I don't want you to think I'm getting all "mystical" on you but after a restless night of sleep I've come to a half-formed conclusion. A good part of my days news readings were mulled over by my subconscious mind and the conclusion is that North Korea is currently the greatest threat overall to world peace.

Oh sure, Al Queda is a loosely organized band of terrorists threatening the U.S. and Israel and they are seemingly able to enter our country through "the back door" and inflict great harm on us. But they can only hurt us a little bit at a time. And it doesn't seem likely they could start something that would wind-up a world war. The same with Iraq; a piss-in-pot country run by a nut-case. If and when the U.S. goes in there, the battle won't last very long. The worst about the Iraqs and Syrias and Saudi Arabias is their support and funding of groups such as Al Queda.

North Korea scares me because not only is it now clear that they do have some sort of nuclear weapons program, but also (probably) are on their way to having inter-continental ballistic missiles. Further, by being an arms merchant to other "loose-cannon" states, they are an enabler for others to create mayhem all over the world. As AP writer Calvin Woodward said yesterday:

North Koreans "have the incredible ability to reverse-engineer anything they get their hands on," Edward Laurance, author of 'The International Arms Trade.' said. "The Chinese are taking Russian airplanes and making their own production lines. The Iranians have bought not only ballistic missiles from North Korea but a production capability."

And:

North Korea has been selling industriously to anyone who wants to buy.

As we've just seen when the U.S. intercepted a ship ladened with Scud missiles destined for Yemen. There is good reason that not only the U.S. but also China and Russia fear North Korea. Relating remarks from U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage on a trip to China, Jeremy Page reports for Reuters:

"It's not for me to give messages to the Chinese leadership," he told reporters before meeting China's Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan and Vice Premier Qian Qichen on Thursday.

"But I think that China shares the same concern that the United States has, that Seoul, Korea has, that our Russian friends have, that the Japanese have and that is that we have to find a way to denuclearize the peninsula of Korea," he said.

"And I'm sure the Chinese will be urging some different behavior on the North Koreans."

He was speaking before the North Korean government announced that it was immediately reactivating its nuclear power plant in response to a decision to suspend oil aid to Pyongyang over its atomic arms program.

The plant, suspected of producing plutonium for nuclear weapons, was frozen in 1994 under an agreement with the United States in return for light water nuclear reactors and fuel oil.

North Korea is a country that should be feared greatly. And watched closely. I am more worried about them then Iraq when it comes to enabling or starting an incident that could quickly escalate to a very large conflict involving far greater losses then anything a mid-Eastern country could inflict. Yes, India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons but they always seem to stop short of actually launching them, perhaps realizing they will both simply annihilate themselves.

Radical Islamics want to annililate Israel and the U.S. They don't have the capability yet. North Korea could give them that capability.

I'm not going to link to a posting ten inches below this one but scroll back there for some background. The peasants are revolting and so are the politicians. Here's the story from todays CBC:

OTTAWA-- The federal government, under pressure for overspending on the national gun registry, says it's going to scale back the program for the foreseeable future.

Justice Minister Martin Cauchon told Parliament on Thursday that he will freeze spending.

He said the program will continue to operate but at a minimum level.

But Cauchon did not explain how the registry can keep going after he withdrew a request for another $72 million in operating funds.

"We are looking within the Justice Department operating budgets to manage any shortfall in resources until my review is complete," he said.

Alliance wants program scrapped But opponents of the gun-control measure say the whole thing should be scrapped.

"He continues to defend a program Parliament now refused to fund," said Canadian Alliance member of Parliament Garry Breitkreuz.

In a non-totalitarian country like Canada or the United States, where gun ownership has been taken for granted since the founding of the country, any attempt to confiscate firearms or license and register them will meet with failure or will create the biggest "boon-doggle" in that nation's history. And in simpler language, you will piss everyone off. And you will accomplish nothing except to spend a lot of everyone's money on a program that will not work, that will not be obeyed, that will not reduce crime.

Here in the United States, the right to bear arms is not a privilege, it is not something that needs permission, it is not something the government grants at it's whim. It is a fundamental right and requisite to the most basic foundations and continuing maintenance of the freedom and spirit of a nation. It is written by the hand of our founders onto the original documents that led to the formation of our great nation. Furthermore (and I'm repeating myself here) it fulfills at least one and maybe two of the three prime directives that drive all living beings and specifically all humans:

1) The need to feed oneself and family.

2) The drive to love and/or procreate.

3) The instinct to defend oneself and family.

Any government that attempts to interfere with these fundamental impulses will meet with abject failure unless they resort to draconian measures that will likely result in the loss of all freedom and liberty to the citizens, who will then become subjects.

Canada is finding that out as we speak and it is incumbent on us (here in America) to support and encourage the resistance there. Or sit back and do nothing and eventually watch it attempted here.

I should state at the outset that I am (of course) against any attempt to implement gun licensing and registration at the federal level. I've blathered about this enough elsewhere on Alphecca and I'm sure I will again. In fact, the only small "plus" I could see in it for gun owners is that there would only be (or only should be) one license and one registration. Then, like a driver's license or car registration, I should be able to buy or carry my gun anywhere in the U.S. Right? (Of course it wouldn't work that way; N.Y. and California would have a fit...)

Today I'll play with math and the cost of such a system. While reading the articles to compile my weekly chart in the previous posting, I got to thinking. You see, our neighbor to the north, Canada, implemented just such a system and the costs of it are skyrocketing. Here's some background from The Globe and Mail:

The theory behind gun registration is to make Canadians safer by helping police keep closer track of the millions of guns in people's homes. It is anyone's guess whether we will wind up safer, but, as Auditor-General Sheila Fraser reported yesterday, we are sure to wind up poorer.

In paragraph after paragraph, she details the mismanagement and incorrect assumptions that fuelled the meteoric rise in the cost of the Canadian Firearms Centre's gun registry. In 1994, the Justice Department estimated the cost of licensing people to own guns and then registering each gun at $2-million -- the difference between $119-million in expenses and $117-million in projected fees paid by gun owners. By 2001-02, the department had spent $688-million and collected only $59-million in net revenues. Latest word is the program will cost more than $1-billion by 2004-05, to be reduced by only $140-million in fees.

Ms. Fraser's chief concern is that the Justice Department hid the cost overruns from Parliament, but she notes that the "astronomical" overruns are serious in themselves. Indeed they are. Her findings vindicate those critics who predicted from the start that the official cost forecasts were unrealistically low. The Fraser Institute, for one, predicted in 1995 that the registry would cost $1-billion once enforcement and operational costs were factored in.

All sorts of excuses are given for the huge costs but it all boils down to the fact that the Canadian government started a huge new bureaucracy that is costing the country a fortune and hasn't helped to stop crime. Criminals don't register their guns. Anyway, can we presume that the U.S. government is no more efficient then Canada's? Using my rudimentary math skills, and let's assume that the Canadian dollar is only worth half an American dollar, what would such a program cost U.S. citizens?

If we use the figures quoted above in the article, it is costing Canada a billion dollars to register 7-25 million guns held by, and license 2-3 million Canadians. For the sake of my argument I'll assume 15 million guns held by 2.5 million owners and half the overall cost is for registration and half for licensing (which costs more because of background checks.)

In the United States it is estimated there are 225 million guns owned by 90 million people. 15 X 250 million and 36 X 250 million. I come up with 12 3/4 billion dollars. That's a lot of money for a program that won't have any effect on crime. And if there is a federal license and registration, it will be hard for an individual state to justify having one of their own. How much will the states give up in sovereignty over their own control of firearms regulations?

What if that same money was instead spent on fighting crime and locking up criminals and enforcing the 20 thousand gun laws already on the books? No, that would make too much sense...

Well if it's Wednesday it must be time for the gun control debate table. Every week I check the front page of the Yahoo Gun Control Debate page and tally the for and against articles. Obviously it's subjective but what the hell...

Yahoo Gun Control Debate Articles
Sample Date	Pro More Gun Control Or Anti-Gun	Not More Gun Control Or Is Pro 2nd Amendment	Neutral Articles
12/11/02	13	6	4
12/04/02	15	2	3
11/26/02	17	2	1
11/20/02	18	2	2
11/13/02	14	2	3
11/07/02	17	4	-
10/26/02	21	4	-

Now before you get too excited thinking that some semblance of balance is returning to Yahoo, you should know that there were a lot of new articles and editorials this week but most of them came from the CBC News of Canada. That is, the pro-gun articles dealt with debate in Canada over the new mandatory registration of long-guns there as it relates to the Inuits in Nunavut and other Northern areas. There were also articles about the incredible cost overruns of the program --something anti-registration advocates here in America should take notice of for further arguments against universal registration.

If I had only counted U.S. generated stories there would only have been one pro-gun (from the Wall St. Journal) and two neutral articles. Most of the other stories were gleeful accounts of the decision by the 9th Circut court.

...by my posts all over the place, I'm off from work today. And I'm in a rare good mood. So everything has been light-hearted. I'm off tomorrow too and what with my gun-debate table due and other things, I'll go back to my snarly ways.

Anyway... Firstly, you should again visit Arthur Silber's Light of Reason blog because he has been discussing the existence of God. This is always a subject close to my heart. Personally, I call myself "spiritual" and leave it at that but while I don't subscribe to any major religion, I do believe in some form of a God. Anyway, it's all very interesting and Arthur and his readers have plenty to say. Arthur has one of the most thoughtful and interesting blogs around and I enjoy it every single day. I also value his friendship immensely.

Another good friend of Alphecca, the folks at On The Third Hand always have cool stuff including a new feature; a bulletin board where bloggers can post their latest news. I appreciate the mentions and links. And since some of them visit Vermont every so often, I think next summer would be a swell time to have a gathering of Northern New England bloggers meet and (oh God, here is another flatlander expression) "network." And who wouldn't like to take a trip to Vermont?

Lastly, and this time it really is leastly, Andrew Sullivan is begging for dollars. Now don't get me wrong, I really do like his blog. But you know what, there are a lot of cool blogs out there with posts just as well written, just as well thought out, just as pertinent as his. He wants to earn a living from his. Well who the fuck wouldn't? He already makes plenty of money on his writings in The London Times and Salon and elsewhere.

Now he wants to be paid for what all us peons do everyday for free. Laurence Simon at Amish Tech Support has already commented on this and here's much more from him. He's right; Andrew wants it all; to work from home, get paid big bucks to live on Cape Cod and wait for Robin Leach to visit him. (visit his tipping station and scroll down to see just how well he's doing. He's doing very well indeed compared to any other blogger and many on-line news-sites.) Simon is right that Andrew does nothing for the blogosphere. He links to none of us and mentions none of us. I've written him twice and (not that I pretend I'm worth linking to but...) he has done nothing for me or anyone else out here in the trenches. Well, more power to him if he can make it work.

I didn't realize so many people had such time on their hands (presumably at work...) Here's another entrant for the contest. Greg Moore writes in:

I presume you want us to think up new lines for this. Just off the top of my head I come up with:

My right foot
Just fell into the fireplace soot,
My big dick
just dropped into your Nestle's Quick.

Is that childish enough for you?

Absolutely! Just perfect! I think we're getting into the spirit of this now... Keep those cards and letters coming, folks.

Already a response has come flooding into Alphecca Headquarters. John Anderson writes:

Not a winner, all I can remember is

Leprosy,
It's crawling all over me,
A bit of pink percale
Is floating in my ginger ale

sung to what I think was a tango. If you never suffered through dance school, ask your grandmother what a tango is. Maybe her mother used to talk about it.

We"ll show those Goobers just how juvenile all of us can really be around here...

Believe it or not, once upon a time I was a car saleman. When I first moved to the area I took the first job I could find; selling cars for a large dealer in Lebanon, N.H. We sold Chevy, Volvo and VWs. After two months I quit because I couldn't stand it. What brings this subject up is a posting by my blogfather Glenn Reynolds at InstaPundit. He did not have a very good experience yesterday at a car-dealer. I'm not surprised. He said:

... The first was that the dealer had slapped a near-$6000 markup above the sticker price, turning the car from a bargain to, well, not a bargain. The second was that they wouldn't let us drive it. (In accordance with journalistic ethics, or whatever, we didn't tell them we were writing about it.) The salesman was extremely anxious to have me choose a car from the several on the lot, agree to buy it, "sign some papers" and then, and only then, actually drive the car.

And:

I also think that the car industry is screwed up. Every time I start to think about buying a car, I put it off for months -- or sometimes years -- because they make the process unpleasant. And I say this as someone who always negotiates a good deal, but who doesn't enjoy it. (Though the VW dealer who sold me my Passat made it as painless an experience as I've had along those lines, and gave me an excellent price, too.) If buying a car were as easy and pleasant as buying , say, a stereo, I think that people would buy new cars more often; I'm pretty sure that I would. You'd think that the automobile industry would have that figured out, but I'm afraid that fixing their distribution and sales system would threaten too many rice bowls.

I know just how he feels. Here's the story from the other side. I had quite a bit of sales experience so I knew I could handle the mechanics of meeting, greeting folks and selling them a car. I hadn't had experience working solely on commission but thought, "Okay, I'm good at sales, I can handle this..."

The first thing I learned is that the dealer intentionally hires too many salesmen so that when it is occasionally busy, no customer has to wait. Salesmen are supposed to wait till it's their turn to approach someone. Of course, that also means that if it isn't busy, you have eight hungry salespersons circling 'round the hapless "up" (that's the customer as in, "whos' up?") like starving catfish in a hatchery. Often the potential victim hadn't even parked their car yet when the salesperson would start their stalking.

There are two theories about salespeople. I happen to believe they are born. That is, whatever their makeup, they are comfortable and relaxed when meeting and chatting with people. They immediately put the customer at ease. They are good at reading subliminal signs that customers give off and adapt themselves accordingly. You must never act as if you are better then the customer. You must meet them just below their level of education, status, and speech. You must have a good sense of humor but should be a quick judge of what you can get away with. You must be non-threatening to them in every way. That is, if it's a couple, you must not ogle the wife or flirt with the husband. You also have to like and believe in the product.

Alas, the car industry doesn't feel that way. They believe you can turn anyone into a great salesperson with training. And boy do they have training. Now don't get me wrong, there are some techniques that can help a bit but frankly, some things can only be learned through experience -- not roll-playing. And if you are uneasy around people, shy, or don't know your product, you should find a new line of work. Anyway, car dealers train their salespeople to "slam" people into a car whether they want it or not. We were trained to eliminate any objection you might have and to try anything to get you to sign on the line. Don't let the customer think about it. Don't let them mull it over for a day or two. Whatever it takes, don't let them off the lot unless it's in a new car.

Want to know if you are qualified for financing? Just put a hundred down -- okay, twenty dollars down on this car and then we can find out...

And for those who don't know, when a car salesperson says he has to check with the manager, that's generally a crock. A technique. He then comes back uttering something like, "good news, I can knock a hundred off the price." He could have done that all along but the customer now thinks someone higher up approved this incredible price-cut on a twenty-thousand dollar car and you must be getting one heck of a bargain.

Asking how much you can afford for a payment is also a technique. If they know that then they can leave the price alone and adjust the financing rate and time accordingly. "What will it take to put you in this car?" Run like hell...

I am surprised the dealer wouldn't allow a test-drive. We actively encouraged it to start the feeling of "ownership" in the customer. We would even allow customers (after leaving their license with us) to drive it on their own without the salesperson yakking it up in the back-seat extolling all the great features and benefits.

Also, we didn't offer much of a deal on any car or truck that was especially hot at the moment because we didn't have to. Large SUVs were just becoming hot items and there were plenty of customers willing to pay anything for a Blazer or Tahoe. And those large-ticket best-sellers were how both the dealer and the salesperson made their money. A VW Golf or Jetta would only net the salesman maybe $75.00 in commission.

So I quit after two months. It just wasn't for me. I've never thought of going back. It's no wonder folks are starting to buy their cars on-line. Incidentally, mattress stores are the same way. Just slam the customer into a deal and then move on to the next.

Yesterday I received an unsigned email which said:

...Your stupid website is the most juvenile I've ever seen. Grow up and learn there is more then just your idiotic viewpoints.

Oh Yeah? Yo Mama! I'll show you Juvenile! Announcing

A Contest!

In order to show him/her just how sophomoric and immature I can really be, I'm going to have a contest right here at Alphecca. Think back to your elementary-school days. Remember the "Leprosy Poem?"

Leprosy
is crawling all over me,
Kiss me quick
I am losing my lower lip,
my left eye-ball
just fell into your high-ball...

I don't remember the rest of it but maybe some of my fellow pre-schoolers do. Anyway, I'm inviting all of you to submit further
-hopefully original- lyrics to this classic masterpiece of prose. And all submissions will appear here (not in the sidebar) as they come in so that they live on in perpetuity. I feel safe picking on Lepers because I don't notice any major advocacy groups for them. And they haven't had their own March On Washington yet. (Could you imagine the cleanup after an event like that?) In poor taste? Hopefully! Juvenile? You bet! Send your submissions to:

contest@alphecca.com

Contest ends December 22, 2002 and I will even create a new page for our entire collective poem and add it to the sidebar. Judging will be by the entire staff of Alphecca International including my cats. Winner will be notified by email.

But wait, there's more! The winner receives a giant 1.7 ounce bottle of pure Vermont Maple Syrup.

Shown actual size as it might appear to a Vermont black-fly. So let's all pitch in and help turn Alphecca into the most childish blog on the web.

A brand new blog, Leigh Hanlon's HanlonVision. He hails from Chicagoland and is an ex-journalist, ex-dot-commer, and he's coming out live on the web. He's also a ham-radio and shortwave radio buff (and there are some cool looking old SW radios behind him in his picture.) A very good looking site with different topics then the usual. Go say hello. I've added a link on the sidebar.

Once again the religion of peace proclaims it's glory. Here are the grotesque details of the story from Rawhi Abeidoh of Reuters:

DUBAI (Reuters) - The al Qaeda network has claimed responsibility for attacks on an Israeli airliner and hotel in Kenya which killed 16 people and vowed even more "lethal" assaults against Israel and its chief ally, the United States.

This is the bombing of the Jewish hotel in Kenya that killed 3 Israelis and 13 Kenyans. All of them innocents. Once again -- it doesn't matter how many innocent civilians die, these extremist Muslims will murder any number as they lash out at a world they refuse to be a part of and can never join. Women, children, tourists, locals, they all must die as part of the grand plan of the religion of peace.

To their absolute credit, the local Kenyans rejected this latest sick offering from Islam and reinforced their support for America, for peace, and for Israel. This (Kenya) is a country and people who deserve the highest support from the U.S. They have proven their worth, their support for decency, and their rejection of violence.

As for Al Qaeda and it's minions, they will get theirs. And I have a further message for this extremist garbage: There are no 72 virgins awaiting you. Only an all knowing and very pissed-off God who will put all of you in the worst hell of your nightmares. He will give to you the mercy you gave to your victims. Rest in anguish, you shits.

I'm getting a little tired of hearing that it is just the extremist-few Muslims. Where the hell are the voices of the supposedly moderate-many Muslims denouncing these continued horrors and this twisted culture of death and violence? Where are the protests of these other Muslims? I can't hear them! Speak up now! If you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem.

The religion of peace. Right.

You can always tell someone who's new to the area. Driving home tonight in my little car I hit a snow-squall. U.S. Rt. 5 is (like all of Vermont roads) unlit by streetlamps except right in the middle of larger towns. Entering Rt. 5, I hit a huge white-out snow-squall. High beam headlights are of course useless. You have to go with low beams. There are no lights on Rt. 5. All you can see are huge flakes of snow coming at your windshield. On a weekday, Rt. 5 is rarely travelled ever since Interstate 91 opened up 30 years or so ago (not that that is much travelled. This is a rural area of a rural state.) The road is covered with snow so you can't see any painted lines and there are no tire tracks to follow. And like most of Vermont, there are no guard-rails except by the steepest of fall-offs. All you see is white. You have no idea of direction to go and can't see 20 feet in front of you.

Of course an SUV with NY plates zooms up behind me because my tail-lights are easy to follow. He sits about 5 feet behind my rear bumper. As the front runner (front-door?) I can only go 10-15 miles per hour. By the way his high-beams are blinding me in my rear-view mirror and the way he keeps trying to pass me, I can tell he's impatient, obnoxious, a typical arrogant flat-lander. I pull over when I can and he zooms past. And there goes his brake lights. His high beams go off. He can't see and has to slow down to -- what do you know -- the speed I was going. But like most jerks in SUVs, he speeds up again. If I couldn't see, he can't possibly see either. He spins out and goes into a ditch.

All this trash moves up here, buys up bankrupt 150 year-old farms they don't need or plan to use, posts the 100 acre property for the first time in its history, and grumble about how nice rural Vermont would be if it wasn't for the natives, the locals. And of course -wanting to experience rural living and get back to a simpler way of life- they need to tear-down all the beautiful old farmhouses rather then fix them up, and put up 8000 square foot mansions. Well, I guess they don't know it all. Not on a night like this.

...so here are some quick takes as I cruise the net:

First of all, Tim Wilson likes one of my favorite bands, Vermont grown Phish. Tim demonstrates excellent taste -- as usual.

Arthur Silber (of course) has all sorts of interesting discussions going on at Light of Reason. So go there now but then come back.

I've added Laurence Simon's Amish Tech Support to my blogroll. I like it. And he has a Death Pool going for 2003. Grim and fun, I'll be paying attention. A cool blog.

My html mentor Aubrey Turner has an interesting story story about a local high-school where several goats and lambs were killed by dogs. Regrettable, but it does happen. But one of the students compares it to 9/11. *Sigh* Much as it is fashionable (especially by liberals) to compare any (again, horrible) slaughter of people to the WTC attack or to the Holocaust, there is a difference in size and scope and neither comparison should be made. It only serves to minimize all such acts. Anyway, Aubrey is on the story.

And finally, thanks to Jay Manifold who has an interesting comparison between Strom Thurmond and Trent Lott and the different routes they took in regards to the military.

Okay, really the last thing here (but not the leastest...) Jay has turned me on to a new website called Agenda Bender. which I have looked over and enjoyed. So I'm tossing it into the side-bar links. Given my politics, the Agenda Bender blogger might not appreciate that. But I like to present a variety of opinions and thoughts on Alphecca. He has many interesting thoughts.

...And I'm due at work in an hour. But here's a quick take on just how hypocritical Amnesty International can be. And why no matter how lofty an organization's goals might be, you need to investigate a bit before donating money to them. The goal of AI is to alleviate human-rights abuses and torture in countries around the world. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, here is a quote from their website from one of their spin-off organizations, Stamp Out Torture:

Torture is abhorrent. Torture is illegal. Yet Torture is inflicted on men, women and children in well over half the countries of the world. Despite the universal condemnation of torture, it is still used to extract confessions, to interrogate, to punish or to intimidate. In Police stations and prison cells, on city streets and in remote villages, torturers continue to inflict physical agony and mental anguish. Their cruelty kills, or leaves scars on the body and mind that last a lifetime.

The victims of torture are not just the people in the hands of the torturers. Friends, families and the wider community all suffer. Torture even damages and distorts the hopes of future generations.

Amnesty International and other organisations have been campaigning against torture for almost 40 years. Take a Step to Stamp Out Torture and One Click To Stamp Out Torture are boosts to the continuing work against torture. They are global campaigns, launched simultaneously in more than 60 countries. They utilise Amnesty International's experience in gaining media coverage, in publications and in lobbying, as well as mobilising the million individual members Amnesty International has worldwide.

Again, who could argue with such an ambition? The problem is, like so many large international groups, that Amnesty International has fallen sway to the politics of many of their sponsors, particularly from the "leftists" in the European Union, and here in the U.S. And since they abhor America, they have to find ways to decry any action the U.S. takes, even if it will further their goals. Here's Jonah Goldberg from NRO:

Amnesty International couldn't dispute the facts of the British dossier because the British dossier was, in fact, largely a reprint of information gathered by Amnesty International. So, it attacked the motives of the British government.

"There's no question that the regime has an appalling human rights record," Kamal Samari, a spokesman for Amnesty International, told the Washington Post. He admitted, for example, that the group had collected the names of as many as 170,000 Iraqis who had "disappeared." "But what we don't want to see for Iraq or any other country is that the human rights record is used selectively in order to achieve political goals."

What? . . . What!?

I could have sworn the whole reason Amnesty International existed was to make fixing human-rights problems a "political goal." When Amnesty talks of using the record "selectively," it means that the U.S. and its allies are being hypocritical by not taking a uniform line around the world on human rights. Ms. Khan complains, "Let us not forget that these same governments turned a blind eye to reports of widespread violations in Iraq before the Gulf War."

This is so childish. So stunningly, jaw-droppingly immature it staggers the imagination. A reasonable and mature human-rights advocate would shout "Finally! You people are going to do something about Iraq! I hope you don't stop there!" She would say, "At long last, you are going to fix the problem you helped create!" She would ask, "What can we do to help?" Instead, Amnesty has its dress over its head because America isn't doing the right thing for the right reasons. This reminds me of an annoying former girlfriend who wanted me to go to some Meryl Streep movie because I wanted to, not because she was making me. That's fine for youthful boyfriend-girlfriend stuff, but grown-ups interested in stopping mass murder and systematic torture are supposed to get beyond such silliness. Serious people take their victories where they can.

And in an unsigned editorial in todays Wall Street Journal:

The Amnesty spokesman emphasized that governments should consider the "consequences" of war on the people, but when asked what the consequences of war had been for Afghans or Kosovars the spokesman suddenly wouldn't be drawn. "That's not something for us to comment on."

Why? Shouldn't an organization that purports to monitor human rights actually cheer when something is done to improve them, as in Kosovo or Afghanistan, even when that something is war?

Lastly, Amnesty insiders say that the organization believes that even if Saddam's regime is abominable, so are many other governments around the world--including U.S. "allies" such as Saudi Arabia--and nobody is proposing regime change there. Readers of these columns know that we're more than a little perturbed with coddling the Saudis, but the ultimate sanction of regime change must be used only in extreme cases. And why isn't improving the lot of at least the Iraqis a good thing?

And brilliantly:

None of this is moving Amnesty, so far. The group has raised a fuss about al Qaeda and Taliban operatives being held in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. But why? Despite their crimes, they are not being tortured, they get three square meals a day, a shower and time to pray. It has also practically put the entire blame for the Middle Eastern conflict on the Israelis, absolving the Palestinians of almost all responsibility. Now it goes soft on Saddam, because the U.S. is finally getting tough with him. This is human rights work?

They can't have it both ways and you could bet your bottom dollar -the one you were thinking of donating to Amnesty International- that if Al Gore were president and was thinking of waging war with Iraq, there would be a much different tune coming from them. In a past life, when I had more expendable income, I made a lot of donations to large international relief organizations including Amnesty International. Now I keep my charitable donations local where I know they are doing some good and where politics takes a back-seat to good deeds. There are still some worthy "big" charities out there and no people anywhere in the world are more generous then Americans. I certainly don't want that to stop. But I do urge caution. We need more light shed on the dark corners of some of these organizations to be sure their only concern is fulfilling their missions.