Wednesday, February 16, 2005

Free the terrorists

OK, just when I thought that the peace talks between the PLO and Israel were going smashingly...
SCREEEEEECH. It seems that the PLO will not take the peace process any further unless:
The Executive Committee of Mahmoud Abbas’s Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Sunday demanded the immediate release of all jailed “Palestinian” terrorists, without restrictions or preconditions, if Israel wants the peace process to continue.
Whaaaaaat? Your kidding right? Israel has taken some steps of faith lately, like releasing some Palestinian prisoners now and then. Their step of faith deserves a step of faith from the PLO, and then another from Israel. But asking them to release them all might be a stretch. I'm betting this is just a move to accept something less from Israel, but more than they were going to give in the first place.
I would be highly surprised if Israel agreed to anything close to this, though.
And once the terrorists are free, PA police officers indicated they either would not or could not do anything to prevent them from planning and executing further atrocities against Jewish men, women and children.
What a great comfort!
Washington seeks to remedy the situation by training the PA security forces to be a lean, organized terror-fighting machine. But the Clinton Administration’s attempt to do the same backfired when CIA-trained “Palestinian” troops turned their guns on Israelis.
Yeah, they don't inspire much confidence do they? I don't think that the PLO is in a moral position yet to make such a request. And the threat to stall the peace process if they don't is probably something that Israel is getting used to by now. Whatever. Abbas is failing to impress me.
Israel is not in a really good mood to be toying with, as Abbas seems to be doing. They just found out that the Russians are planning to stock Syria's back yard with all sorts of ballistic lawn equipment. Big thanks to the Ruskies there for helping out in all this Middle-east instability. Much abliged fellows, now go away!

Model UN

The Univ. of Chicago hosted a simulation where students model the United Nations:
This past weekend, Model United Nations of the University of Chicago (MUNUC) hosted one of the premier high school United Nations simulations in the country for the 17th year. Some 150 Chicago students sacrificed time and sleep to teach thousands of high school delegates that, unlike the Bush administration’s policies, diplomacy and debate can work.
Oxblog responds:
But is a "model" UN supposed to be effective and decisive? Or are students expected to behave like actual UN delegates? For that matter, does the Chicago Model UN program teach high school students how to embezzle like actual UN bureaucrats?

Why can't we all just get along?

Well, in some circumstances we still can. Part of Bush's budget calls for federally subsidized power companies to start charging customers market value for power. Local officials are maintaining that this will raise the cost of power for local residents something like 20% per year.
The plan also would affect three other regional agencies that supply power to dozens of states: the Colorado-based Western Area Power Administration; Georgia-based Southeastern Power Administration; and Oklahoma-based Southwestern Power Administration. Overall, the plan could save as much as $12 billion during 10 years by removing subsidies and other federal assistance, officials said.
Ordinarily, I am in favor of market conditions and privatization, but this smells of something different. This feels more like an additional tax to raise money for the feds. Currently, the BPA charges to cover the cost of producing power. Makes it kind of like a non-profit. Is this fair?

"There are plenty of sources of power out there. They can't compete with the BPA because they are charging a discounted price based on cost and subsidy," Carnes said.
The administration plan "levels the playing field" with nonfederal providers that are being undercut by as much as 30 percent, Carnes said.

But RoguePundit points out that:
Carnes is engaging in a wee bit of hyperbole. There is very little spare power in the West during hot summers...so "plenty" is certainly an exaggeration. The plants that have excess capacity also produce greenhouse gasses, whereas dams do not. We subsidize wind and solar power to help make these cleaner power sources more affordable, so why would we want to potentially make fossil fuel power cheaper than hydropower?
Again, I say that since this is a government power company, where is the extra income that would come from charging market value going to? Federal coffers?
The interesting part about this is who is supporting it and who is opposing it. You would expect that NW congress persons would be against it. Count DeFazio (D-OR), Cantwell (D-WA), Inslee (D-WA) and Gordon Smith (R-OR)

Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., also opposed the plan, which he said could cost Northwest ratepayers as much as $2 billion during three years.
"BPA's customers are still recovering from the West Coast energy crisis and a sluggish economy. They've already been hit with rate hikes, and they can't afford any more. I am going to exhaust every right and privilege I have as a senator to kill this proposal," Smith said.

On a national level you have a mix as well. California Senators Fienstein and Boxer (both D) and Representatives Miller (D) and Bilbray (R) all are in favor of stopping the BPA from providing subsidized or at-cost power to their customers.
The chairman of the Senate Energy and NR committee, Pete Domenici (R-NM) opposes it.

The proposal immediately faced trouble in Congress. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, called it "politically untenable."
"Every once in a while, administrations of either party come up with this idea, and I won't support it," Domenici said.

This is all getting pretty surreal, watching Democrast demand a market solution and Repubs demanding subsidized power. But like I said before, since these are government agencies, the profits are just new government funds, which would be just like a new tax, so there's why Democrats would not have a problem with it.
I wonder if this is more of a regional thing than a Democrat-Republican thing. It seems like the winers in California are pissed that we up here in the NW have all this nice cheep power when they can't seem to restrain themselves when creating water and power for millions in southern California strains the system.

Tuesday, February 15, 2005

Map of Iraq Elections

Great map from Patrick Ruffini showing election results in all the regions of Iraq.

Monday, February 14, 2005

We hate love!

Happy Valentines Day! In case you are wondering why the cynical post title, just read stories about cultures in other nations that seem to hate this rather secular holiday, which is pretty harmless in it's essence.
Radicalists in India gather and burn Valentine's day cards. Nice. How does this not make them look foolish and petty? Next they'll be burning elmo dolls in effigy.
Nearly 50 Hindu hardliners burned Valentine's Day cards and posters in the Indian capital on Monday, protesting the international day of love that they say imposes Western values on India's youth.
Let's just say I feel no cultural shame in spreading the "Western" value of love. They need to get a life.
And even though it's not real, this kind of mocks that attitude (from the Onion).

WASHINGTON, DC-A new videotape of Osama bin Laden broadcast on the Arab satellite news channel Al-Jazeera Monday beseeched Allah to grant all Americans a "crappy Valentine's Day." . . .

"Allah willing, embarrassment and tearful rejection shall rule this day," bin Laden said. "Paper hearts shall be rent and trod upon, and dreams of love delivered stillborn. Body language shall be misinterpreted, crushes unrequited, and sincere expressions of affection mocked. Invitations to dinner will be rejected, just as Americans have rejected Allah, the one true God."

During a speech before the Oklahoma Cattlemen's Association, President Bush condemned the al-Qaeda leader's remarks.

Friday, February 11, 2005

UN moves ahead.....Slowly

OK, so the UN finally acted on something. Only it's the conflict in the Sudan that ended last year. They are, like, so last year. Whatever. Like totally.
Via Winds of Change comes this report that the UN has sent in troops to monitor the cease fire between the Sudan government and the SPLM. The SPLM is the southern resistance that Sudan was trying to wipe out for the past few years. Well, due to US pressure, the government decided to stop slaughtering those pesky southerners. But the Darfur residents, while also being black, are Muslims, so of course no-one will have any objections if we just quietly clear them out with vicious militant attacks and the like.
The UN also notified Western powers that a peace-keeping force will be required a few years from now to monitor the ceasefire between murdered blacks in Darfur, and marauding Arab militias and Sudanese bombers. Or maybe not. I'm just sick of the Nations United in Ignoring Genocide.
Yeah, me too. But at least having UN troops in place will be good for the people of southern Sudan. Oh, wait a minute...

Eason Jordan

I haven't been posting on this, but have been following it on Instapundit and Powerline. Instapundit today has a big roundup of commentary from Jordan's resignation.
I agree with what Jeff Jarvis and others are saying about this. It's not about the whacko conspiricy theory that Jordan was accused of making at the Davos summit.
It's about the fact that he tried to cover it up. It's just like the Rather-gate last year. If Rather had just admited mistake from the start and not tried to cover the mistake with transparent fabrications, he would still be reading the news to us nightly and still have some measure of respect.
That says something about Americans, that we treat lies and cover ups with such distain. It's a good lesson for the new democracies of the world, that transparency is important in government and the watchdog press.

Where liberalism leads

Unchecked anyway. There is a brand of liberalism (which I'm warm to) which follows the more classical vein. Limited government intervention, democratic, free and capitalist.
Then there is the vein that seems to dislike freedom in favor of some sort of perverse equality. It's this idiom that seems to embrace the terrorist movements, like for instance, the civil rights lawyer Lynn Stewart. Ms. Stewart, 65, was convicted of conspiring with her client, a terrorist leader, and lying to authorities.
"It's a dark day for civil liberties and for civil liberties lawyers in this country," attorney Ron Kuby
Yeah, perhaps. Or maybe we're just drawing the line here.

A tearful Stewart insisted she did nothing wrong after taking over Abdel-Rahman's case and representing him until her arrest in 2002. The blind cleric was convicted in 1995 of plotting to blow up New York landmarks and assassinate Egypt's president.

"I hope this is a wake up call to all the citizens of this country," she said outside court. "You can't lock up the lawyers."

Whaaaat? Isn't that every American's secret fantasy?
"I think lawyers need to be advocates but they don't need to be accomplices," said Peter Margulies, a law professor at Roger Williams University
Absolutely. Amen.
No, really, this isn't that surprising. After all Robert Conquest makes a good case in his book, "Dragons of Expectation," which I picked up recently, that western liberalism creates these types of extreme ideologies. So maybe she believes that she and Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman are on the same team.

Gospel Spot

It turns out that the fantastic salvation add during the Super Bowl was financed by GospelSpot, an organization local to the Portland, Oregon area. On their website they announce that their spot was seen by over 1 million people in this area during the bowl.
Not to put a damper on that, but I highly doubt that. There are only about 2 million people, perhaps more than that by an order of thousands, that are in the Portland TV market. Kids and many wives were probably not glued to the set. And this spot was during halftime, in a set of local adds that you commonly get during the game. How many people do you think tuned out the local adds during halftime?
However, this is not to take away from the possible impact of the add. Just think if these guys had the money to make the add nation wide.
You can view the commercial here (wmv) or here (mp3).

Extraordinary Rendition

Is the US torturing people? Should we be having a discussion about where to draw the line on interrogations? I think yes, and so does Obsidian Wings, although I think they are a bit over the edge in the opposite direction as myself.
They point to this New Yorker article that talks about extraordinary rendition, which is the practice of handing over suspected terrorists, or other military captures, over to other nations for interrogation. Nations that don't hold back when trying to extract information. This stuff needs to be looked into. I don't believe everything I read these days, but upon reading the New Yorker article, if any of that stuff is true we need to stop it. I voted for GW, but not because I thought that anything we do to terrorists is OK if only becuase the information might save some of our troops.
There is a fine line, but we have to make sure that line is not crossed. Sebastian Halsclaw over at RedState.org agrees, and says that
Torture is wrong. The practice of extraordinary rendition began as a classic Clintonian hairsplitting exercise in the mid 1990s to avoid the clear letter of the laws which prohibit America from using torture. This is the kind of avoidance of the law and ridiculous semantics that we decried when employed by the Clinton adminstration. It has gotten no more attractive just because Bush has decided to continue the program.

Dobson redeemed

The LA Times recently printed an editorial that ridiculed James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family and an Evangelical figurehead, for making comments that the cartoon character Sponge Bob was gay.
Apparently the Times has recanted and produced this correction:
SpongeBob — An editorial Saturday about children’s literature and cartoons erroneously stated that James Dobson of Focus on the Family declared that SpongeBob SquarePants is a homosexual sponge. Instead, in a speech last month, Dobson criticized as pro-homosexual a tolerance video featuring SpongeBob, Big Bird and others.
This was probably due to complaints, like this one from Patterico, that the Times was taking the Dobson quotes out of context, and they were. This might seem like a trivial complaint, but I think it's significant and systematic of the main stream media. We cannot seem to trust them to get facts straight and be faithful to quotations without the blogosphere raising a fuss.
The correction might be enough, but might not. It could be argued that the damage has already been done.

Monday, February 07, 2005

New-gen Nukes

This story is not all together welcome.
US scientists are quietly starting work on a new generation of nuclear arms meant to be more rugged and reliable than warheads in the existing arsenal.
The story goes on to say that the US has about 10,000 existing warheads, and that sturdier more reliable nukes could stay on the shelf longer and ultimately reduce the number that we keep. I'm usually one to say that if anyone should have nukes it's the US. But do we really need to have 10,000 sitting around anyway? This isn't the cold world anymore. Why not send a positive message to the world, at a time when we are getting our tights in a bunge about N.Korea and Iran having them, by reducing the stockpile ANYWAY, and then consider replacing the balance with more reliable versions. As a step of good faith.

Bush's new Budget

The budget is out, and draws much criticism. I can understand much of the concern from Democrats (after all they are losing some pet programs, and Bush is answering their call to restrain spending, which they didn't want to happen). Bush is proving once again that he can take the heat, indicating that he is excited to explain each and every one of the cuts. Once again, he taunts, "Bring it on." (Paraphrasing there).
The reason that I linked the AP article as "Concern from Democrats" is that the first half of the article is criticism of the budget from Dems and from the author himself. Waaaaaaa!
Come on. I think that some of the cuts the Pres has called for take some real balls. Cuting funding for Farm subsidies?
Of 23 major government agencies, 12 would see their budget authority reduced next year, including cuts of 9.6 percent at Agriculture, 5.6 percent at the Environmental Protection Agency, 6.7 percent at Transportation and 11.5 percent at Housing and Urban Development.
When was the last time cuts like this were proposed? What is the likelyhood that it'll happen? Democrats, like Pelosi and Ried, fresh off their post State of the Union rebuttals, are whining that the budget makes no mention of any extra funds for the Iraq conflict (although Bush has made it plain that he will ask for $80 billion more this year) or for Social Security reform. And they are right to ask those questions.
However, how they deal with the rest of the budget will show how they REALLY feel about Bush's deficit.

Super Bowl add

I enjoyed many of the adds during the Super Bowl this year (as well as the game too, yes that part was fun). They definitely were less offensive and boorish than last year. Some were actually even funny.
There was one during halftime, though, that really caught our attention. I watch the Bowl at church, where many of us get together and project the game onto a big screen in the lower auditorium. Anyway, during halftime there was an add that started out with something about a guy who was going to die that day and started to ramble on about how much insurance he had and how well he was going to leave his family off when he passed.
But then it got interesting. After all that was done the announcer said something to the effect of (I'm doing this off memory) , "But Mr. so and so forgot to insure himself." The commercial then relates that the guy didn't know Jesus Christ, implying that he should have insured himself against eternal damnation.
Nice. The whole auditorium stood cheering, as did I. I mean that was totally unexpected in a barrage of Bud Light and Ameriquest commercials. But we never found out who sponsored the add, or whether it was a national or local spot. Anyone out there know?

Friday, February 04, 2005

Cats and Dogs living together...

Gay activists may be joining up with the National Rifle Assoc against.....
are you ready for this?
... the City of San Francisco.
The right to own guns may be even more important than the right to marry, Thomas said during the monthly shooting practice organized by the gay gun group the Pink Pistols.

"I want to be liberated as a gay man, but I'm not willing to give up the rights I have," he said. "If they can take that away from you, what more can they do?"

As the debate over the handgun ban proposal sharpens, the Pink Pistols, a national group with 38 chapters, is determinedly stepping into the fray. Organizers have posted their hearty objections to the proposed law on the group's Web site -- along with contact information for the five supervisors who voted for the ban -- and are weighing whether to join a lawsuit challenging the ordinance that the National Rifle Association is expected to file, said spokeswoman Gwen Patton.

Somebody pinch me.

Update: Someone from the Pink Pistols wrote me in the comments and gave me the link to thier site. From the site it looks like a group of libertarian minded gays. Definitely not playing the victim. Quite the opposite. Thanks for writing, Maggie.

Wednesday, February 02, 2005

Central Asia and the USA

The Argus has a discussion on why we don't actively go after all the dictatorships in the world, even politically. At least on the surface. He uses Uzbekistan as the focus of the discussion, as we have a base there, and Karimov is a pretty nasty dictator. We appear to be using the country as a base of operations in that region in our war on terror. Karimov allows this and backs us as long as we don't criticize him.
This makes it look like we are encouraging the oppressive regime solely for our strategic interests, but the Argus reminds us that not all political pressure is visible.
...we are attempting some small things to try to further democracy in Uzbekistan. They aren’t particularly sexy, high-profile projects, but IREX (and their IATP and Freenet), IWPR, and my beloved Peace Corps (among many others I’m forgetting) are supported by the US government and laying the ground in Uzbekistan. After all, nobody but close watchers of post-Soviet societies had heard of the years of work supported by the US government that went into preparing for the Rose and Orange Revolutions until after the fact.
He also argues that democracy is sometimes harder to get started in some places than others, and trying to push for democracy in Uzbekistan might not work right now. But the quiet effort goes on.
This is the whole idea behind the Peace Corps when it was started with the full blessing of the Kennedy administration. Kennedy was a liberal in the sense of wanting to project American power (in this case economic) to promote democracy throughout the world. Bush's retoric is not all that different, and the Peace Corps has been operating with government support all these decades.

Reclaiming the word "Martyr"

I use the same title as the M. Totten post, because I can't think of a better one. Michael posts a link to a Jeremy Brown article about those who died while waiting in line to vote on Sunday in Iraq, and the sentiments of those Iraqis who knew and loved them.
"It's not the man who exploded himself who's a martyr," Mr. Jasim said as the body washer wiped away dried blood. "He wasn't a true Muslim. This is the martyr. What religion asks people to blow themselves up? It's not written in the Koran."
Amen.

What to call it.

If it's not genocide, then what would you call it? Protein Wisdom has some suggestions:
"9 names the UN would PREFER we give to the "not genocide" in Darfur"
  1. "Refugee Bingo"
  2. "The Sudenese government presents, Darfur on Ice!"
  3. "Just a few silly Arab militia men sowing their oats"
  4. "David Blaine’s The Incredible Disappearing Civilians of Displeasing Ethnicity"
  5. "People Pruning"
  6. "Mulching the Desert"
  7. "No Chocolate Wednesdays"
  8. "That little African misunderstanding"
  9. “‘Extreme Makeover’: The Dark Continent edition"
Oh my.

Darfur update

Canada Free Press:
Canada Free Press has obtained a copy of the 176 page Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur to the United Nations Secretary-General, released on Monday.

According to the report, "The Commission does recognize that in some instances individuals, including Government officials, may commit acts with genocidal intent. [Emphasis added] Whether this was the case in Darfur, however, is a determination that only a competent court can make on a case by case basis." Cited under the Commission's "Accountability Mechanism" section, the International Commission "strongly recommends that the Security Council immediately refer the situation of Darfur to the International Criminal Court."

The "competent" court cited by the International Commission, the International Criminal Court, was established in part "to prosecute crimes such as genocide."

They put the scare quotes around "competent." Declaring genocide would mean that the UN would actually have to do something, so they declare that there is no genocide, just individuals who are "probably" committing "acts with genocidal intent." Problem solved! We don't have to do anything!
What a bunch of Weasles.
The US is still calling it genocide. Senators Sam Brownback and Frank Wolf are again calling for Kofi Annan to do something or resign.

"If the UN Security Council cannot deal with genocide ... I believe it's fair to ask what purpose is the UN serving in the 21st century."

Tuesday, February 01, 2005

Squeeze every last drop...

Lawmakers like to wax that Oregon's tax burden is light compared to other states, and that since certain programs are suffering right now, we should bring taxes up to the levels of other comparable states.
Oregonians have proven time and time again that they won't stand for that, and have voted down nearly every tax measure that has come before them in the past few years.
But, as this article in the Oregonian points out, there is more than one way to tax the citizens. One thing lawmakers don't tell you is that the burden on Oregonians to fund the state government is much higher than you think it is. Fees take up a large part (not a majority, but a large part) of the income of the state, and congress can raise those fees without taxpayer approval.
Note that Oregon ranks about 41st in the nation in general taxes, but 11th in state spending per capita.
The state has a spending problem.