Feb 5, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
A perfect example of why the International Criminal Court represents an injustice and should be repudiated. The headline is, "Blair faces war crimes trial after Iraq war":
A group of lawyers aims to prosecute Prime Minister Tony Blair for war crimes at the new International Criminal Court (ICC) if an Iraqi war goes ahead....
"There is a 100 percent certainty that Blair will be investigated by the ICC for war crimes if he attacks Iraq," said Phil Shiner of the Public Interest Lawyers firm in Birmingham....
"The ICC brings a new international context to war -- Blair now has to consider his individual accountability...."
The United States fiercely opposes the ICC, saying it would infringe U.S. sovereignty, but Britain has ratified its treaty and would have to give up any citizen the court wanted to try.
Nicholas Grief of Bournemouth University, who specialises in international law, said November's U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 on Iraq did not authorise the use of force.
He said the resolution used the term "serious consequences" if Iraq did not comply with weapons inspectors, and not "use all necessary means", which has previously been used as a diplomatic code for authorising military force.... [Reuters, 2/5/03]
Feb 5, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Writes John Diaz, in the San Francisco Chronicle, (2/4/03):
Several readers have called or written to complain about the selection of letters we have printed about the space shuttle Columbia tragedy.
Where, they asked, was the universal outpouring of grief for the seven brave astronauts and their families? Why were so many of the letters tinged with gratuitous bitterness toward President Bush or otherwise infused with cynicism or conspiracy theories?
Frankly, my colleagues and I were asking the same questions Saturday as we sorted through the several dozen e-mails and faxes that came in after the disastrous breakup of the shuttle on its final descent home....
Even more startling was the cynical, even hateful, tone of many of the letters. The outtakes were considerably harsher and more jaded than the selection we printed....
Perhaps it is idealistic to assume that a tragedy would prompt us to draw on our common humanity, rather than to trigger unprovoked animus based on racial, national or political differences. And these were not anonymous tirades. The above e-mails were sent for publication, with names, addresses and phone numbers.
This week I myself met a teenager who asked, "What's so special about the Space Shuttle disaster? If seven people had died in Africa nobody would be concerned about them."
I eventually realized the underlying egalitarian premise, telling her: "The difference is that we care more about some people than others." We don't rejoice in the death of seven Africans; but the Shuttle astronauts were engaged in an endeavor that is important to those of us who care about human achievement. It's not true that we should care about everyone equally; the idea that we should is yet another ugly consequence of the corrupt ethics of altruism.Feb 4, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From London's Guardian:Tony Blair yesterday admitted he was risking everything politically on his determination to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, as he briefed MPs on his belief that President George Bush and the rest of the UN security council will endorse a second resolution backing the claim that Iraq is breaching UN resolutions.
That, Mr. Blair, is statesmanship, and it is heroic.
Feb 4, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
The Iraqi officials keep saying they can't force their scientists to submit to private interviews. Iraq is a totalitarian dictatorship! Force is the modus operandi of the regime. During their numerous interviews, why doesn't just one reporter confront one of the Iraqi thugs on this fact?Feb 2, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Today I sent the following to J.P. Avlon of the New York Sun, in response to his column Thursday entitled "Eagle Foreign Policy":
Dear Mr. Avlon:
In your column Thursday, "Eagle Foreign Policy," you argue that by appeasing dictators we make it appear that "America is just another great power motivated solely by self-interest." Yet your whole argument is that it's not in our self-interest to appease dictators. So which one is it?
Is it in our self-interest to support pro-freedom forces? Isn't that what we would do if we were "a great power motivated solely by self-interest"? By your argument, then, wouldn't we be hurting our image abroad by doing so?
Too many people thoughtlessly blame all the world's evils on the pursuit of self-interest. But the terrorists who attacked us did not do so for any conceivable selfish reason. They did not want to live; they wanted us to die. In the past century, both fascism and communism denounced self-interest as the ultimate evil, and aimed to create a society based on altruism. Yet both slaughtered human beings in numbers unprecedented in human history.
Meanwhile, the changes that have improved life immeasurably for billions of people across the world--rail transport, electricity, the automobile, air travel, refrigeration, the computer--these and many more are the products of self-interest. Where is the Mother Theresa who could hold a candle to the life-giving power of Edison, Ford, or Bill Gates?
The generally accepted idea of self interest as involving sacrificing others to one's aims is incoherent and needs to be completely rethought; otherwise, we will face nothing but ethical false alternatives. Case in point: Later in your column, you quote George W. Bush: "We've got to be humble and yet project strength in a way that promotes freedom... If we are an arrogant nation, they'll view us in that way, but if we're a humble nation, they'll respect us."
George Bush is wrong. The only "humility" that will satisfy our critics is our total abdication of leadership, for to them any projection of strength or assertiveness by a world power is selfish and arrogant. To try to win respect by catering to such a viewpoint is to sacrifice our interests and our security.
But arrogance vs. humility is a false alternative--and until we reject these kinds of stale philosophical commonplaces we are going to be led around by the nose, following those who would use such ideas to manipulate us.
Feb 1, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
It's reassuring to think that God will protect us from tragedy or defeat. But that belief has two dangerous implications. One is that courage is unnecessary and unreal. The crews of Challenger and Columbia weren't actually taking risks or showing bravery... because their fate was in God's hands.
The other implication is that tragedies are God's will.... "God wants to show that his might is greater than the Americans," Abdul Jabbar al-Quraishi, an Iraqi government employee, told Reuters. That statement is certainly false and despicable. But on a day when six Americans and an Israeli have fallen from the heavens, if you think God is fighting for America against Iraq, Mr. al-Quraishi has a better case than you do....
In the skies over Baghdad, as in the skies over Texas, God's non-neutrality is a guide, not a promise. If Iraq insists on building weapons of mass destruction, we must fight not because God will protect us, but because He won't. [William Saletan, Slate.com, 2/1/03]
In short, belief in God makes no sense. But belief in a lawful reality that can be understood and conformed to--that does make sense. Such a reality, in the long run, rewards those who conform to it and destroys those who rebel against it. That is the truth hidden behind the phrase "God's non-neutrality."Feb 1, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Former South African President Nelson Mandela continues to discredit himself. Quoting the January 30, 2002 edition of the Washington Post,
Former South African President Nelson Mandela lashed out at U.S. President George Bush's stance on Iraq on Thursday, saying the Texan had no foresight and could not think properly....
"It is a tragedy what is happening, what Bush is doing in Iraq," Mandela told an audience in Johannesburg. "What I am condemning is that one power, with a president who has no foresight, who cannot think properly, is now wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust...."
"Both Bush as well as Tony Blair are undermining an idea (the United Nations) which was sponsored by their predecessors," Mandela said. "Is this because the secretary general of the United Nations (Ghanaian Kofi Annan) is now a black man? They never did that when secretary generals were white."
Mandela said he would support without reservation any action agreed upon by the United Nations against Iraq....
"Because they decided to kill innocent people in Japan, who are still suffering from that, who are they now to pretend that they are the policeman of the world?..." he asked.
"lf there is a country which has committed unspeakable atrocities, it is the United States of America...They don't care for human beings."
Mandela's comment about "unspeakable atrocities" is coming from someone whose followers used to burn their opponents to death in flaming automobile tires. Perhaps he thinks these acts pale in comparison to the "innocent people" who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But no civilian who remained in Japan or supported the wartime Japanese government can be considered innocent. Moreover, to the extent that any actual innocents did die in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, their deaths were the moral responsibility of the Japanese government who put them in harm's way. Civilians have no right to expect to live unharmed in an aggressor nation.
To give the devil his due, however, Mandela's comment about "wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust" was not about war in Iraq, for he claims to support any U.N.-sanctioned action against Iraq. Presumably, what he thinks would plunge the world into a holocaust is the undermining of the U.N.
Of course, abandoning the U.N. would be probably the best thing the U.S. could do for world peace. But Mandela's remark is worth noting because it is a clue to the left's agenda. Their denunciations of unilateralism are increasingly hysterical because, like the courtiers in the tale, they know the emperor has no clothes, and they think they can keep everyone else from finding out by means of moralistic intimidation.
But the crucial point is that they are threatened. They have no rational basis for their beliefs, they know it, and they're afraid everyone else will find out.Jan 30, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Last week it was Libya heading up the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. This week it's... well, like I said, you can't make this stuff up:
Iraq is in line to take over as chairman of the U.N. Conference on Disarmament in May, prompting one U.S. official Wednesday to say: "The irony is overwhelming." [Associated Press, 1/29/03]
Just what is it going to take for people to wake up and throw the U.N. overboard?Jan 30, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
The Wall Street Journal is announcing on-line this evening that its paper edition tomorrow will carry an open letter from the leaders or Spain, Britain, Italy, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Denmark and Portugal calling for unity with the US in the struggle to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction.Jan 29, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
According to Goldman Sachs Chairman and CEO Henry Paulson, "I don't want to sound heartless, but in almost every one of our businesses, there are 15% to 20% of the people that really add 80% of the value.... Although we have a lot of good people, you can cut a fair amount and still be well-positioned for the upturn." [New York Sun, 1/29/03]Jan 29, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From today's Washington Post:"If [Saddam Hussein] were to leave the country, and take some of his family members with him, and others in the leading elite that have been responsible for so much trouble during the course of his regime, we would, I'm sure, try to find a place for them to go," [Colin] Powell said at the State Department.
Saddam Hussein must be killed--not imprisoned, and certainly not allowed to retire to some villa.
Jan 27, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
The latest weapon against Britain's crime wave:A British police force announced Friday it has come up with a new measure to combat crime--a polite letter asking persistent offenders to mend their ways.
"I'm sure it will come as no surprise to you that, due to your criminal activity, your name appears on the above data and has highlighted you as a persistent offender," said the letters.
The letter helpfully suggests that the offender "make it a priority in any New Year's resolutions you make from 2003 onwards, to cease forthwith your criminal activities." [Associated Press, 1/24/03]
[Read about the usual government weapon against crime victims in England and Massachusetts!--Ed.]
Jan 26, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From AndrewSullivan.com:
Is there a murderous thug the French do not want to do business with? The day after an E.U. ban on travel by Zimbabwe dictator Robert Mugabe, Chirac invites him to a summit. You can't make this stuff up. [1/24/03]
Jan 25, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
WASHINGTON, D.C.--Big Brother, who had been planning to rifle through our diaries under the guise of protecting us from the unwanted advances of teenage boys and terrorists, finally received a mild spanking and frowns from Mom and Dad. On Thursday, the U.S. Senate voted to limit part of the Total Information Awareness Program that would allow the government to read all Internet email and search through all commercial databases of health, financial, and travel companies in the name of the "war" on terrorism.
According to Senator Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, who proposed the restrictions as part of an amendment to a spending bill, several Republicans saw the Pentagon's insidious plan as "about the most far-reaching government surveillance proposal we have ever heard about." Unfortunately, the restrictions left a few loopholes through which the Department of Defense will probably be able to smuggle enough White Out to cover most of the 4th Amendment--not that anyone reads the Constitution anymore.
But hey, maybe we'll all grow up to be big and strong some day, and Big Brother won't seem so big after all.
Jan 24, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
PARIS--Several French leaders got their panties in a twist yesterday over U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's implication that France, well...doesn't really matter--except where pastries are concerned.
At a news conference Wednesday, Rumsfeld expressed indifference to French and German criticism of America's stance on Iraq. "Germany has been a problem and France has been a problem...but if you look at vast numbers of other countries in Europe, they're not with France and Germany on this. They're with the United States," he said. He then proceeded to refer to the two vocal, but irrelevant, nations as "old Europe."
French Finance Minister Francis Mer described himself as "profoundly vexed" by Rumsfeld's discovery of France's uselessness as a country. "I wanted to remind everyone that this ‘old Europe' has resilience and is capable of bouncing back," he added. "And it will show it, in time." Traditionally, Europe's time for bouncing back has been right after American troops save it from the clutches of an imperialist dictator.
France's Ecology Minister was so mad that she almost said something offensive herself. "If you knew what I feel like telling him, to Mr. Rumsfeld..." she warned, lacking the courage to complete her sentence.
In the event of a war, it is unclear whether the U.S. will be able to surrender effectively without guidance from the French.
Jan 23, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
NEW YORK--A federal judge ruled yesterday that eating yourself into obesity is your own damn fault, much to the dismay of some rather large and irresponsible kids in New York who were hoping to leech off the fat of productive companies.
U.S. District Court Judge Robert Sweet rejected the class action lawsuit (filed last November as reported on Capitalism Magazine) that blamed McDonald's, Burger King, Kentucky Fried Chicken, and Wendy's for the poor choices of several unhealthy individuals. "If consumers know (or reasonably should know)," the judge wrote, "the potential ill health effects of eating at McDonald's, they cannot blame McDonald's if they, nonetheless, choose to satiate their appetite with a surfeit of super-sized McDonald's products."
Hear, hear!
Ultimately, kids, shirking personal responsibility will bite you in the ass...and some asses will be wider than others.
Jan 23, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Jeremy Rabkin, a professor from Cornell University, argued that America has the right to decide if it should go into Iraq, and that the U.N. has done a miserable job of ensuring world peace.As evidence, he noted that as many people have died in wars throughout the world in the years since the U.N.'s creation as died in World War II. [New York Sun, 1/22/03]
Jan 22, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
"Yes, we want to be judged by the content of our character and not the color of our skin. But what makes up character?" [Hillary Clinton] said, quoting from Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech. "If we don't take race as part of our character, then we are kidding ourselves." [New York Sun, 1/21/03]
"We are kidding ourselves" means: "I don't have a rational basis for this belief, so I want to win agreement by intimidation."
What is her belief? What does it mean to "take race as part of our character?"
A person's character is his disposition to behave in a certain way. Character is not in the situation you face, but in what you choose to do about it. To accept race as part of a person's character is to say he is helpless to control his behavior in the face of the demands of his race, that he is unable to make certain choices if his race dictates them, that he is helpless to conform his own individual judgment to facts if his race demands otherwise. This idea is the essence of racism--that our race determines our character.
Hillary Clinton has no shame: she quotes Martin Luther King in defense of her racism! Where is the outrage?
