Tuesday, April 29

Most Disturbing Part of North Korea-Syria Connection

I think the most disturbing news in the evidence released last week about North Korea's proliferation of nuclear weapons technology to Syria was the news that North Korea's Senior Scientist who is pictured below in Syria overseeing the project also happens to be a negotiator sitting at the six-party talks discussing North Korea's path to denuclearization. If this is not an indicator to the US (and others) that North Korea is just wasting our time, again, then I don't know what is.

If this had been the other way around, you can surely bet that the North Koreans would openly be demanding that heads rolls, in addition to demanding that the offending person be removed from the talks, never to appear again. Too bad that the North Koreans know all too well who they are dealing with. for well over a decade, the US has been pretty soft-armed when it has come to disciplining North Korea. Another very dangerous problem is that it seems that too many people want to think that the North Koreans actually want a deal. that they are negotiating either in good faith, or at least with a goal towards betterment of their people. Well perhaps a review of the 2 minute extract from the Korean War 'Pork Chop Hill' is in order:



Video - Direct Link

The video makes a number of good points that are still relevant today. One of those is the answer to the question: what does North Korea lose by getting caught helping Syria? Apparently nothing by the looks of the lack of pressure on North Korea at the moment to either explain their assistance to Syria or their lack of action they agreed to as part of the six-party talks.

In the last seconds of the fight shown in the video above, the US woke up and decided to beat the North Koreans off the worthless hill instead of just giving it to them in hopes that it is the final demand that will result in a deal. The joke is, there never is a final demand, just more demands. The question now is has the US forgot what it learned the last time it had to fight them. Apparently so given the lack of pressure being placed on them to live up to this deal. Sadly, it seems that the North has gotten stronger in will, and those who we have placed in charge have gotten softer. And about that 'quiet diplomacy' in dealing with these and other thugs around the world, (as in giving them a way to 'save face') this Wall Street Journal piece sums it up:
Perhaps this is the same "quiet diplomacy" advocated by U.S. National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley a few weeks ago, when he was asked about the Chinese crackdown in Tibet. In other words, we are not going to hear this U.S. president say "I am a Tibetan" any time soon.

I have had a painfully close-up view of over seven years of Western quiet diplomacy toward Russia. "Quiet diplomacy" can be roughly translated as, "we'll cut a deal no matter what." During this period we have moved from a frail new democracy to a KGB dictatorship. Based on such results, it is long past time to try something noisier. - WSJ
It is surely about time that North Korea lose face. If for no other reason than the face that nothing else seems to be working at the moment. There is still no permanent peace between the North and the South. I suspect one reason why is that it would be much harder to blackmail the South for whatever they want at any particular moment. And speaking of the war not being over, one small fact that never seems to come up are the number of US Servicemen who have died after the cease fire of 1955.
Although the shooting war officially ended on January 31, 1955, from February 1, 1955 to date, another 98 men would die in Korea as a result of "Hostile" and combat-related actions. According to researcher Tom Murray, Kingman, AZ, "…another 814 American soldiers died from non-hostile causes in Korea from 1961 to the present." They too must be remembered. - Korean War Educator
Some of the more notable incidents:

- 'Axe Murders Incident'
The Axe Murder Incident (Korean: 판문점 도끼 살인 사건) refers to the killing of two United States Army officers by North Korean soldiers on August 18, 1976 in the Joint Security Area (JSA) located in the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) which forms the de facto border between North and South Korea. The killings and the response three days later (Operation Paul Bunyan) heightened tensions between North and South Korea and as well as their respective allies, China and the United States of America. - Wikipedia



- 'Major Henderson Incident'
The Major Henderson Incident occurred on June 30, 1975. A dozen North Korean guards and reporters assaulted US Army Major W. D. Henderson, a United Nations Command (UNC) security officer in the Joint Security Area (JSA), injuring him seriously. Henderson was trampled on by the North Koreans and suffered a fractured larynx before he was rescued by United Nations Command guards. - Wikipedia



Three north Korean guards are about to attack Maj. W.D. Henderson, a UNC security officer, as another north Korean guard holds Henderson, outside the truce conference room during the 364th Military Armistice Commission meeting on June 30, 1975. - Axe-wielding Murder at Panmunjom. (PDF Document) Seoul: UN Korean War Allies Association, 1976
Then there is the capture of the USS PUEBLO.

Hell, just last year, two North Koreans assaulted customs and police officers while on a train in Finland. Just another reason why every North Korean official should be treated as dangerous.

How many more times does the US have to be blindsided by the North Koreans while they hold their entire population hostage?

While we are at it, what about rumors that popped up last year about a city fill of North Koreans in Iran? It seems like questions need to be asked about that as well.

----------

Be Warned About the North Koreans - Pork Chop Hill - Google Video

Click on the tab 'North Korea' below to find my other posts on Communist Korea.
----------

Monday, April 28

Maritime Monday 108 Posted at gCaptain

This week's edition of Maritime Monday has been posted at gCaptain.



You can find last week’s edition here.

You can find Maritime Monday 58 from last year here. (Published 07 May 2007)



Previous Editions:
As linked below or click on the label ‘MaritimeMonday’:
1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - 20 - 21 - 22 - 23 - 24 - 25 - 26 - 27 - 28 - 29 - 30 - 31 - 32 - 33 - 34 - 35 - 36 - 37 - 38 - 39 - 40 - 41 - 42 - 43 - 44 - 45 - 46 - 47 - 48 - 49 - 50 - 51 - 52 - 53 - 54 - 55 - 56 - 57 - 58 - 59 - 60 - 61 - 62 - 63 - 64 - 65 - 66 - 67 - 68 - 69 - 70 - 71 - 72 - 73 - 74 - 75 - 76 - 77 - 78 - 79 - 80 - 81 - 82 - 83 - 84 - 85 - 86 - 87 - 88 - 89 - 90 - 91 - 92 - 93 - 94 - 95 - 96 - 97 - 98

gCaptain editions: 99 - 100 - 101 - 102 - 103 - 104 - 105 - 106 - 107 - 108 - 109 - 110


***

Thursday, April 24

A Tale of Two Rights - Voting and Bearing Arms

During the last couple of elections, the Democrats have been calling out demanding that every voice be heard when it comes to voting. This way all people can take advantage of their right to vote. Too bad that they seem to have no problem with legitimate votes being nullified by votes made by those not entitled to do so. (Given their absolute refusal to accept verification of status through photo IDs.)

This year, the Democrats have decided to give extra meaning to this right by actually denying their own Democrat voters in two states, Florida and Michigan, a voice in the primaries for their party's nomination for President. This was due to those states not meeting their responsibilities to follow the primary rules set up by the parties. Of course, this does not sit too well with Mrs. Clinton, who claimed 'victory' in both states.

Now politicians, ESPECIALLY DEMOCRATS, are so very 'concerned' about making sure that voters, ESPECIALLY MINORITIES AND THE POOR, are not disenfranchised from the voting process. This has been why they claim to be against the presentation of photo IDs when appearing to vote due to some idiotic belief that there are people out there who have no ID and cannot afford one. (That of course is the biggest load of bull, especially considering that these people are receiving unemployment or welfare and can use some of that money to get a license or ID.) This is why they are for extending the vote to people who are not able to prove their right to vote, or even their identity. This is why in some states, convicted felons are allowed to vote. This is why in some states, Maine and Vermont, even prisoners are permitted to vote. However, we all know that their only concern is to get more votes, any way they can, and they believe that these illegitimate votes are mostly going their way so they are fair game, damn the rest of us.

Yet, these very same politicians are very eager to restrict the people from enjoying another right, the right to own a gun. Look at the Washington, DC area. It is possible to purchase a handgun in both Maryland and Virginia without first obtaining a permit nor is there any license required unless you intend to carry the weapon concealed. In Virginia you can even carry your handgun without a permit as long as it is clearly visible.

Compare this 'liberal' view of gun ownership with the near impossibility of legally obtaining a handgun in Washington, DC as they are banned in the District. But who lives in these urban areas that are more likely to have very restrictive gun ownership laws? Blacks and other minorities.
(CNSNews.com) - Second Amendment experts say current gun control laws are preventing law abiding African Americans from acting in self-defense against the illegally armed criminals that infest their inner-city neighborhoods.

"Racism still is a big part of gun control," said Kenn Blanchard, a former federal law enforcement officer and author of Black Man With A Gun, A Responsible Gun Ownership Manual For African Americans. "Anywhere that there are no concealed-carry's, there's also a predominant black population," he said. - CNSNews
Washington, DC is a 'Black City.' Might it be that DC's gun ban is a racist law? (The ban also discriminates on age as you can legally own a gun in DC if you legally owned it in 1971.)

So when the Bush Administration came out and supported Washington, DC's right to have a gun-ban, it was met with confusion as President Bush is a pro-gun ownership President. On any other issue you could bet that Reverend Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson would be out there declaring the President's position in this matter biased against blacks or simply labeled 'racist.' But since it is about guns, and perhaps they fear that permitting blacks to legally own guns will make democrat politicians have less sway over this voting group, they are silent on the matter.

Now, blacks don't just live in these urban areas, so why not also target banning guns that are most likely to be purchased by poor minorities


When wolves hunt, they pick out the easiest targets at the fringe of the herd. Gun control proponents also specialize in picking the most vulnerable targets, those who are least able to fight back politically. In the United States, the strategy of picking on the most vulnerable targets has often resulted in gun control being aimed at the poor (which generally means minorities, particularly blacks).

A case in point is the ban on small, inexpensive handguns proposed by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA). Proponents of the Boxer ban emphasize that they are not targeting expensive hunting rifles but merely want to ban the small guns that they wrongly call "junk guns" or "Saturday Night Specials". - NRA-ILA (From 1999)

Washington, DC is not the only place where this is happening. Take New York City. Handgun ownership is severely restricted, yet permitted unlike in DC. However, the rules are much more stringent in the City than elsewhere in New York, including on Long Island, where it is relatively easy to purchase a long gun/shotgun there, provided you live there.
New York's laws are not uniform throughout the state. Any city with a population of over 100,000 people is allowed to pass additional laws. Some of the cities with stricter laws include, Albany, Buffalo, Rochester and New York City which is known for having some of the strictest gun laws in the country. All firearm owners there must have a permit and rifles and shotguns owned by a permit holder must be registered with the Police Department. Handgun owners must apply for a separate license that cost $340 every 3 years to renew and all handguns must be listed on the license. Handgun licenses issued in New York City are not valid in the rest of the state and all licenses issued outside of New York City are valid throughout New York State except New York City. Rifles and shotguns are not licensed in the rest of the state. - Wikipedia
Now lets take Senator and Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton who actually worked to deny American the right to vote on easing gun control:
Forty states currently allow most law-abiding adult citizens to carry concealed handguns for lawful protection, after a background check and (in almost all such states) a safety class. Of course those laws only apply to carrying within the relevant state. Mr. Obama told the Chicago Tribune in 2004 that he favored a national ban on concealed carry, to "prevent other states' laws from threatening the safety of Illinois residents." Mrs. Clinton campaigned against a licensed carry referendum in Missouri. - WSJ
So not only is she in favor of not allowing to own a gun, she is also against having the population vote on whether they want restrictive gun ownership or not.

Not to just pick on her, her fellow Senator, Barak Obama, is just as bad when it comes to wanting to take away your right to firearms:

As Corner contributor Dave Kopel and David Bernstein note, Barack Obama proposed a few years ago a federal law against licensed firearms dealers operating within five miles of a school or park. As Kopel notes, "Every town I've ever visited which has more than a few dozen inhabitants has either a school or a park. Hypothesizing that the ban would apply to city parks (e.g., Central Park in New York City) but not to National Parks, pick a geographical region, and describe where a licensed firearms dealer could operate. Or pick a geographic point (e.g, Houston)and identify how far a peson would have to drive in order to get to the closest point where a gun store could legally be located. Extra credit for illustrative maps."

As the commenters noted, this would effectively ban gun shops from most of the country, and just about every city. - National Review

These two Presidential hopefuls are morally bankrupt when it comes to any sort of responsible political leadership when it comes to gun rights and gun control. I can throw in one more irresponsible area of leadership, that is law enforcement. The US would have nowhere near the problem it has with guns if the Democrats would just stop doing everything possible to keep criminals from doing serious jail time. Really, if illegal handgun ownership is so bad, why not put people in jail for 20 years if could with an illegal firearm? Instead they face watered down charges and are given a slap on the wrists, if that. Theres the problem.

**********

Wednesday, April 23

The Atlantic Names Photo "McCain Loser"

This is just plain sloppy work on their part. As you can see, the name of the file is visible when placing your mouse over the photo in the story "McCain's Peak?":






You know, if I did something stupid like that, I doubt I would still have a job at the end of the day. I bet the person who did this probably thinks it was amusing. I wonder what he will be thinking by the end of the day.

Spotted first at Instapundit. I just figured that someone needed to post the screenshots since they are very likely to fix this error.

----------

Monday, April 21

Stupid Lawyer Tricks - Jailing the Innocent

This is a perfect example of how our legal system is broken, not to mention validates many of those lawyer jokes that everyone knows.
Two attorneys for a convicted cop killer had known for 26 years of Logan's innocence but had kept silent because of the attorney-client privilege. Their client, Andrew Wilson, had confessed to them that he shotgunned a security guard to death in January 1982, but he insisted they only reveal his admission after his death. Wilson, who was serving a life sentence for the murders of two Chicago police officers, died in prison of natural causes Nov. 19. - Chicago Tribune
Do you get that? Two lawyers let an innocent man go to jail to protect their cop-killing client. It gets worse:
But one of Logan’s supposed accomplices told his public defender that he’d never seen Logan before – not only that, he said that Wilson had actually killed the guard. That attorney told Wilson’s public defenders, W. Jamie Kunz and Dale Coventry. They pressed Wilson, and he admitted he’d killed the guard.

The dilemma: Kunz and Coventry couldn’t tell anyone of that admission – which could have cleared Logan – without betraying their own client’s confidence. And Wilson, who was already facing the death penalty, wasn’t about to cop to a third murder.

So – honoring attorney-client privilege – Kunz and Coventry stayed mum until Wilson died in prison. In the meantime, the apparently innocent Logan did 26 long years behind bars. - the news tribune
So, these lawyers managed not only to imprison an innocent man, but they also managed to keep their client from being executed, a fate he would more likely have faced had he been charged with this third murder. One party not being targeted in the news at he moment is the Government of Illinois and the City of Chicago, which for some unknown reason both decided that this man, convicted of killing two policemen, was not worthy of receiving the death penalty. If he had, this innocent man would have probably been released shortly after the execution, many years earlier instead of waiting for this man to die of old age.

Sure, there is this 'ethics dilemma' but how ethical is it to know that you are directly responsible for preventing the release of an innocent man? My first thought was that you either attempt to disclose the information anonymously or just outright break your client's trust, because he really doesn't deserve it, at least after he is convicted of the other crimes he is known to have committed. Hell, they could have pushed their client to admit to the crime, and could have pushed the court to not push for the death penalty had he confessed to this last murder.
A public defender does have what might be called the kamikaze option. Let personal ethics trump legal ethics: Violate the privilege, betray the secret and take the consequences from the bar association.

It might end your career and create a small tremor in the justice system. It also might make it easier to face yourself in the mirror the rest of your life. - the news tribune
Well, they didn't appear to do anything other then complete a document explaining the injustice, just in case they happened to die before their client, which also apparently beaks their responsibility to the client-attorney privilege in their eyes. That unfortunately, is not good enough for our society. We are all adults and should be able to make the best decisions to improve society for all of us, especially the unjustly imprisoned. With that in mind, the law itself does not have to change, but more-so the culture of the attorneys who somehow feel that they are removed from the actions of their clients. They are not, as they act as the spokespersons for their clients.

In the maritime world, there is Rule 2 of the Navigation Rules, commonly known as the 'Rules of the Road'. The rule is appropriately titled

RESPONSIBILITY:
(a) Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master, or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to comply with these Rules or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case.

(b) In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances, including the limitations of the vessels involved, which may make a departure from these Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger. - US Coast Guard
You see, the navigation rules require you to deviate from the rules if following he rules will not solve the problem at hand. Just as important, Rule 2 eliminates the excuse that you wee just following the rules. That is not an accepted excuse. I would like to think that our legal system in general operates under the same common sense attitude. Unfortunately, it does not appear to, especially given the number of known criminals who should be behind bars, or on death row awaiting an impending execution date, but are not.
----------

Maritime Monday 107 Posted at gCaptain

This week's edition of Maritime Monday has been posted at gCaptain.



You can find last week’s edition here.

You can find Maritime Monday 57 from last year here. (Published 30 April 2007)


FRONT BREAKER


Previous Editions:
As linked below or click on the label ‘MaritimeMonday’:
1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - 20 - 21 - 22 - 23 - 24 - 25 - 26 - 27 - 28 - 29 - 30 - 31 - 32 - 33 - 34 - 35 - 36 - 37 - 38 - 39 - 40 - 41 - 42 - 43 - 44 - 45 - 46 - 47 - 48 - 49 - 50 - 51 - 52 - 53 - 54 - 55 - 56 - 57 - 58 - 59 - 60 - 61 - 62 - 63 - 64 - 65 - 66 - 67 - 68 - 69 - 70 - 71 - 72 - 73 - 74 - 75 - 76 - 77 - 78 - 79 - 80 - 81 - 82 - 83 - 84 - 85 - 86 - 87 - 88 - 89 - 90 - 91 - 92 - 93 - 94 - 95 - 96 - 97 - 98

gCaptain editions: 99 - 100 - 101 - 102 - 103 - 104 - 105 - 106 - 107 - 108 - 109 - 110


***

Saturday, April 19

China's African Genocide Trifecta

China is once again in the news for playing an important supporting role in continuing instability in Africa. This time for attempting to supply Zimbabwe's renegade Government with a shipload of weapons while that Government refuses to disclose unfavorable election results. Here is a statement that the Chinese have released no the matter:
The Chinese Foreign Ministry issued a statement in a fax to the Reuters news agency saying that China and Zimbabwe have normal trade relations, that the Chinese government takes a "prudent and responsible" position on arms deals and that it does not involve itself in the internal affairs of other countries. - CNN
Prudent and Responsible eh? The trick in being able to say something like that is that they are not being any less 'prudent and responsible' than they normally are at home. Oppression in Tibet? Nope, that is just some more prudent and responsible actions on their part. We in the West just don't recognize it as such. Shame on us. So lets take a look at some other past Prudent and Responsible actions China is and has taken in Africa's recent past

Darfur, Sudan:
China has emerged as the primary supplier of weapons to the Sudanese government, providing fighter jets and as much as 90% of light weapons used in the conflict. Human rights advocates and opponents of the Sudanese government portray China's role in providing weapons and aircraft as a cynical attempt to obtain oil and gas just as colonial powers once supplied African chieftains with the military means to maintain control as they extracted natural resources. According to China's critics, China has offered Sudan support threatening to use its veto on the U.N. Security Council to protect Khartoum from sanctions and has been able to water down every resolution on Darfur in order to protect its interests in Sudan. - Wikipedia
Rwanda:
It was during 1993, in the year that the Arusha Accords were negotiated, that a project began to import into Rwanda a huge number of machetes and other agricultural tools. The purchase of these tools took place in eighteen separate deals, and by companies not usually associated with agriculture; the same companies had made no imports in either 1991 or 1992. As well as machetes they imported razor blades, nails, hoes and axes, screwdrivers, scythes, saws, spades, knives, pliers, pincers, scissors, hammers, and shears. These tools came into the country under government import licenses headed "eligible imports". The overwhelming majority of the tools were imported from China. As an illustration of the sheer volume involved, the total number of machetes imported in 1993 weighed 581.175 kilos and cost US$725.669: there was an estimated one new machete for every third male in the country. - The book "Conspiracy to Murder: The Rwandan Genocide" By Linda Melvern
Of course they only needed enough machetes for a third of the male population given that they were planning to kill off a good portion that wasn't going to get machetes. You might wonder why didn't they import guns instead? Well follow the link and read into the next page which describes how the purchases were paid for with World Bank aid money, which the World Bank never noticed was being so openly diverted until much later on.

Now we have China helping Zimbabwe:
A Chinese cargo ship believed to be carrying 77 tonnes of small arms, including more than 3m rounds of ammunition, AK47 assault rifles, mortars and rocket-propelled grenades, has docked in the South African port of Durban for transportation of the weapons to Zimbabwe, the South African government confirmed yesterday. It claimed it was powerless to intervene as long as the ship's papers were in order.

Copies of the documentation for the Chinese ship, the An Yue Jiang, show that the weapons were sent from Beijing to the ministry of defence in Harare. Headed "Dangerous goods description and container packing certificate", the document was issued on April 1, three days after Zimbabwe's election. It lists the consignment as including 3.5m rounds of ammunition for AK47 assault rifles and for small arms, 1,500 40mm rockets, 2,500 mortar shells of 60mm and 81mm calibre, as well as 93 cases of mortar tubes. - Guardian
There are also some reports that armed Chinese soldiers have been spotted in Zimbabwe. They are surely up to no good.

The question is, how long is China going to be allowed to get away with this? This is the kind of world China wants. The rest of the world should forcefully reject their actions. Boycotting the Chinese Olympics is one way to do that.

Previous:
China Supplying Zimbabwe with a Shipload of Weapons - 18 Apr 08
IOC: We support China's Oppressive Regime, So Should You - 17 March 08
South Africa - Zimbabwe in Slow Motion - 23 Jan 08
Iraq, Zimbabwe, Mexico and Venezuela - 8 Jan 08
Anchor Countries - 27 Sept 07
Iraq, Zimbabwe and Mexico - 21 Sept 07
Why is the UN Pleading for Food for Zimbabwe? - 2 Aug 07
Zimbabwe photos - Land reform - 22 Aug 06

---------------------

Friday, April 18

China Supplying Zimbabwe with a Shipload of Weapons

As if there weren't already enough reasons to protest the Olympics being held in China already, it now comes out that China has sent a shipload of weapons to Robert's Mugabe's Zimbabwe.

A Chinese cargo ship believed to be carrying 77 tonnes of small arms, including more than 3m rounds of ammunition, AK47 assault rifles, mortars and rocket-propelled grenades, has docked in the South African port of Durban for transportation of the weapons to Zimbabwe, the South African government confirmed yesterday. It claimed it was powerless to intervene as long as the ship's papers were in order.

Copies of the documentation for the Chinese ship, the An Yue Jiang, show that the weapons were sent from Beijing to the ministry of defence in Harare. Headed "Dangerous goods description and container packing certificate", the document was issued on April 1, three days after Zimbabwe's election. It lists the consignment as including 3.5m rounds of ammunition for AK47 assault rifles and for small arms, 1,500 40mm rockets, 2,500 mortar shells of 60mm and 81mm calibre, as well as 93 cases of mortar tubes. - Guardian UK

Once again this makes the Chinese look really bad, especially since they approved the shipment long enough after Zimbabwe's election to know that Mugabe was killing the election results, results which still have not been released.



The An Yue Jiang is seen anchored outside Durban harbor, South Africa on April 17, 2008. Photograph: AP - Guardian UK

The news of this shipment broke when the ship arrived in South Africa to be unloaded. This is because Zimbabwe is a landlocked country with no seaport of its own. So you might think that South Africa would prevent the shipment from transiting through their country considering that Mugabe appears to be getting ready to stay in power after losing the election, and has a proven track record of using force. But with this being morally bankrupt Africa, the President of South Africa, sees not problem in giving an assist to a person committing crimes against humanity:

CAPE TOWN, South Africa: South Africa will not intervene to stop a shipment of Chinese-made weapons from reaching Zimbabwe, even though the political situation in the neighboring nation is "dire," a government spokesman said Thursday.

Spokesman Themba Maseko said as long as administrative papers are in order, South Africa cannot intervene to prevent weapons being transported through its territory to its landlocked neighbor, despite concerns about mounting tensions in Zimbabwe. - International Herald Tribune

This is par for the course for South Africa turning a blind-eye to the actions of its neighbor. At least there are others in South Africa with a sense for right and wrong and they are in a position to at least delay this shipment:

Union refuses to unload Zim arms ship - DURBAN - Opposition to a shipment of arms being offloaded in Durban and transported to Zimbabwe increased on Thursday when South Africa’s largest transport workers union announced that its members would not unload the ship.

SA Transport and Allied Workers Union (Satawu) general secretary Randall Howard said: “Satawu does not agree with the position of the South African government not to intervene with this shipment of weapons.

“Our members employed at Durban Container Terminal will not unload this cargo neither will any of our members in the truck driving sector move this cargo by road.” - The Citizen

In addition a team of lawyers are in court arguing that South Africa is wrong to have approved the movement of these weapons to Zimbabwe. South Africa's President has gotten lots of criticism for not doing more to end the crisis in Zimbabwe, mainly by ending his shielding of Mugabe. Now, he has been flushed out as an active accomplice. Serves him right for playing such an irresponsible game.

This shipment should truly impress on everyone that Mugabe needs to go, perhaps by force if necessary. (He seems to have no problem with using force himself.) The man has run his country into the ground and appears ready sacrifice everyone to stay in power.

So far there has been no criticism of China but there certainly should be. China is the main power defending the criminal regime in The Sudan as they commit genocide in Darfur. In addition to standing up for the Sudan in the UN's Security Council, China is also Sudan main weapons supplier. Surely, the world is not interested in China following the same path with Zimbabwe. China is looking to showcase what a wonderful country it is by its hosting of the Olympics. How did they ever expect to accomplish that while playing host with blood on their hands.

Previous:
South Africa - Zimbabwe in Slow Motion - 23 Jan 08
Iraq, Zimbabwe, Mexico and Venezuela - 8 Jan 08
Anchor Countries - 27 Sept 07
Iraq, Zimbabwe and Mexico - 21 Sept 07
Why is the UN Pleading for Food for Zimbabwe? - 2 Aug 07
Zimbabwe photos - Land reform - 22 Aug 06


-----

Tuesday, April 15

Never Push Your Luck IV

Don't you hate it when the bad guy gets away? Me too. Which is why I love stories when justice finally catches up to them. Take this criminal who has been an abuser of the criminal justice system many times over:
NEW YORK (AP) ― About two weeks after he was released from prison, Freddie Johnson boarded a crowded subway train in Manhattan and illegally rubbed up against a woman, authorities said.

It is a fairly common crime on subways in New York. But this was no common criminal.

Johnson has been arrested a staggering 53 times -- the majority for groping women on the subway, police and prosecutors said. - WCBSTV
I had always figured that if I ever was in a position to send a guilty person away, that I would try to get them behind bars for a long as possible. The reasoning being that for whatever amount of time a criminal gets, that they will be eager to commit a new crime, figuring that they were owed it, or go after those who helped put them in jail, such as the jurors, or go after the victim, again. So, why not delay that possibility for as long as possible? I wonder if that is what happened here. This guy was in jail for four years and might have figured that he was owed this for spending all that time locked up.

However, this time he might have really underestimated what it would cost him.
In his latest arrest, Johnson was being followed by plainclothes officers who recognized him from police photos, authorities said. He was charged with persistent sexual abuse, and if convicted this time, he could be sent away for life. - WCBSTV
It took 53 arrests for this guy to finally reach a point where he faces life in jail. Something is seriously wrong with that. Relatives of criminals complain about three-strikes laws. My comment has always been, 'how many strikes do you want to give?' This guy appears to have gotten fifty-three strikes. Those 'extra' strikes only resulted in a larger trail of victims. Then there is the cost to arrest and process this guy so many times. You always hear about the cost of jailing a criminal. Well what about the cost of constantly arresting and trying these guys?

We all have responsibilities as part of a 'modern society'. There is no room in a 'modern society' for people like this. Give them all the assist to help steer them away from repeating offenses, but at some point they just need to be removed for the good of the society. Both by their removal and as an example to others of what can happen to them for being a criminal.

Serial Subway Groper Arrested Once Again - WCBSTV

Previous:
Never Push Your Luck III - 5 April 08
Never Push Your Luck II - 28 Feb 08
Never Push Your Luck - 31 Oct 07
55,322 Illegal Alien Criminals = 459,614 Arrests - 21 May 06
Congress Should do Nothing About Illegal Aliens - 7 June 07
Mexico and the US Governments are the Immigration Problem - 25 May 07
-----

Monday, April 14

Maritime Monday 106 Posted at gCaptain

This week's edition of Maritime Monday has been posted at gCaptain.



You can find last week’s edition here.

You can find Maritime Monday 56 from last year here. (Published 23 April 2007)



Previous Editions:
As linked below or click on the label ‘MaritimeMonday’:
1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - 20 - 21 - 22 - 23 - 24 - 25 - 26 - 27 - 28 - 29 - 30 - 31 - 32 - 33 - 34 - 35 - 36 - 37 - 38 - 39 - 40 - 41 - 42 - 43 - 44 - 45 - 46 - 47 - 48 - 49 - 50 - 51 - 52 - 53 - 54 - 55 - 56 - 57 - 58 - 59 - 60 - 61 - 62 - 63 - 64 - 65 - 66 - 67 - 68 - 69 - 70 - 71 - 72 - 73 - 74 - 75 - 76 - 77 - 78 - 79 - 80 - 81 - 82 - 83 - 84 - 85 - 86 - 87 - 88 - 89 - 90 - 91 - 92 - 93 - 94 - 95 - 96 - 97 - 98

gCaptain editions: 99 - 100 - 101 - 102 - 103 - 104 - 105 - 106 - 107 - 108 - 109 - 110


***

Saturday, April 12

The Trillion Dollar Write-off

So the US housing bubble might result in up to $1 trillion in write-offs. That's pretty amazing:
The International Monetary Fund said Tuesday that financial losses stemming from the U.S. mortgage crisis might approach $1 trillion, citing a "collective failure" to predict the breadth of the crisis.

Falling U.S. house prices and rising delinquencies may lead to $565 billion in mortgage-market losses, the IMF said in its annual Global Financial Stability report, released in Washington. Total losses, including the securities tied to commercial real estate and loans to consumers and companies, may reach $945 billion, the fund said. - IHT
To put it that amount in perspective (and using the population totals below), that comes out to $3,291 for every American or $150 for every person on the planet.


I would think that a good portion of the trillion written off will eventually turn into profits for someone given that some mortgage 'assets' are being 'marked to market' reducing the value to near nothing. That of course is not accurate as the properties do have value. Just not the value they were given by a huge number of greater fools.
The bigger fool theory or greater fool theory (also called survivor investing) is the belief held by one who makes a questionable investment, with the assumption that they will be able to sell it later to "a bigger fool"; in other words, buying something not because you believe that it is worth the price, but rather because you believe that you will be able to sell it to some one else for an even higher price. - Wikipedia
There were lots of voices out there warning that housing was in a bubble, but no, everyone else had to shout them down. My favorite comment I heard when the bubble really started to deflate was that it was the people shouting 'housing bubble' who brought about the decline. What a load of bull. All that was needed was a little simple math for these people to see that the houses they were buying were not affordable.


----------

Thursday, April 10

Video : John Murtha's Pork Addiction

Congressman John Murtha is the poster-child of what is wrong with our Congress. The Jawa Report recently posted this video which does a great job summarizing his use of the US Treasury as if the money were his own to do with.




Direct YouTube Link - "Congressman Murtha's Earmarks - Paid for by You"

The video really says it all, for now. Remember, he is not the only problem in Congress. Then again, there are all those idiots that keep voting this guy back into Congress like the good little democrat pets that they are.

Video : John Murtha's Pork Addiction - The Jawa Report


(Congressman Murtha 'covering' the ethics of earmarks)


Previous:

-------

Tuesday, April 8

French 'Human Rights' Double Standard

As everyone knows the French in Paris really gave the Chinese a public relations 'black-eye' for trying to show us how great they are while telling us all to go F-off when it comes to telling them what we think about how they act in the world. Apparently the Chinese really didn't appreciate this sign posted on City Hall so much that they canceled Paris's 'torch reception' to avoid even more bad publicity:




The wind blows flags from China and France in front of the Paris city hall where a banner reads, "Paris Defends Human Rights Everywhere in the World", April 7, 2008. The Chinese cancelled a planned reception for the Olympic torch at Paris city hall at the last minute after a banner supporting human rights was hung from the facade of the building. REUTERS/John Schults (FRANCE) - Yahoo News

That's all great, but the French don't need to wait for the Chinese Olympic torch to come to town to fight for human rights, they have their own home-grown Chinese-level violation worthy of global condemnation right under their feet.

In October, the European Council's Commissioner for Human Rights inspected what the French call a detention center for foreigners. Alvaro Gil-Robles believes it is more properly called a dungeon. "With the exception of maybe Moldavia, I have not seen a worse center," he said about the facilities underneath the Palais de Justice in Paris, located not more than a few hundred yards from Notre Dame.

And what was Europe's reaction to these astonishing accusations? A yawn, a few wire reports and press pickups; that's it. After all, those prisoners, locked up under horrendous sanitary conditions, without natural sunlight and ventilation, some of whom, according to one prison guard, have in desperation mutilated themselves and smeared their blood on the walls, were only simple illegal immigrants. No need to suspend French voting privileges on their account, that's for sure. - Wall Street Journal

Something tells me that those illegal aliens being held in the Detention Center aren't going to get to see a photo of the sign nearby declaring that Paris is defending their human rights. Good that the French care. I would hate to think how they would treat illegal aliens if they didn't care.

You can read more on why I think the Chinese Olympics should be boycotted in whole here. (Or at least really pressure the Chinese to make changes using the threat of a full boycott.) At the moment, if there is any formal pressure being applied, it must be happening in the back-room. Keep in mind that that the status of Tibit is just one of many outstanding issues, including also Sudan, Taiwan, North Korea, etc....

Previous:
IOC: We support China's Oppressive Regime, So Should You - 17 March 08
Taiwan is an independent Nation - 21 April 05
Let Taiwan Join the UN - 22 July 07
Bolton - US Should Recognize Taiwan - China Will Do Nothing - 28 Aug 07

------------------

Monday, April 7

Maritime Monday 105 Posted at gCaptain

This week's edition of Maritime Monday has been posted at gCaptain.




You can find last week’s edition here.

You can find Maritime Monday 55 from last year here. (Published 16 April 2007)




Previous Editions:


As linked below or click on the label ‘MaritimeMonday’.
1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - 20 - 21 - 22 - 23 - 24 - 25 - 26 - 27 - 28 - 29 - 30 - 31 - 32 - 33 - 34 - 35 - 36 - 37 - 38 - 39 - 40 - 41 - 42 - 43 - 44 - 45 - 46 - 47 - 48 - 49 - 50 - 51 - 52 - 53 - 54 - 55 - 56 - 57 - 58 - 59 - 60 - 61 - 62 - 63 - 64 - 65 - 66 - 67 - 68 - 69 - 70 - 71 - 72 - 73 - 74 - 75 - 76 - 77 - 78 - 79 - 80 - 81 - 82 - 83 - 84 - 85 - 86 - 87 - 88 - 89 - 90 - 91 - 92 - 93 - 94 - 95 - 96 - 97 - 98

gCaptain editions: 99 - 100 - 101 - 102 - 103 - 104 - 105 - 106 - 107 - 108 - 109 - 110


***