The Noble Pundit

A Slight Overreach

It appears that Saddam is taking Hans Blix's report to the UN Security Council to a little bit of an extreme. Blix was fairly generous to the Iraqi despot, saying that there was concrete movement towards disarmament (I disagree, but that's not the point of this rant). Saddam is trying to spin this into convincing people that he has not only disarmed, but that he has done enough to justify lifting sanctions! He also expresses a desire to protect his fellow Arabs by demanding the immediate disarmament of "the Zionist entity." It is so quaint to see him supporting disarmament of Israel as Iran finishes a uranium enrichment plant.

Of course he want us to destroy our WMD right after the Israelis. Fat chance. The theory of MAD was insane, but stable. Everyone knew that there was no chance of either side actually using their WMD. I feel safe going to bed tonight knowing that the Russians still have WMD. Why? They know how to responsibly care for and respect them. Just like the US. There are only two nations right now that seem to have absolutely no respect for WMD - Iraq and North Korea. Perhaps if either tyrant was stable or reasonable, we wouldn't be having these discussions right now.

We obviously need to get a better handle on Afghanistan, they seem to selling some really good opium to the Axis of Evil. It's the only explaination I can come up with for the sheer stupidity that the Axis has been displaying lately.

N. Korea - Where's The UN, Now?

The North Koreans are amazing. First they attempt to kidnap a US RC-135 and crew, now they reject a US proposal for multilateral talks. What are these guys smoking?

Something isn't sitting right with their actions all the sudden. Before now, they were engaging in saber rattling and general obnoxiousness, but it appeared that rational (by N. Korean standards) people were running the show. Now it seems like someone over there has whacked out and gotten rid of the rational advisors.

President Bush needs to hold the hard-line on multilateral talks - or none. I can see the N.K.s attempting to kidnap and hold hostage some low level functionary of the State Department. If we hold unilateral talks with Wackyman and he decides that kidnapping is his best course of action, everyone else can decline to get involved since it's "only an American diplomat." If we go in multilaterally, and the N.K.s decide to do something stupid, at least our friends will be forced to help (Machiavellian yes, but unfortunately, necessary).

North Korea is on the verge of collapse. I hope that this is merely the first death throes of a vile and evil regime. If not, our men and women in uniform could be getting a nice whirlwind tour of the far side of the world.

It's Not A Precursor, but.....

The Australians have tossed an Iraqi diplomat for spying.

The US has already tossed two Iraqis, the Philippeans have thrown out another and apparently the Germans, among others, are looking at expelling a few more Iraqis back to Saddam's arms.

Now, I realize the Australians are saying this isn't a precursor to a war, but come on. How often do you see one nation getting their "diplomats" tossed from so many different places, in such a short period of time? It doesn't happen like that unless something big is about to happen and we are looking to cut off their intelligence gathering.

The Iraqis of course have protested by saying he is a foreign minister and therefore he can "do whatever he would like to do." That's true to a point, but the host nation can also declare you persona non grata whenever they'd like.

I just think that this might be a nonprecursor precursor.

India And The Call Centers

I got to admit the Indians are a pretty bright bunch. For years as I was growing up he threat was always from the Oriental Asians. Now everyone fears the intelligence and industriousness of the Indians.

My former job was working in a call center. It was one of the most miserable ways to work I can think of (the friendship part was good, the job environment sucked). But a call center is a good way to provide customer support, to mass a body of knowledge and experience, and to provide jobs to a community.

I've been seeing a number of complaints lately that many of these call center jobs are moving to India. Obviously, the writer of this column has also seen the reports about British call centers heading to the Subcontinent. But he brings up some interesting observations.

This particular writer recognizes that a call center is supposed to be a low cost, high volume customer service environment. He also notes, quite correctly, that call centers are disappearing from America and Britain because the costs are too high in those countries. But he also recognizes that India cannot stay a low cost call center economy for very long and that they need to work towards transitioning their economy onto the higher value end of the economic ladder.

Call centers are a great way to educate a large number of people about computers, customer service and problem solving. It's good to see that our friends in India have caught on to the idea of using them as a stepping-stone to improving their national economic status.

It's good to see such a beacon of hope on the far side of the world.

An Arab Nation Work With Israel

Who said the Arabs and the Israelis couldn't live together? Ha'aretz is reporting that Ariel Sharon and King Abdullah of Jordan have held meetings to discuss how the two nations can coordinate their positions on a number of different issues - including a US led war in Iraq.

This meeting will work towards blowing up another faithful myth of the Middle East- that the Arabs and Israelis are incompatible. The Israeli/Jordanian relationship seems to be fairly stable and beneficial to both nations. It's not the US and Canada, but they're making it work. And so long as they keep proving it can work, the more hope there is for the region.

Perspective

In the US, we tend to get spoiled by being able to have lots of wonderful, theoretical discussions in which we discuss the most esoteric subjects. We often discuss the Russians as if they are on the same plane of Maslow's Hierarchy as we are in the West. This editorial in the Moscow Times gives some perspective for how for the Russians have come since the end of the Soviet Union and how far they still have to go.

You would think that something as simple as an airline changing its primary service point wouldn't be that big a deal. If Delta decides to serve Paris - Orly instead of Paris -De Gaulle it doesn't really signify anything about the state of France. But British Airways leaving Sheremetyevo Airport for Domodedovo Airport is significant as it is proving the value of capitalism vs. state control.

I tend to think of the Russians as being fairly well along - and they are. But it sometimes provides a bit of perspective when I'm debating how Osama bin Laden compares to George Washington and the Moscow Times is commenting on how it would be "revolutionary" to go to a hotel in Vladivostock that doesn't have cockroaches. What a difference in perspective about what's important.

A New Airline

They said it wouldn't work for Southwest, and now they say it won't work for Hooters Air. I don't know, if they service is decent and so are the prices - I predict that this venture will do well, just like the restaurant.

Of course, listening to the femi-nazis about this one will be a trip.........

The French have nothing on us culturally!

A College Protects Free Thought

Finally, a college with some real ethics! Most colleges would have condoned a professor forcing political views onto their students. After all it's just part of the "diversity" and "educational process" of a college.

The President of Citrus College needs to be commended for his actions. To me, it sounds like he did everything he was supposed to. The school conducted an investigation, verified the facts and then took action to correct the wrongs that occurred.

As I've said before, I don't have a problem with a teacher expressing their political views in class. The teacher is still entitled to their First Amendment rights, even while acting as an agent of the state. But by forcing students to write a letter that might be counter to their views, the teacher in this case infringed on the student's First Amendment rights. That is where the teacher erred.

Hopefully other colleges and universities around the country will take note. The school actually promoted diversity of thought, rather than suppressing it. There is an education for the educators in here.

Opportunity Lost

Marcy Kaptur, a Congresswoman from Toledo, Ohio has squandered an opportunity to create a national debate about Osama and the Islamic Revolutions around the world.

A few days ago, she compared Osama to the US' Founding Fathers. Many people, myself included, found that analogy to be extremely distasteful, if not patently offensive. Unlike most folks that make idiotic comments, she decided to revisit the issue. This was a wonderful opportunity to clarify her position and to begin a rational and logical debate.

But instead, she reiterated her position, spoke gleefully about how this gave her a better platform from which to criticize Bush and then whined about how she was getting slammed in the media and public opinion. But there was no attempt to start a public debate.

The Democrats sometimes wonder aloud why no one seems to take them seriously. Maybe if they debated rather than continously taking a hardline rhetorical position we would be able to take them more seriously. Allen Colmes has figured it out. Why can't the rest of them get it?

EU Says Relations With US "Worsening"

Looks like we have figured out who our friends are and who they are not. The EU asked the President to come over and make a speech to the European Parliament in Strasbourg. When they would not promise to show the President a modicum of respect (no heckling or protesting in the chamber during the speech), the President turned them down.

The EU is taking this pretty hard, especially after the President went to Prague to welcome many of the Warsaw Pact members into NATO. But the difference is that NATO is not reflexively opposed to everything we do, as the EU is.

The Mirror's source opines, "Relations between the EU and the US are worsening fast." It is refreshing to see someone in Europe picking up on the deteriorating condition of Trans-Atlantic relations. Perhaps they can ask themselves why we don't like them. Then they can just get over it. If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander.

The President And Our Security

Just sat down to read what I wrote last night and I was just a little surprised. I didn't realize just how strong the tone was in my post about the California Congressman on Hannity & Colmes. I guess he just managed to hit just the right buttons!

It is my firm belief that we cannot and should not rely on anyone else to provide our national security. We, and we alone, are responsible for protecting our people from harm. Now that's not to say that we shouldn't turn down help when it is offered (usually by the British, Canadians and Australians), but that we should not count on that help as an integral part of our security plan.

Last night, it felt as though the good Congressman was advocating the surrender of our soveirgnty and security to the UN. This mans job is to help protect our national interests - not France's, not Germany's, not the UN's interests, not even the British interests. In subjugating ourselves to the whims of the UN we are not acting our own best interests. Not one bit. And to advocate the subjugation of our interests to a foreign or super-national organization is, in my opinion, borderline treason. It is basically a US Congressman saying that we need to eliminate the US government's responsibilities because other nations may not like our decisions.

Geroge W Bush was elected to office and was sworn in to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution is the document that we have created to protect the rights and freedoms of the American people. He didn't swear to protect it sometimes or whenever "world opinion" okayed it. He swore to protect it against all enemies foreign or domestic - with no conditions or clauses.

The President believes that Saddam Hussein is a clear and present threat to America's people and therefore the Constitution. He is exercising his oath and authority to protect us from an enemy - this time foreign. The Constitution is open enough to have allowed him to attempt to find a diplomatic solution; it is also open enough to allow him to attack Iraq, if that is the course he feels is necessary to carry out his oath of office. The most important fact here is that the President, not the UN, not Congress, not the military, is responsible for ensuring our national security.

The President has the authority to use all the tools at his disposal to protect the nation. Most of the time that means that he will use the carrot of the State Department and the stick of the military. He may use trade sanctions or enhancements as a way to protect us. He may work with our allies or he may act unilaterally. He cannot be Machiavellian, the means he uses must be valid under US law, but the protection of the US is really an ends driven endeavor.

In dealing with the problem Saddam poses, the last three US administrations have used almost every tool available to them. We have attempted to work with the international community through the UN to bring Saddam into compliance with the cease-fire agreement that ended the fighting the first time around. We have tried economic sanctions, economic inducements (food for oil), multilateral inspections, unilateral and multilateral use of force, and 17 international ultimatums. For 12 years, we have attempted to solve this problem multilaterally. The President is now offering the UN one last opportunity to assist in this issue.

I believe that the UN has wasted 12 years playing footsie with Saddam. The Security Council has no power in the world. They have squandered virtually all of their moral authority since the end of Desert Storm and the fall of the Soviet Union. President Bush 43, the simplistic unilateral cowboy, has really been giving the UN an opportunity to rebuild some semblance of credibility since September 2002. But the UN is about to squander this last, final opportunity to act.

I think that the President (and our allies for this fight- the Coalition of the Willing) realized about a month ago that the UN was not going to act. That realization coincided with Secretary of State Powell becoming the public face of the US effort. That was the real signal of the end of diplomacy and the beginning of the final planning for the use of force. It's the old axiom - if you can hear the sword rattling it is still in its sheath, when the rattling stops - the sword is being drawn. So long as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was out front talking trash, everything was happy and kosher in the world. As soon as the public face changed, so did our planning.

The fighting will start again. Saddam does not comprehend anything other than brute force. His concessions are proof that he does not understand the paradigm shift that has taken place since 9/11. He is still operating under the belief that he can buy off the west by making a few functionally insignificant concessions. Times have changed, but his thinking has not. That is why we will have to fight again.

The President proved the other night that he understands the magnitude of current events. He proved that he takes his oath of office seriously. Right now he is in the process of proving that the UN is feckless. And he also understands that he cannot abdicate US soveirgnty to the UN.

Which brings me back full circle to the good Congressman that so raised my hackles. He, like Saddam, does not understand the situation facing the world today. Which means in the end he is not guilty of treason, merely of being an uninformed and clueless.

Stop Playing Footsie With The UN

President Bush obviously has much more patience than I do. Why are we wating our time with the UN? It is painfully obvious to me that the French intend to destroy the usefulness of the UN in a last fit of Gallic arrogance. We should not waste our time playing footsie with the world.

The only acceptable reason for proposing this new resolution is to protect Tony Blair. We have no other reason to play with these clowns. Blair has said he would go to war only with UN approval or an "unreasonable veto." If the French veto this, it is beyond unreasonable, it's unbelieveable.

I'll accept the setting of a deadline. 1441 was too vague and too openended (a loophole being exploited to the max by the French). But if we back off here it is over. We would need to just bring everyone home and disband the military because everyone will now they can push us around. This needs to be it. No more footsie.

Who Made The UN God?

I'm sitting here watching Hannity & Colmes on Fox and there is a Congressman from California, Filner I think his name is, who is saying that if the US acts without UN approval that we will be making the world a more dangerous place. According to Congressman Filner, only the UN has the standing to bless a military exercise against Iraq.

That is complete and total bull. UN approval will do NOTHING to make the world safer. Not a damn thing - ask the Muslims in the Balkans. Ask the Dutch "peacekeepers." UN approval or disapproval is worthless.

As much as I hate to say it, the UN lost its moral clarity after the fall of the Soviet Union. Prior to the demise of the Evil Empire, the UN could be counted on to make decisions based on the best interests of humanity. Now it is nothing more than an overreaching talking society whose primary belief seems to be anti-Americanism. The UN has no real policy except to reign in and slowly take over the US. They want our industriousness and intelligence to allow them to work less, to provide more social benefits to their people. They want us to defend them militarily while they attack us socially. They allow murderous thugs to accuse us of human rights violations. They allow terrorist nations to attempt to dictate our foreign policy to us. The UN has become one of the most immoral bodies on the face of the earth.

If we go into Iraq without UN approval, they won't help us in the event that we are attacked here at home. If we go in with UN approval, they still won't help us if we're attacked here at home. Without the US, the UN has no real ability to do anything. They wouldn't be able to defend their lunch money, much less a nation. They wouldn't be able to enforce a resolution to wash your hands after using the restroom any more than they could 1441.

The UN is useless. Evict them. Tell them to go plant their headquarters in the middle of North Korea. Revoke their diplomatic immunity and collect on the parking tickets. Turn the UN building into condos (or maybe low income housing). But don't waste another minute with trying to "work" with these clowns. They're morons, not God.

Victor Davis Hanson Does It Again

I really, really enjoy reading the thoughts of Victor Davis Hanson. I have never read any of his essays without coming away with some new piece of knowledge or something that think about. His essay today on the ”PostModern War” is no exception.

His analysis of the problems and issues faced by the US as we approach this new war are dead on. No matter what the outcome of the war is, the US will somehow be made to lose in the media war. We cannot do right, and in those instances where we actually do do right – we won’t have done it fast enough.

Hanson does a wonderful job of pointing out the hypocrisy in the Europeans. Go read the article. It is definitely food for thought.

Why The War Is Justified

As I was driving into work this morning, I decided to challenge one of my beliefs; to kind of run through a mental exercise to reexamine the viability of my position. After last night’s discussion with the girlfriend, I decided to test my belief in the justifications for war with Iraq.

My first, overriding, belief is that the US will only send our military into battle in order to defend our founding principles and beliefs. It may be a case of the best defense being a good offense, but there is always some underlying justification for our fighting. I believe that every time since the Revolution we have sent our men off to fight and die, they were fighting to defend the sanctity of life or to protect liberty. I believe that every war we have fought can be boiled down to defending one of those two principles (usually both of them). Sometimes, it is our life and liberty that is at risk; sometimes it is the life and liberty of our allies. But it is always to defend those principles.

Iraq is a clear and present threat to American life. Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, he has an evil heart, and he has a desire to kill as many Americans as possible. He does not have an effective delivery system for hitting the US with a WMD, yet. But even an ineffective system, one that works 1% of the time, will still eventually yield results for him. And many Americans will needlessly die a horrible death. We know that with the evil in his heart, it is only a matter of time before the unthinkable happens – unless he disarms, either voluntarily or by force of arms. Saddam with WMD is an unacceptable threat to the sanctity of American life.

There are some who believe that he does not possess WMD or that he would not use them against us. I believe that they are wrong. He has WMD and has already shown a willingness to use them. His blustering threats of using them against our military, belie his gleefulness at the possibility of being able to use them again. Saddam doesn’t use WMD because he has to, he uses them because he wants to. He hides them because he cannot bear the thought of not having them. To Saddam, a WMD is the equivalent of an American wanting to own a home of their own. A WMD is Saddam’s version of the Iraqi Dream.

Saddam is a very real threat to American life. He is also a threat to the lives of our allies around the world. We must not forget that.

Saddam is also a threat to liberty. He denies people the right to dissent. He denies them the right to seek happiness. He denies them the right to make choices. And in many cases, he denies them the right to live. The Iraqi people deserve to have those rights. They deserve the opportunity to be contributing members of world society. They deserve the right to provide a better life for their children. They just don’t have the means to change their situation. We do and we are duty bound to help. We owe it to the multitudes of soldiers who have died defending our principles.

We don’t ask that Iraq become a Middle Eastern version of the United States. We only require that they not threaten the principles. Not because they are our principles, but because they are universal principles. Everyone is entitled to live. Everyone is entitled to be their own person, which comes about only from making your own decisions. Saddam is diametrically opposed to these principles and that is why he must go.

A Household Debate

I just got done watching the President's press conference. I thought he did ok. Didn't sound like anything new and exciting was disclosed. But afterwards, my girlfriend and I had an interesting discussion about our position on Iraq.

I believe that the forced removal of Saddam is the right course of action. My girlfriend does not. You've already seen a lot of my arguments for the war, so I'll examine and discuss her arguments (and attempt to provide answers since she wouldn't let me get a word in edgewise).

Her main argument against the war is that Iraq has not done anything to us,so we shouldn't attack them. Iraq has invaded and attacked out allies. They have threatened our friends. They pay bounty for the murder of our friends. They harbored and aided many of the men who attacked us on 9/11. True, they weren't Iraqi citizens, but Saddam did aid them. Iraq has a large stockpile of biological and chemical weapons, which he will not hesitate to use or to pass out to the terrorist of the week. Saddam has already expressed his desire to destroy the US, just to this point he hasn't perfected an effective delivery system. Iraq has not attacked us directly - yet, but they will. I want to cut their opportunity short - before it happens, before 20,000 Americans die in their homes. She thinks we can wait and nothing bad will happen. In my opinion the risk is too great to take.

She also argues that if we attack Iraq, terrorists will attack us here at home. She's probably right. She also agrees with me that terrorists will eventually attack us here again anyway. If we have to take another terror attack, I would rather do it now rather than later. Right now, the likelyhood of a terrorist having WMDs is small. The longer it takes before the next attack, the more likely it is that it will be with a WMD. Everyday it becomes more likely. A terrorist attack will galvanize the country (her included) again against the terrorists. If people have to die, I want as few as possible to perish. That's why I'd rather see an attack now rather than later, the damage will be less; the reaction more intense.

She is also concerned that we are attempting to dominate the world by forcing democracy on everyone. I don't believe that we are trying to dominate the world and I don't think that we're trying to force democracy on everyone. We are trying to liberate a repressed people. We are trying to help the Iraqis to create a more stable government in the Middle East. Unlike the Romans or the Europeans of the Middle Ages, we are not trying to dominate and annex a new province. We intend to go in, do our job and get out.

She also believes that we spend too much time helping foreigners at the expense of Americans. She asked the rhetorical question about feeding Somalis while allowing Americans to starve. I believe (and she doesn't disagree) that help is there for any American willing to get off their ass and to make an intelligent choice (food instead of crack, etc). She just believes that we don't do enough to help our own and that we need to stop helping others until we help our own. I don't disagree that we could do more, but all the homeless people I have seen running around are fairly large (also have noticed one who owns more new sneakers than I do!). I think that we are doing a fairly good job of helping our own. Not perfect, but pretty good. It is certainly good enough that we can justify trying to help our fellow humans outside our borders. It's not at the expense of helping Americans; it's in addition to helping Americans.

From there our discussion degenerated into an argument about other things (welfare, education, state policy, neighbors - just all kinds of stuff) that really aren't of much interest to anyone but us.

I think it's kind of ironic that she would have these opinions. During the last Presidential election, her and one of our neighbors had some pretty strong debates about the candidates and concepts such as personal responsibility. Normally, we aren't this far apart on any issue (we just get caught up in fighting about minor, minor details). I'll still continue to love her anyway, but I think she's wrong in this case. Anyone want to come to her defense?

Powell and The War

I think this is amusing. It is the clearest sign yet that the US is going to go to war, with or without UN approval.

Colin Powell as Secretary of State is the chief negotiator and diplomat for the US. His job (and that of the State Department) is to hold out for a diplomatic solution to a problem, until it is absolutely clear that diplomacy has failed. Powell performed his role as diplomat very, very well holding out hope of a diplomatic solution long after most of us thought it to be impractical. I believe that his first presentation to the UN was his final attempt at securing a diplomatic solution.

The instringence of the French and Germans after that first foray to the UN was the straw that broke the camel's back. Powell gave them what they wanted, and they scoffed. That presentation proved to Powell (and Foggy Bottom) that there was no hope of a diplomatic solution. The French and Germans showed their hands and we knew that they would not play along.

Now Powell is going back to the UN, not to negotiate, but to wield the big stick of the bully pulpit. Powell and his British counterpart Jack Straw are, I believe, going to throw down the gauntlet to the French, Germans, Russians and Chinese. I believe that the Brits are going to put forth a resolution defining the Iraqis in violation of 1441 and giving them a very short time in which to come into compliance. The Russians and the Chinese are going to recognize the significance of Powell supporting the resolution. They will either go along or abstain. The Germans will be irrelevant in the vote and the French will do the most stupid thing they can and they will veto the resolution. They will not understand how significant it is that Powell is there.

As soon as Powell switched from his role as pacifist to that of hawk, I knew that diplomacy was not an option with Iraq. I knew we were going to be going to war. It's too bad our "allies" couldn't understand that.

Put Up Or Shut Up

FOXNews.com is reporting that the British may be about to propose a compromise resolution in the UN to give Iraq somewhere between 72 hours to one week in which to totally disarm.

I really think this is getting old. We, being the US, British, Spanish and Bulgarians, are spending way too much time messing around with the bunch of twits on the Security Council. Everyone on the council, except for us four, is afraid of actually having to make a decision. Their idea of security is that the UN provides them job security. They've seen their internal job markets; they're afraid to go back home and be unemployed! The longer this drags out, the more likely it is that we will lose interest or become consumed by another situation (read: North Korea).

The Security Council is worthless in its current condition. It gives more last chances than the Salvation Army. It will never again be viable so long as France is a veto empowered member and so long as a nation like Syria can sit on it. It is a joke and a disgrace. Not to mention that it is trying to infringe on our national sovereignty simply because the French and Germans think we should "just get over it."

We do need to "get over it." We need to get over wasting our time with international coalition building. We know who our friends are; we have already built a coalition of the willing. We don't need anyone else. To hell with foreign public opinion polls, if we're going we need to go. If we're not, we need to get out. The French have not helped us and will not help us. Why are we trying to get them on the bandwagon, too?

Osama Vs. George Washington

A US Congresswoman from Ohiois comparing Osama Bin Laden to the US Founding Fathers. Marcy Kaptur (D., Toledo) expresses the thought that Osama and his ilk are "very similar to those kind of atypical revolutionaries that helped to cast off the British crown." She apparently also believes that since the Middle East is being gripped by religious extremism, America should just stay out.

The US was founded on the principles of freedom. Osama and Co. want to found an Islamic kingdom based on the principles of repression. The goal of the US revolutionaries was to improve the lives of the colonists and they revolted only after attempting to work with the British crown. The goal of the Osamas of the world is to take civilization back to the 7th century and they do not want to understand why the rest of the world seems to enjoy the 21st century. The only similarity between the Founding Fathers and Osama is the use of violence to achieve their means. Our Founding Fathers were not perfect - they engaged in some questionable tactics - but they at least attempted to fight by civilized rules. Osama and friend believe that violence against anyone, even innocent civilians, is ok. Outside of violence, there is no similarity between Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and Osama.

Miss Kaptur also expresses a naive hope that we can attack terrorism at its root. She thinks providing food and education will help to stem poverty in the terrorist breeding grounds. It is wonderful to think that giving food will help. But food can be redirected (see North Korea - the people starve, while the military eats very well). Education can be countered by propaganda and intimidation. Food and education will work only when there is a stable, non-kleptomanical government in place.

The US is already the target of the anguish and angst of the Middle East. That status will continue until the standard of living gap is narrowed. Our standard of living keeps improving. The only way to narrow the gap is to improve the Arab standard of living even faster. One advantage we have in this quest is that the base from which we are starting in the Middle East is so low that any improvement will be a huge gain. But to begin creating those improvements, we first have to create an atmosphere that allows for the freedoms to create wealth and knowledge. Only then will we be truly secure.

For Entertainment Use Only

Sparkey over at Sgt. Stryker has found a really neat little song poking fun at our friends in the various Axis of the world (Evil and Weasels).

The song, Bomb Iraq, can be downloaded in mp3 format here

More on the 1st Amendment

I’ve been noticing a higher number of Constitutional issues hitting the news lately. Some of them, like the library internet porn filters are because the Supreme Court is about to hear a case of the matter. Others, like the man arrested after refusing to remove an anti-war shirt, seem to be an a case of Americans infringing on others rights in the name of patriotism or security.

Both of these issue you will notice deal with the First Amendment. Our freedom of speech and expression seems to be under some pretty good pressure these days – more than it normally is. One of the virtues of American society is that we permit someone to express the true feelings on an issue, no matter how foul their opinion might be. The US is the only country in the world where our military have proudly died for David Duke’s right to be a bigoted, racist moron.

I am really bothered by the gentleman who was arrested after refusing to take off an anti-war shirt. Apparently he was in a mall and security asked him to remove the shirt. He refused. Security then brought over a police office who repeated the request and when the man refused again he was arrested for trespassing. The arresting officer should have taken the initiative to stop this fiasco before it got this far out of hand. I realize that the mall is private property and that the management does have the right to remove anyone from the premises for any reason, but this was a weak, heavy handed attempt by an overzealous security guard (it would appear) to impose on the patron’s right of free expression.

The internet porn filters is libraries is another interesting First Amendment case. I believe that there is a need to shelter children from pornography. I also believe that for someone to be downloading porn in a public place, like a library, is the height of inconsideration. It is also illegal in most jurisdictions as it is potentially making adult materials available to be viewed by children under the age of 18. Instead of using porn filters that also block a large number of useful sites, local governments need to look at a two pronged approach to stopping the access of porn of library computers. First, there are programs that will block access only to certain discrete sites. Local government could then use the powers it is allowed under obscenity statutes to show that particular sites run counter to the public’s sense of decency and those sites could be blocked – on a one by one basis. Second, laws regarding the distribution of pornography to minors need to be more stringently enforced in library situations. It’s more time consuming to take this two pronged approach, but it does allow for the maximum usefulness of the internet in libraries, while blocking dangerous sites and complying with the First Amendment.

Protecting our rights to free speech is one of the toughest on-going tasks we face in the US today. Sometimes it means putting up with hearing something we’d rather not hear. Sometimes it means dealing with a slower and more inconvenient procedure for protecting our children. But the First Amendment is about life or death. It’s about words and expression. It is also one of the most important founding principles of this nation. We need to take the time to weigh every possible option before even giving the appearance of infringing those valuable rights.

Teachers and the 1st Amendment

FOXNews is reporting about a teacher who wore an anti-Bush pin on class fieldtrip. The crux of the article is that the pin upset the parents and that there is now a debate about teachers and the First Amendment, especially in light of the situation in Maine with teachers harrassing some of the students who have parents in the National Guard.

Here's my point of view on all this. The teacher has the right to be anti-war, wear anti-war materials, to express their anti-war feelings to their students and there should be no repercussions, no matter how disagreeable the parents are to the views. Those are the teacher's views and the parents have no right to infringe on the teacher's right to have those views. Men (and women) have fought and died for that teacher's right to piss everyone off. Now if the teacher is harrassing a child because their father is in the military, that's a different story. Singling a child out for unfair treatment is counter to the principle of an equal education for all. A child that has been singled out will likely suffer harrassment by other children and is more apt to suffer longer term learning problems because of the teachers actions. A teacher harrassing a student is violating the student's right to an equal education and that is why a teacher should be punished for it, but not for espousing a general political view.

Now this does not address the appropriateness of the teacher being vocal in their views. As part of a discussion of social studies or current events, a teacher should almost be obligated to disclose their viewpointso that the students don't become confused between fact and opinion. For a teacher to sit and lecture the kids on their viewpoints, without any context for the lesson, is very inappropriate, but still legal. The wearing of a pin, is borderline. The teacher should have a discussion about why they are wearing the pin, but they should not be disciplined for wearing it.

The parent involved in this story seems to have overreacted. If her father and grandfather were in the military, she would understand the idea "I disagree with what you say, but I'll fight to death for your right to say it."

The Iranian Non-Election

Michael Ledeen over at the National Review Online is reporting that the Iranians had a record breaking series of municipal elections this past weekend. Apparently, of 7 million registered voters in Tehran, approximately 70,000 actually showed up to vote. Not a good turnout at all.

This is an example of why an invasion of Iran probably won't be necessary. The nutjobs of the theocracy have let out just enough rope for the people of Iran to hang them. Once the citizens of Iran see the improved lifestyles and standards of living in the newly reconstructed Iraq, they will move against their government. They are smart people with enough freedom to be able to organize and execute a revolt.

This is why the distinctions of diplomacy are important. In Iraq, there is no hope of even a protest non-vote. Saddam has an absolute stranglehold on the country and is pillaging the nation for resources to build WMD. In Iran, we have an unstable theocracy that is trying to provide something for its people and, while they are still a state sponsor of terrorism, they are trying to slowly integrate themselves into the world community (the past instances of attempted reproachment with the US is evidence of this attempted reintergration). Iraq is going to require a military solution; Iran is eventually going to bring about its own end. Our being able to make the distinction between the two is going to be vital to navigating the problems of the Middle East.

The Iranian non-vote bodes well for the ultimate US plan to stabilze the Middle East. It shows that the Iranians know the value and importance of a peaceful protest against the government. Now we know the real feelings of the Iranian people. It's time to start making the world safer.

Out-French The French

The Associated Press is reporting that the Russians are still not commiting to one path or the other in the UN Security Council. They still talk of the need for more inspections while giving themselves a nice, face-saving way out of having to actually veto a resolution.

In other words, the Russians and the French have now switched roles in the Seurity Council. For years the French played both sides for outsized political power, while the Soviet Union was always attempting to obstruct the US. Now Putin is playing everyone. and it looks like Russia stands to profit handsomely from his doing so.

The Russians have been playing the game from a position of power long enough to know how to profit when someone needs their support. Putin is going to milk this and is going to do his utmost to protect Russian interests. And he understands, probably better than anyone, that that will involve going along with the US.

It's so entertaining watching the French get out-Frenched.

UN To Help In Post War Iraq

FOXNews is reporting that the UN is drawing up plans for a post war Iraq, even as they throw up roadblocks for us every step of the way.

Somebody needs to tell them that "playing devil's advocate" will not automatically give them a say in post war Iraq. Only our benevolence wil.

These guys are another group that needs to get a clue.

Anti-Americanism & Friendship

USA Today is reporting on the rise in anti-American sentiment throughout Europe (I mentioned it yesterday). The author spends most of the article describing some of the incidents that happened (and trying to attribute their occurrence to Bush policy, but that’s a rant for another day), but he does bring up some interesting points that bear some discussion. He mentions concerns about US dominance in the world, US selfishness and the also points out the generational differences in opinion among the Europeans.

The Europeans really seem to be getting a complex about the US being the sole remaining superpower. One of the anecdotes in the article describes a Berlin cabbie asking about “American megalomania” and then demanding to know how his fare might feel if someone she knew were killed in war. I view this as another example of the Europeans just not getting it. 9/11, the Twin Towers, 3000 of our friends and relatives killed, the destruction of a national symbol. We haven’t forgotten and we aren’t about to. How would the Germans react if the Bundestag was destroyed? Or the French if the Louvre was laid to waste? I’m sure that then it would be personal and they might attempt to act in a similarly “megalmanical” manner. We all “knew” someone that died on 9/11, they were Americans, the same as us.

The author also brings up that idea that American “selfishness” is breeding resentment by the Europeans. He cites our withdrawl from Kyoto and our penchant for driving SUVs as examples of our selfishness. Yet the Europeans are concerned most about the lack of US tourist dollars. According to the article the number of Americans visiting Europe is down over 19% since 2000. That is equating to a substantial hit to the European economies. We do act in our own interests, as shown by Kyoto, but we’re very open about it. The Europeans try to act sophisticated, when in reality they are just dodging the true issues. They don’t want to admit that they are lagging behind the US economically, so they whine about US selfishness. It’s time for the whiners to grow up and own up to their decisions. They chose socialism over capitalism and now they’re reaping the shriveled fruits of their labors.

The statement of most interest to me, however, was the one in which the author revealed that the resentment against the US runs deeper among the younger Europeans than it does with the older folks. Perhaps the younger Europeans need to learn the value of a human life. Maybe they need to learn the value of an honest week’s work, or maybe they just need to pressure their politicians to encourage policies that lead to job growth so that they can become employed. All in all, it seems like the younger generation of Europeans is rapidly becoming out of touch with reality. They seem to have already forgotten the lessons of the twentieth century. They still allow demagogues, in this case the European elitist media, to dominate their thoughts. The older generations know of Europe’s past and of the inherent good of Americans. The younger generation needs to be reminded of how the US, Britain and Canada saved the Continent from a megalomanical dictator and then had enough concern for the people of Europe to help them to rebuild through the Marshall Plan.

The Europeans need to get over it. The world no longer revolves around the Franco-German axis. Every little spat between the powers of Europe is no longer of earth shaking consequence. The US is not the center of the universe and should not be. But just because we choose to exercise of independence of the Old World does not mean that we are disrespecting them. The fact that we choose a different path than that desired by Jacques Chirac does not mean that we are ignoring Europe. We are the US. We don’t expect Europe to be us; Europe should not expect us to be them. As nations, we are friends (even France). But remember, even when you are in total disagreement with a friend, you never – ever - spit on them.

Burger Eating War Monkeys

Well, it finally happened. The Europeans, and the French in particular, put together their collective brain cells and came up with a retort to the phrase “cheese eating surrender monkey.” Henceforth, we Americans will be known in France as (this is so…..cute) “Burger Eating War Monkeys.” How many bottles of wine were wasted in coming up with this outstanding and brutal insult? If this is the best response they can come up with, we have nothing to fear of the European educational system. I honestly expected more, maybe something a little more dignified or poetic. Not just a cheap rewording of our original insult. So disappointing.

The Economist, however, does bring up some interesting comparisons between anti-Europeanism in the US and anti-Americanism in Europe. They go into some detail about possible reasons for why the Europeans have much, much stronger feelings about America than we do about them. All in all it’s a fairly interesting article and is well worth the read. And for once, it’s conclusions, contained in the last three sentences are dead on.

Go and read it..........

War This Week?

London's wonderful little tabloid The Sun is reporting that a war against Iraq is scheduled to start as early as next week. They are also reporting that Russia and China have given signs of at least abstaining from a vote, which is pushing the US towards putting a resolution to a vote in the Security Council on Wednesday.

Most of what the article contains is the same old stuff. America is ready, France is opposed, this is putting a stress on the Spaghetti-Os (Franco-American) relationship, etc. But it does put out one interesting little blurb that I haven't seen elsewhere. Apparently we are pressuring some of the more corrupt Security Council members with the fact that we know their "secret" Swiss Bank account numbers.

I guess the French, sorry the Europeans, are complaining about our espionage activites so much because they can't figure out the bank account numbers themselves. Or maybe they're just afraid of losing all influence and credibility. Either way, the weasels are showing just how scared they are of making a decision.

Report: Turkey May Reconsider

The DRUDGE REPORT is reporting that Turkey may vote again on allowing US troops to operate from their soil. Drudge also reports that the US pressure is "intense."

The Turks have let me down before, so I'm going to stay out of making any comments outside of this: the Turks are awfully lucky to get a second chance on this. They had best get it right this time. If they are not absolutely positive that a second resolution will pass, they would be much, much better off just admitting it won't work. In time, we may forgive getting screwed once, screw us twice............not a good idea. At all.

Higher Standards

Sparkey over at Sgt. Stryker's site has commented on the legalities of some of our useful idiots heading over to Iraq to become human shields. I'll plead ignorance on the fine points of the law (although I do believe that everything he states is absolutely correct), but will take a little issue his complaint about the US being held to a higher standard than everyone else.

The Geneva Convention, I believe, represents a minimum level of conduct that should be expected of a nation or combatant. Nations or combatants that don't meet that minimum standard absolutely should have their leadership held accountable for war crimes. But, the US, as the world's remaining superpower should hold itself to a higher standard. Other nations have no right to expect anything more than require by the Geneva Conventions and have no standing to make those kind of demands on us. Only the citizens of the US can require our military to act more ethically than it's required to.

With the "human shields" that are over there, we need to make every effort to protect those folks and then to arrest them for a fair and just treason trial in the US (or their home country). No matter how repulsive their actions are (and they are extremely repulsive), they are still entitled to a fair trial with a punishment to be handed down by their peers. However, the only concession we should make in war planning is to redouble our intelligence efforts, locate these morons as accurately as possible and then attack in a manner that attempts as much as possible to spare them while still achieving our military objective. We want to make every effort to save them from themselves, but we do not want to risk the lives of our soldiers any more than absolutely necessary.

Just my thoughts on the matter.............

High Speed Rail

OK, let’s take a break from the political ranting for a post or two. A friend of mine asked me this morning what my opinion is on high speed rail. I told him that I supported the idea, but probably not in the form that most people are thinking of.

Most of the plans that I’ve seen for HSR seem to take for granted that the system will be basically set up like the existing passenger rail structure, just faster. Unfortunately, I don’t think that will work.

I think that we need to set the system up with regional hubs spaced out throughout the country. True HSR (180-200 mph) would run between the hubs with slower (100 mph) local services running to the other stops in that region. If a local government wanted to provide even more coverage, it could do so by using light rail or busses.

Let me provide an example of how the system might be set up in one region. I’m going to look at the states of Florida and Georgia. The first thing to do would be to pick two major hubs that are strategically located. I would choose Orlando and Atlanta, which are approximately 400 miles apart. True HSR would run between the two hubs with no stops. You would be looking at a travel time of 2 to 2 ½ hours, which is very competitive with airlines, once airport time is figured in. From Orlando, you would have local services running the length of the peninsula from Miami to Tampa to Tallahassee to Jacksonville. A run to Miami with no stops would take approximately 2 hours. Add in stops for a true local service (in the railroad sense of the word) and you would probably push it to 3 ½ hours, which is still better than driving. Atlanta would serve the entire state of Georgia with runs into the Florida Panhandle.

As a further example of how a local service might look, let’s look at a prospective run from Miami to Jacksonville. You would start in Miami heading north with stops in West Palm Beach, Melbourne, Orlando, St. Augustine, and finally Jacksonville. Local governments would be providing the intermediate services between those stops. For instance, the Miami stop would serve from, say, Homestead to Ft. Lauderdale. West Palm from Lauderdale to Stuart. Melbourne from Stuart to Titusville. Orlando would be the big connection with the train arriving to connect with runs to Atlanta, Tampa and Tallahassee. You would also have services from Lakeland to Daytona and from Mount Dora to Rockledge. St. Augustine would cover from Titusville to Palm Harbor. And Jacksonville would cover from Palm Harbor to Savannah.

That’s a lot to digest, especially if you aren’t very familiar with the geography of Florida’s East Coast. Basically, the 100 mph local service would have stops every 50-75 miles in decent size towns, with local governments providing services between those stops. If local governments want to use light rail, that’s great. If they want to use busses, that’s fine to. Even if they choose not to provide service, that’s their prerogative.

How would this be funded? I would propose that both the federal government and state governments fund it. We do a lot in this nation under the common good clause of the Constitution. This is a project that really would be for the common good. It would reduce highway maintenance expenses (by reducing the number of vehicles on the roads and hence reducing the wear and tear), it would help the environment, and it would help to make our transportation system more efficient.

I’m sure that some would ask how it makes the transportation system more efficient. It’s actually pretty simple. When we travel, we really have four distinct regions that we travel to: local, short range, medium range and long distance. Local travel is that involved with going to work, shopping or to visit friends. It is best handled by individual transportation, usually an automobile. The short range is to neighboring cities or towns. For me, in Winter Springs, just north of Orlando, that would a trip to Daytona for the races or the beach, or maybe a trip to Tampa. It is basically, out and back, a day trip distance. Medium range trips would be about the same distance as that between hubs in the proposed system, about 400-500 miles from home. This is the range that is currently a one day, all day drive to get there. And long distance is anything that would take a couple of hours in the air to get there.

As I see it, the local stuff is best served by individuals moving themselves about. Short range trips would be best served by a comprehensive light rail or bus system. We really don’t have too many problems in the US with trips that are of short range or less. The medium range trips are the real inefficiency of the US transportation system. Currently the void is filled by airlines or private vehicles, neither of which is the designed for that kind of travel. HSR would free up the airlines to concentrate on long distance travel, where they’re most efficient and would take care off the highways.

In the medium range distances, HSR is competitive with airlines, when the time wasted in airports is taken into account. Removing this waste of resources should be an important goal of the US. The more time and money we can save, the more competitive US businesses will become and the more enjoyment our citizens will get from traveling around our nation.

French Deny Reality Again

This is just lovely. France's ambassador to the UN has declared that "there is no anti-Americanism in France." It sounds to me like de Villepin needs to be called back to Paris a little more often.

He also proves that, despite the French's supposed excellence in diplomacy, the French don't understand us. He states that if regime change were the goal "there would be so many countries included." I mentioned it in an earlier post: diplomacy=making distinctions. For all the complaints of the US being simplistic, this certainly looks like the French being extremely simplistic. The distinctions required by diplomacy seem to escape them.

And the last paragraph of the article is amazing. de Villepan stresses the longtime ties between the US and France by mentioning that Chirac was the first head of state to visit after 9/11. See? Out longterm ties go all the way back to the last big photo-op. Weasels.

Respect

Sgt. Stryker has a blurb about some residents of Oakland disrespecting an Army soldier in uniform. Short of it is that she was harrassed for a while before a few sailors showed up to extract her from the situation.

This, in my mind, is a product of a closeminded and poor upbringing. I was brought up to understand that the military protected our right of dissent. Therefore, even if we vehemately disagreed with them, we still needed to respect and supoort our folks in uniform. I had friends who didn't learn the lesson explicitly athome, but they were openminded enough to pick it up from the renewed strains of patriotism during the Reagan years.

If only these simple minded morons relaized that this woman was defending their right to harass her. Of course, the irony would escape them.

Sarge, these idiots are the minority. Most everyone with a modicrum of intelligence at least has respect for you guys. Look down on these folks like we look down on the French. They aren't worth the time.