HOT5 Daily 6/4/2010

1. "Why do Muslims hate music?" The evils of music according to Muslim fundamentalists.

Representative Sample:Teaching music in state schools has always been prohibited, Bagherzadeh added. A school that teaches music may be permanently closed and its director barred from opening another school, he emphasised. The ban applies to the use of all instruments, including those played in traditional Iranian music.

2. "May the Farce Be With You" Another laughable attempt by the UN to interfere with U.S. war efforts.

Representative Sample: If you capture him you get charged with war crimes. Even if you get him can you ask him questions or do you just read him his Miranda rights, like the Underwear Bomber? If you can’t ask him questions, why bother to get the guy? If don’t get the guy, can you zap him? No that’s a war crime. So maybe should you just let him go?

3. "Too Beautiful for Citigroup?" Don't fire me because I'm beautiful.

Representative Sample: A woman appears to have been run out of her job because she is too drop-dead gorgeous. At least, that's what she thinks, and she's suing

4. "Hamas Thanks Int'l Community By Looting NGOs" Typical. But somehow this will be Israel's fault.

Representative Sample: As thanks to the international community for supporting Hamas in breaking the Israeli military blockade, Hamas has looted and shut down the offices of international Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) [added: including some affiliated with the U.N.] which provide services to poor and needy Palestinians

5. "Things to Be Learned from the Gaza Flotilla Operation" Fast-roping 101.

Representative Sample: It's a graphic.

To submit a blog post for HOT5 Daily, please e-mail me at unrright@NOSPAMgmail.com. Put HOT5 in the subject.

Bush Speaks

I've been pretty critical of former President Bush, who I regard as an incompetent leader who badly mismanaged Iraq & Afghanistan, committing us long-term to major nation building projects that aren't necessarily in the U.S. interest. And as the leader of the GOP, Bush was a miserable failure. He more than anyone cost Republicans control of Congress. He is reason number one that we are now stuck with Obama as president. Without the failures of the Bush era, it's unlikely that a minimally-qualified, relatively unknown Democrat on the liberal fringe of Congress could have ever successfully run and won the presidency. But he did, and now we are all paying for it, thanks largely to George Bush. Having said all that, so far Bush is at least proving to be a class-act as a former president. Although his former vice president has relentlessly attacked the current administration, Bush himself has remained quiet, despite being regularly slammed and blamed for everything by the classless & clueless Obama.  He spoke today about some of his decisions.

"Yeah, we waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed," the former president told a business audience in Grand Rapids, Michigan. "I'd do it again to save lives." ...  Bush also defended the decision to go to war with Iraq in 2003. He said ousting Saddam Hussein "was the right thing to do and the world is a better place without him".

I was glad to see Bush speak out on these issues and defend them. As I've written many times, intelligence was critical in the aftermath of 9/11. Refusing to take necessary actions to extract information from the attack mastermind would have been incredibly irresponsible -- putting the welfare of a foreign terrorist enemy above protecting the U.S. For all his other mistakes, Bush did the right thing in ordering the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and he would have been justified in ordering more extreme measures should they have been necessary. I hope if we ever face a similar situation, another president will have the same resolve to put the welfare & safety of the U.S. above the non-existent rights of a foreign terrorist leader.

The decision to attack Iraq is less clear-cut in my opinion, but it was still a reasonable and defensible action given the circumstances at the time and our mistaken intelligence regarding Iraq's supposed possession of weapons of mass destruction. Much of the criticism of Bush's decision rests on convenient hindsight.

There is another thing that Bush said that I want to comment on, since I'm sure it will be picked up and exaggerated, especially by my fellow atheists who are on the left.

Bush also talked about the role of religion in his life. "I prayed a lot. I really did. I prayed before every major speech. I prayed before debates. It was a very important experience."

Much has been made of Bush's religiosity, and similar comments have been seized upon to portray him almost as someone who thought he was being given personal revelations from God -- a religious crazy who acted because he believed he was on some sort of divine mission. I think that interpretation is ridiculous, and demonstrates a lack of understanding regarding the language used by many religious people. Since prayer doesn't actually do anything, and there aren't any answers from God, when most people pray for guidance they still have to think for themselves, weigh their options, and come to a decision, just as someone who doesn't pray. And when they say things such as, I prayed about it and God led me in the right direction, or I believe it's God's will that I do this, they aren't claiming that God spoke into their ears. They are giving their own considered decision a religious veneer. There are of course people who are genuinely irrational, and who really do believe that God speaks directly to them in a real way, and tells them what do to. I've seen no convincing evidence that Bush is such an individual.

HOT5 Daily 6/3/2010

1. "An Open Letter to Turkey"A must-read.

Representative Sample: when a country that persecutes its Kurdish, Assyrian and Armenian citizens, and sends their elected representatives to jail-- presumes to self-righteously lecture us on how to manage our affairs, it had better remember that holding a stone throwing contest in a glass house will just lead to piles of broken glass.

2. "Bravo For Biden" How often can you say that?

Representative Sample: Biden is wrong on almost every issue and frequently is a buffoon, but at some level he's not a bad guy--that's the way it seems, anyway--and occasionally that manifests itself in a burst of common sense.

3. "The Difference Between the Quran and the Torah" Jews don't take the murderous passages as current instructions.

Representative Sample:When a Jew reads Deuteronomy 13:6-9 that the punishment for apostasy is stoning, it is merely a piece of historical data; it certainly is not to be applied and hasn't been applied for millennia - in fact, more than two thousand years ago the rabbis declared that the passages regarding the death penalty for idolatry, bestiality, blasphemy, illicit sex, breaking the Sabbath, witchcraft, and certain adulterous behavior was purely for historical study, not for actual practice or execution.

4. "Chris Hayes Uses “No Atheists in Foxholes” Line" Good picture.

Representative Sample: We know you’re using it as a literary device and not “stating it as fact.” But people think it’s true. It’s not.

5. "Obama blames BP oil leak on Republicans" The latest ridiculous attempt to shift blame.

Representative Sample: With Jon Stewart now openly mocking him — and people heckling him in public — and Spike Lee telling him to “go off” — President Obama finally blamed Republicans for the BP oil leak.

To submit a blog post for HOT5 Daily, please e-mail me at unrright@NOSPAMgmail.com. Put HOT5 in the subject.

What to Do About Turkey?

There has been much nonsense written regarding Turkey in the aftermath of the flotilla incident. Here's just one example from an Israeli no less.

Monday's botched commando raid on the Gaza-bound flotilla has proven disastrous for Israel. World public opinion has united in condemning the Jewish state and the U.N. Security Council has already demanded an inquiry. Closer to home, the strategic alliance that Israel had painstakingly forged with Turkey is in tatters.

The strategic alliance between Israel and Turkey has been dead for quite some time. The Islamist government of Turkey has for years now pursued a policy of using Gaza and the Palestinians as a weapon against Israel, and as a lever to advance its own power in the region at the expense of both Israel and the U.S.  This policy has included close relations with Iran to the extent of attempting to undermine even the mild sanctions advanced by the Obama administration. Yet from many pundits you still see a pretend view of Turkey, as if it were still the 1990s, with Turkey a solid ally of the U.S. and a friend to Israel.

It has been the shift in the Turkish government, from secular and western-oriented, to Islamist and focused on regional power that has produced not only the rift with Israel, but its transformation from strong U.S. ally to neutral bordering on hostile. There is little Israel could have done to change this dynamic, and any Israeli still pretending that Turkey is some sort of strategic partner rather than a dangerous threat is a deluded fool. The idea that Turkey actually cares about the Palestinian self-determination and humanitarian issues is utterly laughable. All you have to do is look at its savage repression of the Kurds. The Turks have joined Arabs in using the Palestinians as a weapon against Israel, going so far as to help organize the latest blockade-breaking effort in support of Hamas.

So what should the U.S. do? First and foremost we need to recognize reality. And reality is that Turkey is no longer an ally, a strategic partner, or a friend to the U.S. Friends don't ally themselves with rogue states who are open enemies of America (Iran), attempt to destroy the legitimacy of the key U.S. ally in the region, and support anti-American terrorist organizations. Far from being a friend, Turkey is now a problem and a threat to U.S. interests in the region. It's time we recognized that situation and planned accordingly.

One of the main reasons Turkey has felt confident in acting against U.S. interests is the Obama administration's projection of weakness abroad. None of our enemies, rivals and potentially hostile states fears Obama in the slightest. They know his instinctive desire to appease, naivete, inexperience, extreme reluctance to act unilaterally, self-delusion and wishful thinking cripple U.S. power. The overwhelming power of the U.S. is useless without the will to wield it in the service of U.S. interests. Turkey, like many other states, has every reason to feel confident that it can do whatever it wants as long as Obama is in charge of U.S. foreign policy. Weakness breeds aggression, and U.S. weakness risks a Middle East war, something that is definitely not in our interests. There have been reports and speculation that Turkey might actually send a naval escort with another Gaza flotilla. Attempting to break the Gaza blockade with naval force would be an act of war against Israel. A war between Turkey and Israel, which would probably draw in Arab states as well, would be a enormous disaster for U.S. interests. It seems unlikely, but given the current conditions it is conceivable.

One way to avoid conflicts and all-out war is to establish clarity in foreign policy. If the possible reaction of a great power is unclear, an aggressive state might be inclined to gamble. What would happen in the event that Turkish naval forces clashed with Israeli over the Gaza blockade? What is the position of the U.S.? In the aftermath of the latest incident the U.S. should be holding high-level talks with Turkey, and making our position absolutely clear, so that there will be no misunderstanding or miscalculation. Most of this should take place behind the scenes, but it should be forceful and direct. Turkey should be told that regardless of our disagreements with certain aspects of Israeli policy, U.S. power stands firmly behind Israel. We recognize that a Turkish military attempt to break the Gaza blockade is an act of war against Israel, and it will be treated accordingly. Depending on the Turkish response, this message could be reinforced by sending a powerful U.S. naval force to the Eastern Mediterranean. There are all sorts of other issues that should be raised at such a conference between the U.S. and Turkey, but I'll leave it at that for the moment since this post is getting pretty long. Wars often begin through miscalculation and delusions about the possible actions of states with interests in the matter. It's time to for Obama to use his "let me be clear" line for something meaningful.

HOT5 Daily 6/2/2010

1. "Is Brazil Nuts or Does it Understand America's Self-Proclaimed Weakness"A prime example of just how badly the Obama administration has screwed up U.S. foreign policy.

Representative Sample: if the United States doesn’t defend its own reputation and interests, make its foes worry and its friends feel secure, it can expect no quarter from enemies or those who decide that being a rival is going to be more profitable than being an ally.

2. "The BP Oil Spill’s Lessons for Regulation" Interesting analysis and perspective.

Representative Sample:The finance industry already is warning that new regulation may overshoot – that is, have the unintended effect of sharply impeding growth. Now, we may soon face the same concerns over energy policy, and not just for oil.

3. "How Do You Say "Frenemy" in Turkish?" Even mainstream sources are taking note of the increasing hostility of Turkey. And this article understates the case.

Representative Sample: It is hard to admit, but after six decades of strategic cooperation, Turkey and the United States are becoming strategic competitors -- especially in the Middle East. This is the logical result of profound shifts in Turkish foreign and domestic politics and changes in the international system.

4. "Donald Berwick: the $1 trillion health care disaster in waiting"Another terrible nomination by Obama. Big surprise.

Representative Sample: Berwick has written lovingly of Britain's bankrupt NHS: "I am romantic about the National Health Service; I love it... All I need to do to rediscover the romance is to look at healthcare in my own country [which is governed by] the darkness of private enterprise."

5. "Is it possible to be fully rational and have faith in a god in the same time?" Sort of.

Representative Sample: A human mind just works in a way in which it picks and chooses things from a complicated and wide-ranging thing like a religion according to his or her preferences without even realizing it. A modern rational Christian may pick and choose only rationally acceptable bits and parts from his or her religion and may come to eventually see his or her personal religion and god as a quite rational construction.

To submit a blog post for HOT5 Daily, please e-mail me at unrright@NOSPAMgmail.com. Put HOT5 in the subject.

International Law, Blockades & Civilian Status

In the aftermath of the latest incident in the ongoing effort to delegitimize Israel, I thought I'd comment on a few issues that have come up. I rarely have much to say about international law, because -- if it isn't obvious by now -- I regard it as largely a myth, when talked about as if it were actual "law." International law is not binding on states -- unless they voluntarily bind themselves -- except on the weak facing a coalition of stronger states willing to enforce their interpretation. Greater powers not only make international law, they can interpret it to their liking, or ignore it altogether in many instances. Having said that, there are long standing customs & traditions, generally accepted, that form part of what is called international law. Two such areas that fall into that category are blockades, particularly the naval variety, and civilian status.

Blockades are a feature of naval warfare that have not faded into obscurity and disuse. Some may have forgotten, but there was a massive effort to blockade the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s during the NATO intervention. According to the LA Times, NATO naval forces stopped and inspected 74,000 ships during that period. There are two main requirements for a blockade under international law. First, the existence of a blockade must be public. And second, it must be "effective." Effective means that it must be enforced. You can't declare a blockade, not bother to enforce it, and then occasionally & selectively stop some ships. That's harassment of shipping, not a blockade. Israel's blockade of Gaza is public. Under international law it is required to enforce it. If it doesn't do so, and just allows ships to violate it, the blockade itself no longer has legal existence.

Now we come to the always contentious issue of civilian status, which has been blurred by the prevalence of non-state, irregular combatants. Civilians have traditionally had protected status in warfare under international law -- even though that status is sometimes ignored in practice. But that protected designation rests on civilians as noncombatants. Civilians who take up arms against military forces lose their protection and become combatants. Until fairly recently, such civilians were actually labeled as illegal or unlawful combatants, and often subject to savage reprisal, such as summary execution. This is particularly true of civilians who abuse their protected status to ambush military forces.

There has been much howling from anti-Israel types, as well sympathetic bleating from their useful idiots who claim to support the Jewish state, about Israel killing "civilians" in the latest incident. Most of those making such assertions love to whine about international law, yet they ignore it completely as it relates to blockades and civilian status. To maintain a blockade, Israel is required to enforce it. The standard method of doing so is for naval forces to stop ships and inspect them. This requires that naval personnel board the ships in question, as was done 74,000 times by NATO in the 1990s. If the civilians aboard a ship which is stopped ambush or otherwise attack the boarders, they give up their protected status as civilians and become combatants. What weapons they have available or choose to employ are completely irrelevant.  This would be true even if the ship in question was truly neutral, and not filled with terrorist supporters. A legal case could even be made that the Gaza flotilla was not comprised of neutral blockade runners, but rather was an enemy force attempting to break the blockade. In other words, those on board were in fact belligerents on the side of Hamas, and could have been sunk without boarding and inspection. But in any event, by their own actions the occupants of that ship gave up their protected civilian status when they chose to take up arms. The killing was entirely justified under long-recognized principles of international law -- not to mention basic common sense.

HOT5 Daily 6/1/2010

1. "Kill ‘em all" If necessary. My heart doesn't bleed for enemy terrorist supporters.

Representative Sample: Knowingly or not, the Jew-hating, terrorist-loving, anti-Western blockheads sailed armed into a war zone, and they got what they had coming. Next time we can only hope the Israelis sink the bastards outright, without needlessly exposing themselves to attack by these genocidal swine.

2. "Comparison: Liberal Reaction Vs. Conservative Reaction To The Israel/Flotilla Story" Try to find any leftists that defend Israel's legitimate attempt to enforce a blockade against its enemies.

Representative Sample:it's at times like these when you get to see which side really supports Israel and, newsflash, it isn't the political party that's in charge in this country today.

3. "Never Give Up Your Weapons" Ask the Carthaginians.

Representative Sample: Having surrendered their swords, the Carthaginians could only resort to words. So they appealed to the Romans for mercy and pity. But none was granted.

4. "Pirates Threaten Boats on US Border Lake" A situation I hadn't heard of until I read this article.

Representative Sample: The waters of Falcon Lake normally beckon boaters with waterskiing and world-record bass fishing. But this holiday weekend, fishermen on the waters that straddle the U.S.-Mexico border are on the lookout for something more sinister: pirates.

5. "Was Israel's Boarding Of the Gaza Flotilla a Violation of International Law?" No.

Representative Sample: the laws of the sea indicate that Israel was in her bounds when she boarded the terrorist boat last night.

To submit a blog post for HOT5 Daily, please e-mail me at unrright@NOSPAMgmail.com. Put HOT5 in the subject.