I dream of living in ... a World Without Dictators! I'm a Libertarian Paternalist in Slovakia - Freedom with Responsibility - 10% of income into your own Pension; Tax Loans for education, health, housing; now supporting Employment Maximizing Companies!

blog posts on immigration at The Truth Laid Bear

The case against Torture

There are lots of posts about tortue, again.  With silly Amnesty calling the US at Gitmo a "new Gulag".
The QandO  has a fine note about it, and lots of comments.  Very strongly complaining about the US being not serious enough in stopping the deaths of Iraqis while in custody.  But I think they have too little sense of proportion.

1% of 68 000 is 680.  68 is 0.1%

War is hell -- partly because innocents die; are KILLED, by the "good guys", whoever they are. 

Yesterday more innocents were murdered by the suicide killers than by US guards in 3 years of Afghan and Iraq military ops.  Where is the outrage over the suicide killers? 

How many minutes of sleep deprivation is it before interrogation becomes torture?

You are correct that the torture that exists, and the deaths in custody, should stop. 

But higher punishment on the poorly trained troops, rather than more punishment for the suicide terrorists, seems wrong.

On a scale of outrages, this doesn't make it into the top: North Korea, Darfur, Congo, UN child rapists throughout the world, Zimbabwe, Saudi prisons, Syrian prisons, Iranian prisons, French health care of elderly in August.

I'm offended that you implicitly claim I "seem entirely uninterested in the fact that our troops are killing prisoners in their custody."

I'm interested -- and you did a fine job.  But how important IS this issue? Is it more important than French health care?  Even though 10 000 died a couple years ago?  I think maybe yes -- because it's the US, and it's going on, and we can and should highlight that it needs more training and especially more supervision.

The Stanford Prison Experiment (and the fine file Das Experiment) accurately show what can easily happen when the guards get POWER over others.

Less than 100 deaths?  There's more EVERY DAY in Darfur, whose government has successfully passed Kerry's Global Test and has been re-instated on the Human Rights Commission. 

What kind of morals are those?

The alternative to the US as world policeman is, today, the UN.  It is not Unreal Perfection.

Those who complain about torture today need to show how it is WORSE than accepting the Democratic Rwanda policy -- no torture, no US deaths, no action (genocide OK).

You've shown it's bad.  You've offered no better real alternative.  Outrage now is indistinguishable from support for a policy of surrender, letting the terrorist beheaders win hearts by fear of head loss.

+++

Jon Henke asks "Just how perfect does the rest of the world need to be before you start demanding we abide by our ideals and laws?"

I do, today, demand that we abide by our laws.  And EVERY country in the world is LESS GOOD than the USA -- as measured in their support to stop the slaughter of Muslims by Serbs.  (And many other measures.)

"Abide by our laws" means that every case of suspected murder needs to be tried in a court of law, or a military court, with sufficient protections for the accused. 

Meaning ALL the protection and presumption of innocence given to, say, OJ Simpson at trial.
 
There also needs to be recognition that "rule of law" requires submission to police force.  One who is trying to escape the military/polic is guilty and is subject to forcible recapture -- including deadly force.  Being shot in the back as they're running away is not "murder", whether by police or by (poorly trained) guards.

I think of an Iraqi terrorist, who has been firing from a mosque, on the floor and pretending to be wounded so as to get a weapon and kill Americans.  And I think of the case where he gets the weapon, and DOES kill Americans before he is killed.  And I think of the case where one soldier kills the terrorist before he gets the weapon.  And the case where there was no weapon.

The only murder was the terrorists killing the soldiers, rather than surrender.

While it was not quite right for the soldier to kill the suspect who did not have a weapon, lack of submission after prior immoral (firing from a mosque) fighting exonerates the soldier from a legal viewpoint.

Karpinski was fired, and demoted.  In a war, that seems about right.  Most other talk about having the US "abide by law" is essentially to support firing Rumsfeld, and/or Bush, and having the US leave Iraq -- so that the terrorists can re-establish a death squad state.

Posted by: TomGrey at 05/31/05 11:45 | link | comments

Memorial Day - Star Wars

On this (now day after) Memorial Day, which is not a holiday in Slovakia, my family and I are watching Star Wars. Actually it’s not the whole family, since little 6 year old Bianca is with grandparents in the lovely Tatra Mountains. So it’s only my wife, my 9 year old son Mishko, and my 8 year old son Danko.  We saw all of Star Wars (IV) (A New Hope!) on Saturday night.

We saw all of Empire Strikes Back (V) on Sunday, but the kids didn’t get to bed until nearly 11pm, and they’ve been a bit sick, so it was silly.  We’ve rented the DVDs, plus…

Of course, there are a LOT of questions that I expect to be answered by Revenge of the Sith. In another post, perhaps over the weekend after I see it, I’ll write about the Dark Lords: Lord Vader; Lord Voldemort, and the Dark Lord on his Dark Throne in Mordor, Sauron; the personification of evil. 

All three sagas are fairy tales, with many similarities.  Harry Potter is like Luke Skywalker.  The Black Riders are like the Death Eaters.  The Force is like Magic – May the Magic be With You.  Yoda is like Dumbledore is like Gandalf.  Interestingly, only Bilbo and Frodo are really Everymen – anybody could get the Ring.  Harry and Luke are born with their extraordinary possibilities, though they each have a period of being an Everyman.

None of the stories include much focus on the innocents killed, neither by the evil ones nor by the ‘good’ side.  But that is the post for the future.  

Today let us hail and thank, and remember, those heroes who have fought for the USA.  Fought for the ideals of Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness, Private Property, and the Rule of Law.  It is these ideals which have made America Great – because America is Good, and wants to be good, and is willing to question whether or not her government’s actions are good.  When I look at the UN, or Russia, or China, or France, or even the UK – I do NOT see a better country or a better organization. 

America is not perfect, but it is good – it is better than any real alternative.  Because, more so than other G-8 or OECD countries, the American people believe in God, believe in Good and Evil, believe in the bright side not the dark side, believe in the Power of Love over Hate. 

Posted by: TomGrey at 05/31/05 09:47 | link | comments

Fair and Balanced PJ Media

Roger asks Question 1 on Fair and Balanced media; then Q. 2 on getting the facts.
Neo-Neo-con questions a bit about the terms.   Butnot me.

I like fair.  I like balanced.
The most interesting news is about policy: filibuster or not; up or down; reform Social Security or not; vote Kerry or Bush (or nobody -- telling the truth).

Every policy has good results and bad results; and as it's made there are probabilities of those results.
Balance means talking about good AND bad, of both positions.  Only talking about the bad of Iraq after US action, without noting the good, is unbalanced.  Not mentioning the bad that would be, like Darfur, w/o US action, is unbalanced.

Fair implies similar effort at the truth.  Intense scrutiny of Bush's NG records, while not mentioning that he did sign a Form 180 which Kerry has not signed, seems unfair.  I think Marc Cooper's anti-Kerry and super-anti-Bush is more fair than most.

The press has failed to note that the policy of US leaving Vietnam meant SE Asian genocide.  This has been both unfair and unbalanced.

I wish more folk would follow generalizations with at least one specific example, to confirm I understand what is being talked about.

I post many of my comments on my blog (see my Michael Totten comments/ posts); this one too. [Often copy comment to Word for spell check first, and a monthly long journal record.]

I also like Honest and Transparent -- and for much news, the honesty/ accuracy is more important than "fairness".  But since the most interesting issues are often the uncertain future, honesty about the future collapses into honesty about guesses about the future.

Posted by: TomGrey at 05/30/05 03:58 | link | comments

With a large voter turnout of around 75%, the French decisively voted No to the EU Constitution by about 55% to 45%. This will require the EU to continue functioning as it has been, with few additional powers for the bureaucrats in Brussels.

French  President Chirac accepted the democratic decision of the voters, but claimed:

He ignored calls by some members of the "No" camp to step down but is clearly badly wounded two years before presidential and parliamentary elections.

Neither Reuters nor BBC mentions that the proposed, totally binding constitution is some 500+ pages, and few of the Yes voters or supporters have actually read it -- why should a binding agreement be made without reading the fine print?

"This is a sad, sad day for France, and a sad day for Europe too. But rumours of the constitution's demise have been greatly exaggerated," said Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, former Danish Prime Minister and president of the Party of European Socialists,

BBC:

One of the leading right-wing opponents of the treaty, Philippe de Villiers, said: "Europe has to be rebuilt. The constitution is no more."

Opposition Socialist leader Francois Hollande, from the "Yes" campaign, voiced "regret" over the result, but blamed Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin.  "The rejection of this treaty is above all the rejection of the government," he said.

Perhaps it's more anger at a government which has run the economy into a 10.2 rate of unemployment, the highest in 10 years.

President Chirac has claimed he's listened to more voters, but also that there's no reason to resign. It's not clear if there will be any external effect or adjustments by the countries which have already adopted it. The 9 countries which have already adopted the EU constitution:
Austria
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Italy
Lithuania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain

On Wednesday, the Netherlands should have a referendum, too – and polls indicate another No.
(seen on Blogger News Network)

Posted by: TomGrey at 05/30/05 02:50 | link | comments

How is freedom "done"?

Belgravia Dispatch has great outrage at the inexcusable intellectual arrogance of Wolfgang Ischinger, the German Ambassador to the US. Gregory says it so nicely: "the breezy evocation of the contemporary history of Central and Eastern Europe as a way to teach us boorish Americans how it is done.

Now I wonder what his public position was on Reagan's deployment of missiles (really, I wonder)?  In any case, too many seem to be of the opinion that the fall of the Evil Empire was sort of inevitable -- so paying any cost in blood is too high a price. 

My own disagreement with your assertions that more troops in Iraq are needed is based on Vietnam -- with a lot more troops, and more occupation, and failure; especially failure of Vietnamization of the war (and our refusal to fund the S. when we ran away).  I think fewer troops, and more chaos in Iraq, mean that Iraqis will own their security sooner (the Americans couldn't do it).  But I'm also not certain what is optimal.

"How it is done" -- but what if it has never been done before? 

My problem with most critics of Bush, like Amnesty, Kerry & Dems, and this German, is they all seem to assume the failure of evil even if good folk do nothing.  I don't see it happening.  I really like that you, usually, are offering constructive criticism -- you think Bush is fighting evil in a frequently sub-optimal way (more or less troops).   Most critics think Bush is wrong to even fight, and want to be proven right rather than want to stop the evil.  They're essentially on the other side.

Posted by: TomGrey at 05/26/05 16:58 | link | comments (3)

Another Liberal Heretic Leaves the Left

“My estrangement hasn't happened overnight. Out of the corner of my eye I watched what was coming for more than three decades, yet refused to truly see. Now it's all too obvious. Leading voices in America's "peace" movement are actually cheering against self-determination for a long-suffering Third World country because they hate George W. Bush more than they love freedom.”

Their premise was straightforward, almost giddily so: When the number of civilian Afghani deaths surpassed the carnage of Sept. 11, the war would be unjust, irrespective of other considerations.

the words of John Gardner, "that the ever renewing society will be a free society (whose] capacity for renewal depends on the individuals who make it up."

Posted by: TomGrey at 05/25/05 00:40 | link | comments

Dennis Prager writes about Newsweek & Riots

 And now a word about the rioters. They have desecrated their religion and their holy text far more than the alleged flushers of Koranic pages.

 Did any Buddhists riot and murder when the Taliban Muslims blew up the irreplaceable giant Buddhist statues in Afghanistan?

 Did any Christians riot and murder when an "artist" produced "Piss Christ" -- a crucifix immersed in a jar of the "artist's" urine? When all Christian services and even the wearing of a cross were banned in Saudi Arabia? When Christians are murdered while at prayer in churches by Muslims in Pakistan?

 Have any Jews rioted in all the years since it was revealed that Jordanian Muslims used Jewish tombstones in Old Jerusalem as latrines? Or after Palestinians destroyed Joseph's Tomb in 2000 and set fire to the rebuilt tomb in 2003?

 It is quite remarkable that many Muslims believe that an American interrogator flushing pages of the Koran is worthy of rioting, but all the torture, slaughter, terror and mass murder done by Muslims in the name of the Koran are unworthy of even a peaceful protest.

 ….

 That, not phony reports about an American desecrating Koranic pages, should really upset Muslims. It won't. Just as the CBS and Newsweek debacles won't upset the American news media.

 The lowest of the Muslim world and the elite of the Western world: Anti-Americanism makes strange bedfellows.

I am enraged at the PC elites of America.  Just as the Bush-haters of US politics accepted almost all smears against Bush.

Posted by: TomGrey at 05/24/05 16:24 | link | comments (1)

Why am I a libertarian?

Michael asks me why I am libertarian if I oppose abortion and gay-marriage.

See Libertarians for Life .
Libs are against initiating the use of force against other people. The human fetal person has different DNA; it's innocent; it's wrong to kill it.  The folk who WANT abortion legal pretty much want promiscuous sex; including Libertarians (especially? so MANY horny nerdy men. I was one). I now believe "responsible promiscuity" is not really possible.

On gay marriage, I favor civil unions, NOT marriage. I believe the purpose of "gay-marriage" is to establish such full civil acceptance as to justify the condemnation of any religion which says gay sex is sinful. It does NOT have the purpose to support the creation of human life through the "marriage" of a papa sperm and a mama ovum -- it is this creation that social marriage should celebrate. Not the sexual partnership. [I also believe "marriage" without raising kids is mostly a civil union.)

The moral underpinning of Lib thought is that all gov't action is based on force, not peace; therefore it should be minimized.
The utilitarian support for Lib policy is that less gov't usually means better results, over time -- as folk learn to act responsibly in their own self interest.

Dean's points were great -- when the good ideas of one side "win", and become standard, that "side" is left with the less good ideas.

Posted by: TomGrey at 05/20/05 03:52 | link | comments (1)

Bush helped free Lebanon

Lebanese Profile has a wonderful post on how Bush Freed Lebanon.  Not. Quite. Alone. But yes.  Please read it.

Recent defenders of Newsweek are, finally, starting to say the real problem is the reaction of the Islamists.  It would be really ironic if defense of Newsweek's Toilet Koran lie would make the news really look at who DOES have most responsibility -- the adult moral actors actually doing the deeds. (via Michael)

Posted by: TomGrey at 05/20/05 03:20 | link | comments

Newsweek heads should roll

Joe writes a fine note on Newsweek vs. Clinton.  But I wonder how many articles critical of Clinton were printed that were, basically, false news items?

 Clinton-hate is a bastard brother to Bush hate/ Reagan hate/ and original Nixon ( Vietnam ) hate.

 Enron went under -- and Arthur Andersen, their lying auditors, also went under.  The press was screaming for the heads of THOSE corps, yet none were murdered because of the Andersen mistakes.  And LOTS of innocent folk lost their  jobs.  The Big Five are now the Big Four (after being Big Six, and earlier Big Eight).

 The heads of Newsweek should have the same fate, with the same lack of tears.  They failed in their duty, in an attempt to get better news. (Also see Jay at PressThink)

Posted by: TomGrey at 05/20/05 03:12 | link | comments

Faith and Plans

Posted by: TomGrey at 05/20/05 03:02 | link | comments

Iraqis must solve the problems in Iraq

And I’m pretty sure each week in Darfur, is going to have more innocents killed.  But since the Leftist media can’t beat Bush with those deaths, in fact they’d beat the UN, most Leftist’s like the Cambodia – Rwanda “ignore” option.

Posted by: TomGrey at 05/19/05 22:26 | link | comments

Destructive envy

Posted by: TomGrey at 05/19/05 19:35 | link | comments (1)

Pat Buchanan, vanishing conservatives

Michael doesn't like, or truly understand, Pat:

Posted by: TomGrey at 05/19/05 00:11 | link | comments

Uzbek murder, Bush, Leftists

Michael wants the US to Dump Karimov, who has let his gov't thugs murder folk in Uzbekistan. 

I'm not so sure what the optimal timing of US actions is.

Let's say Bush dumps the Uzbek leader -- so that they become a failed state. Like Chechnya, only on the Afghan border, so they ally with Afghan drug funded warlords.

And become the training ground for a new, Uzbek Taliban. 

And they start exporting Islamic suicide bombers to Afghanistan, to murder Red Cross folk, Peace Corps folk, any and all foreigners; occasionally beheading them, occasionally car-bombing US forces.

How many would have to be murdered before those who say "dump Karimov" would say, um, too many were murdered?  Karimov was bad, but not THIS bad.

The US needs to get its bases out of Uzbekistan as long as the Uzbek gov't is this bad.  It should clearly state that such gov't oppression is "not acceptable".  But how fast, before what action?  Maybe months and years, not days.  Maybe only weeks.

Why can Leftists complain of Bush and Uzbekistan while remaining silent on the UN and Sudan (and the Human Rights commission)?  Leftist hypocrisy, and MSM Leftist bias.  Why no pictures of Darfur this week, weren't some thousands dying there? 

U for Ukraine, stan for Kyrgyzstan; Even if the Uzbeks want to follow the Orange Revolution, their dictatorship seems ready to follow China's Tiananmen example. 

How many US soldiers are Leftists  willing to have killed to support an uncertain democratic revolution?  Body-counting in Iraq indicates Zero, which means following the Clinton plan: take no action now, apologize later if needed.  Oh, I forgot; the Leftist sneering squad is ready to sneer at every action AND inaction, unless the results are Unreal Perfection.  As long as the sneers are against the US and Bush.

Posted by: TomGrey at 05/17/05 17:15 | link | comments

Link to Blogger News Network

I'm publishing the CBS distorts Starr on Filibuster to continue their Litmus Test,  news Analysis (editorial?) on Blogger News Network.

Now that it's there, I realize I forgot the action lines: CBS should release the entire interview tape.

And all republicans should start requiring that the media make available to them their entire raw footage of any interview where they will be quoted -- at least the audio of questions and answers.

Posted by: TomGrey at 05/15/05 00:17 | link | comments (1)

CBS distorts Starr on Filibuster to keep the Radical Abortion Litmus Test

Borger: Many conservatives consider the fight over judges their political Armageddon. But conservative icon and former federal Judge Ken Starr says it's gotten out of control.

 

Mr. KENNETH STARR (Dean, Pepperdine University School of Law): This is a radical, radical departure from our history and from our traditions, and it amounts to an assault on the judicial branch of government.

 

BORGER: Starr, who investigated the Monica Lewinsky case against President Clinton, tells CBS News that the Republican plan to end the filibuster may be unwise.

 

Mr. STARR: It may prove to have the kind of long-term boomerang effect, damage on the institution of the Senate that thoughtful senators may come to regret.

 

BORGER: Still, Starr thinks all judges should be allowed a vote, even if they're Democrats.

In the piece that I have now seen, and which I gather is being lavishly quoted, CBS employed two snippets. The “radical departure” snippet was specifically addressed – although this is not evidenced whatever from the clip – to the practice of invoking judicial philosophy as grounds for voting against a qualified nominee of integrity and experience. I said in sharp language that that practice was wrong. I contrasted the current practice . . . with what occurred during Ruth Ginsburg’s nomination process, as numerous Republicans voted (rightly) to confirm a former ACLU staff lawyer. They disagreed with her positions as a lawyer, but they voted (again, rightly) to confirm her. Why? Because elections, like ideas, have consequences. . . . In the interview, I did indeed suggest, and have suggested elsewhere, that caution and prudence be exercised (Burkean that I am) in shifting/modifying rules (that’s the second snippet), but I likewise made clear that the “filibuster” represents an entirely new use (and misuse) of a venerable tradition. . . .

 

[O]ur friends are way off base in assuming that the CBS snippets, as used, represent (a) my views, or (b) what I in fact said.

Kenneth Starr - an appeals court judge on the D.C. circuit from 1983-1989 - came out against the Republican plan to ban judicial filibusters on Monday. He told CBS Evening News that it is a “radical, radical departure from our history and our traditions, and it amounts to an assault on the judicial branch of government.'’

“For more than 200 years, just one judicial nominee was defeated by filibuster -- Abe Fortas in 1968 in extraordinary circumstances that are not comparable to the current situation. For more than 200 years, no minority leader ever organized a judicial filibuster. For more than 200 years, the Senate operated on the understanding that a majority of senators was entitled to carry out its constitutional obligation to advise and consent on federal judges. But now the Democratic leadership has cast aside Senate tradition to usurp the president's appointment power against nominees not meeting the minority's ideological benchmarks or litmus tests.”

“President Bush actually adopted a conciliatory approach to the process four years ago. At that time, he renominated two Clinton nominees, both African-American. Subsequently, he has continued to use this approach, as when he nominated both Claude Allen (conservative) and Allyson Duncan (not conservative and supported by John Edwards) to the Fourth Circuit. The Democrats have responded by quickly confirming the non-conservatives, blocking the conservatives, applauding themselves for confirming Bush nominees, and complaining about how uncompromising Bush is in continuing to support the conservatives in his package.”

The debate will be over the nomination and also over the filibuster.  But because there are two debates, the logically stronger Rep side could lose both.

Posted by: TomGrey at 05/15/05 00:07 | link | comments (1)

When is War worth it?

It’s indeed sad when those in favor of the Iraq war are unwilling to even think of the possibility that Bush made a mistake in fighting the evil of Saddam, or that the fate of Poland after VE day might be called a non-win in Europe. 

Buchanan is wrong about whether it was worth it.  But he makes at least a reasonable case.  Avoiding his argument, especially with the anti-Semite charge, is pretty lame.

Posted by: TomGrey at 05/14/05 00:24 | link | comments

Iraq is Vietnam is World War II

Armed Liberal does a great job on the "Tainted" Victory of WW II. 

The notion that it is 'tainted' - that we have acted throughout our history less than perfectly, sometimes awfully and therefore our history is tainted - underscores much of the thinking that I criticize in looking at 'Bad Philosophy.' It suffers from two defects in particular: it fails to ask tainted as compared to what? and it searches for and emphasizes commonality between the bad and the good by abstracting to a high level.

The first question - as compared to what? - is a critical one. I genuinely think that some people somehow believe that the world is a lab where perfect wars can be fought, or perfect legal cases made - or perfect businesses run, or perfect marriages maintained, or children can be perfectly raised.

The complaint of the Unreal Perfection alternative, usually unspoken.

In fact, every since the Left convinced US politicians to run away from Vietnam, they have been pretty good at avoiding the comparison to anything real.

Joseph (?)"though I think the harm of a little self-criticism in America is minimal and not likely to rock the foundations of our civilization. The fact that we can exercise such pointed self-criticism at all is one of the things I'm proudest of about that civilization."

How many must die in SE Asia before you think the harm of excessive American self-criticism is too much?  Weren't the Killing Fields too many murders? -- murders accepted by the Left because they were so busy in 'self-criticism' (of Nixon and Reps and America).

The US failed to accept 'democracy' and a successful Ho Chi Minh communist Vietnam in 1956, and essentially broke the country in Johnson's Gulf of Tonkin escalation.  After that intevention, the decision must be to stay or go.  When Kerry / Leftists argued in 67, 68, 71, 73 to go, the results of leaving are THEIR responsibility.  And of the whole USA.  The worst genocide since WW II; the worst thing the USA has done in my life.  The shame we may never overcome -- because of too much self-criticism, and the lie of an Unreal Perfect alternative.

The moral rot at the middle of Leftist self-delusion.

Posted by: TomGrey at 05/11/05 13:56 | link | comments

List of Good Links - Huffington Post

Some how I had missed Victor Davis Hanson on why Dems lose, and will keep losing.  Because they don't live or speak like normal folk.

Blogger News Network keeps getting more articles.  That's very good.  The presentation is a bit busy, somehow; and no pretty pictures.

I had never before seen Jewsweek magazine, pretty nice.  But I think Arianna's Huffington Post is a little better format for a Blog Newspaper.  There is also the fine David Frum talking about the lack of any memorials to the attrocities of Stalin and communism, both in Russia and out.

HuffPost linked to a good article about the rise, fall, and rise of the current Deputy Prime Minister of Democratic Iraq, Ahmed Chalabi.  It also has a fine note by Joe Scarborough about the Sudan, Suffering in Silence as the UN, like Amnesty, does almost nothing.  I don't know why the Reps aren't being more active against the Dems on the Sudan -- the US can't take action if it's impossible to fight evil.  The UN has an out, though, which Joe doesn't mention -- War Crimes for individuals.  There are indictments.  The fact that they are toothless pieces of paper means little.  It doesn't take much cover for the Left to say they are following the right procedures, so everything is OK.  Harry's Place also has a nice Darfur note.

HuffPost also notes Amnesty International complaining about Zimbabwe.

--Amnesty is SUPPORTING Mugabe -- by talk and words.  Yes, it's good Amnesty is complaining a bit.  But at what level?  If Amnesty also complains about the USA, then it complains about everybody.  Equally.
And thus, with equal impotence.

Amnesty explicited opposed military regime change in Iraq.  They condemn Sudan/ Darfur -- but do not call for regime change.  Thus, they substitute Talk and outrage, for action.

Zimbabwe is re-elected to be on the UN Human Rights Commission.  Just like Amnesty ...  wants? denies wanting?  accepts.

How many will have to starve before Amnesty calls for military action? --

Somehow I got to China News, and THEY have the story of how Monkey Brains can control Robot Arms.

The monkey brain robots didn't quite make it into Topix.

From the surprising Butterflies and Wheels, there is a nice list of links, including this one to Amartya Sen, associated with the Values Institute. 

Posted by: TomGrey at 05/11/05 13:11 | link | comments