It's Opposite Day at Amnesty International USA

Every once in a while you encounter an idea so counter-intuitive, so patently execrable, that you feel like it belongs in some children's' Opposite Day game. Amnesty International USA, that slavering, blinded watchdog of "Human Rights" has labeled the United States as "a leading purveyor and practitioner'' of torture. This finding was released at the same time the ACLU (The L supposedly stands for liberty, but really it stands for something else) repeated an allegation by an unidentified detainee at Guantanamo Bay that Korans were mishandled and in one case flushed down a toilet. The term "mishandled" includes a case where an interrogator stood over a copy at one point during an interrogation. Holy crap! Let's riot!

Firstly, anyone who believes you can flush a 950-page book down a toilet is a perfect audience for the MSM (mainstream media). Secondly, if you think this constitutes an element of torture, I suggest a trip to North Africa where you can learn what torture really is. Thirdly, anyone who has been coached to lie about conditions of imprisonment (Al-Qaeda adherents are told to do this in one of their "manuals") should not be trusted, and should certainly not be quoted or used as a source without double and triple verification.

The entire world is going nuts. The UN's chair of its "Human Rights Commission" is a rotating seat, and all member nations head it on a monthly basis, as it rotates alphabetically through a Who's Who list of the worst human rights offenders in the history of the planet. Last year the Sudan chaired this Commission for a month. Yes, the UN does convene a human rights commission, during the times when the child sex trade business is in a lull. The UN, as Ayn Rand once famously noted, is a "neighborhood watch committee whose board of directors include[s] the leading gangsters of the community".

Back to the article. It's so evidently self-righteous and redolent with self conceit that it saves me the trouble to disassemble it, but the suggested actions against the President and other cabinet members is outrageous and should be noted. Essentially AI is asking that foreign countries step in and arrest top US officials:

If the U.S. government continues to shirk its responsibility, Amnesty International calls on foreign governments to uphold their obligations under international law by investigating all senior U.S. officials involved in the torture scandal...

If those investigations support prosecution, the governments should arrest any official who enters their territory and begin legal proceedings against them.

Notice that the author William Schulz, executive director of Amnesty International USA, doesn't quite have the plums to call for this action now - only if we continue to "shirk our responsibility". I am hoping beyond hope that this fatuous agency is not being subsidized by my confiscated tax money. You want to arrest the President of the United States? Go for it, we'd love for you to try.

And, oh, as a footnote or P.S. to this statement condemning the terrible, terrible torture of the 450 detainees at Gitmo (some may have been sleep deprived!) Amnesty International briefly mentions the human rights catastrophe in the Sudan, where "hundreds of thousands of people" were betrayed by the international community. Sometimes you really have to strain to read the fine print.

Harvard Caves to Diversity Mafia

Harvard has recently joined a long line of organizations forced into action from the diversity mafia. They have agreed to adopt new policies aimed at improving the climate for women at Harvard. Many of these "climate" changes are actually good ideas, including child care service and late night transportation options for students (things that you would expect at a premier university like Harvard). In this particular case, the problem isn't about the result (since Harvard surprisingly stood firm against affirmative action hiring of its faculty), it's about the cause.

If you don't remember, Harvard President Lawrence Summers dared pose the hypothesis that women may not be genetically engineered to excel in the areas of mathematics. This hypothesis was made along with several others, in addition to stating that this was merely one of many theories to consider. I know from personal experience that women are able to excel in the areas of Math and Science, since I personally know several that do. That said, this *appears* to be more of an exception to the rule. Why is that? We don't really know. The problem is that if we limit university dialog to an "acceptable" range of thinking, what *won't* we learn in the future on any number of controversial topics. Think Copernicus and Galileo on theories of the Earth orbiting the Sun.

Diversity for the sake of diversity is a dangerous path, and is inherently counter-intuitive to anyone who respects the concept of the individual. Unfortunately, the diversity police in this country currently wield a very big stick, capable of bringing down the highest of authorities. The price we all pay for this diversity could end up being more than they bargained for.

Expert Consulted

Before lining my gerbil's cage with Sunday's edition of The News and Observer, I accidentally glanced at the paper itself and an article about North Korea and its nuclear brinksmanship caught my eye. Intuitively titled, "Desperation factor makes predictions tricky", it is essentially an interview of one of my old professors from UNC, James White. I had taken a Japanese history and culture class with the good professor, who I found to be very knowledgeable, if somewhat long-winded and a bit pedantic, which is usually the price one pays for a very knowledgable professor.

As an expert in Asian studies he was being asked a series of questions ranging from North Korea's culture to the current situation where it seems they are building the infrastructure to test nuclear weapons. While his remarks are mostly lucid, his agenda betrays his logic, and he finds himself in a heap o' cognitave dissonance:

We should be able to give them just a little without reducing our security, the way we did with the Soviet Union. We'd give up one missile and watch to see what they'd do. If they responded, we'd do another. The international relations crowd calls that a tit-for-tat strategy. The Bush administration feels that's blackmail, and it is in a sense. My feeling is it's worth trying.

So while the professor acknowleges that this strategem is blackmail, he still feels like it's "worth trying". This is not a strategem, it's the absence of strategy, akin to hiding one's head in the sand. We've been shipping them fuel since 1994, bribing them to not devleop nuclear weapons. Low and behold, in 2002 we discover that they have been developing them. So now we should start giving up our nuclear weapons, in the vain hope that some dictatorship is going to do the same? Another canard from the prof:

I still think they don't want to use them [Nuclear weapons]. I have changed my mind as regards to their desire to actually have them. Until we invaded Iraq, the North Koreans possibly would have been willing to give up all of their nuclear weapons, but that scared them.

Wrong. The North Koreans didn't develop them because of Iraq, and they wouldn't have given them up if we hadn't invaded Iraq. Why would they have given them up, when the world was (and is) still willing to bribe them not to use them? It's called Free Money.

So why did they even start developing them in the Nineties? We weren't invading tinpot dictatorships back then, so what was the genesis of their nuclear obsession? White rehashes the old leftist litany, that America's actions are the root cause of malevolant third-world behavior. It seems most reasonable that, like all totalitarian states, North Korea found that its economy could in no way feed the starving or employ the unemployed, so it resorts to force, or the threat of force, to acquire what it needs from the outside. But I am glad to hear the professor say that he's changed his mind that North Koreans didn't actually want nuclear weapons. These days it's getting harder and harder for some to admit the existence of the cat after it's clearly out of the bag.

Gate-gate

There is a pervasive scandal in this country that needs to be addressed. It is one so hideous, so devastating that the sooner we can stop it, the better. I'm talking about the purposeless use of the suffix "gate" that's automatically tacked on to the end of any key word that may be derived from the scandal at hand. It all started with Watergate, which obviously is completely acceptable because it is part of the name of the apartment where the illegal activity actually took place. Whoever the second-rate journalist with the creativity of styrofoam was that assigned "gate" to the next big scandal after 1974, should have had their second-rate journalism degree revoked. It's bad enough that mediocrity prevails in so many walks of life, but can't we muster up a little more tongue-in-cheek brain power when it comes to naming scandals.

Nannygate, Monicagate, Memogate...it's all so silly. Even in England, they refer to their rogue Prince's affair as "Camillagate", do you see where this is heading? "Gate" in and of itself does not denote a scandal or any scandalous act. Watergate was named after an apartment, not after some unspeakable act involving Richard Nixon and a tall glass of water. Thirty years later why are we still talking about the last four letters of an apartment building in Washington, D.C.?

The Fate of Federalism

David Boaz from the Cato Institute wrote an interesting article today on the current lack of interest on state's rights from the Republican party. He argues that those on the right, now holding the reigns , have elected to use the federal government to impose their agenda, and as a result have strengthened federal power over the states.

I generally agree with him, but think it is too soon to say that the right has lost its way in this area. If the Republicans are able to maintain power for the rest of the decade, we can then look back and see if this was just a blip or the beginning of a trend.

Take a look at the article and decide for yourself.

Source: Boortz Reading Assignments (May 12)

The Airline Fiasco - Part 1

Stories like the one today about United Airlines dumping their pension plan are enough to get me steaming before I've even had my morning coffee. Unlike most people though, I'm not angry at United for breaking their promise, I'm angry that I am going to have to foot the bill for these pensions, as the government assumes responsibility for them.

The demise of the "old" Airline industry is a long story, so I'm going to focus on the one of the core issue here. Why is United unable to fund this pension program? Poor managements? Maybe. High gas prices? Certainly doesn't help. Stiff competition? Get used to it. Business model? Other "new" airlines are able to be profitable. All of these factors play a role, and all of them should in a free market economy. So what's the problem? Why can't the airlines keep up? One big factor - Unions. Welcome to the semi-artificial element of this market equation (outside of the government involvement, which has both hurt and helped with billions of bailout money). The unions involved in the old airline industry are strong, established players that can provide artificially high pay, benefits, etc, to the workers in the industry. So guess what, now there isn't any money left to pay for your retirement. Money spent to make sure that your doctor visits were only $15, and hourly wages that were well above what the market could support have prevented capital expenditures and other investments that could have helped the airlines future profitability. Now this money isn't around for your retirement fund. Big freaking surprise. I hope you are happy about standing in the picket lines, demanding that the business serve your needs as an employee. Twenty years later, you find yourself trying to get money from a business that has nothing left to give. Sucked dry. Bankrupt.

For those who wish to screw with the free market, be forewarned, results may not be as expected. Example - United Airlines Pension plan.

I really want to feel sorry for these retirees and employees, and do feel sorry for the ones that resisted union control of their work life. For the others, you got what you asked for.* Artificially high wages and benefits. I hope you saved some of that extra money. Don't worry too much though. We are all here to help pitch in for your retirement, whether we like it or not.

* I really do feel sorry for these individuals as well, because economics is not taught as a standard course in either primary or secondary education. If we want to have a well-educated public, it would serve us well to involve some level of macroeconomics in basic curriculums across the country. Of course, this would not be good for many public officials holding office today, so don't hold your breath.

Judging the Senate

In frustration, it can sometimes be easy to lose sight of the long-term picture. I think this is what is currently happening with the Senate leadership, with the thought of removing the filibuster option for judicial nominees.

It's important to recognize that just as the current system for voting in judges was put in place, it can be removed. The constitution gives the Republican majority the ability to remove the filibuster option if they choose. There may be a small price to pay at the polls for this decision, but I believe it would be negligible. The real price to pay for the conservatives will come when we again have a liberal Senate, President, and so on. At this point, the conservatives will have limited ability to block some of the more extreme judges on the liberal side. Looking down the road, what you would end up with would be more controversial conservative and liberal judges on the bench. Neither of these options are good options with regard to our freedom, as both are more likely to rule in ways that can curtail either our personal or economic liberty.

The filibuster is something that is profoundly frustrating to those behind a blocked action. Overly participating in them can come with its own set of consequences, as the voting public can become dismayed by this process. That said, I think that in general the filibuster, used with discretion, often serves to protect our law books and benches from impertinent actions coming from both sides of the aisle in the name of "progress". As an individual with a leaning toward libertarian concepts, I tend to see this as a good thing. Of course, if my unnamed party were to ever take hold of the senate, maybe I would think otherwise. Perhaps a rule of no filibusters on actions that stand behind individual freedom and economic liberty.

Why don't pollsters ever call me...?

Last week there was a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll (always trustworthy and right on the money) released that reported 57% of Americans do not believe it was worth it to go to war in Iraq. Peachy. It makes me wonder to what unreachable standards today's average American is holding the chemistry of war. We all witnessed first hand the efficient demise of a benign military led by one of the great megalomaniacs of the modern era, who now thankfully is in custody. Nobody likes war, but if I had to choose a war to support or participate in, I think I'd take my chances on one such as this. Sure there is horror, mayhem and sporadic chaos in the aftermath, but the underlying benefit of a free society is immeasurable.

How gauche it is for 57% of us to disapprove of the very act that has led to, among other things, in Iraq: gender equality, improved education, a growing and dependable infrastructure and the very spirit of individualism that made and continues to make our country great. My guess is that the majority of that 57% can tell you every detail about the runaway bride, and who's winning American Idol. But can they honestly tell you what is so wrong with spreading liberty? Luckily, it is infectious.

Free beer in North Carolina

It's always encouraging when federal or state laws are actually heading in the direction of freedom, no matter how small the step. Not surprisingly, this is most often accomplished by repealing laws, or by having verbiage removed from them. This is what is currently happening in the North Carolina General Assembly.

House bill HB392 proposes to remove the restriction placed on beer's alcohol by volume (ABV) level, currently capped at 6%. This makes sense for a number of reasons, the most important to me being that I personally enjoy high ABV, craft/micro-brew beers. They offer a wine like experience, but with beer. Many are served in a stemmed glass, perfect for sipping on after dinner. Unfortunately, being in NC, the government decided in 1935 that I could not reasonably handle this amount of alcohol in my beer. Can anyone say personal freedom issue (albeit a minor one)? This current restriction falls into the camp of ill-conceived laws that intrude unnecessarily on our personal freedom. The only bright side of this issue is that this is a state law, as opposed to a federal law.

There are many arguments for passing this legislation; most of them detailed here - www.popthecap.org. In my opinion, the counter argument, that this is somehow dangerous, is foolish, since you can buy fortified wine at 15-20% ABV by the barrel at your grocery or convenience store -- not to mention regular wine (which is most comparable to high ABV beer). Of course for me, my selfish reasons are enough, given that changing this law should have NO impact on other's personal freedoms and should benefit mine. This is usually a fairly good test for any law, but that is a topic for another post.

Things are looking fairly good for HB392 at the moment. If this trend continues, I could be enjoying a rich Belgian Ale or a full bodied Double Stout by Winter, and that sounds pretty darn tasty to me.

King of the World

The other night President Bush delivered a primetime press conference for the first time in his second term. As far as press conferences go, it had no big surprises. He came out, made his way through some good points without really making it clear they were good points and then entertained inane questions for forty minutes. A day in the park as far as Washington goes. But when it was over, one question really stuck with me. A journalist, Terry something-or-other, asked the President how he could say that we are winning the War on Terror considering that terrorist attacks are at an all-time high, internationally speaking, according to some State Department figures. Despite the gaffes and solecisms, Bush ultimately responded to the question succinctly by reminding the journalists that the way to defeat terrorism was to go to the source and render them inoperable on their own turf. Fair enough.

My problem with this whole exchange wasn't so much the answer as it was the question. I disagree with the premise, which is not surprising considering the source. It seems that young Terry was insinuating that President Bush was somehow responsible for preventing and/or the cause of terrorist attacks in every country on the planet. It isn't enough anymore that we have not been attacked since September 11th, almost four years ago. Now Bush has to ensure everyone, everywhere is protected by his courage, his military strength and his vision in order to satisfy the liberal left at home. Terrorist attacks will continue until the job at hand is completed, despite the hemming and hawing of the leftist detractors in America. The same yellow-bellied folk that suggest that Bush is a cowboy meddling in international affairs are now suggesting that he take on the collosal task of being President and babysitter of the globe.