DIABLOG Weblog

Reflections on an Interview

Wed, 09 Aug 2006 17:21:26 GMT

I recently did an interview over at Blogcritics with Carl Sheeler, who's running in the Democratic primary for the Senate seat currently held by Lincoln Chafee. It was an interesting interview for a variety of reasons, not least because he's one of the 'Fighting Dem' veterans who's trying to shake up the Democratic party and set them on a somewhat more radical course. I'm not going to reproduce the whole interview here, but Sheeler raised some points in response to my questions which I think need to be addressed, and which I couldn't really address within the structure of an interview conducted through email. I want to be fair to Sheeler, who I think is doing a very courageous thing by challenging the Demcratic establishment, but some of his answers so perfectly typify the misguided nature of the far-left elements of his party that they need to be examined. Sheeler's an underdog, but his campaign is significant, because he's just one of a group of similar candidates, some of whom have proven to be much more successful than he is likely to be, the most notable example being Ned Lamont, who just won an upset victory over Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary in Connecticut. What makes this particular campaign in Rhode Island significant is that Sheeler is contesting for a chance to run against liberal Republican Lincoln Chafee, one of the few remaining traditional Republicans who's still in office, with a basically libertarian philosophy and very progressive positions on social issues - he's pro-choice and anti-war, among other things. Chafee is so hated by the far-right newcomers in the party that they've actually urged Rhode Islanders to vote for a democrat in the general election if it will get Chafee out of office. Ironically, Chafee is probably more liberal than Sheeler's opponent in the Demcoratic primary, party insider Sheldon Whitehouse. To put my cards on the table, I think that Chafee is one of the bright lights of the GOP. I don't agree with him on every issue, but he stands up for many of the principles which his father subscribed to, and he's carrying the torch for the party which freed the slaves, integrated the federal bureaucracy, desegregated the schools and made civil rights a reality. He's part of the old-money elite of the Republican Party who have lost a lot of ground in recent years to extreme right refugees from the godflogging southern wing of the Democratic Party. That's a trend which needs to change, and keeping Chafee in office helps stem and perhaps turn that tide. DN: A recent Rasmussen poll shows your primary opponent beating either Lincoln Chafee or Steve Laffey in the general election, and although you've made impressive strides in catching up, you still have to be considered a long shot. Why should dedicated Democrats vote for you instead of Sheldon Whitehouse if he can deliver victory in November and you're an unknown quantity? You've commented "If Lincoln Chafee had run as a Democrat or Independent, I might not be running for U.S. Senate." Will you be able to run effectively against him if you get the nomination? CS: Ninety days before the 2002 gubernatorial elections few people knew who Don Carcieri was, as he had not previously held elected office...however, between Sheldon Whitehouse not lending support after his defeat to his primary opponent, Myrth York, and despite York's two prior runs, Carcieri became our Republican governor. This event speaks volumes. Likeability is a key attribute in RI's retail politics and Sheldon does not have that "mojo". Paul Wellstone was also an unknown quantity and he defeated four primary candidates and a two-term GOP incumbent because of his populist support and views. RI Democrats fall into two distinct categories - "anybody but Sheldon" and those who support the establishment "machine" candidate. Then there is the significant number of Independents who who are less concerned about the ruling party and more so interested in what the candidate and his/her campaign offer. I offer a background as a middle class father of five, business owner, and a court appointed financial expert with the ability to listen, think and act - not carefully scripted sound bites with very little substance. People are smart and empty promises don't resonate. My time as a Marine Combat and Staff Officer taught me to stay focused on taking care of people and that is exactly what public service is supposed to be. It's not a legacy. It's leadership. It's building bridges and making concessions among groups with disparate agendas. This is why even Sheldon finds me "very likable". Great ideas, passion and connecting with a wide range of people are key to winning the primary and general elections. These are offered by my campaign. I have very strong support from local and national Veterans and peace groups, which is why both Chafee and Sheldon are spending over a million in ad buys targeting these groups. Sheldon is running on "he's a Republican" therefore vote for me. Leadership is "we can pull together and get our country back." When you strip the "R" and "D" away from the candidates, Sheldon fails to offer a real compelling difference. The Latino and minority communities support my campaign because they've been ignored and the immigration issue is a tipping point putting many into primary elections this year. Small business owners and social activists are very supportive. They are a critical component to our campaign. The one area of strong dominance is our carefully nurtured outreach to faith-based leadership that includes over 200 parishes. Sheldon's special interests money machine is formidable... but he simply can't dance and whining over $350 an hour boredom as an "of counsel" attorney at a prestigious law firm while looking out his window and "it's my legacy" with some skeleton's in his A/G closet are not ways to win the hearts and minds of Rhode Islanders. DN: You have said of the Whitehouse campaign: "I'm running because his campaign has repeatedly merely attacked Chafee and the Republican Party instead of offering real solutions to our bread and butter issues that we working families experience." Yet you've put up a billboard just outside Providence which reads "Be Patriotic, Impeach Bush" on one side and "Fund Our Future, Not Bush's War" on the other. Doesn't that amount to very much the same thing � running against Bush and his policies rather than running against Sheldon Whitehouse? CS: On the contrary, do Americans expect if they work hard and play by the rules will have meaning if their leaders are not going to adhere to the fundamental principles of our Constitution? They know tax cuts for the top 1% earning $750,000+ annually; especially, during time of war is not fair. They know they're down $3500 in discretionary pay just since 2001 due to high energy costs that can be associated with big energy lobbyists and this war. They know Halliburton and big special interests are eroding their lives' pursuit of the American dream and that of their kids. They know they've been lied to and are as disenfranchised with many of our democratic leaders as they are with Republican elected. Finally, they know if we don't put leadership into our Congress great hopes of domestic security, single payer national healthcare, high quality education K - College and ebergy independence are just "me too" claims with no substance of being realized. They want accountability and this cannot happen with our presence in Iraq and few willing to fight for checks and balances that preserve our Constitutional rights. DN: You're one of the 'Fighting Dems', with a background of military service the Marines in the...

Charles Whitman and Futureshock 40 Years On

Wed, 02 Aug 2006 05:20:54 GMT

Here in Austin this was a big day in the media, though not one recognized nationwide. 40 years ago today a troubled ex-Marine named Charles Whitman climbed the clock tower of the University of Texas administration building and began to gun down students and passersby on the south and west malls of the University and on nearby Guadalupe Street. Before heading to the University Whitman had killed his mother and his wife in their home, leaving behind a detailed suicide note with instructions to give his estate to psychological research and do an autopsy to determine if there was something physically wrong with his brain. As it turned out there was a tumor in his hypothalamus which may have been pressing on his amygdala and altering his emotional state. He was able to get a footlocker and a small wooden crate full of guns into the building and to the top of the 27-storey tower, including a Remington 700 rifle with a hunting scope, an M1 Carbine, another rifle, a shotgun and a variety of small arms. He started firing at 11:48 and ultimately killed 16 people and wounded another 31. The incident ended when Austin police officers Ray Martinez and Houston McCoy were able to break through the barricade Whitman had made to block the observation deck door. Martinez shot him repeatedly with his service revolver and McCoy hit him with a shotgun blast. Whitman was dead before he hit the floor. Whitman, the UT Clock Tower and the events of August 1st of 1966 have become ingrained in popular culture, even as symbols in the minds of those who have no specific awareness of the events. It was the first widely publicized mass random killing of this sort, the model for novelists, moviemakers and copycats. It was also the first incident of this sort to be covered live on TV, with a camera crew from the local CBS affiliate broadcasting from within the zone of fire. It put Austin on the national map in a negative way which it took the Armadillo, Willie Nelson, South by Southwest and years of great music and heavy partying to live down. Today it's all a piece of increasingly distant history, but hearing interviews with many of those who were involved on the radio and local television today was enlightening in a bizarre, futureshock or perhaps reverse futureshock kind of way. It was revelatory to be reminded of how different things were in 1966 in Austin and how the city and our world have changed since then. A few examples relating to the incident stood out. 1966 was really before the introduction of SWAT teams. They were invented at least in part in response to this incident. As a result the response to Whitman's sniping was much more rapid than it would be today, concluded in a couple of hours when today it might have taken twice as long or more. But the process involved a lot more risk for civilians and for the officers involved. Regular patrol officers showed up, there weren't very many of them, they had no special weapons and had to work fast and improvise. There was no real attempt to negotiate, although that might have changed if Whitman had hostages. There was also minimal supervision and coordination, and certainly no scenarios or game plan for dealing with what at the time was a unique situation. There was an aerial flyby and a very unsuccessful attempt to shoot Whitman from the plane, but solving the problem basically came down to a few very brave and outgunned men charging a trained killer. What struck me as most fascinating were the accounts from several sources of how the police dealt with the lack of covering fire that a SWAT team would provide today. They just went to citizens in the area and asked them to bring their rifles and shoot at the tower, and they all went to their pickups, got their deer rifles and did what they could to help. Their covering fire kept Whitman down and limited him to shooting through a drain opening, pretty much stopping the killing and giving officers the opportunity to get into the building. The officers also deputized one of the citizens to go with them into the tower to give them a bit more firepower, although he didn't end up facing Whitman. What a different world. First, it was taken for granted that a bunch of people in the area would be carrying powerful rifles openly in their trucks in the middle of the state's capitol city. What's more, the police felt no hesitation in asking those citizens to help out in a dangerous situation and the citizens were eager to do their part. None of this was seen as out of the ordinary or unexpected at the time. Everyone had guns openly in public and they were willing to take responsibility and use them when asked. Perhaps most remarkably, the police saw armed citizens as an asset rather than as a threat. The shock is how much things have changed today, and not necessarily for the better. Citizens are no longer seen as nor do they see themselves as primarily responsible for their own defense and the defense of others. The armed citizen isn't seen as a force for keeping the peace and assisting authorities, but as a potential threat. We're all seen as Charles Whitmans waiting to happen, and the memory of the responsible citizens who kept him pinned down with their rifles is forgotten. In a city as big as Austin is today you'd likely be pulled over by the police if you carried a hunting rifle in a rack in the back of your pickup, even if it may technically still be legal. You certainly wouldn't be called on to help out if you showed up at a crime scene with a gun. In the 40 years since 1966 we've seen the increasing infantilization of the population. In the Whitman incident the citizens were treated as adults who could take responsibility and put themselves at risk for the good of the community. Today we're treated like children who cannot be trusted with responsibility and have to be protected by government not only from the Charles Whitmans of the world, but from ourselves as well. Having become used to being treated that way, it seems like more and more of us accept that role and don't feel that we have a responsibility to stand up for others or even for ourselves. And when government doesn't act fast enough to protect us or provide for our needs we become like infants, whining and crying in our powerlessness and frustration. In a society which has improved in many other ways, these changes are certainly not for the better. We've gained many material things, but spiritually we are weaker and less self-sufficient and less prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and help those around us. As a people we are increasingly risk-averse and passive and indecisive. We are not as familiar with danger, react poorly to it, and expect someone else to fight our battles. The post-war generation which had their pickups parked around UT 40 years ago hadn't been brought up to expect that luxury and they were better for it. They helped stop Charles Whitman. What would you be able to do in that same situation today? Would you be armed? Would you be willing? Would you even be asked? In a greater sense this issue isn't really about the specific example of an armed citizenry assisting in a crisis situation. Much more simply it's a question of our willingness to be the good samaritan or the good neighbor, to think beyond our own needs and solve problems without having to turn to...

lebanon polls

Sun, 30 Jul 2006 17:31:26 GMT

http://www.skileb.com/adminc/anm/templates/skileb_articles.asp?articleid=31&zoneid=1 http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=1&article_id=74334 http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=248

election commentary

Sun, 30 Jul 2006 00:35:17 GMT

Thanks for all the fine comments. As most of you realized, the call for Bell to drop out isn't entirely realistic. But it does seem justified on the numbers, even if there's very, very little chance of it happening. For those who think Kinky is the spoiler, all I can say is that independents HAVE won elections before. Jesse Ventura won, Joe Lieberman is likely to win as an independent this fall, and there are more examples. The party system is breaking down. There are too many divisions within the GOP and too many dissatisfied Democrats. Every election more voters describe themselves as 'independent'. Kinky may be unorthodox and he does (gasp) have a sense of humor, but he also has some good ideas and charisma - which the other candidates utterly lack. I originally supported Strayhorn, but I had the opportunity to speak with her a few weeks ago and was dismayed by her lack of vision and adherence to some of the old, failed policies Republicans have been running on for years. There's nothing new there, except maybe opposition to the toll roads and TTC, and I'm not sure how much I believe her on those. Which brings up the issue of RINOs. The term gets thrown around a lot by the extreme right. I have news for the religious fundamentalis crowd. They're the RINOs. People who believe the state should impose religion on the schools and push a moralistic social agenda and promote an expansionist foreign policy do NOT understand what the GOP has stood for all these years. Most of these far right RINOs come from backgrounds where they or their parents were democrats in the not too distant past. They come from the religious southern democrat tradition, or the post-stalinist extreme left faction of democrats which produced the Neocons. They are not part of the GOP of Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and Barry Goldwater. That's the real GOP, and those who don't believe in the principles of a strong defensive military, hands-off social policy, and enthusiastic support for small business and the free market are the ones who are RINOs and dragging the party down. Anyway, back to the point of the article. The most important thing - and I say this as a Republican who has worked on campaigns and been a convention delegate - is to stop Rick Perry. Perry has been disastrous for the state, has opposed every positive innovation and supported every negative and exploitative program that could make a buck for his friends. He needs to go. Dave

Tradition vs. Radicalization on the Arab Riviera

Sat, 29 Jul 2006 16:35:34 GMT

I was born on the 'Arab Riviera', a term you may hear today applied to Dubai, but which was a very real and accurate description of Lebanon in the 1950s and early 1960s. When I was a kid living in Syria and Jordan we would go to Lebanon to enjoy the beautiful beaches and stay in a nice hotel - older folks went there for the nightclubs and casinos and ski resorts with a view of the ocean. I was born there because Beirut had the best, most modern hospital in the area and it was a reasonable drive from Damascus. It was a cosmopolitan, westernized and affluent society. A third of the people were Christian and a third were Moslem and a third were Jews or Druze or members of other strange sects, and they all got along with each other. The women dressed and looked like Sophia Loren, the men dressed like Danny Thomas and usually looked better. They drove Mercedes, drank martinis and there wasn't a Kaftan or Hijab to be seen - except on wide-eyed tourists from the more backwards parts of the Arab world. This was Lebanon from about 1950 to 1967 - a brief renaissance for the Arab Riviera. Then came the Six-Day-War, a war in which Lebanon was pointedly not a participant. Of all the surrounding Arab nations, they were the only one not to send troops or even provide logistical support for the attempted invasion of Israel. They stood by the peace they had negotiated with Israel after the Arab-Israeli war as they had for 18 years. But after the war Israel expelled hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their captured territory and over 100,000 of them ended up in southern Lebanon and over time their numbers grew to three times that many largely poor, unskilled and angry refugees - a major administrative challenge even for an affluent nation like Lebanon. This poor, displaced population was easy pickings for the promotors of both militant fundamentalist religion and militiant political ideologies. Pretty soon that population of Palestinian refugees became the powerbase for a succession of terrorist groups, starting when the socialists of Fatah and the PLO were kicked out of Jordan in 1970, and then continuing when they moved their main operations to the West Bank and the terrorist void was filled with the arrival of the Iranian-backed Shiite Hezbollah in 1982, accompanied by about a thousand of the Ayatollah's Revolutionary Guard which formed the nucleus of a very active terrorist organization. These Palestinians and the Iranian Shiites who came later were all outsiders who came to Lebanon as a result of war. They were either chased out of their own lands or dumped there by other nations who were tired of harboring terrorists, or they came because of the proximity of Israel and the opportunities to cause death and mayhem for the 'zionist regime' to the south. They quickly became a cancer on an otherwise hopeful nation, disrupting the political and economic life of Lebanon and driving the whole region into violence, poverty and despair. With the help of allies in Syria and Iran they turned the Arab Riviera into a warzone of mines and bombed out buildings and refugee camps. They took what had been the most peaceful and progressive nation in the region and turned it into a maelstrom of warring factions in a bloody civil war which killed 100,000 people and lasted for 15 years and ended in a period where parts of Lebanon were occupied by both Israel and Syria and the Lebanese government was a weak Syrian puppet. Hope returned to Lebanon in the Spring of 2005 with the 'Cedar Revolution', a largely bloodless uprising in reaction to the assassination of popular former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Inspired by the rise of democracy in many eastern nations, from the Ukraine to Iraq, the Lebanese finally asserted themselves and demanded that Syria withdraw its troops, and much to everyone's surprise Syria actually did, leaving Lebanon with a new native government, but still plagued by Hezbollah in the Beqaa Valley on the border with Israel. With freedom you began to see the old Lebanon reemerging, with casinos reopening, hotels rebuilt, and businesses flourishing. Tourists began to come back for the beaches, the skiing and the nightlife, not only from around the Arab world, but even from Europe and beyond. Sadly, a prosperous Lebanon with the strong government and economy that prosperity would eventually create was not in the best interests of the extremists of Hezbollah and their masters in Iran. Hezbollah has plenty of hatred to go around. They certainly hate Israel and everything it stands for, but they have to hate the idea of a rebirth of a prosperous, secular Lebanon just about as much. As religious fanatics, they don't fit well in the kind of modern, westernized state Lebanon very much wants to become again. Potentially a reborn Lebanon would be Israel's most natural ally among the Arab states, and once their military was stronger and their government stable they would certainly make every effort to remove the terrorists from their southern border. At least part of Hezbollah's goal in escalating attacks against Israel is to get Israel to strike against Lebanon as a whole. If they can get the Israelis to weaken Lebanon, damage its rebuilt infrastructure, discredit its fledgeling government and radicalize its population, then their tenure as terrorists-in-residence will be extended. They know that under UN Resolution 1559 the Lebanese government has free reign to disarm, destroy and deport them if it can get its feet on the ground and exert some control over the country. Provoking Israel makes their removal less feasible. Forget Hezbollah's attacks on Israel, and forget Israel's retaliation. The real victim in this fight who deserves our care and concern is Lebanon. On the verge of its rebirth as a model of the best that the Arab world could be, it faces a deadly threat from terrorists within its own borders and from the most powerful military in the region. Every missile that strikes Beirut or Sidon or Tyre is sent by Hezbollah to bring down Lebanon, no matter who actually fired it. When the media tells you that Israel is bombing Lebanon, remember that their target is Hezbollah, a group which is not part of Lebanon and whose members are not Lebanese. When the media announces Lebanese casualties, remember that those civilians died because Hezbollah is using them as human shields, launching missiles from mobile trucks placed near sensitive civilian targets. The people of Lebanon have suffered with great patience, but will they be able to withstand this assault and retain the vision to see who their real enemies are and the strength of will to hold onto their dreams and not fall prey to the radicalizing force of terror? I hope that their memories of what Lebanon was 40 years ago and could be again remain strong enough to fight to get back everything they have lost to the fanatics and extremists.

Texas Election 2006: It's Time for Chris Bell to Drop Out

Thu, 27 Jul 2006 08:14:14 GMT

It's a scenario that doesn't come around all that often in our ossified party system, but down here in Texas we're in the strange situation where the annointed Democrat in our gubernatorial race has essentially become a spoiler whose run is counter to the best interests of his own party, the constituents they serve and the state as a whole. I'm sure Chris Bell is a fine guy in many ways, but as a candidate for governor his only role is to guarantee a victory for Governor Rick Perry who has failed everyone in the state with his poor management, corruption and utter lack of vision. The Democrats dropped the ball in this election. Bell self-sacrificingly picked it up and is attempting to run with it, but party loyalty isn't a good reason to sacrifice the good of the state and it's people even if you're willing to waste your time and the money of party loyalists on a pointless campaign. The problem for Bell is that there are two very popular independent candidates running in the election, creating a four way split in which he likely comes in last under any realistic scenario. The two independent candidates - Kinky Friedman and Carole Strayhorn - have strong moderate appeal and draw substantial voters from both parties. If they were not in the race Bell would go the way of other Democratic candidates in Texas and lose to the Republican incumbent by about 10 points. With them in the race Bell is polling as low as the mid-teens in many polls, behind both of them as well as Perry. The most detailed recent poll comes from SurveyUSA and breaks down support by party, political philosophy and other factors. It shows clearly the problem with the Bell campaign which more general polls that provide less detail don't address. This poll shows Perry with 35%, Friedman with 21%, Bell with 20% and Strayhorn with 19%. If they combined all of their votes any two candidates could beat Perry. However, because of the way support breaks down the only candidate who could drop out and give virtually no support to Perry is Bell. If Strayhorn dropped out, the breakdown would probably end up with Perry first, trailed by Friedman and with Bell far behind. If Friedman dropped out, the breakdown would likely be Perry first with Strayhorn 10 points behind and Bell a distant third. But if Bell were to drop out, his votes would almost all go to the independent candidates, particularly Friedman, with a Perry and Friedman virtually tied around 35% and Strayhorn a few points behind. These scenarios are hypothetical, but believable. None of them shows Perry losing, but of the three the Bell dropout scenario at least puts Friedman close enough to have a shot at beating Perry. No other change in the current field would threaten Perry at all unless two candidates were to give up. In a scenario where two candidates drop out, the chances of defeating Perry increase dramatically. Either Friedman or Strayhorn would likely win if the other two candidates dropped out. But again, If they both dropped and left Bell as the sole candidate too many of their votes would go to Perry and Bell would suffer a definitive defeat. There is no scenario in which Bell could win the election, so why is he running and destroying any hope for defeating Perry? A recent Wall Street Journal poll shows Bell in a stronger position and a recent Rasmussen poll shows him running a distant third. Making the whole situation more interesting, some of the most recent polls show Perry dropping dramatically, suggesting a lot more vulnerability if the current balance among the challengers shifts. With an already weak record on the budget, Perry has recently taken very unpopular positions opposing legalized gambling, both at indian casinos and racetracks, a potentially enormous source of revenue, all of which is currently going out of state. His ideologically rigid unwillingness to consider creative solutions to the state's budget problems is just the latest in a series of signs that Perry is no friend to the people of Texas. Still strong on the radar and generating popular rage is his unstinting support for toll roads and massive and unnecessary high-speed rail boondoggles. All of the challengers oppose Perry on all of these issues, a fact which might give someone who actually wants to serve the people pause, but has no impact on Perry. What's clear from all the polls is that the people of Texas really, really don't like Perry. He may be beating the other candidates, but 65% of voters still want to vote for anyone who isn't Perry. Even within his own party he's just a bit over 50% in the polls and dropping. He has been a terrible governor whose greatest achievement is his dazzling smile and well-coiffed hair. The only thing giving Perry a chance at reelection is that the three challengers are going to split the opposing vote, unless something changes dramatically. The people of Texas want Perry gone, but for that to happen at least one of his three opponents needs to drop out and endorse one of the others. The best choice for this noble sacrifice is Chris Bell because neither of the other candidates dropping will win it for anyone but Perry. Bell should take a hint from the fact that he only polls with 44% support in his own party and do the right thing. Party loyalty is not enough reason to run for office, and defeating Perry is more important than personal ego or party loyalty. It would actually be a victory for the Democrats if they could show the integrity and care for the people which Perry lacks and put defeating Perry ahead of their own petty interests. For the good of Texas and in the best interests of the people, Chris Bell needs to pack it in and go home.

Scenarios 2008: How I Could Vote for a Democrat

Wed, 26 Jul 2006 05:27:49 GMT

Ordinarily I wouldn't expect to find myself voting for a Democrat in 2008. Ideally I'd be voting Republican or doing as I did in 2000 and 2004 and voting for a Libertarian on principle. But it occured to me today that there is a scenario under which I could find myself reluctantly voting for a Democrat. Right now it doesn't seem likely. The early field of potential Republican candidates is rich and promising. But there are some potentially disastrous candidates and groups who I don't think I could bring myself to support putting in the White House. On the other hand, there are Democrats who could get nominated who aren't totally unappealing if the GOP can't come up with someone genuinely appealing.

gun rights quotes

Sun, 23 Jul 2006 06:43:05 GMT

Sure, Lee. Noah Webster in a pamphlet explaining the Bill of Rights to the voters of Pennsylvania in 1787: Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. Richard Henry Lee of Virginia writing about the Virginia Constitution: "to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." George Washington's First Inaugural Address: ""A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

Remind Me - Who Are the REAL Fascists Again?

Sun, 23 Jul 2006 05:41:11 GMT

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. - Noah Webster, 1787

Critics on the left are relentless about trotting out the term 'fascist' to apply to the Bush administration over its efforts to beef up Homeland Security at the expense of Constitutional rights. To some degree it's a valid criticism, though I prefer the term 'statist' to 'fascist'. There are certainly things in the USA PATRIOT Act which trample the 4th Amendment, though that bill passed with strong majorities in both parties. Every once in a while, even though they are out of power, the Democrats remind us of what real statists would do if they were in power and saw an opportunity to shred the Constitution and empower themselves on the pretext of national security. We got a great example of this last week when the Homeland Security Appropriations bill came up for consideration. It included an amendment from Senator David Vitter (R-LA) which prohibited the use of any taxpayer funds for the confiscation of lawful firearms held by private citizens during an emergency or disaster. The Vitter amendment was inspired by the outrageous behavior of local officials in New Orleans during the Katrina disaster, when they ordered the National Guard and local police to confiscate legal firearms from citizens and then didn't return them until compelled months and several lawsuits later. The citizens needed those guns to defend themselves and their property and the government that had failed to protect them took away that last and essential protection in a time of crisis. So the Vitter Amendment is a very, very good thing. It is a blow struck on behalf of our rights as the founding fathers intended them to be protected. When it came up for a vote in the Senate last week, for once our legislators didn't let us down. It passed overwhelmingly, supported by all 55 Republicans and a majority of Democrats as well. What's dismaying is that 16 Democrat Senators voted against the amendment, giving us a chilling preview of the threat which our rights would face if Democrats were to gain control of one or both houses of Congress. These enemies of your rights include the usual rogues gallery of statist villains like Edward Kennedy (D-MA), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY), but the most chilling member of the cabal was Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), belying her cynical attempts to move to the political middle and showing her true colors when she thought no one was looking. When the 2008 presidential campaign gets going, remember that Hillary Clinton stood on the side of an oppressive state even when the majority of her own party stood up for your rights. The Vitter Amendment hasn't yet made it into law. It still has to pass the House of Representatives as part of the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act and ought to be up for a vote in the next few weeks. When that vote comes, keep your eye on it. It ought to provide the same kind of moment of clarity for the House that this recent vote did for the Senate. For once it might actually be worth your time to stay awake through a few hours of C-Span, just to see which House members care about your rights and which ones will join the 16 Senate Statists in voting to support an oppressive government against people who just want to be safe in their homes and persons. When they vote and the lines are drawn, ask yourself just who the real fascists are, and take that memory with you all the way to the voting booth in November.

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government. -- George Washington, First Inaugural Address, 1793

Global Warming - The Intelligent Design of the Left

Sat, 22 Jul 2006 12:26:20 GMT

Global Warming and Intelligent Design share a fundamental characteristic in common, the lack of definitive, proven evidence of the causation which would make them fact rather than theory. In Intelligent Design you can see the leaps of evolution and the bizarre anomalies in the fossil record and you can say "something must have caused this", but there is no proof of what or who is the cause. You can choose God or aliens or mutation or random unidentified forces as your explanation equally convincingly because no evidence exists to definitively identify the unknown forces driving the evolutionary process. If you believe in a conscious force behind evolution you can only reach that conclusion through faith. In the same way, Global Warming is a clearly identifiable phenomenon which can be documented through the geological record and contemporary temperature measurements, but it is impossible to point to a specific cause and say "aha, here's THE thing which is causing global warming." Human causation is the popular choice as a cause, but human output of the gasses which cause global warming is substantially less than the cumulative yearly output from natural sources like volcanoes and forest fires and falls well within the normal variations of those gasses from year to year. Natural forces like solar activity and the earth's climate cycle also contribute to global warming and it is impossible to definitively identify one cause as specifically responsible. If your choice is to believe in human causation as the one thing that causes Global Warming, that position can only be reached by the equivalent of a leap of faith. Because these are beliefs which can only be reached by faith, those who subscribe to them have a tendancy to be driven to fanaticism in defense of their position. They attack and harass those who disagree with them, deride them as deniers driven by a political agenda, be it secularism or corporate greed, and do their best to essentially redefine reality on their own terms. They will go to great and destructive extremes to force their beliefs on others, including imposing their agenda on the school curriculum, promoting their beliefs through advocacy groups, seeking to pass legislation enshrining it in law, and attempting to destroy and discredit those who don't agree with them. The remarkable thing with this sort of fanatically held belief is that it doesn't matter if there's any truth or evidence behind it, or if there are facts which directly contradict it. The true believers will gladly redefine reality on the fly so that whatever facts they're presented with will fit into their worldview. Inconvenient fossil records predating the biblical creation of the earth? God created them to test our faith. Inconvenient record snowfalls and cooling trends in Europe? Well, of course, cold weather is a symptom of global warming. The great thing about faith is that it can help you rationalize anything no matter how ridiculous. It's interesting that the people who object most to the irrationality of Intelligent Design theory are often the same people who are just as dogmatic in their adherence to Global Warming theory, and vice versa. The two are unrelated, but it's interesting that both groups have their issues of absolute belief which they hold to be inviolable with equal levels of vehemence and obsession. What neither group considers is that maybe both positions are irrational and untennable and that both theories have flaws, are open to criticism and might need more study and analysis. Both Global Warming and Intelligent Design are still theories and neither has the stamp of absolute empirical truth on them, because both are based on assumptions which cannot be definitively proven and to some degree have to be 'taken on faith'. I find any demand to believe something which cannot be proven just because others believe in it - no matter how numerous they are - to be objectionable and an offense to reason. Reality isn't defined by a majority vote. What's worse, when a theory becomes dogma, those who subscribe to it fanatically will try to stifle further discussion, exploration and analysis, and that's a very negative force in a any kind of scientific inquiry. Personally I'd prefer to take nothing on faith, leave all possibilities open, and retain some objective distance. Both of these theories might be right and both might be wrong. What harm does it do to keep an open mind and question both of them? Only by being objective and questioning everything, especially beliefs based on faith, can we eventually find a truth which is provable and does not require us to accept a set of guesses as gospel.

Green Business

Sat, 22 Jul 2006 08:40:38 GMT

http://www.brandrepublic.com/bulletins/breakingnews/article/569819/sustainability-greensky-thinking/

Federal Marriage Amendment Fails Again

Thu, 20 Jul 2006 07:29:24 GMT

In all the furor over President Bush's veto of the stem cell research funding bill, an important vote in the House of Representatives on Tuesday has largely been overlooked by the media and the public. A proposed Constitutional amendment to define the insitution of marriage - generally viewed as banning gay marriage - was up for a vote in the House and failed to get the 2/3 majority necessary for passage by a solid 45 votes. This same amendment has been proposed and defeated three times before. It did better by a few votes this time, though still falling well short of the needed votes for passage. The amendment would have both defined marriage to "consist only of the union of a man and a woman" and declared that the Constitution could not be used as the basis of any claim that marriage should be "conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman." Opponents of the amendment hailed the defeat of the amendment as a major victory. Joe Salmonese of the Human Rights Campaign commented:

�A bipartisan group of Representatives today rejected the politics of discrimination and stood up for the American value of fairness. More and more Americans are beginning to understand that same-sex couples and their children deserve to be treated equally under our nation�s Constitution, nothing more and nothing less."

Gay marriage opponents also claimed a qualified victory based on a slightly better show of votes over their last attempt and vowed to continue to try to limit gay marriage on the state level and to bring the amendment up again in Congress. House Speaker Dennis Hastert commented "be assured, this issue is not over." Although 19 states have banned gay marriage in the last 8 years, of the 11 states to consider bans in the past year 8 rejected banning gay marriage. In addition, polls suggest that opposition to gay marriage which had been strong is gradually eroding. Recent polls in New Jersey, and Wisconsin show voters almost equally divided on the issue. The same polls show about 2/3 of the public supporting gay civil unions equivalent to marriage in all but name. This suggests that despite efforts by the extreme right, if gay advocates were to pursue the moderate course of civil unions without insisting on the relatively meaningless label of 'marriage' they could win a genuine and definitive victory that only something like the apparently unpassable Federal Marriage Amendment could interfere with.

Should France Attack Israel?

Wed, 19 Jul 2006 06:09:10 GMT

Our favorite French pundit Dissident Frogman has a ripping new piece on his bilingual blog excoriating French parliament member Jacques Myard for his recent statements suggesting that France attack Israel in defense of the Lebanese people. As always, it's funny as hell and very politically insightful. If you didn't think there were any Frenchmen left with common sense, the Frogman is out there to reassure you, just as people like Myard are there to remind you how rare sensible Frenchmen really are. Dave

A History of Walls

Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:39:53 GMT

Great Wall of China Antonine Wall Hadrian's Wall Offa's Dyke The Pale The Berlin Wall Gaza Strip Barrier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_wall

Fun with statistics

Mon, 17 Jul 2006 04:13:53 GMT

Serial Killers 1/10,000,000 - m Murderers 1/4,000 - 37 in Iraq Rapists 8/10,000 - 120 in iraq

The Truth About Illegal Immigration

Sun, 16 Jul 2006 05:20:28 GMT

The cool thing about the immigration debate is that it never goes away. I started writing on the topic a year ago, firmly convinced that it was a vital issue to address because we might have a new immigration policy at any moment. Now I realize that I can keep writing on it forever, because the anti-immigration ideologues will never see sense so we'll never get any kind of immigration policy passed and bloggers and pundits can feel free to enjoy the topic forever. Why this should be the case is a bit mystifying. The facts about the undocumented immigrant population are all there in black and white. Our tradition of welcoming immigrants is indisputable - it's on the Statue of Liberty, afterall. The benefits immigration brings to the country are obvious and undeniable. The ridiculous impracticality of deporting 12 million people we can't even identify has already been clearly demonstrated. Support for a realistic immigration solution crosses party lines and unites people who would normally be enemies but just happen to have good sense. Yet a certain political faction prefers rhetoric over reality and would rather hold out for the impossible dream of total interdiction than implement sensible policies which would limit immigration and address the needs of the nation. It almost makes you wonder if they would rather not solve the problem so they can keep bitching about it for the next few elections. Perhaps I can do my part of move the debate along by going over the facts one more time. � Illegal immigrants don't increase your taxes. Surveys of immigrants show that they actually come with the expectation that welfare and social service benefits will not be available to them. What's more, they actually use welfare benefits less than the native population does per capita. Studies show that only 2% of Mexican immigrants have ever used welfare or social security and only 3% have ever used food stamps. In comparison, 84% pay income tax and none of them file a rfeturn. Because so many of them pay into the tax and social security and medicaid systems without being able to retrieve any of that money or benefits, the government actually makes a substantial profit on each illegal who comes here. This has resulted in a surplus in social security funds of more than $50 billion a year just from payments applied to fictional social security numbers. After factoring in services provided, on average during his time in the US an illegal immigrant will contribute $80,000 more to the government than he consumes in services. The one negative tax impact is that they act to transfer money from the states who pay most of the services, especially education, to the federal government which gets most of the tax benefits. � A more open immigration policy will not lead to a flood of new immigrants. The vast majority of undocumented immigrants return to their home countries after spending a limited time in the US and most (64.7%) come to the US for a year or less to work and then go home. What's more, they don't breed like rabbits as many have suggested. Mexicans have 2.3 children per mother, only slightly higher than the birth rate in the US. Mexico has only a 2% annual growth in population, slightly higher than the US, but low compared to many other nations. All of this argues very strongly for the effectiveness of a guest worker type program, suggesting that most workers would use it if it was available rather than accepting 'amnesty' if offered. � Undocumented immigrants aren't necessarily the poor refuse of the world. Mexico is hardly an impovershed nation overall. They have a higher GDP per capita and higher wages than most nations, and a relatively low cost of living. The average wage is higher than anywhere else in south and central America, including fairly prosperous nations like Brazil. Real poor people can't afford to travel to another country to earn better wages - they're too downtrodden. Mexicans can come here because they have the resources and skills to make it practical and worthwhile. What's more, Mexicans like the life they have in Mexico. A peculiar survey conducted in 2004 determined that Mexico is the second 'happiest' country in the world in terms of how satisfied their population is with the life they have. The US ranked 15th. � Mexican immigrants are not criminals. Despite some highly publicized groups who have come into the US from other countries and gone into organized crime - mostly legal immigrants from countries like El Salvador - immigrants as a whole are no more inclined to commit crimes than our native population. When compared by age, the crime and incarceration rates for Mexican immigrants is roughly equal to the general population and much better than most other legal and illegal immigrant groups. Perhaps if we could get past the issue of illegal mexican immigration we could crack down on the Cubans, Dominicans, Eastern Europeans, Asians and Salvadorans who commit most of the immigrant crime. � Immigrant workers do not take jobs from natives or lower the overall working wage. While the presence of immigrant workers does reduce the cost of goods and services for consumers, this is not because they lower wages, but because without their presence those jobs would go unfilled. According to one analysis we would end up with 2.5 million jobs which could not be filled, leading to business closures and inflation. It might even ultimately lead to more unemployment among native workers. The skills of natives who are out of work and the skills of undocumented immigrants are different, so natives would not take the jobs which would become available if the illegals were deported. 84% of unemployed natives have at least a high-school education, while most illegal immigrants from Mexico have less than a high-school degree. However, undocumented workers are not necessarily low paid. They may have skills and family connections which can get them well-paid reliable employment at well above minimum wage. Even for day laborers the median hourly wage is still around $10. On average undocumented workers earn about $2 less per hour than documented workers in the same jobs, a difference which accurately represents the added risk and expense of hiring them. They are good at economizing and most send substantial amounts of money home to Mexico to the point where they contribute $20 billion a year to the Mexican economy which is about 3% of the Mexican GDP. Workers used to a third-world lifestyle and earning $10 a day can do very well earning that much an hour in the US. What all this tells us is that while working here benefits illegals and Mexico, it also benefits the United States and our population in a number of ways. Immigrants are doing jobs which might go unfilled without them, keeping inflation down and contributing disproportionately to our tax and social program revenues. What's more, most of the negatives applied to them by those who'd like to close the borders appear not to be true. They don't want to flood the country and take over. They don't even want to stay here in most cases. They aren't taking jobs that Americans are willing or qualified to do. They aren't committing lots of crimes. They aren't living off of welfare or sucking up social services. They just come here to work and make their lives better. What's also clear from the evidence is that a straightforward guest worker program would solve most of the problems currently associated with illegal immigration. It's likely that 80% of the currently undocumented workers would be perfectly satisfied with temporary worker status,...

Tunnels and Bridges and Subways, Oh My!

Wed, 12 Jul 2006 16:15:05 GMT

The recent news has been full of both accidents and terrorist acts which we ought to be taking as a sign, as a big finger pointing out what should be obvious. That certain elements of the public transportation structure of our nation are incredibly vulnerable to terrorist attacks which could be particularly devastating in their cost in human life, expense and inconvenience. Take as examples the terrorist attacks yesterday in Mumbai where subways and busses were targeted, and the similar attacks in London one year earlier almost to the day and in Madrid the year before that. These attacks were all particularly effective not only because of the destruction of life and property, but because they were impossible for the population to easily take in stride, leaving a permanent legacy of inconvenience and reconstruction which continued for months after the actual attacks. They shut down major cities for a couple of days, caused lost days at work and cost a great deal in rebuilding transportation infrastructure. Other recent events have shown that the transportation infrastructure in the United States is just as vulnerable. The derailment on the EL in Chicago shows how much inconvenience, damage and injury can be caused by a simple mechanical failure. In addition to crushing a car and killing a young woman, the recent partial collapse in the Big Dig Tunnel in Boston paralyzed commuted traffic for days. Try a Google search for 'tunnel collapse'. they don't get that much publicity, but in the last few years there have been major tunnel collapses in China, England, India, Spain and the United States as well as other countries. Bridge collapses have also been in the news. 9/11 overshadowed it, but a few days after the attack there was a horrendous bridge collapse in Texas when a barge hit the bridge connecting South Padre Island to the mainland causing a collapse. A few month later a virtually identical accident collapsed the I-40 Bridge in Oklahoma. Both of these incidents had enormous costs in inconvenience and loss of revenue. As transportation infrastructure ages, the vulnerable elements like tunnels and bridges become more and more vulnerable to natural forces and to man made threats. When terrorists strike their immediate goal is to scare the public more than it is to killl people. They want to get attention for their cause. A high bodycount guarantees a lot of attention, but shutting down a major city and causing millions of people to miss days of work and feel threatened is even better. This makes the most vulnerable elements of our transportation system enormously attractive targets, and like any modern country the US has lots of bridges and tunnels and trains, all of which are vulnerable to terrorist attack as much as they are to natural and man-made disaster. Americans like to solve problems. When we see that something is dangerous we want to make it safe. The problem with the transportation infrastructure and what makes it particularly attractive as a terrorist target, is that elements like bridges and tunnels are virtually indefensible. Most effective protective measures which could be taken cause even more inconvenience or disruption than a terrorist attack would. Stopping and searching every car going into the Lincoln Tunnel would pretty much defeat the purpose of facilitating faster commuter travel for which the tunnel was built. Government officials responsible for these systems find themselves having to weigh the potential loss of life from a future attack against the cost and inconvenience required to implement effective security. As a result, despite cries of alarm from some quarters, what you usually get is an increased presence of men in uniform and little substantive improvement in real security. They do what they can, but their efforts are more to create an illusion of safety than to actually protect anyone. To actually stop the kinds of terrorist attacks which would hit the most vulnerable parts of our transportation system requires going after the terrorists themselves not attempting to protect the targets. This is why the focus of government efforts since 9/11 has been on distracting terrorists and using covert means to identify and neutralize them. In a nutshell, we took the War on Terror overseas and have seen uncomfortable increases in domestic surveillance, because not only is 'offense the best defense', but given the impracticality of defending the nation, it's likely that a strong offense may be the only effective defense available. We may not like the way the administration has chosen to fight the War on Terror, but critics may not realize how unattractive and impractical the alternatives would be. The main alternative would be a kind of 'Fortress America' approach, with massively heightened internal security, closed borders, national ID cards, widespread domestic surveillance and much more government intrusion into our lives. When concerned politicians complain about our ports not being safe and how vulnerable our infrastructure is, remember that what they're essentially arguing for is the only real security alternative - the creation of a massive police state. Of course, there is one other option. We could accept that a certain level of vulnerability to terrorist attack is part of life and the price that we pay for convenience. For the sake of our rights, our sanity and getting to work on time, we might just have to live with the possibility that every once in a while a bridge, a tunnel or a subway is going to get blown up.

The UN on Human Rights - Still an Embarassment

Thu, 06 Jul 2006 17:01:27 GMT

In the continuing saga of failure, crime and corruption which is the United Nations, nothing is a better example of how far the organization has slid into chaos than the farcical antics of the UN in the area of human rights. What does it say about the United Nations Commission on Human Rights when every major independent human rights group from Amnesty International to Human Rights Watch condemns it? What does it suggest when the political left and right in the United States - as represented by the New Republic and the Washington Times - both condemn it? These things ought to be a hint that the commission is even more seriously screwed up than the rest of the UN. The heart of the problem with the UN Commission on Human Rights has always been that it includes on the commission, often in positions of administrative power, nations who are themselves among the greatest human rights abusers in the world. Traditionally this has included nations like Zimbabwe, Iran, Sudan, China, Cuba and Saudi Arabia. These countries and their slightly less outrageous friends would pool their resources to make sure that nothing the commission did was ever effective or aimed at the right targets. But wait. It's a new era. The United States and other sensible nations called for sweeping reform of the UN and one of the reforms was to strengthen and clean up the Human Rights Commission. The result was that it was replaced with a new Human Rights Council which was formed in May and made up of 54 members voted on by the general membership of the United Nations. Wow, that ought to fix things up and make them spiffy. We'll get all that nasty genocide and oppression cleaned up in no time. We've got nothing to look forward to but freedom and happiness now that the new Human Rights Council is on the job, led by upstanding nations like Cuba, Venezuela, China, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and Azerbaijan. Yippee! The new council got rid of oppressive African nations and replaced them with the top human rights abusers of the Muslim world. In this age of terrorism and jihad that sure is a step in the right direction. Plus they kept Cuba and China, two of the biggest human rights abusers and added in their little budy Venezuela which is just getting started in the political oppression business but has shown some real precociousness for a young dictatorship. When the idea of forming a new council came up all sorts of proposals were made to clean up the council and make sure that it had some real power and the right sort of membership to promote human rights. But sensible suggestions, like barring nations who had a history of human rights abuses from the council, were voted down - largely at the instigation of Cuba and its supporters - and despite all efforts the new council looks pretty much the same as the old commission, and it can be expected to do the same old things - ignore massive human rights abuses all over the world and condemn western countries for banning smoking or executing serial killers. You see, the problem doesn't really start with the UN Council on Human Rights, it's built into the membership of the UN. Human rights abusers wouldn't be on the Council if they hadn't gotten voted onto it - often with a 2/3 majority of the general membership. The answer to the problem is contained in the US proposal to ban human rights abusers from the Council. But that proposal didn't go far enough. Instead of banning them from the council, they ought to be banned from the UN as voting members alltogether. A good third of the membership of the UN ought to be kicked out and have all UN aid cut off until they have open elections, a free press and go for at least 3 years without any major human rights abuse incidents. Why should the policies of this world peace organization be in any way influenced by nations which are perfect examples of the abuse and oppression which it was supposedly formed to combat? How can we let the UN continue to exist when it is effectively dominated by the worst world citizens who use it to spread their poison of corruption and abuse throughout the world. This is not what the United Nations was intended to be. Its charter says that its purpose is to:

reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.

Does this sound at all like a description of policies which Cuba, China or Iran want to promote on a worldwide basis? Human rights, social progress and larger freedom aren't exactly on the top of their list of priorities. The power and influence which these rogue nations wield at the UN demonstrates clearly that it has failed to live up to its charter, just like the League of Nations before it. When the League of Nations failed we replaced it with the UN. Now that it too has failed it's time for it to be replaced as well.

We Are the Minutemen of Our Times

Tue, 04 Jul 2006 15:00:44 GMT

In the Concord Hymn, Emerson wrote a moving and effective memorial for the citizen militia who a generation or so before had defended the North Bridge in Concord Massachusetts and repulsed multiple assaults by larger British forces to delay those soldiers so that their efforts to seize colonial armories could be thwarted. Emerson isn't my favorite poet, but his connection to that place and time gave him a special perspective on the events at Concord and the first verse of the hymn is particularly good at summing up the commitment and accomplishment of those few, brave men.

The Concord Hymn By the rude bridge that arched the flood, Their flag to April's breeze unfurled, Here once the embattled farmers stood, And fired the shot heard round the world. The foe long since in silence slept; Alike the conqueror silent sleeps; And Time the ruined bridge has swept Down the dark stream which seaward creeps. On this green bank, by this soft stream, We set to-day a votive stone; That memory may their deed redeem, When, like our sires, our sons are gone. Spirit, that made those heroes dare To die, and leave their children free, Bid Time and Nature gently spa The shaft we raise to them and thee. ----- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Those 'embattled farmers' were just the common men of the time, willing to take up arms and defend their homes and their rights against an oppressive enemy with superior forces, superior training and superior firepower. Outgunned and outmanned they could not be outfought. The very land they stood on gave them strength because they fought to defend their homes and for no gain or glory or king's coin. The 'shot heard round the world' which was fired by their rifles in defiance of the British government was truly remarkable, because armies around the world had fallen before those supremely disciplined troops in their red uniforms and yet driven primarily by issues of principle, these simple men were willing to stand up to the lead wall of the volleys of trained British muskets and take offer their lives and if necessary 'to die, and leave their children free'. Others in America and around the world heard that shot and answered its call and came to offer themselves to the cause of freedom. Some came great distances to fight for principle on behalf of people they had never met like Casimir Pulaski and Wilhelm von Steuben - enemies in the continental wars of Frederick the Great who fought on the same side for America. Others came to share their ideas and leadership, like Thomas Paine who served best with his pen rather than his sword. The idea of freedom and the willingness of individuals to fight for it is an enormously powerful force which still draws people to America 230 years later, willing to make their own sacrifices in order to be free. Unfortunately, those who have enjoyed freedom for generations often forget the sacrifices their forefathers made to attain that precious liberty and are seduced into leading complacent lives where they take their liberties for granted and may not notice as they slip away bit by bit through the incremental erosion of greed and ambition and well-intentioned folly. Every July 4th we light off fireworks and they're loud and bright, but while they may grab our attention for a moment they don't have the power to direct it towards the truth which the date of the Declaration of Independence ought to remind us of. That Declaration was the written expression of the beliefs which inspired the Minutemen who fought at Concord and for the rest of the War of Independence. What those fireworks ought to be telling us is that freedom is not free, that it must be paid for in blood and that we're never done spilling that blood and paying that price. Freedom is like a subscription and it has to be renewed periodically and each generation has to pay for that renewal or the subscription expires and becomes something less than what we signed on for in the first place. Each of us in some way can act to keep freedom alive in our times. We can volunteer to help out in our community. We can change our habits to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We can keep watch on our government and our leaders and on the forces abroad which threaten us. We can embrace and support those who love freedom and resist and oppose those who would destroy it. At the very least we can be informed on the issues and vote. We owe it to their great sacrifice to make our own smaller sacrifices to preserve the legacy of freedom which they entrusted to us.

Supreme Court Rules Against Trials for GITMO Detainees

Sat, 01 Jul 2006 03:09:04 GMT

In a decision which ought to reassure those on the left who think the court has gone too conservative, the Supreme Court has ruled in the case of Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld that prisonsers held at Guantanamo Bay cannot be tried by special military tribunals. The decision was based on both provisions of the Universal Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Convention. The main point of issue being that both documents suggest that specially convened courts cannot be used to try prisoners of war who must instead be offered the same quality of justice as non-combatants, which presumably means a normal trial under a legitimately constituted judiciary with a lawyer and all the trimmings. This argument had been struck down by a lower appeals court and was reinstated by the Supreme Court in a 5-3 decision with the Chief Justice recusing himself because the previous appeal had been heard in his court. Salim Ahmed Hamdan is a Yemeni who had been Osama bin Laden's bodyguard and driver and who was captured during the invasion of Afghanistan. Dissent from the opinion was strong, with the normally silent Justice Thomas demanding time minutes to make a statement rejecting the reasoning of the majority opinion written by Justice Stephens. The stumbling block for the efforts to try these prisoners in special courts appears to be the failure of Congress to pass legislation authorizing these courts under the UCMJ when they authorized the invasion of Afghanistan. This oversight could be corrected in hindsight and Republicans in Congress are drafting legislation to authorize special trials. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist commented:

''Since this issue so directly impacts our national security, I will pursue the earliest possible action in the United States Senate."

Another option which the administration has not discussed would be returning the prisoners to Afghanistan to stand trial, where the pro-American government would be able to try them legitimately but in a very unsympathetic environment. Of course, the one option which the administration is foolishly overlooking is putting the Guantanamo detainees on trial in US criminal courts. That would more than meet the criteria of the UCMJ and the Geneva Accords, under which they could be tried as terrorists rather than as legitimate combatants. As demonstrated in other cases American juries would be unlikely to be terribly sympathetic, but it appears that the associated publicity and potential difficulty of presenting the cases in a regular court are more than the administration wants to take on. Taken along with the 2004 decision from the Supreme Court which determined that the GITMO detainees could not be held indefinitely without trial, this ruling puts considerable pressure on the administration to go further in resolving the status of those still being held. Many detainees have already been returned to their home countries, where some immediately resumed their terrorist activities. Those who remain are likely the most dangerous of the lot, but they're a lot less dangerous to the United States if they're in a faraway country and that would at least be some progress. It might be a good idea to keep a few for show trials under US justice and just dump the rest at this point.

Medical Marijuana - The Fight Goes On

Tue, 27 Jun 2006 16:14:04 GMT

Yet again the House of Representaitves is considering a vote on the Hinchey-Rohrbacher Amendment, the Wilmot Proviso of the new millenium. It's an amendment jointly sponsored by a Republican and a Democrat to protect the rights and safety of private users of medical marijuana and exempt them from criminal prosecution. It doesn't legalize pot and doesn't even generally decriminalize marijuana. All it does is make sure that those suffering with AIDS, Cancer, Glaucoma and other medical conditions won't be thrown in jail for using the one viable treatment available for their conditions, by restricting federal authorities from interfering with state laws that protect medical marijuana users in the 11 states which have passed medical marijuana laws. The Drug Policy Alliance has done a really excellent job of raising public awareness of this issue, and their site has all the information you need to write your representative and urge them to support this bill. I could go on and on about the failure of the War on Drugs and the ridiculousness of spending tens of billions of dollars a year to turn what should be a victimless crime into a massive industry of organized crime and exploitation, but I'm sure you've heard that story before. Instead I wanted to praise the vision and courage of Dana Rohrbacher (R-CA) and Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) and the other Congressmen who've actually taken a stand on principle to support this amendment against the positions of the ruling elites of both political parties. Like David Wilmot 150 years ago they have placed principle ahead of politics and are doing the right thing - again and again - in the conviction that it will eventually lead to victory. It worked for Wilmot. He proposed his amendment almost 100 times prior to the Civil War and it was voted down every time. But Wilmost rests happy in his grave because the slaves were eventually freed. Let's hope that Rohrbacher, Hinchey and the thousands they are working to help don't have to endure that same kind of struggle before sanity prevails.

The UN and Supreme Irony on Independence Day

Tue, 27 Jun 2006 14:51:44 GMT

The first act of any tyrranical regime is to disarm the populace. One of the things which sets the United States apart from most of the rest of the world - more even than the other provisions of our Constitution - is that our Republic has built into it a tolerance of and endorsement of the right of our citizens to be armed. That right has been qualified and whittled down a bit more than I'm comfortable with over the years, but in principle it still survives. Yet right here, on our own soil during the week we celebrate our independence, the United Nations has gathered together representatives of the worlds many petty tyrranies to discuss the methods by which civilian populations can be disarmed on a world-wide basis, with their chief target the negation of the 2nd Amendment. The U.N. Conference to Review Progress Made in the Implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects is going on right now in New York - a city which shows the success of incrementalism in eroding our rights by maintaining its own unconstitutional ban on firearms. The chairman of the conference, Sri Lanka's Prasad Kariyawasam, maintains that the 2001 agreement on small arms and the discussion of the conference will focus on controlling the trade in illegal weapons, not on taking guns from private citizens, yet the wording of the original agreement which can be found in the UN Firearms Protocol does have some troubling elements. It is not a call for the outright ban of guns in the hands of private citizens, but it does clearly imply tight state controls on firearm ownership, including tracking of all guns in private hands and encouraging states to restrict private gun ownership as much as possible, saying:

Tighter controls over the possession of and access to small arms and light weapons by both authorized government bodies (police, armed forces) and by civilians would also help stem the illicit flow of arms.

For the UN the dividing line between privately held arms and illicit arms is a very fine one, merely the matter of the whim of a dictator or a future UN mandate. This may not be an outright gun ban as some have claimed, but it's a big step in that direction. And the real threat may come from the proposed legislation in Congress to implement the restrictions which the UN has mandated, legislation which includes rigid licensing restrictions for gun sales and severe penalties for the smallest infractions. Make no mistake that the intention of the UN and its supporters is the ultimate elimination of private gun ownership. Anti-gun radicals from all over the world have been invited to attend the conference in the expectation that their voices will be heard while those of the American public will be ignored. No one will appear to represent the interests of private gun owners. The 60 nations officially represented at the conference include a rogue's gallery of tyrranical and terrorist nations, among them Iran, China, Nigeria and Indonesia. The National Rifle Association has made a major issue of this conference, probably out of proportion to the real threat which it poses. Their efforts have been remarkably successful, with over 100,000 letters sent from their website to UN and US government officials decrying the conference and its efforts. Adding another letter to that pile probably wouldn't do any harm. The UN has, in past statements, singled out the US as a major offender in the proliferation of small arms largely because of our domestic market for firearms and our lack of repressive regulation of gun ownership.. The timing of this conference to coincide with our major patriotic holiday is certainly no coincidence. The UN is sending a message to gun manufacturers and gun owners that they stand hand in hand with groups like HGCI, IANSA and the Brady Campaign to work step by step to disarm American citizens and put them at the mercy of tyrrants at home and abroad. There will come a point where Americans in government and individually are going to have to decide whether they are willing to stand up for the protections of our Constitution against the dictates of the UN. This conference is one more step towards that moment of conflict.

The Relentless Negativism of the Left

Sat, 24 Jun 2006 19:52:08 GMT

The Relentless Negativism of the Left Global Warming Nuclear War Peak Oil National Debt Balance of Trade The world is falling apart, there's nothing we can do about it. Only the state can save us.

How to Write News for the Blogosphere

Fri, 23 Jun 2006 18:01:09 GMT

You may wonder why you would want to write news for a blog at all, given that there are so many newspapers and magazines already feeding their content to the web. What they post is pretty much the same as what they publish in their print editions - straight news, usually covered in fairly limited depth, and not presented in a way which makes any use of the power of the web to make news more complete and personal. The reason for you to write news on a blog is that you can do it better and more powerfully than they can in print or in a print article adapted to the web. There are three keys to writing good news for a blog. These are: � Depth. You can examine more aspects of a story and explore details and implications which the limitations of the print format make traditional reporters overlook. You can bring your readers the whole story, not just the highlights you find in newspaper or television reports. Go read a news piece from a TV news report sometime. They boil down major world events to one paragraph with no detail and no nuance. � Linking. In addition to providing a good, complete version of a story you can also link to other sources. You can give readers the opportunity to learn everything you knew when writing the story. You can send them to the full text of speeches and press conferences, to relevant documents and evidence, to editorials and other articles on the same topic, and even to the websites of the people involved in the story in many cases. � Perspective. Even when writing straight news there is room in the blog format for more personal expression and input. While remaining relatively objective, you can add your observations and interpretations of the facts. This should be done with some restraint and a certain amount of objectivity, but it can be valuable. It's particularly appropriate to use the freedom of the format to explain and analyze news issues in depth which is rarely attempted in the traditional press. You can take the time to explain why something is illegal or controversial or explore the different sides of an issue. Analysis is different from expressing opinion. When you analyze news you explain the events and put them in context. Opinion just means giving your personal thoughts, which should probably be kept to a minimum. The first thing to do in writing a blog news article is to find your sources. There are two kinds of sources, those you go to in order to find stories, and those you go to in order to do research. http://www.balancednewsblog.com/ http://www.cq.com - cqpolitics http://hosted.ap.org/ http://today.reuters.com/news/home.aspx http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/ http://www.tass.ru/eng/ http://www.afp.com/english/home/ feed://rss.cnn.com/rss/cnn_topstories.rss feed://www.foxnews.com/xmlfeed/rss/0,4313,0,00.rss feed://newsrss.bbc.co.uk/rss/newsonline_uk_edition/front_page/rss.xml

The Rational Solution for Gay Marriage

Tue, 20 Jun 2006 01:44:03 GMT

In Congress's recent consideration of a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as only between a man and a woman, no one seemed to be asking the fundamental question which underlies the entire gay marriage issue. Marriage is first and foremost a religious institution. It is a fundamental sacrament in most churches. Why does the government think it should be in the marriage business in the first place. What right do they have to dictate a matter of faith or to decide who can or can't get married in the first place? In all this talk about a Defense of Marriage Amendment our legislators seem to have missed the fact that we already have an amendment which defends marriage, the First Amendment. It clearly defends marriage as a sacrement of the church and declares it to be free from government interference when it says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

If my religion recognizes marriage as a sacrament and allows me to marry someone of the same gender, doesn't the First Amendment clearly say that Congress has no right to prohibit that exercise of religion and that I am free to practice that sacrament? To tell my church what it can and cannot define as a marriage seems like a total violation of this separation of church and state. Marriage isn't defined in the Constitution any more than Baptism or Confirmation is. The state doesn't try to interfere in those rituals. Why should it interfere in marriage? What we need here is not another amendment, but a clear decision from the Supreme Court declaring that the government has no jurisdiction over a religious institution like marriage. Then, if Congress wants to pass a law - it doesn't even have to be a Constitutional Amendment - which defines what kind of living relationships people can have, they should go to it. Of course any such law would need to pass muster under the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, which would certainly rule out prohibiting same-sex relationships or polygamy or any other arrangement involving consenting adults. Once you take marriage out of the arena of law and give it back to the church where it belongs, then any relationship between two people for the purposes of creating a household, combining assets and other activities like raising a family becomes a purely contractual relationship and falls under common law and the partnership laws of the individual states, all of which recognize the right of individuals to enter into binding contracts for extended periods of time and assign rights and legal status to those partnerships under the law, and anything can be written into a partnership contract, including shared control of assets and by extension presumably of children as well. Boilerplate partnership contracts could easily be developed which covered material possessions, powers of attorney, guardianship of children and every other concern and the local courthouse could have different versions available for different needs, so you wouldn't have to pay for a lawyer. Couples or members of a plural marriage or any other type of partnership could then file their contract at their local courthouse and that would be that. Or if they wanted, they could go to a church which sanctioned their particular form of marriage and have it recognized as a marriage under the laws of that church with a ceremony and everything. And make no mistake, there are plenty of churches willing to marry just about anyone to anyone else, and if there aren't someone will certainly start one to fill the need. This seems like a simple, clean solution to this divisive problem. It doesn't violate the sacred institution of marriage - in fact it ends years of government violation of religious rights. It doesn't add more useless junk to the Constitution or waste more time and money on pointless unpassable legislation. Finally, it allows consenting adults to live however they want so long as it harms no one else. Marriage protected and equal rights for all. What more could either side of this debate ask for? And if they aren't satisifed with a solution like this, then let them tell us honestly what greater political agenda and moral values they're really trying to force down our throats?

Amnesty for Terrorists? Why Not?

Fri, 16 Jun 2006 03:58:23 GMT

On Wednesday information leaked from the office of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that the Iraqi government was considering offering amnesty to terrorist groups who were willing to lay down their arms and cease hostilities. The reports were quickly repudiated in a statement issued later in the day, and Adnan Ali al-Kadhimi who had been the source of the leak was fired from the Maliki administration. In a public statement after his firing, Kadhimi stood by his assessment of the Iraqi administration's plans, saying: "The Prime Minister himself has said that he is ready to give amnesty to the so-called resistance, provided they have not been involved in killing Iraqis." Maliki's office was quick to distance itself from Kadhimi and to stress that any amnesty would only be considered for terrorists who had not killed US troops or Iraqi soldiers or civilians. Maliki went on to make a televised speech on Thursday where the issue of negotiating with terrorists was raised again with an emphasis that only those who did not have "Iraqi blood on their hands" would be approached. While talking to the Press on Wednesday, President Bush made a lot of use of the term 'reconcilliation' in the context of Iraq, which many of his opponents have interpreted as a subtle statement of support for this idea of offering an olive branch to selected terrorist groups. And it does seem likely that President Bush is aware of Prime Minister Maliki's intentions and that the US leadership in Iraq may also be involved in considering this course of action. In reaction, many on the left have gone absolutely berserk over this possibility. People who a week ago were shouting for us to get out of Iraq and basically give the country to the terrorists are now demanding that we draw a line in the sand and refuse to give a single inch. People who were shouting about the Maliki administration being a US puppet government are now demanding that we stop them from acting on this idea and tell them how to deal with their internal problems. A whole gaggle of Democrat politicians held a press conference to express their outrage, led by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) who said:

"It is shocking that the Iraqi prime minister is reportedly considering granting amnesty to insurgents who have killed U.S. troops. On the day we lost the 2,500th soldier in Iraq, the mere idea that this proposal may go forward is an insult to the brave men and women who have died in the name of Iraqi freedom. I call on President Bush to denounce this proposal immediately."

What on earth could have caused this sudden change of so many Democrats from doves to hawks overnight? Could it be the possibility that if Maliki can persuade most of the more moderate terrorists to lay down their arms, Iraq might not turn into the disaster they've been saying it is and it might even start to get sorted out before the midterm elections? When you look at it, are negotiations with some of the terrorist groups such a bad idea, and might this not be the right time to do it? You always want to go into negotiations from a position of strength. With sources inside Iraq suggesting that with the death of Zarqawi the Al Qaeda forces there are in total disarray and their own internal memos indicating that they are feeling 'gloomy' about their prostpects, and with a massive cleanup of Baghdad underway with 75,000 Iraqi troops hunting down terrorist cells, it looks very much like the Iraqi government is in the kind of strong position where they can afford to offer the hand of peace to some of the more legitimate groups, like the Shiite militias and bring them into the political process. If that takes amnesty, then it ought to be on the table. We've negotiated with terrorists throughout our history. We negotiated with the Viet Cong. We negotiated with the PLO. Today's terrorist may be remembered in history as a freedom fighter. Remember, our country was founded by terrorists - read up on the Sons of Liberty sometime. In fact, we've already negotiated with insurgents in Iraq during the course of the war, reaching accomodations with moderate militias in Basra and other areas to function as auxiliaries of the Iraqi military. So why not negotiate? Why not further isolate the truly criminal terrorists in Iraq by extending some consideration to those whose terrorism is more the product of internal Iraqi politics than of some grand Jihad? Making a few deals would make it much easier to hunt down and eliminate the real bad guys - hell, the militias will probably help us do it. What's more, if we've set Iraq up to be a sovereign nation, shoudn't it be the Iraqi leadership, who will have to deal with these people in the long run, who make the decision on how to treat them? It certainly shouldn't be Democrats on Capitol Hill who've been giving aid and comfort to these terrorists for years, just because the political winds are blowing against them now. I guess I'm weird because I'd like to see the War in Iraq end quickly with the establishment of law, order and a successful democratic government for the Iraqis. If that means negotiating with some terrorists, why the hell shouldn't we? I'd be outraged if our government and the Iraqi leaders weren't considering it.

Love Him or Hate Him, Karl Rove is a Survivor

Wed, 14 Jun 2006 16:05:22 GMT

After testifying five times about his involvement in the 'outing' of CIA operative Valerie Plame, Senior Whitehouse Advisor Karl Rove was finally notified this week that he would not face charges for his role in leaking her identity to the press. His attorney commented:

"We believe the special counsel's decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr Rove's conduct."

Others were far less pleased. Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean commented:

"He does not belong in the White House. If the president valued America more than he valued his connection to Karl Rove, Karl Rove would have been fired a long time ago. So, I think this is probably good news for the White House, but it is not very good news for America."

The final word on the subject went to President Bush at his press conference on Wednesday morning, where he said:

"I appreciate the job that the prosecutor did. I thought he conducted himself well in this investigation. He took a very thorough, long look at allegations and rumors. And I, obviously, along with others in the White House, took a sigh of relief when he made the decision he made. And now we're going to move forward. And I trust Karl Rove, and he's an integral part of my team."

As the news of his emergence from the shadow of prosecution was spreading, Rove was already out in public, apparently having dropped some weight and looking fitter and more energetic than he has in years, defending the President and promoting his policies in a series of public appearances and speeches. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the ormer Chief of Staff for Vice President Dick Cheney still faces charges for perjury and obstruction of justice. The main difference between Libby and Rove appears to be that Rove cooperated with the investigation and Libby did not. As in the Clinton impeachment, the main issue here was not the actions of the principles involved, but their attempts to cover them up by lying to the grand jury. What seems quite clear in this case is that ignorance is to some degree a defense in the eyes of the law, because Rove's main argument was that he didn't realize that Plame still had a covert identity because she was not actively working undercover and her role with the CIA was so widely known in Washington. That argument likely also clears anyone else at the Whitehouse who critics might have hoped would eventually be indicted. In the end, despite a personna which will likely always be controversial, Karl Rove wins another victory and the President continues to stand by him.

"Hadji Girl" - Silly Song or War Crime?

Wed, 14 Jun 2006 02:05:37 GMT

Controversy is growing over the release of an amateur video of what appears to be a singing U.S. Marine performing a song called "Hadji Girl" while people in the background laugh and applaud. The video was first released on the video-sharing network YouTube which features a wealth of silly and bizarre amateur videos. It eventually came to the attention of the frequent terrorist-apologists at The Council on American-Islamic Relations who complained to YouTube and issued an enraged press release, with the result that YouTube yanked the video, the press began playing up the controversy and immediately every teenager who had downloaded a copy re-uploaded it to YouTube.

HADJI GIRL I was out in the sands of Iraq, and we were under attack, and I, well I didn�t know where to go. Then the first thing that I see is everybody�s favorite BurgerKing. So I threw open the door and I hit the floor. Then suddenly to my suprise, I looked up and I saw her eyes, and I knew it was love at first sight. And she said� Dirka dirka Muhammed jihad sherpa sherpa bakala. Hadji girl I can�t understand what you say. And she said Dirka dirka Muhammed jihad sherpa sherpa bakala. Hadji girl I love you anyway. And she said that she wanted me to see; She wanted my to go meet her family But I, well I couldn�t figure out how to say 'no', Cause I dont speak Arabic, so� She took me down an old dirt trail And we pulled up to a side shanty And she threw open the door And I hit the floor� Cuz her brother and her father shot her. Dirka dirka Muhammed jihad sherpa sherpa bakala They pulled out their AKs so I could see and they said Dirka dirka Muhammed jihad sherpa sherpa bakala so I grabbed her little sister and put her in front of me. As the bullets began to fly the blood sprayed from between her eyes and then I laughed maniacally. Then I hid behind the TV and I locked and loaded my M16, I blew those little fuckers to eternity. And I said Dirka dirka Muhammed jihad sherpa sherpa bakala. They shoulda known they were fuckin with a Marine

The video features a man dressed in camouflage pants and an olive-green t-shirt with a miltiary-style haircut - to all appearances a Marine - playing guitar and singing while the recording picks up laughter and applause from the background. The song is clearly intended to be humorous, and the crowd heard on the video clearly appreciates the humor. However, the lyrics of the song and its references to violence both to and by moslems were not at all appreciated by CAIR, who apparently have a different take on what's amusing. The Marine Corps doesn't seem to be amused either and strongly condemned the video as "clearly inappropriate and contrary to the high standards expected of all Marines." The reaction in the blogosphere has been to disseminate the video everywhere, even as friends of the marine involved are attempting to discourage any further distribution and get it off of sites where it has already been posted. Not wanting that to happen, CAIR has even posted it on their website. The written reaction has been mixed, from right wing blogs like General Quarters calling the singer "the finest stage talent the Marine Corps has EVER produced!" to those on the left who are cursing it for everything from insensitivity to being an outright war crime. Interestingly, the video has been circulating on the internet for several months with little public reaction or criticism from Moslem groups until this week, when it CAIR discovered it and has made much of the video in the context of the Haditha incident. The video itself is ambiguous in a number of ways. There's no indication who the singer is, where he is, and what his status as a Marine is. While he's wearing what look like military clothes he is not technically in uniform and has no insignia of rank or unit visible. There's also the issue of the sound quality of the video. The audio track appears to be out of sequence with the video and may even have been recorded separately and combined with the video. While lip reading suggests that most of the lyrics are the same in the audio and video, the fact that they are out of synchronization raises a lot of questions. CAIR has been accused of misrepresenting the nature and content of the song. Clearly it's a song about the Iraq war, but at the same time it's obviously satire - the oft-repeated nonsense phrase having been drawn directly from the movie Team America: World Police. In addition, contrary to CAIR's claims, the song is not about murdering Iraqi civilians, but appears to clearly be about a soldier who is lured into danger by terrorists and defends himself. It isn't the Marine who starts the violence, but the family of the 'Hadji Girl' who shoot her and her sister to get to him. Plus there's a dark irony in the final refrain where by repeating the nonsense words of the terrorists the Marine demonstrates that he has become like them. Yes, the images are ugly and the tone is jingoistic, but it's hardly as terrible as some are making it out to be. Although the Marine who sings the song in the video has not been officially identified, some comments have surfaced on the internet from people in the service who claim to know him and to have been present when the song was performed. According to those sources he is not referring to any specific incident, and the song was written immediately after and in the context of having viewed the movie Team America: World Police. In addition, the singer has not been deployed in combat in Iraq and there's nothing autobiographical about the song, contrary to suggestions which have been made by some critics. CAIR is, of course, demanding that the singer be disciplined, and it's quite likely that by this point he has been identified, but as yet there has been no statement from the Pentagon regarding his identity or his fate. There's a long history of the 'barracks-room ballad' - humorous songs written during wartime about the enemy, like the famous Colonel Bogey's March during World War II. The tradition goes back as long as there have been wars. I actually presented a paper at a conference about war ballads of the 14th century. When these songs originate with the troops they tend to be scatalogical, graphic and pretty dark. In past eras they've circulated quietly and then ultimately been recorded nostalgically after the fact and become part of our cultural heritage. The existence of video and the internet has taken them out of the barracks and put them on the front lines of the propaganda war which now accompanies every conflict. What's truly unfortunate about this video is the use to which it is being put. Taking it at face value and setting aside all the questions about the origin and nature of the video, what we're dealing with here is basically a silly song from some soldiers who are blowing off steam about the frustrating nature of the war they're in. The real tragedy is that in our overexposed culture their private moment of humor has now gotten out into a public forum where it cannot be just laughed off as it would have been...

Reforming the UN

Sat, 10 Jun 2006 16:59:06 GMT

The UN is in the midst of a crisis. Superfically it is a crisis caused by corruption and incompetence, but at a deeper level it is a crisis of legitimacy. The UN lacks the basic ethical foundation to function with legitimate authority as a world peacekeeping body. The UN is a democratic organization. You know, democracy. That stuff the USA so energetically and enthusiastically exports to the rest of the world. How on earth could you possibly object to a working democratic organization? While it may technically be a democracy because it votes on things, it isn't representative in any sense of the word. First off, in the general assembly every nation has an equal vote regardless of population or any other consideration, including whether that government is itself legitimately elected. Plus some of those dictatoriships are represented on the Security Council, which is absolutely unacceptable. This was a problem we had in the US over 200 years ago in the Confederation Congress and we were able to figure out a solution. The Security Council itself is unfair and undemocratic. It arbitrarily empowers certain nations over others in many cases with little or no justification or contrary to any kind of good sense. If you want a working UN it needs to be restructured to actually be representative. This can be done in the following ways: 1. No nation which doesn't have a verifiably and popularly elected government with a working legal system should be allowed a vote at the UN. They can be provisional, non-voting members. 2. There should be a two-house system of government, with one house representing the populations of the member states, with 1 representative for each 10 million population in that nation and one representative for all nations with less than that total population. There should be an upper house with representation based on GDP, with 1 representative for each 1 trillion in GDP. Both houses should have to agree on all legislation with the upper house proposing and framing all legislation involving spending or appropriations. Alternatively, if you don't like a 2 house system, you could make representation based on a combination of population and GDP. 3. The UN should have the ability to determine its own taxation rate and all members should be required to participate. Provisional members should pay a flat fee. All others should pay proportional to GDP. How that money is raised is up to the individual nations involved. The tax should be constitutionally capped at no more than .5% of GDP. That would be $72 billion for the US. 4. The court system should be constitutionally limited to jurisdiction only over disputes between member nations and issues which are strictly international in nature. 5. There should be a prohibition against any form of standing army. This should be part of a clearly written bill of rights applying to INDIVIDUALS, protecting them from the UN and their own governments. In the USA's case, by withholding vast sums of money and in the process both financially and politically weakening it seems to be the preferred choice. The irony of the situation seems to escape almost all of you. What the US is doing is the MOST democratic form of protest. We are withholding our support from a pseudogovernment which doesn't make any effort to look out for our interests and actively works against our welfare in many situations. Since the UN is not democratic in any way except for the money it asks for, that's where the real voting power lies. Furthermore, the USA lacks any credible claim to the moral high ground. If it was genuinely interested in ridding the world of some of the most corrupt and evil regimes in history, it would be invading countries like Burma and Zimbabwe not failed states like Afghanistan or Iraq. What does moral high ground have to do with anything? The UN includes these repressive regimes as full voting members and does nothing to discipline them. They even put murderous governments on the human rights and security councils. They have no moral standing at all. We at least have the moral position of knowing something is wrong with the UN and not being willing to put up with it. You really need to clear the blinders from your eyes. The UN is no more your friend than the giant, bloodsucking bureaucracy of the EU is. Dave