Saturday, May 4, 2024
More
    Home Blog Page 1943

    Book Review: Frederic Bastiat's The Law

    0

    “David A. Pendleton Image”

    Not every good idea is a new one. Many good ideas are old ideas that have simply been forgotten — or are intentionally overlooked.

    One wonderful source of good and important ideas is a very old but prescient book by Frederic Bastiat. In his slim volume which is succinctly entitled The Law, we find an impassioned, sustained, and persuasive reminder of the purpose of law and the legitimate use of government. It may have been written back in the early 19th century, but its truths speak to us today in the 21st century.

    We would all — elected officials included — benefit from this man’s ideas. Bastiat believed that the greatest single threat to liberty is government. And he calls all to recognize that might does not make right. That is to say, simply legalizing a particular undertaking does not change that undertaking’s morally problematic nature. An legalized taking from another may still be wrong, whatever ink on paper may say.

    Here are a few examples. He decries the government’s penchant for “plunder”: “See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.” What Bastiat called legalized plunder we call progressive taxation, necessary fee increases, and much-needed regulation.

    Bastiat reminds us that good intentions are not enough to justify the pervasive and intrusive acts of the government to take from the fruits of labor of one person to give to another person. He calls such governmental actions “false philanthropy.” He argues that the unintended consequences of such social engineering cannot be justified and often can be far worse than the intended good.

    Bastiat’s position is that wealth redistribution is not the same thing as wealth creation and that government’s frequent and relentless intrusions into the market can actually diminish the ability of market actors to efficiently create wealth from which we all benefit.

    “The present-day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of everyone else,” Bastiat argues. His point is that risk takers, entrepreneurs, and business owners who undertake ventures to create services and products to meet the needs of others cannot be counted on to continue doing what they do if they are not permitted to benefit from their labors. There are incentives and there are disincentives. Regardless of intentions, decision makers must examine the consequences of their actions.

    Such legalized “plunder,” Bastiat further points out, will tend to invite people to take advantage of the laws to their own benefit and the detriment of the public welfare: “Under the pretense of organization, regulation, protection, or encouragement, the law takes property from one person and gives it to another; the law takes the wealth of all and gives it to a few — whether farmers, manufacturers, shipowners, artists, or comedians. Under these circumstances, then certainly every class will aspire to grasp the law, and logically so.”

    The purpose of the law, writes this man who was well aware of the anarchy of the French Revolution, should be to “protect the free exercise of these rights” — and elsewhere in the book he makes clear that he shares the ideal that humankind is endowed with unalienable rights, including life, liberty, and property.

    “It is not true that the function of law is to regulate our consciences, our ideas, our wills, our education, our opinions, our work, our trade, our talents, or our pleasures. The function of law is to protect the free exercise of these rights, and to prevent any person from interfering with the free exercise of these same rights by any other person.”

    The upshot of is clear: when officials regulate, legislate, and add red tape to the lives of citizens, they must think carefully and act cautiously. Whether it is the United States Congress or the Hawaii State Legislature, we cannot justify the exercise of lawmaking authority simply because our intentions are good and noble. We must respect the lives, liberty, and property of our citizens, to whom we owe the privilege of service and to whom we are ultimately responsible.

    One may question how relevant a book two hundred years old is to us here in Hawaii today. But truth is always relevant. I commend this book to all citizens, including and perhaps especially my legislative colleagues, for their close study. We can always learn something new

    Book Review: Frederic Bastiat’s The Law

    0

    “David A. Pendleton Image”

    Not every good idea is a new one. Many good ideas are old ideas that have simply been forgotten — or are intentionally overlooked.

    One wonderful source of good and important ideas is a very old but prescient book by Frederic Bastiat. In his slim volume which is succinctly entitled The Law, we find an impassioned, sustained, and persuasive reminder of the purpose of law and the legitimate use of government. It may have been written back in the early 19th century, but its truths speak to us today in the 21st century.

    We would all — elected officials included — benefit from this man’s ideas. Bastiat believed that the greatest single threat to liberty is government. And he calls all to recognize that might does not make right. That is to say, simply legalizing a particular undertaking does not change that undertaking’s morally problematic nature. An legalized taking from another may still be wrong, whatever ink on paper may say.

    Here are a few examples. He decries the government’s penchant for “plunder”: “See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.” What Bastiat called legalized plunder we call progressive taxation, necessary fee increases, and much-needed regulation.

    Bastiat reminds us that good intentions are not enough to justify the pervasive and intrusive acts of the government to take from the fruits of labor of one person to give to another person. He calls such governmental actions “false philanthropy.” He argues that the unintended consequences of such social engineering cannot be justified and often can be far worse than the intended good.

    Bastiat’s position is that wealth redistribution is not the same thing as wealth creation and that government’s frequent and relentless intrusions into the market can actually diminish the ability of market actors to efficiently create wealth from which we all benefit.

    “The present-day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of everyone else,” Bastiat argues. His point is that risk takers, entrepreneurs, and business owners who undertake ventures to create services and products to meet the needs of others cannot be counted on to continue doing what they do if they are not permitted to benefit from their labors. There are incentives and there are disincentives. Regardless of intentions, decision makers must examine the consequences of their actions.

    Such legalized “plunder,” Bastiat further points out, will tend to invite people to take advantage of the laws to their own benefit and the detriment of the public welfare: “Under the pretense of organization, regulation, protection, or encouragement, the law takes property from one person and gives it to another; the law takes the wealth of all and gives it to a few — whether farmers, manufacturers, shipowners, artists, or comedians. Under these circumstances, then certainly every class will aspire to grasp the law, and logically so.”

    The purpose of the law, writes this man who was well aware of the anarchy of the French Revolution, should be to “protect the free exercise of these rights” — and elsewhere in the book he makes clear that he shares the ideal that humankind is endowed with unalienable rights, including life, liberty, and property.

    “It is not true that the function of law is to regulate our consciences, our ideas, our wills, our education, our opinions, our work, our trade, our talents, or our pleasures. The function of law is to protect the free exercise of these rights, and to prevent any person from interfering with the free exercise of these same rights by any other person.”

    The upshot of is clear: when officials regulate, legislate, and add red tape to the lives of citizens, they must think carefully and act cautiously. Whether it is the United States Congress or the Hawaii State Legislature, we cannot justify the exercise of lawmaking authority simply because our intentions are good and noble. We must respect the lives, liberty, and property of our citizens, to whom we owe the privilege of service and to whom we are ultimately responsible.

    One may question how relevant a book two hundred years old is to us here in Hawaii today. But truth is always relevant. I commend this book to all citizens, including and perhaps especially my legislative colleagues, for their close study. We can always learn something new

    The Best Kept Secret of the World's Top Super-Achievers

    0

    From the head of the boardroom table to the mobile office in the front cab of a pickup truck — it’s happening. While the masses stumble through life taking what comes their way, there are Super-Achievers out there pushing their limits, breaking rules of what’s possible and reaping outstanding rewards as a result of their efforts.

    Yet even among the movers and shakers of the world, there is a difference. There are business leaders from around the globe who are accomplishing two, three, and even more than six times what the average achiever accomplishes in a year. These are the “Super-Achievers.”

    They come from every type of industry, educational background and personal history imaginable. These are people who, no matter how well they’re doing, know they can always do better. People who want more from life — more time with family, more money in the bank, more fulfillment from their everyday activities — and they’re willing to “work smart” to make it happen.

    Do you think Michael Jordan still plays or run his businesses at a higher and higher level because he has to?
    Do you really think Bill Gates “demoted” himself to go back to research and development because he had to?
    Does Oprah Winfrey or Donald Trump ever have to work another day in their lives?

    No – no – and no!

    They do it because they love to consistently better themselves and move the bar to a higher level. And as they make their own situation better, they pull along a heck of a lot of people with them, improving the lives of countless individuals who are wiling to step up to the plate with them.

    It’s not about a lack of contentment for these people. Unlike the masses, most Super-Achievers are very happy with where they are in life. The point that differentiates Super-Achievers from the average achiever is they want to break through to new levels of growth as fast as possible. They want fewer mistakes or “detours.” That’s why they seek out sources of insight and wisdom to make it possible.

    Super-Achievers know they need to reach outside themselves, stretch beyond the bounds of their comfort zones, and gain what I call “accelerated knowledge.” Knowledge that allows them to side-step challenges, smash problems and leap-frog the competition. You could simply say, the Super-Achiever does not reinvent the wheel.

    Often, as these Super-Achievers push the outer limits of their current realm of comfort, they discover situations within their business or life where they need an edge. An edge that only can come from an outside perspective. From someone that has their best interests at heart, but who can also clearly see the answers without the emotional entanglement that comes from being too close to a situation.

    The source of this secret weapon, accelerated knowledge?
    Most Super-Achievers have a three-part answer to this question.

    *1. A carefully selected advisory board (consisting at a minimum of a trusted attorney, a CPA and a financial planner.)

    *2. A mentor who can add industry specific knowledge.

    *3. A Success Coach to provide that invaluable, outside perspective along with the right tools and resources unique to each individual.

    When it comes to major challenges, special projects or strategic phases of business growth, these strategic resources are called into action to accelerate away from the pack and take the lead in their industry or profession. Number one and two will take a bit of time and effort to bring together. But the third resource, a Success Coach, can be at your disposal almost immediately. And, as a matter of fact, the right Success Coach can actually help you bring together the best Advisory Board and the most appropriate mentor for your long-term success.

    You Say You’ve Looked Into “Coaching” Before And Just Got More Confused…

    I can’t say I blame you. As a matter of fact, it’s not your problem. The problem lies with most independent coaches, and even some coaching organizations, trying to be all things to all people. Web sites, brochures and articles seem to present coaching as some kind of magic wand that’ll solve just about any problem you have or allow you to achieve just about any goal you want.

    But you and I know that’s not the real world. In order for a Success Coach to be the type of strategic resource a true Super-Achiever would have, they must have a special niche and targeted focus that resonates with you.

    You have specific challenges related to specific goals that need specific solutions. You need to find those solutions and put them to use as quickly as possible. That’s the real world of today’s small business leader.

    You may have so much on your plate that you can’t seem to figure out precisely where to start. Often things seem like a bigger and broader issue when you’re looking at problems or challenges from the inside. But I can guarantee you, there are one or two specific areas that hold the keys to at least 80% of your challenges.

    And having someone tell you all you need to do is” learn to manage your time better” just won’t cut it …

    You need something more, and you need it from someone who has walked in your shoes. Someone who has worked tireless hours in order to be first to market with an idea. Someone who has made the “bet your whole business” type of decisions that you’re making now. Someone who is living their dreams every day — not just teaching others without ever putting their own future on the line.

    When you know it’s time to recognize yourself as a Super-Achiever and you’re ready to step up to a new level of performance, profitability and fulfillment — be sure to choose your Success Coach wisely. Be certain their focus and your goals are in alignment. With target-specific-coaching from the right coach, your path to rapid-fire, long-lasting results in today’s tumultuous business world will be a clear one.

    Action Steps:
    If you want to find the right coach for you, and want a tool to help you make the best decision, visit the Resource Center at https://www.RPMsuccess.com or email mailto:info@RPMsuccess.com and ask for the “Coach-Matching Interview Questionnaire.” You can use this form to interview the coaches you select as you narrow down your search from the plethora of coaches in the marketplace ready to give you accelerated knowledge.

    ”’John-Paul Micek is the lead business coach and COO of RPM Success Group, see:”’ https://www.RPMsuccess.com ”’He works with Super-Achievers to transform their small businesses into BIG profits. Reach him at:”’ mailto:JPM@RPMsuccess.com ”’or (888) 334-8151.”’

    ”’Copyright 1999-2003 by RPM Success Group, All rights reserved. Reproduction in any form without the express written consent of RPM Success Group is prohibited.”’

    The Best Kept Secret of the World’s Top Super-Achievers

    0

    From the head of the boardroom table to the mobile office in the front cab of a pickup truck — it’s happening. While the masses stumble through life taking what comes their way, there are Super-Achievers out there pushing their limits, breaking rules of what’s possible and reaping outstanding rewards as a result of their efforts.

    Yet even among the movers and shakers of the world, there is a difference. There are business leaders from around the globe who are accomplishing two, three, and even more than six times what the average achiever accomplishes in a year. These are the “Super-Achievers.”

    They come from every type of industry, educational background and personal history imaginable. These are people who, no matter how well they’re doing, know they can always do better. People who want more from life — more time with family, more money in the bank, more fulfillment from their everyday activities — and they’re willing to “work smart” to make it happen.

    Do you think Michael Jordan still plays or run his businesses at a higher and higher level because he has to?
    Do you really think Bill Gates “demoted” himself to go back to research and development because he had to?
    Does Oprah Winfrey or Donald Trump ever have to work another day in their lives?

    No – no – and no!

    They do it because they love to consistently better themselves and move the bar to a higher level. And as they make their own situation better, they pull along a heck of a lot of people with them, improving the lives of countless individuals who are wiling to step up to the plate with them.

    It’s not about a lack of contentment for these people. Unlike the masses, most Super-Achievers are very happy with where they are in life. The point that differentiates Super-Achievers from the average achiever is they want to break through to new levels of growth as fast as possible. They want fewer mistakes or “detours.” That’s why they seek out sources of insight and wisdom to make it possible.

    Super-Achievers know they need to reach outside themselves, stretch beyond the bounds of their comfort zones, and gain what I call “accelerated knowledge.” Knowledge that allows them to side-step challenges, smash problems and leap-frog the competition. You could simply say, the Super-Achiever does not reinvent the wheel.

    Often, as these Super-Achievers push the outer limits of their current realm of comfort, they discover situations within their business or life where they need an edge. An edge that only can come from an outside perspective. From someone that has their best interests at heart, but who can also clearly see the answers without the emotional entanglement that comes from being too close to a situation.

    The source of this secret weapon, accelerated knowledge?
    Most Super-Achievers have a three-part answer to this question.

    *1. A carefully selected advisory board (consisting at a minimum of a trusted attorney, a CPA and a financial planner.)

    *2. A mentor who can add industry specific knowledge.

    *3. A Success Coach to provide that invaluable, outside perspective along with the right tools and resources unique to each individual.

    When it comes to major challenges, special projects or strategic phases of business growth, these strategic resources are called into action to accelerate away from the pack and take the lead in their industry or profession. Number one and two will take a bit of time and effort to bring together. But the third resource, a Success Coach, can be at your disposal almost immediately. And, as a matter of fact, the right Success Coach can actually help you bring together the best Advisory Board and the most appropriate mentor for your long-term success.

    You Say You’ve Looked Into “Coaching” Before And Just Got More Confused…

    I can’t say I blame you. As a matter of fact, it’s not your problem. The problem lies with most independent coaches, and even some coaching organizations, trying to be all things to all people. Web sites, brochures and articles seem to present coaching as some kind of magic wand that’ll solve just about any problem you have or allow you to achieve just about any goal you want.

    But you and I know that’s not the real world. In order for a Success Coach to be the type of strategic resource a true Super-Achiever would have, they must have a special niche and targeted focus that resonates with you.

    You have specific challenges related to specific goals that need specific solutions. You need to find those solutions and put them to use as quickly as possible. That’s the real world of today’s small business leader.

    You may have so much on your plate that you can’t seem to figure out precisely where to start. Often things seem like a bigger and broader issue when you’re looking at problems or challenges from the inside. But I can guarantee you, there are one or two specific areas that hold the keys to at least 80% of your challenges.

    And having someone tell you all you need to do is” learn to manage your time better” just won’t cut it …

    You need something more, and you need it from someone who has walked in your shoes. Someone who has worked tireless hours in order to be first to market with an idea. Someone who has made the “bet your whole business” type of decisions that you’re making now. Someone who is living their dreams every day — not just teaching others without ever putting their own future on the line.

    When you know it’s time to recognize yourself as a Super-Achiever and you’re ready to step up to a new level of performance, profitability and fulfillment — be sure to choose your Success Coach wisely. Be certain their focus and your goals are in alignment. With target-specific-coaching from the right coach, your path to rapid-fire, long-lasting results in today’s tumultuous business world will be a clear one.

    Action Steps:
    If you want to find the right coach for you, and want a tool to help you make the best decision, visit the Resource Center at https://www.RPMsuccess.com or email mailto:info@RPMsuccess.com and ask for the “Coach-Matching Interview Questionnaire.” You can use this form to interview the coaches you select as you narrow down your search from the plethora of coaches in the marketplace ready to give you accelerated knowledge.

    ”’John-Paul Micek is the lead business coach and COO of RPM Success Group, see:”’ https://www.RPMsuccess.com ”’He works with Super-Achievers to transform their small businesses into BIG profits. Reach him at:”’ mailto:JPM@RPMsuccess.com ”’or (888) 334-8151.”’

    ”’Copyright 1999-2003 by RPM Success Group, All rights reserved. Reproduction in any form without the express written consent of RPM Success Group is prohibited.”’

    War as a Media Subsidy

    One can’t help but be amused by the way television news programs become practically weak at the knees when war looms. The prospect of reporting on a major armed conflict is met with almost universal applause by our friends in the entertainment, oops, the news industry — and it’s really not hard to understand why.

    For most of a reporter’s life, or for that matter, for most of the life of any news executive running a television news department, the daily task of information dispersal is a thankless, tiresome grind of fluffy personal-interest stories, political press conferences, public-service announcements, weather, and, if they’re really lucky, the occasional corporate scandal to liven up the news day.

    Every reporter fancies himself the next Woodward and Bernstein working indefatigably to find the smoking gun and bring truth to light. But reality quickly comes crashing in, and instead our hapless hero must wade through the monotonous years of inane news coverage without so much as a peek at a Pulitzer-winning moment.

    Then … war.

    Now everything has changed. No longer must our hero worry about keeping the audience’s ever-wavering, ever-changing focus by shooting the Today Show from Puerto Vallarta or Milwaukee or from the back of Matt Lauer’s motorcycle.

    War means instant ratings. War means retired military officers with impressive resumes on hand to provide “expert” opinions. War means catchy new buzzwords like “shock and awe” and “phase line” and “second front.” War provides unchanging story titles, like “Desert Storm” and “Just Cause” — and now, “Operation Iraqi Freedom.”

    War gives otherwise shallow intellects the opportunity to speak like veterans about sophisticated and glitzy war-fighting technologies. Reporters and news anchors go almost giddy when cataloging the awesome destructive power of our military might.

    War means good-looking television reporters on the scene in the Kuwaiti desert or riding shotgun with the 101st Airborne Division. The combination designer shirt/chemical warfare trousers — complete with sunglasses perched casually atop perfectly maintained trendy hairstyles — becomes a standard uniform on the catwalk of international television news reporting.

    Most of all, war provides that of which every television news program dreams — an end to having to look for news. It’s a gift courtesy of the government. In war, news is ready-made, freeze-dried, re-hydrogenated, dished up, and offered to a hungry viewing audience without anything approaching the labor of real news stories. War is a single story running on and on, something reporters rarely see — but always crave — on the unsteady ground of 24-hour news. War is free fodder for the cameras.

    War builds careers.

    News reporting is work. Like any other endeavor, those who engage in it wish to be at the top of their game. And just like any other market-driven field, those who best please their customers will be rewarded in their pocketbooks.

    Yet we rely on the media to provide us with information about the world around us, so that we might better make informed decisions regarding the selection of those who will lead our nation and the course they should take. When reporters and news directors embrace war because it’s an easy gig, they are giving the customer what he wants — but then again, so does a prostitute. One would like to think, however naively, that the profession of journalism would be better than that.

    ”’Scott McPherson is a policy advisor at The Future of Freedom Foundation in Fairfax, Va.”’

    U.S. Walks Out on Iraq Envoy's U.N. Speech

    0

    UNITED NATIONS, March 27 (UPI) — U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte walked out of the U.N. Security Council Thursday in protest against remarks by Baghdad’s envoy who said Washington sought to destroy the Iraqi people.

    The incident occurred at the end of two days of speeches by about 80 members of the world organization before the 15-member council as Iraq’s Ambassador Mohammed Aldouri thanked the majority of speakers and criticized the U.S.-led coalition.

    “The United States and the United Kingdom were hoodwinked when they were told that the Iraqi people would receive them with flowers and hugs,” he said. “The Iraqi people, the women, the students, the peasants are now facing the American and United Kingdom forces in Iraq today.

    “Therefore, when the United States found itself before a fierce resistance of the Iraqi people who are keen of their independence and the sovereignty and when they know that the Iraqi people and the Muslim people all over the world support it and call upon it to resist, the United States has started to destroy this Iraqi people,” Aldouri Said.

    Then, Negroponte and some aides got up and left the council chamber.

    Afterward, a reporter asked, “Did you personally get up and leave the room during Ambassador Aldouri’s speech to show your rejection of his statement?”

    Negroponte responded, “I did sit through quite a long part of what he had to say but I think that — I’d heard enough after a certain amount of time and I didn’t hear anything new in what he had to say. And of course, I don’t accept any of the kinds of allegations and preposterous propositions that he put forward.”

    What Negroponte didn’t hear, was Aldouri’s continuing allegations, among others, of the allies targeting residential areas.

    “The United States will destroy the Iraqi people because they hate it and because they will resist it and because they will pay the price in blood to get it out,” said Aldouri. “The Iraqi people will defend the principles of the United Nations and all your (Security Council member’s) principles, the principles of peace and security.

    “Therefore, I call upon the Security Council that the United Kingdom the United States and Australia are about to start a real war of extermination that will kill everything.”

    Behind the scenes, members of the council negotiated a draft resolution for a new humanitarian program for the people of Iraq, by revamping the so-called oil-for-food program.

    The program’s problem was not that any nations were against getting humanitarian goods to Iraq’s people, but that some council members, namely Russia and Syria, feared the wording of a reworked resolution could legitimize the U.S.-led invasion.

    “It seems that we have found an agreement concerning humanitarian assistance to Iraq,” said Ambassador Gunter Pleuger of Germany, who led the negotiations, announcing that a text was agreed on “so that we will be able to vote on it tomorrow (Friday) and of course it is our hope … that this finds the agreement of everybody and that we can adopt the resolution by consensus tomorrow.”

    The measure would allow “changes and adjustments” in the humanitarian program in order “to enable the secretariat and the secretary-general to keep this program going as soon as the situation on the ground allows it,” he said.

    There already was “more than $2.5 million in the pipeline right now” and that before the war more than 60 per cent of the people relied on oil-for-food, said Berlin’s envoy.

    “It is important to avoid a humanitarian disaster and of course it is important to get this going as quickly as possible again,” he said.

    After the resolution is approved, humanitarian aid would be sent in “as soon as the secretary-general decides that it is safe to send people back into the region and start distributing food and medicine and all other humanitarian goods that are needed in the country,” he said, adding there was no discussion of a U.N. role in post-war Iraq, “But, this is a subject that certainly will come up later, also at the Security Council.”

    A strong proponent of U.N. involvement, among the leaders of several other nations was Britain’s Prime Minister Tony Blair. He stopped by U.N. headquarters, en route back to London, to brief Secretary-General Kofi Annan and his aides on talks with U.S. President George W. Bush in Washington Wednesday and earlier Thursday. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw accompanied Blair.

    Annan and Blair “met one-on-one for about 25 minutes before setting down with their full delegations,” said the secretary-general’s chief spokesman, Fred Eckhard. “The prime minister briefed the secretary general on his talks in Washington with President Bush.

    “They then discussed the humanitarian situation in Iraq,” said Eckhard. “They were informed that a draft resolution on the oil-for-food program could possibly be put to a vote in the Security Council as early as tomorrow and they welcomed the progress reached on that front.”

    The spokesman said Annan and Blair also discussed the next steps in a search for an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement.

    Blair and Straw left without speaking to reporters.

    Earlier, in the afternoon, the Security Council wrapped up its first debate on Iraq since the war began March 19. Speakers made an overwhelming appeal for humanitarian relief for the civilian population despite their differences over the military action being waged.

    Beginning Wednesday, the formal debate was held at the request of the Arab League and the Non-Aligned Movement to hear the views of those states that are not members of the 15-nation body. Most speakers were against the war, many of who demanded immediate withdrawal of invading forces.

    Some non-council members, however, said Iraq had squandered opportunities for peaceful efforts to disarm it of any weapons of mass destruction and the current military action was a last resort brought about by its non-compliance with Security Council resolutions.

    Expressing regret that diplomacy had failed to resolve the question of Iraq’s disarmament, many said the current military action was a violation of the basic principles of the U.N. Charter. They also said they could not understand how the council could remain silent in the face of the aggression by two of its permanent members against another member state.

    That was a tricky question. Those states hold two of the five vetoes of the permanent members. Also, there is a question whether the anti-war faction could muster the necessary nine votes in the council for a resolution to pass, even before a veto is cast. So, if a resolution failed — there is none on the table now — it could be taken as an endorsement of the invasion.

    However, should anti-war proponents be able to get the necessary nine votes and a veto is used, it could be one of the ways to open the door for the General Assembly of all 191 member states to debate the issue. However, the greater body only plays an advisory role, where the smaller council has the authority of international law. The assembly can only discuss the issue in face of a deadlocked council.

    Notwithstanding all the machinations, the Iraqi ambassador, seemingly oblivious of Negroponte’s walkout, continued his anti-U.S. harangue, winding up by saying the war was “the cause that leads to this deteriorating humanitarian situation” and calling on council members “to move toward taking a resolution to halt the war, to halt the aggression and to rid the Iraqi people of what they are facing.”

    He added promises that “the Iraqi peoples are committed to the Geneva Conventions and the provisions of international humanitarian law and they will see nothing from Iraq except self defense and defending of its people, its sovereignty and its independence.”

    Before meeting members of the council in closed-door consultations late in the afternoon, chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix repeated that he has seen no sign Iraqis had used banned weapons in fighting, even saying once again he did not think they would use them.

    The executive chairman of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission said what he had heard from the United States side was that they had not seen any Scud missiles. Blix said his impression was the missiles used were al-Fatah with a range of around 150 kms or “a wee bit over.” The council-imposed limit is 150 kms.

    Asked whether the use of such missiles was clearly a violation, he said: “No, but the inspectors would like to have accurate information about it.”

    Copyright 2003 by United Press International. All rights reserved.

    U.S. Walks Out on Iraq Envoy’s U.N. Speech

    0

    UNITED NATIONS, March 27 (UPI) — U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte walked out of the U.N. Security Council Thursday in protest against remarks by Baghdad’s envoy who said Washington sought to destroy the Iraqi people.

    The incident occurred at the end of two days of speeches by about 80 members of the world organization before the 15-member council as Iraq’s Ambassador Mohammed Aldouri thanked the majority of speakers and criticized the U.S.-led coalition.

    “The United States and the United Kingdom were hoodwinked when they were told that the Iraqi people would receive them with flowers and hugs,” he said. “The Iraqi people, the women, the students, the peasants are now facing the American and United Kingdom forces in Iraq today.

    “Therefore, when the United States found itself before a fierce resistance of the Iraqi people who are keen of their independence and the sovereignty and when they know that the Iraqi people and the Muslim people all over the world support it and call upon it to resist, the United States has started to destroy this Iraqi people,” Aldouri Said.

    Then, Negroponte and some aides got up and left the council chamber.

    Afterward, a reporter asked, “Did you personally get up and leave the room during Ambassador Aldouri’s speech to show your rejection of his statement?”

    Negroponte responded, “I did sit through quite a long part of what he had to say but I think that — I’d heard enough after a certain amount of time and I didn’t hear anything new in what he had to say. And of course, I don’t accept any of the kinds of allegations and preposterous propositions that he put forward.”

    What Negroponte didn’t hear, was Aldouri’s continuing allegations, among others, of the allies targeting residential areas.

    “The United States will destroy the Iraqi people because they hate it and because they will resist it and because they will pay the price in blood to get it out,” said Aldouri. “The Iraqi people will defend the principles of the United Nations and all your (Security Council member’s) principles, the principles of peace and security.

    “Therefore, I call upon the Security Council that the United Kingdom the United States and Australia are about to start a real war of extermination that will kill everything.”

    Behind the scenes, members of the council negotiated a draft resolution for a new humanitarian program for the people of Iraq, by revamping the so-called oil-for-food program.

    The program’s problem was not that any nations were against getting humanitarian goods to Iraq’s people, but that some council members, namely Russia and Syria, feared the wording of a reworked resolution could legitimize the U.S.-led invasion.

    “It seems that we have found an agreement concerning humanitarian assistance to Iraq,” said Ambassador Gunter Pleuger of Germany, who led the negotiations, announcing that a text was agreed on “so that we will be able to vote on it tomorrow (Friday) and of course it is our hope … that this finds the agreement of everybody and that we can adopt the resolution by consensus tomorrow.”

    The measure would allow “changes and adjustments” in the humanitarian program in order “to enable the secretariat and the secretary-general to keep this program going as soon as the situation on the ground allows it,” he said.

    There already was “more than $2.5 million in the pipeline right now” and that before the war more than 60 per cent of the people relied on oil-for-food, said Berlin’s envoy.

    “It is important to avoid a humanitarian disaster and of course it is important to get this going as quickly as possible again,” he said.

    After the resolution is approved, humanitarian aid would be sent in “as soon as the secretary-general decides that it is safe to send people back into the region and start distributing food and medicine and all other humanitarian goods that are needed in the country,” he said, adding there was no discussion of a U.N. role in post-war Iraq, “But, this is a subject that certainly will come up later, also at the Security Council.”

    A strong proponent of U.N. involvement, among the leaders of several other nations was Britain’s Prime Minister Tony Blair. He stopped by U.N. headquarters, en route back to London, to brief Secretary-General Kofi Annan and his aides on talks with U.S. President George W. Bush in Washington Wednesday and earlier Thursday. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw accompanied Blair.

    Annan and Blair “met one-on-one for about 25 minutes before setting down with their full delegations,” said the secretary-general’s chief spokesman, Fred Eckhard. “The prime minister briefed the secretary general on his talks in Washington with President Bush.

    “They then discussed the humanitarian situation in Iraq,” said Eckhard. “They were informed that a draft resolution on the oil-for-food program could possibly be put to a vote in the Security Council as early as tomorrow and they welcomed the progress reached on that front.”

    The spokesman said Annan and Blair also discussed the next steps in a search for an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement.

    Blair and Straw left without speaking to reporters.

    Earlier, in the afternoon, the Security Council wrapped up its first debate on Iraq since the war began March 19. Speakers made an overwhelming appeal for humanitarian relief for the civilian population despite their differences over the military action being waged.

    Beginning Wednesday, the formal debate was held at the request of the Arab League and the Non-Aligned Movement to hear the views of those states that are not members of the 15-nation body. Most speakers were against the war, many of who demanded immediate withdrawal of invading forces.

    Some non-council members, however, said Iraq had squandered opportunities for peaceful efforts to disarm it of any weapons of mass destruction and the current military action was a last resort brought about by its non-compliance with Security Council resolutions.

    Expressing regret that diplomacy had failed to resolve the question of Iraq’s disarmament, many said the current military action was a violation of the basic principles of the U.N. Charter. They also said they could not understand how the council could remain silent in the face of the aggression by two of its permanent members against another member state.

    That was a tricky question. Those states hold two of the five vetoes of the permanent members. Also, there is a question whether the anti-war faction could muster the necessary nine votes in the council for a resolution to pass, even before a veto is cast. So, if a resolution failed — there is none on the table now — it could be taken as an endorsement of the invasion.

    However, should anti-war proponents be able to get the necessary nine votes and a veto is used, it could be one of the ways to open the door for the General Assembly of all 191 member states to debate the issue. However, the greater body only plays an advisory role, where the smaller council has the authority of international law. The assembly can only discuss the issue in face of a deadlocked council.

    Notwithstanding all the machinations, the Iraqi ambassador, seemingly oblivious of Negroponte’s walkout, continued his anti-U.S. harangue, winding up by saying the war was “the cause that leads to this deteriorating humanitarian situation” and calling on council members “to move toward taking a resolution to halt the war, to halt the aggression and to rid the Iraqi people of what they are facing.”

    He added promises that “the Iraqi peoples are committed to the Geneva Conventions and the provisions of international humanitarian law and they will see nothing from Iraq except self defense and defending of its people, its sovereignty and its independence.”

    Before meeting members of the council in closed-door consultations late in the afternoon, chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix repeated that he has seen no sign Iraqis had used banned weapons in fighting, even saying once again he did not think they would use them.

    The executive chairman of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission said what he had heard from the United States side was that they had not seen any Scud missiles. Blix said his impression was the missiles used were al-Fatah with a range of around 150 kms or “a wee bit over.” The council-imposed limit is 150 kms.

    Asked whether the use of such missiles was clearly a violation, he said: “No, but the inspectors would like to have accurate information about it.”

    Copyright 2003 by United Press International. All rights reserved.

    Don't Ask the Media Who's Winning the War

    The United States military is truly one of the marvels of the modern world. With sophisticated weaponry, exceptional training, and superior leadership, the men and women of our armed forces represent the absolute best combat force on the planet. Couple this force with the seasoned military planners and strategists back in Washington, and America has the team and the plan to win a decisive victory against Iraq. That is, unless you ask the media. According to America’s media, not only is the war plan ill conceived, but worse yet, America is losing the war.

    A review of the transcripts from recent press briefings at the White House, Pentagon, and Central Command reveals an array of questions designed not to solicit information, but rather to solicit a denial. In fact, in many instances, the government and military briefers are not asked questions in which a simple statement of the facts will suffice. Time and time again, the briefers are presented with theoretical situations which they must deny and rebut. In other words, the media are often not working to report the news. Instead, they are looking to make news by throwing out a wild statement and seeing how the briefer responds. This is irresponsible at best, and a disservice to the American people who want to know what’s going on with the war.

    Part of the media’s angle is to cast doubts on the war plan, because, after a week and a half, the war is not over yet. Are we “bogged down?” Why hasn’t the entire Iraqi military surrendered already? In a recent briefing at the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was asked: “Mr. Secretary, as you know, there has been some criticism, some by retired senior officers, some by officers on background in this building, who claim that the war plan in effect is flawed.”

    To his credit, Secretary Rumsfeld responded by saying, “Well, we’re one week into this, and it seems to me it’s a bit early for history to be written, one would think.”

    Leading up to the war, officials in Washington often spoke to the fact that the Iraqi people are oppressed, tortured, and terrorized by Saddam Hussein’s regime. These officials mentioned that many Iraqis would welcome the presence of U.S. and coalition forces. After a week and a half, the singing in the streets is not as deafening as one would hope, but did anyone really think it would happen so soon? The Iraqi people were encouraged to defy Saddam Hussein before only to be left hanging in the wind. The fact that they are cautious and not yet convinced that Saddam Hussein will be removed from power is understandable, but it has not stopped the media from hammering on this point. Their implied message is: Why are you here when the Iraqi people don’t even want you?

    An example comes from the recent Pentagon briefing. A reporter asked Secretary Rumsfeld: “Is it possible that you’ve miscalculated the desire of the Iraqi people to be liberated by an outside force and that because of their patriotism or nationalism, that they’ll continue to resist the Americans, even after you prevail militarily?”

    Secretary Rumsfeld responded, “Don’t you think it’s a little premature — the question? We’ll know the answer to that. As portions of the country are liberated, we’ll have people on the ground, embedded with our forces, who will have a chance to see what happens and see how they feel about it. Why do we want to guess?”

    In addition to portraying the image that the war with Iraq has gone on for too long, the media are also trying to dig for anything that might convey a sense of coverup or misdeeds within the military and the administration. The topper was a question asked to Secretary Rumsfeld about numbers of killed and wounded soldiers: “The casualty figures currently officially released by the U.S. military show 28 dead and 40 wounded. Now the proportion of wounded and dead would be — would seem to be historically way out of skew, because the number of wounded is usually far more than the number killed in action. Is there — can you explain why that would be, or — and is there any effort to either unreport or under-report casualties from the battlefield?”

    With that question, even the usually unflappable Don Rumsfeld was left in a stupor. He responded by saying: “Oh, my goodness! Now, you know that wouldn’t be the case. There’s no — no one in this government, here or on the ground, is going to underreport what’s happening. That’s just terrible to think that. Even to suggest it is outrageous. Most certainly not! The facts are reported.”

    The bombardment of questions is not limited to the Pentagon. In a briefing at the White House, Spokesman Ari Fleischer was asked whether the detailing of Saddam’s atrocities against the Iraqi people was used to “continue to justify the war to the American people.” Fleischer replied by saying, “Well, no, I think it’s part of describing the horrible reality that Saddam Hussein is putting his people through.”

    The point is that rather than asking questions that lead to a better understanding of the war, the media are focusing on questions that are unproductive and are designed to put the briefers on the defensive. In another example regarding the expectations of a quick war with Iraq, a reporter asked: “You did very little to lower expectations in the run up to this. Even if you didn’t raise them yourself, you did nothing to lower what we were hearing from the Pentagon and from other outside pundits about how well, how quickly this war would go.”

    Fleischer responded: “I could not dispute that more strongly, and let me cite it for you. If you take a look at what the president said on October 7th in Cincinnati in a major speech to the country, the president said, ‘Military conflict could be difficult. An Iraqi regime faced with its own demise may attempt cruel and desperate measures. There is no easy or risk-free course of action.’ That’s what the President said some six months ago, five months ago.”

    In a recent CNN report on civilians killed in a neighborhood blast, the on-air reporter referred to the U.S. military as “attacking civilian neighborhoods” in order to destroy military targets. How twisted is that statement? The military does not “attack” civilian neighborhoods. The military attacks military targets of the enemy. If those targets are close to civilian areas, then there is certainly a risk of civilian casualties, but to say that civilian areas are being “attacked” is patently false.

    The examples go on and on, but the point is clear. At a time when the country needs to come together to support the troops and support the president, the media are working double time to sow the seeds of doubt in the American public. As of this writing, the war is one and a half weeks old. Are we winning? Yes. When will it end? I don’t know. What I do know is that in a very short time, the American military has accomplished unprecedented successes in troop movement, bomb accuracy, and human intelligence. Saddam Hussein and his sons could very well have been taken out with the first bomb dropped. We are winning the war, and we don’t need the media to tell us otherwise.

    ”’Bobby Eberle is president and CEO of GOPUSA — See:”’ https://www.GOPUSA.com ”’– a news information and commentary company based in Houston, TX. He holds a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from Rice University. He can be reached via email at:”’ mailto:bobby.eberle@gopusa.com

    Don’t Ask the Media Who’s Winning the War

    The United States military is truly one of the marvels of the modern world. With sophisticated weaponry, exceptional training, and superior leadership, the men and women of our armed forces represent the absolute best combat force on the planet. Couple this force with the seasoned military planners and strategists back in Washington, and America has the team and the plan to win a decisive victory against Iraq. That is, unless you ask the media. According to America’s media, not only is the war plan ill conceived, but worse yet, America is losing the war.

    A review of the transcripts from recent press briefings at the White House, Pentagon, and Central Command reveals an array of questions designed not to solicit information, but rather to solicit a denial. In fact, in many instances, the government and military briefers are not asked questions in which a simple statement of the facts will suffice. Time and time again, the briefers are presented with theoretical situations which they must deny and rebut. In other words, the media are often not working to report the news. Instead, they are looking to make news by throwing out a wild statement and seeing how the briefer responds. This is irresponsible at best, and a disservice to the American people who want to know what’s going on with the war.

    Part of the media’s angle is to cast doubts on the war plan, because, after a week and a half, the war is not over yet. Are we “bogged down?” Why hasn’t the entire Iraqi military surrendered already? In a recent briefing at the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was asked: “Mr. Secretary, as you know, there has been some criticism, some by retired senior officers, some by officers on background in this building, who claim that the war plan in effect is flawed.”

    To his credit, Secretary Rumsfeld responded by saying, “Well, we’re one week into this, and it seems to me it’s a bit early for history to be written, one would think.”

    Leading up to the war, officials in Washington often spoke to the fact that the Iraqi people are oppressed, tortured, and terrorized by Saddam Hussein’s regime. These officials mentioned that many Iraqis would welcome the presence of U.S. and coalition forces. After a week and a half, the singing in the streets is not as deafening as one would hope, but did anyone really think it would happen so soon? The Iraqi people were encouraged to defy Saddam Hussein before only to be left hanging in the wind. The fact that they are cautious and not yet convinced that Saddam Hussein will be removed from power is understandable, but it has not stopped the media from hammering on this point. Their implied message is: Why are you here when the Iraqi people don’t even want you?

    An example comes from the recent Pentagon briefing. A reporter asked Secretary Rumsfeld: “Is it possible that you’ve miscalculated the desire of the Iraqi people to be liberated by an outside force and that because of their patriotism or nationalism, that they’ll continue to resist the Americans, even after you prevail militarily?”

    Secretary Rumsfeld responded, “Don’t you think it’s a little premature — the question? We’ll know the answer to that. As portions of the country are liberated, we’ll have people on the ground, embedded with our forces, who will have a chance to see what happens and see how they feel about it. Why do we want to guess?”

    In addition to portraying the image that the war with Iraq has gone on for too long, the media are also trying to dig for anything that might convey a sense of coverup or misdeeds within the military and the administration. The topper was a question asked to Secretary Rumsfeld about numbers of killed and wounded soldiers: “The casualty figures currently officially released by the U.S. military show 28 dead and 40 wounded. Now the proportion of wounded and dead would be — would seem to be historically way out of skew, because the number of wounded is usually far more than the number killed in action. Is there — can you explain why that would be, or — and is there any effort to either unreport or under-report casualties from the battlefield?”

    With that question, even the usually unflappable Don Rumsfeld was left in a stupor. He responded by saying: “Oh, my goodness! Now, you know that wouldn’t be the case. There’s no — no one in this government, here or on the ground, is going to underreport what’s happening. That’s just terrible to think that. Even to suggest it is outrageous. Most certainly not! The facts are reported.”

    The bombardment of questions is not limited to the Pentagon. In a briefing at the White House, Spokesman Ari Fleischer was asked whether the detailing of Saddam’s atrocities against the Iraqi people was used to “continue to justify the war to the American people.” Fleischer replied by saying, “Well, no, I think it’s part of describing the horrible reality that Saddam Hussein is putting his people through.”

    The point is that rather than asking questions that lead to a better understanding of the war, the media are focusing on questions that are unproductive and are designed to put the briefers on the defensive. In another example regarding the expectations of a quick war with Iraq, a reporter asked: “You did very little to lower expectations in the run up to this. Even if you didn’t raise them yourself, you did nothing to lower what we were hearing from the Pentagon and from other outside pundits about how well, how quickly this war would go.”

    Fleischer responded: “I could not dispute that more strongly, and let me cite it for you. If you take a look at what the president said on October 7th in Cincinnati in a major speech to the country, the president said, ‘Military conflict could be difficult. An Iraqi regime faced with its own demise may attempt cruel and desperate measures. There is no easy or risk-free course of action.’ That’s what the President said some six months ago, five months ago.”

    In a recent CNN report on civilians killed in a neighborhood blast, the on-air reporter referred to the U.S. military as “attacking civilian neighborhoods” in order to destroy military targets. How twisted is that statement? The military does not “attack” civilian neighborhoods. The military attacks military targets of the enemy. If those targets are close to civilian areas, then there is certainly a risk of civilian casualties, but to say that civilian areas are being “attacked” is patently false.

    The examples go on and on, but the point is clear. At a time when the country needs to come together to support the troops and support the president, the media are working double time to sow the seeds of doubt in the American public. As of this writing, the war is one and a half weeks old. Are we winning? Yes. When will it end? I don’t know. What I do know is that in a very short time, the American military has accomplished unprecedented successes in troop movement, bomb accuracy, and human intelligence. Saddam Hussein and his sons could very well have been taken out with the first bomb dropped. We are winning the war, and we don’t need the media to tell us otherwise.

    ”’Bobby Eberle is president and CEO of GOPUSA — See:”’ https://www.GOPUSA.com ”’– a news information and commentary company based in Houston, TX. He holds a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from Rice University. He can be reached via email at:”’ mailto:bobby.eberle@gopusa.com

    The Limits of Lawsuits -Asbestos Litigation Leading Edge of Legal System Meltdown

    The litigation crisis in America has reached a milestone. In the wake of three decades of asbestos litigation