Is there such a thing as a bridge face? Do bridge players bluff and sandbag? Are there unwritten as well as written rules, as in bicycle racing, baseball, and other sports? Do bridge players use performance-enhancing drugs? Is it true that bridge may be an Olympic event? Why do they call it bridge rather than, say, highway or overpass? Do tell all!

Bridge is clearly the finest mental game ever invented. And the skills required to do it well are many and varied. But, prior to answering some of Keith's questions - please permit me a moment or two of crowing.

As of this writing, I am now a national champion! I won my first major title Wednesday night. With one of my favorite partners, Bill Kent of Iowa City, IA, we captured the Mixed Pairs title. We also did it by quite a large margin - heh heh heh!

Next post: what you can do and what you must do to be a world-class bridge player.

Almost Unbelievable

Lying in Ponds does a remarkable job of highlighting which columnists are, as they say, "fair and balanced" and which fall woefully short of this mark.

Paul Krugman belongs in the latter camp. Indeed; he may well be the head of the class when it comes to partisanship.

Ponds presents an article today about Krugman's history at the New York Times regarding partisanship.

Paul Krugman reached a milestone a couple of weeks ago -- he's now written over 400 columns for The New York Times, yet not a single one of them has been a "crossover column", consisting primarily of substantive praise of Republicans or criticism of Democrats. The award-winning economist and leading columnist has never written an entire column praising the Republican Party or any individual Republicans on any issue. He's never written an entire column criticizing the Democratic Party or any individual Democrats on any issue.

Mr. Krugman has never mentioned in one of his columns the universally-condemned 2001 pardon of Marc Rich by President Clinton. Despite living in New Jersey, he has never mentioned former Senator Robert Torricelli, who withdrew late in his 2002 reelection campaign because of a fundraising scandal. He has never mentioned former Democratic kingmaker and still-active presidential candidate Al Sharpton.

I would feel shame for such a record.

My guess is that Krugman feels pride in exposing the evil of the Right.

Breaking Stereotypes

David Strom is the head of the Taxpayers League of Minnesota - a decidedly right-leaning organization. (Some would use stronger language than that to describe it.)

As such, you might expect Professor Strom to be living large in a big manse on one of our many lovely lakes.... But such is not the case. As this Star Tribune profile of Strom states:

In fact, Strom, 39, is short, rumpled, bearded, garrulous, personable and funny. He has an endearing tendency to engage and not let go, to talk philosophy and policy and digress into trivia and personal stories until your ears fall off. His professional and cultural background is entirely academic. He lives in a racially diverse north Minneapolis neighborhood with his wife, Margaret, and a small flock of tropical birds. He insists that he makes less than $100,000 a year.

And neither was Strom raised by wealthy parents in some Republican enclave:

Most surprisingly, this crusader for capitalism and minimal government was raised by activist liberal parents, both astronomers, in Arizona. Young Strom was sent in 1982 to Minnesota's Carleton College, where Paul Wellstone was holding forth as a political science professor.

Yep. Some people come to the Right way of thinking, simply because it is!!

One Rational Alternative

Plugging away at my bridge tournament (currently standing fifth in an original field of 76), I have a few moments to check out the blogosphere and contribute a few electrons myself.

Not totally up to speed on the latest in the world, I shall instead focus on an issue near & dear to my heart: medical ethics. One small subset: what should be our attitude in the U.S. about insurance - or lack thereof -for its citizens.

My favorite magazine, The Atlantic Monthly, has an entire section in its January/February issue devoted to this and other health topics. This article by Laurie Rubiner at the New American Foundation (another great place to check out) proposes a plan that I have long thought wise. Mandatory health insurance for all.

Of course, not all can afford health insurance. But, Rubiner points out that if everyone, including the young, well off and healthy (many of whom do not now have health insurance) paid into the system, we could more readily cover all. For those who truly cannot afford to purchase health insurance, the government will subsidize them.

If the issue of health care intrigues you as it does me, check out the entire section.

And while you are at it, do read the whole magazine. I find that the Atlantic presents its readers with the most comprehensive coverage of issues today, doing the utmost to present all sides of issues. Of course, this is the ideal manner to handle discussion. But as we know, few ever even attempt to meet the ideal.

Another Who "Gets It"

Christopher Hitchens.

It cannot be very long now before some slaughter occurs on the streets of London or Rome or Warsaw, as punishment for British and Italian and Polish membership of the anti-Saddam coalition. But perhaps there is still time to avoid the wrath to come. If British and Italian and Polish troops make haste to leave the Iraqis to their own "devices" (of the sort that exploded outside the mosques of Karbala and Najaf last month), their civilian cousins may still hope to escape the stern disapproval of the holy warriors. Don't ask why the holy warriors blow up mosques by the way—it's none of your goddam crusader-Jew business.

The other countries of NATO, which has now collectively adopted the responsibility for Afghanistan, should reconsider. As long as their forces remain on the soil of that country, they are liable to attract the sacred rage of the Muslim fighters. It will not be enough for Germany and France to have stayed out of Iraq. They cannot expect to escape judgment by such hypocritical means.

French schools should make all haste to permit not just the veil but the burqa, as well as to segregate swimming pools and playgrounds. Do they suppose that they deceive anybody when they temporize about God's evident will? Bombings will follow this blasphemy, as the night succeeds the day. It is written.

Go, Go, Go!

Tourney starts today. Too busy to post myself.

Yet fear not! I am presenting you with links far superior to any tidbits I could tap away myself.

Visit the Claremont Institute and read Bill Bennett.

Michael Totten's posts for March 16 are disturbingly on the money.

And Charles at Little Green Footballs gives the far Left a deserved whack.

Enjoy! Well. If not that - appreciate, perhaps....

Welcome, Steve!

Steve Headley has been sending me some very nice notes about my blog.

Thus, I figured that Steve must be a man of high intelligence and keen judgement.

You can learn much morm about Steve at his blog, Texas Conservative. Welcome above to the blogroll, Steve!

Visit to Another Planet

Early tomorrow, I leave for Reno and our spring National Bridge Tournament. My first competition will be with a wonderful partner from Iowa. Then I switch to teams, with a partner from Trinidad and teammates from Japan.

Bridge is the most fascinating mind game ever invented. For twelve days, I am going to eat, sleep and breathe bridge. If you don't know how to play - and are willing to take on the risk of getting hooked - then start taking some lessons!

Beyond being mesmerizing, bridge is also good for you!

Nice to know that at least something in the world is wildly wonderful - AND aids your brain, too. YAY!

Child Abuse

Is this the Palestinian version of Head Start?

No peace until this abomination stops.

Two Letters

I did it. Today I cancelled my subscription to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, my local paper and the most left leaning daily of which I am aware.

My action is done with sadness. I've read the daily paper every morning since I was a child. Yes, I'll have the internet to peruse - but it's not the same. Still, I could not see sending dollars every day to support a paper that infuriates me constantly.

Two letters to the editor seem to well incapsulate why I felt compelled to make this move.

The first letter is from an apparent soulmate out there:

Offensive cartoon

I've seen thousands of political cartoons in a number of newspapers. Never have I seen a cheaper shot taken at anyone, much less the president of the United States, than the Don Wright cartoon on the March 11 editorial page.

Apparently there is no one on your editorial staff who had the common sense to see that the newspaper was crossing the line of common decency.

Peter Carney, Eagan.

Curious about the "offensive cartoon?" Feast your eyes on this baby:

The other letter reflects perfectly the thinking of the Star Tribune editorial staff:

Time to raise the wage

The article on the proposed state bill to raise the minimum wage (Star Tribune, March 9) was a stark reminder that, contrary to what Ralph Nader says, there are immense differences between the Democratic and Republican parties.

For the past seven years, the minimum wage has been frozen at $5.15 an hour, and while the DFL is proposing a long overdue raise, the Republicans are again, as in the past few years, against it.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty has refused to even discuss it with the Senate panel.

I cannot believe that elected officials can be so completely devoid of compassion as to turn down an proposed increase to a $5.15 an hour wage after seven years.

Jerald H. Mortenson, Prior Lake

The economy in the Twin Cities is quite competitive and healthy. Apparently Mr. Mortenson does not understand the concept that the minimum wage is just that - a minimum. Almost anyone who works in the Twin Cities makes far more than the minimum wage. Yes, even the most lowly of workers do, because employers cannot hire anyone for $5.15 an hour. Even the infamous hamburger flippers make around $11 an hour.

I realize that this letter was written by a reader and not the paper's staff. Nevertheless, it reflects the type of error-filled and incorrect thinking represented on the pages of the Star Tribune daily.

They won't be doing it on my dime any longer. Too bad for all of us.

Real Diversity Need Not Apply

How do words get hijacked?

"Diversity" is one which has been taken away at gunpoint. It used to merely signify difference; something was "diverse" if its components or members varied from one another.

Somehow, though, activists mangled and strangled the word to mean "difference" - but a difference of race and nothing else. At a company or a university that practices "diversity" - people's skin tones vary. Of course, if all the people think alike or vote alike - that seems to matter not. Only race matters. The thing that not too long ago, we were trying so hard to teach matters not at all - race - somehow seems to matter more than anything else.

The Wall Street Journal has a column about the lack of diversity on campus - the lack of real diversity. This article speaks of the ricidule and scorn that conservatives too often meet when they do wander onto Liberal Reservations.

How sad. Though I do have conservative views on many topics, I still consider myself liberal on others. And even if my views comprised a conservative "purity" - demeaning my liberal counterparts would not be in order.

Those who feel compelled to put down those whose belief structure is somewhat different from their own usually are either unable to well argue their own positions - or are unsure of their soundness.

Could that possibly be what is going on with the dehumanization of conservatives on campus?

A Good Death?

A friend recently sent me this article about so-called "rational suicide' that appeared in the Washington Post. The article is long, but worth reading.

For some - including myself - suicide is a concept that strikes too close to home. As someone who has struggled with the demon of depression on and off since childhood, thoughts of suicide are not unknown. When the weight of sadness, despair, pain and hopelessness become too weighty, sometimes death seems the only recourse ... the only escape.

When the mists of depression lift, however, almost always thoughts of suicide evaporate, too. Problems are endemic to life. While big conundrums certainly can cause stress and heartache, the healthy mind attends to them. Even if solutions are difficult and lengthy, one perseveres.

But suppose life's problems are virtually unsurmountable? Suppose the end is near anyway?

I've never quite been able to reconcile how it can be considered humane to end the life of an aged and beloved pet when it is in tremendous pain ... but heinous murder to contemplate the same act with a human. Does it matter if the person in question actually wishes to have their life ended when suffering is great - and death is imminent in any case? If yes, is one man's "imminent" another man's remaining hope?

And what if there really is not suffering at all - but merely a fear of suffering? What if one is convinced that the best is not "yet to come?" That the best has come and gone; that the party is over, and that it is all downhill from here? Can suicide be rational and moral if we are not hampered by depression, if we are not facing terminal illness, and we are not in incruciating pain?

Carolyn Heilbrun apparently thought so:

Carolyn G. Heilbrun's suicide this past October could not have come as a great surprise to her family and friends. After all, the 77-year-old former Columbia University literature professor and mystery author had written for years about her plans to kill herself.

Heilbrun was suffering from none of the conditions commonly associated with suicide when she evidently took an overdose of pills and put a plastic bag over her head. She was neither terminally ill, in severe pain nor, apparently, depressed. Instead, she committed what some have called "rational suicide" -- ending one's life out of a conviction that one has lived long enough, that the likely future holds more pain than joy.

The more I age, the more I see what life I have left as a gift. The older I am, the more I realize that life's anguishes can be reconciled - and that something dear and wonderful may be around the corner.

What if Carolyn Heilbrun was in error? What if the Next Best Thing was a week - or a year away?

This Is Journalism?

One of the editorials in today's Minneapolis Star Tribune truly is mind boggling. Check out some of these excerpts; see if you think that they bear any minor relationship to reality:

When President Bush took office, an imminent threat against the United States indeed existed, but it wasn't from Saddam Hussein. It was from terrorism worldwide -- most immediately from Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaida.

The Bush administration was apprised of that threat by the outgoing Clinton administration and presented with a plan of action for taking the fight aggressively and soon to Bin Laden. The White House all but ignored the warning. Instead, counterterrorism funding was cut and, as former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill has disclosed, the president and his national security team focused on removing Saddam Hussein from power.

Oh! How unfortunate that the Constitution was ever amended! Too bad that Clinton & Company couldn't have remained in office; sounds like they were just days away from capturing Bin Laden.

At the beginning of the Bush administration, the United States enjoyed immense amounts of what Harvard University's Joseph Nye calls "soft power" -- respect, admiration, friendship. That soft power increased dramatically in the days and weeks following 9/11. The Bush administration failed to use that soft power before 9/11 and caused it to evaporate after 9/11, first by attempting to go it alone in Afghanistan, then by lurching away from the focus on terror to invade Iraq -- where no imminent threat existed, where containment was working and where most of the world didn't want the United States to go. As many critics have emphasized, Iraq was a distraction from the war on terror, not part of it.

That idiot, George Bush! Everyone around the world wanted to help him. Instead of going where the real trouble was, he sends troops to Iraq, where everything is A-OK. (This is, of course, as long as you aren't one of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis being tortured and/or murdered.)

Imagine a different scenario: Instead of unleashing a radical neoconservative foreign-policy agenda focused on Iraq, what if the Bush administration had spent its first months taking the terrorism threat seriously and building a very strong international coalition that included France, Germany, Russia, China, India, Spain, Britain, Italy and others?

What if such a coalition had sought to take preemptive action not against Iraq, but against known terrorist groups that had already bombed U.S. embassies, attacked the USS Cole, and so on? What if that coalition had followed every lead, every link, every money transfer and arms purchase? What if the coalition had sought to root Al-Qaida out of its Afghan base? Would that coalition have been capable of preventing 9/11? Would it have led to discoveries that might have foiled the attacks in Bali, or Istanbul or Madrid?

What if GWB had "taken terrorism seriously?" Are the Star Tribune editors using hallucinogenics?

I could list dozens - no, hundreds of ways in which the President "took terrorism seriously" - not to mention how he and his administration went to the international community to inlist additional aid.

And how gracious of the editors to imply that terrorist attacks around the world most likely could have been avoided had Bush only taken the proper steps ....!

But these are the Serious Bush Haters. Facts and rational argument are merely ignored. No need to go through the motions with them. Their goal is the destruction of George Bush. If truth, accuracy and reason go by the wayside in that pursuit - so be it.

No Pretense

Usually, I do my best to look at both sides of issues. Very few topics of substance do not have legitimate points on both sides. Ignore the decent arguments of the other guy, and you risk proving only your bias rather than your search for the truth.

Every now and then, however, I read partisanship and it strikes a chord. Here's a great one in G-Major!

Thanks, John Podhoretz.

Down The Rabbit Hole

Paul Krugman descends further and further away from the Real World. Tim Blair's Spleenville exposes the vitriol of The Professor as he utterly misrepresents George Bush's statements on "Meet The Press" about re-election:

On Australia’s Lateline program, Paul Krugman speaks his mind:

There was actually a kind of revealing moment recently - Bush gave an interview, was more or less dragooned into an interview on Meet The Press and the interviewer said: "Well, what if you lose the election?" And he said: "I'm not going to lose the election."

And the interviewer said: "But what if you do lose?" He said: "I'm not going lose the election." The possibility that they just would not regard it as a legitimate thing if someone else were to take power.

Krugman looked almost as paranoid as he sounded. Here’s the actual exchange between George W. Bush and Meet the Press host Tim Russert:

Russert: Are you prepared to lose?

President Bush: No, I'm not going to lose.

Russert: If you did, what would you do?

President Bush: Well, I don't plan on losing. I’ve got a vision for what I want to do for the country. See, I know exactly where I want to lead. I want to lead us — I want to lead this world toward more peace and freedom. I want to lead this great country to work with others to change the world in positive ways, particularly as we fight the war on terror, and we got changing times here in America, too.

What did Krugman expect Bush to say? “I am fully prepared to lose, and if I do, I expect I’ll be sent into exile on the island of Elba”?

Sane people can only wonder: will the New York Times allow someone deranged with hate to continue on their op/ed pages forever?

I do not wish to contemplate the answer.

Which President Do You Want?

The horrific terrorism in Spain may or may not be the work of Al Qaeda. But the attack, with multiple bombs, dozens murdered, and excellent coordination is more characteristic of Al Qaeda than of the Basque ETA.

When I read reports like this, and this, I can only wonder. Which President do we want for the next four years? The one who led us through the dark days of our own 9/11? And who has vowed to go after terrorists wherever they may hide?

Or the one who views such attacks as simply a matter of "law enforcement?"

The "Good for You" Police

Professor Keith Burgess-Jackson has a spot-on rant today about personal responsibility - and the desire by some to take away every last shred of it from all of us.

First, the "Good for You" cops tried to sue the tobacco companies out of existence. Then they moved to filing suits against companies that manufacture firearms, because the guns that they produced actually had bullets coming out of them that hit things - including people!

Their latest move is to tell you, me, and everyone else in the country what they can and cannot eat. Feel like having a quick bite at the local burger corral - and then washing it down with a shake? The food cops want to shut down the fast-food joints (or at least force them to sell "healthy" food) because Americans are getting too fat.

What's next? Blood tests to enter Krispy-Kreme? A recent physical before you can take home frozen pizza and Ben & Jerry's from Costco?

Fortunately, the sane part of government passed a bill protecting your favorite cheeburger-cheeburger hangout. Still, I figure it's only a matter of time until They Who Know How To Live Your Life Better Than You Do attempt to try some other angle.

Why not demand that everyone work out at least 30 minutes a day? Surely it's healthy for us.... Think of all the jobs it would create: we could employ thousands of Exercise Auditors who would root out the sloth among us!

Perhaps they'll go after our television next. Clearly studies show us that too much television renders our brains mushy and our bodies more fubsy. Shouldn't someone, somewhere pass a law so that our TV's automatically go dead once they've been on for more than 3 hours?

I think that tobacco is a terrible addiction. Overeating is an awful problem for too many of us - as is a lack of exercise. And yes, I know that life would be improved for many if they would turn off the tube, get off the sofa and go do something else!

But I want to be the one to choose what I do and do not put into my body. Not some legislator. Not some attorney. And definitely not the "Good for You" police.

A Mirage

Few ideas have had as much promise as the notion of the United Nations. What better concept than an organization where countries of the world could meet, adjudicate and fairly deal with the problems facing our planet?

Unfortunately, sometimes our goals are loftier than what occurs in practice. Sadly, too many events of recent years seem to prove that our hopes with the U.N. were a rosy mirage. The United Nations "Food for Oil" program is but one that seems to leave a dark and oily residue. Claudia Rosett has the dirty details.

If this doesn't disgust you enough, visit Roger Simon for more ugly background.