Some Chicago Boyz know each other from student days at the University of Chicago. Others are Chicago boys in spirit. The blog name is also intended as a good-humored gesture of admiration for distinguished Chicago School economists and fellow travelers.
James R. Rummel The United Nations has once again criticized the United States for our treatment of enemy combatants held at Gitmo. They claim that we are violating their “fundamental human rights”.
The UN’s opinion means so much to me right now.
Maybe we just don’t agree on what the word “violation” means.
There was a time, many years ago, when I took a six month sublet on a house. The rent was so reasonable that I couldn’t pass up on the deal, but the place was going to be sold after the lease was up so I knew that I couldn’t stay there any longer than that.
The house wasn’t furnished, and I wasn’t about to shell out a few hundred bucks for curtains or blinds for all of those windows. I thumbtacked bedsheets up so the neighbors wouldn’t have to see me wandering around the place.
A woman I was seeing at the time was appalled! “You have bedsheets over the windows! What will the neighbors think?”
She didn’t understand, so I sat her down and gently explained that it didn’t matter one little bit what opinion the neighbors formed. I was going to be gone in 180 days, never to see any of them again for the rest of my life. No, what really mattered was what I thought of them!
After all, I work nights and keep odd hours. All I would have to do would be to turn my TV or stereo up a little in the wee hours of the morning to be a real nuisance. I didn’t own the house, so it was their property values at risk if I didn’t bother to mow the lawn or take the trash out. There wasn’t a thing they could do to me in the brief time I was going to be there that would matter one little bit, while I could cause a fair amount of frustration.
Not that I was looking for a fight, of course. Just like most people, I prefer to get along. They didn’t bother me so I acted just like I always do and was the best neighbor on the block. Considering my sensitivity to security issues and my odd schedule, that little section of suburbia was actually safer while I was living there. Sort of like having an unpaid security guard living next door.
I am sharing this slice of my past with you because of this news story on the Reuters website. It seems that Arab attitudes concerning the United States is growing ever more negative, which supposedly indicates that a change in US foreign policy is needed.
In recent years, a Liberal talking point has become the linchpin of many complaints concerning the Bush administration. This trope can best be summed up by the phrase “They don’t like us anymore!”
It seems that the American public in general and our elected government specifically is supposed to drop everything and pay close attention to the opinions and attitudes of people living in other countries, people who cannot vote in US elections and who almost certainly do not have our best interests at heart. These opinions are supposed to dictate how the US public votes, and it is supposed to play a central role when our government makes major policy decisions.
The big problem is that I just can’t see why I should give two hoots about how the US polls overseas. This goes double when it comes to opinions collected in third world dictatorships, places where the press is a tool of whatever royal family or oppressive religious organization that demonizes the US in order to cover up their own failings.
When considered in this light, actually changing our foreign policy just because an opinion poll says we should would mean that our elected officials aren’t doing their job to look out for our interests. In fact, it might even be a treasonous act.
This blog normally tilts towards the right side of the political aisle, so there aren’t too many Liberals dropping by. But if there should happen to be one or two that stumble across this post, maybe they could explain why the opinion of the great unwashed in other countries should matter one fig when it comes to our foreign policy.
After all, history teaches us that these people are going to hate us no matter what we do. Why in the world does it matter if they hate us a little more?
Being an old James Bond fan, I was interested when mention kept cropping up about a book by Simon Winder entitled The Man Who Saved Britain: A Personal Journey into the Disturbing World of James Bond
Most of the bloggers who discuss the book present it as a handy way to gain a historical perspective on Mr. Fleming’s most famous character. Plot elements or settings in the books and films that nowadays seem ordinary and unremarkable were once loaded with significance. Mr. Winder, it was said, supposedly put everything into context, explaining why Bond was a creation of his times and why the character resonated so with the audiences of the time.
This intrigued me, mainly because I have always had a vague feeling that there were plenty of nuances to Bond and his exploits that passed me by without making an impression because I was lacking a British cultural background. It appeared that Mr. Winder’s book would be just the thing to put everything into perspective.
Things were grim when I was growing up in the 1960’s. Natural resources were being depleted at an alarming rate, DDT was causing mass extinctions, pollution was destroying the ecosystem, and the time when the planet’s petroleum supply would run out was in sight. All the experts agreed that we were doomed in 50 years. I had maybe five decades in front of me to live a relatively normal life before things fell apart. After that, the natural resources that humanity depended on to survive would be completely gone.
So how do we fare now that 40 years have passed?
According to the WWF, things are grim. Our end times are in sight. We have maybe 45 years before the natural resources that humanity depends on for survival are completely gone.
I find myself unable to work up any sense of urgency. I wonder why this is so?
I have always supported securing our southern border, mainly due to concerns about law enforcement issues. This seems pretty cut-n’-dried to me.
But, for some reason, people who are critical of plans to control access to our territory usually start talking about how Islamic terrorists don’t enjoy much support down in South America. It is very puzzling to me when they do this. What, we should ignore every other criminal activity or threat unless there is a Jihadi reason behind it? That doesn’t seem very reasonable.
I also hold the opinion that any breach in your security will eventually be exploited by those who mean you harm if they possess the means. It is only a matter of time.
I am not particularly concerned about an imminent attack from Islamic terrorists smuggling arms and suicide warriors across the Rio Grande, but they will get around to it eventually if we don’t plug that hole, and things might start to escalate sooner than we think.
Allowing those who are critical of increased border security to define the debate is probably a bad idea. I have always looked to their assertions about the lack of Islamic terrorists in South America as an attempt to distract from the real issues. But, for some reason, I don’t mind pointing out that they are wrong once again.