PETA could do better

PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) is under scrutiny after two employees were caught dumping animal carcasses in a supermarket dumpster in South Carolina. This caught many people by surprise, including many donors.
To be fair, PETA's explanation was that these animals were being treated inhumanly at a local animal shelter, and that there had been reports that this animal shelter was using cruel methods to euthanize unadoptable and unadopted animals, and that PETA had stepped in to administer humane euthanization to the unwanted pets. They explained that they do not have enough resources to prevent having to euthanize many animals, and that there are far too many abandoned animals nationwide for PETA to take care of or protect.
One could conceivably argue that this situation is the result of the virtual abandonment of the organization's animal rescue mission, and the allocation of funds to support radical activities and the anti-carnivore movement. PETA has, in recent years, become a social/political activist organization rather than an animal rescue operation. However, many long-time and large scale donors to PETA support the organization with the understanding that it is an animal rescue operation.
The real problem is that the scale on which PETA is trying to operate its animal rescue operations is much too large. PETA is a global organization, with few supported local community operations. One need only to look at the federal government’s social welfare programs to see how inefficient this type of organization can be. Many non-profit organizations, such as Goodwill and the Salvation Army, realized long ago that it is far more efficient to operate local community organizations, rather than trying to take care of everything on a national level.

In Colorado Springs, for instance, we have an excellent animal rescue organization called Dream Power, which avoids by every possible means the need to euthanize animals. Usually, the only time an animal is euthanized by Dream Power is when it has become too ill to treat. Dream Power gets most of its funding from local donors, and is supported by several local vetenary clinics that donate time and services for spaying and neutering, medications, and vaccinations. PETA would do better to allocate some of their funding to local organizations such as Dream Power, rather than trying to keep up with the cost of the attorneys they need to hire as a result of some of their radical activities.
While on the subject of animal rescue, my favorite singer, Emmylou Harris, has a very worthy organization called Bonaparte's Retreat which coordinates animal adoption efforts nationwide. This is Emmylou's personal project, and should be checked out.

How to talk to Iran

Photo copyright Associated Press

"I don't see why the most powerful nation in the world can't talk to the leaders of Iran (and) put some pressure on (them)...When I was in Europe, I talked to (Yugoslavian President) Slavodan Milosovich and told him that if he didn't get in line he would be bombed"

Thus spake General Wesley Clark, former commander of NATO, former Democratic Party Presidential candidate, and political pundit. He was criticizing the State of The Union Address and the current administration's refusal to talk to the leadership of Iran to find a solution to the dual wars in Iraq. Of course, we know that NATO went to war with Yugoslavia, and Milosovich's country was bombed incessantly after Clark's talks with the wayword President. Clark's talks didn't amount to much.
It sounds to me as if Clark, who has expressed fear that the United States may engage in armed conflict Iran, is advocating war. This wasn't the only comment in which General Clark seemed to be contradictary. "We don't have to talk to (Iranian President Ahmadinejad), there are other elements in Iran we can talk to."
But none of these "other elements" are in a position to make or influence national and international policy in Iran. Certainly, as did the Iraq Study Group, individual "moderate" ayatollahs on the Supreme Islamic Council, can be spoken to, but not in the element of official policy. The Supreme Islamic Council, as the ruling body of Iran, cannot, by their perception of their religion, speak to representatives of the United States in any official capacity, because such representatives are "dhimmis" and not of the correct standing to speak to in such capacity.
Nor can the dissident or shadow government of Iran be a viable party in such talks. Those who are not in prison or in exile may be allowed to speak to representatives of the United States, but they dare not go contrary to the government's policy for fear of imprisonment or death. Besides, what purpose would that serve?
There is a glimmer of hope for future relations with Iran in that there has been some talk about impeaching, or at least reigning in President Ahmadinejad. This may mean a more moderate stance on the part of Iran, and, if it does, then it could be possible to have meaningful talks with that government. However, the Supreme Islamic Council will most likely not change its stripes, and the US will still be "The Great Satan," and untouchable in the minds of the ayatollahs.
That does not mean that Iraq can't establish relations or agreements with Iran. It should be up to that government to establish relationships with its neighbors. The Iraqi government first needs to be secure, though, before it can do so, otherwise it has no leverage.
We don't have to fear war with Iran. It is very possible that within forty minutes of the moment that Iran announces that it has a nuclear weapon, it will be green-glassed by Israel. Israel is the target of threats by Iran, and Israel, with a reported two-hundred warhead nuclear arsenal, will not hesitate to strike preemptorily to prevent its own annihilation. Hopefully, the ayatollahs realize that, and, eventually, will give in to the rest of the world and accept the light water nuclear technology which has been offered them.

The Job Nazis Strike Again

The people who are against Wal-Mart are not for the working class. They are elitists who don't care if you have or need a job. All you have to do is ask any organizer of an anti-Wal-Mart movement in any municipality, and he or she would tell you that "it is better not to have a job at all than to work at Wal-Mart." Part of what they are saying is on behalf of the labor unions, but much of what they are saying is that if you don't have a six-figure income, you're not welcome in, for example, Chalene, Washington.
"Chalene is a beautiful city...you don't want to mess it up by putting a Wal-Mart there," a spokesman for stopwalmart.org recently said on Fox News' Your World With Neil Cavuto.
Note that this spokesperson isn't from Chalene--the people of Chalene want the Wal-Mart. The building has been built, the shelves have been stocked, and the employees, two-hundred of them, have been hired. The argument that Wal-Mart takes away other jobs is moot in Chalene, because the apple industry there is failing, and not as many people are being hired to work for the apple growers. The people who were hired by Wal-Mart needed those jobs.
But the Stop Wal-Mart people, whether they represent the unions, the International Communist Party, Target, Kreske, or their own agenda, succeeded in halting the opening of the store through a court order, claiming that the building permit was never legally issued. They don't want those people to have jobs. They use catch phrases such as "globalization," "worker abuse," and "unfair wages," in their argument against Wal-Mart.
But the people who work for Wal-Mart don't feel abused, or poorly paid. They want the job, and they work at the job. In order to be oppressed, you have to feel oppressed. The average wage for the Wal-Mart employee is eleven dollars an hour, about the same as the starting wage for a union retailer such as Safeway or City Market, which, after union dues comes out to about nine dollars an hour--the same as the starting wage for the Wal-Mart employee. Union workers somehow don't feel oppressed either.
Wal-Mart doesn't sell automobiles, which come from the type of manufacturing jobs the anti-Wal-Mart people claim Wal-Mart is putting out of business, or sending oversees. Workers in the United States do not get the twenty five dollars an hour making toys, clothing, or electronic equipment. However, the workers who are "victims of globalization" in other countries find themselves making far above the average wages in their respective countries in jobs which manufacture merchandise for Wal-Mart. Even without Wal-Mart, manufacturing plant employees in the United States would still average about ten dollars an hour. Nobody is taking away their jobs.
If it wasn't Wal-Mart, it would be Target, Circuit City, or Best Buy. The anti-Wal-Mart folks don't care who they attack, as long as it is Capitalist. They are largely people who don't really care about the worker, rather they are people seeking power, who feel as though they are doing something important for themselves, to get their name in the news, and to receive large sums of money from competitors, unions, and politicians.
These people could be compared to the dictators of the world--Qadafi, Saddam, Mubarak, Chavez, Jong Il,and the like. If you don't do things their way you don't get to do it at all. The dictator wants the people to meet the approval of the dictator, as opposed to a free society in which the government has to meet the approval of the people. Likewise, according to the unions, if you don't contribute part of your pay to the six and seven figure incomes of the national level union leaders and representatives, you don't deserve to work.

How to shift the blame from yourself.

The Hollywood Elitists have nothing on some Austrailian celebrities.Please click here and read this item by Aussie blogger "Crapping on whatever I feel like."
It doesn't surprise me that spousal assault is justifiable to some people because the war is worse. It is just a pattern of behavior that seems to be universal among elitists, not only in the US, but universally. These people continue to show on a daily basis how out of touch with reality they really are.

Distracted

I was going to post something about Barry Cooper and Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. That is in the works, but not today. I was loading some music onto my
mp3 player, and ripping some cds I borrowed from the library, and while listening to the music, I found myself watching, in utter fascination, the video images generated by the Windows Media Player in "Battery: Randomization" mode. I had never seen this before, so I just couldn't break away long enough to write anything important. You see, this is a brand new computer, courtesy of my Mom and Dad as a Christmas gift, and it is one sweet machine, so this is the first time I've used Windows XP at home.
It's almost like watching a lava lamp. I know...I should get a life.

Who Wins Or Loses?

The war in Iraq should not be a political issue in the United States. It is not a matter of President Bush being right or wrong, nor is it an issue of those who oppose the war being right or wrong. It is only the result of our actions in Iraq that is the issue, and if the politicians who oppose the mission continue to involve themselves in the war, it is they who would lose.
They would lose, because if they succeed in causing the US to withdraw from Iraq prematurely, they would be seen as being responsible for the inevitable slaughter of the minority population in that country. That would not bode well for their chances for reelection in 2008. If the Iraqi forces succeed in taking control of the country's security operations by November, which is the current goal, those who involve themselves in opposing the war politically will be seen as losers. If the government in Iraq falls into anarchy, and Iraq becomes the battleground involving more nations in the region--and likely world-wide involvement in a much larger and much more costly conflict--those who politically oppose the current mission in Iraq would be seen as losers.
It is interesting to note that while Donald Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense, many of those who opposed the policy, including John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi, were blaming the failure on not having enough troops in Iraq, but now that Rumsfeld is gone, they are actually quoting his statement that "more troops without a military objective would just create more targets," in posing their objection to the "way forward."
Granted, military involvement alone cannot solve the problem of Iraq, diplomacy is sorely needed. But we have to be careful on how we conduct this diplomacy, and at what level. Diplomacy is necessary for the US mission to be seen as one of peacekeeping, rather than one of aggression or occupation. If the politicians really want to bring our troops home, they should begin referring to our involvement in Iraq as a peacekeeping mission. This would help change the perception of many of the people in Iraq who oppose the US mission in that country. It is already being done in the Anbar province, where marines working with the local governments and within the Iraqi security forces have succeeded in establishing a viable police force, and has helped to create much needed jobs in that region. Creating jobs is very important, because much of the unrest has been caused by unemployment. This strategy of the marines in Ramadi, by the way, is one of the suggestions in the Iraq Study Groups report that has been implemented, and in fact was being implemented weeks before the report was released.
Diplomacy, as well as the deployment of military forces, is defined by the separation of powers implicit in the Constitution is the responsibility of the Executive, not the Legislative branch of government. It is within the rights of members of Congress to voice their opposition to policy, but unless they can come up with a better plan to create stability in the region, their opposition will be duly noted and nothing more. It is undiplomatic for the members of Congress to refer to the mission as an escalation, because that increases the perception in Iraq of the American forces there as being aggressors or occupiers, which is counter productive to the mission.
Much of the diplomatic function belongs to the Iraqi government. It is that government which needs to talk to Iran and Syria to try go get them to stop their involvement in the insurgency. The five Iranians who were arrested in northern Iraq, recently, were not part of a diplomatic mission, but were agents of Iranian special forces sent there to recruit and train insurgents. The Iraqi government needs to establish some sort of deal with Iran, to tell them to stop this practice.
Saudi Arabia has stated that they would support the Sunni insurgency, if the US were to begin withdrawal from Iraq prematurely. This would begin a war between Saudi Arabia and Iran, which would eventually involve the entire world. Russia and France would support Iran, while China, Egypt, Turkey, the US, and much of the EU would have to come out in support of Saudi Arabia.
The President has called on the Saudis to become more involved in establishing stability in Iraq, and diplomacy on the part of the United States could really work here. We do not want the Saudis to support the insurgency, we want them to support, or at least recognize, the Iraqi government. As Natan Saransky stated in his book The Case For Democracy we could do without Saudi oil better than the Saudis could do without oil revenue. Our support of the Saudi Arabian economy could be used as a bargaining chip in getting them to contribute to the stability of Iraq.
Seventy-five percent of the Iranian population is pro American and opposes their own government, by all reports. If we were to establish diplomatic relations with that government, the attitude in
Iran would be "the friend of my enemy is my enemy," and recruitment by Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations would increase. The opposition movement in Iran would die, because the rogue government in Iran would be legitimated, and use that legitimacy to support the murder and imprisonment of the opposition in Iran.
This could change, though. As I write this, there are some in the Iranian Supreme Islamic Council who are calling for the impeachment of President Ahmadinejad. If this were to come about, this may mean a more moderate stance by Iran in relations with the rest of the world. In that case, we may be able to have a diplomatic relation with that country, and we may be able to enlist their support for security in Iraq.
All in all, it isn't a matter of anyone winning or losing politically. If we can meet our goal of creating a successful Iraqi security force by November, we can begin withdrawing forces from Iraq. There are those in Congress who want to see this fail, because they see any successful policy of the President as being an attack against them. They should stay out of it--they will only lose no matter what happens in Iraq.
A successful Iraqi government does not mean the President has won anything, merely that his policy has been successful. What it does mean, however, is that we will see a more stable environment in that region, and the whole world wins.

Dangerous Coins

The United States Department of Defense has issued a warning that Defense contracters in Canada have had coins that contain tiny radio transmitters placed among their pocket change. This is not just normal government paranoia, the DOD says the risk is genuine.
Even with the cold war long over, espionage technology continues to be a strong and lucrative field of research. It is unclear, from the information released, which country or entity is using this technology.