Update 2: (7/26/06)

Well, since Carl decided to comment, I needed to do a little more homework… see the comments.  However, I decided to look at the Bill a little bit closer, and indeed, I found two things that allow politicians get off scot-free. See if you can spot them:

SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

The purposes of the Fund shall be–

(1) to increase the economic competitiveness of North America in a global economy;

(2) to reduce the income gap between Mexico and Canada, and between Mexico and the United States; and

(3) to promote economic development in Mexico in the areas of infrastructure, education, technology, and job training.

and

SEC. 7. REPORT.

Not later than 180 days after the date on which the Government of Mexico complies with the criteria described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 5(b), and once every 180 days after such date of compliance and before the finalization of the agreement described in section 2, the President shall submit a report to Congress detailing the progress made by the Government of the United States to establish the Fund in accordance with this Act.

Notice what is missing?  Accountability. 

This is a project – the Fund is supposed to straighten out Mexico (something it doesn’t seem to be able to do for itself).  But how is that to be measured?  Any project manager worth their salt knows that in order to be successful, you need deliverables on a milestone basis.

What this is setting up is that it can do anything, or nothing.  Sure, there is reporting – looks good on paper, doesn’t it?  The only accountability is setting the stupid thing up in the first place.  

Then what?  If the US gov’t, because of its size and special interests,  cannot get things right in a lot of areas, what gives anyone the idea that three countries (one of which is failing) will succeed?  Yes, NATO succeeds only because its mission is singular.  NO if you look at the UN, and the EU ain’t such a hot place economically or from a democratic standpoint either (ever notice that most of the EU ministers and minions are, for the most part, unelected?).

UPDATE 1: (7/26/06)

The Senate bill can be found here .

 ====================================

Sorry, I am in a real snarky mood today….and now Senator Cornyn (R-Texas) has the gall to try this:

Cornyn wants US taxpayers to fund Mexican development – North American Investment Fund" 

How would this be done?  Listen to his pitch:

WASHINGTON – Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, has quietly introduced a bill to create a "North American Investment Fund" that would tap U.S. and Canadian taxpayers for the development of public works projects in Mexico.

Has all the oxygen gone out of the air in Washington!?!?!?!

Read more

The kind of war that most of us remember, and that most history books contain, are wars against nations. Armies, navies, air forces – all are the forces of nation-states use to either conquer other nations (re: Iraq taking over Kuwait) or to protect its citizenry (e.g., America after being attacked by Japan in WW II). This is familiar and wars of these nature are “normal”.

The attack by Hamas on Israeli forces, citizens, and land (after evacuating from the Gaza strip in a failed show of trading land for Peace) and then by Hezbullah in the north shows a different type of war…one that the West is almost helpless to wage. It is not the case that the West lacks the military forces; rather, it is the lack of a legal or ethical foundation on which to wage war effectively when at least one side refuses to fight “by the rules”. We are ill equipped to handle a conflict where the other side embeds its forces and logistics within the civilian population. Why is this? There are two reasons.

Let us discuss the first.  How do you wage war by rules that the other side not only ignores, but glorifies in breaking those rules?  How do you fight when hamstrung by guidelines that seem to be no longer valued by both sides (for without both sides honoring them, they aren’t worth the paper on which they are written) ?

An example is this: we hear so much that we must abide by the Geneva Convention so that when our prisoners are captured, they will be well treated.  Can someone tell me, with a straight face, when our folks were treated well?  Seems to me that the Islamofacists seem to enjoy separating heads from necks with long knives (no matter if their captive is military or civilian).  They flaunt their disregard for conventions.  Our response?  The Supreme Court (the Hamdan decision): makes it encumbent upon our military and legal systems to treat these non-state combantants as if they were members of a nation-state that was a signatory to the Conventions when no such agreement with that Convention exists. 

Gee, do we have to continue to make it harder to effectively defend ourselves? 

Read more