Little Red Blog

Paul Wolfowitz won the unanimous approval of the Board for the World Bank to become the next head of the agency, despite the media and the left in the U.S. attempting to portray Wolfowitz as bad for the agency. Wolfowitz’s statements of support for the agency and its mission, fighting poverty and improving living standards in developing portions of the world, were apparently enough for the Board members, who I doubt gave serious consideration to opposing Wolfowitz, and lays the foundation for continued positive developments and democratization around the world.

President Bush announced that Secretary of the Navy Gordon England would be nominated to become the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Wolfowitz’s previous post. At this point I’ve not seen much of a fuss about the selection of England, yet I expect it will come. His responsibility for the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay will at a minimum create a few interesting moments for the Democratic Senators during his confirmation hearings.

Congratulations to the President and both nominees.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on March 31, 2005 6:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The AP reported today that Sandy Berger would plead guilty tomorrow to a misdemeanor charge of taking classified materials from the National Archives. While I'm pleased that something is being done, I can't help but once again believe that special care is being taken in this case, and that Sandy the Burglar will receive but a slap on the wrist.

Of course, I could be mistaken. Anyone of us could inadvertently stuff our pants with classified documents and leave with them.

UPDATE: Must read coverage of Sandy Berger's plea and the background info leading up to it at Balloon Juice. Excellent coverage. [HT: Instapundit.] Also check out Captain Ed's take and Bill at INDC Journal.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on March 31, 2005 6:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Yesterday I read and then responded to former Senator Danforth's criticism of the religious right within the Republican Party. Hugh Hewitt's blog entry pointed out the Danforth essay, and after reading so many other criticisms of the Republican take on stem cell research, same-sex marriage and the Terri Schiavo case, I was frustrated and vented in this space. Hugh’s Weekly Standard column notes with much more significant clarity that it is "wrong and demagogic to attempt to question the right of people of faith to participate in politics."

From my position, I am not a Republican by way of my faith or affiliation with a particular religious movement. I am a Republican because the party, to a larger degree than the alternative, supports and defends the values that I hold near and dear. It is easy to ignore the elitist take of those on the left who believe that people of faith are somehow not worthy of political participation. Their irrational fear that faith will determine the law, that men who aspire to serve and please God in their personal lives cannot hold reasoned and logical positions based on principles with merit of their own accord, and that our government will somehow better serve its purposes by freeing the nation of religious influence is just about too much to believe. Yet we must accept that for many, including some who espouse faith more openly than I in their personal lives, there is a sincere desire to remove any influence of either our moral foundations or our religious beliefs.

Our nations greatest leaders have always been men and women of faith. Like them, I would never bind another to a particular belief system. Instead, I would simply, tirelessly and persistently pursue the principles of our nation’s founding. The nannies that seek to remove the religious from the political active would be so much better served if they too would choose to those founding ideals over their inane attempts to shun and shudder those who find a light external to man’s law.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on March 31, 2005 8:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (1)

Just heard on the radio that Terri Schiavo has passed away. To her family, I offer my deepest sympathies and condolences. May God bless her soul.

UPDATE: First AP report online.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on March 31, 2005 7:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

In a pathetic clamor to avoid being seen as a religious conservative, or worse, a conservative Christian, many a pundit and politician are balking at current Republican efforts to hold strong to the moral foundations of our nation. It is reprehensible when it comes from a citizen of little note, like me, but even more so when the froth brews from the mouth of a former Senator. In today’s New York Times, former Senator John Danforth follows the folly into the land where Republicans are not principled at the core, instead choosing only those portions of their ideology that are commonly supported without a necessary underlying faith. [HT: Hugh Hewitt.]

Senator Danforth is unlikely to ever note my thoughts, yet I am given to address them specifically to him. As such, here is my reply:

Senator,

Like many conservative Republicans, I am an advocate of the three disparate, yet rightly connected, issues you began your opinion column with - the banning of federally funded embryonic stem cell research, not the same as adult stem cell research, supporting an amendment to the Constitution to support marriage, and the Congressional actions to permit federal court review of the Terri Schiavo case. Where I draw issue with you is your assertion that Republicans are following a conservative Christian agenda by taking these positions. While I am not by any means an important conservative, I can assert that my support for these issues, and I believe that of many others, is not driven by a Christian ideology or worldview but instead by the same principles that frame your view of shared Republican values during your time as a Senator.

We believed in limited government, in keeping light the burden of taxation and regulation. We encouraged the private sector, so that a free economy might thrive. We believed that judges should interpret the law, not legislate. We were internationalists who supported an engaged foreign policy, a strong national defense and free trade.

Those principles, which I fully agree with, are built upon an underlying and inner course within each of us that when aligned to Life and Liberty yields a basis also for each of the issues you have taken issue with. We conservatives accept that government is at its best when its role is limited to the protection of its citizens.

It is the protection of its citizens that drives my belief that embryonic stem cells should not be used for testing. While I oppose federal funding for such research, I do not oppose any and every State having the right to permit the testing or even fund it. Although I would oppose it in my own State, Colorado. Advocacy of embryonic stem cell research, funded by the federal government, neither supports the principles of limited government or the notion that human life, no matter how it came to be formed or its viability, is to be protected. This position strikes at the core of our rights with or without a religious or Christian understanding of life’s value.

Likewise, the support of a marriage as being between one man and one woman should not be assumed to be a Christian ideal, as you rightly note that religious liberals advocate exactly the opposite. The most vocal voices on either side of the issue may be those either incapable of supporting their position outside their faith, or perhaps they are driven entirely from their religious worldview. That being said, I support the Constitutional amendment as a last recourse to prevent the further attacks by courts around the country which abrogate the law, the votes of the people, and the clear assurance that while norms are not required for all, they are as a point of fact the norm. I do not oppose laws that provide legal protections for non-marital relationships between same-sex partners. Yet I cannot stand by and watch as rogue judges ignore the law in an attempt to create that which has never been. Indeed, that is the place of the Congress, and should it decide to press the issue with an amendment, I would support.

And finally sir, to the issue of Terri Schiavo. Like many a conservative and liberal alike, we are conflicted and challenged by this case in a way unlike any other. As for my position, I supported the Congressional action because it was an attempt to ensure that the courts in Florida were not ignoring the rights of a Floridian. It was generally a toothless effort that without teeth fell on deaf ears in the 11th Circuit. By supporting this action, the Congress acted to protect life, to give one last hearing to the unheard. If that to you is a Christian agenda worthy of alarm, then let it be.

Senator, we Republicans are not falling prey to an intrusion of religion into politics. We are instead experiencing a willingness to assert the fullness of the values that we should all use as barometer for governance. As a minister, you recognize the difference between what is legal and what is sin. The current Republican efforts you take issue with are guided not by an understanding of sin, but rather an understanding of the moral depth behind the founding principles of our nation and a desire to support them. These issues, like your support for ending the genocide in Darfur, are important to me because they tell me about our world, our nation and our desire to make the world more free and just.

Signed.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on March 30, 2005 1:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (1)

The Volcker Committee, or rightly the Independent Inquiry Committee, investigating the UN's Oil for Food program, has released a second interim report.

Would you be surprised to find that it claims no significant evidence exist to suggest that Kofi knew of Cotecna's bid for a UN contract, even while Kojo, his son worked for Cotecna? Neither would I. How about finding out that Kofi met with Cotecna three times yet previously failed to disclose the meetings? Still not surprised. How about finding out that Kojo was employed, then contracted, and then simply on the payroll even while he and Cotecna denied a continuing relationship between them? What's that, no surprise.

Well there is one. The report concludes that Kofi Annan didn't know of Cotecna's bid for the contract and had no influence in their selection. What... you don't think that's surprising either. Right, neither do I.

The report in pdf format is available here or should the IIC block external origination here. And here's the AP coverage of the story.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on March 29, 2005 11:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

No, that's not the real title of the Time article. Time calls their artcle "A Jihadist's Tale - How a young Jordanian left his American life and died an insurgent in Iraq." It's Time's version of the Hilla bomber's story. The same bomber who by killing 125 sparked Shi'a outrage against Jordanian and other Sunni Muslims who continue to support the attacks in Iraq.

Time has again glorified the ignoble. Scott MacLeod, who authored the article, would have us believe that Ra'ed al-Banna was a good 'ole boy who loved America until we turned our backs on him by in 2003. By the account of this tale, al-Banna was turned away at Chicago's O'Hare airport and returned to Jordan where he began the course that would lead to his "martyrdom."

This column, like so many others, pays little attention to those of values and character and instead profiles a man who possessed little character and eventually killed himself as a final testament to a perverted view of the world. The best line of the column turns up near the end when al-Banna's family claims that their obituary proclamation of his death as a martyr is nothing more than a testament to his dying in a foreign land. In a world where "martyrs" are no longer men of character but instead assassins and murderers, the utter lack of intellectual honesty, even in discussing the death of one’s son, is shameful. Nearly as much so as the supposed reporting that ignores the stories of the 125 killed in Hilla, those who’ve taken to the streets in opposition to violence or those who’ve stood to defend the freedom of Iraq.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on March 29, 2005 7:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

After essentially a week of very little blogging, I'm soon to return. At this point I've found MT to be very accommodating and straightforward. I’ve not imported my prior entries from "blogger" primarily due to the comments and trackbacks associated with those entries, all recorded by haloscan. I believe I’ve found a way to include them in an import and I’m making progress toward that end.

Essentially it will entail adding a plugin to permit extra fields in the MT database. I’ll add a field that represents the "blogger" entry ID and associates it with the new MT Entry ID. Then, I’ll have to modify the various templates so that they query "if" a blogger entry ID exist, if so, show the haloscan comments and trackback links, if not, operate as normal. I will probably not install this until late in the evening or overnight, as to avoid any disruption of service should I screw things up.

If you know another way, or just want to wish me luck, please do.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on March 28, 2005 9:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The Watcher's Council has again selected its winners for the week. This weeks winning council entry is Iraqi Bravery by Alpha Patriot. The winning non-council entry is 2 Years by Democracy in Iraq. The full results are available at the Watcher of Weasels here and as always are well worth reading.

Congratulations to the winners and everyone else who participated.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on March 25, 2005 2:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As you can see, I've made a little progress with my move to Movable Type. There are lots of things still to be done. It hasn't happened yet but the inevitable comment spam will show up soon, so next on the list is getting MT Blacklist installed. Other pluggins will follow, as I figure out which are significant or just plain cool.

Configuring MT has been a breeze thus far. While much detail work remains, it has proven rather straight forward up until this point. And Hosting Matters has been excellent and responsive. So any glitches are likely, if not wholely my fault.

The design of the site is based on the default MT templates. The image at the top is from a Word Press theme by Chris J. Davis. While I started out with both WP and MT, I took to MT more easily. Yet the image stuck with me. Thanks Chris. The rest of the layout is mine and was arrived at by trial and error.

Post with more substance will begin again shortly. Thanks for being patient and for visiting.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on March 23, 2005 10:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

If you are a frequent visitor to the Little Red Blog, you have no doubt noticed that I've not written much of late. I'm sure there are lots of reasons but there are two primary reasons.

First, in general when I write (or blog), I attempt to express my thought on a subject or at a minimum express my feelings regarding it. The last few days it has been difficult to separate my conflicting views, emotional, principled and intellectual, from the situation in Florida. Other issues, even those I would normally enjoy writing about, are clouded and frankly I've felt unable to express much of value.

The second reason is that last week blogger ate yet another of my post. One would figure that by now I'd be used to writing them outside blogger and then adding them to blogger afterwards. But on that occasion I was lax and didn't do so. On Saturday I began the process of choosing a new blogging platform, a new host, as my host at the time did not permit the necessary access to make Word Press or Movable Type an option, and began toying with both WP and MT to determine which I'd use. I've selected MT 3.15 as a blogging platform and Hosting Matters as a new host. My old domain, marvinhutchens.com has been relocated (or is being relocated as some nameservers have not yet updated) and will effectively just point to my new domain, www.littleredblog.com. If you've linked to this blog at littleredblog.marvinhutchens.com, it'll eventually point to www.littleredblog.com also, except I'll leave the archives and individual pages with their current permalinks up so that no links are broken (and your comments and trackbacks are maintained).

It may take me another day or two to begin more frequent posting at the new site, but I will be posting at least a couple of times a day between now and then. This is because I still have lots of work to do on the new site and that'll keep me busy. I've noticed that working on php, perl, html and the various templates occupies a portion of my mind that is rather ignorant of emotional conflicts. Something I welcome right now. I sincerely hope you'll either maintain your links or switch to the new site and visit often. And, of course, give me lots of feedback on its style and functionality (as I've been working in a bit of a vacuum) and then on what I have to say.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on March 23, 2005 9:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Decided against Word Press and am going to build the site with Movable Type 3.15. So far so good, now it's on to the building of the template, determining what options to include and then bringing over the current Little Red Blog to the new host, Hosting Matters.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on March 22, 2005 7:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Hold onto those bullets, bombs, tanks and, okay... well you get the picture. The EU is holding off on its lifting of the embargo of arms sales to China. Aside from the obvious moral propriety of not selling arms to China, there are many positives to be seen in this decision and how the EU arrived at it. I first mentioned the potential for a delay on Friday, in my News and Notes post, and am pleased to present further data here.

Secretary Rice on Sunday, while in China, let the Europeans in on a little secret. "It is the US, not Europe, that has defended the Pacific." You’ve just got to respect a woman who says it like it is. The Times of London also reports that last week, while European delegates were attending briefings on Capital Hill, that they were given more subtle advice. The anti-secession law, passed recently in China, gives the EU an out – "a “fig leaf” that would enable it to retreat with honour intact." Very subtle compared to the 411 to 3 vote in the House to urge the EU to maintain the embargo.

The NY Times reports that European diplomats have admitted that the timeline has slipped due to pressure from the U.S. and the concerns of some of the 25 member states. No "official" statement has been given, and we shouldn’t expect one. In diplomatic parlance we’ll hear that the timeline has slipped or is taking the "slow-track" and that the EU remains committed to the end of the embargo. Reality is slow to arrive at the gare de diplomatique. [Sorry if my French is, well, poor.]

The issue isn’t over, its broadened, and that has to be seen as a good thing. The EU has for some time now been determined to treat their economic and trade issues as separate from issues of security and human rights. This time, at least, the larger issues at hand have had an impact.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on March 22, 2005 3:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

To all those who visited, emailed and commented over the weekend and yesterday, thank you. As a general rule, I blog very little on weekends. Mondays, however, are usually filled with rambling post. I didn't have it in me yesterday to write (blog or otherwise), so I worked on the new non-blogger based version of this site. It's not quite done, but I'm getting there.

Now it's Tuesday, Terri isn't being fed, the federal judge who heard the case yesterday has turned down her parent's request. There are lots of other issues I'd like to discuss, and will today, if things go as expected. Back soon with much more.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on March 22, 2005 7:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Yesterday was a conflicting day in many ways. The day starts out hopeful, as do all, but with an odd heaviness upon me that I’d not anticipated. Terri Schiavo was on my mind. Throughout the day while I tried to go about writing on this or that topic, reading about the potential for good or bad around the world, and waiting on the gangly near-seven footers to take the floor in Carolina blue, I was unable to express my concern for Terri. And for myself. Or you. Or all of us.

I managed to post a few pieces of little real note, mind and heart still filled with concern. Afterwards, Carolina blue having been victorious, Terri being without her feeding tube, Marvin being concerned, perplexed, tired and yet somehow wanting to believe that hope remained, I headed out to Blogfest with Hugh Hewitt and the Rocky Mountain Alliance of Bloggers.

At 4, when I arrived, Hugh was about to take the air, the crowd was settled into the chairs and, as is the norm, I felt… well, out of place. I had decided that I would stay and hear the show live, speak with the RMA bloggers, and any others I could meet, so I stood between the middle earth master writings of J.R.R. Tolkien and colorful books that couldn’t find a place in my memory. No names, no topics, just small colorful potential additions for those so inclined. I wasn’t.

Hugh’s primary topic for the day, Terri Schiavo. After a little more than a half hour, I was not sure I’d make it. I walked around during breaks hoping that somehow the topic would shift. That my heart would be diverted from this matter to one of more lightness, one where hope seemed appropriate and moreover, one that didn’t hold such damnation for us all. Hugh prevailed. His everyday optimism and energy brought the story to those present and far away and he pressed on and on. And on. His guest by and large were superb, more on them perhaps later. Hugh had won me over again. I’d stay longer and moreover, I got in line to get my book signed.

When I walked up to Hugh, he shook my hand and asked what I did. Blog, I said. Duh. After telling Hugh where I blog, he recognizes the title and has very kind words to say and encourages me to keep going. I tried to express my appreciation. Tried. It didn’t really come out that well. Back to middle earth I head. And with a chocolate milk from the bookstore’s coffee shop.

Later during the show, Hugh mentions the Little Red Blog on the air, and again has nice things to say. He is kind and generous with his praise for others. An honorable trait, unless you are a headmaster. Perhaps he isn’t really cut out for leading CU. I remind myself to email the regents, just as Hugh has reminded us all. Several times. Terri is again the topic as the show closes with a beautiful poem by Tarzana Joe. I have to bite my lip and cover my eyes.

Shows over. Time to mingle. An art I once felt I’d mastered, but after years of inactivity and isolation, I was sorely in need of assistance. Hugh’s mentioning the LRB so kindly would help, even if he did say I looked like ZZ Top. Several folks came by and chatted. That was another big help. After a time, I met with Ben, Jared, Clay, Jim, Bob, Jonathan and Lisa, and many other bloggers and readers. Then off to dinner at Tucano’s. It was excellent, as was the company. And finally, the return home.

While driving home, I couldn’t help but think that Terri is hungry by now. This morning while I type this, having not yet had breakfast. I’m sure Terri is hungry. And thirsty.

Follow the links from family.org and let the Florida legislature know that something must be done. And then pray. Pray for Terri, for her family, for her comfort during her ordeal, and for our leaders who have as of yet not led us to a better place.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on March 19, 2005 10:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The potential for the utterly stupid McCain-Feingold law to be applied to the Internet and bloggers has caused quite a stir, based on the Shays-Meehan v. FEC ruling. Appropriately so. Whether, as some suggest, it is unlikely that the FEC would extend the regulations to blogs or not, the matter shows the complete lack of respect for individual rights under the Constitution and instead how the powers that be are adept at maintaining their authority.

This week's Homespun Symposium question deals with the issue, as have more bloggers than I care to link to. That being said, I add only that I am opposed to any attempts to regulate speech on the Internet, political or otherwise, and like Patterico and the many taking his pledge, I will continue to blog as I do now, no matter what the FEC decides. Furthermore, I would probably become an even more active blogger.

I’ve signed the Online Coalition letter and suggest you do the same, if you haven’t. Also, I wrote both Senators from Colorado and my Congressman. And if those who think we are over reacting to the issue wish to continue to believe in the good will and wisdom of the government, might I suggest that they consider this passage.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on March 18, 2005 12:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A brief round up of some of the news from Asia, Europe and the Elsewhere.

Japan will cease to provide aid, in the form of loans, to China in 2008. This is said to be recognition by Japan that China will have reached a level of economic maturity in 2008, while hosting the Olympic games. China has not reached the normal cut-off of $5k per capita earnings and will not have done so by 2008. My take is that Japan is recognizing the potential threat in China, and along with China's expanded economic and military capability simply understands that aid dollars sent to China are not in their best interest. Additionally the aid was seen as a form of reparations for Japan’s prior aggressions, an argument for it that I would never have supported.

EU plans to end the embargo on arm sales to China may be delayed. Javier Solana, the EU’s foreign policy chief, says that the "political will [to lift the embargo] remains... but I cannot guarantee [the timing]." The primary force behind the delay appears to be U.S. pressure against the effort and the Chinese passing of the anti-secession law.

Ukraine prosecutor-general Svyatoslav Piskun confirms that 18 cruise missiles were sold to China (6) and Iran (12) between 1999 and 2001. The Kh-55 missiles, also known as AS-15 Kent missiles, are mid-range (1860 miles), air launched, terrain hugging missiles used for attacks on preprogrammed targets. They were not armed with nuclear warheads and the defense attorney representing the chief executive of the company responsible for the sale claims they will not function due to their age and poor storage conditions.

Jordan may present an alternative strategy for ending the Arab-Israeli conflict at an upcoming meeting of the Arab League. The AP reportedly has seen a proposal by King Abdullah II of Jordan that does not require Israel to return to pre-1967 boundaries and calls for Arab states to declare their "preparedness to end the Arab-Israeli conflict and establish normal relations between the Arab countries and Israel through just, comprehensive and lasting peace." As the AP notes, the proposal is unlikely to adopted but is a sign of improving sentiments toward Israel, even if only from Jordan, which has signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1994. The idea that Arab states would "normalize" relations with Israel, ahead of and as an encouragement for the ending of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is somewhat far fetched but another sign of the ever changing winds in the Middle East.

U.S. Secretary of State Rice will press for a permanent membership on the UN Security Council for Japan. This is the first public statement of support for Japan's membership by the U.S. I'll have to come back to this one, after further research, thought and your comments.

Venezuela is concerned that the U.S. is plotting an attack or assassination. Okay, maybe it’s just Chavez and his lunatic supporters. Given his support for Iran and Cuba it only seems reasonable that Chavez would feel the heat of some scrutiny at home and abroad.

More later, and as always, your thoughts and comments are welcome.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on March 18, 2005 11:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Watcher's Council has announced its weekly winners. The winning council entry is "Trust Us. We're from the government." And the winning non-council entry is "The New United Nations: American Pressure at Work."

These entries and the others are linked with the full results at the Watcher of Weasels. And as is almost always the case, they are excellent.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on March 18, 2005 11:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

North Korea isn't friendly with those who disagree with the Dear Leader Lunatic. Via North Korea Zone comes the story by the Daily NK of public executions in the Huiryeoung.

The photographs that accompany the story, really tell the story. While graphic they are not far enough from the scene to remove any detail.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on March 17, 2005 6:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The inestimable Bill Roggio offers an excellent analysis of the potential for a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. In general, I believe that Bill is correct in his analysis and conclusion:

China's near term problems of insufficient military strength to conduct and sustain an amphibious assault, the superior firepower of the opposing American military, the potential economic strangulation from its source of oil and the political implications make it highly unlikely that a full scale invasion is on the horizon. The key factor to consider in this equation is the fortitude of American leadership. President Bush's commitment to freedom and democracy, and his demonstrated willingness to back up his words with actions makes it unlikely any invasion would occur before 2008. Future American leaders must clearly and consistently state the forcible reunification of Taiwan with China is unacceptable, and must show a willingness to back up its words and defend Taiwan from Communist aggression. Strength, support and vigilance are the best deterrents.

In his analysis Bill did not discuss China’s efforts to develop a strategic oil reserve (evidenced by their higher than consumption purchases over the past year), non-traditional delivery means (see my post on the "string of pearls"), or China’s efforts to expand their naval reach or capability (as Bill says - "it's the logistics stupid"). All of which point to the realization that China’s leaders are aware of the limitations, as would be expected, of their current capability and are simply acting to reduce those shortcomings. Taken into consideration with their efforts to co-opt their recently announced military exercises with Russia, which they are attempting to reorient as a practice exercise mimicking an invasion of Taiwan, it is clear that China is at a minimum signaling their willingness to address their shortcomings and at worst they are delusional enough to believe that they could succeed in doing retaking Taiwan.

I’m confident that our economic strength, military capacity and diplomatic resources are sufficient to defeat any Chinese aggression, but as regular readers of the Little Red Blog know, I do not believe that we can ignore this or any potential threat based on our assumption (even if proper) that we would defeat the enemy.

Bill’s piece is excellent and worth reading, as are many of the comments that follow.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on March 17, 2005 2:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Watcher's Council has an open seat. The ever entertaining and provocative Little Miss Attila, has resigned her seat, and well, while it is still warm, you should apply for membership. To do so, read the rules here, and then send the Watcher your request. I've only been on the Watcher's Council for a short time, but it's been a enjoyable, helped to expand the list of blogs I read, and brought at least one additional reader to the Little Red Blog.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on March 17, 2005 12:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The latest Bush nominations to the State Department, UN, and World Bank offer great insight into the administration’s understanding of the failures of the past, the challenge of today and the promise of tomorrow. For that, I am pleased. In general the criticisms that I’ve seen appear to be those that would be critical of any Bush nominee to those post, save a nomination from across the political aisle. As with so many other issues, this is troubling, though not surprising. Whether it is an absence of understanding, both of the nature of the positions or of the issues being addressed, a fault in moral thought or simply a matter of politics, I’ve come to accept that much of our nation will gleefully deride any and all decisions made by the President.

I’ve expressed my thoughts to a degree on Secretary Rice, John Bolton, Karen Hughes and Dina Habib Powell. I did not yesterday get a chance to discuss the nomination of Paul Wolfowitz to head the World Bank, although I have in the past expressed an appreciation for his intellect and wisdom based on an interview with Hugh Hewitt. What all of these nominees possess that seems to be either unnoticed or the cause for alarm is their relationship with the President and their explicit understanding and agreement with his position.

Being a political appointee to lead the State Department is not a position that requires inordinate expertise in foreign affairs or policy. It is a position that requires a willingness and ability to lead. Hughes will be charged with communicating U.S. policy both internally to the State Department professionals under her employ and externally to diplomatic and political leaders around the world. Her challenge in the State Department is likely to be greater than her external role, given the significant expertise of those she’ll be leading. She will have to guide the experts toward not acting on their personal views or past policies, but rather toward taking the invaluable expertise they have and putting it to the best use to implement the policies of the President. Or as New Sisyphus said: "Experts execute policy, politicians direct it."

Whether it is Bolton or Wolfowitz, the criticism has been loud and just as unfounded. Bolton’s own words on his view of the UN, offer not that he seeks to sack the organization, but that he seeks to see it become more accountable through reform from the Secretary General, the fragmented make-up of the body, and the lack of fiscal transparency. Additionally he favors defined roles for maintaining peace and limiting nation building. From his essay, published in a book of essays by the Cato Institute, he offers that the UN is a "tool" not a "theology." [HT: The Redhunter] Does this warrant the opposition he faces? Certainly not, it is a statement of his grounding in reality. In his new post, he will not forgo his moral obligation to the U.S. and will be charged with communicating with the UN the position of the U.S., and as much as possible, bringing about agreement and compromise from the UN. Would he better serve the U.S. by serving the UN? Not a chance.

Wolfowitz is derided as a hawk, as inexperienced in development efforts and in general as a neo-conservative ally of the President. The new role he will take on should in no way be negatively impacted by any of those matters. It is a leadership role where Mr. Wolfowitz will be charged with guiding a huge organization tackling an even more enormously challenging problem. His leadership, decision making and advocacy of his beliefs are essential to the nature of such a role, yet those characteristics are at the core of the criticism against him. Take his statements that economic development leads to political development. Those who oppose him clearly recognize this to be true. And that is entirely the issue; they do not seek real development, economic and political, throughout the third world. Instead they prefer the status quo, large amounts of highly ineffectual aid provided by a system that serves to prevent death but not to provide freedom, opportunity or self-reliance. Is it not their ideology that is served by the continuation of decades of despair across much of the world?

Having said all this, or so little depending on your view, I remain enthused by the nominations and hopeful that each will better utilize the resources and authority we have entrusted to them. If you disagree, feel free to let me know how and why.

UPDATE: Joe Katzman at Winds of Change has an excellent post on citizen diplomacy and the reshaping of the State Department.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on March 17, 2005 12:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

There was plenty to blog about yesterday. Unfortunately, my "news and notes" post was lost by blogger, and other projects prevented further attempts. So long as blogger cooperates, I'll have several posts to add today. If you dropped by and were disappointed, please accept my apology.

For St. Patrick's Day, here are a couple of poems from W.B. Yeats.

PEACE

AH, that Time could touch a form
That could show what Homer's age
Bred to be a hero's wage.
'Were not all her life but storm
Would not painters paint a form
Of such noble lines,' I said,
'Such a delicate high head,
All that sternness amid charm,
All that sweetness amid strength?'
Ah, but peace that comes at length,
Came when Time had touched her form.

HER PRAISE

SHE is foremost of those that I would hear praised.
I have gone about the house, gone up and down
As a man does who has published a new book,
Or a young girl dressed out in her new gown,
And though I have turned the talk by hook or crook
Until her praise should be the uppermost theme,
A woman spoke of some new tale she had read,
A man confusedly in a half dream
As though some other name ran in his head.
She is foremost of those that I would hear praised.
I will talk no more of books or the long war
But walk by the dry thorn until I have found
Some beggar sheltering from the wind, and there
Manage the talk until her name come round.
If there be rags enough he will know her name
And be well pleased remembering it, for in the old days,
Though she had young men's praise and old men's blame,
Among the poor both old and young gave her praise.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on March 17, 2005 9:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Senate Democrats made a rather clear statement today that their intention is to defend their attack on the Constitutional balance of powers even at the risk of shutting down the Senate. Behind Senator Harry Reid, 37 other Democratic Senators, stood in agreement as Reid made his argument that it is the Republicans who are attempting to “break down the separation of powers and ram through their appointees to the judicial branch.”

Here, via RealClearPolitics, is Senator Reid’s statement.

On a late September day in 1787, the Constitutional Convention finished its work. As Benjamin Franklin walked down the steps of Independence Hall, a Philadelphia woman named Elizabeth Powell stopped him and asked, "Well, Doctor, what have we got: a republic or a monarchy?"

He responded, "A republic. If you can keep it."

For more than two centuries, we have kept our republic because Americans have understood that our liberty is protected by our laws and by a government of limited powers.

Our Constitution provides for checks and balances so that no one person in power, so that no one political party can hold total control over the course of our nation.

But now, in order to break down the separation of powers and ram through their appointees to the judicial branch, President Bush and the Republican leadership want to eliminate a two-hundred-year-old American rule saying that every member of the Senate can rise to say their piece and speak on behalf of the people that sent them here.

The fact is that this President has a better record of having his judicial nominees approved than any President in the past twenty-five years. Only ten of 214 nominations have been turned down.

So it is clear that this attempt to strip away these important checks and balances is not about judges. It is about the desire for absolute power.

But our nation's basic rules are there for the moments when the eyes of the powerful grow large and hungry; when their willfulness makes them determined to do whatever it takes to win, and prevail at whatever the cost.

Presidents and parties have grown drunk with power before. Two Presidents of my own party --Thomas Jefferson and Franklin Roosevelt-- began their second terms of office with majorities in Congress and then tried to change the rules governing judges so that they could stack the court with those who would do their bidding. They were wrong to try to change our basic American rules -- and Americans, and Senators of both parties, stood up to tell them so.

Today, another attempt is being considered to rewrite the rules so that those in power can get their way.

It would mean that the US Senate becomes merely a rubber stamp for the Executive Branch.

It would mean that one political party --be it Republicans today or Democrats tomorrow-- gets to have all the say.

Our republic requires many things in order to be kept. Senate Democrats are expressing a form of partisanship that denies their patriotism and devotion to the Constitution in favor of their devotion to their Party and its power. In order to keep the Republic, we must make it abundantly clear to Republican and Democratic Senators alike that such action is morally reprehensible and violates the oath that each of them pledged upon taking office. As Senator Reid might be apt to say – Let Every Vote Count.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on March 15, 2005 6:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Karen Hughes will be nominated to become Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy. There have been criticisms of the selection, as I would have expected from some who are critical of every nomination the President makes. Surprisingly, there are some who are politically more inclined toward the President’s policies that are also critical of the selection. At this point, I’ve seen nothing to warrant the criticism of either group. The criticism seems to focus on Hughes lack of "credentials" in diplomatic circles, her close relationship to the President, or her decision to spend the last couple of years with her family in Texas, where her son will soon be graduated from high school and head off to college, none of which seems worthy of criticism.

As for this rarely read blogger, I believe that the selection of Hughes is significant and positive. President Bush has chosen his most trusted advisor for a role that has long been under represented. Combined with Secretary Rice and Dina Habib Powell, who will be named Deputy Under Secretary to Hughes, there will be a trio of strong women that present a foreign affairs and diplomacy background as well as an absolute understanding of the position of President Bush. Middle Eastern leaders will hear less convoluted messages of U.S. policy and instead hear with conviction and clarity the essence of U.S. policy for the Middle East.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on March 15, 2005 5:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The latest rally in Beirut calling for Syria to withdraw. Estimates of between 800k and 1 million participants make this the largest rally thus far. Perhaps the best news for is the inclusion of Sunni Muslims in this rally. The Shi'a supporters of Hezbullah are increasingly being isolated, as are Syria and Iran. The possibility of violence remains but thus far it has been largely avoided to the credit of all those involved. They have my respect and support.

AP Photo

In Iraq, where protests have continued since the bombing in Hilla, Shi'a took to the street, and the Jordanian embassy, demanding that all foreign Arabs leave Iraq. The latest protest followed word of the Jordanian hometown of the murderer hailing him as a martyr after he killed 125 in Hilla. If only the Shi'a in Lebanon could divorce themselves of their allegiance to Hezbullah and their hatred of Israel. It is amazing to see Iraqi Shi'a leading the charge toward peace in the Middle East. Amazing.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on March 14, 2005 2:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Europe’s team of negotiators, the EU-3, are most likely negotiating in good faith. It is reasonable to believe that their offers, concessions, incentives or bribes are presented with full backing of their respective governments and that their full intent is to bring about improved relations with Iran and to secure the cessation of uranium enrichment efforts in Iran. The Bush administrations decision to support those negotiations can also be seen as one of ‘good faith.’ That is, even if the administration has little or no confidence in the negotiations, their intent would be to support the negotiated agreement between the EU-3 and Iran should an agreement be reached.

And then there are the mullahs and their spokesmen. Are they negotiating in good faith? Can we afford to assume that their intent is an agreement to end Iranian nuclear weapons development?

Iran has stated clearly that their intent was not to end their uranium enrichment efforts, only to temporarily suspend their efforts while negotiating. They have stated that they have no obligation to end the program. Despite the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and the IAEA’s finding that Iran has failed to be forthcoming and transparent in its nuclear development efforts Iran maintains that they have a right to continued enrichment efforts.

Iran has no history of being a willing and trustworthy ally of freedom or peace. Have we forgotten that Hezbullah, the Lebanese terrorist organization, has been and remains an instrument for Iranian influence in the Levant and as such continues to call for the end of Israel. Iran’s support of terrorism, through Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, evident from the outset of the regime in 1979, has not ceased nor waned. If anything, it has increased given their role in supporting the terrorist now attacking Iraq’s people on a daily basis.

Iran’s initial response to word of the U.S. support for the EU-3 negotiations was predictably lacking in value. Sirus Naseri, the chief negotiator, or perhaps chief stalwart for the mullahs, called the U.S. offer "too insignificant to comment about." [See previous post.] Now comes word of Iran’s newest set of conditions. The mullahs believe the U.S. should unblock frozen assets, lift sanctions and cease hostile actions.

Why were the assets frozen and what has changed since that action?

Why were sanctions put in place and what has changed since that action?

Iran is counting on the world to have forgotten the cause of their isolation and to stand against the U.S. when the negotiations fail and it becomes an issue for the UN Security Council. Of course, our media has done little to remind the people of the West of Iran’s history under the mullahs.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on March 14, 2005 11:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Iran just isn’t going to play nice. Rather than drawing a line in the sand..., or taking Iran’s nuclear weapons programs and violations of the NPT to the UN Security Council, the U.S. decided to give a little. Just a little, but to openly admit a willingness to support the EU3’s negotiations and bribery of the mullahs. WTO membership is even on the table. Not something I'd favor.

Sirus Naseri responded to Secretary Rice’s comments. Sort of.

"What is being suggested is very much insignificant," Sirus Naseri, a senior Iranian negotiator in nuclear talks with the European Union, told Reuters in an interview. "In fact, it (the U.S. offer) is too insignificant to comment about."

The only truly negative aspect of this arrangement is the additional time it provides Iran. Here's the AP report for those inclined, it only covers the U.S. position at this point.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on March 11, 2005 2:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This weeks winning entries:

The Moderate Voice wins with Wounded Italian Journalist: Victim of Conspiracy or Polemicist?.

The winning non-council entry is Bill Maher: Over the Edge! from BuzzMachine.

Both are excellent, as were several other entries. Read them all here.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on March 11, 2005 1:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Wednesday I had planned on attending a gathering of bloggers and political folks at a local grill/bar. Put together by the Independence Institute, the plan was to watch Rather's final edition of the CBS Evening News. Life interrupted, the Mrs. was called away on business to Calgary and I drove her to the airport. And this thought occurred to me:

Tickets to Calgary: $1200.00
Hotel Room: $300.00
Missing Rather's goodbye: Priceless.

Although I was looking forward to meeting some of the local bloggers, I wasn't all that interested in sitting through another segment with Rather.

Here are a few of the items in the news worth a comment.

Taiwan has delegates in the Chinese parliament. Most interesting, given that some have never been to Taiwan and none are elected by the people of Taiwan.

"I may not have been born in Taiwan, but my parents raised me to love Taiwan, and I care deeply about Taiwan's future," said delegation member Cai Guobin, the mainland-born son of Taiwanese parents.

India loves its cricket. So does Pakistan. India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has invited Pakistan’s Pervez Musharraf to a visit in India to watch their respective teams play. Musharraf has accepted, now let's hope that their negotiations continue to progress.

UN chief bureaucrat for humanitarian affairs and emergency relief says that far more than 70,000 have died in Darfur. Genius. Still not genocide apparently, just as homicide/suicide bombings by Palestinian's isn't terrorism.

UN chief bureaucrat Kofi Annan wants a treaty making terrorism illegal. Hang on, I have to go outside and yell... Okay, I'm back. Read it here. While discussing terrorism, let's remember that good 'ol Kofi announced just a few days ago that the UN must accept Hezbollah as a force in Lebanon.

Spain has the first Muslim organization, that I'm aware of, to issue at fatwa against Usama bin Laden. Given that today is the anniversary of the 3/11 attacks, I'll have more say about Spain later. And as Charles at LGF notes, the organization behind this fatwa is committed to defeating terror, so long as it doesn't mean "taking 'disproportionate' measures similar to those which the Sept 11 attacks sparked in the US." How exactly are we supposed to fight terror?

There are many more items to discuss, but not until Carolina finishes off Clemson. One other note, Dr. George Friedman, of Stratfor, is on Dennis Prager's show this hour, very interesting discussion. Back in a bit.

Posted by Marvin Hutchens on March 11, 2005 10:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A few items for your consideration, or maybe just mine.

Anne Applebaum offers a defense of John Bolton's nomination to become the U.S. Ambassador to the UN. As I’ve posted before, I like the selection and see it as a positive for the U.S. and potentially for the UN.

Amir Taheri has an excellent, must read, column in the Gulf News. While we can in no way interpret the quotes of pilgrims in Mecca as representative of all Muslims, I do believe we should help them spread their views. Taheri's column is one way to do so. Here are a couple of excerpts.

Just outside the Grand Mosque we fall into conversation with a group of Sri Lankan pilgrims, coming to "pray for all our peoples, including Buddhists and Tamils", in the wake of the tsunami that has ravaged parts of their country. The subject of terrorism creeps into our conversation.

"We are the only community in Sri Lanka that has not only stayed out of terrorism but has opposed it," says a toothless pilgrim with a defiant face. "I think Muslims everywhere should lead the fight against terrorism, the scourge of mankind."

Other Lankans nod in approval. They have suffered for decades what the Saudis are experiencing today.

At the Riyadh Conference, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al Faisal almost lost his temper during a press conference. He demanded: "Why do we need to fight over a definition of terrorism. Don’t we all know what a terrorist does?"

On that balmy day in Makkah many pilgrims seemed to agree. They believed that the world should name terrorists after what they do and not after what they claim to represent.

American Society of Civil Engineers report that the