The Cool Blue Blog

Steal a lot and they make you King

Bush has made it clear that he is willing to increase aid to Africa; but only to a point.

He said that he wanted to speed up the flow of African aid money passing through Congress but made it clear that US donations depended on African leaders spending money on health and education projects, while tackling corruption.

He took issue with Mr Blair’s aim of doubling global aid to Africa to $50 billion (£28 billion) and disagreed with campaigners who say that the 0.16 per cent of US GDP that Washington spends on overseas aid is too low.

It's nice to think that simply giving money to Africa will solve all the problems there, after all, it doesn't require much of us. We could simply, er, go to a concert. Whoo Hoo!

But the fact of the matter is, who would the money really got to? Because the fundamental question really is, what is the cause of poverty in Africa?

If we look at Zimbabwe, for instance, how did it go from the bread basket of Africa to an impoverished state?

The simple, and accurate, answer is dedicated Marxist Robert Mugabe.

After he ran all the experienced farmers out of Zimbabwe under the guise of "land redistribution" (i.e. the farmers were white), things just went to hell. But since it is ostensibly a Democracy, how does he keep getting elected?

Easy, just withhold food from people until they vote for him.

Ms. Kasambala also echoed concerns aired by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Bulawayo, whom the government has condemned as a mad liar because of his allegations that food is being used as a political weapon in rural Matebeleland, an opposition stronghold. The archbishop says government supporters are threatening to withhold food from areas that do not vote for ZANU-PF.

Ms. Kasambala and Human Rights Watch says those threats are real.

Or we could look at Sudan. Whats the cause of poverty there?

Oh the usual: Civil War and genocide.

And when I say "the usual" I'm not being facetious. The most common cause for poverty and privation in the world is lack of political and economic freedom. As  R.J. Rummel, Professor Emeritus of Political Science clearly shows here

Political and Economic freedom not only go together, but also they are an engine of a people’s wealth and welfare. Add this to the fact the democratically free countries never have had a famine, virtually never murder their own people, have the least internal violence, and never any wars between them, and you have freedom as the closest thing to a general solution to humanity’s ills.

Now take a look at the index of Economic Freedom here and notice where the African countries are placed on the list. None are in the "Free" category and the ones that are in the "Mostly Free" category are not suffering from poverty and war.

And here is a table of Political Freedom and notice how much better off countries who are free are when compared to countries that are not free. Notice where the African countries that are worse off fall. Here, maybe this map of freedom will help you visualize it. (click for a larger image)

It is clear, economic and political freedom go hand and hand with prosperity.

You want to fix Africa?

Figure out a way to make their governments less repressive and their economies freer.

Don't be fooled into thinking the answer is simply "forgiving debt" because those you are helping by doing that are the governments of people like Robert Mugabe not the people who suffer under his boot.

And don't be fooled into thinking that just giving money is the answer because for the most part the money never sees its way to the people who need it. Case in Point: the Oil for Food program run by the UN.

To fix Africa you've got to do the hard work.

And make the hard choices:

Wanna go to war?

Didn't think so...

The Concert for Free Markets

Bob Geldorf has organized a giant media event for the 4th of July weekend: Live 8.

It's stated intention is is to end the deaths of "30,000 children" who perish due to "extreme poverty".

8 world leaders, gathered in Scotland for the G8 summit, will be presented with a workable plan to double aid, drop the debt and make the trade laws fair. If these 8 men agree, then we will become the generation that made poverty history.

End poverty throughout the world!

Sweet.

You might ask, how do they intend to do this?

What does Geldof want them to do?

He has three aims – to cancel Third World debt, to double international aid, and to introduce fair trade, as set out by the Make Poverty History campaign.

And what does fair trade mean?

The Make Poverty History campaign believes trade rules are loaded in favour of the wealthiest countries, which flood poor countries with subsidised goods and drive down the price of local produce.

Well that's true. We've been arguing with Europe, especially France, for years to end government subsidies of their farm industry. Unfortunately, the governments can't do this alone because if this were to happen, the French would rise up and start to put their leaders to the guillotine. British Prime Minister Tony Blair has come out against European farm subsidies, but that hasn't changed the situation any and is unlikely to if France won't consider it.

Of course the US subsidizes farmers as well. President Bush is attempting to severely cut back the subsidies provided by the Government, but the constituency likely isn't there. Like the France of America, California is against it.

Here in Vermont, dairy prices are subsidized with the excuse being that without them traditional family farms would go under because the price of milk is too low. Called the Northeast Dairy Compact, all of our (liberal) Congressional delegation supported it. Sen Patrick Leahy wrote

Mr. Chairman, I do thank you and want to leaven our discussion with a little levity. But before I start, I want to say that dairy policy is a serious topic – it represents a way a life for farm families throughout America.

I do not want dairy farmers in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Mississippi, Iowa, North Carolina, Vermont, or anywhere else to go out of business because of failed dairy policies or a stacked deck.

I say this to everyone: I will support, and vote for, reasonable legislation that helps dairy farmers in the Upper Midwest, in the South, in California, or elsewhere to get a fair price for their labor. I will work with any region of the country.

And such subsidies are fought for by the Left who, in general, think the free market is cruel.

But, it seems, Mr Geldorf doesn't agree. He must be a free marketer, yet, it seems, his concert is being marketed to the Left.

So while many are critical, or simply smile at the naivete of such an undertaking, I say

Go Bob!

Any help we can get to end these subsidies is definitely welcome.

See? At least I agree with one of the stated goals of Live 8.

I could have criticised the other goals, but in this case, I've decided to accentuate the positive.

Reality Dysfunction

In response to the President's speech last night, some Democrats are complaining that Bush falsely associated Iraq and the attack on September 11, 2001.

Some Democrats quickly accused him of reviving a questionable link to the war in Iraq - a rationale that Bush originally used to help justify launching strikes against Baghdad in the spring of 2003.

Except, the President made no such link. He did not claim that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. What he did say is

Some wonder whether Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. Among the terrorists, there is no debate. Hear the words of Usama bin Laden: "This Third World War … is raging" in Iraq. "The whole world is watching this war." He says it will end in "victory and glory or misery and humiliation."

Given that many of the foreign fighters are from Saudi Arabia (the country of origin of most 9/11 attackers), and that Zarqawi (who was living in Iraq prior to 9/11) calls his organization al Qaeda in Iraq, there is no doubt that we are fighting in Iraq the very same enemies that attacked the World Trade Centers.

It is quite clear.

No doubt.

To not make the connection between 9/11 and the situation in Iraq today is simply ridiculous and denies the obvious reality of the situation.

After the speech last night, General Wesley Clark gave his views on the Fox News channel. He pointed out, as he has done before, that Iraq was an elective war by the President. And he is correct on this. Partly.

The President was determined to be proactive on the war against Islamic Fascism. In his State of the Union Address of 2002 he said

We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction.  We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. And all nations should know:  America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security.

We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side.  I will not wait on events, while dangers gather.  I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer.  The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons.

Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun.  This campaign may not be finished on our watch -- yet it must be and it will be waged on our watch.

He was quite clear on this; no hidden agenda.

And he had a number of ways in which he could go about it after Afghanistan. He chose to take them on in Iraq (with the approval of Congress) for a number of  excellent reasons, but he could have chose a different way. So in that sense it was elective. But as Sun Tzu would say, it is better to fight the enemy on the terrain of your choosing than on the terrain of their choosing.

If al Qaeda got a chance to vote, the terrain would have been America.

And as Andrew Sullivan wrote in The Sunday Times of London in 2003

I don't recall the precise conversation but I voiced some worries about what might happen if an occupied Iraq became a target for international terrorism. Wouldn't U.S. soldiers become sitting ducks? What was to stop al Qaeda using Iraq as a battleground in the war against the West? Or Hizbollah? Or even Hamas? Not to mention the Syrians and Iranians, who would persumably be terrified at the thought of an actual living, breathing democracy emerging in the monolithically repressive Arab world.

And what he said surprised me. If the terrorists leave us alone in Iraq, fine, he said. But if they come and get us, even better. Far more advantageous to fight terror using trained soldiers in Iraq than trying to defend civilians in New York or London. Think of it as a flytrap," he ventured. Iraq would not simply be a test-case for Muslim democracy; it would be the first stage in a real and aggressive war against the terrorists and their sponsors in Ryadh and Damascus and Tehran. Operation Flytrap had been born.

And now, it has become a do or die scenario for al Qaeda

The terrorists know that the outcome will leave them emboldened, or defeated. So, they are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to take.

So again, it is quite clear that September 11th and Iraq today are in fact connected. That we are fighting in Iraq the very same enemy as attacked us.

That is clear.

No doubt.

To not make the connection between 9/11 and the situation in Iraq today is simply ridiculous and denies the obvious reality of the situation.

Walking off the battlefield when you are engaged with the enemy, and you are killing the enemy in far greater numbers than is sustainable by them in the long term, simply because some in the Media and some political enemies want to embarrass the President, or make up for the election of 2000, or for whatever shortsighted petty reason, would not only be stupid but disastrous as well.

But Bush is not about to make that mistake. Nor is he stupid.

America and our friends are in a conflict that demands much of us. It demands the courage of our fighting men and women … it demands the steadfastness of our allies … and it demands the perseverance of our citizens. We accept these burdens — because we know what is at stake. We fight today, because Iraq now carries the hope of freedom in a vital region of the world — and the rise of democracy will be the ultimate triumph over radicalism and terror. And we fight today because terrorists want to attack our country and kill our citizens — and Iraq is where they are making their stand. So we will fight them there … we will fight them across the world — and we will stay in the fight until the fight is won.

Let's roll

The Goal

Tonight the President will address the nation about the war in Iraq. A new poll by Gallup poll gives a good indication of what it is he must make clear to Americans.

The length of time it will take for Iraq to become stable is not a problem. Most Americans think it will happen and most think it will take 2 to 5 years.

However, it seems to be increasingly a problem that people are losing faith that the War in Iraq is a part of the War on Terrorism. So he needs to make a clear case.

And having established that, he must make it clear that setting a deadline for withdrawal will in fact be a defeat for Iraq and a victory for terrorists.

A leader convinces people to follow where the leader thinks they must go. Bush does not make policy based on polls, but he does base his political tactics based on them. Whereas I believe at this point Clinton or Kerry would have caved and set a timetable for withdrawal based on the polls, the President will instead make his case and stay the course. He has three more years to show he was right.

But the fact remains that he could be wrong. Only time and history will tell.

But true leaders dare to be wrong.

"Those who dare to fail miserably can achieve greatly," John F. Kennedy said.

But it takes a Republican these days to live up to these words.

No Gulags here

Democratic Party leaders in the House are convinced that something smells rotten at the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay

House Democrats seem convinced that evidence of abuse at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and in Iraq and Afghanistan is being concealed and that the only way to expose it is with a commission liked the one convened to investigate intelligence failures that allowed the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

"We in Congress have a responsibility to make this issue once again too hot for the Republicans to handle," she said. "The treatment of detainees is a taint on our country's reputation."

     

This while a Congressional delgation, that included Democrats, return with a slightly different report.

"Everything we heard about operations there in the past, we'd have to say, was negative. What we saw firsthand was something different," [Sen. Ben] Nelson [Nebraska Democrat] said.

And where was it he head about operations at Gitmo? Why from Sen Durbin, of course

"The United States, which each year issues a human rights report holding the world accountable for outrageous conduct, is engaged in the same outrageous conduct when it comes to these prisoners," Mr. Durbin said at the time, citing an FBI agent's e-mail detailing some of the tactics to which the agent objected.

On the human rights issue, Sen. Ron Wyden, Oregon Democrat who also toured the facility notes

"I strongly prefer the improved practices and conditions at Camp Delta to the outsourcing of interrogation to countries with a far less significant commitment to human rights,"

Sen Wyden must not be looking for the MoveOn.org vote. Either that or he does not mind being a reasonable, sane, individual no matter what it costs him politically.

In any case, it is pretty clear that the US is not in fact running a Gulag in Cuba. Of course there are Gulags in Cuba, but the Left ignores those and instead manufactures Gulags that aren't there. It seems to me that it is much more work to invent stuff than it is to just point out stuff that really exists.

But when you have the New York Times on your side to amplify the false information while filtering out the truth, it's much easier than would would think.

[U.S. Rep. Mike Conaway, R-Midland] said the criticism was "absolutely" motivated by partisan opportunism because the Camp Delta he saw bore no resemblance to the one Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin compared to "Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime of Pol Pot or others who had no concern for human beings" June 15

Ya think?

The Next Campaign

It seems clear that with the Kelo decision, action must be taken to preserve private property rights from crooked politicians and State governments.  The new definition of eminent domain, as recently established by the Left side of the Supreme Court means that anyone, rich or poor, can be kicked out of their home so the property may be acquired by WalMart.

"Now that they've got carte blanche to do whatever they want, they will," said Dick Saha, 75, who in May won a six-year fight to keep Coatesville, Pa., from seizing his farm.

"We have four horses. My two daughters have some land we gave them and the grandkids come down and ride the horses," Saha said. The town, he said, "decided they needed our property for a golf course."

Eminent Domain used to mean that government could only acquire private land for a public works project like a road or a dam. Now "public works" has been redefined to include shopping malls and golf courses.

Eminent Domain used to mean that your home could be acquired only by the "public"; now it means your land could be confiscated to be given to someone else.

And not even a "poor" someone else; no a filthy rich someone else. A land developer or a corporation.

wealthy investors and city leaders had been given the power to run people from their homes to make way for new development. The line between public and private property has been blurred, [Justice Sandra Day] O'Connor said in her dissent, and no home is safe.

The Government in the US is supposed to exist to protect private property not take it away and give it to high tax-paying enterprises owned by wealthy developers at the expense of some old person paying lower taxes on less "valuable" property.

Since it is clear that the Supreme Court can not be trusted with correctly interpreting the Fifth Amendment, the next political campaign should be about Amending the Constitution to precisely say that Government can not abrogate the private property rights of citizens by taking their property and giving it to other citizens in a for-profit venture.

Is that too much to ask?

Failing that, or perhaps in addition to that, each State should amend their Constitutions with similar words. As of now, only two State's Constitutions have such words. However, since the Supreme Court has essentially interpreted the US Constitution this way, those State's Constitutions are in legal limbo with regards to this matter.

This is what happens when you lose respect for private property rights; rights which have been under assault by the Left for decades.

It's time we defend something that is quintessentially American: Private property.

And the time is now.

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private property, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms." - Chief Justice  William Rehnquist

Is that how you want it? Is that what you think is right?

Is it?

Update: Eugene Volokh points out that Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) has introduced legislation that is intended to clarify the 5th Amendment for the Supreme Court. And everyone else.

But we need to go further....

Right to Marry

As I have often pointed out, there is no right to marry. And when you use the court to decide that there is such a thing in the case of Gays, there simply is no limit to what can be argued along these lines.

Because once you decide that an "equal protection" argument extends to Gays as a group, then there is no justification for not extending it to siblings. If you try, then you are all of a sudden denying the "right to marry" to a group of people: ones who want to marry their siblings. Or child.

After successfully causing confusion in the courts with regards to Gays, the ACLU is now defending the rights of polygamists to marry

The president of the American Civil Liberties Union says polygamy is among the "fundamental rights" that her organization will continue to defend.

As it turns out, the National Organization of Women also thinks that polygamy is a good idea for working mothers.

The Utah Chapter of the National Organization of Women says polygamy can be a solution for the problems of working mothers. “It seems like a pretty good idea for professional women, who can proceed with their careers and have someone at home they can trust to watch their children. It solves the day care problem” said Luci Malin, vice chairman of Utah NOW in a telephone interview Monday.

To reiterate my point. I'm not against Gays being able to marry. I'm not even against polygamy, but why any man would want more than one wife is way beyond my capacity to understand.

I am, however against a father marrying his daughter. I am also against a man marrying a child. Both of which are possible if it becomes common for courts to interpret the Constitution in such a way as to conclude that there is a "right to marry".

If it becomes common for courts to conclude that equal protection applies to groups of people instead of individuals.

And this is precisely why it should be left up to state legislatures to define what marriage is and is not. Which marriages are allowed under the law and which are disallowed.

Yes, it may be that Gays will have to wait to capture the right to marry the right way, but the consequences of short circuiting the process will be disastrous.

And, I might add, that while the Left took up the meme that we deserved 9/11 because of our economic and political mistakes in the Middle East, they rarely concede that the Islamic Fascists also hate us for our cultural and social proclivities.

They look at our society and see things like Gay marriage, Britney Spears, sex filled movies,  decadent movie stars and even working women and conclude that such things are evidence of a morally corrupt society.

And if they win, they will correct the situation.

You know it's true.

All aboard the Chew Chew

One of the great things about Burlington Vermont in the Summer is the Vermont Chew Chew Fest which is hosted in a giant field down by the Waterfont on Lake Champlain. Many local vendors set up booths in a convenient way so visitors may sample their various cullinary wares.

And as you can see, food and love go together on a hot Summer day.

The Way Cool Wife and I picked similar delights to sample. First up was the cajun spiced pork stick from the Cajun'N'More booth.

And then it was on to Kevin's Wicked Mountain Hot Dogs where we each got an Italian sausage with grilled peppers and onion. Here, Kevin's women servers are all lovely with lovely hats.

We also stopped by the Nectars booth to pick up some of their world famous (OK Vermont famous) french fries and onion rings.

Nectar's, you might be aware, is the home of the band Phish. And while I'm not a big fan, I am of fan of Nectar's having spend many a night listening to music there.

The Chew Chew Fest also features live bands and beer! Todays the last day so check it out if your out and about in Burlington today.

The Politics of Submission

Forty eight hours after the Twin Towers were struck by al Qaeda operatives, MoveOn.org argued against a military response and instead to use the International court

We, the undersigned, citizens and residents of the United States of America and of countries around the world, appeal to the President of The United States, George W. Bush; to the NATO Secretary General, Lord Robertson; to the President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi; and to all leaders internationally to use moderation and restraint in responding to the recent terrorist attacks against the United States. We implore the powers that be to use, wherever possible, international judicial institutions and international human rights law to bring to justice those responsible for the attacks, rather than the instruments of war, violence or destruction.

Karl Rove when addressing a funraiser for Conservatives said

liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments

Meanwhile

Democratic leaders angrily demanded a retraction from White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove on Thursday after President Bush's top political strategist accused liberals of responding with restraint and timidity to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001

Now why should anyone apologize for speaking the truth? More importantly, why would anyone want to back away from positions they obviously believe in?

I don't understand why it is Democrats are taking offense. First, Mr Rove referred to "liberals" not Democrats, so I guess that shoe fits. Second, MoveOn.org represents a significant number of the Democratic base.

Back when Senator Kerry was running for President he said

''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance. As a former law enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.'

So I just don't see why the big hoopla. This is obviously a core of the difference between Republicans and Democrats with regards to the War on Terrorism. This is an honest difference of opinion and gives two clear choices for Americans.

Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), 10/1/01, Roll Call: "I truly believe if we had a Department of Peace, we could have seen [9/11] coming."

Al Sharpton, 12/1/02, New York Times, on the 9/11 attacks: "America is beginning to reap what it has sown."

Rep. Marcy Kaptur, 3/1/2003, Toledo Blade: "One could say that Osama bin Laden and these non-nation-state fighters with religious purpose are very similar to those kind of atypical revolutionaries that helped cast off the British crown."

From GOP.com we get

Senator Joe Biden, 10/22/01: ‘How much longer does the bombing campaign continue?’ Biden asked during an Oct. 22 speech at the Council on Foreign Relations. ‘We’re going to pay every single hour, every single day it continues.’ (Miles A. Pomper, "Building Anti-Terrorism Coalition Vaults Ahead Of Other Priorities," Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 10/26/01, no link)

Senator Joe Biden, 10/22/01: “The Bombing Campaign, [Biden] Said, Reinforced Existing Stereotypes Of The United States As A ‘High-Tech Bully …’” (Ibid.)

Representative Dennis Kucinich, 9/30/01: Sitting In His Capitol Hill Office Last Week, Near A Window Where He Could See The Smoke Rising From The Pentagon On Sept. 11, Kucinich Insisted He Is More Optimistic Than Ever That People Worldwide Are Ready To Embrace The Cause Of Nonviolence.” ... “Afghanistan May Be An Incubator Of Terrorism But It Doesn’t Follow That We Bomb Afghanistan …” (Elizabeth Auster, “Offer The Hand Of Peace,” [Cleveland, OH] Plain Dealer, 9/30/01)

Senator John Kerry, 4/19/04: "I will use our military when necessary, but it is not primarily a military operation. It's an intelligence-gathering, law-enforcement, public-diplomacy effort," he said. "And we're putting far more money into the war on the battlefield than we are into the war of ideas. We need to get it straight." (Washington Times, 4/19/04)

So why are Democrats so upset? Do they believe their own position on this matter is in fact wimpy?

Given that House Minority Leader Pelosi thinks the war in Afghanistan is over, and as a result all Gitmo prisoners should now be released, it's no wonder they are also confused about their own position on the War On Terrorism.

Winds of Change has much more.

(This post from Captain's Quarters greatly aided in the production of this post)

Fake but true...Again?

Michael Isikoff, writing for Newsweek again uses unnamed sources to lob an attack against Bush and his Administration.

Two senior British government officials today acknowledged as authentic a series of 2002 pre-Iraq war memos stating that Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program was "effectively frozen" and that there was "no recent evidence" of Iraqi ties to international terrorism—private conclusions that contradicted two key pillars of the Bush administration's  public case for the invasion in March 2003.

Of course he is referring to the new cause celebre among Democrats; the Downing Street Memos. But it turns out, that like the CBS document purporting to show that the President was AWOL for his National Guard service, there are no originals. They have been destroyed. All that remains are copies. And they are not even exact copies, they are "copies" that were retyped by the reporter.

With Times of London reporter Michael Smith admitting the memos he used in his stories are not originals, but copies he retyped, the controversy seems to be reaching a fever pitch.

"Until tonight ... no one questioned the authenticity of the documents provided by the Times of London," said CaptainsQuartersBlog, one of the sites behind the Rather scandal. "That has now changed, as Times reporter Michael Smith admitted that the memos he used are not originals, but retyped copies.

(Ed's original post is here.)

So the reporter had the originals which would prove the documents authentic, but instead he retyped them then destroyed them. Huh. Why?

Smith told the Associated Press he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals. The AP showed the documents to an unnamed senior British official who said they "appeared authentic."

Oh. Of course. Perfectly natural.

Unfortunately we only have his word for this.

Oh, and Mr Isikoff's two (count 'em; two!) unnamed sources who claim they're true.

If all of this sounds familiar, well, that would be because it is familiar. All that need to happen to complete the trifecta is for someone to claim that the documents may be false, but the story is true.

Sure.

Strangely, the Memos aren't all that damning to begin with. So why would the reporter go through all the trouble of retyping them on an old manual typewriter and then using further methods to make them appear older than they were?

Got me. But I do know that even though there is little damning in the memos, they have gotten the Left in a tizzy. Perhaps they figure no one will read them and they can frame the story any way they like. Fake follows fake, I suppose.

Or maybe.....

It was Karl Rove....

That devil.