Liberal democracies, not activists and international law, protect human rights.
By Eric Posner
Sunday, April 22, 2007 12:01 a.m.
The international human rights regime has fallen on hard times. Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, wrote recently that "since the U.S. can't provide credible leadership on human rights, European countries must pick up the slack." But the Europeans, Mr. Roth notes, are no more enthusiastic about pressuring foreign countries than is the U.S.
The United Nation's Human Rights Council is in no position to pick up the slack, either.
The Human Rights Council has performed even more dismally than its much maligned predecessor, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. The latter was disbanded because it had become a platform dominated by human rights abusers who used it mostly for criticizing Israel. The Human Rights Council, by contrast, is a platform dominated by human rights abusers who use it exclusively for criticizing Israel.
Late last month the commission finally issued a weak resolution on the genocide in Darfur, one, in the words of U.N. Watch, that "failed to condemn or even to cite the Sudanese government." At the same time, it urged governments "to prohibit the dissemination of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion"--a reference to the Danish cartoon controversy and a sentiment deeply in conflict with Western ideals of freedom of expression.
So if Americans, Europeans, and the U.N. will not lead on human rights, who will? Nobody, and maybe that is not such a bad thing.
Human rights were supposed to be special. Unlike most international law, which governs the relations of states with each other, international human rights law regulates the internal workings of states--the relationship between a government and its citizens. This gives human rights law a rigidity that is absent from most international law.
When the U.S. and another country disagree about flyover rights or trade, they can renegotiate the relevant treaty regime and bring it into alignment with their joint interests. But when a country decides that its human rights commitments interfere with law enforcement or counterinsurgency operations, it cannot renegotiate its commitments. With minor exceptions, its commitments are to all.
The theory is that human rights are universal, and so states have no excuse for committing human rights abuses. The practice, however, has been different. States must worry about their security even when an existential threat is not imminent. If they do not, they lose the support of their citizens or subjects, and thus they risk their own political stability. And states must cater to local religious and cultural values at odds with Western human rights. Accordingly, most states have paid no more than lip service to their human rights commitments. During the Cold War, the U.S. used human rights as a cudgel against the Soviet Union and its satellites, but gave a free pass to friendly dictators.
The end of the Cold War was supposed to change all this. Under American leadership, countries would finally live up to their human rights commitments and international human rights would continue to advance. Several forces have conspired to ruin this pretty picture.
First, genuine disagreement exists about the proper moral ordering of society. Where once it could be thought that totalitarian regimes suppressed people's natural instinct in favor of human rights, it has become clear as electoral democracies have replaced authoritarian regimes, that this is simply not true. People also care about tribal, ethnic, and religious ties; they care about order and security. An Islamic democracy will not necessarily endorse religious pluralism or women's rights; a country with a long history of tribal dispute resolution practices will reject Western-style law enforcement.
The tension between promoting democracy and promoting human rights, when newly enfranchised peoples turn out not to subscribe to the ideals of the Enlightenment, is the dirty secret of the human rights movement. As the expanding franchise continues to expose the fissure between the two ideals, human rights advocates are finally going to have to choose between them.
Second, the idea that the U.S., with or without European support, could impose its conception of human rights on other countries has taken a beating in recent years, and this beating will only become worse over the next few decades. As regional powers like China, Russia, India, South Africa and Brazil continue to rise and assert themselves, whatever leverage the West has had for pressuring human rights violators will continue to decline. The new powers will offer alternative cultural, religious, or ideological standards that are more attractive than Western human rights to subsets of nations, and they will offer trade and securities ties if the West tries to withdraw them. Already we observe China snapping up oil leases in Sudan and Russia exploiting its economic ties with Iran.
Third, the ideology of human rights advancement relies on a false picture of human motivation and global politics. Human rights advocates seem to think that closing Guantanamo Bay would improve the behavior of governments in other countries. But foreign governments have no reason to think that they should do whatever the U.S. does. Indeed, if the U.S. closed Guantanamo Bay, and some of the freed detainees returned to Afghanistan (as some reportedly have) and killed American troops, the lesson learned by the world is not one that would advance the cause of human rights.
Today, the future of the international human rights legal regime is bleak. And yet if what matters is not conformity with the rules of the human rights treaties, but the well-being of the world's population, things have never been better. Mortality rates are down, per capita income is up, literacy has spread, democracy is flourishing. Economic growth in China and India, which together account for a third of the world's population, largely accounts for improvement in overall well-being, but there is also good news in Latin America, South Africa, Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia.
How can this be? As technology and trade have advanced and spread, so has wealth and education, and with wealth and education has come political reform, and the expansion of civil and political rights. This is part of a long-term trend that goes back centuries.
There is no guarantee that it will continue, but one central fact needs to be recognized: The role of legalized international human rights in this process has been minimal or nil. Much more important in the 20th century were the determined efforts of liberal democracies to oppose powerful, dangerous, expansionist states that rejected markets and democracy, and imposed their views on small countries. These efforts required pragmatic accommodation of unsavory allies, and even compromising of Western values, for the sake of the greater goal of keeping dangerous forces in check. For the conflict with radical Islam, this history holds important lessons.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
British Conservatives Build Their Movement Online
By Robert Bluey
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Across the Atlantic, young conservatives in Britain are trying to transform what they consider a disjointed and unorganized political faction into something that rivals the American conservative movement.
Tim Montgomerie, a 36-year-old former Conservative Party staffer in London, is taking cues from the United States. Despite the American conservative movement’s recent troubles, Montgomerie regards it as an “inspiring” model for Britain to follow.
But Montgomerie hopes to build this movement not through publications such as National Review or think tanks like The Heritage Foundation, but through the Internet. This movement is taking root through a number of influential websites that already have captivated many conservatives in Britain, including Conservative Party leader David Cameron, who has called Montgomerie’s popular ConservativeHome website, “Sometimes infuriating but always good value.”
The low cost of building a movement via the Internet has helped fuel some of the success. But a populist message inspiring ordinary Joes and Jills to get involved in the political process is what put Montgomerie on the map.
Back in 2005 when former Conservative Party leader Michael Howard attempted to deprive rank-and-file Tory members of their vote in the party’s leadership election, Montgomerie sprung into action. The incident introduced conservatives to a new form of activism. “Up until the blogosphere, the process for choosing candidates was always closed,” Montgomerie said. “That’s no longer the case.”
American conservatives have grown frustrated with the Republican Party leaders’ failure to remain faithful to conservative values, and so too have British conservatives become disenchanted with their party establishment. Conservatives’ distrust of Cameron motivates Montgomerie to keep the party leader honest.
Despite their differences, Cameron’s embrace of the Internet has contributed to the popularity of blogs such as ConservativeHome, 18 Doughty Street and the brand-new PlayPolitical video site. Cameron, who many consider the prime minister in waiting, has tapped a former Google executive as an adviser, giving rise to Web Cameron, where the conservative leader uses video to communicate with his constituency.
While Cameron has been lauded for his embrace of modern media, conservative bloggers hardly toe the party line. At ConservativeHome, for example, there’s a standing feature called “How is David Cameron doing?” that includes updated polling data -- making it a one-stop shop to get a temperature check of Cameron’s standing with the public. The website also conducts monthly surveys of readers’ approval of Conservative Party leaders -- prompting at least one unpopular politician to ask to be dropped from the poll.
Any political movement will have its internal squabbles, but liberals really do remain the primary target. Last year, for example, ConservativeHome surveyed its readers about the best ways to “tackle” future Labour Party leader Gordon Brown. The result was a six-part series that included suggestions from British conservatives on issues from economic competitiveness to Brown’s relationship with Prime Minister Tony Blair.
While American liberals have built well-trafficked blogs such as Daily Kos and Huffington Post, their counterparts in the United Kingdom have not followed suit. Liberals there have not yet embraced the blogosphere as a tool for political activism, Montgomerie says. Only one liberal site, LabourHome, has any significant traffic.
Conservatives, meanwhile, haven’t wasted time filling the void. Iain Dale, a 44-year-old right-leaning political pundit maintains his own popular blog but also works at 18 Doughty Street, which produces live broadcasts for five hours each weeknight. The undertaking has inspired about 100 citizen journalists, equipped with a camcorder, to supply their own video for the broadcasts.
One of the most popular videos produced by 18 Doughty Street asks what the world would be like without America. It emphasizes the remarkable advancements made by the United States over the course of history. It launched along with a new Montgomerie-developed blog called Britain and America, which seeks to strengthen ties between the two countries and counter the BBC’s anti-American reporting.
Montgomerie, who visited Washington, D.C., last week with his deputy editor Sam Coates, sees American conservatives as brilliant role models for his country -- both in terms of our political triumphs and embrace of technology. American conservatives should take heart that their movement continues to offer inspiring solutions across the world.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Across the Atlantic, young conservatives in Britain are trying to transform what they consider a disjointed and unorganized political faction into something that rivals the American conservative movement.
Tim Montgomerie, a 36-year-old former Conservative Party staffer in London, is taking cues from the United States. Despite the American conservative movement’s recent troubles, Montgomerie regards it as an “inspiring” model for Britain to follow.
But Montgomerie hopes to build this movement not through publications such as National Review or think tanks like The Heritage Foundation, but through the Internet. This movement is taking root through a number of influential websites that already have captivated many conservatives in Britain, including Conservative Party leader David Cameron, who has called Montgomerie’s popular ConservativeHome website, “Sometimes infuriating but always good value.”
The low cost of building a movement via the Internet has helped fuel some of the success. But a populist message inspiring ordinary Joes and Jills to get involved in the political process is what put Montgomerie on the map.
Back in 2005 when former Conservative Party leader Michael Howard attempted to deprive rank-and-file Tory members of their vote in the party’s leadership election, Montgomerie sprung into action. The incident introduced conservatives to a new form of activism. “Up until the blogosphere, the process for choosing candidates was always closed,” Montgomerie said. “That’s no longer the case.”
American conservatives have grown frustrated with the Republican Party leaders’ failure to remain faithful to conservative values, and so too have British conservatives become disenchanted with their party establishment. Conservatives’ distrust of Cameron motivates Montgomerie to keep the party leader honest.
Despite their differences, Cameron’s embrace of the Internet has contributed to the popularity of blogs such as ConservativeHome, 18 Doughty Street and the brand-new PlayPolitical video site. Cameron, who many consider the prime minister in waiting, has tapped a former Google executive as an adviser, giving rise to Web Cameron, where the conservative leader uses video to communicate with his constituency.
While Cameron has been lauded for his embrace of modern media, conservative bloggers hardly toe the party line. At ConservativeHome, for example, there’s a standing feature called “How is David Cameron doing?” that includes updated polling data -- making it a one-stop shop to get a temperature check of Cameron’s standing with the public. The website also conducts monthly surveys of readers’ approval of Conservative Party leaders -- prompting at least one unpopular politician to ask to be dropped from the poll.
Any political movement will have its internal squabbles, but liberals really do remain the primary target. Last year, for example, ConservativeHome surveyed its readers about the best ways to “tackle” future Labour Party leader Gordon Brown. The result was a six-part series that included suggestions from British conservatives on issues from economic competitiveness to Brown’s relationship with Prime Minister Tony Blair.
While American liberals have built well-trafficked blogs such as Daily Kos and Huffington Post, their counterparts in the United Kingdom have not followed suit. Liberals there have not yet embraced the blogosphere as a tool for political activism, Montgomerie says. Only one liberal site, LabourHome, has any significant traffic.
Conservatives, meanwhile, haven’t wasted time filling the void. Iain Dale, a 44-year-old right-leaning political pundit maintains his own popular blog but also works at 18 Doughty Street, which produces live broadcasts for five hours each weeknight. The undertaking has inspired about 100 citizen journalists, equipped with a camcorder, to supply their own video for the broadcasts.
One of the most popular videos produced by 18 Doughty Street asks what the world would be like without America. It emphasizes the remarkable advancements made by the United States over the course of history. It launched along with a new Montgomerie-developed blog called Britain and America, which seeks to strengthen ties between the two countries and counter the BBC’s anti-American reporting.
Montgomerie, who visited Washington, D.C., last week with his deputy editor Sam Coates, sees American conservatives as brilliant role models for his country -- both in terms of our political triumphs and embrace of technology. American conservatives should take heart that their movement continues to offer inspiring solutions across the world.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Cap and Trade: A Bad Trade-off for the Economy and Company Earnings*
By Wayne Winegarden
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Closing our eyes to the costs of global warming regulations will not make these costs disappear. And yet, the debate on global warming is progressing as if these costs do not exist. For instance, many leaders of the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) movement are calling for the United States to implement a carbon emissions cap on U.S. industries – or a "cap and trade" system. One example is the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) – a coalition of environmental organizations and corporations including major corporate members such as GE, Alcoa, BP, Caterpillar, DuPont, Lehman Brothers, and PG&E.
The Kyoto Protocol is the benchmark for any U.S. based cap and trade regulations. The Federal Energy Information Agency (EIA) has already examined the cost from implementing the cap and trade regulations associated with the Kyoto Protocol in the United States. This study, conducted in 1998 during the Clinton-Gore Administration, concluded that the costs were substantial**.
If the U.S. were to commit to the Kyoto Treaty's goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions to 7 percent below the 1990 level, several different types of adverse economic impacts would arise. Carbon based energy such as coal and petroleum is a less expensive energy alternative compared to most alternative energy sources***. Mandating that businesses reduce their carbon emissions requires these companies to invest in new technologies that reduce the amount of carbon emissions from current energy sources, or to invest in completely new energy sources (e.g. renewable energy) that emit less carbon. While this is the ultimate goal from an environmentalist perspective, these investments do not come without a cost. The regulation's costs are born by the companies' owners through lower profits, employees through lower wages, and/or customers through higher prices.
The EIA report found that one of the likely outcomes would in fact be higher energy costs. According to the report, a cap and trade system that reduces carbon emissions in the U.S. by 7 percent below the 1990 level raises gasoline prices by nearly 53 percent and raises energy prices by more than 86 percent.
The higher energy and regulatory costs are not benign to overall economic growth. One key ingredient for economic growth is growth in productivity – or the ability to create more output with the same amount of inputs. Cap and trade regulations increase the costs to produce the same amount of output, thereby lowering productivity. Simultaneously, the cap and trade regulations are increasing the costs to consumers, causing consumers to spend more money in order to acquire the same amount of goods. Both of these effects negatively impact overall economic growth.
The EIA report found that a cap and trade regulation would reduce total U.S. economic growth significantly; the precise impact depending on the assumptions. When the EIA evaluated the economic impact of a cap and trade regime, the agency assumed that the right to emit carbon dioxide would be auctioned off to the highest bidder, as opposed to being simply given away as many proposals now advocate. The actual economic impact varied depending upon what was done with the money raised from the auction.
Implementing the cap and trade proposal combined with a personal income tax rebate that partially offset the economic impacts was estimated to reduce economic growth by 4.2 percent according to the EIA study, which is $565 billion of 2006 GDP. Implementing the cap and trade proposal with a payroll tax rebate that partially offset the economic impacts was estimated to reduce economic growth by 1.9 percent, which is $256 billion of 2006 GDP. The economic impact was found to be widespread throughout the economy with nearly every industry experiencing significantly reduced economic growth including the construction, manufacturing, transportation and finance industries.
One last effect from the cap and trade regulations is its impact on inflation and the overall financial markets. The EIA found that initially the cap and trade regulations would lead to higher energy prices. Energy costs comprise a large portion of overall economic spending. Consequently, large increases in the cost of energy will have a large impact on inflationary measures such as the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and Producer Price Index (PPI). Higher energy prices would subsequently exert upward pressure on the overall price level.
Inflation erodes away the purchasing power of money in the future. Consequently, sharp increases in the price level raises concerns for banks, bondholders, and other lenders in the economy. In response to the more uncertain inflationary environment lenders will demand "inflation protection" in the form of higher interest rates. Of course, higher interest rates increase the costs for borrowing making it more expensive for businesses to expand and individuals to purchase houses, cars or other large durable goods. If these pressures are not handled correctly by the Federal Reserve, a difficult task, high and variable inflation, along with higher interest rates, could result. Overall credit and borrowing in the economy would be subsequently compromised, further reducing people's income and economic activity in the U.S.
From a business perspective, all of these trends are troubling. The initial impacts from the regulations raise the cost of doing business. As the costs from the regulations make their way through the economy, growth in overall demand slows. Furthermore, the price level effects could increase the operational costs of businesses through higher interest rates, reduce the demand for products from customers, and increase the possibility that the economy will be threatened by a run-up in inflation.
In total, the EIA under the Clinton-Gore Administration found that a cap and trade system imposes significant costs on the economy. From a business perspective, an economic environment of high-energy prices, low productivity growth, and slow economic growth is not an environment where companies thrive. This economic reality raises serious concerns regarding the policy recommendations of USCAP or other advocates of a carbon emissions cap and trade regulatory system. The large economic costs from any cap and trade regulations must be considered as the debates regarding the appropriate environmental regulation develops.
*Wayne H. Winegarden, Ph.D. is a partner with Arduin, Laffer & Moore Econometrics; a contributor to freeenterpriser.com; and a Lecturer in Economics at Marymount University.
**(1998) Impacts of the Kyoto Protocol on U.S. Energy Markets and Economic Activity. Energy Information Administration October (SR/OIAF/98-03).
***http://www.eia.doe.gov/fuelrenewable.html
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Closing our eyes to the costs of global warming regulations will not make these costs disappear. And yet, the debate on global warming is progressing as if these costs do not exist. For instance, many leaders of the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) movement are calling for the United States to implement a carbon emissions cap on U.S. industries – or a "cap and trade" system. One example is the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) – a coalition of environmental organizations and corporations including major corporate members such as GE, Alcoa, BP, Caterpillar, DuPont, Lehman Brothers, and PG&E.
The Kyoto Protocol is the benchmark for any U.S. based cap and trade regulations. The Federal Energy Information Agency (EIA) has already examined the cost from implementing the cap and trade regulations associated with the Kyoto Protocol in the United States. This study, conducted in 1998 during the Clinton-Gore Administration, concluded that the costs were substantial**.
If the U.S. were to commit to the Kyoto Treaty's goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions to 7 percent below the 1990 level, several different types of adverse economic impacts would arise. Carbon based energy such as coal and petroleum is a less expensive energy alternative compared to most alternative energy sources***. Mandating that businesses reduce their carbon emissions requires these companies to invest in new technologies that reduce the amount of carbon emissions from current energy sources, or to invest in completely new energy sources (e.g. renewable energy) that emit less carbon. While this is the ultimate goal from an environmentalist perspective, these investments do not come without a cost. The regulation's costs are born by the companies' owners through lower profits, employees through lower wages, and/or customers through higher prices.
The EIA report found that one of the likely outcomes would in fact be higher energy costs. According to the report, a cap and trade system that reduces carbon emissions in the U.S. by 7 percent below the 1990 level raises gasoline prices by nearly 53 percent and raises energy prices by more than 86 percent.
The higher energy and regulatory costs are not benign to overall economic growth. One key ingredient for economic growth is growth in productivity – or the ability to create more output with the same amount of inputs. Cap and trade regulations increase the costs to produce the same amount of output, thereby lowering productivity. Simultaneously, the cap and trade regulations are increasing the costs to consumers, causing consumers to spend more money in order to acquire the same amount of goods. Both of these effects negatively impact overall economic growth.
The EIA report found that a cap and trade regulation would reduce total U.S. economic growth significantly; the precise impact depending on the assumptions. When the EIA evaluated the economic impact of a cap and trade regime, the agency assumed that the right to emit carbon dioxide would be auctioned off to the highest bidder, as opposed to being simply given away as many proposals now advocate. The actual economic impact varied depending upon what was done with the money raised from the auction.
Implementing the cap and trade proposal combined with a personal income tax rebate that partially offset the economic impacts was estimated to reduce economic growth by 4.2 percent according to the EIA study, which is $565 billion of 2006 GDP. Implementing the cap and trade proposal with a payroll tax rebate that partially offset the economic impacts was estimated to reduce economic growth by 1.9 percent, which is $256 billion of 2006 GDP. The economic impact was found to be widespread throughout the economy with nearly every industry experiencing significantly reduced economic growth including the construction, manufacturing, transportation and finance industries.
One last effect from the cap and trade regulations is its impact on inflation and the overall financial markets. The EIA found that initially the cap and trade regulations would lead to higher energy prices. Energy costs comprise a large portion of overall economic spending. Consequently, large increases in the cost of energy will have a large impact on inflationary measures such as the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and Producer Price Index (PPI). Higher energy prices would subsequently exert upward pressure on the overall price level.
Inflation erodes away the purchasing power of money in the future. Consequently, sharp increases in the price level raises concerns for banks, bondholders, and other lenders in the economy. In response to the more uncertain inflationary environment lenders will demand "inflation protection" in the form of higher interest rates. Of course, higher interest rates increase the costs for borrowing making it more expensive for businesses to expand and individuals to purchase houses, cars or other large durable goods. If these pressures are not handled correctly by the Federal Reserve, a difficult task, high and variable inflation, along with higher interest rates, could result. Overall credit and borrowing in the economy would be subsequently compromised, further reducing people's income and economic activity in the U.S.
From a business perspective, all of these trends are troubling. The initial impacts from the regulations raise the cost of doing business. As the costs from the regulations make their way through the economy, growth in overall demand slows. Furthermore, the price level effects could increase the operational costs of businesses through higher interest rates, reduce the demand for products from customers, and increase the possibility that the economy will be threatened by a run-up in inflation.
In total, the EIA under the Clinton-Gore Administration found that a cap and trade system imposes significant costs on the economy. From a business perspective, an economic environment of high-energy prices, low productivity growth, and slow economic growth is not an environment where companies thrive. This economic reality raises serious concerns regarding the policy recommendations of USCAP or other advocates of a carbon emissions cap and trade regulatory system. The large economic costs from any cap and trade regulations must be considered as the debates regarding the appropriate environmental regulation develops.
*Wayne H. Winegarden, Ph.D. is a partner with Arduin, Laffer & Moore Econometrics; a contributor to freeenterpriser.com; and a Lecturer in Economics at Marymount University.
**(1998) Impacts of the Kyoto Protocol on U.S. Energy Markets and Economic Activity. Energy Information Administration October (SR/OIAF/98-03).
***http://www.eia.doe.gov/fuelrenewable.html
Harry Reid's effect on our troops
By Gary Kurpius
Saturday, April 21, 2007
I strongly urge Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to stop his defeatist rhetoric because of the negative impact it is having on the morale of American forces and their families.
On April 2, Senator Reid proclaimed during a press conference that the Iraq war was "a failure." He also announced he would submit legislation to end all funding for the war if President Bush made good on his promise to veto any funding bill that contained troop withdrawal timelines. The Senate version of the $123 billion emergency war supplemental contains language that would withdraw the bulk of the 145,000 American troops from Iraq by April 2008.
And again, at a Capitol Hill press conference yesterday, Reid repeated his mantra of surrender by stating "This war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything."
Senator Reid claims to be a legislator who knows how to compromise, but he needs to realize his repeated comments are having an extremely negative impact on our troops, their families and our allies around the world. You can't support the troops without supporting what it is they do. In a combat zone that translates into one word: the mission.
The Vietnam generation was blamed for losing their war because of politicians in Washington who wouldn't let the generals be generals.
But the good senator from Nevada would have us repeat history again and have America known for the rest of the 21st century as a nation that can't finish what it starts. He would have this new generation of warriors come home to a nation that - regardless of all the 'Support the Troops' decals and political speeches - only loves winners. And he would once again have us quit on our troops, even though they haven't quit on us or their mission in Iraq."
America has new leadership in the Pentagon and on the ground in Iraq with a new plan that is jstarting to show signs of success.
Despite what the senator thinks, our commanders have faith that the ongoing surge will prove to be the final key that the Iraqis need to finally secure their own country. Our patience is not unlimited, but if our troops have faith, the VFW has faith, so should America.
Those who have served in harm's way know that good morale comes from having secure knowledge that your country and family supports you and the mission you perform. No matter how Senator Reid attempts to frame or assuage his comments, he is destroying troop morale with his defeatist talk and his insistence to cut troop funding. We all want the war to end, but how it ends is very important to this generation of servicemen and women, and to future generations of Americans who may choose to serve their nation in uniform.
This issue isn't Democratic or Republican, it's about American men and women who we sent to war and now some want to pull back before they finish their job.
Senator Reid should understand that the time to debate the war is not in front of a microphone making irresponsible statements, and it's certainly not in the funding bill that keeps our troops alive. If our troops need funds, it is the responsibility of Congress to provide them the money. Debate the war elsewhere.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
I strongly urge Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to stop his defeatist rhetoric because of the negative impact it is having on the morale of American forces and their families.
On April 2, Senator Reid proclaimed during a press conference that the Iraq war was "a failure." He also announced he would submit legislation to end all funding for the war if President Bush made good on his promise to veto any funding bill that contained troop withdrawal timelines. The Senate version of the $123 billion emergency war supplemental contains language that would withdraw the bulk of the 145,000 American troops from Iraq by April 2008.
And again, at a Capitol Hill press conference yesterday, Reid repeated his mantra of surrender by stating "This war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything."
Senator Reid claims to be a legislator who knows how to compromise, but he needs to realize his repeated comments are having an extremely negative impact on our troops, their families and our allies around the world. You can't support the troops without supporting what it is they do. In a combat zone that translates into one word: the mission.
The Vietnam generation was blamed for losing their war because of politicians in Washington who wouldn't let the generals be generals.
But the good senator from Nevada would have us repeat history again and have America known for the rest of the 21st century as a nation that can't finish what it starts. He would have this new generation of warriors come home to a nation that - regardless of all the 'Support the Troops' decals and political speeches - only loves winners. And he would once again have us quit on our troops, even though they haven't quit on us or their mission in Iraq."
America has new leadership in the Pentagon and on the ground in Iraq with a new plan that is jstarting to show signs of success.
Despite what the senator thinks, our commanders have faith that the ongoing surge will prove to be the final key that the Iraqis need to finally secure their own country. Our patience is not unlimited, but if our troops have faith, the VFW has faith, so should America.
Those who have served in harm's way know that good morale comes from having secure knowledge that your country and family supports you and the mission you perform. No matter how Senator Reid attempts to frame or assuage his comments, he is destroying troop morale with his defeatist talk and his insistence to cut troop funding. We all want the war to end, but how it ends is very important to this generation of servicemen and women, and to future generations of Americans who may choose to serve their nation in uniform.
This issue isn't Democratic or Republican, it's about American men and women who we sent to war and now some want to pull back before they finish their job.
Senator Reid should understand that the time to debate the war is not in front of a microphone making irresponsible statements, and it's certainly not in the funding bill that keeps our troops alive. If our troops need funds, it is the responsibility of Congress to provide them the money. Debate the war elsewhere.
Friday, April 20, 2007
The Ginsburg Worldview
By David Limbaugh
Friday, April 20, 2007
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dissenting opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart illustrates the moral depths and quagmires of irrationality to which the political and cultural left in this country have descended.
In Carhart, the United States Supreme Court upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, a limited congressional ban on partial-birth abortion that was shot down by lower federal courts.
What stands out in Ginsburg's opinion is not her condemnatory legal critique of the majority opinion, but her philosophical/political assertions. While she pays lip service to the supposedly conflicting interests of the government in "safeguarding a woman's health" versus "preserving and promoting fetal life," it is clear that neither of those hold a candle to her interest in promoting "a woman's autonomy to determine her life's course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature."
Much of Ginsburg's opinion reads like a feminist manifesto straight from the National Organization for Women. One gets the sense that she believes what is really at stake in the abortion debate is not the vindication of "some generalized notion of privacy." No, this is purely and simply a power struggle on behalf of women pursuing their presumably unrealized quest for complete equality.
Ginsburg and those of like mind obviously regard any restrictions on abortion as threatening to women. Such restrictions, in their view, proceed from a regressive mindset "when women were 'regarded as the center of home and family life, with attendant special responsibilities that precluded full and independent legal status under the Constitution.'"
That mindset is "'no longer consistent with our understanding of the family, the individual, or the Constitution.' Women, it is now acknowledged, have the talent, capacity and right to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation.'" In other words, a woman's right to kill a baby in her womb is essential to her being a complete woman, or, to paraphrase Ginsburg, it is central to her life.
Apparently, women's progress in this struggle is so fragile that an open acknowledgment of the unborn's humanity must not even be permitted because it might somehow reverse their gains. No, we can't allow little details like the life of the unborn to encroach on "the destiny of the woman [to] be shaped on her own conception of her spiritual imperatives and her place in society."
So extreme and inflexible is the Ginsburg position on a woman's right to control her own destiny that she writes, "the notion that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act furthers any legitimate governmental interest is, quite simply, irrational."
Oh? So it is irrational to contend that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting the life of an unborn human being? Talk about the language (and logic) being turned inside out!
Nevertheless, under the Ginsburg worldview, the right to life of the unborn appears completely subordinated to the interest of women in having complete autonomy over their "reproductive decisions."
One has to scratch one's head to think of any other liberty that is so absolute that it permits no restrictions. We don't think that way regarding other liberties.
For example, would anyone seriously argue that my right to swing my fist entitles me to commit battery on another person? Does our right to sexual liberty entitle us to rape? Why do the radical pro-abortionists regard any restriction on abortion, which doesn't just harm another person, but kills him or her, an impermissible encroachment on a woman's liberty?
The only way it is logically possible to couch the abortion debate in terms of a woman's right to her own autonomy is if we accept the premise that the second party in the equation, the unborn, is not a party at all, but a meaningless mass of tissue bereft of human dignity. Sadly for the pro-aborts, it is increasingly clear from any perspective we choose to examine it: scientific, spiritual or otherwise, that the unborn is a human life. If the pro-aborts were not aware of the humanness of the unborn, they wouldn't grudgingly pretend to strive to make abortion "safe, legal and rare." There is no moral imperative to protect a human-less mass of tissue.
If anyone believes I am overstating Ginsburg's extremism, just remember the context. She writes in defense of that most abominable of procedures, "partial-birth abortion."
Can you conceivably wrap your arms around the perverted concept that a woman can't be a real woman unless she has the complete autonomy to direct a doctor to partially deliver her baby for the purpose of killing it? My purpose isn't to offend here, but, truly, I just don't get it.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dissenting opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart illustrates the moral depths and quagmires of irrationality to which the political and cultural left in this country have descended.
In Carhart, the United States Supreme Court upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, a limited congressional ban on partial-birth abortion that was shot down by lower federal courts.
What stands out in Ginsburg's opinion is not her condemnatory legal critique of the majority opinion, but her philosophical/political assertions. While she pays lip service to the supposedly conflicting interests of the government in "safeguarding a woman's health" versus "preserving and promoting fetal life," it is clear that neither of those hold a candle to her interest in promoting "a woman's autonomy to determine her life's course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature."
Much of Ginsburg's opinion reads like a feminist manifesto straight from the National Organization for Women. One gets the sense that she believes what is really at stake in the abortion debate is not the vindication of "some generalized notion of privacy." No, this is purely and simply a power struggle on behalf of women pursuing their presumably unrealized quest for complete equality.
Ginsburg and those of like mind obviously regard any restrictions on abortion as threatening to women. Such restrictions, in their view, proceed from a regressive mindset "when women were 'regarded as the center of home and family life, with attendant special responsibilities that precluded full and independent legal status under the Constitution.'"
That mindset is "'no longer consistent with our understanding of the family, the individual, or the Constitution.' Women, it is now acknowledged, have the talent, capacity and right to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation.'" In other words, a woman's right to kill a baby in her womb is essential to her being a complete woman, or, to paraphrase Ginsburg, it is central to her life.
Apparently, women's progress in this struggle is so fragile that an open acknowledgment of the unborn's humanity must not even be permitted because it might somehow reverse their gains. No, we can't allow little details like the life of the unborn to encroach on "the destiny of the woman [to] be shaped on her own conception of her spiritual imperatives and her place in society."
So extreme and inflexible is the Ginsburg position on a woman's right to control her own destiny that she writes, "the notion that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act furthers any legitimate governmental interest is, quite simply, irrational."
Oh? So it is irrational to contend that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting the life of an unborn human being? Talk about the language (and logic) being turned inside out!
Nevertheless, under the Ginsburg worldview, the right to life of the unborn appears completely subordinated to the interest of women in having complete autonomy over their "reproductive decisions."
One has to scratch one's head to think of any other liberty that is so absolute that it permits no restrictions. We don't think that way regarding other liberties.
For example, would anyone seriously argue that my right to swing my fist entitles me to commit battery on another person? Does our right to sexual liberty entitle us to rape? Why do the radical pro-abortionists regard any restriction on abortion, which doesn't just harm another person, but kills him or her, an impermissible encroachment on a woman's liberty?
The only way it is logically possible to couch the abortion debate in terms of a woman's right to her own autonomy is if we accept the premise that the second party in the equation, the unborn, is not a party at all, but a meaningless mass of tissue bereft of human dignity. Sadly for the pro-aborts, it is increasingly clear from any perspective we choose to examine it: scientific, spiritual or otherwise, that the unborn is a human life. If the pro-aborts were not aware of the humanness of the unborn, they wouldn't grudgingly pretend to strive to make abortion "safe, legal and rare." There is no moral imperative to protect a human-less mass of tissue.
If anyone believes I am overstating Ginsburg's extremism, just remember the context. She writes in defense of that most abominable of procedures, "partial-birth abortion."
Can you conceivably wrap your arms around the perverted concept that a woman can't be a real woman unless she has the complete autonomy to direct a doctor to partially deliver her baby for the purpose of killing it? My purpose isn't to offend here, but, truly, I just don't get it.
Must Don Imus Die for Our Sins?
By Burt Prelutsky
Friday, April 20, 2007
Until recently, Don Imus was little more than a name to me. Only once had I ever even heard his voice, and that only happened because I was driving in the hinterlands of California and kept fiddling with my radio dial searching for something other than static. I only listened to his show for a few minutes before moving on to a country and western music station. I don't even recall what he was talking about, but I quickly wearied of his stooges carrying on as if Mr. Imus was the funniest man they'd ever heard. If I don't care for canned laughter on TV, why would I like it any better on the radio? In any case, while Imus seemed amiable enough, I prefer deciding for myself if someone is amusing, and not having guys on his payroll making the decision for me.
Frankly, I was shocked at his remark about the women on the Rutgers basketball team. It just struck me as so gratuitous, so completely off the wall. My immediate reaction was to wonder if he was drunk when he said it. But who, besides maybe Ted Kennedy, drinks at that hour of the morning? Then I wondered if he'd dropped a ton of money betting against the team. But who, besides maybe Ted Kennedy, bets on women's basketball?
Finally I decided Imus had simply said something rude and stupid because he has to fill so many hours every week with his chatter that eventually, and inevitably, he turns off his brain. Only on this occasion he forgot to get the message to his mouth in time.
What I hadn't counted on, in spite of the outrage sparked by Michael Richard's comedy club tirade, was that so many people would invite themselves to join the lynch mob. I mean, Imus is not the pope. He's just a shock jock. He's supposed to spout the sort of nonsense nice people don't say in public. That's what he's paid to do. You might as well complain that Eddie Murphy acts silly in the movies.
Assuming he's saved his money, Mr. Imus will survive very nicely even if his radio sponsors don't come crawling back when the heat's died down. But what gets me about this entire episode is the amount of hypocritical condemnation that's been coming in from all quarters.
People who have spent the past six years calling President Bush another Hitler want Imus to be tarred and feathered in spite of the fact that people who actually follow women's basketball insist that the trash the ladies talk during a game makes Imus's remark sound like a pleasantry.
And, as usual, we have had to view the spectacle of media darlings Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson weighing in on the side of the angels. To comprehend how corrupt the mainstream media is, you merely need to be reminded that Sharpton came to national prominence by broadcasting teenager Twanya Brawley's lies about New York cops having raped her. As for extortionist extraordinaire Jackson, while running for the highest office in the land, he announced, on his way to campaign in New York City, that he was going to Hymietown. Even Fox News, which should know better, regularly offers air time to these two con men, as if they had any greater moral authority than David Duke or Howard K. Stern.
In conclusion, I'd only say that where Don Imus made his biggest mistake was in not rhyming his slur and putting it to music…very likely the very same music with the very same misogynistic lyrics that the lovely young women of Rutgers listen to in their locker room.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Until recently, Don Imus was little more than a name to me. Only once had I ever even heard his voice, and that only happened because I was driving in the hinterlands of California and kept fiddling with my radio dial searching for something other than static. I only listened to his show for a few minutes before moving on to a country and western music station. I don't even recall what he was talking about, but I quickly wearied of his stooges carrying on as if Mr. Imus was the funniest man they'd ever heard. If I don't care for canned laughter on TV, why would I like it any better on the radio? In any case, while Imus seemed amiable enough, I prefer deciding for myself if someone is amusing, and not having guys on his payroll making the decision for me.
Frankly, I was shocked at his remark about the women on the Rutgers basketball team. It just struck me as so gratuitous, so completely off the wall. My immediate reaction was to wonder if he was drunk when he said it. But who, besides maybe Ted Kennedy, drinks at that hour of the morning? Then I wondered if he'd dropped a ton of money betting against the team. But who, besides maybe Ted Kennedy, bets on women's basketball?
Finally I decided Imus had simply said something rude and stupid because he has to fill so many hours every week with his chatter that eventually, and inevitably, he turns off his brain. Only on this occasion he forgot to get the message to his mouth in time.
What I hadn't counted on, in spite of the outrage sparked by Michael Richard's comedy club tirade, was that so many people would invite themselves to join the lynch mob. I mean, Imus is not the pope. He's just a shock jock. He's supposed to spout the sort of nonsense nice people don't say in public. That's what he's paid to do. You might as well complain that Eddie Murphy acts silly in the movies.
Assuming he's saved his money, Mr. Imus will survive very nicely even if his radio sponsors don't come crawling back when the heat's died down. But what gets me about this entire episode is the amount of hypocritical condemnation that's been coming in from all quarters.
People who have spent the past six years calling President Bush another Hitler want Imus to be tarred and feathered in spite of the fact that people who actually follow women's basketball insist that the trash the ladies talk during a game makes Imus's remark sound like a pleasantry.
And, as usual, we have had to view the spectacle of media darlings Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson weighing in on the side of the angels. To comprehend how corrupt the mainstream media is, you merely need to be reminded that Sharpton came to national prominence by broadcasting teenager Twanya Brawley's lies about New York cops having raped her. As for extortionist extraordinaire Jackson, while running for the highest office in the land, he announced, on his way to campaign in New York City, that he was going to Hymietown. Even Fox News, which should know better, regularly offers air time to these two con men, as if they had any greater moral authority than David Duke or Howard K. Stern.
In conclusion, I'd only say that where Don Imus made his biggest mistake was in not rhyming his slur and putting it to music…very likely the very same music with the very same misogynistic lyrics that the lovely young women of Rutgers listen to in their locker room.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
A Trail of Slime
By Thomas Sowell
Thursday, April 19, 2007
District Attorney Michael Nifong has apologized to the Duke University students he indicted for rape for "judgments that ultimately proved to be incorrect."
Contrary to the fashionable phrase, "mistakes were made," there is no reason to believe that any mistake was made by District Attorney Nifong in this case, or that he misjudged anything other than miscalculating what he could get away with.
Nothing that Michael Nifong did is consistent with his ever believing that the Duke University students were guilty. If he really thought they were guilty and expected to go to trial and convict them, then the rigged photo lineup he arranged could have been enough to get the case thrown out of court.
This column predicted in April a year ago that this case would never go to trial because it was obvious even then that discovering the guilt or innocence of the accused was not District Attorney Nifong's real goal.
What served Nifong's purposes was keeping this case alive long enough for him to win his election as district attorney.
A real lineup, conducted according to well-established rules, could have revealed early on that the stripper who accused Duke lacrosse players of rape didn't have a clue who they were. That would have killed the case and destroyed Nifong's trump card -- the race card -- for winning the black vote.
The district attorney's failure to interview either the accuser or the accused for months likewise suggests someone who was more concerned with avoiding the premature collapse of his case before election time than with finding out what really happened.
Ironically, it was a black taxi driver who provided the first evidence that the charge was false. He said that one of the accused was in his cab, going to a bank, at the time the rape was supposed to have occurred.
That taxi driver was subsequently brought in for police interrogation on a wholly unrelated matter and grilled for hours before being released, without being charged with anything.
Little, if anything, was heard from that taxi driver again about the Duke rape case. Apparently he got the message.
It later turned out that a bank security camera with date and time confirmed what the taxi driver had said, since it showed one of the accused Duke students taking money out of an ATM at the time when he was supposedly committing rape.
During the current investigation of ethics charges against District Attorney Nifong by the North Carolina Bar Association, one of the things that might be well worth investigating is whether Nifong had anything to do with the harassment or intimidation of a witness whose testimony could have undermined his case.
Another damaging action that Nifong has tried to portray as an oversight on his part was failing to disclose that the DNA evidence from the panties and nearby areas of the accuser showed that a number of other men had had contact there, even though none of the Duke students' DNA was found.
It might seem plausible that a busy district attorney might have forgotten to include that. But the sworn testimony of the head of the laboratory that conducted the DNA tests is that Nifong specifically asked him not to reveal that fact.
That was not an oversight or a misjudgment. That was a deliberate attempt to suppress evidence in a felony case.
When it finally came out, months after the indictment of the Duke students, that the stripper who accused them could not even be sure that a rape had occurred -- despite her previous various accounts of rape -- only the rape charge was dropped, while other serious felonies still hung over the students' heads, based on the same unreliable accuser.
It is hard to believe that Nifong believed that these other charges would stand up in court. But they didn't have to.
After months of mounting pressure and growing legal bills, many people would have plea-bargained, "confessed" to something minor, just to get the nightmare over with.
Such a "confession" might have spared Nifong from being hauled up before the state bar association on ethics charges.
Everything in this case, from start to finish, makes perfect sense when seen as being about Nifong's career, not justice.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
District Attorney Michael Nifong has apologized to the Duke University students he indicted for rape for "judgments that ultimately proved to be incorrect."
Contrary to the fashionable phrase, "mistakes were made," there is no reason to believe that any mistake was made by District Attorney Nifong in this case, or that he misjudged anything other than miscalculating what he could get away with.
Nothing that Michael Nifong did is consistent with his ever believing that the Duke University students were guilty. If he really thought they were guilty and expected to go to trial and convict them, then the rigged photo lineup he arranged could have been enough to get the case thrown out of court.
This column predicted in April a year ago that this case would never go to trial because it was obvious even then that discovering the guilt or innocence of the accused was not District Attorney Nifong's real goal.
What served Nifong's purposes was keeping this case alive long enough for him to win his election as district attorney.
A real lineup, conducted according to well-established rules, could have revealed early on that the stripper who accused Duke lacrosse players of rape didn't have a clue who they were. That would have killed the case and destroyed Nifong's trump card -- the race card -- for winning the black vote.
The district attorney's failure to interview either the accuser or the accused for months likewise suggests someone who was more concerned with avoiding the premature collapse of his case before election time than with finding out what really happened.
Ironically, it was a black taxi driver who provided the first evidence that the charge was false. He said that one of the accused was in his cab, going to a bank, at the time the rape was supposed to have occurred.
That taxi driver was subsequently brought in for police interrogation on a wholly unrelated matter and grilled for hours before being released, without being charged with anything.
Little, if anything, was heard from that taxi driver again about the Duke rape case. Apparently he got the message.
It later turned out that a bank security camera with date and time confirmed what the taxi driver had said, since it showed one of the accused Duke students taking money out of an ATM at the time when he was supposedly committing rape.
During the current investigation of ethics charges against District Attorney Nifong by the North Carolina Bar Association, one of the things that might be well worth investigating is whether Nifong had anything to do with the harassment or intimidation of a witness whose testimony could have undermined his case.
Another damaging action that Nifong has tried to portray as an oversight on his part was failing to disclose that the DNA evidence from the panties and nearby areas of the accuser showed that a number of other men had had contact there, even though none of the Duke students' DNA was found.
It might seem plausible that a busy district attorney might have forgotten to include that. But the sworn testimony of the head of the laboratory that conducted the DNA tests is that Nifong specifically asked him not to reveal that fact.
That was not an oversight or a misjudgment. That was a deliberate attempt to suppress evidence in a felony case.
When it finally came out, months after the indictment of the Duke students, that the stripper who accused them could not even be sure that a rape had occurred -- despite her previous various accounts of rape -- only the rape charge was dropped, while other serious felonies still hung over the students' heads, based on the same unreliable accuser.
It is hard to believe that Nifong believed that these other charges would stand up in court. But they didn't have to.
After months of mounting pressure and growing legal bills, many people would have plea-bargained, "confessed" to something minor, just to get the nightmare over with.
Such a "confession" might have spared Nifong from being hauled up before the state bar association on ethics charges.
Everything in this case, from start to finish, makes perfect sense when seen as being about Nifong's career, not justice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)