The Noble Pundit

France & Russia Don't Learn Too Well

I guess that the first go around in the UN Security Council wasn't quite educational enough to Paris and Moscow about the true importance of the UNSC. Not content to have been humiliated the first time, they are making noises that they might try again.

They're not catching this. We are already running Iraq. We have gone back to the UN, not to give us legitimacy, but to give the UN some semblance of it. We're already in Iraq; they're not. Any bone we throw the UN is strictly out of our own generosity.

But, as usual, the French aren't happy with any solution that doesn't require the Iraqis to drink nothing but French wine and to wear berets instead of burqas (oh yeah, and every male child must be named either Jacques or Jon-Pierre).

The Russians claim that the proposal raises questions and is unclear. Maybe they need to spend more time paying attention to the American media and public.

The Germans, the ones with the most to lose for their lunacy leading up to the war, are taking the same line as everyone else: it's a good starting point for negotiations and solutions.

When will people see just how hard we are working to ensure that the UN has some sort of legitimacy? And when will they see how obtuse the UN really is that they can keep blowing every opportunity we give them to be relevant?

What we really need to do is to declare the sanctions lifted, the Oil-for-Food program ended, and then tell the UN here is exactly what you can do to help - if you want to. Why Bush and Powell keep going back to the UN is beyond me. The UN has proven that it should be no more than a consultative body. It should not be making decisions, especially when human lives are involved.

Rebasing The Military In Europe

This kind of serves as a good follow-on to my last post about the problems facing the EU economy. There is now bipartisan talk (link requires registration) of a foreign base committee to determine which overseas bases should be closed, consolidated, or moved. Simultaneously, we have Romania and Bulgaria talking at length about the benefits of basing a large chunk of the US military force in Europe in those two countries.

Germany may just be about to find out how damaging their collaboration with France could be. With their economy already on the brink of disaster, the removal of the US military - and it's economic boost - may be a crushing blow to their recovery.

Is the time right to pull out wholesale from Germany? Probably not. A slow draw down may be what is needed as we don't want to devastate them on the way out. But I see a withdrawal from Germany in the works.

Strategically, Germany isn't as important as it was during the Cold War. The threats have moved south and east. Bulgaria and Romania are better positioned to counter these threats. Plus they are politically more friendly than the current government in Berlin. Moving the bases makes sense.

It'll be a sad day when the last American forces leave Germany, but it's time to face the new geopolitical reality: Germany just isn't as important as they once were.

European Economic Disunion

I do love it when a plan comes together. But sometimes it can be more fun to watch one that has failed. The current state of a few of the EU member nations is providing some interesting watching these days.

In Germany, industrial output is falling. And In France, the national budget woes could put a strain on the EU.

So what's the bureaucratic answer to these problems, the one that is sent down by the EU itself?

Both nations have to make progress towards getting their budget deficits in line or they run the risk of EU intervention.

And how can they "make progress?"

By raising taxes and/or cutting spending, of course.

This points out the basic flaw of the EU's one-size-fits-all approach to fiscal management. Neither France nor Germany can afford to raise taxes or cut spending. Their economies are already heading into the tank as it is.

Economies today are driven almost as much by expectations as they are by real economic conditions. Short term, raising taxes or cutting spending has no real effect, but the change in the long term expectations for the economy (when the higher taxes and lower spending are figured in) would be enough to tip most of the EU nations into a severe recession, if not a depression.

The EU failed to recognize that it is impossible to prescribe one treatment for all patients. What works in Luxembourg and Belgium with their small responsive economies likely will not work in the larger, harder to turn, economies of France and Germany.

The state of the EU economy today is an economics case study in the making. It is looking increasingly like we are going to find out what happens when reverse Keynesian economic policies are instituted in a modern economy. Historically this type of policy has led to a boom in the black markets and a collapse of the official economy.

Should be an interesting experiment.

American Goodwill

Interesting question about whether America spent or squandered the world goodwill.

The one line that really caught my eye is:

In short, the United States has been on the wrong side of Arab history for almost five decades, and it is not doing much better than the Soviets. The old policy had no future, only a past. It was a dead policy walking. September 11 was merely the death certificate.

So both the US and the Soviets were on the wrong side of Arab history. Since we had diametrically opposed approaches, the author is really saying that Arab history had no future.

Without change. And September 11 was so much a death as it was a resurrection.

It was the resurrection of hope in the region. It was the resurrection of progress instead of regression. It was the resurrection of freedom instead of tyranny and despotism.

Sometimes, the resurrection just takes a while. Afghanistan and Iraq have already experienced the most painful change - the change from living death to life. The rest of the region will slowly but surely follow. It is no longer a question of will they, but when.

The revolution has begun. We didn't gain our independence in two years. We shouldn't expect the entire Middle East to gain its independence in two or even five years. Now is when we need to start working on their timetable - with some occasional prodding, of course.

Bin Laden will never realize the unintended consequences of the revolution he really kicked into high gear on 9/11. Rather than starting a final war for Islamic domination, he has begun the freeing of one of the most repressed regions of the world.

We didn't spend or squander the goodwill of the world. We invested it in this great project of rebuilding the Middle East. It will be one of the best investments in goodwill we will ever make.

We will be better off for the revolution.

A Detour On The Roadmap

No one ever said that the road to peace was going to be an easy one. But it is looking increasingly like either the PA or Israel will have to do something to neutralize Hamas, the Al-Asqa Brigade and other terrorist organizations that will not be party to the process.

The depth of the indoctrination that some of these groups are engaged in, Hamas in particular, is amazing. Check out some of these quotes from a Hamas children's magazine:

"These days the pain of the Arab and Muslim nation is great. Blood and body parts in the fighting Palestine; destruction, betrayal, theft, looting, killing, and rape in Iraq: whose blood has been forsaken by the British, the Americans and the Jews."

"The people of this land have witnessed the events on the land of Iraq, whose blood was forsaken. They saw the aircraft setting everything ablaze, destroying homes with their residents, tearing down enormous buildings. They didn’t overlook one school, university, hospital, neighborhood, market or mosque. They rendered everything into dust and ashes."

Is it any wonder that the kids in Palestine are screwed up? Between reading this and Daddy dressing them up in gun belt and grenades, it’s a wonder that there aren't more kids wanting to jihad against the infidel.

The level of systematic child abuse in the territories is amazing. Kids are encouraged to physically harm themselves in religious "celebrations", they are mentally abused with lie after lie after lie and being told how inferior they are, then the parents and society encourage them to die, partly to "support the cause," partly because of the $25,000 payments that would help the family. It's child abuse and murder.

And these are the folks we have to convince to join the peace process.

The PA has it's work cut out for it in marginalizing these groups and making them appear to the Palestinians as the loony nutcase should be fringe groups that they are.

No one ever said that the roadmap would be simple or even a straight line. The terrorists are going to do everything possible to stop their demise through peace. It's put up or shut up time for Abu Mazen and company. Are they going to allow this "children's" magazine to pass without comment?

Or will they take a stand and show that they are capable of doing the right thing?

Just How Useful Is Our Military?

Sitting here doing my morning reading, I come across this article which questions the value or necessity of our military.

If we strip away all the yellow ribbons and stars and stripes, and look honestly at our military activity since the turn of the 20th century, it's next to impossible to find any time when our homeland was truly in danger of being overrun, or our freedoms trampled by a foreign tyrant. Why then are most Americans, even many of our comrades on the left, of the opinion that our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines have been giving their lives for our freedom? In a real stretch, you might be able to say that they've died for others' freedom or liberation, but that is entirely different.

In one regards, the author is right. During the 20th century, there really weren't very many direct threats to the US. Pearl Harbor, a few Nazi commandos and some balloon bombs - that was about it. But that misses the point.

No one really came close to making real threats against us, because we had a large and powerful military. If we had been weak, the Japanese wouldn't have hit us with a sucker punch at Pearl, they would have invaded San Francisco or Los Angeles.

If we had been weak, the Nazi's would have invaded Washington, Philadelphia or New York.

Or the Soviets would have overrun us completely.

Were most of the battles fought in far off lands? Yep. Our military strength gave us the capacity to take the fight to the enemy. We put him on the defensive.

So to answer the author's premise, our fighting in foreign lands and our liberating foreign people did defend liberty at home. We took the offensive and made the enemy fight on our terms. Our military defended the homeland by defeating the enemy before he could get here.

It seems as though the author would have us wait to fight a war on our shores, as that would be respectful in his view. He even goes as far as to invoke the Founders as desiring a small standing army.

We actually have a relatively small standing military force. Nations the size of one of our mid-size states have large militaries than we do. Our military is fearsome not for its size, but for its dedication and efficiency that come from defending the highest of ideals.

The Founders were concerned that a large military could be turned against the nation. But what some people have failed to recognize is that our nation is now our military. The armed forces are but one component of our strength.

Each and every day as we go to work, or to school, or to just engage in our everyday lives we are fighting a global war. Our weapons are our ideas, our inventions, and our freedom. Our economy is the greatest engine of war that has ever been devised in the whole history of humanity.

Our economy played a critical role in the fall of the Soviet Union. Without its strength, we could not have engaged in the arms race that crushed the Soviet menace. It has subjugated friend and foe alike by bringing them closer to our ideals of free enterprise and free people. How far into socialism and communism would Europe have gone without the threat of losing touch with the American economy? Our free market capitalism kept them from becoming another part of the Soviet experiment as much, if not more than the American military.

It is distasteful to see someone downplaying the significance of the contribution of our military. Throughout the American Century, we never had to rebuild from the ravages of war. Our ability to take the fight to the enemy was another form of defending the homeland and was every bit as important as it allowed us to build our most powerful weapon - the US economy - without significant setback.

Our use of the armed forces has been brilliant, wise and just. I have every confidence that the Founders would be proud.

The American Century proved us worthy of their dream.

M.E.T.A.

And so the next war in the Middle East starts with the creation of a new Middle Eastern Trade Association.

With a speech at the University of South Carolina, Bush has begun the next battle for the Middle East - the economic one. Bush has proposed creating a free trade area in the region, but only for nations that meet certain requirements: they must have free economies and they must combat terrorism. To those that qualify comes the potential for unfettered trade with the United States.

Watching their neighbors get rich will become a powerful incentive to the uninformed and unreformed to join the world community.

And Iraq, right in the center of the darkness of oppression in the region, will become the Middle East's version of West Berlin. It will become the beacon of hope that only freedom and free trade can provide.

The next battle will not be a military one, it will be economic. The first shot has been fired; an economic civil war within Islam is about to begin.

Got to give Bush and his team credit for a pretty brilliant plan to reshape the region.

Airline Safety & The IL-76

Once again, a Russian built IL-76 cargo plane has decided to have a few "problems" with the idea of controlled flight. This event was a little different than most of the others in that a just a door decided to fall off, instead of the entire airplane crashing. The resultant loss of life was nearly equivalent to a full crash.

Looking closely at photographs of the IL-76 you can see the basic design flaw that led to the accident. Notice the open door. It's not a plug door like that used on most virtually every other commercial airplane in existence. The reason behind the plug door is that should the hinges fail, the air pulls the door into its frame, maintaining the integrity of the airframe during flight.

With the IL-76 not having a plug door, as soon as the hinges failed, the door would have flown off, causing the swirling winds and suction described by the survivors of the flight. It was a faulty design that directly led to the deaths of all those people.

The IL-76 is gaining a rather checkered safety record lately. Unfortunately, it is not terribly unusual for a Russian built airplane. As more and more Russian built airplanes fly into the US the risk of one of these tragedies taking place here increases. And the IL-76, the most poorly designed of the whole bunch, is the most common Russian built plane to fly in the US due to its oversize cargo capacity.

It is really unfortunate that there isn't another airplane with the same capabilities. Then we could ban the aircraft from the US as being unairworthy - which it really is.

It's too bad that there isn't enough demand for outsized cargo to justify Boeing ramping up the C-17 line. Getting some commercial C-17s might just be the answer to the current safety issues presented by the IL-76.

The Rebuilding of Iraq

Most days we pick up the paper or log onto the net only to find bad, evil, terrible news about the peace and rebuilding in Iraq. Too often the mainstream media in the States ignores the good that is happening over there.

Luckily, every once in a while, you can get the rest of the story.

Things aren't going perfectly over there, but they are certainly better than they were a month ago. Basic infrastructure that has been damaged or destroyed since 1990 is being brought back online. The transportation network is being rebuilt, which will help to speed the rest of the rebuilding processes. Schools are open again. The best of the police force is coming back.

All in all it is better to be an Iraqi.

The Major-General is certainly optimistic, which is an excellent trait to have in his position. But he's also a realist, which is going to be a key to getting through the rough times that certainly lie ahead.

Let's hope that he's half as successful as he believes he will be.

Was The War Justified?

Judging from this story, it would be hard to say that Saddam should have been left in power.

This story also illustrates how discoveries of recent heinous crimes can take quite a while to uncover. This was a public execution designed to instill terror in the local residents. If it took a month to uncover a public event, is it any surprise that we haven't uncovered concrete evidence of WMDs yet?

I still believe that the WMDs will be discovered. But even if they are not, I feel that the war was justified. Human rights violations of this severity cannot be allowed to persist.

Of course, not every human rights violation is worthy of a full-scale war. But no human rights violation should be ignored, either. Saddam was one of the worst violators alive today. This latest report of handcuffed women buried alive is simply more proof of the depravity of the regime.

What's Most Important In Education?

What's the most important thing for an educational system: to actually educate kids or to protect the system for the benefit of the teachers? In France, it is the latter (as it is increasingly becoming the truth in the US as well).

It's interesting to read about the changes to the educational system that France made in the late '60s and how they have failed. French kids today are slipping as the student to teacher ratio declines. And the union thinks that this is acceptable.

There is no excuse for this.

It's scary to see the NEA attempting to head down the same road here in America. They have already watered down the system so much, it's pitiful. Kids can get well into high school before they ever find out about the Greco-Roman foundations of the nation. They'll know all about Kwanzaa and ancient Chinese history, but don't even think of asking them where we got democracy or the republic from. Don't ask why the Magna Carta might be important. And whatever you do, don't ask about the religious underpinnings of our own Revolution and founding.

They're simply not taught. Diversity training is more important than understanding our nation. It is more important to learn about other cultures than it is to learn why they are free to exist in this country. Education has become secondary to indoctrination.

We haven't gotten to the same point as France, but we're coming pretty close. I just hope my kids can graduate before the educational system completely drops the education component.

At least at home we're teaching them to read and to think for themselves. The school wants our role as parents, I guess we need to pick up their role as educators.

Bob Graham - Floridian

Well, it's official: Bob Graham hasn't got a clue. Well, actually he's officially tossed his hat in the ring as a Democratic candidate for President. But then again, that is the same as not having a clue.

For those of you who don't know Bob Graham from that weird guy down the street, let you clue you in as a lifelong Florida resident.

I don't know either.

He was Governor as I was really growing up, yet I remember nothing about him other than he was Governor. I asked my parents what they remembered. He was Governor. That's it.

Now the fact that we have virtually no memory of him could mean many things. It proves that he doesn't do real good at that "taking a public stand" thing - the war in Iraq was half over before the local news started reporting that Graham had voted against it. It may also be indicative of his inability to have any real influence on anything.

After all, if he couldn't royally screw up the State of Florida then he's not exactly a figure that would inspire fear in opponents. We have a county (Palm Beach) in which the people took to the streets in 2000 to protest that were too stupid to be able to vote. If you can't screw up with constituents like that, well then you're just not a real politician.

So Graham comes to the race as a virtual unknown - even in his home state. Maybe he can be a breath of fresh air. Something different, right? This was his opportunity to burst onto the scene and show people why they should vote for Bob Graham.

And what does he do?

He announces his candidacy during Bush's speech on the Lincoln. He rips Bush for the war and for slacking in the war on terrorism. He deplores that Bush has delivered and will be running on tax cuts.

Incredibly, he killed his candidacy during his announcement speech. He said nothing to distinguish himself from the other tax and spenders. He did nothing to promote an alternative foreign policy, he only whined about Bush's successful implementation of his. Graham did nothing to tell voters who he was or why they should vote for him.

Except that he was a Democrat running for President.

So once again, Florida has to suffer a political humiliation. First it was the election of 2000, now we actually have to claim Bob Graham. How much suffering should one state have to endure?

The only good that will come from Graham's candidacy is that he will lose his Senate seat. Now as long as we don't elect Lawton Chiles to the seat, we'll be good to go (hopefully).

Abu Mazen Having An Effect?

Could the elevation of Abu Mazen to Palestinian Prime Minister be about ready to have a real effect on the ground? From the warning from the Al-Asqa Brigade at the end of this article, he might just be starting to exert real pressure on these guys.

I had always figured that when there was real pressure to disband placed on these groups there would be one final orgy of violence and bloodshed. And it wouldn't be against just the Israelis, it would be directed against anyone seen as being opposed to the "cause," including the Palestinian Authority.

And now, we are being told that the bombings are warning shots aimed at the peace process and that if the PA tries to dismantle the Al-Asqa Brigade they face civil war. The Brigade sees the handwriting on the wall. The game is over and they know it. So they prepare their lemmings for the final assault on humanity.

If Abu Mazen survives the onslaught (I'm guessing Bill Bennett has his money on "not"), he stands to reap a political windfall unseen in many years. Forget the fact that Bush stopped the $25,000 stupicide policy payouts. Forget the fact that Sharon has been conducting a targeted campaign of aggression to decapitate the terrorist’s leadership. None of that will matter. Terrorism will, from domestic (to Israel and the territories) terrorists, virtually cease. And Abu Mazen will become the new Palestinian God of Peace.

The screws are tightening on the terrorists. Should be interesting to see if they really put up more of a fight than the Republican Guard.

France Remembers The End Of WWII

Today was the day on which France celebrates the second end to the Second World War for their glorious nation and armed services. A parade along the Champs-Elysees, sans jackboots, and the laying of a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier mark this day during which the French celebrate the Allies liberating them from the clutches of Germany.

Now don't get me wrong, this should be a happy day for the French. It is on this day that they were granted the right to deface their liberators graves without fear of summary execution. It is on this day that they were granted the right to obstruct the liberation of other nations for financial reasons. It is on this day that they were granted the right to be, well, the French.

I sincerely hope that at least one of those veterans told Jacques to respect the US, the UK and the other Allies for what we did for France. The veterans will know the magnitude of our sacrifice - they were willing to make it themselves. They are truly men among the petulant little boys like Chirac. I know we'll never hear about it, but I hope that at least one of them, if not all hundred, set Jacques back in his place.

Maybe then the next liberation of France, the one from the ignorant elitists, can begin.

California - Progressive On Energy???

Joe Lieberman has always struck me as the most palatable of the Democratic candidates for President. He's the only one that seems to have half a brain most of the time. I'd probably never vote for him, but I can at least understand why someone would.

Or I could have understood. Until today.

Lieberman is accusing the President of being AWOL on energy and is calling California "progressive."

Now I can't really disagree too much with the President being AWOL on energy. Yeah, he supports drilling in ANWR and he put in a throwaway line about "alternative" energy sources in the last State of the Union. But so far his energy plan seems to be no more comprehensive than any other that's come out in the last 20 years or so.

But is California really progressive? The land where the energy crisis is king? The state that is suffering the full wrath of NIMBY? The state that is losing high tech jobs as the Governor whines about needing more price fixing stability in the energy market?

The same California where Gray Davis has really done nothing to fix the problem? That is the model of progressivity that we want for the rest of the country? I think not.

What's really sad is that Lieberman does have a realistic and viable solution: more public investment in the energy sector. Finding private capital to construct power facilities in California might be tough, given Davis' anti-capitalism stance for the sector and the state's red-tape for constructing new facilities. This might be an opportune time for the state to build the plants in a timely manner and then lease them to private operators to run. Or just sell them to the private sector after construction. Bottom line is that the state needs some serious rebuilding and increases in generating capacity.

But of course, the intelligent message gets lost in the anti-Bush rhetoric.

This is the biggest problem that I see with the Democratic candidates this year. They're trying so hard to differentiate themselves from Bush that they will do anything to smear him, even sacrifice a real policy position worthy of debate.

Boortz Vs. O'Reilly

I just got done watching Neal Boortz take on Bill O’Reilly on the O’Reilly Factor and I was deeply disappointed by Neal.

O’Reilly is on a kick about the white only prom in Georgia. The event was deplorable for what it represented, but was it not, as represented by O’Reilly, a failure of the state. And even O’Reilly knows it, if you listen to his carefully chosen language he says as much.

O’Reilly wants the Governor of Georgia to come on to answer for this “prom that was organized in the school.” (Emphasis mine)

The fact that the prom was organized in the school does not mean that it was sanctioned by the school. And Boortz tried to point this out, though he butchered his attempts to do so.

The situation is really no different than if I met someone at Burger King to plan a crime. Burger King is not responsible for our behavior, so long as we don’t use their facilities to commit the crime. The students used the school to meet to plan the white only prom, but they went offsite to actually hold it.

The school administration can attempt to impede the planning, but they cannot violate the student’s freedom of association if they wish to hold the prom.

It’s not as if the organizers were non-students coming in to use the school to plan this. These were students of the school who are compelled by the state to attend everyday. School is the equivalent of the kids workplace and social meeting place rolled into one. Of course they’re going to use the school to plan something like this. School is their life.

O’Reilly wants the Governor of Georgia to come out and explain why he let something like this happen. O’Reilly wants an explanation of how something like this could be condoned by the state of Georgia. The Governor hasn’t commented on the situation, which is really getting Bill upset.

I saw the Governor’s press secretary on O’Reilly last night. She attempted to express the Governor’s displeasure with the prom. This of course set Bill into an apocalyptic spasm as he wanted the Governor to explain why he was supporting the segregatory function.

I will agree with O’Reilly that the Governor of Georgia should come out and personally condemn the white only prom in very definitive terms. But the Governor has nothing to apologize for. The State of Georgia did nothing wrong here. They compelled kids to go to school, they attempted to impede the planning of the function as best they could, and when it became obvious that it would happen anyways, they refused to allow it to be held on school grounds.

Now you can look back and with 20/20 hindsight say that they should have suspended some of the leaders of the planning of the prom. They should have done more to separate the students. But without knowing that the prom will take place, those all seem like extreme measures. Without the benefit of hindsight, I can completely understand the school wanting to keep the ringleaders actively involved in gaining an education. After all, that’s what they’re in school for.

The only people who can really be held as being irresponsible (other than the students) is the group that rented the dance hall to the white only prom. If they were at all aware of the nature of the function, they should have turned the students away. But even then, if the dance hall is private property, they cannot be compelled to refuse the white only prom. The only legitimate recourse is for the residents of the area to boycott the facility.

O’Reilly is on a witch-hunt and is bound and determined to make someone pay for this event that offended his sensibilities. He would do well to remember that not everything that is offensive is necessarily illegal. The white only prom was offensive, no doubt about it. It represents a failure of the students to understand or comprehend a section of America’s values. But, that, in and of itself, is not a crime.

It also doesn’t reflect on the current Governor of Georgia. This was a failure that was nearly eighteen years in the making. I hold the Governor responsible for not having condemned the act hard enough, but not for the act itself.

Crossing The Line

So where exactly is the line between free speech and destructive anti-Americanism? It's one of the questions that we've been trying as a nation to answer since the founding of the Republic.

It's a very fine line, really. To question the government, to call for a wholesale change of the members of the government, or to say that the government is flat out wrong - those are all acceptable forms of dissent. They can be extremely poorly timed, as were many of the statements made as we went to war, but they are not some proof of the evil that lives in the speaker.

But to actively work to change the form of the government, say to an oppressive dictatorship or a Soviet style government, well that's a different story.

For someone to whip up a negative opinion of the US is not crossing the line. If you believe that the US is evil and is run by some kind of vast world domination conspiracy, it's your right to think that and to try to convert others to your beliefs. It may be stupid, but you do have the right to be stupid and to say stupid things.

Bill Clinton thinks that the world will be better when the US isn't the dominant force in the world. Is that stupid? Yes, name any other nation that has done so much good for the world. But does Clinton have a right to believe that? Yes.

Howard Dean thinks that the US military should be weaker than other nations militaries. Is that stupid? Absolutely, it is our military strength that gives Dean the right to be a moron. Does Dean have a right to call for the deliberate weakening of our military? Absolutely. In fact, it is a good thing as it points out another reason why he is unfit to serve in the office he seeks.

Are we imperialistic as a nation? In the traditional sense, no. We don't invade other nations to take their land or resources. We're already working to turn Iraq over to an Iraqi civilian government. Afghanistan has already been turned over.

Chirac thinks that we shouldn't be sovereign superpower and that we should subjugate ourselves to the UN. What gives Jacques the right to make such offensive statements? The US Army did. That is an example of American Imperialism. We spread our ideas of freedom and liberty. We conquer the mind and soul, not the body and the land. Jacques can say such things because he knows that we won't have him assassinated or deposed.

I really believe that people who are spreading vile idiocy like these three are proving themselves morons unfit to lead, but they have not crossed the line. Clinton is a windbag and Chirac is irrelevant in America. They can talk all they want, but they won't really make too much a difference.

Dean could be another story. If he were elected, he could start to actually act on his beliefs and would consequently do great harm to the nation. That is when he would cross the line.

Talking anti-American talk is one thing; taking anti-American actions that are actually harmful is another.

Only In Florida

Nowhere else in America would an elderly couple not only install carpet instead of a lawn, but they put in multicolored carpet.

I can understand the feeling that maintaining a lawn in Florida can be a royal pain. It sucks having to go out once a week (or more) to mow the ever-growing jungle. But come on, sod isn't that much and the kid down the street would probably be willing to mow it for $10 a week.

But multicolored carpet?

The worst part is that I don't think the county got the charges right. Multicolored carpeting for a front yard is incredibly tasteless, it may be hard on the eye, but is it a nuisance? I'm not sure. I could see the homeowner winning an appeal (which they have already said won't happen).

But the assistant county attorney gave a real, valid reason for removing the carpet. It's a health hazard.

If the only problem were that the carpet was tacky (visually) then the county would have no grounds. The law does not and should not dictate a minimum level of taste. To the extent that it harmed property values, his neighbors would be right to hold the homeowner liable for realized losses. But the burden of prosecution is on the neighbors, not on the entire county or state, as this is a neighborhood level problem.

If the neighbors could convince a jury in a civil case that they suffered actual and realized losses, then they would be compensated. The pressure to conform to a certain standard would come from the neighbors, not from a bureaucrat in Code Enforcement.

But in this case, the potential health hazard was enough to justify the compelled removal of the carpeting. The various rodents and pests attracted to the decomposing carpeting would carry enough diseases to justify a county or state response.

But the county took it upon itself to enforce a neighborhood standard.

The difference is small and the outcome is the same, but the decision still bugs me. Now that the county has successfully prosecuted this case without any complaints, they will be much more likely to take on other similar, but not as extreme cases. Will they come after me next for having two cars of similar, but non-coordinating, colors in my driveway?

The law provided for a remedy of the loss of property value. The county decided to expand the public nuisance law to correct this shortcoming. The job of the county should be protecting public health, not regulating private property.

The Saddam Rap

I come home from work early because I'm not feeling well and where one of my loyal readers sent this to my email. Definitely a nice boost when I'm trying to fight off a cold.

(Hat tip to Joe)

The Europeans Are Still Too Gassy

The EU, that great supporter of the Kyoto Agreement, is having trouble meeting its own goals for reducing the production of greenhouse gasses. It turns out that the production of the gasses has actually been rising across the EU in the last year and fully 2/3s of the EU member nations failed to meet their targets.

So what's the EU answer to meeting the goals of Kyoto? Is it any surprise that they would be promoting more regulation?

Look at the country that is supposedly the "worst" offender of the "burden-sharing" agreement: Ireland.

Ireland has had one of the highest economic growth rates in Europe and the EU bloc for several years now. What is Ireland doing that is giving them such a boost?

Ireland has had lower taxes than most of Europe, a more corporate friendly environment, and, as this article shows, a willingness to skirt EU mandates-from-on-high when they are opposed to the good of the Irish people.

The EU wants to raise taxes in Ireland, impose more labor-friendly regulations and is going to be looking to impose Kyoto regardless of the economic consequences of the action.

In other words, they want Ireland to be more like Germany so that Germany can be more like Ireland.

And what exactly is the Germany the EU wants to export like?

It has reduced greenhouse gas emissions, it has one of the highest tax burdens in the world, no entrepreneurial spirit, and an outlandish unemployment rate. Is it any wonder that Ireland has been resisting the EU?

It would almost be fun to watch the EU crush the spirit of Irish independence if it wasn't going to be such an economic catastrophe for so many people.

India's Attack Subs & Pakistan

Venomous Kate left a comment on my “Pakistan Taking A Page From Syria” post in which reminds me about the deal between India and Russia to sell the Indian Navy two nuclear submarines. It’s a very, very good point, but it also bears out my point.

When I first read the comment it jogged the memory in my mind of having seen something about India buying a couple of Russian nuke boats, but I couldn’t remember the details. So I went searching on GlobalSecurity.org while I was at work today.

The two subs that India is buying are both attack subs. In the grand scheme of the Indo-Pakistani military balance of power, they actually have very little effect. Let me explain why.

The Russians essentially built three types of nuclear subs: ballistic missile subs, guided missile subs and the fast attack subs. Each type of sub had its own place in the Soviet Naval order.

The ballistic missile subs, or boomers, we’re the big boats, with the big missiles, that could change the balance of power between India and Pakistan. Actually, if the Russians were to sell one of their boomers it could change the balance of power in the world, period. The firepower on each of these subs was and is significant.

The guided missile subs were next in the pecking order. The Soviets never seemed to get a good, quality, all purpose submarine like the US Los Angeles class. As a result, when the Soviets needed a standoff attack sub, they had to create an entirely new class of sub. These were the subs that had the medium range conventional warhead missiles that could be used against ships or land-based targets at a reasonable distance. The Indian Navy actually sailed a Soviet guided missile sub under the Indian flag in the early 1990s.

And finally, at the bottom were the fast attack boats. These were the hunter-killer subs that were supposed to track and destroy our boomers and Los Angeles class subs. They were built pretty much only as anti-submarine or anti-shipping platforms. They were not designed for standoff or for land attacks.

And what the Indians are buying will be 2 Akula-II fast attack subs. Their only land attack capability is a 100 km high-explosive surface-to-surface missile that is really designed to make anti-ship attacks.

So why would the Indian Navy go out of its way to acquire two nuclear submarines? After all, it’s not as if the Pakistani Navy is this juggernaut that must be stopped at all costs. But using them in a land attack role would subject them to a very high degree of risk. So why bother?

For the Indian Navy it is a matter of prestige. They will be able to claim that they are nuclear navy and that they can threaten any shipping, anytime, anywhere in the world. Will they ever actually need or truly use the capabilities of a nuclear sub? Probably not. But they can say that they have one.

About the only way that the Indians could really use a nuclear sub against Pakistan would be to try to blockade one of the Pakistani ports. But even then, they run a huge risk.

Assume that they neutralize the Pakistani Navy so that the boats can operate unfettered in enforcing the blockade. The nukes can sit out there and sink Pakistani shipping all day long. But what about American shipping or British shipping or Chinese shipping? They can't sink any of our ships without risking another Lusitania. The risks are simply too high. So blockading Pakistani ports is a nice threat, but politically impractical.

So why would Pakistan be so eager to make an expensive symbol of Indian hubris a point of contention? The boats really don’t pose that much a threat, if any, to the well being of Pakistan.

Politically, this could be the opinion goldmine that Pakistan has been needing to find. They have already proposed the nuclear disarmament of the Sub-Continent. If India agrees to disarm, the submarine situation becomes interesting.

If India refuses to get rid of the subs, correctly claiming that they are nuclear powered – not nuclear weapons – then Pakistan can claim that the Indians have obstructed the peaceful disarmament of a volatile region. In doing so, they would shift the blame for any nuclear catastrophe to India, regardless of who fires the first shot. After all, it would be the Indians fault – if only they had been willing to part with the nuclear submarines…

If India agrees to disarm and to get rid of the subs, then the Pakistanis have still won the public relations battle. After all they proposed the disarming, not India. And the Indian Navy would have to suffer a wound to its pride, watching its two newest acquisitions go away, along with their claims to be a world-class nuclear navy.

The subs will likely become the public deal breaker for disarmament. India won’t, and shouldn’t have to, give them up. They are not nuclear weapons. They really aren’t even a threat to Pakistan. But they are nuclear. So in Pakistan’s mind, they have got to go. They could be a nuclear powered rowboat and they’d still be absolute evils as far as Pakistan was concerned.

It’s all a big political game in the court of world opinion. And Pakistan is setting themselves up for a no lose situation, much like Syria tried to do to Israel. Who will be India’s America and will stop the madness?

The "Failure Of The Peace" In Iraq

Since the fighting in Iraq was over so quick, the anti-warriors have been looking for some reason to condemn the Administration for going to war. The big reason lately is that we are "losing the peace." They are claiming that since we have not already rebuilt the entire nation, we must have been ill prepared for the peace and therefore we failed.

Now, I'll grant them that the war probably ended much, much quicker than anyone expected and that we weren't completely ready for the peace when it happened. But even without being perfectly prepared, we have done pretty well:

Among other developments, Centcom said that five out of 14 schools have reopened in the southern Iraqi town of Safwan, while 48 of Al-Zubayr's 60 schools have also restarted classes.

In the northern city of Kirkuk, the government building formally reopened on Sunday, while all five hospitals in Najaf are now operational and accepting patients, with each running their own ambulance service.

Centcom added that power has been restored to residents and businesses at pre-war levels or higher in nine of 27 key cities.

All 18 hydroelectric power plants in Iraq were producing power at levels 80% or better than pre-war levels, it said.

Water supply, meanwhile, was running at or above pre-war levels in 14 of the 27 key cities.

Nineteen of the 27 cities are now considered safe, it added.

Now is that a perfect scorecard? No. But it is awfully, awfully good for the actual fighting only having been over for, what, two, three weeks? Absolutely.

This is, of course, the type of article you won't see on the front page of the NY Times. There isn't enough suffering or looting taking place. But it is a big part of the story of what is really happening in Iraq.

US To Bypass UN Sanctions

So what is the deal with the UN and the old "lift the sanctions" crowd? For years (nearly 12 to be exact) they kept trying to find ways to lift or circumvent the economic sanctions on Iraq, usually claiming that they were killing babies or leading to widespread poverty and suffering.

But now that the US has removed Saddam - the whole reason for the sanctions - and has begun the process of replacing him with a more representative form of government, the "lift the sanctions" crowd, which now includes France and Russia, wants to keep the sanctions in place until Iraq is declared "disarmed."

So let me get this straight. First the sanctions were dangerous as they targeted kids and the WMD were non-existent and therefore unworthy of being sanction. Now, the WMD are dangerous because they "target" the world and the sanctions are an evil necessity even though they cause suffering among the kids. So which is it already?

If our "friends" in France and Russia won't work with us in the UN, we need to just go ahead and work around them. We'd be the last on the block to circumvent the sanctions and the first to do it for the right reasons.

Pakistan Taking A Page From Syria

Pakistan has apparently been studying the Syrian playbook and is trying for a "disarmament" deal with India. Pakistan is offering to get rid of its nuclear weapons, provided that India does the same.

This sounds just a little too much the deal that Syria offered to Israel in the name of "Middle East peace." And it's just as underhanded.

Pakistan knows that it cannot win a conventional war against India. The nukes are the only real equalizer between the two countries. So why would Pakistan being willing to even broach the subject with a nation that is still openly belligerent towards it?

It all boils down to politics. By making this offer, which is politically unacceptable to India, Pakistan has won a victory in the battle of public opinion, in particular with the knee-jerk appeasers of the world. The offer had nothing but upside for Pakistan. They gained in world opinion and had to give up nothing in return.

But what if India had taken Pakistan up on the offer? Pakistan could have stalled, waiting for their stronger (and less generous) neighbor to prove that it was disarming first. Follow up the first real Indian disarmament with some terroristic escalation throughout the Kashmir and there just might be a small window of militaristic superiority for Pakistan.

So, even if India accepts the offer, Pakistan can manipulate the world opinion to their favor pretty easily by playing the appeaser, underdog role.

The only difference between this offer and the Syrian offer to Israel is that Pakistan has no Lebanon to control. Although it is possible that they could announce that some Kashmiri terrorists had "stolen" a Pakistani nuclear device. It's not as easy or as clean as Lebanon, but it could be just as effective.

Is there any real question as to why Pakistan came up with this brilliant, peace-loving idea?

A Baghdad Bob Protégé?

This could get me into the whole North Korean thing a little more. Some guy named Kim Myong Chol is acting as a propagandist for the country. And he's almost as good as denying reality as Bobby was.

I love his claim of a "minimum of 100 nuclear warheads, maximum 300." I understand that we believe there may be a couple of warheads, but nothing on the order of 100. Even the CIA couldn't miss that many! His claim that "they all lock onto American cities," is another beautiful spin. Does he think that we're really going to believe that out of 300 warheads, not one is locked on their mortal enemies in Seoul?

His bluster does bear out, however, that the current economic sanctions against Pyongyang are working. If they have some puffed up wannabe diplomat out spouting threats for the regime, they must be in a world of hurt. The next step will be an official spokesman attempting fear mongering. And then, we will see either total internal economic collapse or all out war against South Korea. In any event, the endgame has begun for Pyongyang.

His assertations that the Australians are wrong in saying that they seized a member of the North Korean ruling party on a drug ship are pretty cute, too. For some reason I think that if they Aussies say they nailed this guy, they probably nailed him. But in defiance of reality, he denies, denies, denies.

This is now starting to get good. I wonder just how much of Baghdad Bob rubbed off on this guy?

Iraqi Nuclear Facilities

This is getting ridiculous. First it was the UN trying to interfere, then the French, and now we are having trouble investigating Iraqi nuclear sites because of a struggle on how much to involve the IAEA. The first two were simply a pain in the rear and obstructionist. This last dispute about the IAEA is potentially extremely dangerous.

The IAEA should be involved in Iraq - eventually. They are supposedly the experts of nuclear materials and bringing in their knowledge, once the areas are secured, would be a wise move by the Bush Administration.

But these areas need to be secured first. The apparent looting that is going on at these sites needs to be stopped. The worst and most dangerous of the radiation leaks need to be contained. And we need to have any opportunity to search the grounds for WMD before any international agency comes in.

That last point is very important, though. We need to have unfettered and unobstructed access to the sites in order to conduct our WMD searches. This is a situation where the IAEA would have an incentive to cover up any WMD that might be found, as it would prove the duplicity or incompetence. Also, finding WMD on the grounds of a nuclear facility would provide additional grounds for targeting nuclear facilities in future wars. All of this works against the mission of the IAEA.

But the IAEA does have capabilities that will be useful to us in making the sites as safe as possible. The IAEA has record keeping and safe storage capabilities that can be of great benefit to us by freeing our people to go out to secure and search other parts of the country.

There will be a time and place for the IAEA to come in and do their work. This isn't it.