Arthur is keeping track of a story carried in The Australian regarding Kim Jong-il. His consort, and mother of his presumed heir, has died.
“The loss of this woman was a blow,” said a foreign diplomat.
“But (US Democratic candidate) John Kerry’s loss in the US election was a harder one. These are now very worried men.”
I checked both Global Security and StratFor, but neither had anything yet. Check Arthur’s site regularly, and I’ll try to do some digging myself. Kim may be on his way out.
obstinate and unreasoning attachment of one’s own belief and opinions, with narrow-minded intolerance of beliefs opposed to them.
Hmm. I wonder why that word gets thrown around so often, mostly in the direction of persons unknown. Unless you actually know someone, how is it possible to judge whether their beliefs are unreasoned? As far as being narrow-minded, I have to wonder if those who use the word aren’t exactly who they are trying to deride.
There are many people in this country who might fit that definition, but I would never presume to think they are simply the folks who disagree with me. After all, perhaps they are correct, and I’m the one who needs to reevaluate my beliefs. Then again, I’ve spent a lot of time doing just that in my life. And I’m not intolerant of those who believe differently. Tolerate means “to allow without prohibiting or opposing.” I tolerate a lot. I may not support it all, but that doesn’t equate to intolerance.
We’ve had a lot of anguish this year, mostly self-induced. Isn’t it about time people quit throwing around words like that?
We are trying a new feature at Homespun Bloggers. Each week we will all take on a topic, and add our own thoughts on it. This week the issue is the Electoral College. I don’t have strong feelings on the subject, but I’ve not heard anything proposed that would work better. We have a diverse group, so comparisons should be interesting. As new posts are added, I’ll attempt to add them on my own post. If not, they will all be available at the above link.
****************************
Is it time for the U.S. to end the Electoral College? I’m sure there are many who believe so. They want this to be a democracy, with direct election of our President. I can understand the frustration some feel. When the candidates spend the entire run-up in a select group of states, it seems that the rest of us are being ignored.
Actually, that’s precisely what the Electoral College is supposed to prevent. The concept was to keep voters from selecting a “favorite son” and split the vote so strongly that the election would end up in the Congress. It was also a means of keeping the more populous states from having undue influence. I’m sure that in looking at the focus on Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania, the theory seems to have been disproven. In reality, it works quite well. Some of that is explained in this history from the Federal Election Commission site. Twenty pages, but quite readable and informative. Every state, regardless of population, has at least three electors. And that provides more balance–not complete–but more.
The concept is still quite valid, although there may be reason to modify it in some way once again. But the modification will have to come through state legislatures or Amendment. The Constitution leaves the procedure up to each state, and not all do it in exactly the same way.
What the EC systems does well, is restrict the most populous states from overpowering the election. This was pretty obvious this year, where New York and California went strongly for Kerry, but didn’t tip the scales. Bush did still win the popular vote, but in 2000 that wasn’t the case. It also prevents the need for Congressional involvement in elections like 1992 and 1996 where no candidate received a majority of the popular vote, but Clinton won enough electoral votes to take over the Oval Office. Something the Founding Fathers were quite concerned with was this separation of powers, and keeping selection of the Executive Branch out of the hands of the Legislative Branch. If an election can be determined without recourse to Congress or the Courts, it needs to be done that way. And I’ve not heard a single proposal that does that as well.
More thoughts here:
In the Chicago Sun-Times, Robert Novak writes of the Senate investigation into corruption in the Oil-for-Food Program. He’s not optimistic, and neither is Norm Coleman, the committee chairman charged with the investigation:
The reaction by the U.N. bureaucracy has been an intransigent defense of its stone wall. Edward Mortimer, Annan’s director of communications, publicly sneered at the Coleman-Levin letter as ”very awkward and troubling.” Privately, Annan’s aides told reporters that they were not about to hand over confidential documents to the Russian Duma and every other parliamentary body in the world.
But the U.S. Senate is not the Russian Duma. These are not just a few right-wing voices in the wilderness who are confronting Kofi Annan. ”In seeing what is happening at the U.N.,” Coleman told me, ”I am more troubled today than ever. I see a sinkhole of corruption.” The United Nations and its secretary-general are in a world of trouble.
Our problems with the UN run back to a very distinct point in time. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (his article for Commentary, “Joining the Jackals”, is available by subscription), one of the finest Democrats ever in the Senate, was just as effective as our UN Ambassador. Both he and Jeanne Kirkpatrick were tough in defense of America’s interests. Between their terms there, everything was thrown away. Moynihan was one of the finest minds around, and one of the few who could take on William F. Buckley intellectually. And before you scoff at Kirkpatrick, understand she was a Democrat until Jimmy Carter came along. Disillusioned, she joined Ronald Reagan’s revolution.
Moynihan traces Carter’s loss in the 1980 election to his failure to defeat Edward Kennedy in the New York primary. That loss came at a point when Carter had been leading in the polls in New York 54-21. Kennedy won 59-41. Between the poll and primary, Carter’s UN Ambassador Donald McHenry voted FOR an anti-Israel resolution in the Security Council. I think that vote simply validated Carter’s view that the UN was the place to do business in foreign affairs–a belief he has retained ever since. As have the Democratic Party in general. Moynihan was precient in 1980:
For I do not conceal my judgment that so long as the ideas underlying the Carter administration’s UN policy are dominant within the Democratic party, we Democrats will be out of power.
Sixteen nations pay for 90% of the UN budget, in descending order: United States (26%), Japan, Germany, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, France, Italy, Canada, Spain, China, Republic of Korea, Netherlands, Australia, Switzerland, Russian Federation, Belgium, and Sweden (1.2%). These are the only ones which contribute at least 1% to the total. Another 80 nations pay less than one-tenth of one percent. This list includes Syria, North Korea, Yemen, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Congo, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Angola, Mauritania, Sierra Leone, and Rwanda, and account for just over 1% of the total budget combined. Egypt, Libya, Kuwait, South Africa, and the United Arab Emirates are just above them.
Doesn’t it seem odd that the nation which provides the most to the UN has the least influence? And which ones are the perennial problem children?
In another Commentary article, Joshua Muravchik makes The Case Against the UN. Writing of the opening of the 59th session of the General Assembly, Joshua notes:
…Annan chose to focus on the rule of law, especially international law as represented in and laid down by the UN. His sharpest points were aimed, none too obliquely, at the United States. “Those who seek to restore legitimacy must themselves embody it,” he scolded. “And those who invoke international law must themselves submit to it.” That the United States was derelict on this score, Annan had made clear a week earlier when he reiterated a prior accusation that the 2003 invasion of Iraq by America and its allies had been “illegal.”
The second voice was President Bush’s. Speaking soon after Annan, he focused on the advancement of democracy and human rights, but his remarks also included a rejoinder to critics like Annan: “The Security Council promised serious consequences for [Saddam Hussein’s] defiance. And the commitments we make must have meaning. When we say serious consequences, for the sake of peace there must be serious consequences.”
Here is the disconnect. The Carter and Clinton Administrations both looked to the UN as the source of foreign policy, and attempted to build the institution into a world quasi-government. I can’t say they were misguided in the theoretical concept, but the realities of international relations are far different from that ideal. Kofi Annan embodies that.
And it is simply business as usual for international operatives such as Annan. Graft is a way of life. He probably doesn’t see it as unethical, but simply one of the fruits of being one of the international elite.
Senators Coleman and Levin will be tenacious in trying to get information. Already it has become clear that the early estimate of $11 billion in misdirected funds was off by another $10 billion. And both men have made it clear they will ask questions to get real answers, and not be put off by non-answers. I will wait on their final report before drawing firm conclusions about our future with the UN. But right now it seems the UN has outlived it usefulness.
Unless you rule places like Syria, North Korea, Yemen, and Zimbabwe
Or Iran.
Stephen F. Hayes writes in Weekly Standard about the cleanup going on at the CIA. Some are concerned about the Porter Goss approach:
“What’s your take on Porter Goss’s leadership at the CIA after nearly a month in office? Is he making an effort to reach out to the rank and file or is he pretty much relying on his ‘special advisers’ to run the place for him?”
Look, reaching out is a Kumbayah thing. A spy agency, or any other government agency, should be more interested in work being done and done right rather than whether the bureaucrats feel validated by their boss. And does “reaching out” not work both ways?
The situation in Fallujah shown all over television yesterday has happened many times in the past. A Marine kills a wounded opponent. This time, an NBC cameraman captures it on tape.
The problem with the video is that there is no context to judge it by except for some voice-over. I’ve seen it before, and used it in teaching classes. It is almost identical to the situation discussed on this series. Mike Wallace and Peter Jennings are panelists. Jennings says he wouldn’t air it. Wallace says he would.
I won’t even think to judge the Marine–others will do so quickly. But this is nothing like the Abu Ghraib situation. Those soldiers were rear echelon jailers who got bored and did stupid things. This is an area where bodies are booby-trapped, wounded enemy rise up to spray the area with AK-47 fire, or blow themselves up. Your life depends on your situational awareness, and that of your squad mates. The sound track indicates nobody is shocked about the incident. Adrenalin is running high.
And for all the media folks who will spend hours wringing their hands about this, I would remind you this is precisely what you applauded John Kerry for–shooting a wounded enemy.
I signed up for a trial subscription to StratFor which includes daily intelligence brief by email, and weekly Global Market briefs. Today’s had this to say:
Gross domestic product growth slowed in the third quarter in most of the world’s major economies, with the exception the United States, where the 3.7 percent annualized rate of growth was still well above the 15-year average of 3.0 percent. Europe and Japan appear to be teetering on the brink of posting zero percent growth (having marked 0.3 percent and 0.1 percent in the third quarter, respectively), and—-since the third quarter is considered to be the best indicator of the next year’s performance—-any improvement in their economic performance is now almost exclusively subject to external factors.
I have a lot of respect for the analysis coming out of StratFor. They have shown themselves to be far better attuned to the international political and economic scene than many of our government professionals. It is a subscription well worth the time if you follow those things. Check their trial offer and see for yourself.
Powered by WordPress