More arms for Africa

Last night, 60 Minutes had a horrifying segment, "War Against Women," on massive numbers of rapes in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Anderson Cooper gave no background at all. If, as he said, the rapes are a weapon of war; then why are these people fighting? Seems there's gold in the hills: here is a report from Human Rights Watch, The Curse of Gold. I have not read the whole thing; but from a quick skim, it looks like people have been fighting over this gold for over a hundred years.

Seeing the presence of large numbers of blue-helmeted UN "peacekeepers," at the beginning of the piece, made me suspicious right away, since we know that wherever the UN peacekeepers go, sex crimes follow. Haiti, Liberia, Kosovo, Congo, Congo. Human Rights Watch says the crimes in the DRC are also gold- and arms-related. Another news article: UN troops traded guns for gold with militias, says report. And a letter from HRW to the UN.

There is a big peace conference going on right now: Congo-Kinshasa: Aid Tops Agenda As Kivus Conference Gets Under Way. How bitter is it that this is an occasion for the elites to demand even more from these people who seem to have nothing left but pain:

An original list of 300 delegates grew to more than 800, with an additional 500 attending as observers. As a result, the US$2 million budgeted for the conference will not suffice, according to organisers.

"Delegates will receive a per diem of $135 but they haven't got it yet because I think there is a liquidity problem," said a member of the organising committee.

Prime Minister Antoine Gizenga has called on all DRC citizens to contribute the equivalent of a dollar to meet the shortfall.

"It is going to cost a lot of money but peace has a price which we have to pay," National Assembly speaker Vital Kamerhe said.

"The blood of our brothers and our army is priceless," he added.

The blood, and honor, of their women, on the other hand, is meaningless, and not worth mentioning. I don't know what can be done about this mess. But one thing struck me as I watched the report: the only ones with arms were the soldiers and "peacekeepers." Maybe the real humanitarian thing for some NGO to do here would be to provide pistols to the ordinary people. Some teeth for the prey, so to speak. Of course it will not happen.

Update: Zimbabwe: Mugabe troops use rape as weapon. Thanks to Theo Spark. And see: Gleanings from June 7, 2008.

Gun control in Britain

Sometimes the news makes it seem like the roast beef of Old England has turned to custard. Instapundit, for the hat trick, finds a sensible article about gun control in the London Times.

It's been anecdotally apparent for years that gun control in Britain was having bad effects. Now even a Government report confirms the anecdotes, based on

the findings of the International Crime Victims Survey (published by the Home Office in 2003), indicating that we now suffer three times the level of violent crime committed in the United States; never mind the doubling of handgun crime in Britain over the past decade, since we banned pistols outright and confiscated all the legal ones.

We are so self-congratulatory about our officially disarmed society, and so dismissive of colonial rednecks, that we have forgotten that within living memory British citizens could buy any gun – rifle, pistol, or machinegun – without any licence. When Dr Watson walked the streets of London with a revolver in his pocket, he was a perfectly ordinary Victorian or Edwardian. Charlotte Brontë recalled that her curate father fastened his watch and pocketed his pistol every morning when he got dressed; Beatrix Potter remarked on a Yorkshire country hotel where only one of the eight or nine guests was not carrying a revolver; in 1909, policemen in Tottenham borrowed at least four pistols from passers-by (and were joined by other armed citizens) when they set off in pursuit of two anarchists unwise enough to attempt an armed robbery. We now are shocked that so many ordinary people should have been carrying guns in the street; the Edwardians were shocked rather by the idea of an armed robbery.

Bloomberg and Brady should read this too.

Cho, Che, what's the difference

Once again, Glenn Reynolds catches the creator of the The People's Cube in a somewhat more serious mood.

Che had killed many more “rich kids” than Cho - yet his deeds are glorified by Hollywood, his writings are published worldwide, and his pictures are plastered over the t-shirts of a new generation of “rich kids” - the faceless class enemy whom Che would not hesitate to shoot given the chance. Both Che’s and Cho’s speeches are equally delusional - so why does Che get a pass and Cho doesn’t? Because Cho had only killed 33 “rich kids” instead of 33,000? Or because Cho’s mental disorder was documented by a professional psychiatrist?

[…]

Besides acting as a catalyst on a depressed mind, “progressive” education is also a major cause of depression in itself. Imagine growing up while believing that yours is the worst country on the planet, guilty of death and suffering of millions of poor people worldwide, who are being wantonly killed, robbed, enslaved, raped, and tortured so that your mom could shop at the mall and your dad could fill up the tank. The species are dying, the rainforest is dwindling, the ozone hole is growing, and the globe is warming. If it is frightful enough to turn a sensitive adult into a guilt-ridden neurotic, think about a ten-year-old who, in addition, lives with the fear that if we all don’t die of skin cancer by the age of thirty, global warming and raising sea levels will finish everyone off anyway.

The whole thing is worth reading, and it ties in to the idea of old Soviet psyops having become memes perpetuating themselves in the academic and info-spheres, mentioned below.