Vietnam, 30 years on.

Modern wisdom has it that Vietnam was an utter failure, and that a disproportionate amount of our war dead were Black and Latino soldiers. I was treated to this alternative perspective.

Here is an interesting perspective on whether the U.S. actually lost the war. Okay, we certainly lost the war, but this article argues that our goal was to stabalize ALL of Southeast asia, not just Vietnam, and that we may have actully accomplished that goal.

There were several countries with communist insurgencies at the time: The Phillipines, Singapore, India, Korea, etc. Each of those countries stabalized after our intervention in Korea and Vietnam. Many are now FAR ahead in terms of living standards. This perspective gives no cause as to why communism stabalized in the other countries, and I'm no expert in that field, so I'll leave it to others, but the article is interesting nonetheless. Please read.

Though light on treatment of our 58,000 dead soldiers, this perspective puts a stake in the heart of the lie that Black soldiers were shuttled to the front lines, while the White soldiers were safely behind our lines. Black soldiers (please take no offense... just easier than typing African-American 50 times. No disrespect meant) in fact died in a smaller percentage to their representation in the armed forces, and were represented in the armed forces to a smaller percentage of the serving age population.

It's important that we revisit significant moments in history with fresh eyes. It's all too easy to believe popular "wisdom" and draw the wrong lessons...

Schwarzenegger sputtering

It's a shame. Governor Schwarzenegger's popularity is at 49% (down from the high 60's) and his State reform plan is stuck in the mud.

The reform plan includes three major initiatives:

1. A cap on State spending
2. Independent redistricting for state legislature seats
3. Restrictions on tenure for teachers

The cap on spending is huge. The State is notoriously in debt due to massive overspending during the tech bubble, which everyone and their shirpa knew wouldn't last, but of course the legislature (as all legislatures it seems) can't figure out how to cut spending. We may be as much as $7 billion in the hole this year. The spending cap is absolutely critical, but the Democrats smell blood, and won't cooperate in any sort of fiscal responsibility simply so they can make the Governor look bad. Well done. I'm pretty sure that's why people voted for you.

Not much confusion as to why the legislature isn't afraid of the will of the people or the Governor in the State. In the last election, NOT ONE SINGLE SEAT OF THE 153 CHANGED HANDS. I'm pretty sure it's because every single one of them is a freakin' genius, and REALLY deserves to be there. We have the worst gerrymandering problem in the country. This is bipartisan, selfish, anti-democratic horse crap. In Iowa, an independent comission sets the legislative borders, and it has created more seat turnover, and, by inference, more accountability to the voters.

I say this rarely, but anyone against the redistricting proposal is a bad person. There you have it.

The third proposition is so obviously right , that the fact the there are a huge number of people against it would make me cry if it were any surprise that people are sometimes suckers. The Governor wants to change teacher's tenure so that crazy people and incompetents don't get mandatory raises and jobs-for-life, while "teaching" the poorer portion of our populace.

Um, who is against better teachers for poor kids? For some reason, the Democrats are. I must be honest and tell you that I don't really understand the argument. The fact that the teacher's union is raising $54 million for Democrats this election year might be the only argument they have. Sad. So, why is the teacher's union against paying more money to their best teachers, and less to the worst? Well, the union calculates that they will lose membership that way, and for some strange reason, that is good enough for the members.

Nobody disputes that better teachers are needed, especially in the innercity, but when proposals come forward that will improve the situation, the unions goad their bought-and-paid-for politicians into opposing it. The Schwarzenegger education team is bi-partisan (led by moderate Dick Riordan, and staffed by prominant Democrats such as Eric Skinner in finance), expert (including the genius former superintendant of the Alberta school system, Mike Strembitsky, who turned worst to first through budgetary control by principals), and dedicated (multi-millionaire Richard Riordan, who has no further political ambitions, spends his time and money trying to move resources to the innercity). Their proposals are almost unanimously considered wise and appropriate, and are therefore spurned by the unions.

If we're serious about fixing problems, then we must each dedicate ourselves to educate ourselves (Jesse Jackson can kiss my booty). These reforms are NOT ideological, they are NOT partisan. These reforms are simple, logical, and beneficial reforms for everyone. Better fiscal discipline, more government accountability, better education, especially for poorer kids.

What is there to oppose? If you're a California voter, please sign that referendum petition!

The OAU wants reparations. Idiots.

The 7 member panel appointed by the "Organization for African Unity" (OAU) who nobody has ever heard of, thinks the U.S., France, and Belgium ought to pay reparations for not stopping the slaughter in Rwanda.

I can't believe these people are serious. Firstly, (yes, I said "firstly") we must acknowledge that the failure to stop the slaughter in Rwanda is a horrible tragedy which the world ought not repeat in Darfur, or anywhere else. Secondly, we must acknowledge that some people are insane. Moving on...

Where was the OAU, or her proud members during the slaughter? Why should the Western powers pay for a uniquely African horror?

I'm afraid there is a mentality in Africa akin to that of teenagers, drug adicts, and American liberals; "save me from myself." Somehow it is everyone else's fault when the tribalism of Africa spills into open slaughter. By some conivance, the rich world has again tricked the poor dictatorships into a civil war. Aren't we clever. I'm sure we probably did it for oil, or some other such nonsense.

How about this: redraw your borders based upon tribal affiliation, or overthrow your dictatorships and install accountable governments. How about joining the modern world rather than blaming that world for allowing you to act like animals. Hate the Western world too much? okay, look to South Africa who has sucessfully and bloodlessly (bar the Apartheid atrocities) converted to a democracy, Thailand who has maintained a clannish but thriving democracy(bar the south), Singapore who has built an empire out of a small society of cooperative people, anywhere not ruled by warlords and dictators.

Either way, look to yourselves to solve your problems, nobody else. That's what being an adult, mature country is all about.

French naivete.

The French today were the lone voice within NATO refusing to deploy troops in order to stop the genocide in Darfur. You may at first think the French to be silly, hypocritical cowards, who care nothing for anyone in the world, bar themselves, and that their only use for the outside world is to bilk them financially through the EU farm subsidies, and to huddle next to them for military protection, as in WWII and the Cold War.

Why would you ever think that?!?!

Actually, in this case, the French are staying true to their roots: all bark, no bite. Diplomacy first and last. They want equal footing in NATO, but refuse to join the military command. They then refuse to join in any military excursion to stop the massacre of innocents in Darfur. This is actually consistent. Of course, as Emerson said, "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

During the massacre in Rawanda, the U.S., U.K., and France all stalled, and 500,000 Rwandans were killed. In Darfur, the U.S., and the U.K. have explicitly learned from their Rwandan failings and pledged a defensive force should NATO deem it necessary. The French seem to think that the Rwandans should have taken care of it themselves, as should the Sudanese. Maybe they're right, but if so, they shouldn't be so damn sactimonious about a decision to let poor starving people to be raped and tortured to death.

The mindset that France seems to tout is one in which all action is stymied by endless chatting and occasional fiscal threats, until the hostile power is talked into submission. Sometimes it works when accompanied by an armed resistence (S. Africa), sometimes it doesn't (WWII). The problem is that an unconditional, unwaivering dogma of the power of diplomacy inevitably fails at least once, and without the flexibility and militarism of allies, the dogmatic becomes extinct (don't cry).

This is true of many dogmas, but the French inability to see their own wreckless stubborness has led them to the brink of disaster more than once. Francophobia is born of the French self-righteous naivete.

At least the Swiss acknowledge their dependency. Were the French to do the same, resentment of the French would devolve into light farce.

Annan: The U.S was bad, too

U.N. General Secretary Kofi Annan claimed today that the billions made by Saddam, through corruption in the U.N. Oil for Food program, was actually the fault of the U.S.
Mr. Annan thought he was speaking off the record.

Never mind that the entire program was administered by the U.N. Please pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Annan's assertion is based on the fact that most of the smuggling was fenced through Turkey and Jordan. Both allies of the U.S. He says that only the U.S. had the type of interdiction force necessary to stop the smuggling.

The U.N. never asked for interdiction support for smuggling being facilitated by its own officers, and EVERY attempt by the U.K. and the U.S. to bring the smuggling before the Security Counsel was blocked by the Russians and the French, both of whom had massive oil contracts in place with Saddam.

The charge seems to assert that the U.S. turned a blind eye to the smuggling, which was providing money with which Saddam bought (among other things) anti-aircraft weapons being used to attempt to shoot down the planes that the U.S. and the U.K. provided in order to police the no-fly zones over pre-war Iraq. We did this because the U.S. apparently likes the Jordanians more than their own pilots. This does not seem to conform with the other U.N. complaints claiming that the U.S. is too militaristic and aggressive. Here the U.S. decided to give a little cash to Saddam and a few corrupt U.N. officials and their foreign friends and family, rather than increase safety for it's pilots.

To be sure, the U.K. and the U.S. knew about the smuggling. Both brought the issue before the U.N. security coulsel more than once, and the U.N. failed to allow any action against it. I can only imagine that Mr. Annan's point is that bringing issues before the U.N. is a bad idea, and that the U.S. should have acted (wait for it) unilaterally.

It's about time Mr. Annan came around to the merit of "unilateral action."

Hmm. Sounds like somebody is nervous about the final U.N. audit due out in a few months. Sounds like Mr. Annan has some info that will make him look very weak at the very least. Hold onto your hats...

Bush Economics: Big Government Cowards

Mr. Bush's half-assed attempt to slow subsidies to massive agri-business farms has been abandoned. No ass left at all.

Cowards. Where is the rationale? The largest 10% of farms (those owned by PROFITABLE businesses) get 80% of the subsidies!

When will these "conservatives" start acting like it? Yes, perhaps some social conservatives REALLY want gay people to be wedged in a corner, unhappy and alone. Somehow it's their business... I don't know. How about these same passionate believers read a freakin' economics text book and find out what real conservatives are about: SMALL government (how about the irony of the all caps, eh? Clever, eh?), less government paternalism and spending, and most of all, FISCAL DISCIPLINE!

We're spending $52 BILLION on farm aid, 80% of it to profitable farms. We're facing a serious debt load. Far lower as a percentage of GDP than Democrats would have you believe, but a serious and unproductive debt nonetheless. Just as an aside, this is not like your personal economics, as so many Congresspeople would have you believe, debt can be a good thing in terms of investment, but more on that another day... our current debt is not productive. Do you know how much of our debt we could pay off with $42.6 BILLION (the 80% of the $52 billion we give to huge farms)? That's right, we could pay off $42.6 BILLION.

The math is not so hard, but the contortions that farm state Republicans go through in order to pretned that this is a conservative move is freakin hard. This is the kind of thing that could turn me into a Democrat. Thank goodness the Democrats are always there to remind me why I would never do that...

BTW, sorry for all the caps in this episode. I get unusually excited when talking about farms. ahem.

Best sign that Democracy is winning in Iraq? Al-Sadr is back

Muqtada al-Sadr staged a large anti-American protest, and has vowed to follow it up with a campaign to oust U.S. troops from Iraq. Why is this such good news? The campaign is to be non-violent, and the demonstrators in the march were told not to carry guns or to chant slogans against the new Iraqi government.

The man who gauged Iraqi sentiment last year and judged it to be violent and anti-American was right then, and he's right again now. Iraqis support their new government, and they have not just given up on violence, but they've utterly rejected it in favor of grassroots political action.

In other words, Iraqis see the power of peaceful democracy, and they like it. Amazing.

Al-Sadr is demanding a timetable for an American pullout, and is campaigning to put himself in a position of power in a democratic opposition. He will not get the timetable, but his position is revealing. This cleric (I will not say "firebrand", if for no other reason than to keep you from getting repetitive imitation stress disorder) has now accepted that the U.S. intends to leave, the only question is when. Al-Sadr is now getting as much political capital as he can before we leave.

If I may opine by extension (try to stop me...), it looks to me as if Iraqis may be closer to maintaining their own country than most Americans think. Opposition figures are looking not to become warlords, but to squeeze the last bits of capital out of anti-Americanism before we're gone.

A banner day. I predict an 80% pullout within 2 years.

Update!

The day after I published this last line, Iraqi President Jalal Talbani told reporters he expects a U.S. pullout in two years. Weird.

The North Koreans are crazy bastards.

North Korea will return to the six-party talks, but only if Secretary Rice retracts her "outpost of tyranny" comment and apologizes.

Uh huh.

Mr. Kim is completely bizarre. I was watching a History channel biography of Caligula today, and was struck by certain similarities in their character. Long story short, Caligula was freakin crazy, enjoyed torture, was completely decadent amidst starvation, and told anyone who would listen that he was a god. I imagine he stopped believeing it after his personal guards stabbed him 30 times, burned his body, and them chucked him into a hastily dug, shallow grave.

He did not rise again three days later. Different guy.

Makes me long for the good 'ol days when crazy-ass leaders were brutally killed if their idiosyncratic whimsies began to destroy their country. Kids today. I blame it on the hip-hop music not being violent enough.

Problem: the N. Korean leadership is bolstered by the Chinese because of the Chinese fear of millions of starving immigrants flooding into China that would certainly result from a collapse of the N.K. regime.

Solution: encourage S. Korea and Japan to go nuclear (maybe even Taiwan too). It would take them about 20 minutes to make the leap. The announcement alone would make the Chinese need to change their collective pants. As much as the Chinese are afraid of starving migrants, they are FAR more afraid of losing their military hegemonic power over Asia.

Ask the Asian states to insist on removal of the military junta in the DPRK in exchange for a nuclear step-down. There ya go, problem solved.