The Dems won't be campaigning during primaries on this story.

What a knothead.

Knothead: one who has managed to remain blissfully unaware of the depredations of communism and other utopian schemes of the 20th century.

""He (Mr Gambari) plans to come again in November. Whatever the regime told him, he did. While he was there, we were being shot, we were being detained. After he left, there was more rounding up of people," so said Surinder Karkar Singh, one of the leaders of the Burmese protest movement referring to the UN envoy. 

This would be yet another example of how the UN protects dictatorial regimes.

The PRC subsidizes and arms the Burmese military junta, thereby making any action against Burma (Myanmar) impossible.

Russia and the PRC block action against Iran and the Sudan.

The only nation that the UN can unite against is the only nation in its region that is capable of self-criticism and is a functioning, stable democracy: Israel.

The UN is a joke.  The UN is, at best, worthless. 

The UN is, at worst, a force for the spread of illiberalism and oppression.

Isn't it time we jettison the UN? 

Apparently, some people haven't gotten the message that Che Guevarra was a brutal psychopath. 

I was going to link to the wikipedia entry, but there didn't appear to be any discussion of his treatment of prisoners.

He died 9 October 1967. 

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

The Monroe Doctrine refers to the principle, enunciated by President Monroe (see also the Roosevelt Corollary), that the United States would not permit colonial powers to interfere in the Western Hemisphere.

U.S. support for the Contras against the Soviet client state of the Sandanistas would be an example of this doctrine in action.

The U.S. has not always abided by this doctrine--allowing Castro to set up a Soviet client state on our doorstep that outlasted the Soviets, is one example.

We are presently seeing another example.  Venezuela, under Chavez, is increasingly in the orbit of the successor to the Soviets--Putin's gangersterism.  Chavez makes massive arms purchases to defend against the U.S.--as though cruddy Russian arms in the hands of poorly trained conscripts could stand against the U.S. military.  The PRC has invested heavily in Venezuela's energy sector and Chavez seeks to sell his oil only to non-U.S. purchasers.

Chavez is buddying up to the axis of evil by breaking bread with the eye doctor and Mahmoud "there are no homosexuals in Iran" Ahmadinejad.  Kim Jong-Il may find Venezuela to be a better destination for his nuclear technology, as it is not likely to be bombed by Israel in Caracas.

The Monroe Doctrine was intended to guarantee American national security.  When President Monroe issued the proclamation, the U.S. was not in any position to actually enforce such a strategy--the UK had intended issuing a similar proclamation but was beaten to the punch by President Monroe's December 2, 1823 Congressional address.  The aim was to keep out nations which might compete with the U.S., or might U.S. Latin American colonies as bases from which to threaten the U.S. ("...It is only when our rights are invaded, or seriously menaced, that we resent injuries, or make preparation for our defence. With the movements in this hemisphere, we are, of necessity, more immediately connected, and by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers.  ...") 

Why does the U.S. permit such non-friendly entities as Putin's resurgent, aggressive Russia and the militaristic and imperialistic PRC to gain a toe-hold in our neighborhood?

Why does the U.S. Congress make moves to isolate reliable U.S. allies, as Columbia?  The Congress wants to force Columbia to adopt ACLU levels of respect for human rights, before signing off on a free trade agreement--why does the Congress not expect the same from the PRC?

The U.S. may be heavily engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan, but that does not mean the U.S. is incapable of keeping it's nation-state enemies at arm's length.  The world is full of enough dangers and unreasonable actors without inviting them into our foyer.  It is said, "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer", but this is ridiculous.

How many people consider a 21 year old a kid?

I don't know how many people care about the Oklahoma State University coach's blow up last weekend, but I think it speaks to a pernicious trend in our society.

The infantilization of America.

Coach Gundy, in his tirade, continually referred to QB Reid as a kid.  The whole thing is disgusting.

I was mildly sympathetic until I read the article.  Sure, the article was poorly sourced.  The author obviously studied journalism in college, rather than a real major requiring critical reasoning and properly sourcing one's writing. 

A 21 year old is not a kid.  Gundy, in exclaiming loudly that he was a man, as opposed to Reid, was just odd.  Since when is a 21 year old not a man?

I was 18 when I signed for my first college loan.  I was 18 when I enlisted in the National Guard.  I'd like to think I was an adult--the bank certainly thought so, as did Uncle Sam. 

So, how is a 21 year old to be exempt from criticism because he is allegedly a "kid"?  If he is a "kid", then he's got some serious issues.

This seems to spring from the same fount where certain unnamed presidential candidates (and other politicians) refer to the U.S. military as "kids".  The average age of troops in Iraq is something like 25.  The U.S. military is not a military of conscripts, but rather a professional military: people make careers of the military, rather than serve two and jet.

This is the retarded adolescence which finds 30 year old "kids" living in their parents' basements playing video games.  It is the retarded adolescence wherein the "government" is seen as a benevolent Santa Claus figure, rather than as a guarantor of law and order (allegedly) and national defense.

The country seems to be trying to prolong childhood ever longer (while simultaneously treating children as though they were competent to make adult decisions), with Uncle Sam playing the role of benevolent father figure.  It is as though our country no longer recognizes the difference between adulthood and childhood, having merged the two into a perpetual adolescence.

That is not a recipe for a successful nation.

The inestimable Dr Theodore Dalrymple (pseudonym) has written a worthy article for City Journal.  In it, he discusses Islam as the new Marxism.

The new revolutionary is now Takfiri (or Qutbism), rather than Marxist (this explains the left's condescension to view a religion as acceptable).  This makes sense, as Sayyid Qutb had quite a bit of Marxist in him.  UBL seeks to appeal to the lumpenproletariat of the Muslim world to recruit his cannon fodder.

Illych Ramírez (Carlos the Jackal) Sánchez converted to Islam--although his Islam sounds a lot like the Muslim version of RC "Liberation Theology", in terms of religion as an excuse to follow a socialist path.  This, of course, follows quite nicely with my contention that AQ, HAMAS, Hezb'Allah, et cetera have political goals and merely use Islam as a vehicle to achieve those goals (re-establishment of the Caliphate, destruction of Israel, cowing of the West, et cetera). 

If Marxism had not been discredited (in Afghanistan and elsewhere), UBL would drop the emphasis on Islam and explicitly state his Marxist agenda (rather than dressing it in Islamic terms).  UBL, etc are helped in this endeavor by the Medina verses of the Qu'ran (abrogate contradictory prior verses from Mecca), which call for conversion of the world (and murder of Jews, and etc). 

This is not to claim that UBL, et cetera, are not Muslims--they seem to think they are--but merely to note the aggressively Marxist undertones of their agendas.

That ought to suffice for background information.

A pertinent question, I suppose, is why there is such an attraction for Leftist Revolution.  Of course, the idea of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is morally satisfying, at some level.  The problem is that such a program cannot work.  It butts into the problem of human nature.  It assumes that all people will work as hard as possible, according to the best of their ability.

We've all, I assume, met some lazy asses who are nothing but a drag on any team.  Such lazy persons exist in a society that rewards hard work--how many would exist in a society where hard work is not rewarded?  Oh wait, we need merely witness the Soviet economy for that answer.

This strange compulsion to create heaven on earth is inexplicable to many people.  Some believe heaven exists only after purification.  Others believe that no such place exists and all we've got are our 70 years (usually less). 

The desire to create a Just society, while admirable on some level, has caused more death and destruction than the mere thirst for power.  Hitler's desire to create a "thousand year Reich"; Lenin's (and countless others) have desired to create a "worker's paradise"; Jonestown; et cetera: these have all led to many deaths--in most cases millions (see, for example, "The Black Book of Communism").  Napoleon and Alexander did not cause the death of a fraction of the people killed by Communism.

The problem is that heaven will not and cannot be created on earth.  Human nature makes such a prospect impossible.  As one example, world Peace cannot be achieved because nations that have foresworn war will find themselves at the mercy of those who haven't.  No transnational body can enforce such a state of affairs (without transgressing on the idea of Peace).

The continual draw to create the perfect society (ruled by Shari'a or by the proletariat or by philosopher kings) will continue to plague us so long as there are humans on this earth.  Someone always knows best and has the means to try to force those beliefs on others.  (Force multipliers seem to be decreasing the price of admission--Lenin and Robespierre had to control entire countries--yippee).

I'm not a big fan of Sen Coleman, but he's sure got the right enemies.

I was at the gym the other day when I saw this ad.  At first, all I saw where some kids in DCUs running through an obstacle course.  I thought it was an ad for that idiotic "Kidnation" bit on CBS.  I thought, "wow, they're going to invade "Toys R Us"".

Then a narrator comes on and demands that Sen Coleman demand U.S. troops tuck tail and run.  I missed the first bit, where the narrator asked if we ought to start training our children now, but the implication of the ad (listen to the rest of the narrative) seems to be that our troops (myself included) are helpless children who have to be protected from bad men.

I cussed fluently and drew some rather odd looks.  It was easily the most insulting thing I'd seen in a while (and I watched the aptly named "Superbad").

Perhaps it is because I'm more attuned to bumper-stickers of the left, but it seems to me--despite the claims of the left that the right is possessed of a bumper-sticker mentality--that there are considerably more leftist bumper-stickers than there are rightist.

It seems as though most bumper-stickers of the right are either in support of a candidate, or in support of the NRA.  The left is full of little alleged witticisms (some of which are rather clever), to go with bumper-stickers supporting candidates (Al Franken?, you've got to be kidding me).

I don't know.  Perhaps, I'm too nuanced, but I really can't think of any of my political beliefs that would fit on a bumper-sticker ("The government that governs best, governs least", nah, too long).

The current crop of candidates for the GOP nomination don't exactly fire me up--a few months ago I jokingly announced my support for a non-entity named John Cox. 

I don't ask for much--a federal government that pursues four goals: (am I allowed to use a dash and a colon?) providing for national security, providing for the national defense, conducting foreign policy, and ensuring inter-State co-operation--ironically, these are the powers of the federal government as provided by Article 1, Section 8 (discussing the powers of the Congress).  Everything else proceeds from this limited vision of federal power.

The Constitution of the United States has been understood to have created a federal government of enumerated powers, i.e. the federal government only has those powers specifically granted it, or necessary for the exercise of those powers (enabling clause/necessary and proper).  The 10th Amendment clearly spells this out.

What this means is that I see the entire edifice of the "welfare state" to be an unconstitutional interpolation.  The phrase "general welfare" does appear twice in the Constitution: once in the preamble ("..,promote the general Welfare..."); and once in Article One, Section 8, paragraph 1 ("...provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States...").

The initial "general Welfare", in the context in which it appears, refers to the mere establishment of the United States of America (organized under the U.S. Constitution), and the displacement of the Articles of Confederation.  The U.S. Constitution created a government better equipped to confront external threats and ensure domestic tranquility--which would be beneficial to the general Welfare.  Had the authors of the U.S. Constitution intended the Federal government to be empowered to create the modern "welfare state", they had their chance in Art 1, Sec 8.

But what do we find there?  

Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 1 discusses the power of the government to collect taxes, duties, excises, and imposts in order to repay debts and provide for the "common Defense and general Welfare of the United States..."  This is not the general Welfare of the citizens of the United States, but the Welfare of the United States.

Is this, perhaps, splitting hairs?  No, it is not.  The U.S. Constitution establishes and guarantees zero positive rights.  All rights guaranteed by the Constitution are negative rights (freedom from...).  The only duties of the government are to provide a secure and stable environment wherein the citizens of the United States are free to pursue lawful activities. 

A minimum wage, a right to employment, a right to health care, et cetera, are positive rights--meaning someone has to do something for you.  The U.S. Constitution does not provide for any such rights.  The founders could not even conceive of such "rights".  (And the Constitution is not a living document.  This is not a political, or a legal position.  It is a fact.  The Constitution provides a means for the alteration--or updating--of the Constitution.)

Perhaps I could be persuaded that the Constitution's references to the "general Welfare" justify the establishment of the "welfare state"--or, rather, the government as a charity--if the federal government were competent to act in such a manner.  It is not, and it cannot be.  The reason that it cannot be, is that it is a large bureaucracy--and any public entity charged with charity will be a large bureaucracy--and cannot view people as individuals and therefore cannot justly provide charity. 

And I lied, I cannot be persuaded that the government has the Constitutional authority to act as a charity.

A currently abandoned Constitutional notion, that of "police powers" formerly held that States are responsible for the health, safety, and welfare of their own citizens.  I believe Chief Justice Taney (of Dred Scot ignominy) was the last to invoke "police powers" in the defense of federalism.  Lately, the Court has held that the protection of Federalism is properly located in the political branched of government.

Remarkable restraint: if only the Courts were to recognize abortion, national security, et cetera, as best left to the political branches, we'd be better off.  The problem is, of course, that the Constitution creates and establishes a two-tiered system of government--a Federal system of government, if you will.  The States were free to establish their own systems of government, provided that they selected republican forms of government, while the U.S. Constitution created a limited government to be over the top of those State governments.  Federalism, is, therefore, properly protected by the Courts, as it is a Constitutional issue, not a political issue.

Where does this leave me?

The government that governs least, governs best.

I'm kind of a Dr Ron Paul kind of guy.  ...But, and a large but, at that, I view the war in Iraq as vital to our national security. 

I'm just looking for someone committed to federalism.  This is not a popular position, so I'm prepared to be disappointed.  Again.

(Feel free to correct me on any point--I'm still building my defense.  As an undergraduate, I attempted to address the evolution of the concept of "federalism" for ConLaw: the professor accused me of, figuratively, using a shotgun to kill a mouse--I bit off more than I could chew and had to re-write a 12 page examination of my topic in a week--while finishing off a 18 page position paper on the effect of media on right wing terrorism in the U.S.).

If Sen McCain stumbled into Sioux County, then he's lost his bearings.  Sioux County, ND is one of two (out of 53) counties that is reliably democrat leaning in Presidential elections.

I'd also like to point out that I didn't have to do any thinking on this post.

Update from Richard Viguerie.

Another update: this from Club for Growth.  (I'm more of a Club for Growth kind of conservative.  Ergo, Gov. Huckabee's denigrating the Club for Growth, as the Club for Greed, doesn't sit well with me.  Byron York's article challenging the Club for Growth's designation of Gov Huckabee as a foe of growth is noted, but I am not, as yet, convinced.)

Ran across a reference to a 2003 NYT editorial which stated that there were two lessons to be learned from Viet Nam.  Firstly, that "Americans should not be sent to die for aims the country on vaguely understands and accepts".  Secondly, that the U.S. "should never enter a war without a clear exit strategy".

The first is merely a function of the Administration proposing war being able to explain to the American people why the war is necessary and in the best interests of the U.S. 

The second lesson, however, does not even acknowledge reality.  It is the height of idiocy and any self-respecting person ought to be embarrassed to even discuss such a nonsensical complaint.

Every war has the exit strategy of victory.  If you go into a war planning on how to escape, then you don't plan on winning.  If you don't plan on winning, then don't start.  Under such circumstances, one should never go to war.

Oh, wait...I get it. 

The NYT merely attempted to put a hard-headed realism on blatant pacifism.  Sorry, doesn't fly.

The question as to whether or not the U.S. ought to invade Iraq should focus on whether or not vital national interests would be/have been served by the war.  Instead, the "debate" consists of pseudo-moralizing (so many refugees...nevermind, so many dead Shi'a...nevermind, so many dead Sunni...nevermind...it's a civil war that we need to get out of the way of...) and the alleged lies which led to war. 

Sorry, doesn't cut it.  Address the issue on national interest terms or stay home.

The pseudo-moralizing is exposed by those who acknowledge that a slaughter would follow our retreat, but claim that such an occurrence is none of our business because we cannot be everywhere there's a slaughter.  (That is so pathetic as to be a non-complaint.)  Or, the Shi'a led government hasn't passed certain oil revenue sharing bills, so we should leave.  Inconsistency is the mark of the isolationist/pacifist left.

The alleged lies of the Administration are irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not such a war served the national interest.  I'm of the Michael Ledeen ("War Against the Terror Masters") school of thought--I've no problem with decapitating a terrorist sponsoring and supporting state.

Conclusion: calls for an exit strategy, or complaints that no exit strategy existed are un-serious.  No serious opponent of either the war, or war in general, would bother with such a frivolous complaint.

Secondly, those who would criticize either the decision to launch a war, or the decision to maintain the war, need to make their case on national interest grounds, or not at all.  At the minimum, a wee consistency would be admirable.

It is a horrible dilemma to be in: one's citizens at the mercy of savages.  It is horrible all the more because there is only one responsible path.

The RoK has failed to take the responsible path and has put their citizens at the mercy of terrorists.  By capitulating to these Taliban barbarians the RoK has sent the message that they can be blackmailed into behaving whatever way barbarians wish.  With a noted nuclear blackmailer immediately to their north, this is not a good message to send.

Succumbing to the demands of barbarians is akin to backing down to a bully: it is an invitation to continued bullying.  This seems trite, but nations that have complied with the demands of kidnappers have invited more kidnappings.  Hostage takings are traditionally a high risk[1] terrorist act and terrorist leaders are traditionally risk averse (that’s why they stay behind the scenes).  Succumbing to the demands of hostage takers moves hostage taking from a high risk activity to a low risk activity.  Where a high risk activity (and high reward) becomes a low risk activity, while maintaining its high reward, it becomes more likely.

This is why the official policy of the United States is one of no-negotiation (it is actually one of limited concession, but that is neither here nor there).

My favorite editorialist’s take on the subject: “Some of those Christians decided to become missionary in Afghanistan no less, which is a[s] reckless as fundamentalis[t] militants think that preaching Christianity in Islamic lands is a sort of military invasion.”

This is odd because there really was a military invasion of Afghanistan.  The Taliban was deposed after a six week quagmire and was banished to Baluchistan (where Pakistani intelligence welcomed them with open arms; after all, the Taliban was a creation of Inter-Services Intelligence).

[1] …terrorism can be divided into high risk and low risk acts.  Likewise, terrorist groups can be divided into risk preferring and risk averse.  High-risk acts of terrorism most commonly entail the taking of hostages and demands of ransom.  These would include barricading, kidnapping, and hijacking.  Low risk acts are those with persons not held in lieu of a ransom (for example, demanding ransom for not detonating bombs) and the ransom being less often monetary than in terms of recognition.  Such acts would be bombings, arson, and assassination.  Low risk acts are by far the most common acts, occurring in 93 percent of incidents examined by Corsi (Cauley, Sandler, and Tschirhart, 1983).  Ezeldin (1991) reports that bombings account for nearly 50 percent of terrorist acts.

                Which class or type of tactics chosen depends upon:

1.       The mindset of the terrorist group leadership (those who make decisions concerning policy and acts to be carried out).

2.       Resources available to the terrorist group, including but not limited to, personnel.

3.       Chosen target with symbolic message to be sent.

4.       Availability of targets.

The choice is most often based on reason.  The decision to engage in terrorism may be another question altogether, but one cannot use goals to determine rationality, a view shared by Pockress as applied to Irish violence (as cited in White, 1998).  Rather, one is said to be rational when they are able to efficiently utilize scarce resources in the furtherance of those goals (Cauley, Sandler, and Tschirhart, 1983).  Whether or not someone holds rational beliefs is irrelevant; what is important is how he/she makes decisions and utilizes available resources.  The fact that low risk incidents occur at a much greater frequency than high risk acts is also an indicator of rationality. 

The U.S. invaded Pakistan!  Someone's been listening to Sen Obama.

Not really.  The U.S. asked for, and received permission from Pakistan to fire at militants in border provinces who were using Pakistani territory as a staging area, according to coalition spokesmen.

Apparently the naive recklessness of Sen Obama is convincing foreign leaders that it's best to have adults in charge of the U.S.  Now if only we could find one.

Of course, it's not quite so simple as that.  Major General Waheed Arshad, a Pakistani military spokesman, denied the claim of the Coalition that permission had been granted.  This would be a potentially bad sign.  The military is President (and General) Musharraf's power base--it was his intelligence community which ceded Baluchi provinces to the Taliban last year.  If President Musharraf has lost his military also, an intelligence coup could become imminent.  A.Q. Khan would be the rule, not the exception concerning Pakistan's nuclear program.

Granted, Musharraf could just be covering his arse.

Iran continues to hold American citizens as hostages.  Esfandiari has been released from Evin prison, but her passport is still in Iranian hands.  Two other Americans, Shakeri and Tajbakhsh, remain in prison, while yet another, Azima, has been released but, like Esfandiari, is not permitted to leave Iran. 

Ordinarily, when a nation's (nation A) citizens are kidnapped by a foreign nation (nation B), A makes, at minimum, a diplomatic stink.  When B is a known sponsor, subsidiser, and supporter of terrorists, as well as actively engaged in committing acts of war against A's military personnel, one would expect a harsher response.  Further, when the B was founded on an act of war against A, a harsher response is necessary to discourage additional abominations against A's citizens.

The U.S., on the other hand, does nothing of the kind.  By doing nothing, the U.S. courts further depredations against U.S. citizens.

Yippee.  I start to see one reason why Americans abroad claim to be Canadian. 

UN Resolution 687 "ended" the first Gulf War.  This Resolution required numerous obligations on the part of Saddam, in exchange for the war ending.

While I consider the UN to be, at best, a useless fantasy, and at worst, a force for evil in the world, many people seem to assign some sort of moral authority to the UN.  Granted, even if the UN has moral authority, it lacks actual ability to actually enforce its resolutions (which, in many cases, is a good thing).

Resolution 687 was a cease fire, and, presumedly, violating the terms of the cease fire ought to result in a resumption of hostilities (granted, North Korea is permitted to violate the cease fire with impunity--yet another example of the ineffectiveness of the UN) .  It took 11 years, but hostilities finally resumed--after yet more UN resolutions.

How did Saddam violate the terms of the cease fire?

The Declaration states:

"8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:

(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;

(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities; "

It is entirely possible that Saddam's WMD stocks deteriorated to uselessness.  It is a fact, however, that Saddam still had ballistic missiles with a range of greater than 150 klicks.

"9. Decides, for the implementation of paragraph 8 above, the following:

(a) Iraq shall submit to the Secretary-General, within fifteen days of the adoption of the present resolution, a declaration of the locations, amounts and types of all items specified in paragraph 8 and agree to urgent, on-site inspection as specified below;

(b) The Secretary-General, in consultation with the appropriate Governments and, where appropriate, with the Director-General of the World Health Organization, within forty-five days of the passage of the present resolution, shall develop, and submit to the Council for approval, a plan calling for the completion of the following acts within forty-five days of such approval:

(i) The forming of a Special Commission, which shall carry out immediate on-site inspection of Iraq's biological, chemical and missile capabilities, based on Iraq's declarations and the designation of any additional locations by the Special Commission itself;

(ii) The yielding by Iraq of possession to the Special Commission for destruction, removal or rendering harmless, taking into account the requirements of public safety, of all items specified under paragraph 8 (a) above, including items at the additional locations designated by the Special Commission under paragraph 9 (b) (i) above and the destruction by Iraq, under the supervision of the Special Commission, of all its missile capabilities, including launchers, as specified under paragraph 8 (b) above;

(iii) The provision by the Special Commission of the assistance and cooperation to the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency required in paragraphs 12 and 13 below;" (italics added)

The defection of Saddam's son in law proved that Saddam had failed to abide by the terms of the cease fire.  And this was in 1995.

"32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism; "

Mujahideen-e-Khalq operated out of Iraq.  Saddam subsidized terrorism in Israel.  Saddam's Fedayeen was a terrorist organization, trained (poorly), and reporting directly to Saddam's Presidential palace.  Saddam sponsored terrorism, including the attempted assassination of Former President Bush (1993) and the planned bombing of RFE/RL (1998).  Saddam provided a safe haven for Abu Abbas, Abdul Yasin (allegedly under arrest), and Abu Zarqawi.

Saddam sponsored, subsidized, trained, and sheltered international terrorists (which is far more than the Taliban did).