It is interesting that, after so many critics have said Obama is the next Carter, Obama is taking such pains to prove them right. Not only did he basically repeat Carter's "malaise" speech, blaming our air conditioning and SUVs for both our energy woes and the hatred of the rest of the world, he also invented his own version of Jimmy Carter's recommendation to put on a sweater, when he suggested inflating our tires.

It is an interesting parallel, both have said we are to blame for our own woes, that our consumption is a bad thing, that the world is getting worse, that we can only change things by lowering our expectations, and both have now offered silly token gestures as supposedly serious answers to our shortage of energy. It is getting rather eerie how much Obama is reminding me of Carter.

Some might scoff, but if they do, ask them if they want to work in any US embassy under a president Obama. I doubt you will find many takers.

POSTSCRIPT

The one difference between Carter and Obama is that Carter was wise enough to wait until he was elected to begin behaving like a fool, while Obama did it early enough in the campaign to warn voters precisely what was in store for them if he won.

Since everyone has complained about high food prices recently, when they aren't complaining about oil, I have a simple solution to food costs: Waste less. Think about it, how many Americans eat chicken feet? Tripe? Chicken heads? Fish eyes? How often do you throw out the woody bits of vegetables? Do you throw out old potatoes rather than cutting out the eyes? Do you peel mold off hard cheese, or throw it out?

If all of us would simply stop our wasteful ways, we could doubtless cut food costs by a quarter at least. If we only ate every last bit of an animal, instead of just the choice parts, we could save a fortune.

Eat some oxtail and fish eyes for the good old U.S. of A.

Sound absurd? Of course it is. We don't eat every last bit because we can afford not to. We also know that we don't need to, we can always raise more food, there is land and there are farmers, and with enough demand for food we will have food. So, yes, we do waste food, but we do it for our convenience.

And that is true also of Obama's plan to tune cars and inflate tires. Yes, it is true that the plan would save gasoline, but it would do so by requiring a lot of inconvenience. For example, the savings depend on "proper inflation". Which sound simple, until you look at what that means. It means, put simply, that your tire is at the optimal pressure most of the time. Which means, if you do a lot of highway driving, and suddenly find you will be doing a lot of short trips, you need to add pressure, as your tires will be cooler. Or if you do a lot of city driving and want to take a long trip, time to bleed your tires. That is what it would take to get those incredible savings Obama touts.

Now some will say I am exaggerating, Obama never said that. No, he didn't, but that is the only way you will save 800,000 barrels of oil a day. Just checking with a gauge and making sure it says 36 psi cold won't do it. You will save some, but nowhere near the almost fantastic numbers Obama is touting. Those numbers are for ideal inflation, and, sorry kids, but ideal inflation varies with temperature, travel time, stop and start v. highway, and so on. In fact, if you have a variable number of passengers you should really check a well.
 
Nor is the "keep your car tuned" advice that simple. Again, to get the great results Obama claims, you need to keep it constantly in tune. That means, for a start, that you never buy that off-brand gas with a bit too much water, and that you check your engine daily to make sure you haven't let it get a bit out of sorts. In fact, if you want those truly fantastic numbers, best to change your fluids and filters daily.

Of course, this is absurd. By the time we do all it takes to save 800,000 barrels a day, the collective effort required would have allowed us to manually pump more oil than that from the ground. People keep their cars tuned and tires filled to the point that makes sense. If more effort results in inadequate savings, then they don't do it. That is economics.

But Democrats think there is nothing economic. They never think of costs. There is an "ideal" and everyone should do it, regardless of cost. That is how they approach the environment and how Obama approaches cars. If people do "the right thing" it saves oil, but he fails to look at the question of whether it is cheaper to use more oil and save the time we would spend keeping our cars up to his standards.

Fortunately, your average American looks at the world economically. For the same reason we don't normally try to squeeze every drop of nutrition out of a food item, we also are reluctant to spend an unreasonable amount of time trying to save a drop of gasoline. It makes sense to the average American to balance costs and benefits, it is troubling that your average Democrat does not think in those terms.

POSTSCRIPT

One other thought, the party that tells us that nothing we do will stop teens from having sex thinks that they will somehow convince every car owner across the US to properly tune their car and fill their tires with religious regularity? Am I the only one who find this a weak excuse for an actual energy policy?

Not that I think the government should have an "energy policy" anyway, other than "get out of the way". But as long as we have absurdities such as government energy policies, I think "If everyone behaves properly we can save some oil" is a pretty pathetic one.

I have been seeing the same silly statements popping up in comment after comment, so I thought I would save myself time and aggravation by replying to each of them right here:

1. We can't drill our way out of this problem

Yes, we can. Would you say "We can't farm our way out of starvation"? Or "I can't work my way out of poverty"? If our problem is a lack of oil, which is what high prices indicate, then adding more oil would add to our supply and reduce the price. In fact, the ONLY way to get more oil is to drill. Unless you claim we already have found every bit of oil on the planet, drilling is the only sure way to get prices to decrease.

2. Drilling [in ANWR/off shore/ wherever] won't fill all our needs.

Well, maybe, maybe not. We haven't done the exploration yet to know for sure. As it is all such statements are entirely speculation as no one has yet done enough drilling to know for sure. But even assuming they are true, so what? Even if it reduces our foreign dependence only 10%, isn't an improvement something we should welcome? Are those saying this really trying to say unless something resolves a problem 100% it isn't worth doing? Do they refuse to bandage wounds since the bandage won't instantly heal it? This position makes no sense. (Well, except as a political tactic intended to keep prices high until a certain candidate wins.)

3. Any oil will be sold on the world market, it won't go to the US.

First, transportation costs make it like most oil WILL go to the US. Alaska is an aberration, being closer to Japan than the continental US. Most offshore wells will not be in such a situation. But even if it were all sold overseas, so what? It would still reduce world price, which makes all oil cheaper. That seems beneficial to me.

4. More oil  won't lower prices.

I hesitated to even comment on this, a sit is so stupid, but I have heard it too many times. The argument is oil is somehow "special" and so economic laws don't apply. But, that is just a load of hogwash. Oil is just like every good. More on the market means prices will decline. Just look at how increased demand raised prices. Oil is a product just like any other, economic rules apply, and more supply means lower prices.

5. Speculators will just drive up the prices.

I wrote so much on this I won't repeat myself, but I will point out, you don't get rich by just buying something. You eventually have to sell to cash out, and that lowers prices. But even if we believe in the silly evil speculators some imagine are responsible for high prices, wouldn't more oil on the market make it harder for them to corner the market? Isn't that what eventually foiled the Hunt brothers. (Who are actually a good example of why I don't believe in evil speculators. Even a relatively small, static market was impossible to corner, yet somehow the massive world oil market is at the mercy of "speculators"?)


6. Green energy is the answer.

Maybe, one day. But right now, the fact that it can't compete with oil and coal says that it requires too many resources relative to its attractiveness. If it improves, perhaps, but right now, it is not a viable option.

7. OPEC controls the market and would foil any attempts to increase supply.

OPEC controls a part of the market, not even a majority. Nor are they in the business of keeping oil scarce. They do use their market influence to set prices which maximize their profits, but that is not the same as wanting oil to be scarce. In any case, the reason they control so much of the market, or one reason, is because we have made it so hard to drill in the US. Were our production back to 1970 levels, OPEC would have much less of a market share. If we drilled even more, perhaps the market share would be sufficiently small that there would not even be a reason for the cartel to exist.  Whatever the case, a big reason OPEC controls so much of the market is our own anti-drilling policy.

8. We can only reduce demand, not increase supply.

No, we can do both. Current laws and environmental dogma tell us we can only do one, but reality says otherwise.

9. Conservation is the answer.

As I said before, spending your savings is not a job. Even if we reduce consumption, our existing wells will eventually run dry. We need to drill, if nothing else, to maintain our current supply. Conservation is not a bad idea, but it is also not a source of energy.

10. Wells take 10 years to come on line, so it is not a solution.

First, I doubt the long time lines some have quoted. The Alaskan pipeline took less time than they estimate for a simple well in ANWR. But, even if they are right, doesn't a long delay argue for starting immediately? If we continue to put it off, won't that just delay it more? For example, if we had tarted drilling in ANWR when it was first proposed, instead of being blocked by the Democrats, we would either have working wells, or be within a year or two of having them. Since we delayed, we now have to wait years for the same result. So, why would a long delay before receiving the benefit suggest we should wait even longer before starting?
Well, I could go on, but I think that covered all the favorites.

It is amusing, the way that high oil prices seem to cause the loss of all common sense among such a large percentage of the population. In the 1970's and again today, we are seeing the way oil shortages, combined with nonsensical rhetoric from politicians and the media can turn an otherwise sensible public into  a mob buying into the worst of authoritarian solutions.

I realize oil is costly at the moment, but, please, don't give in to stupidities like these. If anything, a crisis the time we most need to keep a level head. So, before you buy into one of these absurd claims, think for a minute and ask if it makes any sense at all.

If I told you that my profession was living off my savings you would thin I didn't really understand what a job is, yet people think "conservation" is an energy policy. We may be able to reduce our consumption to some degree, but that will continue to be offset by increasing demands from other nations, growth in our own economy, and diminishing returns from known wells. Unless we explore to find new wells, if only to replace those that run dry, we will find ourselves with ever more expensive energy, which will result in a gradually diminishing standard of living.

Of course, the opponents of drilling point to these supposed "green" and "renewable" sources of energy, but I have already shown how little likelihood they have of working at present technology. And hoping that technology will improve greatly before our wells run dry seems suicidal. The opponents of drilling say it takes 10 years to get a well on line, so, doesn't it make more sense to start drilling now, so in 10 years we have oil, rather than to continue putting it off in hopes that maybe, somehow, we will find more energy from another source? That seems a recipe for disaster.

Or is it possible that, maybe they aren't suicidal, but just oppose drilling to keep prices high until Obama wins? They couldn't be that opportunistic, could they?

I don't normally criticize individual comments, but I just saw a comment so stupid it left me speechless. It was in response to Burt Prelutsky's argument against moral relativism. So, in an effort to defend moral relativism, the commenter managed to blur every line imaginable:

If I kill you in self defense then I will be judged as justified. If on the other hand, I ambush you and kill you then I will be found guilty of murder. I am sure that even you would agree with that judgment. That is moral relativism!!!

Now, let us look at how many things are wrong with this.

First of all, it manages to mistake legality with morality. Legality is a social construct which has no fixed relationship with morality. A state can declare immoral acts good and moral acts bad. The law and the nation define legality, while morality is not a function of time or location. If we allow that legal is equivalent of moral, then a Totenkopf SS member who tortured and killed prisoners would be moral and the prisoner who escaped immoral.

Second, it fails to understand what moral relativism is. Moral relativism is the belief that all moral systems are equally valid, that none is better than another. In other words, the idea that a system practicing human sacrifice is equivalent of one that does not. Or a system which justifies random violence as equivalent of one which argues against violence. It is an argument which amounts to saying there is no morality.

Third, the argument thinks that considering context undermines morality. But that is just absurd. There are moral systems which deplore all killing, but most allow for killing in defense of self or others. That does not make those systems "relativist", it simply means that context underlies their moral rules. And it makes sense. Almost all acts are only immoral in context. Carrying off a bag is moral if you own it and immoral if you don't. That is not moral relativism, it is simply the recognition that an act, taken out of context, is not obviously moral or immoral, that context is important, often essential in deciding the morality.

It is a remarkably dishonest effort on the part of the defender of moral relativism. I can't believe that he is either so unaware of the meaning of moral relativism, or the weakness of his own argument. Which leads me to believe that he must be offering up this absurd, deceptive argument in hopes of misleading those without the critical skills to see through his deceit. It is a pretty sleazy way to argue, but then again, if you don't believe in morality, I suppose being called unethical won't bother you.

UPDATE

Well, now I feel a bit bad. The original poster of the comment was rather polite in responding to my criticism  in the comments under the original article. However, polite as he may be, I have to stand by my original evaluation. The writer may be more even tempered than most who distort this way, but his post still is typical of that sort of line blurring which allows people to hold perfectly absurd beliefs.

So, much as it pains me to call a rather civil poster's comments stupid, I have to do so. It still is the sort of comment that just fails to make sense on so many levels, I cannot in good conscience even call it simply misguided or mistaken. So, with my apologies to the author, who seems decent enough, if a bit misguided, I have to leave the title unchanged. I feel a bit bad, but personality can only take you so far.

I figured it out! When Obama has a chair stenciled "President" or creates his own presidential seal, or tries to give management advice to the prime minister of England, everyone accuses him of arrogance. And that may be it. But I think I have an alternate theory, and it makes complete sense.

Obama has to realize he is both incredibly inexperienced and far too left wing for the taste of a majority of Americans. Add tot hat the twenty years he spent in a racist congregation, his shady business dealings with even more shady Razko and his close ties to domestic terrorist Ayers, he has to realize he is unlikely to win a presidential race, even given very favorable circumstances.

But he is also friends with Oprah, and she has been pushing "The Secret", that latest repackaging of "positive visualization", the bunkum which resurfaces in pop culture about once a decade or so. The basic premise is that the universe infinitely malleable and individuals are omnipotent, so all we have to do is really believe in something and it will happen. Pretty much the way the audience brings Tinkerbell back to life at the end of high school production of Peter Pan, if you believe in fairies, they will exist. "The Secret" pretty much takes that idea and argues if you really believe in a seven figure bank account it will happen.

So, maybe, discouraged by his incredible lack of qualifications as well as the scandals waiting around every corner for McCain to uncover, Obama took Oprah's advice to heart. Maybe if he believes he is president, and acts like it, he really will be president.

It sounds silly, but the other explanation is that is so arrogant, that he thinks he deserves to be called president and make his own presidential seal, and he doesn't care about how absurd it makes him look.

Which means, sadly, that my theory is actually the less insulting. Depressing, isn't it?

It is amazing how few people truly understand government. Not the details, or the specifics, but the very basic nature of government itself. It may be because of all the liberal talk of "programs" and "coming together" and "assistance" and such, it tends to white wash the nature of the states. Still, I would think at least a few people would recognize the basic truth.

The truth is that government, at root, is nothing but the right to use force. Think about it, what distinguishes government from any other organization or association? Charities give away money, universities fund research, businesses sell and buy goods. The only activity the government undertakes which is unique to the state is the use of force.

It is more obvious if we look at a minimal state, nothing but police and army and police. The police and army are clearly uses of force. And the courts, though they seem to be something different, are, in the end, also distinguished by a use of force. After all, if all you want is a decision in a dispute, you could ask your uncle or neighbor, what the courts provide is the ability to enforce those decisions, even using force if needed. Of course, they may use force to jail you, rather than killing or harming outright, but confining someone to jail is still done by force, or the threat of force.

Of course, now that the state has expanded into areas where it was traditionally excluded, it has taken on many functions which have nothing to do with using force, and that is why it does so poorly. You would not hire a commando team to babysit your children, and likewise you should not use the state to babysit, or even pay for babysitters.

Why not?

Because, government is a tool, and a very specific one. It is the embodiment of the private right of self defense and defense of property. While we still have that right individually, we have also, as a group, deputized the state to also exercise that power. We have not given it up, as you cannot surrender rights, we can defend ourselves, but the state is allowed to do so as well. That is why the state provides police and armies and criminal courts.

Likewise, the civil courts are yet another embodiment of private rights being assigned to the state. When, without government, we feel another has violated a contract, we resort to physical force to force compliance. In the state, we do not do so, but delegate that power tot he courts, so they can, in a mor eimpartial and orderly way, decide who is in the right and then enforce those rulings. It keeps us from the more disorderly solution of individually trying to enforce our claims through force alone.

But, as I have said before, tools serve specific purposes, and to try to use them for something else is to invite problems. And the government, being a tool based on the application of force, is no exception. When we try to use it for job training or day care or regulating food prices, we see just how poorly it performs. The state is not the right tool for watching children or producing food. It is a finely tuned device with the sole purpose of using force to protect citizens and their property, to use it otherwise is to ask for trouble.

And perhaps if a few more people saw that difference they would understand just why the state is such a bad solution for so many problems.

I wonder if the Democrats are reconsidering their superdelegate concept.

It has to be on the minds of some upper party officials. After all, if nothing else, this election pointed out the pitfalls of the superdelegates.

First, the simple fact that they give the impression that the regular party members don't count and party nominees will be picked in smoky back rooms. (Well, not smoky, Democrats wouldn't allow cigarettes in a convention, but you know what I mean.) This was made even worse when the momentum shifted toward Hillary Clinton at the end of the race, yet the party called for the superdelegates to commit, and basically forced her from the race.

Then there is that elimination. By forcing an early commitment, they forced out all the other candidates. not only did this alienate the Clinton supporters, but it means they are stuck with Obama, even if his numbers are far from impressive. Had there not been superdelegates, Clinton would likely have held on for a brokered convention, and the Democrats might not have saddled themselves with Obama.

Now, that is not to say that the Republicans are without problems. Open primaries come to mind. But it appears that the superdelegates, and the proportional assignment of delegates in the primaries that make superdelegates necessary, may prove to be quite a bad idea.

When I said Boumedine would start lawyers demanding Miranda warnings, warrants and other traditional criminal procedures for people caught in battle, I was told I was overreacting and reading into Boumedine.

Well, guess what. The AP thought so too, and even made a point of mentioning that Hamadan did not have these rights observed.

And if the press is trying to make the average citizen believe that unlawful combatants have these rights, how long before juries acquit on that basis? Even military tribunal members read the paper, so it is far from unlikely that, given a press drumbeat about this for a decade or two, we will find our soldiers being equipped with little khaki Miranda cards and evidence bags so that their unlawful combatant prisoners won't be released one ground of improperly collected evidence.

It is coming, whether you believe me or not.

It is amazing how quickly our rules of political correctness have changed. It was brought home to me by watching reruns of Homicide on WGN. I saw today the premier episode, and, strangely enough, a line which was acceptable to the censors in 1993 had to be edited out fifteen years later.

It is just bizarre how our treatment of "the N-Word" has changed. While it was considered extremely rude as far back as the 1980's when some proto-PC libraries wanted to ban Huck Finn, and even before that in the 1960's and 1970's (though perhaps to a slightly lesser degree), the word itself could still be spoken (outside of rap songs) until the late 1990's. However, now, it is actually treated more harshly than even the "F-Word". Oddly enough, the FCC can no longer consistently ban the "F-Word" in some (mostly U2-related) contexts, but there is not one broadcaster who would allow "the N-Word", unless a rapper happened to say it, in which case it is A-OK.

Well, I have ranted about all this before, so I will cut it short. I have only one question: Is it just me, or is there something wrong when a word is considered so vile you can't even speak it in a news story about racist graffiti, but the same channel can broadcast it repeatedly when showing the latest top 10 rap songs?

I am amazed I still need to repeat this, but just because you can see some sort of benefit from government spending does not mean it is a good idea. I wrote earlier a very long essay about the hidden costs of specific programs, but people still don't seem to get it. On blogs and in comments, I see people saying "look how well this government program works", I even engaged in a debate yesterday where someone claimed Carter was right to create the Department of Energy because it helped create solid state lights.

Let us make this very basic. Yes, the government can confiscate money and use it to produce results. I do not dispute that. It can even take money and conduct research and produce new useful scientific knowledge. All of that is true, but, to quote Chris Rock, "you can drive a car with your feet, it doesn't mean it's a good idea."*

Let me give a simple example. The state could simply confiscate the money from every individual and redistribute it, giving everyone a fairly sizable check. As wealth is a bit skewed, for many people this would represent an improvement on their current finances. So, it is a great idea, right? Well, until day two, when there is no more money to invest in business, and the economy collapses.

And that is the truth of government spending. It may produce results, but at what cost?

The market operates by each individual assigning his money to those things he wants the most. In other words, each individual's money is assigned according to his desires. As the individual knows his own desires best, the market produces the greatest net satisfaction, by giving those who best serve others' need the most money.

So, if the market produces the most satisfaction, government spending either does what the market does, in which case it is useless, or else it does not, in which case it produces a net decrease in satisfaction.

The only justification of government investment is that there is some "higher good" than individual satisfaction, that the economy has some objective goal that only some elite sees, and so the money has to be spent by this elite and not by the riff raff. If you believe that, that elected politicians are smarter than you, so should be entrusted with your money, then go ahead and support government spending. But I have to ask, if there is an elite and a mass of morons, how do you justify democracy? Why let individuals vote if they are so foolish? Shouldn't the elite just rule by right?

In other words, if you believe in government spending because the government knows best, how do you justify any individual freedoms at all? Either people are competent or stupid, and if they are stupid, then democracy and freedom make no sense. That is the truth, no matter how much some try to evade it.

So, support government spending if you want, but realize it is but the happy face put on totalitarianism.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* I am amazed Rock has not been beaten up by some leftists for the joke from which I stole this, as the original opening is "Sure, you can raise a baby without a father..." If I said that, the left would be screaming for blood. The guy may say some things with which I disagree, but when he says things like "If a kid calls his grandmother mommy and his mother Pam, he's going to jail", you really can't argue with him. Or maybe "The kid might know something if you said something else besides 'Momma be back' ". He certainly manages to get away with pointing out some truths the right isn't allowed to mention. Just check out his routine on racist old black men.

Recently, whenever someone mentions drilling, I hear two arguments. First, that it will take too long to get oil wells on line. Second, that even if we drill, it may not completely remove our need for foreign oil. So, to see how well this logic works, I am applying it to my daily life.

I woke up to my son standing beside my bed this morning. He told me he was hungry. Now, my son, not being a child actor or model or singer, is not brining in any revenue, and probably won't for a dozen years or more, so why exactly am I bothering to rear him? In addition, feeding him now won't really solve the problem, as he will just get hungry again. So I ignore his requests.

I consider going to work, but then again, they won't pay me until the middle of next week, and that is simply too far off. In any case, working today won't take care of all my expenses for even this month, much less my whole life, so why bother working? Which leads me to consider breakfast instead.

But again, it takes time to cook and consume all that food, and that is really more of a long term solution. Even breakfast drinks take time to gulp down. And even if I do, there is no guarantee I will be completely filled. And if I am, I will just get hungry again. No reason to waste time on eating.

You know, I just realized my breathing is kind of a waste as well. The speed is fine, breathing gives instant gratification. But it is not an answer in itself. After all if I breathe, it doesn't prevent me from needing to breathe again, as well as eat and drink and all those other annoying bodily functions. So it seems breathing is really a waste of time. I think I'll stop doing that as w...

It seems more and more pundits are recognizing what some of us have been saying for months, the Obama formula is leading to a sure defeat. It seems that, finally, after months of predicting an Obama sweep, the pundits are recognizing that the fellow simply is not performing the way he should. Of course, many of us have been saying this for a long time, but it seems the pundits, being caught up in the same media culture as the left wing Obama love fest, have not seen the reaction Obama gets outside of the media and his adoring left wing bubble.

Well, I have written this before, as long ago as February, but it is nice to see that those who get paid for doing this are finally seeing the truth. I do wonder why it took so long though.

I keep hearing those on the left saying "Obama is not a Marxist, he isn't seizing property and redistributing it." But they are wrong. He has plenty of plans to redistribute wealth. The fact that he is doing it piecemeal, and not going all the way does not make it any less Marxist, it just means he is not ready to go all the way yet.

That has traditionally been the pattern when authoritarian movements take over free countries by vote rather than revolution. Lenin had an army, and thus the freedom to admit his dictatorial aims. Hitler, on the other hand, did not campaign by saying "I will revoke all freedoms and slaughter 11 million people." It does not make Hitler any less totalitarian that he had to campaign on a pretend reverence for some minimal freedoms.

Now, I doubt Obama will be able to push us all the way to a totalitarian state, but his philosophy is definitely a step along the path to that end. And to deny that is just to be blind. Once the government controls the economy, it controls everything. As has been said by others, the Soviet system was really nothing more than universal government funding, yet it had total control of every citizen. And a US which surrenders all of its economic freedom tot he state will be no more free.

So, while I doubt Obama will be the author of totalitarianism, to say he is not a Marxist because he is not a complete and total Marxist is like saying a man is not a Catholic because he has missed some masses. Obama's philosophy may be watered down Marxism, but the underlying belief in the omnipotence and inherent benevolence of the state, as well as the incompetence and malevolence of private enterprise is nothing but pure Marxism.

POSTSCRIPT

To be honest, the Democrat agenda, being hidden under a patina of respect for private enterprise might be more likely to result in the Nazi-type authoritarianism, where the individuals nominally own businesses, but the state directs every aspect of the business, rather than the Soviet style of state ownership. But in practice there is no real difference between the two, so to call the Democrats Marxist is not really inaccurate.

I read this on Best of the Web

The Red Cross Is Cross
"The International Red Cross said Wednesday that Colombia broke the Geneva Conventions by deliberately using its humanitarian emblem during the covert military mission that freed Ingrid Betancourt and other hostages," the Associated Press reports from Geneva:

Use of the Red Cross symbol in a military operation violates the first Geneva Convention because it could damage the relief group's neutrality in conflicts, endangering medical personnel on the battlefield who are using the red cross for protection.

Maybe we're dense, but it seems to us that rescuing civilian hostages from a terrorist group is a higher humanitarian priority than preventing unauthorized use of a trademark. The way the Red Cross interprets them, the Geneva Conventions seem almost quaint.

My question is this: Is FARC a signatory to the Geneva Conventions? If not, then how could they have been violated when used in an interaction between a signatory and anon-signatory terrorist group?

Also, did the IRC complain when the Red Crescent allowed its vehicles to be used to smuggle terrorists and weapons in the Palestinian regions of Israel? I don't seem to recall much of an uproar over that. Then again, considering the abuse the Magen David Adom has suffered at the hands of the IRC, I don't think they can even begin to claim impartiality there.