By Embedded I · October 9th, 2009 7:47 pm · 3 Comments
Obama’s response to his Nobel Prize was the best thing I’ve heard from him. He recognizes that it was awarded too soon & reflects no serious achievement. Though his speech changes nothing, & is surely politic, he has, at least, put his award in a relatively sensible context (excluding his absurd mention of climate change). Obama sees that he has not earned the prize by the principles Alfred Nobel defined.
In fact Obama sees that his prize only means that he stands for the hope of peace.
This view, of the Far Left Nobel Committee, is as appalling as it is unsurprising. Does the Nobel Committee see Obama’s wishes as sufficient reason for his award? Sure, Obama wants peace, but even he knows he has not succeeded in achieving what peace requires. His wish for that achievement means nothing.
As the expression goes, “if wishes were horses, beggars would ride“. Does the Nobel Committee hope to give Obama a horse, (more…)
By Galileo Blogs · October 9th, 2009 5:12 am · 5 Comments
I thought it was a joke in The Onion this morning when I read the headline, “Obama Wins 2009 Peace Prize.” For what? He has been in office for nine months and before that was a one-term United States senator. What could he have possibly accomplished so soon that merits such an award?
The answer is: nothing.
Archbishop Desmond Tutu said, “It is an award that speaks to the promise of President Obama’s message of hope.” So, the President got the award for the promise of his message, but no actual accomplishment.
French President Nicholas Sarkozy said that the award confirmed, “America’s return to the hearts of the people of the world.” How is that?
The answer comes from a member of the Nobel committee that awarded the prize, who said, “His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population.”
A plurality, perhaps even a majority of the world’s population, despises the values that America has stood for, the fundamental value of an individual’s right to his own life, and all that it implies: property rights, the right to the pursuit of happiness… capitalism. The Nobel Committee is acknowledging their fervent wish that Obama will stand for those angry masses, whose values are antithetical to America. And by doing that, America will be “loved” instead of hated.
The Nobel Committee has given this prize to Obama as a moral downpayment, an advance recognition, if you will, of future “accomplishments” they expect him to make.
Let’s hope that Obama does not live up to their wishful thinking.
*****
I almost did not write this commentary because the Nobel Peace Prize, in fact, merits no respect and its award is therefore hardly noteworthy. It is more of a booby prize than an honest recognition of something good. Among its recent past recipients are Yasser Arafat and Jimmy Carter, a terrorist and the American president who passively acquiesced to terrorism. For the current award, the Nobel Committee apparently passed over a Chinese dissident, among many other honorable and dishonorable nominees. This “prize” has nothing to do with peace, and everything to do with advancing the cause of statism and destroying the values that America stood for. A man of proper integrity would have rejected it.
Two stunning initiatives from the Russian government over the past few weeks illustrate a disturbing fusion of religion and politics as Vladimir Putin’s regime makes a final effort to consolidate dictatorship.
First, the government announced that it would consult the Russian Orthodox Church before introducing any legislative proposals in parliament, in essence giving the church a veto on legislation and allowing the church to promote an openly religious agenda in parliament.
Then, the regime declared it would begin teaching Orthodox religion in schools, ignoring the constitutional requirement of separation of church and state. Study of other Christian faiths, like Protestantism and Catholicism, has already been ruled out, and it’s clear that the lip-service being paid to Islam is only window dressing.
The move gives Putin and the state a veneer of ideology and morality; and it gives the church power. Atilla, meet your witch doctor.
If I were a Jew, Muslim, non-Orthodox Christian or unbeliever in Russia, I’d be looking for a way out. Things could get ugly — and get so quick.
Gene Schwimmer, in a blog post about Obama’s latest move of appeasement, this time of Syria, reminds us:
In 2002, George W. Bush went to New Jersey, stood before an audience of his fellow Americans and declared that “we will not allow the world’s worst leaders to threaten us with the world’s worst weapons.
In 2009, Obama went to Cairo, stood before an audience of foreigners and assured those very same leaders that “[n]o single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons.”
Ryan Mauro has a stunning story about what looks to be an attempted terrorist attack that failed last month. This one would have involved commercial jets heading to Phoenix, Arizona.
The enemy is still at war with us. Why is something like the Islamic Saudi Academy, which teaches militant Islamism and plays a part in Mauro’s story, still in existence?
Our failure to destroy the enemy, including states that sponsor terrorism — our failure to wage an all-out, serious war — will come back to bite us someday. It’s just a matter of time.
Until then, the mainstream media can blather on in false security about Michael Jackson and Jon and Kate. A story such as Mauro’s gets a mention in the back pages, if even that.
A couple of people on the Harry Binswanger List linked to an article about the Bolivarian Brain Drain. It details the exodus of the best and the brightest under way in Venezuela and those Latin American nations that are modelling themselves on Hugo Chavez’ ”21st century socialism.” To rational and freedom loving people, such a brain drain would be looked upon as an awful event. But to a dictator, or would-be dictator, it is an unalloyed blessing. Chavez isn’t after happiness, or progress, or a higher standard of living. He is only after power, and the fewer brains in the country, the easier it is to maintain his power. So there is a definite up-side to brain drains—for dictators.
But there is a fly in the ointment. It used to be that such a talent emigration would head directly for America, the land of freedom and opportunity. That land exists no more. Where can freedom loving people go now? They are left to shuffle about from one semi-free state to another, looking desperately for the last, fading beacon lights of freedom in a darkening world.
Objectivism can relight the world. The question is when.
As I’ve noted several times, Obama is remarkable for his ability to choose the wrong position on every issue. He has done it again with the turmoil in Honduras.
The American people are getting a dramatic look at what is wrong with their president. The Iranian people are protesting a fraudulent election. In response, the regime of the mullahs is shooting them in the streets.
Obama cannot be moved to condemn the regime. Politico reports,
“It’s not productive, given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling … in Iranian elections,” Obama said. “What I will repeat, and what I said yesterday, is when I see violence directed at peaceful protesters, when I see peaceful dissent being suppressed … it is of concern to me and it is of concern to the American people. That is not how governments should interact with their people, and it is my hope the Iranian people will make the right steps in order for them to be able to express their voices.”
As Jennifer Rubin notes, even President Sarkozy of France issued a stronger response.
What Can the US Do to Ease Tensions With North Korea?
That was the headline I saw on Fox News today, while they were discussing the subject with some guest. Of course, the question translates directly into this, more honest one: What can the US do to appease North Korea now, since all previous appeasements have failed? It reminded me of a scene I had recently watched in a Korean historical drama, called Jumong. The episode examined, and dramatized, the idea of appeasement.
The scene involves the deposed King of Puyo (a Korean kingdom), named Kumwa, lecturing his son, Taeso, who had forcibly taken over from him. Taeso has refrained from killing the King, evidently, because the people would revolt if he committed regicide. So he is ruling under the fiction that the King is incapacitated from a wound received in a recent war against the Han (China), in which Kumwa was attempting to recover lands taken from Korea by the Han in an earlier conflict.
Kumwa: I heard the Han demanded a hostage. Is that true?
Taeso: Yes.
Kumwa: You might be my representative, but shouldn’t you have told me earlier?
Taeso: I was going to, after giving it enough thought.
Kumwa: So, are you done thinking?
Taeso: Yes.
Kumwa: What will you do?
Taeso: I’m going to send a hostage.
Kumwa: Don’t you have any pride?
Taeso: Why wouldn’t I have any?
Kumwa: Yet you’re going to send a hostage and accept that we’re a tributary state?
Taeso: We can’t afford to talk about pride. The Han is just waiting for a chance to make us pay for the war. I had to marry a woman I don’t love just to put an end to it. If one hostage will save thousands of lives, why not? Your Majesty, pride won’t stop a war. I’ll reap the benefits of not starting one.
Kumwa: Give up one thing to avoid a war and the Han will demand something else. You’ll use Puyo’s peace as an excuse to back out again and again until you’re at a dead end. What will you give them then? Will you let them conquer us if they want to? Will you die for them if they ask you to? Can’t you see the reality hidden behind the so-called benefits?
This is indeed the fruits of appeasement. Bush did it too often, and for Obama, it is the only option he considers. How long before we reach the dead end?
By Amy Nasir · May 26th, 2009 1:14 pm · 5 Comments
Brother-love need not get in the way of the “public interest” in China. An angry passer-by pushed a would-be jumper off a bridge after he held up traffic for five hours. The pusher’s reason – the jumper was “selfish” and his action “violate[d] a lot of public interests.” Notice the initial false gesture of helping the jumper:
Retired soldier Lian Jiansheng, 66, broke through a police cordon and reached out to shake the hand of would-be jumper Chen Fuchao before shoving him off the bridge.
“I pushed him off because jumpers like Chen are very selfish. Their action violates a lot of public interests,” Lai was quoted as saying by the China Daily newspaper.
This is just one small example where the morality of altruism – living for the sake of others, or the “collective” – gives the excuse to any thug to kill, pummel or push another’s life. When a perpetrator loudly proclaims that the victim was “selfish,” he is projecting his own motivations of cynical egoism, or range-of-the-moment gratification, onto the victim. This thug was eager to prove that his actions were moral and his victim’s weren’t.
Under altruism, brother-love does not apply to the individual – only to the greater good. Individuals are expendable, and thugs are justifiable.
In contrast, a couple weeks ago on my side of town in Michigan, a would-be jumper on a pedestrian bridge closed a freeway for over eight hours. It was reported that he had lost his job. Dozens of people gathered around to offer encouragement and finally talked him down without incident. Benevolence and compassion are based in the minds of people who understand that they, themselves, are individuals and that individuals are more important than the collective “good.” Rational self-interest is the only moral code that keeps the thugs at bay, is conducive to compassion and allows for human beings to flourish.
If you were looking for the reason why we, with the most powerful military in the history of the planet, are struggling to defeat a ragtag collection of dirt poor guerilla fighters, this article from Time lays it out quite plainly, if unintentionally. Time looked at the victory of Sri Lanka over the Tamil Tigers, and concluded they did everything wrong, and their successful methods were exactly what we should not do. Never have I seen an analysis so utterly and spectacularly wrong as Time’s. But Time’s insane method for “defeating” an insurgency is exactly the way the West is fighting, and looks like it will continue to fight, the Islamist assault on the West.
But now that the Tigers have been defeated, governments and security forces around the world may try to learn from the success of the Sri Lanka government. President Mahinda Rajapaksa and his army have turned the conventional wisdom on fighting insurgencies on its head, adopting strategies and tactics long discredited, both in the battlefield and in the military classroom. Since they appear to have worked against the Tigers, other countries wracked by insurgencies — from Pakistan to Sudan to Algeria — may be tempted to follow suit. But Rajapaksa’s triumph has come at a high cost in civilian lives and a sharp decline in democratic values — and he is no closer to resolving the ethnic resentments that underpinned the insurgency for decades. Perhaps Sri Lanka’s success should come with a warning label for political leaders and military commanders elsewhere: Do not try this at home.
Obviously, the US war with the Islamists is not the same as the insurgencies mentioned here. But it is in fact comparable, simply on a global scale. The Islamist insurgents want the whole world to bow to Islam, and since we are the top dog on the planet, as far as non-Muslim nations go, we are their most tempting target. If we fall, the rest of the dominoes will quickly follow. And the “discredited” tactics, as you will see, are certainly meant to apply to the US military as well.
What horrible tactics were used by Sri Lanka?
Brute Force Works
Modern military wisdom says sheer force doesn’t quell insurgencies, and that in the long run political and economic power-sharing along with social reconciliation are the only ways to end the fighting. But the Sri Lankan army eventually broke down the Tigers in an unrelenting military campaign, the final phase of which lasted more than two years. That sort of sustained offensive hasn’t been tried anywhere, in decades.
I’ve never before read such a perfect statement of how the West will be lost as that one. The way to fight a terrorist insurgency, according to Time, is not to kill the insurgents who are killing you, but a strategy of compromise and appeasement, i.e., total capitulation. This will assuage their grievances, and voila! the insurgency will be over. It’s so simple when you’re willing to give up without a fight, isn’t it? This is the strategy that has led to a Hamas government in the Palestinian territory, and soon, no doubt, a Hezbollah government in Lebanon.
Negotiations Don’t
After numerous attempts at mediation — most notably by Norway — led to nothing, Rajapaksa basically abandoned the pursuit of a negotiated solution. Once the military had the upper hand, there was little effort to treaty with the Tigers.
Negotiations assume their is something worth negotiating. There was no mention in the article of what the Tamil Tigers wanted. If they are anything like al Qaeda, obviously, there is nothing to negotiate with them. We either surrender, or kill them.
Collateral Damage Is Acceptable
In the final months of fighting, the Sri Lankan military offensive hardly differentiated between civilian and Tiger targets. Refugees fleeing the fighting said thousands of innocents were being killed in the army’s bombardments. Modern militaries typically halt hostilities when large numbers of civilians are killed. The Sri Lankan army barely paused. Reva Bhalla, director of analysis at Stratfor, a global intelligence firm, says Rajapaksa’s “disregard for civilian casualties” was a key to the success of the military operation.
In other words, we must allow our enemies to attack, and then hide behind civilian shields. WWII would have went very well under those rules, wouldn’t it? In fact, any civilian casualties are the responsiblity of the insurgents who initiated the warfare. End of story.
The last point Time makes is that Sri Lanka restricted press freedom during the conflict, and kept reporters away from the fighting. Some restrictins on the press are proper during a war. You cannot allow reporters to give away the time and location of the D-Day invasion, for example.
In any case, I’m not defending the Sri Lankan government as such. They may be as bad as the Tamil Tigers, for all I know. But the tactics they used to defeat the Tigers were exactly the right tactics, and their success should be an encouragement to anyone in the US government who wants to win this war. Old fashioned, rational tactics still work just as well as they ever did. We could easily defeat al Qaeda, not to mention the Somalian pirates, with a fraction of our military might, in a fraction of the time we have already spent appeasing and limiting ourselves to rules of engagement that only strengthen our enemies.
The Sri Lankan defeat of the Tamil Tigers is, however, a lesson lost on the powers that be in this country, as the Time article so glaringly makes clear.
By Galileo Blogs · May 13th, 2009 2:51 am · 9 Comments
The European antitrust regulator has just announced it will fine Intel Corporation $1.44 billion (1.06 billion euros) because it “harmed millions of European consumers by deliberately acting to keep competitors out of the market for computer chips for many years.” It did this, essentially, by discounting the price it sold chips to stores that agreed to sell computers containing them in bulk through exclusive agreements.
We’ve been down this path before. The railroads that served Standard Oil charged him a lower rate because Rockefeller could guarantee large, steady shipments of oil, which the railroads could ship more cheaply. For providing the railroads with product in a way that reduced their costs, and being charged less for providing that, Rockefeller was prosecuted.
In the same manner, a retail store that can guarantee large, steady sales of computers containing Intel chips is more valuable to Intel than a store that buys some of its chips and some of its competitor’s chips. Intel can afford to provide a discount.
Those never-to-be-denied European customers benefit from this by getting cheaper Intel chips, yet they were supposedly harmed according to the European antitrust commissioner.
But also evaded by the European antitrust commissioner is that a market for computer chips would not exist at all if Intel did not invent, develop, and constantly innovate the chips that become the brains of computers. Because of Intel’s work, each year the chips are faster and smarter. Each computer sold with those chips can do more — faster processing of material from the Internet, simultaneous handling of video and audio, and numerous other tasks — because of the relentless intellectual effort of Intel’s scientists and engineers.
That is part of what the never-to-be-denied European consumers and all others who buy Intel chips are getting.
To steal $1.44 billion from Intel is to demand that these scientists and engineers work for free. It is to steal the fruit of their effort, which we all benefit from by voluntarily buying their products that they create. As their property created by their minds, they have the right to set the terms under which we gladly buy these products, which we buy because of the great benefits they offer us.
Into all this steps the punishing European antitrust commissioner. She violates Intel’s property rights and the rights of Intel’s customers to do business with Intel on mutually agreed-upon terms. And by so doing, she ensures that Intel has $1.44 billion less in which to reward the efforts of those scientists and engineers who create the marvelous Intel chips.
If our computers are a little slower than they could be and our freedoms more diminished, thank Neelie Kroes, the European antitrust commissioner, and the legions of apologist economists who rationalize the pernicious doctrine of antitrust that gives her this power.
I cannot help wondering if President Obama’s first reaction to the news of the rescue of Captain Phillips from Somali pirates was anger. Now he cannot use this hostage crisis to pressure the Senate into ratifying the Law of the Sea Treaty, one of those international laws that would further bind America to the will of the rest of the world.
By dismuke · March 25th, 2009 5:21 pm · 7 Comments
This very eloquent YouTube clip of British member of the European Parliament Daniel Hannan taking Prime Minister Gordon Brown to task is simply incredible and certainly equally applicable to our own Presidents Bush and Obama.
He has a blog too. While I have not yet had a chance to read very much of it, his most recent posting about the success of the YouTube clip and how it has bypassed the traditional, mainstream Walter Duranty media outlets is interesting.
Evidently there exists a non-binding resolution at the UN that urges member countries to pass laws restricting FREEDOM OF SPEECH. The particular object of this restriction is the criticism of religion, so-called blasphemy, with the main impetus behind it coming from Islamic countries, who don’t like Islam to be criticized.
That such a non-binding resolution is on the books at the UN is sufficient reason to kick that organization out of Amerrica and into some Islamic totalitarian country, where it belongs. But the Islamic countries are now pressing to make this into a Binding Resolution. If America were to allow that to happen, I submit that we will have lost the war we are fumbling our way through at present. Imagine, half way through WWII, the Axis Powers proposed a law forbidding criticism of totalitarianism, and the Allies accepted it. What then would we have been fighting for?
What are we fighting for now, if there is nothing to criticize in the Religion of Peace, Islam?
I don’t see any chance that America will allow this totalitarian edict to pass in the UN. But the fact that we have anything to do with the countries pushing it is so grotesque a circumstance, that one is forced to be ready for anything to happen, even to the abolishment of the First Amendment.
This story was brought to my attention at Little Green Footballs, where there is a video of Christopher Hitchens defending the First Amendment on the Lou Dobbs show against the Islamic Totalitarians.
By Chuck · February 26th, 2009 2:00 pm · 7 Comments
The Epoch Times is a New York based newspaper that specializes in news on China, although it covers US and international news other than China as well. A lot of their stories have to do with the persecution of Falun Gong in China, which leads me to believe that the newspaper is owned or controlled by people friendly to the Falun Gong movement. I don’t know much about Falun Gong, but I think we’ve all seen stories of the Chinese government trying to suppress that movement. The Epoch Times and Falun Gong both appear to be anti-communist. Judging from the newspaper, though, this doesn’t mean they are capitalists. They seem to be on the collectivist side of the coin themselves.
At any rate, there was a story in The Epoch Times the other day claiming that 50 million Chinese have quit the Communist Party in recent years. I don’t know how accurate the figure is, but it sounds encouraging.
Beneath the media censorship and Internet blockades of China, a movement is spreading like wildfire with the potential to put an end to the ruling communist regime.
The Tuidang or “Quit the Party” movement has seen a wave of Chinese withdrawing their memberships from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its affiliated organizations. This month the number of withdrawals exceeded 50 million.
Is the Chinese Communist government in trouble? Protests are a common occurrance. The Party is losing members. Falun Gong, ostensibly a meditation discipline, seems to me at least to be an organization that people join to express defiance of the communist government. If the Communist government is going to fall one day in the not too distant future, it would seem that Falun Gong will have had a lot to do with its demise.
Perhaps we should give some attention to this movement, to divine what the next Chinese government will be like. Would a non-communist Chinese government still want to annex Taiwan? Would it even be a bad thing, if the government is non-militaristic? Would Taiwan willingly annex itself to such a government?
By Bill Brown · February 19th, 2009 8:11 am · 5 Comments
In researching African development for my entry on Ethiopia, I came across a startling fact about a neighboring country that I had never encountered before.
When one thinks of Somalia, one thinks of pirates, the civil war (and Clinton’s disastrous humanitarian intervention in 1993), extreme poverty, and anarchy. From the perspective of the Western democracies, Somalia’s situation is untenable and incomprehensible: it lacks a central government.
The remarkable fact that I mentioned earlier is that it’s doing as well as or better than ever. The dictatorship of Siad Barre was of a Stalinist, socialist bent so it’s not a particularly high threshold to meet, but conventional wisdom—at least among international aid types—is that the more state the better. According to their notions, Somalia should be utter chaos where life is “nasty, brutish, and short.”
By Bill Brown · February 5th, 2009 12:45 am · 16 Comments
In December, I visited Ethiopia to pick up my newly-adopted son (proud father link, if you’ll bear with me) and I was struck by the prevalence of commerce throughout the capital city, Addis Ababa. Ethiopia is known as a Third World country with widespread poverty; with a per-capita income of $780, there are few countries in the world poorer than it. But everywhere I looked there were entrepreneurs of every stripe selling goods, services, and capital goods. I struggled to understand this seeming paradox of highly-visible capitalism in one of the poorest nations.
