With President Obama super-saturating the U.S. news media, You Tube has a new superstar…and he is not the prez. He is a little known conservative British member of Parliament, a 37-year old Peruvian-born Brit who has spent a decade in government. His name is Daniel Hannan.
With over 1.6 million views on You Tube, Hannan has given voice to the frustration of many Europeans (and Americans) about the fallacies of the “Spend to get out of debt” oxymoronic approach of sinking global economies.
At just over three minutes, Hannan’s speech directed at PM Gordon Brown was perfect for the web, and its tone caught the outrage of the right on both sides of the Atlantic, convinced that it must stop the big spending Brown-Obama juggernaut. Hannan's speech was linked to on the US Drudge Report website and he was quickly interviewed on Fox News.
The outstanding oratory of the bilingual Hannan ranks, in my opinion, as one of the finest examples of logic, common sense, and political savvy in recent memory. Here is most of his speech:
Prime Minister, I see you’ve already mastered the essential craft of this Parliament – that being to say one thing in this chamber, and a very different thing to your home electorate. You’ve spoken here about free trade, and amen to that; who would have guessed, listening to you just now, that you were the author of the phrase ‘British Jobs for British Workers’, and that you have subsidized - where you have not nationalized outright - swathes of our economy, including the car industry and many of the banks.
Perhaps you would have more moral authority in this house if your actions matched your words. Perhaps you would have more legitimacy in the councils of the world if the United Kingdom were not going into this recession in the worst condition of any G20 country.
The truth, Prime Minister, is that you have run out of our money. The country as a whole is now in negative equity. Every British child is born owing around £20,000. Servicing the interest on that debt is going to cost more than educating the child.
Now once again today you tried to spread the blame around, you spoke about an international recession; an international crisis. Well, it is true that we are all sailing together into the squall – but not every vessel in the convoy is in the same dilapidated condition. Other ships used the good years to caulk their hulls and clear up their rigging – in other words, to pay off debt – but you used the good years to raise borrowing yet further. As a consequence, under your captaincy, our hull is pressed deep into the water line, under the accumulated weight of your debt. We are now running a deficit that touches almost 10% of GDP – an unbelievable figure. More than Pakistan, more than Hungary – countries where the IMF has already been called in.
Now, it’s not that you’re not apologizing - like everyone else, I’ve long accepted that you’re pathologically incapable of accepting responsibility for these things - it’s that you’re carrying on, willfully worsening the situation, wantonly spending what little we have left. Last year, in the last twelve months, 125,000 private sector jobs have been lost – and yet you’ve created 30,000 public sector jobs. Prime Minister you cannot go on forever squeezing the productive bit of the economy in order to fund an unprecedented engorging of the unproductive bit.
You cannot spend your way out of recession or borrow your way out of debt. And when you repeat, in that wooden and perfunctory way, that our situation is better than others, that we’re well placed to weather the storm, I have to tell you, you sound like a Brezhnev-era Apparatchik giving the party line. You know, and we know, and you know that we know that it’s nonsense. Everyone knows that Britain is the worst place to go into these hard times. The IMF has said so. The European Commission has said so. The markets have said so, which is why our currency has devalued by 30% – and soon the voters, too, will get their chance to say so.
This conservative spokesman addressed his Prime Minister. He could just as easily have said the same to our country's leader. So much fits, despite Hannan's early endorsement of candidate Obama. For example, our president is on the verge of nationalizing the auto industry by his booting out the chairman of GM and telling Chrysler to merge with Italy's Fiat. Where does a president get the authority to act like a modern day King George? Obama's Treasury Secretary wants power to take over any "suspect" company. This is pure and simple socialism with a capital C, all in a democracy. Mark my words…look for Hannan to be a future British Prime Minister. Would that we had him in Congress, or better yet, our prez. The dictatorial leader we are stuck with could learn a lot from this oratorical sensation, who, despite his youth, speaks with the wisdom of that rarity in government...common sense. You can view his entire speech on You-Tube at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94lW6Y4tBXs.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
What about Poland?
In August of 2008, the United States and Poland signed a deal to place a U.S. missile defense base just 115 miles from Russia, a move followed swiftly by a new warning from Moscow of a possible military response.
For many Poles, whose country has been a staunch U.S. ally, the accord represented what they believed would be a guarantee of safety for themselves in the face of a newly assertive Russia.
Negotiators sealed the deal against a backdrop of Russian military action in Georgia, a former Soviet republic turned U.S. ally, that has worried former Soviet satellites across eastern Europe. It prompted sharp rhetoric over the system, which it contends is aimed at Russia despite Washington's insistence the site is purely defensive.
During the Cold War, Poland was under Soviet rule by a puppet leader controlled by Moscow. Remember his name? President Wojciech Witold Jaruzelski. His presidency lasted a couple of years before it capitulated to the Solidarity union movement headed by Lech Wałęsa with the moral leadership of the future Pope John Paul II. The movement toppled Communist rule in the country in 1990. Walesa went on to become Poland’s president for five years, having earlier won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1983 for founding Solidarity.
Poland became a member of NATO in 1999 along with the Czech Republic and Hungary. Poles then voted to join the European Union in a referendum in June 2003, with Poland becoming a full member in May of 2004.
So much for the recent history of Poland. However, will Poland be left out to dangle in the wind by the Obama administration? In February, Obama sent a secret letter to Russia’s president last month suggesting that he would back off deploying a new missile defense system in Eastern Europe if Moscow would help stop Iran from developing long-range weapons.
The letter to Russian President Medvedev was hand-delivered in Moscow by top administration officials three weeks ago. It said the United States would not need to proceed with the interceptor system, which has been vehemently opposed by Russia since it was proposed by the Bush administration, if Iran halted any efforts to build nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles.
The Poles placed great faith in the United States during the Bush administration. It took a huge risk trusting the U.S. to keep its word on the missile defense agreement. Now, that trust appears to have turned into a plea for continued support. However, the Obama administration appears to have other ideas, despite Secretary of State Clinton’s words recently: "As members of NATO, we take seriously our alliance commitments and I'm very confident that we will work through any issues that lie ahead -- on any front."
Poland wants the U.S. to honor its agreement to build a missile defense base in its country. Poland's president has said that scrapping the project to improve ties with Russia would be an unfriendly gesture toward Poland. In Brussels on March 22, Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski said that Poland took significant political risk signing a pact in August with the U.S. approving a missile defense system in the country.
"Russian generals, and even the Russian president, still continues to threaten us with the deployment of medium-range missiles in our immediate vicinity," he said. "So we signed with the previous administration. We patiently wait for the decision of the new administration and we hope we don't regret our trust in the United States."
So, what about Poland? Obama has been accused by conservatives of double-speak in other areas recently. The best line from the March 24th press conference, in reference to his who-knows-how-many trillions of dollars budget, was: “It's … a budget that leads to broad economic growth by moving from an era of borrow and spend to one where we save and invest.”
I fear for Poland and its being sold down the river in the name of diplomacy by an inexperienced and naïve President.
For many Poles, whose country has been a staunch U.S. ally, the accord represented what they believed would be a guarantee of safety for themselves in the face of a newly assertive Russia.
Negotiators sealed the deal against a backdrop of Russian military action in Georgia, a former Soviet republic turned U.S. ally, that has worried former Soviet satellites across eastern Europe. It prompted sharp rhetoric over the system, which it contends is aimed at Russia despite Washington's insistence the site is purely defensive.
During the Cold War, Poland was under Soviet rule by a puppet leader controlled by Moscow. Remember his name? President Wojciech Witold Jaruzelski. His presidency lasted a couple of years before it capitulated to the Solidarity union movement headed by Lech Wałęsa with the moral leadership of the future Pope John Paul II. The movement toppled Communist rule in the country in 1990. Walesa went on to become Poland’s president for five years, having earlier won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1983 for founding Solidarity.
Poland became a member of NATO in 1999 along with the Czech Republic and Hungary. Poles then voted to join the European Union in a referendum in June 2003, with Poland becoming a full member in May of 2004.
So much for the recent history of Poland. However, will Poland be left out to dangle in the wind by the Obama administration? In February, Obama sent a secret letter to Russia’s president last month suggesting that he would back off deploying a new missile defense system in Eastern Europe if Moscow would help stop Iran from developing long-range weapons.
The letter to Russian President Medvedev was hand-delivered in Moscow by top administration officials three weeks ago. It said the United States would not need to proceed with the interceptor system, which has been vehemently opposed by Russia since it was proposed by the Bush administration, if Iran halted any efforts to build nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles.
The Poles placed great faith in the United States during the Bush administration. It took a huge risk trusting the U.S. to keep its word on the missile defense agreement. Now, that trust appears to have turned into a plea for continued support. However, the Obama administration appears to have other ideas, despite Secretary of State Clinton’s words recently: "As members of NATO, we take seriously our alliance commitments and I'm very confident that we will work through any issues that lie ahead -- on any front."
Poland wants the U.S. to honor its agreement to build a missile defense base in its country. Poland's president has said that scrapping the project to improve ties with Russia would be an unfriendly gesture toward Poland. In Brussels on March 22, Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski said that Poland took significant political risk signing a pact in August with the U.S. approving a missile defense system in the country.
"Russian generals, and even the Russian president, still continues to threaten us with the deployment of medium-range missiles in our immediate vicinity," he said. "So we signed with the previous administration. We patiently wait for the decision of the new administration and we hope we don't regret our trust in the United States."
So, what about Poland? Obama has been accused by conservatives of double-speak in other areas recently. The best line from the March 24th press conference, in reference to his who-knows-how-many trillions of dollars budget, was: “It's … a budget that leads to broad economic growth by moving from an era of borrow and spend to one where we save and invest.”
I fear for Poland and its being sold down the river in the name of diplomacy by an inexperienced and naïve President.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Liberalism, the Campus, and Change in Washington…
As a former high school social studies teacher, I often commented to my peers that the high school social studies curriculum was incomplete. Since high school American History classes began with America’s Civil War, I asked “Where is the early history of our country taught?” The answer given me was that part of American history was taught in junior high school. Okay, I thought, but wouldn’t it be appropriate at least to give students primary source material in high school on the founding fathers’ writings, the Declaration of Independence, and how the Constitution was written? What, then, I thought would happen to the students if they went on to college without any knowledge of the foundational documents of our country?
The Right Brothers have a song “Shut Up and Teach” which gets to the heart of what’s happening on so many major colleges and universities today. The Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) recently released a comprehensive study on higher education's failure to teach students about America's early history and institutions.
The investigation was based on the premise that today's college students, who will be our nation's future leaders, must have a basic understanding of American history and founding principles if they are to be informed citizens. How can they evaluate America's relationship to the rest of the world unless they have a clear vision of America's unique identity and how we got where we are?
The results of ISI's multi-year study by eminent academics, who are experienced in the classroom, are depressing. ISI contracted with the University of Connecticut's Department of Public Policy to undertake the largest statistically valid survey ever conducted in order to find out what colleges and universities are teaching their students about U.S. history and institutions. They surveyed 14,000 randomly selected college freshmen and seniors at 50 colleges and universities.
The students were tested with 60 multiple-choice questions to measure their knowledge in four subject areas: American history, American government, America and the world, and the market economy. Freshmen and seniors were given the same test, and here are the results: Seniors scored only 1.5 percent higher, on average, than freshmen, and at 16 schools, seniors scored lower than freshmen. I guess that means they learned little or nothing about America in their four years of college. If the multiple-choice test had been administered as an exam in a college course, seniors would have failed with an average score of 53.2 percent. That's called getting an F.
Seniors at 22 of the 50 colleges scored on average below 50 percent. More than half the seniors could not identify the correct century when the first American colony was established at Jamestown, or recognize Yorktown as the battle that ended the American Revolution. Fewer than half of college seniors recognized that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" is from the Declaration of Independence.
At many prestigious colleges, including Yale, Brown, and Georgetown, seniors know less than freshmen about American history. Many of the professors are encouraging their students to participate in political action, giving credit for such activities. By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans. The disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87 percent of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative.
It seems to boil down to the obvious fact that students don't learn what colleges don't teach. If learning American history is the measure, the student can just as well attend a low-budget college. I would recommend watching (or buying the DVD) of "Indoctrinate U," a feature-length documentary film written by, directed by and starring Evan Coyne Maloney, on ideological conformism and political correctness in American higher education. Among other things, the film examines the use of institutional mechanisms such as speech codes, which it claims are used to punish students who express political views that are unpopular within academia. By the way, Maloney was raised by liberal-leaning parents…
The film covers anti-military protests at UC Santa Cruz and San Francisco State University, treatment of conservative students at Cal Poly and the University of Tennessee, racial and ethnic politics at the University of Michigan and Yale, teaching at Duke and Columbia, among other subjects. It also includes interviews with David French and Greg Lukianoff, (then respectively president and director of legal and public advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education), Glenn Reynolds, Daniel Pipes and others. Maloney spent two and a half years making the documentary by conducting interviews on various college campuses and with various thinkers.
No wonder, Obama-mania has swept the young. Our liberal, socialist-minded president was elected partly because of liberal organizations such as Acorn and the non-stop barrage of liberal vitriol oozing out of our major universities. The president is very clear about his social agenda: Take from the rich and distribute their surplus to the poor. In an ideal world, everyone should have enough of this world’s goods to survive at least frugally. Christianity, in its beginnings, tried a socialist agenda, as described in Acts:
Acts 4:32 The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common. 33 With great power the apostles bore witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was accorded them all. 34 There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, 35 and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need.
Sounds more than socialist to me. The problem with the application of the early Christian model and today is that what the “community of believers” did then was voluntary, not compulsory. Religious orders that followed in the Church’s history copied that model and it is still around today, as members of religious orders voluntarily take a vow of poverty, BUT are not FORCED to do so.
I don’t think most Americans want forced redistribution of wealth. That’s not what this last election was about. Change, yes, but socialism, no. As the president’s approval rating continues to fall with his attempt to change America dramatically with his liberal agenda, I think the instinctive direction of Americans toward freedom will survive…despite the bias of college professors and the blueprint for the nation of the present Administration in Washington (and the tail-wagging Congress) to the contrary.
The Right Brothers have a song “Shut Up and Teach” which gets to the heart of what’s happening on so many major colleges and universities today. The Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) recently released a comprehensive study on higher education's failure to teach students about America's early history and institutions.
The investigation was based on the premise that today's college students, who will be our nation's future leaders, must have a basic understanding of American history and founding principles if they are to be informed citizens. How can they evaluate America's relationship to the rest of the world unless they have a clear vision of America's unique identity and how we got where we are?
The results of ISI's multi-year study by eminent academics, who are experienced in the classroom, are depressing. ISI contracted with the University of Connecticut's Department of Public Policy to undertake the largest statistically valid survey ever conducted in order to find out what colleges and universities are teaching their students about U.S. history and institutions. They surveyed 14,000 randomly selected college freshmen and seniors at 50 colleges and universities.
The students were tested with 60 multiple-choice questions to measure their knowledge in four subject areas: American history, American government, America and the world, and the market economy. Freshmen and seniors were given the same test, and here are the results: Seniors scored only 1.5 percent higher, on average, than freshmen, and at 16 schools, seniors scored lower than freshmen. I guess that means they learned little or nothing about America in their four years of college. If the multiple-choice test had been administered as an exam in a college course, seniors would have failed with an average score of 53.2 percent. That's called getting an F.
Seniors at 22 of the 50 colleges scored on average below 50 percent. More than half the seniors could not identify the correct century when the first American colony was established at Jamestown, or recognize Yorktown as the battle that ended the American Revolution. Fewer than half of college seniors recognized that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" is from the Declaration of Independence.
At many prestigious colleges, including Yale, Brown, and Georgetown, seniors know less than freshmen about American history. Many of the professors are encouraging their students to participate in political action, giving credit for such activities. By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans. The disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87 percent of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative.
It seems to boil down to the obvious fact that students don't learn what colleges don't teach. If learning American history is the measure, the student can just as well attend a low-budget college. I would recommend watching (or buying the DVD) of "Indoctrinate U," a feature-length documentary film written by, directed by and starring Evan Coyne Maloney, on ideological conformism and political correctness in American higher education. Among other things, the film examines the use of institutional mechanisms such as speech codes, which it claims are used to punish students who express political views that are unpopular within academia. By the way, Maloney was raised by liberal-leaning parents…
The film covers anti-military protests at UC Santa Cruz and San Francisco State University, treatment of conservative students at Cal Poly and the University of Tennessee, racial and ethnic politics at the University of Michigan and Yale, teaching at Duke and Columbia, among other subjects. It also includes interviews with David French and Greg Lukianoff, (then respectively president and director of legal and public advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education), Glenn Reynolds, Daniel Pipes and others. Maloney spent two and a half years making the documentary by conducting interviews on various college campuses and with various thinkers.
No wonder, Obama-mania has swept the young. Our liberal, socialist-minded president was elected partly because of liberal organizations such as Acorn and the non-stop barrage of liberal vitriol oozing out of our major universities. The president is very clear about his social agenda: Take from the rich and distribute their surplus to the poor. In an ideal world, everyone should have enough of this world’s goods to survive at least frugally. Christianity, in its beginnings, tried a socialist agenda, as described in Acts:
Acts 4:32 The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common. 33 With great power the apostles bore witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was accorded them all. 34 There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, 35 and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need.
Sounds more than socialist to me. The problem with the application of the early Christian model and today is that what the “community of believers” did then was voluntary, not compulsory. Religious orders that followed in the Church’s history copied that model and it is still around today, as members of religious orders voluntarily take a vow of poverty, BUT are not FORCED to do so.
I don’t think most Americans want forced redistribution of wealth. That’s not what this last election was about. Change, yes, but socialism, no. As the president’s approval rating continues to fall with his attempt to change America dramatically with his liberal agenda, I think the instinctive direction of Americans toward freedom will survive…despite the bias of college professors and the blueprint for the nation of the present Administration in Washington (and the tail-wagging Congress) to the contrary.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Dead-beat America…
On March 11th, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon pointed out to members of the House Foreign Relations Committee that although the United States pays 22 percent of the U.N.'s $4.86 billion operating budget, the country is always late with its dues. The U.S. is now is approximately $1 billion behind, a figure that will soon increase to $1.6 billion. In the private meeting, he referred to the U.S. as a "deadbeat" nation. Now why in the name of humankind should the U.S. be taken behind the woodshed for this kind of trash talk?
The concept of the United Nations is basically a good idea. Notice that Pope Benedict, while in the U.S. last year, made it a point to address the UN. However, given the track record of peace-keeping activities (which is the primary reason for its existence), we have to question where its heart lies.
Gobbling up a quarter of its income from this “deadbeat” country of ours, the UN has made some half-hearted efforts to prevent violence, but all too often its attempts wind up failing in its mission.
Last December in Kiwanja, Congo, in little more than 24 hours, at least 150 people, most of them young men were executed by Congolese rebels. And yet, as the killings took place, a contingent of about 100 United Nations peacekeepers was just a few minutes away, struggling to understand what was happening outside the gates of its base. The peacekeepers were short of equipment and men, and they were focusing on evacuating frightened aid workers and searching for a foreign journalist who had been kidnapped. Already overwhelmed, officials said, they had no intelligence capabilities or even an interpreter.
The executions in Kiwanja are a study in the unfettered cruelty meted out by the armed groups fighting for power and resources in eastern Congo. But the events are also a textbook example of the continuing failure of the world's largest international peacekeeping force, which has a mandate to protect the Congolese people from brutality.
When the United Nations does use force, the results are often pathetic. The various national contingents that make up U.N. peacekeeping operations -- Bangladeshis, Bulgarians, Brazilians, and the like -- are chosen not for martial prowess but because their governments are willing to send them, often for no better reason than to collect a daily stipend.
Three UN staffers published a controversial book recently. I cannot verify its contents, but if the book's main point is true, it merits consideration. I will use fictitious names, since they have been singled out as "whistleblowers." Their story began a decade ago. John Smith, a doctor, wanted to save lives. Maury Doe, a human-rights lawyer, wanted to save the world. Mary Johnston, a secretary, just wanted to save some money and leave her broken marriage behind. Six years later, after stints in Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Rwanda and Liberia, the three came to believe that not only was the United Nations unable to keep pace with its grand ideals in the new world order, it actually allowed genocides in Rwanda and Bosnia.
"We didn't start out to write a scandalous book about the U.N.," Smith said. "But it is a scandal that almost a million civilians, who our peacekeepers had promised to protect, were killed in Rwanda and Srebrenica."
"I find it very difficult that not a single U.N. official in the secretariat was investigated or disciplined for those failures," he said. To the trio's collective surprise, their book has served as much as a recruiting tool for the United Nations as a lightning rod for the world body's critics. Imagine the quality of volunteers…
In a world of “haves” and “have nots,” it is not surprising that Ban Ki-moon wants the U.S. to do more and pay on time. However, the make-up of UN peacekeeping forces is pitiful. Why is it that the U.S. always seems to be drawn in to become the world’s peacekeeper by using its military superiority so effectively? It is the oxymoron of the world we live in. The Putins, Chavezes, BinLadens, Ahmadinejads, Jong-Ils, and many others will keep peace from happening as it serves their whims. What would the world be like without the U.S.? The UN Secretary General is head of an organization that cannot carry out its primary mission and no amount of money or public scolding will increase its effectiveness. If he truly wants more of U.S. aid, its forces need a much more professional capability, more troops, and with effective authority to intervene. However, given the makeup of the anti-democracy forces in the Security Council and General Assembly, the U.N. peacekeeping role is a forum for talk, vetoes, and little constructive action. Its footsoldiers reflect that weakness.
The concept of the United Nations is basically a good idea. Notice that Pope Benedict, while in the U.S. last year, made it a point to address the UN. However, given the track record of peace-keeping activities (which is the primary reason for its existence), we have to question where its heart lies.
Gobbling up a quarter of its income from this “deadbeat” country of ours, the UN has made some half-hearted efforts to prevent violence, but all too often its attempts wind up failing in its mission.
Last December in Kiwanja, Congo, in little more than 24 hours, at least 150 people, most of them young men were executed by Congolese rebels. And yet, as the killings took place, a contingent of about 100 United Nations peacekeepers was just a few minutes away, struggling to understand what was happening outside the gates of its base. The peacekeepers were short of equipment and men, and they were focusing on evacuating frightened aid workers and searching for a foreign journalist who had been kidnapped. Already overwhelmed, officials said, they had no intelligence capabilities or even an interpreter.
The executions in Kiwanja are a study in the unfettered cruelty meted out by the armed groups fighting for power and resources in eastern Congo. But the events are also a textbook example of the continuing failure of the world's largest international peacekeeping force, which has a mandate to protect the Congolese people from brutality.
When the United Nations does use force, the results are often pathetic. The various national contingents that make up U.N. peacekeeping operations -- Bangladeshis, Bulgarians, Brazilians, and the like -- are chosen not for martial prowess but because their governments are willing to send them, often for no better reason than to collect a daily stipend.
Three UN staffers published a controversial book recently. I cannot verify its contents, but if the book's main point is true, it merits consideration. I will use fictitious names, since they have been singled out as "whistleblowers." Their story began a decade ago. John Smith, a doctor, wanted to save lives. Maury Doe, a human-rights lawyer, wanted to save the world. Mary Johnston, a secretary, just wanted to save some money and leave her broken marriage behind. Six years later, after stints in Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Rwanda and Liberia, the three came to believe that not only was the United Nations unable to keep pace with its grand ideals in the new world order, it actually allowed genocides in Rwanda and Bosnia.
"We didn't start out to write a scandalous book about the U.N.," Smith said. "But it is a scandal that almost a million civilians, who our peacekeepers had promised to protect, were killed in Rwanda and Srebrenica."
"I find it very difficult that not a single U.N. official in the secretariat was investigated or disciplined for those failures," he said. To the trio's collective surprise, their book has served as much as a recruiting tool for the United Nations as a lightning rod for the world body's critics. Imagine the quality of volunteers…
In a world of “haves” and “have nots,” it is not surprising that Ban Ki-moon wants the U.S. to do more and pay on time. However, the make-up of UN peacekeeping forces is pitiful. Why is it that the U.S. always seems to be drawn in to become the world’s peacekeeper by using its military superiority so effectively? It is the oxymoron of the world we live in. The Putins, Chavezes, BinLadens, Ahmadinejads, Jong-Ils, and many others will keep peace from happening as it serves their whims. What would the world be like without the U.S.? The UN Secretary General is head of an organization that cannot carry out its primary mission and no amount of money or public scolding will increase its effectiveness. If he truly wants more of U.S. aid, its forces need a much more professional capability, more troops, and with effective authority to intervene. However, given the makeup of the anti-democracy forces in the Security Council and General Assembly, the U.N. peacekeeping role is a forum for talk, vetoes, and little constructive action. Its footsoldiers reflect that weakness.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
A Wacked Out Country
Consider the following. California is a unique state by many standards. It is home to Hollywood, undoubtedly a challenge to Las Vegas as this country’s “Sin City” with its constant outpouring of movie trash. It took an Indian film “Slumdog Millionaire,” made in Mumbai, aka Bollywood, to capture the Oscar spotlight stage this year.
Then there’s talk that California, with its $57 billion debt, might go bankrupt. But, hey, don’t lose hope in the state that can’t figure out whether marriage is heterosexual, homosexual, or lesbian. How about more taxes to wipe away the state’s debt? Assemblyman Tom Ammiano of San Francisco introduced a bill that would help solve the financial hole the state is in. The bill proposes a $50-an-ounce tax on retail sales of weed, which would come to $1.3 billion per year in revenues. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, legalizing the drug would drop its street value by 50 percent and increase usage by 40 percent. Wonderful.
Last week I highlighted Mexico for its growing narco-state reputation. Well, there are always more clever (and dumber) minds than those who designed the 700 mile long fence to keep illegal Mexicans out of this country. Mexican drug dealers have tried doing Evel Kneivel car jumps over the fence with specially-built launching ramps. The latest fad is the use of ultralight aircraft, loaded with 100 lbs. or more of marijuana, to fly over the fence.
All this ingenuity helps feed Americans’ desire to be wacked out. Maybe a country such as the U.S. with its 50 million abortions to its credit has a little problem with its vision. Think of all the U.S. families which have been affected by the insane drug of abortion. You’ve got to be blind to biology not to know that a ten week old fetus, with all its fingers and toes, is a human being. However, that blindness is creating a moral vacuum in the U.S.
I decry the blindness and ignorance of those who are pro-choice, aka pro-abortion. I also find those who would like to legalize marijuana with a similar erroneous near-sightedness. As a former high school assistant principal and K-12 administrator, I have seen what weed does to kids. Grades drop, rebellion against authority grows, and the desire for more dangerous drugs usually results. Honesty and integrity take a hit as well. Consider President Clinton’s remark about his use of dope … “Well, I didn’t inhale.”
Raising money for California’s debt crisis by taxing weed, and making it legal, will tempt other states to follow suit. The main argument for legalization is that marijuana is the alcohol of Prohibition. Well, ending Prohibition hasn’t been the cure-all for that problem either. Alcoholism is a killer disease. It is unique from other illnesses in that it is caused by an unruly mind later destroying the body. It does not stop there and causes all-round destruction and unhappiness for everyone. The malady wrecks families and create social problems. Recent years have seen a spurt in the number of alcoholics in our country.
Abortion, Alcoholism, and Acceptance of illegal drugs…in grading them, they all get “Fs” …and that’s a cocktail for a wacked out country.
Then there’s talk that California, with its $57 billion debt, might go bankrupt. But, hey, don’t lose hope in the state that can’t figure out whether marriage is heterosexual, homosexual, or lesbian. How about more taxes to wipe away the state’s debt? Assemblyman Tom Ammiano of San Francisco introduced a bill that would help solve the financial hole the state is in. The bill proposes a $50-an-ounce tax on retail sales of weed, which would come to $1.3 billion per year in revenues. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, legalizing the drug would drop its street value by 50 percent and increase usage by 40 percent. Wonderful.
Last week I highlighted Mexico for its growing narco-state reputation. Well, there are always more clever (and dumber) minds than those who designed the 700 mile long fence to keep illegal Mexicans out of this country. Mexican drug dealers have tried doing Evel Kneivel car jumps over the fence with specially-built launching ramps. The latest fad is the use of ultralight aircraft, loaded with 100 lbs. or more of marijuana, to fly over the fence.
All this ingenuity helps feed Americans’ desire to be wacked out. Maybe a country such as the U.S. with its 50 million abortions to its credit has a little problem with its vision. Think of all the U.S. families which have been affected by the insane drug of abortion. You’ve got to be blind to biology not to know that a ten week old fetus, with all its fingers and toes, is a human being. However, that blindness is creating a moral vacuum in the U.S.
I decry the blindness and ignorance of those who are pro-choice, aka pro-abortion. I also find those who would like to legalize marijuana with a similar erroneous near-sightedness. As a former high school assistant principal and K-12 administrator, I have seen what weed does to kids. Grades drop, rebellion against authority grows, and the desire for more dangerous drugs usually results. Honesty and integrity take a hit as well. Consider President Clinton’s remark about his use of dope … “Well, I didn’t inhale.”
Raising money for California’s debt crisis by taxing weed, and making it legal, will tempt other states to follow suit. The main argument for legalization is that marijuana is the alcohol of Prohibition. Well, ending Prohibition hasn’t been the cure-all for that problem either. Alcoholism is a killer disease. It is unique from other illnesses in that it is caused by an unruly mind later destroying the body. It does not stop there and causes all-round destruction and unhappiness for everyone. The malady wrecks families and create social problems. Recent years have seen a spurt in the number of alcoholics in our country.
Abortion, Alcoholism, and Acceptance of illegal drugs…in grading them, they all get “Fs” …and that’s a cocktail for a wacked out country.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Don't Go There...
We in the U.S. have been so focused on our economic plight and our President’s almost daily appearances on the digital boob tube, that we probably haven’t given much attention to what is going on in the rest of the world.
Spring is just around the corner and U.S. students will be heading off to warmer environs to do their annual spring breaks from studies and morality in who knows where. Mexico has often been the destination. Places like Cancun cater to the not-so-adult college student crowd.
Mexican drug wars and a string of bloody murders have prompted the U.S. State Department to warn travelers - particularly students - to be careful on their spring breaks. A surge of violence of late has been confined for the most part to border towns, but there have been murders in Acapulco and Cancun — popular spring break destinations. Mexico's drug cartels are waging a bloody fight among themselves for smuggling routes and against government forces, carrying out massacres and dumping beheaded bodies in the streets.
The violence in border towns like Juarez, just across the border from El Paso, has been staggering. Juarez has seen 207 murders already this year. The area is in the grips of a vicious war between drug cartels seeking control of the lucrative illegal business. In 2008, more than 1,600 murders were committed in Juarez, and at this rate the 2009 total will be even higher.
As a teacher of forty years, I found the following news particularly gruesome. Just before Christmas this past year, a drug cartel posted large signs near a primary school in Juarez demanding that the teachers give up their Christmas bonuses or die. The school was within waling distance of the U.S. Embassy in Juarez. To emphasize their intentions, they left eight bodies on the sidewalk for the teachers and children to see.
By some estimates there are 200 counties in Mexico -- some 8% of the total -- where drug gangs wield more influence behind the scenes than the authorities. With fearsome arsenals of rocket-propelled grenades, bazookas and automatic weapons, cartels are often better armed than the police and even the soldiers they fight. The number of weapons confiscated last year from drug gangs in Mexico could arm the entire army of El Salvador, by one estimate. Where do most of the weapons come from? The U.S. Where do most of the drugs go from Mexico? The U.S. Mexican President Felipe Calderon is one of the few Latin American presidents who is challenging the drug cartels that feed those in the U.S. who continue to be wacked out on illegal drugs and provide a ready market for forming narco-states.
In a recent blog, I suggested that Mexico is nearing collapse as a nation. Perhaps not, but when Mexican mayors of border towns go home at night to second homes in the U.S., my advice is “Don’t go there…or anywhere in Mexico, for that matter.
Spring is just around the corner and U.S. students will be heading off to warmer environs to do their annual spring breaks from studies and morality in who knows where. Mexico has often been the destination. Places like Cancun cater to the not-so-adult college student crowd.
Mexican drug wars and a string of bloody murders have prompted the U.S. State Department to warn travelers - particularly students - to be careful on their spring breaks. A surge of violence of late has been confined for the most part to border towns, but there have been murders in Acapulco and Cancun — popular spring break destinations. Mexico's drug cartels are waging a bloody fight among themselves for smuggling routes and against government forces, carrying out massacres and dumping beheaded bodies in the streets.
The violence in border towns like Juarez, just across the border from El Paso, has been staggering. Juarez has seen 207 murders already this year. The area is in the grips of a vicious war between drug cartels seeking control of the lucrative illegal business. In 2008, more than 1,600 murders were committed in Juarez, and at this rate the 2009 total will be even higher.
As a teacher of forty years, I found the following news particularly gruesome. Just before Christmas this past year, a drug cartel posted large signs near a primary school in Juarez demanding that the teachers give up their Christmas bonuses or die. The school was within waling distance of the U.S. Embassy in Juarez. To emphasize their intentions, they left eight bodies on the sidewalk for the teachers and children to see.
By some estimates there are 200 counties in Mexico -- some 8% of the total -- where drug gangs wield more influence behind the scenes than the authorities. With fearsome arsenals of rocket-propelled grenades, bazookas and automatic weapons, cartels are often better armed than the police and even the soldiers they fight. The number of weapons confiscated last year from drug gangs in Mexico could arm the entire army of El Salvador, by one estimate. Where do most of the weapons come from? The U.S. Where do most of the drugs go from Mexico? The U.S. Mexican President Felipe Calderon is one of the few Latin American presidents who is challenging the drug cartels that feed those in the U.S. who continue to be wacked out on illegal drugs and provide a ready market for forming narco-states.
In a recent blog, I suggested that Mexico is nearing collapse as a nation. Perhaps not, but when Mexican mayors of border towns go home at night to second homes in the U.S., my advice is “Don’t go there…or anywhere in Mexico, for that matter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
