As the banner on our blog reveals, it’s been over 69 years since we’ve had diplomatic relations with North Korea. And we wonder why there is mistrust between our two countries. North Korea does talk with its neighbors, and there is nowhere near the level of animosity between them that there is between them and the US.
China and Russia have proposed a peace plan commonly called the double freeze. The double freeze plan calls for North Korea to halt its nuclear program in exchange for the US and Korea to suspend joint military drills. North Korea has agreed with Russia and China. Germany endorses the plan. The US won’t have anything to do with it.
I don’t understand why cancelling the Team Spirit exercises is a bad trade off to toning down the tensions that could cause World War III. I was talking with a friend the other day and asked him why we even had soldiers stationed in South Korea anymore. He responded with the common answer that our soldiers were a trip wire. Basically a target so that when they died America would feel obligated to respond. He didn’t mean it in a callous way, but more an acknowledgement of our geopolitical strategy.
I do think it’s pretty hideous that we’re willing to sacrifice 20,000 American lives merely to justify a nuclear war with North Korea. …
Continuing in my theme of “what’s the harm in talking”, Saudi Arabia’s King traveled to and met with the President of Russia last week. Historic in the fact that it was the first visit ever by the King to Russia.
Unlike our media, the rest of the world sees the economic power, growth and influence of Russia in the Eurasia region. We fixate on military might. Russia and China are focused on economic might.
Russia and Saudi Arabia have some key differences and some key common interests. Both want higher oil prices. They disagree on Iran and they disagree on Salafi-jihadi terror. Amazingly (not really) oil won the day and the Saudis didn’t get their way on controlling Iran.
It was a win-win for Russia and Saudi Arabia. Of course Saudi Arabia still controls the US, so we’ll do their bidding in Iran. …
The First Amendment seems to get more attention these days than any other. You would think that with all of the attention, people would actually take the time to learn about it and figure out what protections it really offers.
But alas, knowledge is a lost concept in America.
We all laugh at the stupidity of those who defend sports stars from claiming some infringement on their rights. Dumb statements and misguided at best arguments.
Many well intentioned folks though misunderstand the constitution and make claims that private companies like Facebook, Twitter and other social media are somehow depriving folks of their first amendment rights.
Here is a great site that highlights success in fighting real infringements on first amendment rights. The thing I find interesting isn’t merely their successes. As you go into their various success stories, you get to see actual first amendment issues that you might never realize are protected conduct. …
Americans are creatures of habit. We get used to doing the same things, used to stupid rules and laws, and were brought up with the notion that you “can’t fight City Hall”. Government bureaucrats live on this notion. They love the fact that people “accept” the BS that they do.
Well, there is a group that is changing this paradigm. The Institute for Justice’s “Ask Why” initiative challenges governments idiocy and is winning. Obviously they would like to motivate people across the country to “ask why” locally. They get involved legally when they can.
This is a great site that highlights government stupidity and actual success in overcoming the rules.
It’s a great motivator and reminds us that “You CAN fight City Hall”. …
The duty of Americans to hold their politicians accountable is paramount to our country’s well being. Attending and speaking out on issues of concern at City Council, County Commissioner and School Board meetings seems to be an American tradition.
Well, one school board decided that they would go through the motions of appearing to encourage such public participation but then made restrictive rules on actually doing it. It created the rule that the Superintendent would have to “pre screen” your “request” to speak and then could delay your request forever.
The good news is that the court ruled that they couldn’t have this delay process built into the request to speak process.
The bad news is that they ruled that the only reason that the school district lost here is because they had a policy that allowed someone to speak. In other words, if the school district merely eliminated the public forum part of the meetings, you would have no right to speak. …
