Dec 14, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
From CNN: U.S. opposes third term for IAEA chief.The Washington Post reported Sunday that U.S. intelligence had taped conversations between [Mohammed] ElBaradei [head of the International Atomic Energy Agency] and Iranian officials in an alleged attempt to discredit the Egyptian-born IAEA chief, who has served at the IAEA's director-general since 1997. ...
The United States must win the support of 12 nations on the IAEA's 35-member Board of Governors to block ElBaradei's re-election, but its influence with the board has been limited. To date the U.S. has been unsuccessful in persuading the board to take a tough line with Iran.
In November, ElBaradei praised the European preliminary nuclear non-proliferation agreement with Iran as a "step in the right direction," despite the fact that Iran has a history of lying about its nuclear programs, not to mention a history of being the world's worst sponsor of terrorism and an open enemy of America and Israel. (One recent example: Iran group canvasses for suicide bombers.)
Around the same time, ElBaradei acknowledged that the threat of nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists was a "real danger," saying we should take "preventative measures" then: "We have to cross our fingers that nothing will happen." (Via LGF)
When one expects terrorist-sponsoring regimes like Iran's to abide by weapons agreements, then all that is left is to cross your fingers and prepare to be attacked.
The Bush Administration is long over due in confronting Iran, and at least one person has decided to do something about. The Los Angeles Times today published a story about a "grass-roots crusade against Iran," as Robert Tracinski of TIA Daily called it: Kerry Opponent Taking Aim at New Target: Iran.
Jerome R. Corsi, a leader of the Swift Boat Vets and POWs for Truth campaign against former Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John F. Kerry, is hard at work on his next political project: preparing American public opinion for what he sees as a likely war with Iran.
"The world cannot tolerate the potential that these mad mullahs would have a deliverable nuclear weapon, even one, secretly developed," Corsi said in a recent interview. "They might just launch on Tel Aviv. The moment the world intelligence community becomes convinced that could happen, either the U.S. alone or the U.S. plus Israel or Israel alone will seriously contemplate a preemptive strike, and I'd be in favor of it."
Dec 13, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses
IRVINE, CA--The use of steroids and other performance enhancing drugs by major league baseball players has drawn threats from the United States government. Major league baseball had better institute strict drug policies, warned Senators John McCain and Byron Dorgan, or it will face Congressional action.
But the government should not be granted the power to dictate to consenting adults what they can and cannot ingest, stated Dr. Andrew Bernstein, senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute. Major league baseball is a private organization that has the right, if it chooses, to ban steroid use among players by contractual agreement. As with any private individual or organization, it has the right to lay down the terms under which it will associate with others--leaving it to the voluntary decision of players to accept the terms or play elsewhere.
More broadly, Bernstein pointed out, in a free society an adult has the right to think and decide for himself in the pursuit of his own happiness. A necessary consequence is that he may choose self-destructive actions--whether to drink harmful amounts of alcohol or use toxic drugs. A legal prohibition on drugs, as on alcohol, is a violation of the right of the individual to determine the course of his life. Bernstein concluded that Congress should butt out and let Major league baseball determine its own course of action regarding players' use of steroids.Dec 13, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
In The Weekly Standard, Fred Barnes writes on the issue of social security reform: Republican Insecurity.Democrats are a problem. On modernizing Social Security, most of them are reactionary liberals, committed to preserving an antiquated system. But at the moment, Republicans are an even bigger problem for the White House. For a reform measure to win approval in Congress, Republicans must be united. True, the conventional wisdom in Washington is that entitlement reform requires bipartisanship. With only a handful of Democrats likely to sign on, however, that won't happen. So that leaves the matter with Republicans, and they are anything but together.
In today's TIA Daily, Robert Tracinski commented on the above story:The Democrats are on the ropes and in no position to resist President Bush's proposal for a partial privatization of Social Security. So it is up to cowardly congressional Republicans to stand in the way of progress -- which some of them are, of course, doing. This article provides a good overview of likely resistance from Republicans -- as well as the likely outlines of any Bush administration proposal.
Dec 10, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
Charles Johnson commented earlier this week on the Bush Administration's plans to give $20 million to the Palestinian Authority: Rewarding Terrorism.It's amazing how nobody in the world wants to hold Palestinian society responsible for anything. Their economy is devastated because of four years of senseless violence, all right -- perpetrated by the Palestinians, in spite of a historic peace offer from Israel.
For a people who talk endlessly about having their own state, they have done almost nothing positive, on their own, to achieve it. The world has given them countless billions of dollars, much of which vanished into anonymous bank accounts, and the Palestinian people have nothing to show for it. Why are we giving them another huge handout?
Meanwhile, AFP reported the same day that PLO chief Mahmud Abbas was not opposed to convicted and jailed terrorist Marwan Barghouti running for the Palestinian presidency.
But Palestinians aren't the only ones defending Barghouti. So are Leftists, who are supposedly for the criminal prosecution of terrorists instead of waging war against them. Why the contradiction? TIA Daily's Jack Wakeland examined the issue: No War, No Justice.The left complains when we invade countries allied with the anti-American terrorist cause, we do not treat captured terrorists and the criminal militamen who fight alongside them as if they are lawfully uniformed combatants of a hostile nation at war with the United States. Likewise, when police and intelligence operatives capture terrorists in Islamabad or Kabul or Baghdad, the left insists that the men be put on trial, proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and sentenced in accordance with the law, like any other criminal -- or released immediately for lack of evidence. The left has attempted to apply the rule of law out of context, as a fig leaf to cover their general rejection of national defense.
With Barghouti, Israel has done exactly as the left specifies. And the instigator of a dirty terrorist war responsible for the loss of well over a thousand innocent lives is slated to rot in prison for the rest of his life.
Does the left celebrate this successful use of their policy? No. They have dropped the fig leaf.
Dec 8, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses
From FIRE (The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education):
NORMAN, Okla., December 7, 2004—The University of Oklahoma (OU) School of Geology and Geophysics has taken academic infighting to a new low in its efforts to silence Professor David Deming, a frequent critic of administrative policy and a politically outspoken faculty member. Professor Deming has filed a federal lawsuit after OU removed him from his department, stripped him of most of his classes, and moved his office to a converted basement lab, all while claiming to respect the principles of academic freedom. Public records requests have uncovered damning evidence that OU administrators schemed to marginalize and isolate him for his attempts at whistleblowing and for his political expression.
"OU's conduct in this case has been shameful," remarked David French, president of FIRE. "University e-mails and documents illustrate a conspiracy to silence a colleague whose outspoken views challenge the norm at OU. This is a naked attempt to subvert academic freedom," he continued.
Professor Deming's troubles began in February 2000, when OU threatened to punish him for a letter he wrote to the Oklahoma Daily newspaper protesting a column advocating gun control. Read more about this case here. After FIRE wrote in protest and Deming threatened a First Amendment lawsuit, the university dropped the charges in May 2000. Soon thereafter, Roger Slatt, Director of the School of Geology and Geophysics, began to unconstitutionally monitor Deming's letters to the newspaper and include them in three professional evaluations, until directed to stop by OU President David L. Boren. In June 2003, Boren wrote to Deming, saying, "I fully agree with you that your political views should not be included as a factor in your post-tenure review."
OU administrators did not confine their persecution of Professor Deming to his political views, however. Deming drew administrative ire when he accused School of Geology officials of a conflict of interest and possible ethical lapses in their decision to hire a new professor who had a close business relationship with Director Slatt and other professors in the department.
Documents obtained through a public records request paint a disturbing story of administrative scheming to eliminate Deming. Click here to read these original documents in PDF format. In a July 24, 2003, e-mail to William Clopine, chair of the Geology Alumni Advisory Council, Dean John Snow of the College of Geosciences wrote, "it is doubly frustrating that President Boren ... has shown such sympathy for Deming.... Somehow I have to convince Roger [Slatt] that he needs to basically ignore and then marginalize Deming.… As long as we keep our i's dotted and our t's crossed, all Deming can really do is make noise and cause a bit more paperwork." He went on, "I firmly believe Deming will finally annoy the President with his whining – it may take a while but it will happen and I want to be here to watch." He suggested that Clopine have supportive alumni call Slatt with their support, telling him that Slatt should know that "all [Deming] really is a bump on the road [sic]."
Officials at the University proceeded to instigate a campaign by alumni to remove Deming. On July 31, 2003, William Clopine e-mailed OU Geoscience Development Director John Ritz, saying that he had "several big name Alums calling me to ask about meetings with Boren, getting State Representatives involved, and other independent high-level meetings demanding immediate action to support Roger [Slatt]," the administrator most at odds with Deming.
One such "big name Alum" was apparently Bob Stephenson, an Oklahoma City oil executive and major donor to the university. On November 4, 2003, his lawyer wrote to OU Provost Nancy Mergler condemning Deming for "pursuing academic and personal interests outside of and not supportive of the school's mission," and supporting "Dr. Slatt and his leadership." Stephenson, who had never even met Deming, threatened to end his donations to the school if his concerns were not addressed
This letter from a major donor apparently inspired OU to do what, in a July 3, 2003 letter to Deming, Dean Snow said it could not do—transfer a professor against his will. On December 18, 2003, Snow transferred Deming out of the School of Geology and Geophysics and into a "dean direct" position in the College of Geosciences, making him the only geology professor in the College who was not part of the school. Deming was evicted from his office and forced to obtain permission to teach classes, yet was still responsible for the same teaching, research, service, and recruitment requirements. As these requirements would now be next to impossible to fill, Deming's job was placed at risk, regardless of tenure.
"OU's scheming to evade tenure protections and rid itself of a consistent critic of the administration's policies and politics threatens any professor who relies on tenure as a guarantee of academic freedom," remarked FIRE Director of Legal and Public Advocacy Greg Lukianoff. "It is distressing that President Boren—after initially protecting Professor Deming's academic freedom—has allowed these reprisals to occur."
On July 20, 2004, Professor Deming filed suit against Dean Snow, Director Slatt, and other OU personnel to restore his position in the School of Geology and Geosciences. OU has filed a motion to dismiss, and a ruling on the motion is expected at any time. Deming is represented by attorney Andrew Lester of Lester, Loving & Davies in Edmond, Oklahoma.
Dec 8, 2004 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
Under the heading "Keep Kofi," Harry Binswanger (HBL email list) pinpointed the real issue:The movement to force the resignation of U.N. General Secretary Kofi Annan is a red herring, or a sop. What is needed, of course, is not to get Annan out of his office but to get the U.S. out of the U.N.
The evil of the U.N. is that it includes, in a world body allegedly devoted to peace, every and any dictatorship. It is one of the most egregious examples of the sanction of the victim, which serves to sacrifice the good to the evil.
This, not the graft of the "Oil for Food Program, is the scandal of the U.N. Deposing Annan will serve only to divert attention from this essential and quell the rising outrage against the nature of the U.N.
The best result for the U.S. would be if Kofi Annan keeps his job. That would reveal how corrupt the U.N. is, and the real cause of that corruption is only beginning to be faintly perceived by a few commentators.
From CNN: U.S. opposes third term for IAEA chief.
