Letter to the editor of the Phnom Penh Post on Dr. Jarvis' appointment

Dear Editor, I read with horror about Dr. Jarvis' appointment to head the Victims Unit. Youk Chhang, the head of DCCAM is by far the most experienced professional insofar as outreach to the Cambodian people and the outside world about the genocide and the Tribunal. I receive emails from him almost daily, and he was the Cambodian head of the Yale Cambodian Genocide Program, which, with Ben Kiernan, has produced almost all the scholarly work related to the genocide. The fact that Chhang was not offered the position, or even asked about the appointment, speaks volumes about the ineptitude and corruption which has marked the Tribunal from the outset. The fact that Dr. Jarvis is neither a Cambodian nor is she a victim of the regime is offensive, but not shocking. The appointment of overpaid foreigners in NGOs and UN agencies is nothing new in Cambodia. The glaring offence is not her ethnicity, however, but her political ties and alliances. In a letter from just three years ago she signed to the following:

"We too are Marxists and believe that 'the ends justify the means.' In time of
revolution and civil war, the most extreme measures will sometimes become
necessary and justified. Against the bourgeoisie and their state agencies we
don't respect their laws and their fake moral principles."

This kind of speech is something that the Khmer Rouge themselves subscribed to, and it is Marxist ideology that led to the deaths of roughly two million people in Cambodia, which created the necessity for a Khmer Rouge Tribunal and a Victims Unit in the first place. The philosphy that the "ends justify the means" in the persuit of creating a Communist nation is something that Pol Pot himself was a champion of. Having Dr. Jarvis head the Victims Unit of the KRT and ECCC is akin to having a Nazi Party member running victim relations for the Nuremburg Trial for Josef Mengele, the "Doctor" and head of torture at Aushwitz, the largest Nazi concentration camp.

Bethany Murphy
Washington, DC

Marxist to head the Khmer Rouge Victims Unit

The Phnom Penh Post has a blog running to keep track of news coming from the Khmer Rouge Tribunal (KRT). Today, I caught up on weeks of news. It's been extremely frustrating watching the Tribunal from the outset. It's a joint UN/Cambodian venture, which, from the outset spells a recipe for disaster. The only body I know less equipped to deal with such a venture besides the Cambodian government is the United Nations. Yet, over thirty years later, here we are, trying almost senile old men for genocide. The Cambodian people are barely aware of the tribunal, and the reaction is mixed among those who do. Some want the entire Khmer Rouge era to pass without delay, some want justice for the hardships they endured, for torture, for the deaths of their loved ones. One bit of news stuck out, however, in the never-ending parade of embarrassments for the ECCC. In an effort to become more connected to the Cambodian People, the KRT decided to open a Victim's Unit to collect testimony. There's already a wonderful organisation in place, DC-CAM, which, run by Cambodian Youk Chhang, has collected thousands of victim's testimonials. The Court, in its infinite wisdom, however, decided to appoint a Westerner, Dr. Jarvis, to run the office. Many Cambodians, rightfully, have apprehensions about a woman who never experienced the horrors of Khmer Rouge regime running the office. Most involved believe Mr. Chhang is far better equipped, who is in addition to being a well recognised scholar of the regime, is also a victim of it. The greater, issue, however, is that Dr. Jarvis is also an avowed Marxist. That's right. She is a subscriber to the same ideology as the Khmer Rouge. And she is supposed to be the advocat of the victims of her own philosophy? Just three years ago she was the co-signer of a letter which stated the following:

"We too are Marxists and believe that 'the ends justify the means.' In time of
revolution and civil war, the most extreme measures will sometimes become
necessary and justified. Against the bourgeoisie and their state agencies we
don't respect their laws and their fake moral principles."

I'm not sure what else I can say. I really don't have any idea. If we do not learn from the evils of Leftism and Marxism, history is going to continue to repeat itself. The legacy of this ideology is strewn with the bodies of millions upon millions of its victims. The partially UN-run tribunal is the same UN which continued to recognise the Khmer Rouge as the government of Cambodia for years the Vietnamese ended their rule, at which time the true nature of their crimes become apparent to the world.

Cheney nails Leftist philosophy

Another term out there that slipped into the discussion is the notion that American interrogation practices were a "recruitment tool" for the enemy. On this theory, by the tough questioning of killers, we have supposedly fallen short of our own values. This recruitment-tool theory has become something of a mantra lately, including from the President himself. And after a familiar fashion, it excuses the violent and blames America for the evil that others do. It's another version of that same old refrain from the Left, "We brought it on ourselves."

As a former Leftist, this is dead on. I'm writing a book, and on this subject I wrote the following:

For people that became interested in politics and current affairs after and because of 9/11, they usually took one of two tracks. The first was that we, the Western world and the United States must have done something to warrant the attack, somehow we were responsible. The second was that we were now at war with radical Islam, and it could and should be treated as nothing other than that. Unfortunately, at first, I had come to wonder what we, the United States, had done to cause such an attack. Perhaps in retrospect this wasn’t altogether the worst outlook to take, given that it made me inquisitive about the world around me like nothing ever did.

It's not an illogical position to take. I didn't want to believe that some people were just evil. I thought there must have been some fault on our part to warrant such an attack. But do rape victims deserve the horror that was wrought against them? The reasoning doesn't jive. But terrorism isn't a logical phenomenon. Why would people risk their lives to kill good and righteous people? Cheney's answer?

It is much closer to the truth that terrorists hate this country precisely because of the values we profess and seek to live by, not by some alleged failure to do so. Nor are terrorists or those who see them as victims exactly the best judges of America's moral standards, one way or the other.

As a practical matter, too, terrorists may lack much, but they have never lacked for grievances against the United States. Our belief in freedom of speech and religion … our belief in equal rights for women … our support for Israel … our cultural and political influence in the world - these are the true sources of resentment, all mixed in with the lies and conspiracy theories of the radical clerics. These recruitment tools were in vigorous use throughout the 1990s, and they were sufficient to motivate the 19 recruits who boarded those planes on September 11th, 2001.

The mistake of moderation

Last night I was watching the Heritage Foundation's webcast of Karl Rove speak to a number of their members in Southern Michigan. It was an hour and a half long video, but I have to say, it was quite worth it. It reminded me a lot of Rush's speech to CPAC, it was a rallying cry for the conservative movement. Check it out:

http://www.myheritage.org/media/?bcpid=18808669001&bclid=17841328001&bctid=23821412001

He made a very interesting point about 3/4 of the way through his speech - one that I wanted to write a little about. I think it puts the argument about moderating the GOP to rest. People say (like Meghan McCain and Colin Powell) that the party needs to drop some of its conservative principals in order to appeal to more voters. They say that Obama won for a reason, and in order for the GOP to win back these voters, we need to abandon the legacy of Reagan and forge a new path. It all sounds very logical on paper. The other night I went to a speech hosted by the Republican Jewish Coalition, and I listened to Michael Barone discuss the election and the future of the party. This guy wrote The Almanac of American Politics, and I think he has all of the statistics found within memorised. McCain did not energize many traditionally Republican voters, who did not show up. If the vote had shifted even 1.65% - this election could have been a lot different. This election wasn't about Democrats losing faith in the Republican party, it was about Republicans losing faith in the Republican party.

Back to my original point about Karl Rove, the Architect. He said, paraphrasing, if we move to the center and become more like liberals, voters will be given a choice between real liberals and fake liberals. And if it's liberals that they really want, why would they vote for the fake ones? And if it's conservatives they really want, they won't turn out at all. It's a lose-lose scenario for the Republican party.

Meghan McCain has been quoted saying she almost voted for Gore & Kerry - or did she? That is the beauty of the secret ballot, a freedom which Obama would like to take away from unionised workers (found within the Employee Free Choice Act). It is "moderates" like McCain that think that the social issues of the Republican party (like abortion) should be dropped off the table. For the first time since Gallup started polling about the topic, the majority of Americans self-identify as pro-life. Why would we drop the issue of Life when, for the first time in history, the majority of Americans fall to the Right on this issue? Listening to Rove last night and Rush during CPAC reminds me of why I'm conservative, and gives me faith that the GOP will find its voice and its path.

Lessons of Cambodian development

When I first thought to write this entry, I considered saving it for later to post onto my personal blog, which I'll be publishing in a few weeks to write about some adventures in my near future. You can keep an eye on www.bethanyshondark.com for that. It occurred to me, however, that the issues facing the development of Cambodia are also facing us as Americans. They involve a clash of ideologies, a clash of philosophy, a clash of values.

To give a brief history of Cambodia:
In the 1970s a Communist regime, the Khmer Rouge, took over the country and decided to institute a totally self sufficient agrarian (Communist) society. Not only were the intelligentsia useless, but they were also dangerous. When people started complaining, and later, when they started starving too much to complain, the KR knew that the educated were the ones likely to start a counter-revolution. That's why they killed them first. In the end, up to 2.5 million people died in four short years, a rate faster than the Ottomans and the Nazis' genocides. Almost everyone with a college degree, people who spoke foreign languages, who lived in cities, even people who wore glasses, were exterminated.

It is extremely interesting to see how this history impacts Cambodia to the present day. You see it in big ways and in small ways every day, something I'm sure I'll be blogging about.

There are literally thousands of development workers in Cambodia at any given time, working for religious organisations, NGOs like UNDP, as well as USAID and its counterparts in Korea, Japan, etc. When I first became interested in working in Cambodia, I gravitated towards working for one of these organisations. It became clear to me, however, that their philosophies were in direct opposition to my own. When I arrived in Cambodia, I knew I was right to teach a skill (English) verses in an NGO.

When my students looked for jobs, they gravitated towards work in the NGO world. They would lie about being Christian in order to secure a position, they would do anything. Much like a union here in the States, working for an NGO is a sweet deal. One has job protection, benefits, and a comfortable and stable salary. The best and the brightest vie for these positions, and then stagnate in offices with Westerners who tell them how to run their countries. Watching my brightest students languish in positions they were too good for was infuriating. They knew what was best for their country, and should have been the ones running it. Given the comfort and ease of letting outsiders do it, why would one of my students decide to be entrepenurial and open a business instead? I saw few take this path.

Three years ago, when I was there last, I said that I felt as though I was witnessing a crossroads in Cambodian history. In human history. Never before has a civilisation come back from the ashes and rebuilt the entire intelligentsia class from scratch. There was no domestic expertise to tap, and everything was starting from square one. It's an interesting social experiment. I still feel as though Cambodia is at a crossroads, but I don't like the Left turn that it's taking. They have learned the deadly dangers of Communism, and do not see that the Leftist NGO workers who are shaping its future are just as dangerous, even if they aren't as deadly.

I see our own country taking a Left turn. This too, disturbs me. The tendency to take the easy road, to let others determine our fates (our jobs, health care, retirement plans) in exchange for job security, is a mistake. We have seen how unions shut down European cities when their bloated (and unsustainable) benefits are at risk. This country was built on an adventuring entrepreneurial spirit. If the best and the brightest gravitate towards the easy and safe jobs, we won't be any better off than Cambodia. We have the foundation of our fore-fathers to secure our position as the world's super power, but that won't last forever. If we continue to dig the hole of debt that President Obama has turned into the Grand Canyon of debt, that foundation will disappear. If the upper class (to quote Ayn Rand: the producers) are taxed into lethargy, the beliefs that made this country the beacon of hope will disappear along with them. They'll go to Cambodia. There's no income tax there.

Glaring holes in Leftist philosophy

Two news stories have really left me stumped today. This is my first puzzlement:

From CNN.com - http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/05/10/saudi.court.wife.slapping/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
Saudi judge: It's OK to slap spendthrift wives

My Leftist friends have gone to the moon and back defending Arab culture. They say that it is unique, valuable, and should be respected. How is it that these Leftists, all of whom call themselves feminists, can support a culture that is so blatantly anti-woman? I see women (http://zombietime.com/sf_anti-war_rally_oct_27_2007/the_al-aqsa_kaffiyeh_brigade/) clad in kaffiyehs at protest rallies and I scratch my head in amazement. If these women marched down the streets of any Arab country dressed and acting the way that they are, they would be stoned, or worse. This is on the heels of dozens of stories of young girls suffering from genital mutilation and forced marriage before they begin menstruating. How is it they feel the desire to rally for a cause which is only bent on the destruction of all of the values they hold dear? How do they, as supposed champions for women and young girls, not lash out against a culture that conducts itself in this manner? How do they have the audacity to accuse the United States of being an immoral nation while these atrocities are occurring elsewhere in the world?

Second puzzlement:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,519777,00.html
Cybill Shepherd Blames the Mormons & Catholics for the Passing of Proposition 8

The polls have shown it, quite clearly, that the same people that voted for President Obama, overwhelmingly black and Latino in California, were the people that voted for Proposition 8. The Left would never blame blacks for anything, they are loathe to seem racist, they are not afraid of blaming those with religious convictions. This tactic will ultimately hurt their cause if they want Prop 8 turned around. Even Marion Barry said it (when the DC city counsel voted on the gay marriage issue), black people just don't like gay marriage. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dc/2009/05/barry_warns_of_civil_war_over.html
In order for the gay marriage train to pull out of its California station, the Left in that state are going to have to ask themselves hard questions about how it can garner support from those who defeated them last time. But first, it's going to have to admit who passed Prop 8 to begin with.

The rebirth of the GOP

Today on CNN.com - a beacon of neutral journalism, there was a bit of commentary on the resurgence of the Republican party. One of its equally neutral viewers wagered a very interesting comment:

Kris

GOP rebound?! Dream on. It will not rebound unless you guys learn to listen and be more moderate. Your views are so extreme and your followers ill informed about the world. You lack empathy and insist on your own way even though your crooked ways failed in the last eight years! Not only that you are a bunch of hypocrites. You want less government intervention and yet you want to appoint the most conservative judges to the Supreme Court. Why? Because you want to interfere with other people's way of life.

I’ll take this line by line.

Be more moderate:
As much as I hate to admit it now, because I pulled for him so much during the primaries and the election, McCain was the wrong choice. He was too moderate. There was very little difference between McCain and Obama, except Obama was younger, sexier, and more eloquent. While neither delineated specific plans of attack in regards to the Iraq war, the economy, health care, or education, Obama could get away with it, and that, in large party, is due to the Obama-media lovefest which preceded the election, and which is still taking place. The biggest issue of the Conservative community right now is the bailout and the budget (the teaparty movement). While McCain railed against pork his entire campaign, he blindly followed President Bush and now President Obama to the bailout slaughter. While Palin was not the right choice due to her lack of foreign policy experience, she still was one of the best governors we've ever seen. Alaska is a better place to live because of her, and Wassila has been completely remade because of her influence. She has executive experience, something neither Presidental candidate had. Perhaps some executive experience could've helped when Obama was picking his Cabinet.

Extreme & ill informed views:
This is another of many cases of the Left deeming diverging opinions as extreme and ignorant. The Left loves portraying itself as the haven of inclusiveness and open-mindedness. That is, unless you don’t agree with them. You cannot judge someone on their religious beliefs (well, unless you really are practicing, then that’s just loony), their ethnicity, their sexual orientation... There’s a whole list of what we cannot discriminate against. Except political views. Politicians like Palin and Bush Jr. were ignorant, personalities like Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin are bigots, and Dick Cheney and Karl Rove are nothing less than pure evil. Despite my having a Bachelors from a public Ivy, having travelled to over 25 countries in my life, I’m still pegged as closed minded and ignorant by most Leftists that I meet.

Lack of empathy:
This one really gets me. I need to quote Rush Limbaugh’s CPAC speech on this one.

I want to tell you who conservatives are. We conservatives have not done a good enough job of just laying out basically who we are because we make the mistake of assuming people know. What they know is largely incorrect based on the way we are portrayed in pop culture, in the Drive-By Media, by the Democrat Party.

Let me tell you who we conservatives are: We love people. [Applause] When we look out over the United States of America, when we are anywhere, when we see a group of people, such as this or anywhere, we see Americans. We see human beings. We don't see groups. We don't see victims. We don't see people we want to exploit. What we see -- what we see is potential. We do not look out across the country and see the average American, the person that makes this country work. We do not see that person with contempt. We don't think that person doesn't have what it takes. We believe that person can be the best he or she wants to be if certain things are just removed from their path like onerous taxes, regulations and too much government.

The rest of his speech can be found here: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_030209/content/01125106.guest.html

I genuinely think it’s worth a listen.


Our failures the past eight years:
My biggest issue with President Bush was his fiscal liberalism and his support of bailouts in his last few months. Fingers can be pointed on both sides of the aisle for responsibility for the recession, and someone who definitively places blame on anyone’s shoulder’s shouldn’t be trusted as far as they can be thrown. However, there’s not much else I take issue with. After September 11, 2001, right after he came into office, we were attacked on our soil for the first time since Pearl Harbour. And we all waited with anxious, baited breath for the second attack. And it never came. He kept us safe. While some people may have found his methods questionable, the end justified the means when the end was American lives. He did not endanger our economy by drastically altering our environmental policy, nor did he use our tax dollars to pay for foreign abortions or research with fully realised human embryos, and for that, I am grateful. The biggest complaint against President Bush is, of course, the invasion of Iraq. At the time, it was "known" that they were possessors of WMD. They used it against their Iranian neighbours, and the wouldn’t let UN weapons inspectors in to verify their having disposed of them. By a vote of 29-21, the Democratic members of the Senate, voted for the war in 2003.

Less government intervention:
Yes, that is what we want. Thank you for getting something right.

Appointing conservative judges to the courts:
And Democratic Presidents appoint liberal judges to the courts. It’s called politics.

Interfering with other people’s way of life:
This is perhaps to do with gay marriage and abortion. While I am in favour of the former, this is ultimately a decision that belongs to voters, not politicians, not lawyers, and not judges. While I applaud people gaining equal rights, it should not be the few making the laws for entire states. California got it right when they introduced Proposition 8, regardless of the outcome. The efforts of the Left to subvert the will of the voters here is un-Democratic and un-Constitutional.
As for my views on abortion, scroll down. That's what I think.

The farther in time on on the spectrum I move from the Left, the more I see it for what it truly is.

So, the question is, how do we change our image? How do we spread the truth and disseminate our positions in a hostile Left-leaning media?

A word on embryonic stem cell research

President Bush was vilified for not allowing federal funding for stem cell research. These stem cells originated from "thrown away" embryos in fertility labs, and since they were "garbage", they could be used for experimental research that has the potential to cure diabetes, Alzheimer's, etc. The thought that fully realised embryos, which, if they were merely implanted into a womb would grow into a child, was not something President Bush could support with federal funds. It amounts to aborting an embryo before it's even been in a womb. There was a common misconception that he made it "illegal". He did not. He just didn't want American tax dollars supporting it. Just like regular abortion.

Then our saviour, Barak H. Obama came into office and reversed that decision immediately. But it's too late. American scientists have figured out how to create stem cells without a fertilized embryo ( http://www.dbtechno.com/health/2009/04/25/scientists-make-history-find-new-way-to-create-stem-cells/ ). But it's probably no matter. Experimenting on potential children is the "change" we voted for.

Why I'm pretty sure I think I'm pro-Life. Maybe. I'm getting there.

When I was in high school, I was a Leftist. So far Left, it makes me sick thinking about it now. I would attend protests calling for the destruction of the Jewish state, and for former President Bush to be tried and hanged for war crimes. I went to a high school that didn't exactly discourage this sort of thing. I think of it as Indoctrination High (David Horowitz's new book, Indoctrination U: http://www.amazon.com/Indoctrination-U-Against-Academic-Freedom/dp/1594032378/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240232313&sr=8-1 ).

I was a Leftist before I started there, however my level of political interest was limited until my senior year of high school. The only thing my mother voted on was the issue of abortion, even on the state and local level. If you didn't support a woman's right to choose, she didn't support you. Slowly, starting in college, uncharacteristically, I moved to the right. It started with two books: A History of Israel by Howard Sachar, a dry historical accounting of Israeli history from WWI to the present. I saw the Middle East, for the first time, in an un-biased light, and it made me wonder why the Left was hellbent on defending a people that tried to commit genocide against another ("throw the Jews into the sea!" was exclaimed during the War of Independence in 1947). The Jews were always eager to give land and peace whenever possible, but were often thwarted by the Arabs who were insistent on the destruction of the Jewish State, and nothing less. A second book, Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand showed me the future of a socialist state, and made me totally reevaluate my economic leanings. Something that I've held onto, however, was my social Leftism. Until now.

Like many other bits of my Leftism, I never quite understood how people believed in G-d and religion. I thought it was a crock. There's a famous quote by the wrestler-turned-Governor Jesse Ventura, "Religion is a crutch for the weak-minded." That was my truth. I always self-identified as Jewish, and culturally and historically sided with the Jewish people. The G-d part of it, however, I didn't quite buy. It wasn't until a biology class my first year of college that something clicked. The perfect way that everything worked, how every cell and every system of the body perfectly complimented another, the thought struck me. "This is no accident." Thus started my venture into the world of religion, only this time I wasn't an outsider looking in.

So what does this have to do with abortion? During this same class, I started to see how much we are impacted by our DNA. How little nurture has so little to do with who we are, and how much it as to do with nature. Why did some siblings in the Holocaust survive when others did not? Why, in the face of adversity do some flourish and some fail? Partially it is to do with how we are raised, but mostly, it's how the genome falls. There is much less personal choice than most people feel comfortable with admitting. To me the argument that "it's just a bunch of cells" fell short of the reality. That bunch of cells was a potential person, with complexities and potential, just like a full-term fetus. It is no less a person at day 9 than it is at month 9. It astounds me to look at my baby cousin, to see how quickly her personality formed, long before she was aware of her own hands. Why are some babies "happy babies" and some miniature Scrooges? It's in our DNA, it's inherent.

In the summer of 2007, I spent three months in Cambodia. While I was there, teaching at an English school for adults, one of our students offered to let the female teachers come to her clinic, where she was performing abortions, to watch one. I was the only one to decline. The others I think saw it as a woman's right to choose in action. Each came back pale, and couldn't really speak about what they saw. It was, I think, much more violent and graphic than they expected. By the time the fetus was big enough to be vacuumed out, it already looked like a baby. Probably because it was.

After that point, I decided, personally, I would never do that to myself or my body, and more importantly, to my child. I decided, however, it was a personal choice that every woman had the right to make over her own body. Who are we to regulate that? But the thought occurred to me, once that embryo is formed, is that really her body anymore, or is it that it becomes outside of her control? Should it be one person's choice to end another's life? I don't think so anymore.

And what of the argument: they're going to do it anyway, let's give women a safe alternative? Do we give guns to convicted murderers, because, hey, they're going to do it anyway? No, we do not facilitate crimes just because of their likelihood of occurring. You can do it, in end we can't stop you but we shouldn't be offering a helping hand. Nor should we be providing tax-dollars to do it, Mr. Obama (read: Mexico City Policy).

We, as women, do have a choice. The choice is to not become pregnant in the first place. With the ready availability of birth control pills, condoms, IUDs, no woman in the United States of America has any business getting pregnant when we don't want to. (And yes, I know that I am ignoring the issue of rape and incest, however that is quite honestly an entirely new ball of wax, and the amount of abortions those cases actually account for is really quite small.) The issue becomes what happens when we do get pregnant accidentally.

My biggest issue with the Left is a complete lack of accountability, a complete lack of personal responsibility. We expect other people (read: the government) to provide our health care, to help us on defaulted mortgages on homes we could never afford in the first place, to pay for the retirements we never prepared for. However, taking ownership of these mistakes is the first step in making them right. We should not run from them, or pretend as though others should solve them. This should not doom children to death before life, nor to homes that never wished for them in the first place (pull a Juno, open the PennySaver, there are plenty of couples that would do anything for a child to love).

So, to echo the title of this entry. I'm pretty sure I'm pro-Life. I'm getting there. It's raining outside today, and I just hope that my mother doesn't pull a Zeus and strike me with lightening. That's probably the only thing stopping me from saying, yes, I am pro-Life. My first memory with my mother is driving down the highway on Long Island and giving protesters at an abortion clinic the finger. It's a happy memory. I'm almost able to settle myself with who I am now, to what I was then.

To all the Leftists reading this (I doubt any have made it this far), watch this:
http://www.catholicvote.com/

Chatting with Chavez today, bowling with Ahmadinejad tomorrow

Earlier today I loaded CNN.com as I usually do when I'm in the mood for a quick fix on the news. Given their unbelievably biased coverage of the tea parties earlier in the week (you can tell I Twitter too much when I made that one word instead of two), I've been doing that less frequently. What I saw almost made me fall off my couch. Our President sharing a coy smile and a handshake with none other than Hugo Chavez.

Even in my worst of Leftist days, I despised Mr. Chavez. I had a friend when I was living in Belgium (in 2002-2003) that was Venezuelan, and he would tell me stories of his family's apartment in Caracas getting fire bombed, and they always suspected Chavez's chronies. His parents would be harassed and assaulted at protests against the government. Even though I, at the time, was an avowed Socialist, I disapproved of his violent methods of keeping and saying in power.

There are many things that frighten me about Mr. Chavez. His being in bed with our greatest enemies, namely Arab extremists and Mr. Ahmadinejad, top fairly high on my list. In a visit to the UN in 2006 Mr. Chavez stood in front of the world and called a sitting U.S. President "the Devil" and declared that the US was "on its way down". Previously he had stated that Bush committed genocide and said the U.S. President should be imprisoned by an international criminal court. Granted, Obama has been on an anti-Bush bend for a while now (compare this to Bush's refusal to comment on Obama on his latest trip to Canada). Meeting, shaking hands with, and smiling for the cameras with Hugo Chavez is just another of President Obama's slaps in the face for a man who served this country for eight years. This meeting with Chavez, however, signals not just disrespect for former President Bush, but also a shocking Left turn in American foreign policy.

Mr. Obama seems to believe that opening tourism to Cuba will bring it closer to democracy, and farther from the Communist totalitarianism they've been living under for the past fifty years. Allowing more Americans onto the shores of this Communist isle will do nothing more than line the pockets of party leaders, further entrenching them in power. Family members who have vocally oppposed the regime would be foolish to visit, given the liklihood of an "accident" (read: firing squad) which would prevent their safe return to US soil. Being nice, Mr. Obama thinks, is enough to drive the country off the Communist dictatorship path it's been on for the past ten US Presidents.

Mr. Obama believes that he can charm the world the same way that he charmed the US public with empty rhetoric about "hope" and "change". Leaders like Kim Jong Il and Hugo Chavez, however, do not respond to smiles, handshakes, and empty threats of UN sanctions. Now, more than ever, we need a leader who the the rest of the world respects, and more importantly, fears. Niccolo Machiavelli famously stated, "It is better to be feared than loved. You cannot be both." Well delivered speeches, shirtless trots on the beach with your family in Hawaii, and catchy campaign slogans may win elections, Mr. Obama, but they do not, and will not, keep this country safe.

Our New Drug Czar makes me want to light up. Don't worry, he won't mind.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/16/us/politics/16czar.html

The New York Times has gone off the deep end. The title of this article is: Some Find Hope for a Shift in Drug Policy

I do not find hope, but instead fear (a theme in my relationship with President Obama since the start). Fear for the city of Seattle who has placed drug use as such a low priority under R. Gil Kerlikowske, and fear for our nation as he becomes the head of drug policy in this country.

As chief of the PD in Seattle Mr. Kerlikowske ignored a festival called "Hempfest". People lit up directly in front of police officers, a violation of the law and decency, but these officers were instructed to be "courteous and respectful". No arrests were made.

The hiring of Mr. Kerlikowske as drug czar gives some liberals hope that drug addicts will no longer be arrested and dogged by the police, but instead offered "treatment and intervention". We have moved from being a lawful society to one which specializes in hand-holding.

This follows the notion that drug addicts are victims of others and of disease. I was enrolled in a BSW (bachelors of social work) at Rutgers a few years ago. In my intro to Social Work class my professor (the director of the BSW program) called drug addicts "drug victims". I raised my hand and asked if these were a special kind of drug addict. If they were perhaps held down and shot up with heroin against their will, or if they were living in a bubble before using and were unaware of the pitfalls of drug use. The professor chided me for my insensitivity to these people we were "suffering" from drug use. Needless to say, I changed my major.

Selecting Mr. Kerlikowske as the enforcer and writer of drug policy in this country creates a liberal's dream of society. A society where no-one is responsible for their own actions, and the government is seen as a parent.

The New York Times, in a pathetic effort to be "fair and balanced" (as if they should even feign impartiality anymore) offers up some criticism of Kerlikowske towards the end. He arrested too many black people in ratio to the general population (so he stopped). Gang violence is up (no, really? drugs and gang violence are somehow related?). He was soft on rioters, and did not allow police to respond to them in a timely or effective manner. His PD was not involved enough in needle exchanges, and he wasn't supportive enough of a ballot imitative which would have placed drug possession at the bottom of the Department's priority list.

If this is our vision of the War on Drugs in the Obama era we might as well quit pretending and start drawing up business models for pot cafes, like in Amsterdam.

In college my school newspaper would put out a joke edition once a semester filled with outrageous stories. For a moment, I thought that perhaps this was something like that. But, alas, the New York Times only specialises in a new kind of journalism now, "Yes We Can journalism". Welcome to the New America - it's something like Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, only not so many trains. Not much else different though. It's a shame, I really liked the trains.