A Jury of His Peers: Saddam and His Friends in the “International Community”
From Cox and Forkum:
Howard Dean Wishes to Sacrifice American Sovereignty to Other Nations
From Cox and Forkum:
Democrat presidential candidate Howard Dean made a speech recently in which he revealed who he thinks should control American military interventions.
Dean said he "would not have hesitated" to launch an attack on Iraq "had the United Nations given us permission and asked us to be part of a multilateral force."In other words, in matters of self defense, Dean expects the U.S. to ask permission from an organization that harbors the dictators and tyrants from whom we seek to defend ourselves. (Saddam's Iraq was a U.N. member). But Dean wasn't the first candidate to tout his willingness to sacrifice America's sovereignty to other nations. There was also this comment from Wesley Clark.
Well, if I were president right now, I would be doing things that George Bush can't do right now, because he's already compromised those international bridges. I would go to Europe and I would build a new Atlantic charter. I would say to the Europeans, you know, we've had our differences over the years, but we need you. The real foundation for peace and stability in the world is the transatlantic alliance. And I would say to the Europeans, I pledge to you as the American president that we'll consult with you first. You get the right of first refusal on the security concerns that we have. We'll bring you in. [Emphasis added]Can you imagine France and Germany agreeing to let us attack any terrorist-sponsoring nation? Of course not. And that's exactly the goal of Clark and Dean: to humble the American giant before the world. Bush certainly has his "multilaterist" tendency that are cause for great concern. But these two would apparently relinquish control of our military as a matter of principle
Recommended Reading: Howard Dean's Anti-American Foreign Policy by Allen Forkum
Howard Dean considers it more "moral" and "idealistic" to use our military self-sacrificially and not selfishly for American interests. To him it is better when our soldiers risk death for the sake of other countries than for the sake of America. I can think of few foreign policies more morally atrocious than that.
Howard Dean's Proposal for Economic Regress by Harry Binswanger
Economic progress would mean leaving (not "putting") more money in the hands of Bill Gates and less in the hands of "the average American."
Lean, Mean, and Dean by Michael J. Hurd
Translating Howard Dean's Ideas into Reality.
Presidential Candidate Howard Dean: Fascist of the Left by Michael J. Hurd
Howard Dean is a fascist of the left, just as Pat Buchanan was a fascist of the right.
Putin Whines, But Comes Closer to US position
From Yahoo News ("Putin blasts US war in Iraq but says ready to consider debt relief"):...Much of Iraq's eight billion dollar debt to Moscow -- including interest payments -- is from military equipment that the Soviet Union delivered to Iraq in the 1980s when Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in a war that killed one million people on both sides and ended in a stand-off....But Moscow has been furious with Washington in recent days for barring countries that opposed the war on Iraq from taking part in the lucrative first phase of reconstruction projects for the country.What is the source of the "lucrativeness"? Washington. In other words, Moscow is "furious" that it cannot get money from Washington.
...Only hours before Baker's arrival, Putin used a live question-and-answer session with Russian television viewers to issue some of his most stinging criticism of the Iraqi war to date...."The use of force abroad, according to existing international laws, can only be sanctioned by the United Nations. This is the international law. Everything that is done without the UN Security Council's sanction cannot be recognized as fair or justified," said Putin...Translation: The United States cannot kill Hitler, or his equivalent, without the permission of Hitler, and/or the other dictators of the world, i.e., Russia, China, Libya, etc. The U.N. is nothing more than a debating society to sanction and protect dictators.
[Putin] also suggested that the United States may be showing over-confidence on the international scene and warned that "empires" had fallen before from feeling too strong and using their military might indiscriminately.Translation: Don't you dare come after me. Don't you dare!
His comments came days after Moscow warned Washington that its decision to hog Iraq reconstruction projects was "unacceptable" and began to waver on the issue of debt.Translation: It is "acceptable" enough for us to think about negotiating on the debt.
....Moscow is owed 3.5 billion dollars in original debt and another 4.5 billion dollars in post-Soviet interest, according to the Paris Club. Russia is followed by France with three billion, Germany with 2.4 billion, the United States with 2.2 billion, and Italy with 1.7 billion. Japan is the Club's largest Iraqi donor and is owed 4.1 billion dollars.Any nation that sold weapons to Saddam's Iraq has to take up those payments with Saddam. In other words: any country, company, or individual that voluntarily supports a dictatorship deserves to lose their "investment."
From the Dissident Frogman (chart edited by Cap Mag):
[Chart Source. Data source used to produce chart: Iraq arms trade, SIPRI projects. Chart title changed to reflect that data from Stockholm International Peace Research Institute only goes up to 1990. So the chart does not show any illegal sales (illegal due to UN sanctions) made to Iraq after 1990.]SONY Creates Jogging Robot
From Yahoo News:...Sony said on Thursday that it had developed the world's first running -- okay, jogging -- robot. "All around the world, universities and think tanks have been researching how to make robots run but we are pleased to announce that we have done it first," Toshi Doi, an executive vice president at Sony told a news conference. ...The big technological breakthrough, says Sony, was in getting both the robot's feet to lose contact with the ground at once. Up until now humanoid or two-legged robots have needed to have one foot on the floor to move stably. "The hardest part was theoretical. Humanoid robots like Sony's older Qrios and Honda's Asimo have been based on a theory which dictates that there must be contact with the floor. We had to develop a new theory," said Doi. ...The next challenge, said Doi, is to make Qrio's running motion less jogging-like and more like an athlete's. At the moment, Qrio's time with both feet off the ground is only 40 milliseconds, compared with around one second managed by athletes, he said...Sony, which also makes the Aibo robot dog, a sell-out success when it debuted in 1999, said it still doesn't have a timetable for commercializing Qrio, whose name is short for "quest for curiosity." [ "Sony Unveils World's First 'Running' Humanoid Robot"]
Xenophobic France Against Freedom of Speech in Schools
From Yahoo News:French Education Minister Luc Ferry said on Thursday he planned to submit to parliament early next year a draft law banning religious symbols such as Islamic headscarves in state schools....Ferry said he planned to keep the draft law short and simple, and although he had yet to settle the exact wording he was leaning toward prohibiting what would be described as "ostentatious" symbols of faith. The minister, who earlier expressed concern over suggestions there might be a ban on all religious symbols in schools, said he was satisfied Chirac had restricted it to overt ones like headscarves, Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses.Small ones apparently are permitted.
Fadela Amara, head of a French organization campaigning for the rights of Muslim girls, said the move would help counter the pressure of radical Islamists.The wearing of a headscarf, cross jewelry, etc. does not violate the rights of anyone--it is simply a form of advertising or free speech.
Government schools have no right to go against the wishes of the people who pay for those schools--the tax-payers-- unless the government is willing to refund their money. Of course, the very existence of such schools entails the violation of rights as they are paid for by coercion, i.e., taxes. A private school, on the other hand, does have the right to "censor" such speech, and to set such clothing rules, i.e., uniforms, and the like.
Wright Brothers 2003
From Cox and Forkum:
A century ago Americans understood that progress comes at a price and were willing to pay it. Orville Wright was hospitalized after a crash that killed his first passenger; Clyde Cessna, the founder of Cessna Aircraft Company, only earned his wings after 12 crashes. [...] But the risks these early aviators took were calculated and deliberately accepted. They stemmed not from irrational folly, but from their willingness to accept the responsibility of independent judgment. ... Today, we seek to escape the responsibility of judgment while demanding that progress be risk-free. New products are expected to be instantly perfect, to last forever and to protect us from our own failings—or else we sue.Berthold argues that government regulations have also stifled aviation innovation.
[B]y the 1930s the government had begun regulating the airlines, master planning route structures and suppressing competition. Today, innovation has ground to a halt under the weight of government control. Unlike the first 25 years of flight, the last 25 have seen few major advances -- and regulatory barriers suppress the adoption of new technology. For instance, most FAA-certified aircraft today are still the same aluminum-and-rivets construction pioneered more than 50 years ago, while for at least a decade non-certified experimental aircraft builders have preferred composite materials, which make their aircraft stronger, roomier, cheaper, and faster at the same time.(Coincidentally, Boeing just announced plans to produce their first new jet design in 13 years, one that utilizes composite materials.) But utopian product safety is not the only cultural battle being fought. The Wright Stuff by Thomas Sowell examines how even the Wright Brothers have fallen victim to "political correctness."
Man had dreamed of flying for centuries and others were hard at work on the project in various places around the world when the Wright brothers finally got their plane off the ground a hundred years ago, on December 17, 1903. It didn't matter how long or how short the flight was. What mattered was that they showed that it could be done. Alas, Orville and Wilbur Wright are today pigeon-holed as "dead white males" whom we are supposed to ignore, if not deplore. Had either of them been a woman, or black or any of a number of other specially singled out groups, this hundredth anniversary of their flight would be a national holiday with an orgy of parades and speeches across the length and breadth of the country. [...] Many of the great breakthroughs in science and technology were gifts to the whole human race. Those whose efforts created these breakthroughs were exalted because of their contributions to mankind, not to their particular tribe or sex. In trying to cheapen those people as "dead white males" we only cheapen ourselves and do nothing to promote similar achievements by people of every description. When the Wright brothers rose off the ground, we all rose off the ground.For a rational perspective of the Wright Brothers' achievement, here is the Smithsonian Institute's tribute: The Wright Brothers: The Invention of the Aerial Age. Though this FoxNews story notes a serious omission by the Institute:
The Smithsonian Institution is celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Wright Brothers' first flight with a Web presentation and the grand opening of a new branch of the National Air and Space Museum. The tribute is ironic as the Smithsonian spent 28 years denying the Wrights credit for the first flight in favor of promoting the dubious legacy of one of its own.FoxNew also reports: Bush to Honor Wright Brothers on 100th Anniversary of Flight.