Saddam’s Sentencing

Iraq, Justice, Law

Saddam’s sentencing must be seen in the context of an Iraq that has been decimated by an illegal and immoral invasion and is awash with blood spilled by hundreds of mini-tyrants who’ve replaced the secular Saddam. These fulltime, rather than occasional, murderers are exacting their revenge upon their neighbors. Remove one Saddam, who kept a lid on the cauldron of crime and corruption that is Iraq, and there’ll be another waiting to take his place—and another and another. Just like a shark’s teeth.

The trial, in which every requirement of the 6th Amendment was flouted, did not even qualify as a show-trial. At the rate at which trial attorneys were being eliminated, the proceedings had to be clandestine and were thoroughly corrupted.

The Reign of Terror during the French Revolution is a better metaphor for justice coming out of terror-riddled Iraq; the Revolutionary Assembly better approximates the Iraqi court. Terror during the French Revolution was, after all, executed by popular demand.

Updated: 'Voting on November 7, 2006'

America, Bush, IMMIGRATION, libertarianism, Politics, The State

Walter Block has some sensible advice for freedom lovers, which I can safely second (not a given, mind you). Do as Walter says, with one caveat: Vote for your Libertarian state representative, provided—and only if—he is not a “La-Raza Libertarian“—i.e., opposes unfettered immigration and vows to stop the bleeding on the Southwestern border to the best of his abilities and commensurate with the powers delegated to him. Moreover, his avowal to do so must exclude Genghis Bush’s Guest-Worker Program.

I stated in “America’s Open House” that, “as a proponent of states’ rights and decentralization, instantiated in the Ninth and 10th Amendments, I rarely wish to see federal solons usurp the states. Local police ought to be tasked with immigration enforcement.” While immigration officially comes under federal jurisdiction, desperate localities are indeed stepping in to protect their beleaguered constituents. Libertarians ought to welcome such usurpation, especially when it’s to protect life, liberty, and property. Is this not the flip side of Jeffersonian interposition and nullification, whereby states beat back the federal occupier by voiding unconstitutional federal laws? Here, municipalities and states enforce hitherto-unenforced laws that protect lives and livelihoods.

For the rest, over to Walter:

“I really cannot support the federal Libertarian Party. For they, too, just like Paul “Stabilizer” Krugman, want to pull troops out of Iraq, but not bring them home either; instead, send them to yet other foreign countries, where, presumably, there [sic] imperialist services are in greater need… How the principled have fallen. It is one thing for the Democrats, a la Paul “Stabilizer” Krugman to support such a policy. But for Libertarians to do so? Murray Rothbard must be spinning in his grave at the prospect, after he spent so much time and energy trying to inculcate some modicum of principle into this group.

No, I cannot in good conscience ask anyone to support the federal Libertarian Party. Not, at least, until they rescind this horrid policy. (Whenever I get a fund raising letter from them, I reply that I will contribute, but only when and if they publicly climb down from this eminently anti-libertarian viewpoint.) The state libertarian parties, still, are a different matter. In my view, the rot has not set in there to anywhere near the same degree. To the contrary, at the state LP conventions I have addressed, I have found the rank and file to be pretty sensible on all issues, certainly including foreign policy.

So, two cheers for the LP at the state level, and none for them at the federal.”

Updated: ‘Voting on November 7, 2006’

America, Bush, IMMIGRATION, libertarianism, Politics, The State

Walter Block has some sensible advice for freedom lovers, which I can safely second (not a given, mind you). Do as Walter says, with one caveat: Vote for your Libertarian state representative, provided—and only if—he is not a “La-Raza Libertarian“—i.e., opposes unfettered immigration and vows to stop the bleeding on the Southwestern border to the best of his abilities and commensurate with the powers delegated to him. Moreover, his avowal to do so must exclude Genghis Bush’s Guest-Worker Program.

I stated in “America’s Open House” that, “as a proponent of states’ rights and decentralization, instantiated in the Ninth and 10th Amendments, I rarely wish to see federal solons usurp the states. Local police ought to be tasked with immigration enforcement.” While immigration officially comes under federal jurisdiction, desperate localities are indeed stepping in to protect their beleaguered constituents. Libertarians ought to welcome such usurpation, especially when it’s to protect life, liberty, and property. Is this not the flip side of Jeffersonian interposition and nullification, whereby states beat back the federal occupier by voiding unconstitutional federal laws? Here, municipalities and states enforce hitherto-unenforced laws that protect lives and livelihoods.

For the rest, over to Walter:

“I really cannot support the federal Libertarian Party. For they, too, just like Paul “Stabilizer” Krugman, want to pull troops out of Iraq, but not bring them home either; instead, send them to yet other foreign countries, where, presumably, there [sic] imperialist services are in greater need… How the principled have fallen. It is one thing for the Democrats, a la Paul “Stabilizer” Krugman to support such a policy. But for Libertarians to do so? Murray Rothbard must be spinning in his grave at the prospect, after he spent so much time and energy trying to inculcate some modicum of principle into this group.

No, I cannot in good conscience ask anyone to support the federal Libertarian Party. Not, at least, until they rescind this horrid policy. (Whenever I get a fund raising letter from them, I reply that I will contribute, but only when and if they publicly climb down from this eminently anti-libertarian viewpoint.) The state libertarian parties, still, are a different matter. In my view, the rot has not set in there to anywhere near the same degree. To the contrary, at the state LP conventions I have addressed, I have found the rank and file to be pretty sensible on all issues, certainly including foreign policy.

So, two cheers for the LP at the state level, and none for them at the federal.”

Letter of the Week: 'Maureen (Dowd), I'm Available' By Graham Strouse

Feminism, Gender, The Zeitgeist

The American divorce rate still hovers in the 50-60% range, with women initiating divorces 75% of the time. The divorce rate between American men and foreign women is about 19%.

Funnily enough, a lot of young American men are simply eschewing marriage with American women.

I see a lot of frantic, arrogant, nasty women in the mid-20s to mid-50s range wondering why they can’t find a mate.

Here’s a hint, ladies. According to “Esquire,” the absolute primo number one quality desired by American men who replied to their most recent poll is loyalty/faithfulness (47%). This is followed by intelligence (15%), friendliness, and personality (27% combined).

What this says is that if you’re a bright, good-natured, engaging woman who stands by her man, you have the pick of the litter of about 89% of the available male population.

Testosterone may be on the decline for the time being. But I’m thinking that Femmicommie America has much more to worry about in the long run.

Thanks to the myths and propaganda of Steinemized feminism, all these You-Can-Have-It-All women from the boomer era are discovering, in fact, that what they end up with is nothing at all.

Ladies, we don’t want you stupid. Speaking for myself, I would love to be able to work a satisfying but not especially remunerative second-income job. I like kids—other people’s for preference. I prefer them broken in.

And I’m not that unusual. But I got tired a long time ago of women who expected some combination of Superman and Clark Kent all at once. I’m not from Krypton. I do have some self-respect, however, and I prefer isolation to being the beta half of a relationship.

If Maureen Dowd is listening in here, hey, I’m 33, looking good despite my damage, can do Bohemian chic quite well, and have been both formally educated and self-educated in any number of topics. I scrub well enough for cocktail parties and, oh yeah, I dig redheads.

Just don’t expect me to say, “Ooohhh, nobody scribbles columns like you, baby!” when you toss off some trivial piece of smack. I’m gonna lay it on you if you don’t live up to your abilities. I don’t care if you are making the big bucks.

Well, that’s not entirely true. I rather like the idea of hitching my cart to a woman who makes big bucks. But if you’re working in my field, the world of words, well honey, you better expect that I’ll be the toughest critic you’ve ever faced.

Not because I want to see you fail, but because I want you to succeed.

And if someone asks me to review “Are Men Necessary?” you better believe I’m gonna pan it. I’m gonna wonder what would happen if a columnist working for a major daily wrote a book titled “Are Women Necessary?” or “Are Jews Necessary?”. It’ll be rhetorical, because what I’ll say is that they’d be fired.

But that doesn’t mean I won’t love you in the morning.

Graham Strouse