Wednesday, March 30, 2005
The UN's Ken Lay
From the WSJ:
Following yesterday's publication of Paul Volcker's second interim report on the U.N.'s Oil for Food program, Kofi Annan issued a statement saying "the inquiry has cleared me of any wrongdoing." Later, asked if had any plans to resign, he answered, "Hell no!" Question for the Secretary General: How do you define "wrongdoing"?
In the narrowest sense, Mr. Volcker's Committee found "no evidence" that the Secretary General influenced the U.N.'s 1998 selection of Swiss inspections company Cotecna for an Oil for Food contract. It also found that "the evidence is not reasonably sufficient to show that the Secretary-General knew that Cotecna had submitted a bid on the humanitarian inspection contract in 1998."
In a broader sense, however, what Mr. Volcker's report reveals is an "adverse finding" against the Secretary General: That is, patterns of willful neglect, conflict of interest and incompetence that would have any business CEO out on his ear.
Governing the Internet
Captain Ed relates that now the UN wants to take control of the internet, because as we all know, the internet has been an utter failure up to now. As Houlin Zhao, representing that perennial defender of free speech, China, says "the whole world is looking for a better solution to internet governance".
Captain Ed:
All one needs to do is to look around the General Assembly to understand which government rules will get "more respected". The UN mostly consists of dictatorships and autocracies, which have little use for the free speech and open information that the Internet provides people all over the world. A free Internet threatens their power and their oppressive regimes. Nothing would please them more than to get their hands on the engines of the Internet in order to suppress the information that would inspire their subjects to throw off their shackles and claim freedom for themselves.
Let me put it to all in this light. Will we trust the same organization that put Libya and Cuba in charge of human rights and Syria in charge of counterterrorism to manage the Internet and safeguard free speech?
Sunday, March 27, 2005
Albania gets it
Some thoughts for old Europe, from the Albania ambassador to America. Btw, Albania is a majority Muslim country.
Upon committing Albania to the Coalition of the Willing, Prime Minister Nano urged his fellow European leaders to visit Normandy "to see for themselves what the United States has been willing to undertake in the name of freedom. We should all visit Normandy. We should pay homage to those brave Americans who stormed ashore at Omaha Beach and gave their lives for the freedom of others. The wonder of it is that the Americans are willing to do it again," Mr. Nano said.Why?
And of course, it was the U.S.-led effort of NATO to rein in Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic and his ethnic cleansing campaign in Kosovo that proved to the world that, in the name of freedom, the United States was willing to fight for the freedom of the oppressed, regardless of religious belief.
So it is with Iraq. The importance of the American-led effort to liberate Iraq and establish a democratic government for the first time in this country's history cannot be underestimated. It is not the first time the United States has faced suicide bombers trapped in a cult of death. The Japanese kamikazes sought to do to the Americans toward the end of World War II what the terrorists are attempting in Iraq today. The kamikazes failed then, the terrorists will fail now. Japan became a democracy and so will Iraq.
The difference between the United States and the Islamic terrorists is this: The terrorists export death. The Americans export freedom.
The surprise is not in Albania's decision to send more troops to fight for freedom in Iraq. The surprise would have been if Albania did not.
If you believe in freedom, you believe in fighting for it. If you believe in fighting for freedom, you believe in America.
Saturday, March 26, 2005
Quagmire Alert
Glenn Reynolds notes a report that Iraqi insurgents are seeking an "exit strategy". Heh.
Friday, March 25, 2005
Strange bedfellows
The Corner notes that Ralph Nader has joined in Terri Shiavo's defense, with a good point, if true: That not only has the court ordered her medical treatment terminated, but it has forbidden her only family from providing her with water, e.g. in a syringe or a spoon. Think about that. I have to agree with Ralph on this one -- I think this crosses the line into a court-ordered killing.
The courts not only are refusing her tube feeding, but have ordered that no attempts be made to provide her water or food by mouth. Terri swallows her own saliva. Spoon feeding is not medical treatment. "This outrageous order proves that the courts are not merely permitting medical treatment to be withheld, it has ordered her to be made dead," Nader and Smith assert.As for the rest of the Left, I cannot understand why it is enthusiastic about having a disabled woman killed seemingly based solely on the testimony of her husband, who by the way already has a fiancee lined up. Is this modern feminism?
Sunday, March 20, 2005
The Afghani Rosa Parks
Kudos to Newsweek for the suggestion. I wonder when Western feminists will begin to actually care about women in the Islamic world.
Terri Schiavo
I haven't paid too much attention to this sad story, though I've found these interesting. Myths and Hypocrisy. I think Jonah is exactly right on this point:
I would respect the Democrats more if they had the courage to argue that Terri should die. That is their position.
Winning the unwinnable
Is America winning the war in Iraq? Recent signs seem to point that way.
The top Marine officer in Iraq said Friday that the number of attacks against American troops in Sunni-dominated western Iraq and death tolls had dropped sharply over the last four months, a development that he called evidence that the insurgency was weakening in one of the most violent areas of the country.This is rather unexpected, because I'm pretty sure that our own media and our ever-patriotic Democratic party has been telling us for two years that this war is unwinnable. (And at the same time encouraging the inhuman resistance in Iraq to keep fighting and killing our soldiers. But I know, they "Support the Troops!")
The officer, Lt. Gen. John F. Sattler, head of the First Marine Expeditionary Force, said that insurgents were averaging about 10 attacks a day, and that fewer than two of those attacks killed or wounded American forces or damaged equipment. That compared with 25 attacks a day, five of them with casualties or damage, in the weeks leading up to the pivotal battle of Falluja in November, he said...
Saturday, March 19, 2005
Reliving the Election -- in Pictures
Comparing the candidates with a photo-blog from the election, via Tim Blair.
Just a sample:
and
Don't miss the rest!
Monday, March 14, 2005
End the Occupation!
Publius Pundit has the latest on the counter protest to Assad's staged protests last week. Estimates near 1,000,000 people protesting Syria's occupation of Lebanon. Amazing!
Friday, March 04, 2005
Bloggers Beware
Is this America or Iran? Free Speech or not?
Bradley Smith, one of the six commissioners at the Federal Election Commission (FEC), reports that his outfit is set to crack down on internet speech about political candidates and elections. It will do so by treating at least some of our political utterances as in-kind campaign contributions, especially when we back them up by linking to a candidate's website. This move is the outgrowth of the restrictions that the McCain-Feingold places on political speech, and a decision by a district court judge in Washington D.C. (Clinton appointee Colleen Kollar-Kotelly) that the internet, unlike the MSM, is not exempt from these restrictions. Smith and the two other Republican commission members wanted to appeal the decision, but the three Democratic members demurred.Register with your credentials with The Government now, for the privilege to criticize it. Please sir, may I have another?
As George Will and others have noted, the limits on speech imposed in the name of campaign finance reform operate to enhance the MSM's monopoly position when it comes to presenting information and opinion about politics. In the past, the threat to that monopoly position came from candidates, their well-to-do supporters, and other wealthy issue-oriented individuals. Now a new set of usurpers has emerged. They are called bloggers, but they are mostly just citizens with access to a computer who think they have something to say. Bloggers, for example, played a major role in the extraordinary defeat of Democratic Senate leader Tom Daschle. Daschle had relied on the leading state newspaper not to report facts showing the extent to which he had become a liberal "creature" of Washington. But bloggers were able to present this information to voters to Daschle's great detriment.
The political establishment and its speech police is not amused. They have not defeated "big money" only to have their designs ruined by a bunch of pajama-clad upstarts.
And who do we have to thank for all of this? McCain, the leading Republican candidate for President, and George W Bush, who signed this disgusting unconstitutional restriction on free speech into law, and our venerable Supreme Court which cannot countenance restrictions on the most vulger pornography, but has no trouble finding real honest-to-goodness political speech illegal.
Why do I feel the urge to puke?
Update
An excerpt from Captain Ed's letter to his Senator:
The effect of this would have been to force me to shut down my blog, or convert it to something else. In fact, it would have caused me less legal heartache to convert my site to a porn blog and do nothing but post hard-core pictures all day long. In the twisted environment of the McCain-Feingold Act, that kind of website would enjoy greater First Amendment protection than my political speech, a result for which every single Senator should feel shame and outrage.Shame? What is that? For our leaders in Washington, I provide a definition, in case they've forgotten:
Each of you should read the Constitution you swore to uphold and defend, and reflect on the unequivocal language of our forefathers:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
shame: a painful emotion caused by a strong sense of guilt, embarrassment, unworthiness, or disgraceYes, a disgrace. That sounds right.
Dear sirs, when you're done wiping your ass with my Constitution, please let me know.
Thursday, March 03, 2005
Where Freedom meets Liberty
More on Lebanon from Publius and the Washington Post:
The 8 million Iraqis who turned out to vote, the Palestinians who have overwhelmingly supported the cease-fire with Israel, and the tens of thousands of Lebanese who have been marching and camping in the center of Beirut have all proved more potent than assassinations and suicide bombs. If Mr. Assad will not yield to the new political realities they are creating, he will place his own regime at risk.More dominos? Egypt? Syria itself?
Seems almost like Freedom is on the march.
