New START: US finally achieves unilateral disarmament

This is a new web log, so I can only attest to the fact that I've held the New START Treaty to be a one-sided deal, with only the US ending up cutting its nuclear weapons & delivery inventory.  There is legitimate debate about whether lessening our inventory could actually be an advantage or not, such as allowing us to more easily update the quality of our inventory, or allowing that our strides in more precise targeting (such as our cruise missiles blowing through the front door) means that we may not need as many weapons with a Circular Error of Probability that can be measured in kilometers.

But what brings the argument to my table is the stance adopted early on by the State Department, that both sides would see a reduction of some 30% in their respective inventories.  Despite protests of high dudgeon to the contrary, it turns out that the State Department had to admit that its critics were right.

As of February 5, the day the treaty came into force, Russia already was below the ceilings mandated by the treaty both for deployed strategic nuclear launchers and for warheads. . . . Secretary of State Clinton denied this now-obvious fact before the Senate Armed Services Committee and charged that American treaty skeptics making such observations “just don’t believe in arms-control treaties at all and from my perspective are very unfortunately slanting a lot of what they say.” . . . “The Treaty does not force the United States to reduce unilaterally.”

But:

The results of the . . . New START treaty were released by the State Department on June 1. They demonstrate conclusively the truth of what treaty skeptics had said for months: The treaty brought the United States nothing in terms of lowered Russian force numbers.

I hate to say I told you so.  No really, in cases such as this, I really hate it.

The Lotus Eaters shall inherit the earth?

Peter Hitchens takes on the Archbishop of Canterbury:

So why does the Archbishop of Canterbury speak as if it was obvious that we should treat people who can work, but won’t, in the same way as we treat those who are truly in need?

As Dr Williams has decided to take up political commentating, I think I shall do a little bit of Archbishoping.  Here beginneth the first lesson: in St Paul’s first epistle to Timothy, chapter 5, we read, ‘If any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.’

Peter is in many ways the alter ego of his brother Christopher Hitchens. As Sherlock Holmes had his lesser-known but more brilliant brother Sherrinford, so Christopher has his Peter.

The Archbishop might do well to review 2 Thessalonians 3:10, too.

China increases pressure on North Korea

China is becoming increasingly exasperated with North Korea (from Strategy Page).

China is also unhappy with the chaotic way North Korea is run. It’s not just the ruling Kim family (who are quite odd, but so are many politicians), but the whole paranoid, dysfunctional, unpredictable atmosphere in the north. China is most upset with the unpredictability, and is demanding more discipline and, to put it bluntly, obedience. Lacking that, there will be consequences. More Chinese troops have been moved to the North Korean border, and China is less discreet about its network of spies and agents in North Korea. The rumors of a ruthless "China faction" in the North Korean leadership have been given some official recognition by the Chinese. Thus the Chinese are attempting to use the "offer you can't refuse" gambit on the north. It may work, and bring about much needed reforms. Otherwise, the Chinese threaten to pull the plug on aid and political support, and perhaps order the China Faction to take action.

 Read the whole thing.

Palin Emailgate - "no bombshells"

The Politico reports that, despite a frenzy of investigation through the 24,199 pages of e-mails from Palin's first 21 months in office, there was essentially, nothing there.

Seventeen news organizations — Alaskan, national and international — picked up sets of five 55-pound boxes of the printed-out emails, delivered on a hand truck. Each organization paid $726 in copying costs for the trove.

 How many trees did that kill?

If only the MSM would be so assiduous about investigating Climategate & the IPCC, or . . . well, don't get me started - I'll be here for hours.

There's still hope for the liberals progressives, though.  Such sources as the New York Times & the Washington Post are calling upon a legion of volunteers to help comb through the thousands of pages.  Apparently all the other reporters are chasing after her non-campaign bus.

There are no secrets about what she did or how she did it, and the emails will be, at most, footnotes.  But they will give liberals an opportunity to deflect attention from Palin's actual accomplishments to faux conspiracy theories and "scandals," none of which will go anywhere, but which will contribute to the smearing of Sarah Palin.  Which is, obviously, the point.

Sources of Mexican cartel firearms

Evan Perez, writing in the Wall Street Journal, states, “The U.S. was the source of at least 70% of 29,284 firearms recovered by authorities in Mexico in 2009 and 2010, according to new U.S. government figures.”

Not so.

Scott Stewart's article at Stratfor provides a lengthy analysis of the question, including: 

According to the GAO report, some 30,000 firearms were seized from criminals by Mexican authorities in 2008. Of these 30,000 firearms, information pertaining to 7,200 of them (24 percent) was submitted to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) for tracing. Of these 7,200 guns, only about 4,000 could be traced by the ATF, and of these 4,000, some 3,480 (87 percent) were shown to have come from the United States.

How many of these US arms were supplied by our own Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives (BATFE) in the recent ‘Gunwalker’ scandal?  How many come from Central America?  This is a large story that continues, & plucks at the strings of strongly held political philosophies.

But beware - these figures being touted by Perez are wildly inaccurate.

*****

Update:  Dan Freedman of the Houston Chronicle weighs in:

And the fact is, nobody (not you, not me, and probably not the Mexicans) really knows the full breakdown of where these weapons come from.

The Rick Perry campaign?

After the implosion of the Gingrich campaign staff (I’ve said before that the campaign was dead; it just hadn’t fallen over yet), there are excited postings that say that this is the call to arms for Rick Perry to run, as at least two of Perry’s previous high-placed campaign staffers are now available to him.  Roger Simon of Pajamas Media feels almost certain:

The news . . . is a strong sign that Perry has decided to run for the presidency.

I believe that Simon’s prediction is somewhat premature, but his analysis of a Perry candidacy is well thought out.  Read the whole thing.

Likewise, Rick Moran at American Thinker has a good analysis.  Read them both.

I agree that if Perry decides to run, he has some hurdles to clear (as I’ve said, there’s that ‘clone of W’ image that the Democrats & the media [but I repeat myself] will throw at him).  But he will be a formidable campaigner & an excellent president.

Bono: anti-poverty campaigner & tax cheat

My musical regard for the group U2 matches that of Pink Floyd – that is, none whatsoever.  Their music is treacly & pedestrian, & brings to mind Voltaire’s aphorism that there is no notion so silly that it can’t be sung.  All of U2’s music sounds the same, so they are the pop music version of Mahler.

Fortunately for them, their lack of talent is well-exceeded by the talents of their agent, schooled by the example of the success of Andy Warhol, all of them imperial fashion-mavens.  Helen Hayes saw clearly through this cultural smog with her summation of Madonna: “She’s not without some talent . . . and she’s managed her career remarkably well.”

The ‘news’ spends an inordinate amount of time on egotistical lead singer Bono, who pumps the current gush of hand-wringing over the environment & capitalises on the ever-present plight of the poor of the world (Matthew 26:11, Mark 14:7, John 12:8).  He says that the ‘rich’, with whatever definition of the moment, should pay more to compensate for the travails of the downtrodden.

Imagine my frisson of Schadenfreude when I find that protestors in their native Ireland are targeting U2’s move to cut their taxes with an ‘off-shore’ move to the Netherlands.

Irish politicians branded U2’s move a cynical ploy, leading to accusations that, while the band were urging the Government to give more money to relieve poverty, they were denying it the funds to do so. . . .

Tax expert and anti-poverty campaigner Richard Murphy said: ‘If Bono thinks he is just like any other Irishman, he should pay his taxes like everyone else.  That is the only way for Ireland to break out of this mess it is in.’

After the initial success of the Beatles, they were stunned to discover their tax liability, which resulted in George Harrison’s song ‘Taxman’.  Perhaps Bono should consider a similar opus.

Update:  The protest occurred, & the event organizers weren't happy about it.