Jack Yan on Vox

David Horowitz on the reasons for the Iraq War

nobody@vox.com(Jack Yan) — Thu, 08 May 2008 18:38:19 +1200

Whether you support the war in Iraq or you don’t—and here in New Zealand we have the luxury to criticize the United States—David Horowitz’s recollection (video found originally on Humbled Infidel’s blog) of why the US went in certainly correlates with my own. It’s why I have always held back attacking President George W. Bush, because faced with what he had in front of him, I cannot honestly say I would not have done the same thing. As Horowitz reveals, neither would Al Gore, who supported Bush’s ‘axis of evil’ speech in 2002.
   The end of this video (cut short) goes into the rationale for war surrounding UN Security Council resolution 1441, which PM Tony Blair managed to sell to Parliament—but which, I always felt, the US was less successful at doing. There are legal arguments there based on the UN Charter but it was always about 1441.
   This is one of the problems I tend to have with the US Democratic Party, for all my own left-leaning tendencies. Right now, for example, constituents are begging the super-delegates that they should not select who will best beat Sen. John McCain and the Republicans, but who represents their position. The fact this question has even arisen is disturbing: as representatives of the people of course one should represent the citizens. The minute you do not, you do not have a democracy: it is a quest for power among élites ignoring the citizenry, the sort of thing people were getting away from when the US was founded.
   I am not saying that the GOP wouldn’t look after its own, but given that they have fielded men like Sen. Bob Dole—who from a marketing perspective was a tough sell against President Clinton—it seems that it might be more willing to represent its base than look at seizing power. The 42nd president gifted them the Monica Lewinsky situation, which hurt the Democrats. I would say that they never forgave the GOP or Kenneth Starr who were steadfast in their condemnation and investigation. That power-hungriness from the Democrats is very apparent in the way the Bush administration has been undermined in the last eight years.

David Horowitz - Party of Defeat

   I say if one opposes the war, then there are ways to do it without resorting to revisionism. I might not agree with our PM, Helen Clark, on her courses of action, but at least she took a position based on the facts before her and said ‘No’ to going in to Iraq. She has never gone and revised history, and simply held firm on her principles. She has good support for it because most New Zealanders opposed the war and carried out her job (on that occasion) as a servant and representative of the people.
   The consequences of Resolution 1441 were always clear but the means of acting upon them were less so because of the way the UN Charter is written, and that ambiguity effectively gave some countries a chance of opting out. Our PM took it, as did the leaders of many other nations. It is respectful, even if she later made a gaffe about how she did not think a Gore presidency would have gone to war. (As Horowitz reminds us, that is probably an incorrect position.) They believed that an extra resolution was needed before war; the US, UK, Australia and others did not.
   The Democratic Party and the anti-war movement probably think that this is all too tough to sell to the public, so they engage in other tactics, shaming US troops or the administration and pressuring those who have short memories to join their cause. I am not saying that what they have uncovered is all untrue—of course I accept there are dodgy dealings surrounding the war and I even accept some misconduct—but they’d earn my respect if they didn’t flip-flop or cover up the truth. Sen. Clinton, who voted for the war, who voted for the increase in expenditure alongside Sen. John Kerry, is one of those very high-profile politicians who has changed depending on the trade winds of public opinion.
   Of course a senator or a future president must be representative but she must also stand on truth. ‘I was wrong to have supported the war because …’ would have been a good start. ‘Now the American people are telling me that it is time to withdraw our troops.
   ‘My support was founded on the belief that resolution 1441 was inviolable. It was not, and we have carried out the due punishment needed on Saddam Hussein’s régime.’
   There are millions of ways to spin it, especially ways to do it without demoralizing the young men and women serving in Iraq—and I am not even a politician.
   This would also mean she’d have to go against her husband’s attacks on Kosovo, which also did not have that additional Security Council resolution but was a preemptive strike by the US. George W. Bush is not alone, just that the media give him more grief over it.
   But a mea culpa is not flip-flopping and it is not pandering. It is being honest, something the Beltway sees very rarely.
   What concerns me, however, is that the road to war is a serious matter. It should not be so easily bent because the decision should be founded on principle—and if those principles existed after resolution 1441 was broken then they exist today. Congress voted for the war, with bipartisan support. There needs to be a far bigger shift for any US representative to say no to the war now—so what is it?
   A poor entry strategy, a poor exit strategy, the belief that the US’s only task was to oust Saddam Hussein, the belief that the parameters of the original declaration of war have been fulfilled—what? Certainly Sen. Clinton needs to tell us.
   She has said that she would not have voted for the war if she knew there were no WMDs. But as Horowitz points out, the existence of WMDs was not the basis for war. Did Sen. Clinton “misspeak” again?
   There is a popular notion that that was what resolution 1441 was all about and we all remember Sec. Powell’s Powerpoint presentations to the UN.
   But unless Sen. Clinton has misremembered this incident as well, resolution 1441 on November 8, 2002 was about Iraq’s non-compliance with conditions laid down by the international community over disarmament, which included WMDs, but they were not the core issue.
   When Iraq lied about what it did with its WMDs, which the international community confirmed it had as late as 1998, the US took a hard line.
   Iraq itself never offered an explanation on the discrepancy between its claims and tests by the inspectors.
   That was one legal justification for the US and the UK, and, skipping over a few issues, the war began.
   I sure wish the US politicians would just tell the truth about the vote at that time because they should have a better understanding of it, having been there—rather than let people like me catch them out.
   This is another reason to not dislike Bush: he said he would stay the course, so he did. The majority of Americans voted for him in 2004 (regardless of whether one is counting the electoral college or the popular vote) and knew this full well. And while I think some of his spending has sent that US deficit soaring, he has stayed firm on his belief in his tax cuts. He seems content because he thinks he is protecting the Constitution and that he needs to continue his strategy. Maybe that is the Bush world-view. (He saw how his Dad got burned on the ‘No new taxes’ and learned from it. He saw how his Dad lost the support of the right wing of the GOP and learned from it. And he saw how he was criticized for being too smart when he ran for Congress—which is where the folksy public image comes from. Welcome to Bushland.)
   Had the war successfully concluded people would praise him on his steadfastness.
   For if a leader bends based on the trade winds, then will she bend based on pressure from other sovereign nations? If Saudi Arabia put pressure to bear on the US, would Sen. Clinton cave in? If a communist nation put pressure on Sen. Obama, would he? Or, for that matter, how far will Sen. McCain bend to foreign pressure?
   We cannot turn back the clock now and see how the message could have been better communicated to the US. We should know, from the Horowitz video, why the US went in and understand who is now lying to the American public: that is important. For all his failings in everything from the Patriot Act (which I am no fan of, and it has restricted the movement of people who could benefit the US) to the Alberto González judicial appointments, I do not think it was President Bush. I have never called him a bare-faced liar.
   The next presidential election is a chance to address those failings. The economy can be fixed but what is in dire need of repair are the values to which not only Americans want moral leadership, but most of us in the western world. Get the values right, get the truth right, and the rest will follow.
   At the end of the day I care not if the president is a Democrat or a Republican, and I have no say in it anyway, as long as our common values are restored and preserved, and the leader is truthful. And that the decision for staying the course or withdrawing is also founded on truth.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Hello, TSB

nobody@vox.com(Jack Yan) — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 20:59:54 +1200

Yesterday, I became a customer of the Taranaki Savings Bank. I got my accounts open with the manager herself, Lynne Russell. Today, one of her staff opened my US currency account, on which I get interest—rather than be stung the $17 or whatever it was at the ANZ just for having the account.
   No fees on EFT-POS and ATM (not that I ever use these), no fees on my account since I have a healthy balance, and, basically, banking as it should be.
   Remember when you deposit money into a bank you are technically making a loan to the bank. There is no logical reason you should be charged for that—unless when you take out a loan, you can charge the bank a discretionary fee. (I dare you to ask.)
   The TSB gets it. It gets that the customer is ‘paramount’, as I was told by one of its team today. Sir John Anderson and his fellow directors do not. I was with the ANZ since 1995 (leaving after Sir John took over from Sir Spencer Russell at the National Bank and began instigating some ridiculous charges there). I told Lynne she should expect I will stay with the Taranaki bank for 20-plus years.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

How to restore faith in American politics

nobody@vox.com(Jack Yan) — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 11:16:01 +1200

American Infidel posted an excellent piece from Cross Action News on how the US political system has been compromised, by Carl Parnell. Some excerpts:

However, as seen in these different opinions, politicians have been blamed for the failure of America’s political system. But, one respondent to the survey voiced a strong opinion that put the blame on average Americans. Her opinion was:

Our Constitution frames the best form of government on the planet. The balance of powers and the system of checks and balances provided a framework that allowed our young country to grow and develop and remain despot free for the last 220 years. The government itself is not what I have lost faith in. “We the People” is what I have lost faith in.

And advice for the electorate follows (my emphasis), and I have to agree with it as I have never, in the elections I have participated in, voted for personal gain. Even for those who do not believe in God or in prayer, the remaining advice is still useful:

   “Of the people, by the people, for the people” means the people should educate themselves and elect leaders at all levels that work for them. The people should watch what those elected officials do and boot them out of office when they no longer work for the people. The caliber of citizens and politicians has declined in the last 220 years.
   Therefore, America’s political system is at a crossroads in 2008. When the American electorate votes for the President of the United States and for any members of Congress in November 2008, they must absolutely know the true facts about each candidate. Citizens of the United States must not permit the race, gender, or political party of the candidate be a determining factor in who wins the election. Citizens of the United States must not let personal economic gain become the deciding factor in which candidate they vote for in any election. Citizens of the United States must vote for candidates who have the true qualities of great leaders, such as those possessed by America’s forefathers. Some of these qualities would be honesty, integrity, morality, faith in the nation they serve, faith in the people they serve, having the character of a statesman instead of the character of many modern-day politicians. Of course, true representative leaders of the United States should always pray to God before voting on any legislation that affects the greatest nation in the world.
   However, if America continues to elect people to office that assume the role of a politician instead of a statesman, America may lose more than just the faith of its citizens toward its political system. America may possibly lose its status as the greatest nation in the world.

There is still support for the US around the world—but they need a beacon to look up to rather than to criticize. In November, vote to make America great again—not just in economic terms, but in terms of the true leadership and morality that it can stand for.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Another time the ANZ directors f***ed up banking

nobody@vox.com(Jack Yan) — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:39:37 +1300

I went to deposit, as I often do, a US dollar cheque into a New Zealand dollar account.
   The nice lady, Bev, tells me that there is now a $5 fee for depositing a foreign cheque.
   ANZ is totally f***ed up if it believes it can do this.
   I already have spoken to Lynne Russell at the TSB and I’ll be opening my account there at the end of March. It seems TSB is one of the few banks left in the country that understand what banking means.
   To Sir John Anderson and the other assholes making these decisions at the ANZ: when I deposit money with you, it is not a privilege for me. It is a privilege for you. I am loaning you money.
   For that, I expect you to pay me interest.
   You do not ask me for money.
   Why do you think I left the National Bank when Sir Spencer Russell retired? Because the last of the old guard went and all I saw were hot-shot assholes putting up bank charges across the board.
   You were there, Sir John. I know you are a nice guy in the regular scheme of things but why do you have to be the man at the top of banks that make these ridiculous plays?
   Dudes, you don’t realize that despite consolidation, you still ain’t the only game in town, though there should be more competition in banking.
   Banking management is, on the whole, incompetent in this country, though I understand we are still streets ahead of the UK. We certainly are when it comes to service, though in my experience the Swedes are well ahead again.
   You can tell when the Cheques Act 1993 needed to be drafted up because the banks were too incompetent to operate within the law up till that point. We have a perfectly functioning Bills of Exchange Act 1908 that covers cheques, but no—the banks were too confused about it.
   I still operate as though the 1993 act did not exist and mark my cheques based on the earlier act, which is still on the books.
   Most banks have refrained from charging me fees but they cannot do much about these head-office rules, so I will be withdrawing my deposits at, I mean, my loan to, the ANZ Bank and placing it with a New Zealand-owned operation that seems to understand banking and finance better.
   I’d encourage fellow New Zealanders to do the same. There is nothing morally acceptable about these bank fees, especially when it comes to deposits.
   When you borrow money from the bank, you pay them interest. When you lend money to the bank—which is technically what happens when you make a deposit—they should pay you. Even if they didn’t pay you and left it at a zero-sum game, that is still fine, but only just.
   Someone at ANZ forgot what banking is all about.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

ANZ lied twice—now it’s time to close our accounts

nobody@vox.com(Jack Yan) — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 22:27:25 +1300

I am morally against bank fees, and the ANZ Bank has usually been very good at making sure that I am not charged them.
   However, since late last year, despite protests, they haven’t been able to rid me of a $5 per month charge on an account I have held with the bank since the 1990s.
   So, it’s time to leave.
   I understand that the Taranaki Savings Bank has a no-fee policy for balances over $5,000, and it may be time to go patriotic and support a non-foreign-owned place.
   The problem is: there is a single branch out on Lambton Quay here in Wellington. I have enquired before about how deposits are made but if there are Voxers in New Zealand out there banking with TSB, I’d like to learn how you’ve found the process in practice.
   I also have a US dollar-only account, which TSB told me I could have. It’s also fee-free, which beats the $20 per month charge ANZ makes. So how is TSB when it comes to crediting US dollar cheques for a US dollar account?
   ANZ needs to realize it needs to keep a promise. It said it would fix things. It said that with the demise of the old type of account I had, there would be no difference. On both occasions the bank lied.
   I can afford the $5 but it’s the principle. They are making money off my money. In essence, they are borrowing money from me.
   If I borrow from them, they charge me interest.
   If they borrow from me, I should expect at least that I am not penalized for my generosity.
   This is how banks work.
   Of course, with even banking lawyers fuzzy on their understanding of such fundamental laws as the Bills of Exchange Act 1908, I am not surprised that banks themselves operate on questionable advice.
   They have suckered New Zealanders into expecting that fees are normal. Kiwis, they are not normal. They are actually immoral.
   I don’t think you will find any banker who went through the traditional training who will agree that bank charges make sense.
   Why do you think there are seniors’ packages that are fee-free? Because the seniors remember what banking is really like. Treat them like someone not old enough to have a bus pass and a pension, then you can watch Grey Power revolt.
   TSB customers, give me a shout if you have some advice on how your bank is in real life.
   I want my bank to treat me like an OAP.

N.B.: This does not affect Lucire LLC, only Jack Yan & Associates. It will take me a few weeks to sort this out due to busy-ness, so if clients are reading this, don’t change your payment method just yet!—JY

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

“Sex sells” slows

nobody@vox.com(Jack Yan) — Mon, 08 Jan 2007 00:04:58 +1300

Predictable to some of us trend-watchers.

http://news.agendainc.com/mt-agenda/content/archives/2007/01/sex_sells_just.html

With useful implications on the industry, especially those of us who have shown some moral leadership in the media.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend