Reading Into Iran

So, in case you missed it recently, our good 'allies' in Russia came out in support of Iran over the weekend. Sounding an awful lot like the anti-war crowd here in the United States, Nikolai Spassky, head of the Kremlin Security Council said that "diplomacy" was the only way to deal with Iran. He further urged that no sanctions against Iran should be implemented until there was "concrete evidence" that Iran was using its nuclear program for non-peaceful measures. Basically, we should willingly trust a guy who has explicitly denied the Holocaust, predicted the apocalypse, and called for the elimination of an entire country when he tells us he's (honestly) not developing the most powerful weapon known to man.

My immediate response to this bit of news was that this is the reason why we don't let the United Nations dictate our foreign policy. Furthermore, it's why we genuinely don't care when other countries decry our actions and political stances. Other countries, like France, are run by naive idiots like these people at the Kremlin. Seriously, who thinks we can trust Ahmadinejad when he says that Iran is enhancing uranium solely for 'energy' purposes? Yes Moscow, the Nation that sits directly atop some of the largest oil reserves in the world needs 'alternate sources of energy'. When I hear crap like this from international leaders, it makes me glad that my President really doesn't give a damn what they think.

Furthermore, let's be completely honest: diplomacyis not going to work with Iran. As I have said before, the people in charge over there are completely insane. This little stunt they are pulling, claiming innocence, is a way for them to buy more time; and when they do feel like telling the truth, they'll have a nuke to prove it. So let's stop all this talk about diplomacy and sanctions: because they aren't going to work. Using diplomacy or sanctions with Iran would be like having a high school principal call a student to his office for threatening a teacher, and saying: "boy that was really, really, really bad - don't ever, ever do it again" and then letting the kid go without further punishment. I bet that kid is gonna be really scared of that principal saying "no," he'll really learn his lesson. Except that he won't, because he has no reason to. Same with Iran. Saying "NO" really loud and with a grave tone isn't going to accomplish anything.

As for the Russian Government's desire for "concrete evidence" of Nuclear weapons, I thought we learned this lesson in World War II. Wasn't that what Hitler taught us - that we cannot simply close our eyes to the evil around us and hope it goes away? Didn't a, now infamous, British Prime Minister teach us that treaties don't mean much when you make them with the devil? This is, or at least what should be, the beauty of the post-World War II era: the preemptive strike. We learned that it's best to take note of madmen and deal with them before they get their hands on serious power. Remember Mein Kampf, that crazy book published in 1926? Remember how the rest of the world completely ignored it? Remember how well that turned out for them? President Ahmadinejad is writing his own Mein Kampf. Russia doesn't want to read it; they probably want 'peace' ('in our time,' I assume). Let us hope, however, that President Bush learned a lesson from the generation of his father, and takes good notes on his Ahmadinejad.

Trouble in the Neighborhood

As a student at Wake Forest, I have been paying close attention to the ongoing allegations of rape against members of the Duke Lacrosse team. This is not only due to the proximity of our two schools, but because this case has been (or at least should be) of concern to college students around the country. The actual legal case, as far as I can tell, is rather complex, and I will refrain from attempting to apply my not-so-expert opinion to it. However, as I have been following this case, several things I have seen in the coverage have bothered me, and I am compelled to share them.

First and foremost, what the hell ever happened to 'Innocent until proven guilty'??? ESPN, ABC, every newspaper and news organization, not to mention Duke University itself, has told this story, from the very beginning, as if the players had big red 'R's on their chests for 'rapists'. I know that the allegations are very serious, and I know it's not exactly 'cool' to go around defending potential rapists; but they have Rights too, and those Rights need to be respected.

Next, can we PLEASE stop talking about issues of race? If you listened to the media reports on this case during the first week or so, you might have thought that the alleged crime was saying the n-word. Let's remember, there is the possibility that a woman was raped here - and that's just a wee bit more concerning than a drunk college kid calling someone a nasty name. Furthermore, the locals in Durham aren't exactly helping, as they are all protesting because the woman is black. They seem more upset that it was a white man (allegedly) raping a black woman than that it was (or could be), well, a rape. I know that 'race issues' are extremely sensitive for some people, but priorities, folks, please.

Finally, perhaps one of the most annoying aspects of the coverage of the Duke Scandal is the all-out 'bash the rich' session that it has become. Seriously, can I stop hearing about how Duke Students are more 'privileged' than the surrounding Durham community? Maybe, just maybe, the reason the Duke students are so 'privileged' is because they worked hard in high school, were good students, did well on the SAT or were very active in their community and got rewarded with a slot at a top-notch University. Or perhaps the reason all those kids at Duke are so 'privileged' is because their parents worked hard and earned lots of money so that they could afford to send their children to a $40,000 a year University. Why is this kind of success a crime? I'm not saying the residents in Durham aren't hard-working or successful, but should they hate on the Dukies for being so? In fact, considering that about 17% of Durham residents don't even have a high school diploma, maybe they should start taking a cue from some of their (better behaved) neighbors at Duke University.

Well, that's it for now, maybe not the most politically correct of complaints; but honest ones nonetheless. I really hope that this case is solved quickly, although I doubt that will happen. It should be interesting, and let's hope that justice can still be done - despite the media circus that already surrounds this case.

"You and I Have a Rendezvous With Destiny...."

Even back in the 1960's when Ronald Reagan made his 'A Time for Choosing' speech, he understood that it was the ultimate destiny of the West to defeat the "Evil Empire." In the aftermath of his presidency it has become clear to the rest of us that it was his ultimate destiny as our leader to be the man responsible for that victory. Well, okay, not all of us. Some of the friendly folks on the left, the ones who spewed (and continue to spew) venomous hatred for Ronald Reagan, have, for quite sometime now, loudly claimed that it was Mikhail Gorbachev who did this and that Reagan had nothing to do with the downfall of the Soviet Union.

This is an unusually common occurrence in college history courses, as leftist professors (such as mine) frequently have full-scale 'Gorbasms' when attempting to 'teach' the Cold War. The lecture goes something like this: 'The Soviet Union was falling apart, and was going to end at any moment, Gorbachev came along and tried to implement perestroika and make the USSR a Democracy, because he understood the dire situation and wanted to promote the well being of Russian citizens.' Well, at least, that's the jist of a typical liberal Gorbasm. But, as usual, these leftists are simply wrong.

First off, lets just go along with the whole rant and say that Gorbachev did want to end communism. That begs the question of 'how did he rise to power?' The answer is, in two words, Ronald Reagan. Immediately after he became President, Reagan took a new approach to foreign policy; he abandoned Detente and declared that he would be satisfied with nothing less than the destruction of the U.S.S.R. The new rhetoric and new direction that American foreign policy took were well noted within the Soviet Union. In response, the Soviets realized that they would need a new type of leader, someone from outside the old Stalin, Khrushchev and Brezhnev mold. The Party elite in Russia needed someone who could stand up to this 'Reagan' fellow on the International Stage, the man they choose, in 1984, was Mikhail Gorbachev. So you see, the only reason Gorbachev had the power to affect any change within the USSR was Ronald Reagan - without his election the Soviets would have chosen someone else to lead.

Of course, Gorbachev's intention was never to dismantle or 'Democratize' the Soviet Union, he was as much a believer in Communist dogma as Vladimir Lenin. Gorbachev had hoped his reforms would offer temporary relief and enable him to strengthen and re-build the communist regime, he never intended for the reforms to be permanent. Gorbachev never wanted communism to end. The only problem was he didn't realize what would happen when he implemented economic reform. Although someone did. Reagan knew the Soviets couldn't compete, so he forced them to do it. The military build-up of the 1980's, forced Gorbachev to enact changes and new economic policies; policies that Reagan realized would topple the Soviet system.

However, the fact that the Soviet system was weak and in abominable shape brings us to another question: 'Was the downfall of the Soviet Union inevitable?' The answer: yes. It may have been two or three hundred years later, but eventually it would have fallen. The Soviet system was weak, and near collapse, but it had always been that way. The Soviets had a terrible economy in the 1920's, the 1930's, the 1940's, the 1950's, the 1960's, the 1970's and, yes, the 1980's. The thing is, when you have an oppressive dictatorship running the country, you don't need economic success to continue on as a world superpower. All you need is a few nukes, the KGB and a couple of gulags. The point is, when liberals claim that the Soviet system would have collapsed in 1991 with or without Reagan's military build-up, they're lying; the Soviet Union had lived on the brink of collapse for over 60 years. In order for the Soviet system to collapse its economic equation needed to be catalyzed, and Ronald Reagan provided the catalyst.

Ultimately, the reason the left tries so hard to deny Reagan's importance in the destruction of the Soviet Union is because, as always, it puts them on the wrong side of history. When Reagan first said the Soviet Union was "evil" the left derided him, called him the dumbest man alive, said he was a dreamer, said he didn't understand the nature of foreign policy, and concluded that he had lost all perception of reality. Yet they were wrong - and Reagan was right. Within 10 years of the 'Evil Empire' speech, the Soviet Union was gone, just as Reagan said it would be. Exactly as Gorbachev said it wouldn't be. It hurts the left to give Reagan credit, because on the question of the Cold War, on the most important question of the 1980's, he proved them utterly wrong, and in the process, won his greatest victory.

Finally, A Politician Who Understands Immigration

I haven't posted on the recent immigration protests that have been sweeping the nation, mainly because the coverage elsewhere is so in-depth and intense. However, it's clearly a big problem and one that I'm finally going to address, albeit in a new way. I have discovered a speech given in 1915 by Teddy Roosevelt in which he discusses 'Americanism' and 'Americanization.' I have posted some of the more interesting parts below. Normally, I would add my own commentary, but the genius of TR speaks for itself.....

"... There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all..... Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance. But if he is heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was born, he is just as good an American as any one else.

....The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country. The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic. He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels his real heart-allegiance, the better it will be for every good American. There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else. For an American citizen to vote as a German-American, an Irish-American, or an English-American, is to be a traitor to American institutions; and those hyphenated Americans who terrorize American politicians by threats of the foreign vote are engaged in treason to the American Republic.

[Immigrants] are expected to do justice as well as to receive justice, [they] are expected to be heartily and actively and single-mindedly loyal to the flag no less than to benefit by living under it.

We cannot afford to continue to use hundreds of thousands of immigrants merely as industrial assets while they remain social outcasts and menaces any more than fifty years ago we could afford to keep the black man merely as an industrial asset and not as a human being. We cannot afford to build a big industrial plant and herd men and women about it without care for their welfare. We cannot afford to permit squalid overcrowding or the kind of living system which makes impossible the decencies and necessities of life. We cannot afford the low wage rates and the merely seasonal industries which mean the sacrifice of both individual and family life and morals to the industrial machinery. We cannot afford to leave American mines, munitions plants, and general resources in the hands of alien workmen, alien to America and even likely to be made hostile to America by machinations such as have recently been provided in the case of the two foreign embassies in Washington. We cannot afford to run the risk of having in time of war men working on our railways or working in our munition plants who would in the name of duty to their own foreign countries bring destruction to us. Recent events have shown us that incitements to sabotage and strikes are in the view of at least two of the great foreign powers of Europe within their definition of neutral practices. What would be done to us in the name of war if these things are done to us in the name of neutrality?"

It is all eerily applicable today.

"History doesn't repeat itself - but it rhymes." ~ Mark Twain

Doctoring and Lawyering: Mixing As Well As Vinegar and Oil

One of the greatest sites on the web is the Manhattan Institutes' Trial Lawyers Inc, which reports on the industrial behemoth that the lawyering business has become and the problems it is creating for American society. I finally got around to doing an in-depth reading of their newest piece, the one on Lawyering and the Health Care Industry, and it contains some truly scary stuff. Perhaps the most frightening was the information they gave about Obstetricians.

Did you know that "of the 46,000 members of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 76 percent have been sued at least once, 57 percent at least twice, and 41.5 percent three times or more?!?" Have 3/4 of the Obstetricians in the United States committed such grievous errors that they deserved to be sued? Do 41.5% of the Obstetricians in this country stink so bad at their jobs that they deserved three or more court dates? This means that the United States has either the worst Obstetricians in the world or that lawsuits have gotten out of hand. Now, since Doctors in the United States generally receive more, and better, training than Doctors in every other country in the world, I'm going to assume that lawyers are the cause of these high Malpractice case rates.

Furthermore, in these cases "million-dollar verdicts are now the norm" and the average payout is "$4.7 million;" which is odd when you consider that, according to the U.S Census Bureau, the medical cost of having a baby is between $5,000 and $12,000. So, let's assume that you paid $12,000 to have your baby delivered, and then sued the Doctor for $4.7 million. That would mean that you received, as your court payout, a sum that is over 391 times as large as what you paid for the original procedure. Holy Shiite! Is a person really entitled to that much of a payout?

And that's, of course, assuming that these cases are due to actual 'Medical Malpractice' in the first place. Which they are not. As Trial Lawyer Inc notes: "nearly half of malpractice suits—49.5 percent—are dropped, dismissed, or settled without payment." As for the other 50.5% that do go to court or result in payouts, many are still simply bogus lawsuits. Additionally, the majority of these cases are from Medical Malpractice 'hot spots' such as New York State. As a result Obstetricians in these areas are either, retiring, moving to other areas, or refusing to perform high risk procedures. If the onslaught against Obstetricians continues in these areas, the midwife may come back into style.

You know the crisis for American Obstetricians is bad when the Journal of the American Medical Association carries an article entitled: "Who Will Deliver Our Grandchildren?" Honestly, the information in Trial Lawyers Inc.'s article is warning sign number 2,943,453,234,785 that this country has a problem with frivolous lawsuits. And it further depicts how, in the long run, those lawsuits hurt the patients every bit as much as the Doctors. The reforms passed in some states, like Texas, are working; but it's time to get the ball rolling everywhere. Indeed, it is to be hoped that we as a counrty can get reform started and moving quickly, so that this problem gets solved by the time my Grandchildren come along.