July 14, 2004

Who would benefit from a terror attack? Bush and al-Qaida

Gregory Djerejian at Belgravia Dispatch picks up on a question by Dan Drezner about whether a new terror attack in the U.S. close to election day would benefit President Bush or John Kerry. Djerejian says Bush. I agree – unless there was immediate evidence that the attack was the result of some colossal administration screwup. Djerejian cites his reasons, which all seem sensible to me, then concludes with this interesting twist: "What's the deeper paradox in all of this? "Al-Q wants Bush to stay in power. "Which is yet another reason they are very keen to attack before the election, in my view. "Bush, in UBL-think--given his more robust foreign policy and concrete purposeful view that al-Qaeda's catastrophic terrorism is an existential peril--is more likely to set off the civilizational clash that bin Laden is hoping for. "Does this mean the smarter ones among us should be voting Kerry to deny UBL this ostensible tactical victory? "No, not by a long shot. "More on why later." Now that's a piece I want to read.

Posted by tbrown at 12:22 PM

Scamming the scammers

If you've been on the Internet for more than a couple of weeks, you've probably received at least one letter from somewhere in the Third World pledging instant riches if you just fork over multiple thousands of dollars and some bank information to facilitate a little transaction. Instead, of course, you lose your money. One such letter oozed into my Inbox this morning from someone purporting to be Mrs. Rosemary Zamuntan of Zimbabwe. "Please don't be offended or surprised to receive this mail which is sent without your prior permission since we do not know each other before now but we will meet soon because of my situation," Mrs. Zamuntan wrote. It took her a while, but she eventually got around to her pitch: I could make 30 percent of $46.5 million – in nice untraceable $100 bills! – if I'd just lend my mystery writer a hand with her "desperate situation." Hmmm. That's about $14 million – a lot better than most state lottery payouts, and no taxman waiting at the counter for his share. Well, thanks, ma'am, but no. A few minutes later I ran across a link to this BBC story, in which a Brit masquerading as Father Hector Barnett of the Church of the Painted Breast** hilariously strings along a Nigerian e-mail scammer, and even successfully extracts $80 from him! (Our hero suspects the money is most likely counterfeit, though.) It's all pretty funny, and would be more amusing still except for the Beeb's admonition that, "Police estimate that every year, US citizens alone are conned out of some $200m[illion]." Proving once again that those crafty scammers will never go broke overestimating the gullibility of us Yanks. ** Bonus: Photos of painted breasts. Unfortunately, they're on guys.

Posted by tbrown at 12:19 PM

The amendment to ban gay marriage is dead … for now

As well it should be. The history of amendments to the U.S. constitution follows two main threads: modifying and regulating federal elections and granting additional rights to citizens. This proposed amendment would have run counter to this admirable tradition by restricting the rights of one group of Americans. It also would have meddled in an area of law that should be left to the states (38 of which have statutes dealing with the question). Unfortunately, the U.S. Senate's 50-48 vote – 10 short of the 60 votes needed to keep it alive – doesn't mean the issue is going away. "The institution of marriage is under fire from extremist groups in Washington, politicians, even judges who have made it clear that they are willing to run over any state law defining marriage," said Republican senatorial candidate John Thune in a radio commercial airing in South Dakota (he's running against Sen. Tom Daschle). No, the U.S. Constitution is under attack by extremist quacks like him. Besides, South Dakota has a statute banning gay marriage. What's he so worried about?

Posted by tbrown at 12:16 PM