Bad Cards

You have to play the hand that you are dealt. But there have always been those who seem to get the card that they need just at the right moment. And right now, that card is the "race card."
John McCain has accused Barak Obama of playing the race card. Traditionally, the race card has been used to frighten whites that their women, and jobs were going to be taken away from them, and that their kids would have to go to school with children who weren't like them. But since the rise to prominence of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, there is a variant of the race card which is almost the reverse of the first meaning. If you criticize anyone who is "of color" you will be instantly shot down as being a racist, which near as I can figure is only sightly more acceptable than pedophiles who murder their victims.
But I think that the times are ripe for a changing, and it may all just be due to Mr. Obama, even though he may not appreciate it at the moment. The perpetual victimhood that has always worked so well in the past can be turned against anyone who uses it, by pointing out that there is no affirmative action program for the Presidency. You are either able to do the job, or you are not. And to claim that anyone who criticizes you or your policies is a racist is a racist statement by itself.
So much for "postracial."
Of course, Obama is helping McCain in this regard by pretending to already be the President. His victory lap through Berlin where he said that he doesn't look like other Americans who have spoken in Berlin, and his latest that he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills. How presumptuous! Not that he doesn't look like all those other people, or all those other men, he doesn't look like all those other PRESIDENTs?
But as Jake Tapper of ABC's The Note says:

There's a lot of racist xenophobic crap out there. But not only has McCain not peddled any of it, he's condemned it.

Back in February, McCain apologized for some questionable comments made by a local radio host. In April, he condemned the North Carolina Republican Party's ad featuring images of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

With one possible exception, I've never seen McCain or those under his control playing the race card or making fun of Obama's name -- or even mentioning Obama's full name, for that matter!

(The one exception was in March when McCain suspended a low-level campaign staffer for sending out to a small group of friends a link to a video that attempts to tie Obama not only to Wright but to the black power movement, rappers Public Enemy and Malcolm X.)

While I have no doubt there will be a bunch more racist, xenophobic, and other ignorant drek coming our way courtesy of the Internet and perhaps the occasional cable news network, it's important to determine where it's coming from. Is it from a specific campaign or party? A third-party group? A third-party group with direct ties to establishment figures? This all matters.

I've seen racism in campaigns before -- I've seen it against Obama in this campaign (more from Democrats than Republicans, at this point, I might add) and I've seen it against McCain in South Carolina in 2000, when his adopted Bangladeshi daughter Bridget was alleged, by the charming friends and allies of then-Gov. George W. Bush, to have been a McCain love-child with an African-American woman.

What I have not seen is it come from McCain or his campaign in such a way to merit the language Obama used today. Pretty inflammatory.

Obama's ability to avoid having to answer serious questions about how he is going to actually do what he says he wants to do is going to come to an end. Every time that he brings racism or fear up, McCain just has to reply: "Are you going to answer the question, or keep on dodging it?"

Soylent Green in Oregon?

James Taranto's Best of the Web has this subarticle, that I have reproduced in its entirety:

Great Moments in Socialized Medicine
Oregon is, according to an editorial in the Oregonian newspaper, "the only state that both allows assisted suicide and tries to ration health care." This embarrassed the state when 64-year-old Barbara Wagner got sick with lung cancer and the state essentially said to her, Have you considered suicide, lady?:

After her oncologist prescribed a cancer drug that would cost $4,000 a month, the newspaper reported, "Wagner was notified that the Oregon Health Plan wouldn't cover the treatment, but that it would cover palliative, or comfort, care, including, if she chose, doctor-assisted suicide."

The Oregonian editorial explains that the decision to deny coverage for the drug was based on a policy of disapproving payment "for treatment that doesn't provide at least a 5 percent chance of survival after five years." The paper does not fault the state for this decision:

In Wagner's case, administrators of the Oregon Health Plan had to make a difficult call. But that's what they do every day in performing the tough, thankless job of rationing government-paid health care to the needy.

What's unacceptable, however, is that Wagner's rejection letter included the offer of payment for doctor-assisted death. Such notification creates at least the appearance of an ethical conflict: state encouragement of dying as a cost-saving measure.

The editorial notes that, the rejection of the $4,000-a-month drug notwithstanding, taxpayers have "paid thousands of dollars over the years for Wagner's cancer care, and . . . will continue to do so."

Unless, of course, she chooses suicide instead--an option that would still be open to her whether the state made the point explicitly or not. The Oregonian is troubled by the "appearance of an ethical conflict" when the state spells out the offer, but it seems not to mind the actual ethical conflict posed by the underlying assisted-suicide policy.

Yeah, government run health care will be soooo much better for us. Accountants determining what care you get just sends a shiver down my leg.

Ted Stevens Indicted

It's being reported that Ted Stevens is being indicted. You may remember him as the Republican equivalent of the former Kleegle Robert C. Byrd, D-KKK. Stevens was the proponent of the "bridge to nowhere" and other boondoggles of the public treasury to reassure his re-election.
It may be unfair that he gets more attention than Sen. Dodd or Conrad for corrupt practices, but it is up to the Republican Party to clean up the deadwood, and after they are done, then to remind the Democrats that they have been allowed to skate by their lap dog media types for too long.

Doesn't Alaska have their own version of Sen. Coburn?

Another thing I agree with the Democrats on

At the Democrat's convention in Miles City (both Republicans and Democrats seem intent on going to "enemy territory") there was proposed a non-binding resolution to lower the drinking age to 18. I know that it sounds crazy, but if you think about it, it really does make sense. MTPR had a segment on their broadcast that included sound bites from MADD that was appalled that the Democrats would do such a thing. They predicted carnage on the highways with a lower drinking age. After all, they have totally eliminated underage drinking and driving by making it illegal.
Except that it hasn't worked.
Right now, kids are buying booze illegally, and because they can't sit in a bar and drink responsibly, they are chugging it as fast as possible and then throwing the empties out of the car. I know that all of this is illegal, but lawmakers need to realize that creating a new criminal class is not the answer to all problems.
I would go even farther than their proposal: Do it like in Europe where you can drink at 16, but can't get a license until you are 18. Combine this with the general abhorrence of public drunkeness, (except for the major fests) and you have people who learn to drink responsibly, instead of the binge drinking that they do now.
Maybe another proposal, assuming you can get the feds off of our backs, would be to only allow you to drink at 18 when you have a High School diploma in hand. You might just encourage a higher graduation rate.
But the fear of anyone having fun is always going to create laws that prevent that. Even if they don't work or make sense.

Admitting Mistakes

Okay, not my own yet. I'm still not done with all of them, and it will take up too much bandwidth to do that. But I am remembering all of the hullbaloo from the sages of the MSM, who couldn't believe that Bush refused to admit that he had ever made a mistake. David Gregory certainly comes to mind.
But what is truly funny is Barak Obama, who says that we don't need any leaders who can't admit that they made a mistake. This from a guy who seems to be attempting to beat George Bush for being error prone when it comes to speaking.

So, now we have this:

Maybe Obama is running for Bush's Fourth term.

Thank heavens we won't have a politician who is unable to admit that he has made a mistake.

For All You Culture Vultures

Jim Geraghty has an interesting post at the Campaign Spot, in which he realizes that he was confusing Obama's speech with that celebrity riddled ego driven project that never really accomplished anything but the song We are the World."
From the post, he has a pop quiz. See if you can determine which are from Obama, and which lyrics are from the song.

Pop quiz, hot shot. Pick out the "We Are The World" lyrics vs. Obama speech lines.

A: "We can't go on pretending day by day that someone, somewhere will soon make a change."

B: "This is the moment we must help answer the call."

C: "But if you just believe there's no way we can fall."

D. "The world will watch and remember what we do."

E. "Let us realize that a change can only come when we stand together as one."

F. "We cannot afford to be divided."

G. "These now are the walls we must tear down."

H. "This is the moment when we must come together."

I. "They'll know that someone cares, and their lives will be stronger and free."

Answers:






We Are the World: A, C, E, I.
Obama's Speech: B, D, F, G, H.

Barak Obama, using 80's lyrics to rule the world. I just pray he doesn't discover ABBA.

UPDATE: If he did adopt ABBA, with his "change" mantra would this replace "Hail to the Chief?"

Hype the Movie

The Hollywood Left is far more adept at attempting to manipulate public opinion, and this is a weaker sister example of the other hand. It is still interesting though.



"People are not listening to the lyrics."

Caution!

Do not watch if you are offended by the full form of B.S. (And no, I am not talking about our Governor).

Poll: Bullshit Is Most Important Issue For 2008 Voters

To Drill, or Not to Drill, That is the Question.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, (D-Moonbat City) is thwarting any vote from coming to the floor to allow states to determine if they would allow offshore drilling. The standard talking points are used, i.e. There are leases that aren't being used, so why should we give more, and it takes ten years to get the oil to market, and my favorite, "It's George Bush's fault."
Apparently, there is some massive conspiracy afoot, which is designed to drive up the price of oil, reduce world wide economic growth, resulting in higher stocks of petroleum, which then results in a drop in prices, which. . . wait a minute! That doesn't make any sense at all.
What are the facts then, are there really oil leases that aren't being used? Well, yes, but a lease is not the same as obtainable oil. It's a license to take a chance, providing that you have the money to invest in lawyers to fight the mindless enviros who oppose any drilling, no matter how small the impact.
How about the ten years to market bromide? I still can't find anyplace that can authoritatively say that. In fact, when you watch the Discovery channel, we already have the capability to drill in three mile deep water, what is the problem then? Okay, the shortage of available ships to do the job, since they are so expensive to lease. But why the ten year mantra? It kind of reminds me of the movie line: Your generation only wants instant gratification. No, that takes too long.
And what about the idea that more oil being made available will not reduce the price of gas. How in the heck is that supposed to work? More oil, means more gas, which means that it is not as scarce, which means that if one company wants to increase its market share, it lowers the costs to the consumer, which forces other companies to lower their price, which means lower cost gas, and less of an adverse impact on the economy. What am I missing, unless there is some grand secret collusion out there?
It couldn't be that there is another agenda behind this, is there? I mean if you were a real conspiracy buff, you could say that the oil companies are behind the Democrats refusal to drill, because the scarcity of available oil keeps the price up. Hmm, Democrats ostensibly for the enviros, while taking money from the oil companies at the same time. A win-win for them, so long as nobody notices.
Well, if you are willing to see further slowdown in the economy, greater unemployment, higher inflation and old folks being forced to eat dog food like in the Carter years, just keep that ban on drilling. If you are a Democrat, you could run on a platform to improve personal conditions, while at the same time, helping to keep those same horrible conditions going.
I suppose we are expected to believe that is "change we can believe in."

On Global Warming "Leadership"

Leadership used to mean to inspire to lofty goals. Now, it means do as I say, not as I do.

Interesting Info

Rasmussen has its poll out showing that Obama would absolutely trounce George W. Bush in an election by 20 points, 54% to 34%. Too bad Bush is constitutionally prevented from running again, although there are those fetishists on the Left who really do seem to want to keep him around to continue blaming all manner of ills on him.
The problem for Obama is that when he has to face McCain, his numbers are nowhere nearly as sweet - 47% to 45%. Throw in the Wilder effect, and this is not good for the transcending politician of our times. The interesting thing about these numbers seems to suggest that the line that McCain is Bush's third term is not resonating. In fact, McCain appears to be doing better among non-identified voters than Obama, which I find really interesting.
The one big caution for McCain is that when I am talking to people on the doors, some are asking me if I have any McCain signs to put out. His lack of interest in people willing to support him could be the key to an Obama victory.

First, They Shot the Messengers.

Chicago Boyz has an interesting post that argues that new changes to the franking privilege as it relates to posting on the Internet are going to restrict free speech. The idea that the leadership has to approve any content from a member before it is allowed to be posted is just ripe with opportunities for abuse.
But the letter from Congressman Capuano detailing the proposed changes is just too rich to pass up. My favorite part:

I believe that these changes will help ensure that these conditions will help ensure the House presence on such external sites conforms with acceptable standards that reflect favorably on the dignity, propriety, and decorum of the House.

I guess that they should be worried about their dignity, what with 9% approval ratings. Heck, they could probably get up to 40% if they started streaming free pornography.

On Patriotism

Do Liberals Love America Too? is the title of an article at the American Thinker that is well worth the read by both sides. Some of the parts that I really liked:

Herein lies the great chasm that separates liberals and conservatives when it comes to defining the word "patriotism." The right sees patriotism as a physical, emotional connection with the past; an open acknowledgment and tribute to those who came before us and guaranteed with their blood, sweat, and tears that we, their progeny, would live in freedom. We are aware that America is not all it could be but rather than dwelling on our imperfections, we celebrate all that is good and decent in this land and its people.

The flip side of the same coin is how liberals define patriotism. They seem to intellectualize their love of country. They distrust outward displays of patriotic emotion, tending to equate fervor with patriotism's evil twin -- nationalism. Liberals see a problematic past for America and are not shy about pointing out where America has fallen short in its promises of liberty and equality.

Okay, I could agree with both of these sentiments. But I have somewhat of a problem with the constant criticism by the Left. If you are conservative, you see a line of progress, fitful and uncertain at times, but always progress. But for the Left, it seems that since we will never be able to achieve perfection, they can never be as proud of America as a conservative would be.
If the improvement of America is a Sysiphian task, why bother? I suppose a simpler question is - Is the glass half empty or half full? Actually, it seems for the Left that the first part of the question should be is the glass full? If it's not, it is not worth having.
I am not necessarily sure that they are wrong, but I question why anyone should bother if the task is impossible?

A Fit and Proper Celebration of the 4th of July

Should involve re-reading the Declaration of Independence. For your reading pleasure:

The Unanimous Declaration
of the Thirteen United States of America

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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 to 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

Source: The Pennsylvania Packet, July 8, 1776

For Those of You Forbidden Fireworks

The real thing brought to you by the guys who use them on a daily basis as needed.



Happy Fourth of July!

Tip of the Fedora to Red States

Obama: New Politician, or . . .

the political equivalent of New Coke? After his victory in Iowa, a lot of media attention was focused on this "different kind of politician." Contrasting him with Hillary, the media removed any pretense of objectivity, and actually swooned whenever they were in his presence. But what is it actually, that Mr. Obama has done?
He does give a soaring speech, at least when reading from a teleprompter. But if he has to speak extemporaneously, the uhs, ums, and long pauses are especially frustrating in trying to hear what he is attempting to put forth.
And on policy, Obama was against the war from the beginning. Hooray for him, got it right, maybe. But no one has held him to account for what he would do differently. In fact on one debate, he actually said that if al-Qaeda returned to Iraq, he would reinvade. Oh boy, that will be easy. we should get a lot of support from our allies in the region. I am sure that they would just forgive and forget.
But it is in the area of what his core values are that is especially interesting. As early as February, the documentation of his flip flops had begun. And now that he has ostensibly secured the nomination, he has accelerated his rate of flip flops. Amazingly, this lack of consistency is taken as being positive by the members of the press.
I have listened to Obama's speeches for awhile, and they are filled with lawyer words. Soaring rhetoric that is able to be taken any darned way that you want, and if you are wrong, it's your own fault.
But getting back to the premise of the post, like Obama, New Coke was brought about because it's owner had been experiencing a loss of market share. By revamping the formula and a massive media operation, New Coke originally took off. Which just goes to show how effective advertising is. Because marketing can only do so much, three months later, Old Coke was brought back and the New Coke was rebranded as Coke II.
Like New Coke, Obama has had the benefit of a media that is in love with him. But the reality is that it is an infatuation. And like all infatuations, it burns hot for a while, then when reality is revealed, bitterness and anger replace the passion.
Let's say that Obama is able to limp across the finish line and actually become president of these 57 States. No President is ever able to get anything done by himself. So let's assume that there are only 39 Republicans in the Senate, and the House is overwhelmingly Democratic. Obama should be able to get anything that he wants right?
Except with his history of flip flops, who is going to put their political capital on the line? Sure, the President has told you that he fully supports your issues, and they are just what the country needs. But you know that in the back of your and his mind, he will completely reverse himself with no compunction at all.
New Politician - New Coke. I have a feeling that by 2010, we will be back to the old ones again.

Another of the Best of the Web

James Taranto, a columnist for the Wall Street Journal publishes a page every working day that documents some of the more humorous aspects of journalism as it is practiced in this country. From the 2nd of July edition comes this bon mot:

He Held the Cigarette in One Hand, a Machine Gun in the Other, and Planted One Foot on Either Side of the State Line
Police and FBI agents captured an ex-convict suspected of killing eight people in two states as he smoked a cigarette outside of a southwestern Illinois bar Tuesday night."--Associated Press, July 1.

I am sure that since he was smoking, he was beyond redemption. Although, a good defense lawyer could show that he paid the cigarette tax, and was only interested in helping to fund children's health care.

Brad Johnson Interview

You have to hand it to the members of the Dextrasphere. First Craig got Denny to post an op-ed, and now the good folks at Montana Headlines have scored an interview with Secretary of State Brad Johnson.
Color me nothing less than impressed. And it does show that our leaders are taking the new medium seriously.

Kudos to MH!!

Wisdom of the Masses

First you have Harry Reid:



And a response by the Everyman:

One of the reasons that Gas is going to $5 per gallon

You got to love the zealots. Conservationists are trying to shut down drilling for oil in Montana because of the beloved sage grouse. They want to extend the ban against drilling by 8 times from the present restrictions, just to see if it will help, since they don't know yet if it will.
Democrats have always portrayed themselves as the defender of the working class. Examples such as this, and the refusal to expand drilling in other locations shows that they are content to keep poor people from having the luxury of driving to work. Nor are they interested in those workers who would do the drilling, or build the refinery, or transport the oil so that others could partake. No, they are far more interested in seeing the working class lose their jobs and their money to foreign oil producers, just to keep the moneyed contributors of the environmental movement happy.

I bet if the working class had more money to contribute than the environmentalists, you would see more attention paid to their issues.

International Lunacy?

Wiley at Big Sky Cairn has a proposal to debate the issue that "Architects of U.S. foreign policy should be subject to international justice." Not much more has happened on this, but I was reading this article where a Jordanian prosecutor wants a Dutch legislator to stand trial in Jordan for committing heresy by making a film that ostensibly mocks Islam and their prophet. Under the UN's declaration of Human Rights, freedom of religion is a basic tenet. Therefore, the prosecutor can move to the International Court of Justice and prosecute the case there.

Which leads to the real problems with International Law. Most of it is so damned ambiguous, that it is subject as much to misuse as not. Because the international community is a grouping of equals, there are no enforcement provisions should a nation refuse to comply with the dictates of International Court. See for example, Nicuauga v. US. It is in essence a fallacy to think that a fair and impartial tribunal could even exist, much less hear a case. Think about it, who is on the UN Human Rights Commission? Libya, Syria, who else with their sterling examples of moral righteousness could sit in judgment of another country.

In fact, suppose you had an all Islamic court that ruled that women all over the world are not to drive, nor vote, nor leave the confines of their house without being escorted by a responsible adult male relative. Why would that be preposterous if we end up surrendering US sovereignty to the ICJ?
Because there are no truly agreed upon international norms, every country and their leaders would be subject to the whims of some prosecutor making a name for himself. Knowing prosecutors as I do, that is a frightening prospect.