A World Long Past

A 12th century copy of a much older map from the Roman Empire went on display for a single day in Austria. The Tabula Peutingeriana was designated a "Memory of the World" document by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

The parchment scroll, nearly 7 metres (yards) long, could only be displayed briefly because too much light would damage it, before it was returned to storage at Austria's National Library, where it has been since 1738.

Named Tabula Peutingeriana after the German antiquarian who owned it in the 16th century, the map shows roads linking some 4,000 settlements as well as mountains, rivers and forests from Spain in the west to China in the east.

From north to south, the map covers the British Isles to north Africa. But because the scroll is just over 30 cms (12 inches) high, the north-south axis is greatly compressed, depicting the Mediterranean Sea as a small stretch of blue squeezed between today's Croatia and Italy.

"It's a bit like when you look at a map of the Vienna underground system — it's not accurate but it gives you a good idea of how to get around," Andreas Fingernagel of the National Library told journalists at the showing.

The document, preserved in 11 segments, was written on parchment at the end of the 12th century as a medieval facsimile imitating the book scroll used in Roman antiquity.

Wikipedia has an image of the entire map - it is high resolution and will take some time to download over a slow internet connection. But the map is amazingly clear and highly detailed once you get used to the compressed nature of the image. (The Mediterranean Ocean looks like a highway, not an ocean.) Things like this are one of the (few) positive things the UN is capable of - and should direct more of its energy toward. Preserving world history - so we learn from it - is a good thing. Click the links and get a glimpse of a world that is long gone now.

Juxtaposition

This article from the Weekly Standard made a bell go off about something I had seen earlier today. Reuben F. Johnson writes that there are some indications that the North Korean government may be imploding.

Intelligence sources and other observers both here in the capital of the PRC and elsewhere in Asia are stating that they project a possible collapse of the North Korean regime within six months time.

Although there have been similar dire predictions made in the past, those analyzing the current situation point to several factors that indicate that the regime may finally be unraveling.

Recent activity by both Kim Jong-Il and other DPRK officials suggest that the Dear Leader is in the process of moving around the financial resources of Pyongyang’s international banking empire in order to make sure he is taken care of should he have to go into exile. This includes a recent visit to the United States by North Korean finance officials who were visiting to learn about the international financial circulation network.

Ostensibly, this visit was preparatory work that would allow the country to re-join the international financial system. This is the next, anticipated step for Pyongyang once the regime has negotiated its removal from the US list of state sponsors of terrorism. The DPRK are also seeking an end to their being subject to the U.S. Trading with the Enemy Act first imposed during the Korean War by President Harry Truman.

But, there are others who suggest that this is also part of a contingency plan in order to make Kim’s assets “portable.”

While the Dear Leader is engaged in financial matters, other reports state that there are movements of U.S. and South Korean military units and equipment to the DMZ in what appears to be a pre-positioning exercise in anticipation of some internal upheavals in the north.

Johnson says that the key indicator is the number of people who are getting out of North Korea by bribing border guards. The number has risen steadily in recent years and may indicate that more guards are less fearful of the regime. But what made the bells ring is this information, coming from Pravda of all sources. It seems that the government has recently begun public executions of officials:

Public executions had declined since 2000 amid international criticism but have been increasing, targeting officials accused of drug trafficking, embezzlement and other wrongdoing, the Good Friends aid agency said in a report on the North's human rights.

In October, the North executed the head of a factory in South Pyongan province for making international calls on 13 phones he installed in a factory basement, the aid group said. He was executed by a firing squad in a stadium before a crowd of 150,000 people.

Six people were also crushed to death and 34 others injured in an apparent stampede as they left after the execution, said the aid group.

Most North Koreans are banned from communicating with the outside world, part of the regime's authoritarian policies seeking to prevent any challenge to the iron-fisted rule of Kim Jong Il.

The North has carried out four other similar public executions by firing squad against regional officials and heads of factories in recent months, said the aid group.

If Kim's government is having to off officials in a public way, the system may, indeed, be unraveling. Very interesting, isn't it? And if the North Korean government does implode, how much information that the United Nations Development Program is not providing will come out?

What’s happened to the trove of documents that the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) promised to hand over to prove—or disprove— its innocence in funneling millions of dollars in hard currency to the North Korean dictatorship of Kim Jong Il?

Are they under UNDP safekeeping in North Korea? Or are they being picked over in a UNDP safe house in Beijing, before a sanitized version is offered up for inspection? And is that just part of a wider destruction of evidence?

Those questions became the subject of a storm of Internet accusations over the past week, as an anonymous blog associated with UNDP dissidents charged coverup, and then offered up photos of UNDP documents that it claimed were proof.

To see the accusations, go to undpwatch.blogspot.com.

For its part, UNDP has flatly denied the accusations.

The documents lie at the heart of a controversy that has reached boiling point several times since last January, when a U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Mark Wallace, used the conclusions of a series of UNDP audits to charge that the U.N.’s flagship development agency had funneled the hard currency to Kim regime officials in March in violation of its own rules, along with a variety of other major infractions. UNDP subsequently announced it had closed its office in March. A preliminary audit by the U.N. panel, without benefit of the documents, validated many of the U.S. charges last June.

This could be very educational. Mark Malloch Brown, former head of UNDP and current member of the British Labor government (and good buddy to George Soros) might have a bit of 'splaining to do. Popcorn, anyone?

There Are Headaches…..

…And then there are headaches. This story will make you cringe. An 18-year old student from India has survived having a four-foot metal pole skewer him completely through the head. Wait until you see the X-ray.

Manish Rajpurohit has been hailed the luckiest teenager in India after he survived being skewered by a metal pole in a bus crash.

The 18-year-old student was riding a bus in Andhra Pradesh state when it was hit by a lorry.

The force of the smash rammed the four foot safety rail into Rajpurohit's forehead and through his skull - only missing his spine by a few millimetres.

Rajpurohit was rushed to a hospital, then to another one when the first could not begin to handle the task of extracting the pole. The pole actually missed anything vital. This is one lucky young man.

Failure To Communicate

Charles Peters, writing at Newsweek, decries the apparent inability of his fellow liberals to even acknowledge that there is progress in Iraq. It is an interesting take on things. I don't necessarily agree with everything he writes but he does point out a couple of things that it would be a good idea to keep in mind.

Conservative and liberal rigidity joined to create a tragic end to the war in Vietnam. Liberals became so antiwar that they could not admit that every South Vietnamese was not a closet Viet Cong; in fact, a significant number of them did not want to live under the communist North. The Nixon administration could not admit that South Vietnamese leaders were too inept to prevail. This meant that neither the administration nor its liberal critics planned for our exit. In our chaotic departure, we abandoned hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese who could only escape across the South China Sea in boats so rickety that many did not survive. Many of those who could not flee languished for years in North Vietnamese prisons and "reeducation camps."

This sad story should inspire us to face similar facts in Iraq. General Petraeus has proved that many Iraqis will respond to the kind of empathetic approach with which he has replaced the previous strategy of banging down doors and shooting first. At the same time, we have seen Iraq's politicians remain unwilling to get their act together. I agree with other war critics who believe these politicians will be motivated to reconcile their differences only when they know we are going to leave on a date certain and they will no longer be able to dither endlessly under our protection in the Green Zone.

There is quite a lot more, but his essential point is that what happened in Vietnam must not be allowed to happen again. In that he is absolutely correct. I don't think trying to force compliance to a set of artificial benchmarks is the solution, however. As the situation in Iraq stabilizes and the violence level drops, a lot of the political issues will be able to be worked out. But trying to make the political issues into hard milestones is confusing means with ends.

Clinton Slipping

A newly released Zogby poll indicates that Hillary Clinton lags against five Republicans in a hypothetical head-to-head match ups. This may indicate that Hillary has real electability problems.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton trails five top Republican presidential contenders in general election match-ups, a drop in support from this summer, according to a poll released on Monday.

Clinton's top Democratic rivals, Barack Obama and John Edwards, still lead Republicans in hypothetical match-ups ahead of the November 4, 2008, presidential election, the survey by Zogby Interactive showed.

Clinton, a New York senator who has been at the top of the Democratic pack in national polls in the 2008 race, trails Republican candidates Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, John McCain and Mike Huckabee by three to five percentage points in the direct matches.

In July, Clinton narrowly led McCain, an Arizona senator, and held a five-point lead over former New York Mayor Giuliani, a six-point lead over former Tennessee Sen. Thompson and a 10-point lead over former Massachusetts Gov. Romney…..

….."The questions about her electability have always been there, but as we get close this suggests that is a problem," Zogby said.

This may become a real issue for Clinton in Iowa. If the core party members don't think she could win a general election, they might not be willing to support her. A loss in Iowa could be a problem for Hillary as the primaries start. I don't put a lot of faith in polls like this this far out from the Iowa caucus - and it is still a long way off in political time. But there does appear to be a downward trend in Hillary's polling pretty much across the board. That would appear to indicate that the slide is real and that she may well face serious problems when the voting actually starts.

Wedge Issue?

Jed Babbin thinks that the Second Amendment may be the mother of all wedge issues in the 2008 elections. Writing about the Heller case that the Supreme Court has taken up, he points out that any Second Amendment issue becomes very dangerous for Democrats, especially Hillary Clinton.

If the Republicans seize this opportunity, they can make a “kitchen table” issue into a “wedge issue” in 2008: one that will decide the minds of voters.  One Republican – Mitt Romney – has spoken on this precise point.  In his interview with HUMAN EVENTS, Romney said his personal view was that the Second Amendment granted the right to keep and bear arms to individuals.  No Democrat will say that. 

In Hillary Clinton’s book, “Living History,” she writes about her outrage at Congress’ failure to, “…close the so-called gun-show loophole and to require child safety locks on guns.”  She goes on talking about how Congress lacked the will to, “…buck the all-powerful gun lobby and pass sensible gun safety measures [which] made me think about what I might be able to do, as a senator, to pass common sense legislation. In an interview in May, I told CBS anchor Dan Rather that, if I ran for the Senate, it would be because of what I learned in places like Littleton – and in spite of what I had lived through in Washington.”

Clinton never did anything about gun control as a senator.  What would she do as president?  Does she believe that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to keep and bear arms, or does she favor confiscative laws such as the District of Columbia law the Supreme Court will rule on in the Heller case? 

Babbin knows the answer to that last question, of course. This is a subject that a lot of people care deeply about, too. But it is up to the Republicans to hit at this issue and keep hitting it. I know Thompson has staked out a position on this pretty solidly. Giuliani and Romney have also to varying degrees. But they are going to have to make it a very strong position and then keep punching away on it.

Reversal Of Fortunes?

The Politico has an interesting article up today. They claim that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have essentially changed places in Iowa.

In ways big and small over the weekend, the two campaigns exuded a sense of switched identities — a dynamic driven by poll-driven perceptions that Clinton’s sense of inevitability is slipping and Obama is riding a bit of a wave amid the Midwestern seas of grain.

The mood and stump styles of the two campaigns reflect this new reality: An ebullient Obama — coatless, tieless, tireless — conveys a sense that at least he thinks he could be on his way to being the next president. Clinton, mixing her traditional caution with a new toughness, is clearly set on knocking Obama off his game.

Clinton, like all the Democratic contenders, is now devoting the bulk of her time to Iowa. Either she or former President Bill Clinton plans to be in the state nearly every day through the Jan. 3 caucuses, with a break for Christmas.

In another acknowledgment of the tight race, Clinton has abandoned any pretense of remaining above the fray and has engaged Obama nearly every day along the campaign trail.

This has been noted before, of course. Clinton does look like she is in catch-up mode at the moment. A big loss in Iowa for her could be very damaging - it would certainly obliterate any talk of her inevitability even if such a loss was not outright fatal to her campaign. But if Obama is "swaggering" as the story says, he is a fool. Reversals like this can happen at any moment.

Trent Lott Retiring

Trent Lott, Republican Senator from Mississippi is apparently going to announce his retirement today. His term does not expire until 2012, so there will have to be a special election to select his replacement.

Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) plans to resign his seat by year's end, a senior Republican official told Politico.

The announcement took Capitol Hill by surprise because Lott, the former majority leader, seemed to be relishing his job as minority whip, the second-ranking GOP leadership job. He had regained a post in leadership after he resigned following racially insensitive remarks at a birthday party for the late Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.).

Lott's departure opens up a position within Republican leadership, and there could be a fight to replace him. Lamar Alexander, who ran for the position last year, would be a natural candidate, but there are plenty of GOP up-and-comers who could compete for the slot, including Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), who are part of the current leadership team and could be looking for a promotion to the no. 2 spot in the hierarchy.

Lott would become the sixth Republican senator to announce plans to step down this election cycle. His term expires in 2012; and a resignation would prompt a special election to fill the remainder of his term.

In 2006, he was reelected with 64 percent of the vote. This will be a tough one for Democrats to pick up.

Rep. Chip Pickering (R-Miss.), who announced his retirement from the House earlier this year, would be a leading candidate for the Senate seat in the special election. One official said Pickering will run for sure. Another possible GOP contender for the seat would be Rep. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.)

Speculation at other news sites indicate that Lott may be retiring early so he can go into lobbying. A new law would impose a two-year wait for him to do that if he delays his retirement until the law takes effect. I can't say as I would miss Lott, who has been a defender of pork-barrel spending.

The Trap

There is another op-ed today in the Financial Times pointing out the trap the Democrats have managed to set for themselves. Clive Crook points out just how dangerous a position the Democrat's left-pandering on the Iraq war has put them into. In short, they could very well sink themselves if they don't back off right away.

The better news, though, poses a challenge for Democrats as the election approaches. Opposition to the war has been their chief theme. This still commands broad and strong support, of course, but the intensity could continue to fade. Republicans will seek opportunities to accuse Democrats of wanting the US to fail, or of wishing to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory – and those charges will acquire some force if the view that the surge has worked takes hold. For Democrats, even putting the recent fall in violence in its correct context poses a political risk, because it can be portrayed as failing to recognise the military’s efforts and achievements. If the Republican presidential contenders have any sense, they will tread very carefully here – while hoping that Democrats fall into the trap and helping them to if the opportunity presents itself.

Personally, I do not believe the Democrats can change course at this point. They are too heavily invested in an American defeat. I pointed out when they first started this out-of-Iraq push that betting against America could be a disaster for them. I still think it is likely to be one. Even the firmly left-leaning New York Times is starting to see how dangerous a position the Democrats have gotten themselves into.