Friday, March 30, 2007
Monday, March 26, 2007
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Friday, March 23, 2007
Thursday, March 22, 2007
We have built no temple but the Capitol, we consult no common oracle but the Constitution.
Rufus Choate, member of the US House of Representatives, 1833.
. . .an American I was born and an American I have remained all my life. I can never be anything else but an American, and I must think of the United States first, and when I think of the United States first in an arrangement like this, I am thinking what is best for the world. For if the United States fails, the best hopes of mankind fail with it. I have never had but one allegiance–I cannot divide it now. I have never loved but one flag and I cannot share that devotion and give affection to the mongrel banner invented for the League. Internationalism, illustrated by the Bolshevik and by the men to whom all countries are alike provided they can make money out of them, is to me repulsive.
National I must remain, and in that way I like all other Americans can render the amplest service to the world. . .
Henry Cabot Lodge in the Senate, 12 August 1919, speech opposing the League of Nations.
John Nichols, writing in The Nation's blog online thinks its time to "start talking" about impeaching President Bush.
. . .The Administration has been preparing for an aggressive war against Iran. There is no solid, direct evidence that Iran has the intention of attacking the United States or its allies.
The US is a signatory to the UN Charter, a constituent treaty among the nations of the world. Article II, Section 4 of the UN Charter states, "all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. . ." Even the threat of a war of aggression is illegal.
Article VI of the US Constitution makes such treaties the Supreme Law of the Land. This Administration, has openly threatened aggression against Iran in violation of the US Constitution and the UN Charter.This week the House Appropriations committee removed language from the Iraq war funding bill requiring the Administration, under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution, to seek permission before it launched an attack against Iran.Since war with Iran is an option of this Administration and since such war is patently illegal, then impeachment may well be the only remedy which remains to stop a war of aggression against Iran.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Light posting this week, for lots of reasons. It's Spring Break. . .which works out to a busier time for me at home and at work (with the Heir and other folks on vacation).
Also, the El Jefe Imperial Household is, (somewhat), in the market for a larger palace, and we've been casa-hunting of late. We're easy: looking for something simple and home-like. You know, kinda like this place.
Friday, March 9, 2007
If 300, the new battle epic based on the graphic novel by Frank Miller and Lynn Varley, had been made in Germany in the mid-1930s, it would be studied today alongside The Eternal Jew as a textbook example of how race-baiting fantasy and nationalist myth can serve as an incitement to total war. . . .. . .The comic fanboys who make up 300's primary audience demographic aren't likely to get hung up on the movie's historical content, much less any parallels with present-day politics. But what's maddening about 300 (besides the paralyzing monotony of watching chiseled white guys make shish kebabs from swarthy Persians for 116 indistinguishable minutes) is that no one involved—not Miller, not Snyder, not one of the army of screenwriters, art directors, and tech wizards who mounted this empty, gorgeous spectacle—seems to have noticed that we're in the middle of an actual war. With actual Persians (or at least denizens of that vast swath of land once occupied by the Persian [E]mpire). . . .One of the few war movies I've seen in the past two decades that doesn't include at least some nod in the direction of antiwar sentiment, 300 is a mythic ode to righteous bellicosity.
Thursday, March 8, 2007
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Monday, March 5, 2007
. . .Liberty and interest alike seemed to the Georgians therefore to demand a strategic approach to international relations. They saw national power as the essential foundation of national independence; commercial wealth as a means to power; and war as among the means to all three. They accepted it as natural and inevitable that nations should be engaged in a ceaseless struggle for survival, prosperity and predominance.Correlli Barnett, The Collapse of British Power,
(Humanities Press International, reprint ed. 1987, p. 20).
China is beginning to deploy, among other things, the new J-10 fighter aircraft, and is also buying and building some new destroyers.
Given China’s astronomical economic growth, it’s only to be expected that some of China's scads of money, (dropped into the treasury courtesy in part of spend-happy Americans), would be devoted to increased military spending. Were I calling the shots for the Chinese military budget: I’d want a great deal more money than a paltry $45 billion.
It’s probable that the actual total is a good deal higher: some analysts say that the actual Chinese military budget is about three times higher than the publicly disclosed sums. The regular budget does not take into account government subsidies for military industries, spending on the paramilitary police, much military, research and development, and, apparently, purchases of foreign military technology and products. Finally, the Chinese, being sensible people, consider military budget figures a matter of national security and -- like sane people un-afflicted by liberal scruples or by idiots from Berkeley or the New York Times editorial page in positions of power -- engage in a certain amount of chicanery with numbers presented to the public.
Naturally, Washington is upset. Deputy Secretary of State John D. Negroponte, sometime Director of National Intelligence (DNI) chided the Chinese for being so secretive about their military build-up and demanded more “transparency.”
Should I laugh, curse or cry ? I would give a lot to see some video of Mr. Negroponte’s speech – I mean, hopefully he had the good grace to smirk, or cringe with embarrassment when he had to mouth all that ludicrous claptrap about the Chinese needing to be transparent.
Why should the Chinese be transparent ? What about the concept of “great power rival” does Deputy Secretary Negroponte not understand ? It’s not for the Chinese to be transparent, but for the American intelligence community to render the Chinese transparent by finding out what we need to know, by fair means or foul. I’m being unfair to former DNI Negroponte: Deputy Secretary Negroponte is in no way a rube from some Lefty or lawyer reservation, he knows Real World Rules very well, but he’s constrained to make such foolish statements to appease the dummies who think we live in some peaceable kingdom where the Americans are the only superpower forever.
The Chinese desire to expand their national power. Nothing hard to understand about that -- read Correlli Barnett's thoughts on this subject above. What’s harder to understand are all the Americans who want to hamstring American power.