Blue Crab Boulevard

I posted about the plans of Britain's labor government to gut the Royal Navy. Yes, I did so in a way that made fun of them. Michael Van Der Galien described my take as quite accurate. He also pointed out the deadly seriousness of the problem:

It’s easy to make fun of the Brits, of course, but fact of the matter is that I don’t find this funny at all. Britain once had the most powerful Navy in the world. Labor’s goal seems to have always been to bring it to utter destruction; it has almost succeeded in doing so, if it goes ahead and implements these plans it will succeed. This will not only weaken Britain, it will weaken the West as a whole and the EU. Forget about playing an important role in the world, forget about defending ourselves against possible future attacks, forget about it all. Europe will be handicapped and useless. All we’ll be able to do is to live in our Kantian paradise, hoping everyone will just let us be and live in peace. For if they do not, we can’t do anything about it.

He's right. I sometimes make fun to point out the insanity of some positions. Today I have posted quite a few things about the difference between talking and doing. Lately democracies are more in love with talking and less inclined than ever to actually do anything. Tyrannies do not suffer that same ambivalence toward acting. You could ask some monks in Burma about that. Well, if you can find any live ones.

There is a real - and growing - downside to the refusal of western powers to face up to global truths. Rwanda, Darfur, Zimbabwe, Somalia, Burma, Iran, North Korea, Iran. All are part of a refusal by the west to face facts. There are bad people in the world - and we are not them. But the navies get cut and the west turns inward. More welfare state goodness for the masses to keep them happy. Less for defense every year. Cut the fleet, cut the army. Ignore the beasts of the world.

Paul Raffaele, writing at The Smithsonian, has an article that shows, rather clearly, what those cuts in defense and abdication of responsibility entail. You see, there really are pirates. And they are getting worse every year.

Now the seedy romance of the golden-age legends may be supplanted by a new reality: as governments cut their navies after the cold war, as thieves have gotten hold of more powerful weapons and as more and more cargo has moved by sea, piracy has once again become a lucrative form of waterborne mugging. Attacks at sea had become rare enough to be a curiosity in the mid-20th century, but began to reappear in the 1970s. By the 1990s, maritime experts noted a sharp increase in attacks, which led the IMB to establish the Piracy Reporting Centre in 1992—and still the buccaneering continued, with a high of 469 attacks registered in 2000. Since then, improvements in reporting, ship-tracking technology and government reaction have calmed the seas somewhat—the center counted 329 attacks in 2004, down to 276 in 2005 and 239 last year—but pirates remain very much in business, making the waters off Indonesia, Bangladesh, Nigeria and Somalia especially perilous. "We report hundreds of acts of piracy each year, many hundreds more go undetected," says Capt. Noel Choong, head of the Piracy Reporting Centre, in Kuala Lumpur. "Ships and their crews disappear on the high seas and coastal waters every year, never to be seen again." Even stationary targets, such as oil platforms, are at risk.

Global commerce would collapse without oceangoing ships to transfer the world's fuel, minerals and bulk commodities, along with much of its medicines and foodstuffs. According to the U.S. Maritime Administration, about 95 percent of the world's trade travels by water. Boston-based Global Insight, a forecasting company, estimates the value of maritime trade for 2007 to be at least $6 trillion. Estimates of the pirates' annual global plunder range into the billions.

You turn a blind eye on the rest of the world at a price. You refuse to face down a thug at a real cost. You cut defense and there are real consequences. Once upon a time the Royal Navy virtually killed the slave trade by stopping suspicious vessels and searching them. Now they'd be hard pressed to send a boy scout in a rowboat. And it is getting worse. As the west turns inward, the monsters and the pirates of the world are emboldened.

They don't have a lot to fear these days.

(Do read all of Paul Raffaele's article. It is quite good.)

Noel Sheppard has a post up over at Newsbusters that looks - hard - at the connections between the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Soros-funded Media Matters group. That organization has been leading smear campaigns against conservatives for quite some time. It is getting worse and there may well be method to it all.

Last week, two of the leading conservatives in the media, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly, were dishonestly and unprofessionally attacked by press outlets that cherry-picked out of context remarks from lengthy radio broadcasts in order to vilify outspoken personalities whose opinions they don’t agree with.

Unfortunately, as folks around the country saw this play out on their television sets and newspapers, few were at all familiar with the organization behind the smear campaigns, or that this same group started the firestorm which ended with radio host Don Imus being terminated by NBC and CBS in April.

Maybe more importantly, even fewer citizens are aware that this organization is linked directly to Bill and Hillary Clinton, as well as billionaire leftist George Soros.

The information is very troubling. There are direct connections between Media Matters staff and management and the Clintons. The Media Matters organization is organized as a 501(c) enterprise under the IRS rules. That requires that they be non-partisan. They could be in real trouble. Some bloggers have started a campaign to get the IRS to look at what they are doing. Because it sure looks partisan. And pro-Clinton to boot. Go read what others have to say (via Memeorandum):

Instapundit.com, Power Line, Doug Ross, michellemalkin.com, Macsmind, The Radio Equalizer, The Sundries Shack, Gateway Pundit,

Hey, everyone! Bobby Mugabe here again. I keep on fightin' the good fight against imperialism by bringing enlightened socialism to the grateful people of Zimbabwe. And I have even more good news to report!

The last of those imperialist scum who used to feed all of us here in Zimbabwe - and still have more than enough to export to other countries - are finally gone! Yes, we took their farms, fired their workers and put all those formerly productive fields into ecologically-friendly fallowness! Damn, I am good at this!

Ringed by a clutch of Zimbabwean soldiers clicking automatic weapons, Charles Lock handed over the keys to his farm and drove off his land for the last time.

Scores of white farmers, the last survivors of President Robert Mugabe's land grab, and thousands of their black workers are going through similar agonies.

They now face the final deadline. As from today, any white farmer still on his land will be deemed to be trespassing on state property.

All agricultural land was officially nationalised last year — with the seizure to take effect from Oct 1 this year.

In advance of this deadline, Zimbabwe's army and the Central Intelligence Organisation have been tormenting the last handful of white farmers and their workers.

About 50 have been summoned to appear at magistrates' courts. Some have surrendered their farms and homes in despair in the last few weeks.

Hey, one of my best buds, General Justin Mujaji and his lovely wife, Pauline, now own that formerly productive farm. They've promised to manage it right into the ground for me, too. Talk about a pal! (You know, it's really great that these pals of mine work for loot. Otherwise the payroll would be enormous.)

Well, at least now we can do away entirely with all that export rigmarole. Now we can count on the west feeding us by sending in all we need. Gotta love those "democracies", they play along so well. Oops, gotta go. I have to go talk to the guys in Burma about how to shut people like that whiner Lock up and get rid of the evidence.

Dictatorially yours,

Robert Mugabe

The Daily Mail has a really horrible report about the situation in Burma. (I stress here that this is uncorroborated.) They say that a high-ranking defector from the military junta is charging that thousands of people - including many monks - have been murdered by the government and the bodies are being dumped in the jungles.

Thousands of protesters are dead and the bodies of hundreds of executed monks have been dumped in the jungle, a former intelligence officer for Burma's ruling junta has revealed.

The most senior official to defect so far, Hla Win, said: 'Many more people have been killed in recent days than you've heard about. The bodies can be counted in several thousand.'

Mr Win, who spoke out as a Swedish diplomat predicted that the revolt has failed, said he fled when he was ordered to take part in a massacre of holy men. He has now reached the border with Thailand.

Reports from other exiles along the frontier confirmed that hundreds of monks had simply ' disappeared' as 20,000 troops swarmed around Rangoon yesterday to prevent further demonstrations by religious groups and civilians.

Word reaching dissidents hiding out on the border suggested that as well as executions, some 2,000 monks are being held in the notorious Insein Prison or in university rooms which have been turned into cells.

There were reports that many were savagely beaten at a sports ground on the outskirts of Rangoon, where they were heard crying for help.

Others who had failed to escape disguised as civilians were locked in their bloodstained temples.

There, troops abandoned religious beliefs, propped their rifles against statues of Buddha and began cooking meals on stoves set up in shrines.

The Mail also reports that a Swedish diplomat, Liselotte Agerlid, who is now out of Burma and in Thailand said this:

'People are scared and the general assessment is that the fight is over. We were informed from one of the largest embassies in Burma that 40 monks in the Insein prison were beaten to death today and subsequently burned.'

That, unfortunately, gibes with the reports that Agam had earlier today about bodies being cremated.

The west is talking, the junta is acting. People are dying as a result.

Seymour Hersh is the undisputed king of green. He recycles everything. Especially his stories.

In a series of public statements in recent months, President Bush and members of his Administration have redefined the war in Iraq, to an increasing degree, as a strategic battle between the United States and Iran. “Shia extremists, backed by Iran, are training Iraqis to carry out attacks on our forces and the Iraqi people,” Bush told the national convention of the American Legion in August. “The attacks on our bases and our troops by Iranian-supplied munitions have increased. . . . The Iranian regime must halt these actions. And, until it does, I will take actions necessary to protect our troops.” He then concluded, to applause, “I have authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran’s murderous activities.”

The President’s position, and its corollary—that, if many of America’s problems in Iraq are the responsibility of Tehran, then the solution to them is to confront the Iranians—have taken firm hold in the Administration. This summer, the White House, pushed by the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney, requested that the Joint Chiefs of Staff redraw long-standing plans for a possible attack on Iran, according to former officials and government consultants. The focus of the plans had been a broad bombing attack, with targets including Iran’s known and suspected nuclear facilities and other military and infrastructure sites. Now the emphasis is on “surgical” strikes on Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities in Tehran and elsewhere, which, the Administration claims, have been the source of attacks on Americans in Iraq. What had been presented primarily as a counter-proliferation mission has been reconceived as counterterrorism.

That's Today's entry. Here's March 5, 2007:

A senior member of the House Appropriations Committee told me that he had heard about the new strategy, but felt that he and his colleagues had not been adequately briefed. “We haven’t got any of this,” he said. “We ask for anything going on, and they say there’s nothing. And when we ask specific questions they say, ‘We’re going to get back to you.’ It’s so frustrating.”

The key players behind the redirection are Vice-President Dick Cheney, the deputy national-security adviser Elliott Abrams, the departing Ambassador to Iraq (and nominee for United Nations Ambassador), Zalmay Khalilzad, and Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi national-security adviser. While Rice has been deeply involved in shaping the public policy, former and current officials said that the clandestine side has been guided by Cheney. (Cheney’s office and the White House declined to comment for this story; the Pentagon did not respond to specific queries but said, “The United States is not planning to go to war with Iran.”)

Yeah, right, Seymour. I won't bother going back through the annals - Hersh has been recycling the same stuff for quite some time now. And the left always rises to feed on the bait he dangles. Every, single time. Jason Steck, posting over at The Van Der Galien Gazette, has this to say about Seymour's effect on the left:

What they overlook in this political equivalent of telling horror stories around a campfire is the real effects of irresponsible speculation.

By focusing on Bush as the real enemy, many of the administration’s harsher critics minimize and cover-up the very real concerns about Iran’s behavior. In essence, they act as Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s public relations firm, instantly converting any report of actual Iranian threats, abuses, or attacks into a conspiracy theory starring the malevolent “neocons”. Seeing so many in the American political culture willing to run interference for him, how can Ahmadinejad help but be emboldened to press on?

There is much truth to the administration’s accusations against Iran. They cannot be merely dismissed as administration propaganda designed to start another war. Iran actually does provide weapons, training and personnel to anti-U.S. groups in Iraq, Iran actually does repress and abuse its own people, and Iran actually does send signals that are at best mixed regarding its international intentions regarding Israel and nuclear weapons. These are not mere figments of a “neocon” fantasy.

Sometimes green isn't good. Like when things get moldy. As Hersh's (and his fellow travelers) histrionics are. (You know, if I was a New Yorker editor, I'd really be wondering why we were paying for the same old myths repackaged over and over. Just saying.)

The military junta that has ruthlessly controlled Burma since 1962 flooded the nation's largest city with troops today and appear to have - again - suppressed a popular uprising. It's that "talk versus do" thing writ large. The United Nations is powerless, the West scolds and talks and the junta cracks heads and sends blood running into the gutter.

YANGON, Myanmar - Myanmar's military government flooded the main city of Yangon with troops, swelling their numbers to about 20,000 by Sunday and ensuring that almost all demonstrators would remain off the streets, a diplomat said.

Meanwhile, a U.N. envoy failed to meet with Myanmar's top two junta leaders in his effort to persuade them to ease a violent crackdown on anti-government protesters. But he was allowed a highly orchestrated session with detained opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi.

Scores of people also were arrested overnight, further weakening the flagging uprising against 45 years of military dictatorship. The protests began Aug. 19 when the government sharply raised fuel prices, then mushroomed into the junta's largest challenge in decades when Myanmar's revered monks took a leading role.

One protest was reported Sunday in the western state of Rakhine, were more than 800 people marched in the town of Taunggok, shouting "Release all political prisoners!" Police, soldiers and junta supporters blocked the road, forcing them to disperse, a local resident said.

Ibrahim Gambari, the U.N.'s special envoy to Myanmar, was sent to the country to try to persuade the notoriously unyielding military junta to halt its crackdown. Soldiers have shot and killed protesters, ransacked Buddhist monasteries, beaten monks and dissidents and arrested an estimated 1,000 people in the last week alone.

But it was not clear what, if anything, Gambari could accomplish. The junta has rebuffed scores of previous U.N. attempts at promoting democracy and Gambari himself spoke in person to Suu Kyi nearly a year ago with nothing to show for it.

I got linked by someone who took exception to my earlier post but appears to have missed my point, as well as Mark Steyn's. Sometimes, the only way to get tyrannies to listen is to present a credible threat. It is not always necessary to use that threat. Kennedy did not have to sink any Russian ships to make them back down.

But if you talk, talk, talk, the tyrannies will do exactly what they feel like doing because they believe- rightly - that they have nothing to fear. Until they go too far, then they learn. But it costs much, much more then. And Jamelle, I am not pro-war. I am very much in favor of peace all around. I'm just not stupid enough to believe the rest of the people in the world feel the same way as I do. So I am in favor of making those sorts of people think long and hard before they cross that line.

Talk softly, carry a big stick - and know when to stop talking.

Sign up for jihadi duty in Iraq while there is still time. Because it sure looks like its running out for al Qaeda right now. Even the Associated Press is unable to contain the news. More than 60 al Qaeda jihadi fighters have been killed over the weekend in Iraq. The pace appears to be accelerating.

BAGHDAD - U.S. and Iraqi forces killed more than 60 insurgent and militia fighters in intense battles over the weekend, with most of the casualties believed to have been al-Qaida fighters, officials said Sunday.

The U.S. Embassy, meanwhile, joined a broad swath of Iraqi politicians — both Shiite and Sunni — in criticizing a nonbinding Senate resolution seen here as a recipe for splitting the country along sectarian and ethnic lines.

U.S. aircraft killed more than 20 al-Qaida fighters who opened fire on an American air patrol northwest of Baghdad, the U.S. command said.

The firefight between U.S. aircraft and the insurgent fighters occurred Saturday about 17 miles northwest of the capital, the military said.

The aircraft observed about 25 al-Qaida insurgents carrying AK-47 assault rifles — one brandishing a rocket-propelled grenade — walking into a palm grove, the military said.

"Shortly after spotting the men, the aircraft were fired upon by the insurgent fighters," it said.

The military did not say what kind of aircraft were involved but the fact that the fighters opened fire suggests they were low-flying Apache helicopters. The command said more than 20 of the group were killed and four vehicles were destroyed. No Iraqi civilians or U.S. soldiers were hurt.

"Coalition forces have dealt significant blows to Al-Qaida Iraq in recent months, including the recent killing of the Tunisian head of the foreign fighter network in Iraq and the blows struck in the past 24 hours," military spokesman Col. Steven Boylan told The Associated Press.

Iraq's Defense Ministry said in an e-mail Sunday afternoon that Iraqi soldiers had killed 44 "terrorists" over the past 24 hours. The operations were centered in Salahuddin and Diyala provinces and around the city of Kirkuk, where the ministry said its soldiers had killed 40 and arrested eight. It said 52 fighters were arrested altogether.

The ministry did not further identify those killed, but use of the word "terrorists" normally indicates al-Qaida.

Coupled with the news that taliban fighters are actively seeking a way out of the war, the news is increasingly good for the US and increasingly bad for the jihadis. My guess is that they can't get a life insurance policy. I'm sure the usual suspects will pooh-pooh this. But the fact is that the AP appears to be playing it straight - and this is very bad news for the jihadis.

The Associated Press is reporting that "rebels" overran an African Union Peacekeeping force base in Darfur. At least 10 AU soldiers are dead and the base has been evacuated and abandoned. Oh, and looted by Sudanese forces.

HASKANITA, Sudan - Rebel forces stormed a small African Union base in northern Darfur and killed 10 peacekeepers in an unprecedented attack on the beleaguered mission that threatened key peace talks set for October.

Several others were wounded and dozens were missing after about 1,000 rebels from the Sudan Liberation Army attacked the base in Haskanita late Saturday and eventually stormed it early Sunday, AU peacekeepers told The Associated Press in Haskanita.

The remaining AU peacekeepers were evacuated from the base under the protection of the Sudanese army, who routed the rebels out of the area. Some government troops could be seen plundering goods from the burned-out camp as an AU armored vehicle lay smoldering nearby.

"This is the heaviest loss of life and the biggest attack on the African Union mission," said AU spokesman Noureddine Mezni. "Our troops fought a defensive battle to protect the camp, but 30 vehicles eventually stormed it. … The camp is completely destroyed."

The Darfur situation had been expected to improve after U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon visited Sudan early in September and announced new negotiations with Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir to settle the conflict that has killed at least 200,000 people and displaced 2.5 million.

Al-Bashir later announced a cease-fire during a visit to Rome, but violence increased in the ensuing weeks, with each side trying to improve its position ahead of the peace talks, scheduled to be held in late October in Libya.

Darfur rebels also have grown increasingly hostile to the AU peacekeepers, saying the force is not neutral and favors the government side.

Saturday's raid represents the first time since the 7,000-strong AU mission was deployed in June 2004 that one of its bases has been overrun, though soldiers have been regularly attacked. Several ambushes of AU forces in the past year have been blamed on the rebels.

"There is a war going on between the rebels and the government, and the AU is crunched in the middle," an AU officer said on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner called the storming of the base a "murderous and unacceptable act" and urged all parties in the conflict to show restraint.

I have no idea how accurate this information is, but Wikipedia has something about the Sudan Liberation Army that may indicate that some caution is in order when assessing what actually happened in Darfur:

The Sudan Liberation Movement/Army  (abbreviated as either SLM or SLA) is a loose association of Sudanese rebel groups who fought against the Janjaweed militiamen and Sudanese government forces in the Darfur conflict. The Janjaweed are also responsible for widespread atrocities against Sudanese civilians in Darfur province.

Currently, it has largely divided into factions. The leader of the largest faction is Minni Minnawi and is now allied with the government. Other leaders of factions that continue fighting the government include Ahmed Abdulshafi Bassey and Abdulwahid Mohamed Nour who is largely supported by the people of Darfur. Minnawi is hated by many people of Darfur including people from his own Zaghawa tribe. The peace agreement that is signed by Minnawi's faction is widely rejected by the Darfurians and especially by the Fur, the largest ethnic group in Darfur.

If that is accurate, all may not be exactly as it appears here. It seems a bit conveniently timed that the "rebels" had enough manpower and time to overrun the base, then a Sudanese Army unit just happened to be in place - and strong enough - to force them to retreat. Something to think about.

It's kind of amusing when even the Associated Press has to note the hypocrisy of the Democrat's SCHIP funding plans. Because it is nothing more than robbing the poor to pay for benefits for the relatively rich, so to speak. But the Democrats don't mind. They have an unpopular minority to scapegoat and they are crowing about it.

WASHINGTON - Congressional Democrats have chosen an unlikely source to pay for the bulk of their proposed $35 billion increase in children's health coverage: people with relatively little money and education.

The program expansion passed by the House and Senate last week would be financed with a 156 percent increase in the federal cigarette tax, taking it to $1 per pack from the current 39 cents. Low-income people smoke more heavily than do wealthier people in the United States, making cigarette taxes a regressive form of revenue.

Democrats, who wrote the legislation and provided most of its votes, generally portray themselves as champions of the poor. They do not dispute that the tax plan would hit poor communities disproportionately, but they say it is worth it to provide health insurance to millions of modest-income children.

All the better, they say, if higher cigarette taxes discourage smoking.

"I'm very happy that we're paying for this," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in an interview Friday, noting that the plan would not add to the deficit. "The health of the children is extremely important," he said. "In the long run, maybe it'll stop people from smoking."

It's all for your own good, don't you see? Harry knows best. Trust him. This is not to say that there are not Republicans that are more than willing to tax the heck out of the poor, too, there certainly are. Demographically speaking, a solid majority of smokers are the least wealthy Americans:

By most measures, the average smoker is less privileged than the average nonsmoker. Nearly one-third of all U.S. adults living in poverty are smokers, compared with 23.5 percent of those above the poverty level, according to government statistics.

The American Heart Association reports that 35 percent of people with no more than 11 years of schooling are smokers. Those with 16 or more years of formal education smoke at a 12 percent rate.

Non-Hispanic black men smoke at slightly higher rates than do non-Hispanic white men. But the reverse is true among women.

The demographics of smoking and taxation received scant attention during last week's House and Senate debates, perhaps because many Democrats and Republicans agree that cigarettes are the best target for tax increase if the insurance program were to grow. A few lawmakers, however, took a swing.

"I know there is very little sympathy for smokers these days," Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga., said during the House debate. "But it is still a tax increase on the backs of the smokers. And in order to get enough money to pay for this, it would require 22 million new smokers."

In addition, as the revenues fall - and they will - other sources of taxation will need to be found. They've already demonized and scapegoated one group. They will have to find another to victimize so they can gladhand to the middle class. The precedent is set. They will find another group to make unpopular and to tax to death. Maybe this time it will be a legal activity that you enjoy. In fact, I'd count on it.

If you step back a bit to get some perspective, you might notice something. The Democrat's older rhetoric was to continually revise downward the amount of money that defined the "rich" - at least for ruinous taxation purposes. Now they are steadily trying to raise the amount of money that defines the "poor" - at least for gladhanding purposes. Between those two positions they define the real agenda.

Afghan president Hamid Karzai is saying that there is a significant number of taliban insurgents who are debating opting for peace rather than war. Taliban spokesmen deny that, however.

Karzai said Saturday he would be willing to meet personally with Taliban leader Mullah Omar and give militants a position in government in exchange for peace. Karzai spokesman Humayun Hamidzada on Sunday stressed that the militants would have to accept Afghanistan's constitution.

But Taliban spokesman Qari Yousef Ahmadi repeated a position he announced earlier this month, saying there would be no negotiations until U.S. and NATO troops withdraw from Afghanistan.

"The Taliban will never negotiate with the Afghan government in the presence of foreign forces," Ahmadi told The Associated Press. "Even if Karzai gives up his presidency, it's not possible that Mullah Omar would agree to negotiations."

But Karzai's spokesman said the government has information of a "serious debate" in some groups of Taliban about how long militants want to continue fighting. The U.N. and NATO have also said they see similar indications.

"They want to live in peace and have a comfortable life with their families," Hamidzada said. "There is serious debate within their ranks, but this is a process that takes time."

Why do you suppose the taliban hardliners would suddenly be open to peaceful coexistence? Well, it has something to do with life expectancy.

The death toll this week includes more than 165 militants killed during two battles between the Taliban and joint Afghan-coalition forces, and the 30 soldiers and civilians killed in the Kabul suicide bombing.

Militant attacks and military operations have killed more than 4,600 people so far this year, most of them insurgents, according to the AP count.

Hard calculus: how long until the taliban run completely out of insurgents willing to die for their twisted leaders? Of course some of the brighter ones are starting to see that there is not much percentage in continuing to lose.