Selling the UN to Reduce the Deficit

Sitting on six blocks of top notch Mannhattan riverfront, the UN Headquarters has overseen active attacks on the United States, massive continuing demands in terms of money and prescence from the US treasury, and helped aid and abett organizations, such as the various Sustainability organizations behind Agenda 21, that are impoverishing and ruining the world as we speak with windmills and other stupidity. They continue to embarass and harass not only the United States, but the poor countries of Africa, making irrational demands in terms of notions of "modernity" that are not desirable and maybe not even possible for the so-called "dark continent." They also have stood by and abetted the slandering of George W. Bush during the run up to the Iraq War, claiming, despite every piece of evidence to the contrary, that there was no reason to think Saddam Hussein had weapons. In addition, the IMF and the EU, two other "world government" organizations, have together impoverished 4/5 of the world.

The UN is, frankly, a rat, and an expensive one. Even the tiniest piece of Mannhattan real estate can fetch top dollars and motivate tremendous economic development. We are 1.5 trillion in debt. May I suggest a sale of 6 ideal building sights for skyscrapers?

The Lemmeys Lay an Egg in the Chagos

Chagos Islanders helping the Seabees, Diego Garcia, 1971

Okay, imagine this, you have a home, a large home on 14 square miles, shared between you and 1100 other people. You are told, mysteriously, by the British government that you will be evicted to build a military base. If you have an extremely long ancestry on the island, you're entitled to some compensation, and only a little bit, several years too late to help you out in any significant manner, but if it's only you or your mother or your grandfather, you're entitled to none. Worse, brutal measure including depravation of supplies, threats of bombing, and the destruction of domesticated animals are used to achieve these ends.

But here's the strange part: the military base isn't even in your chain of islands, but on a larger island 30 miles away.

And thus you have the Chagossians. They've been forced out of a home that wasn't even needed for anything, and at one point, the British did not believe they were entitled to any compensation. They described them as "Tarzans" and "Man Fridays," and dumped them on the nearby island of Mauritus without so much as food and water to fend for themselves in the Port Louis slums. At most, an eviction of Diego Garcia might have been in order, probably to the other islands, and certainly not by these means.

This leads me to wonder, just what are they doing with those islands? There are allegations of black sites by the US Intelligence community on those islands. There are also large areas of solid farmland and excellent mineral resources and fishing completely off limits to any economic development. And then there are the poor souls forced to live in urban slums because some idiot in London, or DC (the story varies), decided this was honestly a good idea.

Mauritus is now seeking control of the islands. While the US millitary has a legitimate claim to the neccessity of Diego Garcia, I see no reason at all that they should so much as whine at some reasonable level of economic development on a bunch of islands that aren't even reasonably near them. If they had been willing to make the people there American or British citizens on the Chagos Islands, and only rearrange the lives of those directly affected by the military base, maybe my feelings would be different, but after 39 years of reckless unethical behavior towards an entire society, methinks that neither London nor DC nor Port Louis, Mauritus, who sold their people out for 3 million pounds, can be trusted at all with the greatest Lemon of Lemmeyland. This is totally irresponsible, and no official associated with these acts should be allowed to keep their job, and no bureau associated with the duties regarding the British Indian Ocean Territory should avoid thorough scourging and discipline.

Those people have a home they have been deprived of. Now, the UK wants to declare a giant nature preserve to keep them out of their home forever. This is not the first time that eco-nazism has hurt the people of the Chagos - another proposed site for the current base at Diego Garcia was an uninhabited atoll rejected because it was the site of a rare breed of turtle. Please, please, please let them come back, and there is no reason at this point why someone else should not control those islands, especially when the British have abused them so thoroughly:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." -The Declaration of Independence

Government comes from the people, and thus the British Government has lost it's right to the British Indian Ocean Territory, pure and simple. Who will it go to instead? I don't know. Not Mauritus, not the UK, and not America, that much has to be certain.

Guest Post - The Irate Dog

A real live Englishman has been kind enough to write a post on English culture for this blog. Tom Jardine-Smith is a good friend of mine and quality journalism student in England who I've stayed in contact with over the past year or so, debating, contributing, exchanging guest posts and getting to know one another on BlogCatalog. As you will later see with the sheer number of tags on this post, he really has covered all the bases and in a fantastic way.

In addition to his current blog, Thomas Bobs, he used to run the Irate Dog.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

British Culture, and Where to Find It

When Jeremy asked me to write another guest post for him I was of course delighted. Through the BlogCatalog we have debated on many things; well, mostly politics and God’s existence. But here we have something completely different. British Culture! Enjoy.

Visit my blog for more: http://thomasbobs.webs.com

British culture is, in many people’s views, one of the richest in the world. I’m not talking about Pop here. There’ll be no references to skinny Oompa Loompas who think they can sing because that isn’t culture, that’s a horrifying disappointment. When I say we have a rich culture I am referring to a fantastic variety we have; from people who actually are pretty good at singing to those who can do pretty awesome things with a city wall and a can of spray paint.

That is not to say that we are the masters of Culture; a vote announcing us the official “Most Yobbish” country in the world would reveal that much. But we are proud of it none the less. Sometimes, unfortunately, for entirely the wrong reasons.

No talk about the British and their culture can be said without mentioning our Empire. For example there are a great many people in my country who are still proud of our now ex-British Empire which, in 1922, covered over 13,000,000 sq miles - a full quarter of the Earth’s surface.

Personally, and with my predominantly left-wing mind at work, I find the idea of an Empire cringe-worthy. To go to an entire continent (i.e. Africa) and label the entire population as “animals” and ‘uncivilised’ was, in my view, despicable and I would like to grab this opportunity to apologise on behalf of my country to anyone who’s family has the words “slave” in their history.

However, (and there must be a “however”) I also believe strongly that if it weren’t for us effectively owning a quarter of the planet we wouldn’t be nearly as diverse in culture and demographic as we are today.

In the last few hundred years our country has grown in other ways; not just geographically. We have learnt to respect other nations and, most importantly, we have learnt to laugh at ourselves. An American comedian whose name I’ve annoyingly forgotten said recently that “that is a very advanced thing y’all do”. And it is. It is a sign of a matured and laid back society. We don’t take ourselves too seriously anymore. The majority of us don’t have faltering hopes that the ‘once great Empire will rise again’. That isn’t what we’re about anymore.

One of the hardest questions I ever had to answer during my college studies was this; What is ‘Britishness’? I imagine this is a much easier question for foreign people to answer but, as a British citizen, I don’t have a clue. I would be tempted to sway towards the traditional politeness and sense of ‘good manners’ but let’s be honest, that’s not really the case anymore. Not when you look and see the sorts of prejudiced hatred of ‘immigrants’.

So perhaps ‘Britishness’ is our political system? Unique in the world for being completely and utterly mad. We have no written constitution and the law effectively changes after each and every judicial decision. Our Prime Minister effectively holds Parliament by the balls if his/her party holds a big enough clout. Our electoral system has been proven to be unfairly weighted in the larger party’s favours. And our Queen is the head of State but ‘Her’ government could, if it wanted to, over throw her at any time. Why don’t they? Because she’s a shell of power anyway; little more than a tourist attraction. There hasn’t been a threat to sovereignty coming out of Buckingham Palace for a long time and I doubt there will ever be again.

Maybe ‘Britishness’ is the NHS. Yes, I mentioned the NHS is a guest post for a right-wing American. I imagine if I said the same thing in some places in the US of A I’d have signs depicting me as Hitler scattered about. But I truly do not understand what the Americans have against the NHS. It is a medical marvel. Free at the point of use (mostly). The saviour of countless lives; including Steven Hawking who, I was delighted to find out, apparently became American over night when anti-Healthcare reformers thought his American-accented computer was his actual voice. Hilarious.

In short, British culture is a combination of our nation’s age, a generally progressive nature, and immigration. And I wouldn’t have it any other way. Thank you.

The Shortage of a Critical Resource

Picture of a Mosquito Net Tent, public domain byWikimedia user Malte

With all the attention on Haiti, there has been a tendency to forget other human tragedies, including one that takes more lives every year then the Port-Au-Prince earthquake took once.

According to Amazon.com, a Mosquito net manufactured by Coleman can be purchased retail for 15 dollars over the internet, and no doubt even cheaper in bulk, but millions in Africa die ever year, including a child every 30 seconds according to Nothing But Nets, for want of a Mosquito net. Stretched over a year (2*60*24*365) that equals an absurd death toll of 1 million children, just that age group.

If any country should have Malaria, the Southeastern United States would be an ideal infection site. Hot, muggy swamps, massive populations of mosquitos, and vast stretches of underused lands, but somehow with our many resources, industries, cities, railways and factories, we have paved a path away from such ordeals from the sweat of our brow, the nerve of our spirit, and the cleverness of our mind. But in Africa, something that you or I could buy for not more then a meal at a restaurant is unavailable... to save children.

In this perverse world, a man is valued below a meal at a diner. But here's the other thing, can people from all over the world worry every second of every day about stuff happening on the other side of the earth? And just, exactly, how did Africa become so perverse and cruel to its inhabitants? Wasn't it where humanity originated? How did the Southeastern US, of all places, with its little more then 400 years of history under its current inhabitants, outpace a land with a several thousand year headstart?

Those are very complicated questions, and I am not asking them to discourage you from giving or caring. And, by the way, some (though not all) of the answer can, possibly, be traced to your own ancestors, if you are of White, Hispanic or Arab descent, your ancestors may have been the slave traders who ruined Africas economy by draining it of people at a ridiculous rate and destroying productive industry to instead fund and establish as business one of the most bizarre and horrifying of human cruelties, and even if they weren't, they have aided and abetted the society that did. Instead, I am asking these questions to make a point.

They need nets, but even more then this they need the industry to make their own nets. If you wish to support charity, also support free trade and getting the word out there on a need for an African renaissance, so that someday, just maybe, when all their troubles are through and our African friends hold good steady jobs at the mosquito net factory or the steel mill, Africa can help somebody else.

Why didn't Boris get it?

Image Courtesy of Executive Office of the President of the United States, Public domain, accessed from Wikimedia Commons

To take one last jab at the end of the Nobel Prize hanogver, I would like to suggest that the next Nobel Peace Prize go to Boris Yeltsin. He should've won it this year. After the fall of the USSR, amidst domestic terrorism, missile threats, a hurt national pride, a collapsed economy, and a nuclear security crisis that shook the spirit of the world to its core, he kept the ship sailing smooth. He even handled himself coolly and effectively when, in 1994, a Norwegian meterological research team stupidly made their weather rocket from Spitzbergen appear on radar in the likeness of an American ICBM headed towards Moscow.

Unfortunately, Yeltsin died 2 years ago, so he would not be alive to accept the prize. It is sad that he was not honored in his lifetime.

Many nations split off from Russia after the fall of the USSR, taking their own political and economic trajectories and sometimes, a little government assets from Mother Russia. Two of these, the Ukraine and Kazakhstan, took with them a part of the USSR's nuclear arsenal. It took years to disarm them. Several others were involved in civil wars, and monstorous levels of inflation.

Yeltsin created the CIS, or Commonwealth of Independent States, to give Russia a remaining feel of empire, and give the new countries a forum to unite for military protection, negotiate trade conditions, coordinate nuclear security and counterterrorism, and allow states like Kazakstan and Kyrgyzstan with important former Soviet government functions to continue their business for Russia, keeping employment in the country and saving Russia from having to build new facilities. Also allowing all millitary forces common training facilities, so that all of them may be measurable millitary powers beyond their size and prosperity. He kept these nations stable, kept his own nation stable, and prevented at least one possible horrifying nuclear action in 1994.

Some people criticize Boris for the instability in Russia's economy, but Russia's economy was ruined long before Boris took the helm and decades of Communist abuse would not be healed overnight. Although I'm no expert on Russia's economy, I do know that Boris did raise hell in the Aluminum markets, bringing home massive profits, exports and employment for Soviet military related aluminum plants at the expense of virtually every developed country with cheap electric power.

Barrack Obama does not live up to names like Theodore Roosevelt, Nelson Mandela, and Martin Luther King Jr in ANY aspect of his sacrifices, efforts, or results achieved. Maybe he will someday, but he has not yet. I don't know about sacrifices, but in terms of results, Boris certainly lives up to them.

But then again, we were too late anyways. Rest in peace Boris. How I regret that no one was there to give you the recognition that you deserve.

The Flaw of Small Ambitions - Obama and Afghanistan

"“I’m not interested in just being in Afghanistan for the sake of being in Afghanistan or saving face or, in some way—you know, sending a message that America is here for the duration. Until I’m satisfied that we’ve got the right strategy I’m not gonna be sending some young man or woman over there—beyond what we already have.” -President Obama

Sounding reasonable and being reasonable are not the same thing. The problem with this approach to any ambition, but especially a war, is that when your aims are so small and "pragmatic" that they excite no one, you will inspire no loyalty, no commitment, and no resolve. When you can't even give an Afghani the time of day, how can you possibly expect them to support you, possibly to their death? These people have to make life and death decisions; if they side with us, and we ditch on them, they may be killed by the other side. If they don't side with us, and we stay, we may kill them. It's a stark reality, and one that must be remembered and honored. If they cannot trust us to keep our word, Mr. President, and have a little bit of honor, we will be sending many more young men and women to die in many other places because we will find help from no one in Afghanistan. We may even, considering Afghanistan's location, face a world war. Worse, we tarnish our good name, and people remember that. And no, regardless of an "illegitimate war" (whatever that means,) if we stay by the side of those we promised to stay by the side of, yes, people can trust us to keep our word, even if they don't like what we're saying.

Joe Biden made it very clear, according to the Economist, that he favors a "bomb stuff" approach to Afghanistan.

From Dr. Strangelove, redherrings.wordpress.com, Fair Use (Non-profit only)

We will fly around in little drones with rockets smiting whatever we like. In Iraq, we tried a strategy very much like that from 2003 to 2006. We also tried this strategy in Vietnam, a few decades before. Neither time did it turn out any better. In both places, violence got worst, and for every enemy we killed, 2 more were creted to take his place. In Iraq, only the courage and sheer stubborn gall of our president prevented us from ending the war the same way we did in Vietnam, increasing the risk of nuclear holocaust with the Soviets seven fold and wasting every ounce of blood spilled in that jungle.

In Iraq, after 2006, a massive millitary surge took place, but so did something else. A clever, educated, creative young general, General Petreaus, who is as far from the millitary stereotype as could ever be imagined thought up his own method for fighting the insurgents. Before him, a young Colonel with a very softspoken, passive, nonviolent attitude whose name I sadly cannot remember had gathered together a series of Sunni Chiefs in Anbar Province, pointing out to them that Al Qaida was, in fact, a threat to their authority. He won their trust so well that over night, they not only stopped fighting the Coalition, but fought for it. This, among other things, freed up forces and resources for other regions. It also demonstrated an attitude of cooperation that neither the Millitary before the Surge nor Biden after it appear to understand.

See, we are winning in Iraq not because we did such a wonderful job with firepower. We are winning in Iraq because we finally appealed to the people. This is something that both Rumsfeld and Bush spoke of as early as 2003, but did not actually accomplish until after the surge.

General Stanley McChrysthal, photo taken by Scott Davis, Civil Service, public domain

General Stanley McChrystal, commander of Afghanistan, summed it up perfectly on 60 minutes today: "If the people are against us, we cannot be successful. If the people view us as occupiers and the enemy, we can't be successful and our casualties will go up dramatically."No matter how well you do with high-tech gizmos, millitary maneuvering, and plain old riflemanship, if your objective, here the people, won't cooperate, you will lose every time. And here, losing means Afghanistan descending in to chaos and continuing to be a threat to the United States, emboldening Al Qaida and the Taliban, and destabilizing a region with 4, soon 5, nuclear armed nations in it (Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and soon, Iran).

Idealism may be costly, and ambition may be a terrifying dragon when looked at head-on, but if you put none together, and stand for nothing, you will achieve nothing, including the bare basics of what you need. If we destroy our own nations mission, no one is going to care if we live or die. We may not even care, at the individual level. Iraq was won not because we had the best weapons or the best people, but because we actually gave them a way forward, a way out of the darkness as a people. If we refuse to do the same in Afghanistan, then every civilian we kill, every bomb we drop, every life we end and destruction of property that can be accredited to us will inspire yet more hatred, yet more animosity towards truly needless violence. When we give them a way forward, they can accept, they can forgive, and they themselves can make sacrifices for their country, for you can have no law if no sacrifices for your own country can be made.

"Dead Aid" - A must read

Photo courtesy of Fanny Schertzer under GNU License 1.2

This article, by Heather Wilheim of Real Clear World, is a must-read for anyone interested in the slightly painful but very important subject of Africa. Although I feel a little funny writing a post about an article about a book, the advantage of this venue is that you can comment on it, and this particular article can easily stand on it's own two feet as a thesis-driven and successful argument without the accompanying book.

A few excerpts:

"One classic aid scenario Moyo outlines is the “micro-macro paradox,” which goes like this: an earnest Silicon Valley billionaire sends hundreds of thousands of mosquito nets to Africa, promptly putting the local mosquito net maker out of business—and, by extension, his ten workers and their 150 dependents. “A short-term efficacious intervention may have few discernible, sustainable long-term benefits,” Moyo writes. “Worse still, it can unintentionally undermine whatever fragile chance for sustainable development may already be in play.” In other words, that Britney Spears t-shirt, donated from good-hearted Westerners, may just put an African weaver out on the street."

"'Indeed,' Moyo writes, 'one could argue that the reason why Zimbabwe’s Mugabe has lasted so long is because he has been propped up by massive foreign aid receipts.'"

"As Moyo puts it, 'If other countries around the developing world have done it sans aid (generated consistent growth, raised incomes and rescued billions from the brink of poverty) why not Africa? Remember that just thirty years ago Malawi, Burundi and Burkina Faso were economically ahead of China on a per capita income basis. A dramatic turnaround is always possible.'"

Whether you agree with it or not, it makes many unique yet strangely common-sensical points almost never heard in the Africa undebate. The article, largely because the book is the same way, can be slightly over judgemental at times ("Bob Geldof wants to send money to Africa “even if it doesn’t work” because he doesn’t have to live with the results"), but otherwise is a nearly flawless rebuttal to the American orthodoxy that Aid = Good Charity. Perhaps we should consider focusing more on our own poor, who we clearly understand better.

Perhaps most damning of all to the African aid crowd is the simple fact (this part's mine) that the nations, in the developing world, which received almost no foreign aid (China, India, Eastern Europe, the Former USSR) are now the best off by far, to the point where they now attract more fear and insecurity then sympathy, and have production levels approaching the wealthiest developing nations. I suppose being an enemy of the United States has it's benefits.

F-22 - An Obituary

Photo courtesy of U.S. Air Force

"The Defense Department plans to end the F-22 Raptor fighter jet program that employs 2,000 workers in Marietta. The move is part of one of the most sweeping makeovers of defense spending in recent history." -Atlanta Journal Constitution, "Pentagon plans to ax F-22 project"

The F-22 is a magnificent aircraft capable of striking the enemy before the enemy can strike back. Carrying six missiles and internal guns for firepower, and a stealth build for avoidance, the F-22 makes up for it's size and cost with a level of survivabillity seldom seen in combat aircraft, along with some of the lightest maintenance requirements ever attained. At 44.5 feet of wingspan and 60 feet of length, it is one of the larger fighters ever built, and although not specifically mentioned, this large size no doubt leads to greater crumple and wound room to take damage. Although the F-22's max speed is only Mach 1.8, it's "supercruise" speed of Mach 1.5 can be sustained for long distances without engine damage or excessive fuel expenditure, as no afterburner is necessary. The only possible complaint one could have with this aircraft is that it can't land on a carrier.

A full report on the aircraft can be found here.



Technical Art courtesy of Wikimedia

Back in 1983, when the economy was at the weakest point it had been since 1942, Ronald Reagan spent massive, deemed unwise by some at the time, amounts of money on racing the Soviets for arms. He not only won the Cold War without firing a shot, but within a year, the economy recovered. Barrack Obama spends a similar amount of money on "Stimulus," and then says "we should not expect miracles." Meanwhile, he is ridding Atlanta of 2,000 jobs at Lockheed Martin Marietta, building one of the most incredible aircraft America has ever designed.

Perhaps saddest of all is that, in true Keynesian fashion, it would actually reduce expenditures for the Air Force in the long-run, especially if it replaced our fleet of F-16's, as it's much sturdier, hardier, more expensive but more reliable parts would make maintenance nearly "Plug and Play" (American Federation of Scientists.) It would also be, by a principle called common sense, safer to fly for this reason, saving money on training and saving the most valuable component of all, a human being.




Proletariat of the World, UNITE!

The Problem with Nuclear Disarmament

Photo: Trinity Test, 1945, US D.O.E. (Mannhattan Project)



In 1945, not long after testing this atomic bomb, America dropped dual nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, bringing to a swift end a war that the Japanese were planning to draw out for years. With these same bombs, it held down an expansionist and empowered Russia through the 40's, and created a culture of meek innocent dependency among all the other powers of the world, even England. When stable-headed Russia acquired it's own atom bomb, however, it was finally able to regain steam and act quickly to advance itself across the globe.

Now, America did not have the worst intentions. For the most part, after 4 long and bloody years of war, we just wanted peace. We were even willing to concede a little to both independence oriented peoples like the Fillipinos and expansionist empires like the Soviets, just so long as they realized we had Mr. Bang-Bang and thus fighting us was worthless; we did not wish to overuse this power, however.

And when the Soviets did acquire their own bomb, they were led by a bloodthirsty but levelheaded and slightly paranoid dictator named Joseph Stalin who realized -or at least agonized- that, even if he won a nuclear shell game against the US, he would be weakened by the fight and risk rebellion or China.

Now, let's switch roles here. Let's say that, instead of the US acquiring an atom bomb, it had been Germany. They would've tested it over Isreal, London, Moscow or New York and then imposed their will on the nations they were fighting. Even if some of the Western powers continued to fight, one of them submitting would have guaranteed a much bloodier, lenghtier conflict at the least, and chances are that the additional length would have made it possible for Hitler to build yet more bombs.

Let's switch another role. The US still made the atom bomb, but instead of cool as gun-steel Stalin at the helm, you had a hot-tempered dick like Ahmnehjahd. The US finds out that they have atom bombs, and instead of standing back and saying, "yeah, they figured us out, it's time for round two," he says, "start the countdown."

The best possible outcome of no nuclear weapons is exactly what happened before, with a single, selfish or desperate nation (preferably desperate) acquiring a nuclear weapon to threaten another nation, and a cool-headed second competitor outrunning them cooly and successfully.

The most likely outcome is global oppression. Nations willingly submit, just as they did to the US, but this nation is not as kind and had intentions far worse then anything in FDR's heart. A kind of globlal slavery ensues. The only separation between this and the best possible outcome is intention.

The worst possible outcome is the competitor acquires their competing weapon, is found out, does not react smoothly, and both nations launch, creating at the very least destruction of innocent life on a level beyond Darfur or Rwanda, at the worst, nuclear ahnillation of our species, all hinging on the effectiveness of production.

Mankind has already cheated nuclear death once. Please, Mr. President, don't put humanity through this again.