U.N. Reform: We Are All Terrorists Now

Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, has released a report entitled “In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights For All” that is both a progress report on the 2000 United Nations Millennium Declaration and a blueprint for moving the U.N. towards the goals adopted by the Declaration unanimously in 2000. News reports regarding this report have highlighted proposals to change both the Security Council and how it considers and approves the use of military force.

While those topics are interesting, they are not the most significant part of the report. On the contrary, what the report really highlights is how thoroughly the U.N. is stuck in an outdated and counter-productive ideology. Call it “transnational internationalism,” “international law,” or even just “human rights,” but, however it is named, it all comes down to the same thing: the dangerous fantasy that there is a collective will which has approved legislation that has become law and now must be enforced. A close look at each concept reveals how dangerously delusional such a stance is.

The United Nations: A Collection of States or an Independent Body?

Since its founding in 1945 (and dating from earlier in WWII when the term “United Nations” was used interchangeably with the term “The Allies”), the U.N. has suffered from a dual identity. On the one hand, the U.N. certainly exists outside the will of the various member states. It has numerous offices, bureaucracies and responsibilities around the world that are uniquely its. When it is told “go keep the peace in Haiti,” it is acting as an independent trans-national body with the authority to use force

On the other hand, however, it clearly acts within guidelines adopted and authorized by the member states, who are more than happy to withdraw their support from this or that U.N. project on purely national considerations. And it is wholly dependent on financing and military strength from contributions.

This dual identity really is the root of the problem. To modern left/liberals, the answer is obvious: transfer some real state power to the U.N. and let it function as it was designed to do. Give it its own military, with dedicated and well-trained units and, even more importantly, give it some revenue-raising authority. The result would be a true independent trans-national body, a world government in embryo, that could use the resulting independence from member states to dispassionately enforce the U.N Charter.

Modern right/conservatives can’t even get half-way through such a line of reasoning before becoming almost physically ill. On philosophical grounds alone, such an option is simply unthinkable for a good part of Western conservatism, whether of the European or American variety. The member states that make up the General Assembly are, by and large, illiberal regimes with no real legitimacy; any independent government deriving from such a source would mean, in the end, rule by dictators. There is no democratic oversight of the body, no electorate and no accountability, as the Oil For Food Scandal most recently illustrated starkly. And, most importantly, there exists no ability or right to petition the U.N., lobby it or otherwise engage in the normal democratic process. That’s why for most conservatives’ line of thinking, the U.N. is simply a permanent meeting ground committee for collective action whenever the member states decide such action is necessary.

Given the two views, it’s only natural that the U.N. as an institution would gravitate towards the liberal/left view. It’s simply asking too much of people to work for an institution and believe at the same time that the institution should be more or less powerless and dependent on others.

Therein lies the danger of the U.N., of course. Once created, it took on a life of its own and, like institutions everywhere, it has sought ever since to expand its power as widely as possible. For reasons we have discussed earlier, the U.N. currently finds itself at a crosswords with one of its founding members and largest financial contributors. The simple plain fact is that a huge majority of Americans have no confidence in the U.N and view it as nothing more than an anti-American talking shop. What Annan’s report aims to accomplish is enough reform to reconcile American decision-makers to the institution while, at the same time, strengthening its independence as an autonomous body.

That is a tall order, and one that the Secretary General fails miserably at. In fact, as we will see below, the report is nothing more than yet another attempt to frame “international law” in such a way as to make American action in the world “illegal.” Finally, and most ominously, it also contains a mechanism to lower the U.S.’ power in the Security Council and a legal code that would brand most of America’s military actions of the past forty years nothing more than “terrorism.”

Freedom From Want

You can tell the report is pitched to an American audience (not a mass audience, mind you, but to that layer of American political civil society that influences opinion and makes decisions) by the titles of the sections. Using terms like “Freedom From Fear” and “Freedom From Want,” the chapters of the report are designed to appeal to the American elite’s institutional Rooseveltism.

One cannot help but notice, however, that this not-too-subtle invocation is itself ruined by prose that sounds like it has leapt from the pen of a university freshman who just heard his first lecture on socialism. Poverty won’t be a problem in the future, because:

In an era of global abundance, our world has the resources to reduce dramatically the massive divides that persist between rich and poor, if only those resources can be unleashed in the service of all peoples.

It’s hard to believe that people in the year 2005 still believe that the answer to poverty is simply to use state (or in this case, international) power to redistribute wealth, but there you have it. Of course, the phrase “if only those resources can be unleashed in the service of all peoples,” is open to a bit of interpretation, but what is clear from this passage is that, yet again, poor countries are poor because rich countries are rich.

Nothing could be further from the truth. As De Soto has convincingly demonstrated, even the poorest countries teem with capital, but it is capital that is tied down by bad government, backwards thinking and weak financial institutions. What needs to be “unleashed” is not some sort of redistribution regime but, instead, the human and real capital that are smothered by a lack of political and economic liberty across wide swaths of this poor world.

This is not to say, however, that the United States cannot get behind aspects of the poverty-reduction programme put forward by the Secretary General. His main points—reducing extreme poverty and hunger, achieving universal primary education, and promoting gender equality—are all worthy goals that fit the foreign policy objectives of the United States. As usual, the fight will be not over lofty goals but substantive details outlining the tactics to be used to reach them. Amb. Bolton will have to fight 90% of the world on each of these goals—while being portrayed as standing against them, no doubt—because the Europeans and Latin Americans will stand by their 1930’s ideology that all we have to do is purchase these things and they will magically happen.

Instead, what has to be done is more of the hard work our agencies like USAID do everyday: micro-enterprise, modern farming techniques, marketing for export surveys, technical training, the kind of hard work in-the-trenches slogging that an idiot like Bono could never do nor understand. It’s all so much easier just to write a check, isn’t it?

Despite some poor rhetoric, though, it is clear that our ideas are having an impact. In his conclusion to the “Freedom From Want” section, the Secretary General advises:

Each developing country has primary responsibility for its own development — strengthening governance, combating corruption and putting in place the policies and investments to drive private-sector-led growth and maximize domestic resources available to fund national development strategies.

The emphasis on good government and private-sector-led growth is encouraging as is the putting of responsibility where it properly lay: with each developing country. Getting that insight implemented while maintaining popular support will be a central challenge of our mission to the U.N.

Freedom From Fear

This section was obviously designed to appeal to Americans, but has the same tone-deafness we have now long associated with Europeans and the international bureaucracy. We have two main objections to this passage of the report. First, we are not fearful. Angry, determined, disgusted by those who prey on innocents and vengeful, yes; fearful, no. Second, this portion of the report is nothing less than a sugar-coated poison pill designed to get us to swallow it, and it isn’t going to work, not by a long shot.

This section begins with high sounding words about the scourge of terrorism:

Terrorism is a threat to all that the United Nations stands for: respect for human rights, the rule of law, the protection of civilians, tolerance among peoples and nations, and the peaceful resolution of conflict. It is a threat that has grown more urgent in the last five years. Transnational networks of terrorist groups have global reach and make common cause to pose a universal threat. Such groups profess a desire to acquire nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and to inflict mass casualties. Even one such attack and the chain of events it might set off could change our world forever.

Our strategy against terrorism must be comprehensive and should be based on five pillars: it must aim at dissuading people from resorting to terrorism or supporting it; it must deny terrorists access to funds and materials; it must deter States from sponsoring terrorism; it must develop State capacity to defeat terrorism; and it must defend human rights. I urge Member States and civil society organizations everywhere to join in that strategy.

Substitute the word “rape” for “terrorism” and even liberals can see the flabby morals on display here. The best part, of course, is the “dissuading” people from “resorting” to terrorism. Even better is how it is to be achieved:

We must convince all those who may be tempted to support terrorism that it is neither an acceptable nor an effective way to advance their cause. But the moral authority of the United Nations and its strength in condemning terrorism have been hampered by the inability of Member States to agree on a comprehensive convention that includes a definition.

We’re sure that once the U.N. has a good definition of terrorism its vaunted moral authority will convince supporters of terrorism to change their ways. This is the worst kind of moral preening, one that reaches the level of the unbelievably absurd. And, of course, the Member States cannot agree on a definition because a good number of Member States are themselves terror-sponsoring or terror-supporting.

Nevertheless, the Secretary General proposes we set aside our bickering and agree to agree on his definition of “terrorism.” And what a definition it is:

I endorse fully the High-level Panel’s call for a definition of terrorism, which would make it clear that, in addition to actions already proscribed by existing conventions, any action constitutes terrorism if it is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a Government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act. (Emphasis added).

Under this definition, U.S. actions in Somalia, Kosovo, Bosnia and Iraq are all acts of international terrorism. In Somalia the U.S. engaged in offensive operations in a civilian area to force the de facto government to allow U.N. forces to distribute food aid. In Kosovo, the U.S. bombed a major European capital to force the Yugoslav/Serbian government to “abstain from” the act of ethnic cleansing. In Bosnia, the U.S. similarly used force in civilian areas to stop a self-declared government from committing further acts of genocide. And in Iraq, we bombed civilian centers to deny its forces command and control, power and transportation.

The key here of course is intent. The U.S. would argue that in each of these instances there was no intent “to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants.” However, history has shown that a wide sweep of global opinion would not accept American assurances on this front. It would be enough for most people that the U.S. intentionally dropped bombs or fired guns in a civilian area.

If the U.S. signed on to this definition, it would be giving comfort to the “human rights” and “international law” organizations that have been itching to declare the U.S. a terrorist state. The fact that the Secretary General can propose a definition that would catch the U.S. in its net is more than evidence of bad faith, it speaks to a willful hatred of the United States and its military actions over the past years.

And that’s just the good news. Part II will examine in depth the proposed changes to the Security Council and other major U.N. bodies, tomorrow.

The Schiavo Case, Part II

One of the primary differences between American conservatives and liberals, as Thomas Sowell will explain to you, is that conservatives view justice as a process and a procedure while liberals define justice by the outcome of a certain process or procedure. Thus, the conservative speaks of due process and orderly procedure in accordance with centuries-old Common Law practice while the liberal bemoans the fact that a particular number of blacks are sentenced to death or a certain number of products liability cases are decided in favor or gigantic corporations.

What is most interesting to us about the tragedy that is the Terry Schiavo case is that it seems to have induced a strong case of role-reversal, with conservatives not only lobbying but demanding that the courts rule in the way they feel is correct. This suggests that perhaps one’s views on what constitutes justice depends heavily on how strongly one feels about an issue. You can say what you like about the liberal left but one thing you can’t say is that they don’t care about their issues; perhaps therein lies a peculiar form of strength.

Take yesterday’s short posting regarding the denial of injunctive relief to the parents of Terry Schiavo, for example. It was only one small topic of many yesterday, but it generated the bulk of our email and all of the comments. Almost to a man (or woman, as Stan would be quick to point out), the commentators took us to task for being a bit too cold-hearted, a bit too analytical, and a bit too lawyerly regarding the issue.

We understand that our opinion on this matter is not that currently favored by most conservatives. In fact, we are aware of a certain feeling of swimming against the tide, which, when combined with the offense caused our British and Australian friends in connection with the post regarding the lack of black flag officers in the British Army (not/repeat not the Royal Army; thank you Mrs. Davis for being, as you usually are, very correct and on point), has caused us a bit of anguish.

So, the U.N. report must wait until tomorrow. We feel compelled to explain ourselves further.

We have had the honor of arguing for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) in front of our federal judiciary in the Federal District of Oregon. We also have had the honor of participating in litigation in the state courts at both the trial and appellate level of the Beaver State. By and large, our judiciary is staffed by intelligent, thoughtful jurists of a level of competence that is the envy of many a foreign country.

As any litigation attorney, or experienced client for that matter, will tell you, our legal process depends quite a bit on who one draws as a judge. What may be deemed admissible or even relevant in Courtroom A may not have been judged so in Courtroom B, while Courtroom C may have a third take on the issue you haven’t even considered before.

This is how our legal system works. Due process is provided and one’s day in court is assured, but individuals matter and judges matter even more. When commentators remark that such-and-such evidence wasn’t considered by the trial court in Florida, what they miss is that a properly constituted probate proceeding was held, in complete accordance with the laws of the sovereign State of Florida, and that all decisions and rulings properly preserved for appeal were heard by the appellate courts of that state.

There isn’t a failed litigant in this country who won’t tell you that the judge screwed up when she failed to allow a certain line of questioning or the admission of such-and-such document. There isn’t a losing party that ever existed that won’t explain to you in more detail than you’ve ever wanted how if only the court had looked into X the whole case would have come out differently. There isn’t an opposing party in the country that won’t detail for you just how evil the other side is. What you’re hearing from the losing side in the Schiavo case is nothing more than that repeated by every losing party since the days of Cromwell.

The fact is that when the family of an incapacitated person disagrees about the proper course of action the judiciary of the state is called in to make the call. And, like it or not, the call in this instance was made after a perfectly ordinary and proper legal proceeding. Court after court has found no reversible error.

A close look at the two federal decisions shows just how weak plaintiff’s case was in this instance.

The District Court Opinion

To our ever-lasting shame we misstated the test for TROs in Federal Court. We got two of the elements correct, but left out two further. (It’s amazing what some months away from the bar [and to the ex-pat bar] will do for one’s legal skills). As is proper, the district court began by laying out the law:

A district court may grant a preliminary injunction only if the moving party shows that: 1) it has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; 2) irreparable injury will be suffered unless the injunction issues; 3) the threatened injury to the movant outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause the opposing party; and 4) if issued, the injunction would be in the public interest.

As we guessed yesterday, the second test was easily met. The court noted that “[i]t is apparent that Theresa Schiavo will die unless temporary injunctive relief is granted. This circumstance satisfies the requirement of irreparable injury.” The third test was easily disposed of as well: “Moreover, that threatened injury outweighs any harm the proposed injunction would cause.” As to the potentially controversial fourth test, which is traditionally where courts of liberal bent stretch their muscles, the court was subdued and simply noted that “the court is satisfied that an injunction would not be adverse to the public interest.”

This leaves, however, the critical first test. The court correctly pointed out that this first test is “generally the most important.” Adding yet another layer of complexity, the type only law students can love, the degree to which the first test is applied depends on large part on where the balance of equities lie. “Where the balance of the equities weights heavily in favor or granting the [injunction], the movant need only show a ‘substantial case on the merits.’”

There you have it. All the plaintiffs had to do was show some substantial case on the merits and the injunction would have issued. What many of the commentators have missed, however, is any detailed look at what the five claims the parents advanced are.

There is a reason for this; they are extremely weak and hardly worth discussing. A quick look at each reveals the central hollowness of plaintiffs’ case that undid their request for an injunction.

The first claim for relief was that the Florida state proceeding violated Schiavo’s Fourteenth Amendment due process right to a fair and impartial trial because the presiding judge “became Terri’s health-care surrogate” and “also purported to act as an impartial trial judge in the same proceeding.” As the district court rightly pointed out, Florida’s probate statutes contemplate a judicial resolution of family probate disputes, empowering the judge to act as a decision maker. The court rightfully concluded that:

Plaintiffs offer no authority for their contention that Judge Greer compromised the fairness of the proceeding or the impartiality of the court by following Florida law and fulfilling his statutory duties….

The second claim for relief was a violation of Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process rights. Here lies the main contention of opponents of the court decision. The state court failed to appoint a guardian, failed to appoint a independent attorney to represent Terri, and (most bizarrely) failed to “personally assess Terri’s level of cognition and her responsiveness.”

In fact, the courts had appointed a guardian who was dismissed after properly discharging his task. With regard to counsel, the question is simply moot: as the court noted “the Court cannot envision more effective advocates than her parents and their able counsel.” With regard to the third claim, the court curtly noted that no such duty to personally assess a patient’s status exists or could be said to exist given that judges are not medical experts.

The third claim for relief is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of the law. If there ever was a throw-away claim in every litigant’s arsenal, this is it. The court made quick work of it: it is not a good claim for the same reason the first claim fails.

The fourth and the fifth claims really get into “reaching” territory. Here, plaintiffs argued that the state courts were violating both statutory and Constitutional law regarding freedom of religion. However, there is no state actor here; the mere fact that a court has reached a decision does not implicate state action.

As the court concluded

This court appreciates the gravity of the consequences of denying injunctive relief. Even under these difficult and time strained circumstances, however, and notwithstanding Congress’ expressed interest in the welfare of Theresa Schiavo, this court is constrained to apply the law to the issues before it. As Plaintiffs have not established a substantial likelihood of success of the merits, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order must de DENIED.

The Appellate Decision

We stated last night that we felt it was highly unlikely that the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals would overturn the district court’s opinion. We felt secure in that prediction because of the relevant standard of review. In cases such as these, the standard of review is for abuse of discretion. Or, as the court explained:

While the district court conduced de novo review of plaintiffs’ claims, we review the district court’s denial of temporary injunctive relief only for an abuse of discretion. This scope of review will lead to reversal only if the district court applies an incorrect legal standard, or applied improper procedures, or relies on clearly erroneous factfinding, or if it reaches a conclusion that is clearly unreasonable or incorrect.

As you’ve no doubt already guessed, this is a highly deferential standard of review. Basically, so long as the lower court did what it was supposed to do, there is no reversible error even (and this is important) “if we might have reached a different decision.”

The main argument of the plaintiffs’ appellate case was that Congress enacted legislation to allow them to bring suit in federal court for a de novo review and that, therefore, an injunction must issue by necessity.

However, the face of the legislation says nothing about this; it merely grants the federal courts jurisdiction. Nor did the authors of the legislation see matters as plaintiffs did. When asked by Sen. Levin if the then-proposed legislation contemplated a mandatory stay while trial preparation was begun, Sen. Frist replied “[n]othing in the current bill or its legislative history mandates a stay.”

Even if the legislation were unclear, which it is not, this piece of almost conclusive legislative history would demonstrate that normal federal rules of procedure and the law concerning injunctions is to be applied.

There is another, legally interesting, debate over whether the obscure All Writs Act would allow an injunction to issue outside of the normal rules, but we’ll leave that to the law professors. The fact is that the justice system worked in this case, even if one disagrees strongly with the outcome. The law was applied and a decision was reached.

To argue otherwise is to engage in the very activity we accuse liberals of: results-oriented judging. And nothing is more damaging to the long-term health of our Common Law system than that.

As the court rightfully and movingly concluded:

There is no denying the absolute tragedy that has befallen Mrs. Schiavo. We all have our own family, our own loved ones, and our own children. However, we are called upon to make a collective, objective decision concerning a question of law. In the end, and no matter how much we wish Mrs. Schiavo had never suffered such a horrible accident, we are a nation of laws, and if we are to continue to be so, the pre-existing and well-established federal law governing injunctions as well as [Congress’ law authorizing the Schiavo case jurisdiction] must be applied to her case. While the position of the dissenting colleague has emotional appeal, we as judges must decide this case on the law.

We are a nation of laws, not men; our legal system assures due process, not desirable outcomes. Long may it remain so and may Terri Schiavo find peace at God’s side.

New York Times Rundown

While we're digesting Kofi Annan's report on reforming and retooling the United Nations for comment tomorrow, we thought we would take you along on a tour of the top stories in todays New York Times (complete with commentary, of course).

Lead story:

Court Denies Schaivo Parents Request for Relief; Will Appeal

After all the drama in Congress this week, it all came down to an ordinary request for an injunction before a District Court judge. Judge Whitmore ruled, understandably, that no injunction could issue since the petitioners has not established that they had a "substantial likelihood of success" on the merits upon de novo review.

Many commentators today have focused on the judge's refusal to engage in de novo review, but have completely missed the point regarding the nature of injunctive relief. Injuntive relief is an extraordinary tool that is used only rarely and only when the petitioners can show that they will suffer irreparable harm if it is not issued and that they have a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their case at trial. No doubt the irreparable harm part of the test was easily met, but as to the second, we agree with the court.

This matter has been exhaustively litigated in the Florida courts. Whatever one's views of the moral merits of either party, the fact is that each had due process and appeals to establish their legal claims and, at some point, our system demand finality. Especially in cases like these.

Since the trial and appeal record at the state level contain a voluminous record about the various claims and issues raised, one can only conclude that a re-hash of the entire process de novo is not likely to produce a dissimilar result. Using the standard test for whether or not injunctive relief should be granted, the judge arrived at the right result. Unlike many commentators, we do not expect the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to rule differently.

We understand the position and the pain of those on the other side of this issue, but, we must say, the intrusion of the Congress into adding a special basis for federal jurisdiction was both ill-judged and ill-considered. By reinforcing the anti-Federalist idea that somehow the Federal courts are "superior" to state courts, the Congress has done our legal system an injustice.

While we have good reason to question the competence of Florida courts (see Bush v. Gore), the fact is that they have jurisdiction and they were and are competent to render judgment in this issue.

May all the parties find peace with the result. The legal saying that "hard cases make bad law" has never proved so true.

E.U. Said to Keep Arms Ban on Sales to China

Another victory for American diplomacy, but chalk this one up to the crass boldness of the Communist Party leadership in Beijing. Amazingly, during an intense debate between the U.S. and the E.U. on this issue, the PRC government announced that it had passed a law authorizing the use of force to take Taiwan.

According to the Times, this announcement cut the legs under the French position and has caused the E.U. to back off. But note that their statements say they will back off only for another year or so.

Expect the E.U. to quietly table the issue as matters cool down, no doubt this time with friendly messages from their Beijing embassies to the PRC to equally play it cool. This will remain a huge issue and one to watch in the near future.

The Minnesota School Shooting

We, sometimes, are caught in a quandary that we must frankly admit. We are of the opinion, long considered and (we think) well-thought out regarding the superiority of liberal democracy, American style.

And, yet, at times we dispair over what all our freedom all too often brings us. In a world where kids get to simulate car-jackings and prostitute-beatings care of Grand Theft Auto and where multi-billion dollar media corporations jam despair-inducing music down the throats of teenagers, we suppose such things are going to happen.

So, if we truly believe that our way of life is the correct one, we must take into account why things like this happen so often in our country. In some respects it is just because 280 million people can get up to a lot of hell from time to time. But in others, we wonder if we have become a bit too cold to violence, a bit too indifferent to those who are different.

We are worried and the events in that high school should concern us all.

Ordinary Iraqis Strike Back at Insurgents

This is such good news we don't know what to say beyond a hearty "All Right!!!" An Iraqi carpenter noted that:

"We attacked them before they attacked us," Dhia, 35, his face still contorted with rage and excitement, said in a brief exchange at his shop a few hours after the battle. He did not give his last name. "We killed three of those who call themselves the mujahedeen. I am waiting for the rest of them to come and we will show them."

Dhia is our kind of guy.

Black Coaches in NBA Have Shorter Tenure

Classic NY Times story which has to be read just for giggles. And who knew pro basketball coaches have tenure? Somebody better tell Ward Churchill.

In other news, Black Men Many Times More Likely to Play in NBA not scheduled to appear anytime soon.

What Britain Lacks

We noted, as did many in the Blogosphere, the awarding of the Victoria Cross to Private Johnson Beharry of the British Army for bravery in handling his Warrior APC while under heavy machine gun and RPG fire, saving the lives of numerous comrades and demonstrating to the enemy, yet again, that they are no longer facing unarmed stewardresses or Russian school children.

The Guardian has a good account of the award, the reasons behind it and the reaction to the Grenada native’s heroism.

One thing, however, caught our eye and, so far as we know, has gone unremarked upon. In the Guardian story, the following exchange appears:

The Grenada-born private was paraded by the top brass yesterday among his comrades in the 1st Battalion, the Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment, and other recipients of high military honours.

"I was just doing my job. I was just thinking of the guys in the vehicle and the guys behind me," he said.

He was asked what was going through his mind at the time. "An RPG", Pte Beharry promptly replied.

He was not afraid at the time, only afterwards. Asked why he had left Grenada, he said he wanted "a change of life".

Asked if he would be Britain's first black general, he quickly replied: "No." (Emphasis added).

The British have never had a black general?

Ever?

Keep that in mind folks next time you’re talking to a member of the Liberal Democrats about “racist” America, are putting up with a lecture from a European about our troubled racial past or enduring BBC World screening “Mississippi Burning” for the 206th time.

Gaming Sunday

It's Sunday in the Near Abroad and the living ain't easy. One of the occupational hazards FSOs face abroad is illness, and we've been hit hard this weekend. It goes with the territory and most people are good about bearing it, especially our colleagues in Africa who face strange diseases, parasites and worse. That doesn't make the 27th wave of nausea in 5 hours any easier to take, though. We apologize for the light posting this weekend; as soon as we're back on our feet we'll take up our regular schedule once again. In the meantime, we have limped to our desks for the return of Gaming Sunday....

The Return of D.W. Bradley

Anyone who played either Wizardry 6 (Bane of the Cosmic Forge) or Wizardry 7 (Crusaders of the Dark Savant) will recognize the name of D.W. Bradley. Both of those games easily make anyone's CRPG hall of fame, and both were marked by inventive story-telling and even more inventive maps.

Bradley's first solo venture, Wizards and Warriors, continued the tradition. While the game was plagued with a strange interface and a graphics engine that dated it upon release, the fact is the actual dungeons and NPCs in the game were as fascinating as usual.

Now, we're less than a month away from the scheduled release date of Bradley's next game, Dungeon Lords. A single-player game with a first-person perspective, Bradley has stated that he hopes to merge the CRPG tradition of story-telling and character development with FPS-like action. Now, this is a tall order for anyone, but we're willing to bet that if anyone can pull it off, it would be a guy like Bradley.

His company, Heuristic Park, has promised a demo just prior to release, to be available as a free demo. Do yourself a favor and check this one out; we doubt you'll be disappointed.

Icewind Dale Soundtrack

We know we're geeks, but we never thought we'd be this geeky: we actually bought and love a soundtrack to a game. If you've played either Icewind Dale or Icewind Dale 2, you know the Celtic music-inspired soundtrack was one of the highlights of the game. Now, with its Icewind Dale collection, you can purchase both games, with their respective bonus disks and the soundtrack for.......$20.00.

That is one heck of a value, for what must be close to 80 hours of game play, plus some good tunes. Check it out.

Everquest II Update

We love MMORPGs, don't get us wrong. They're fun, they're neat and they're inventive. But, once again, the Curse of the Casual Player has bitten us to the point where we've hung up our swords on this one.

If you're a casual player too, you undoubtedly know the Curse: on release day you create your character and for about 5 days you have fun playing the game like everyone else. Then, one night, less than a week into the game, it happens: your little 10th level paladin is passed by a whole crowd of guys who are 38th level and who are talking about parts of the game you haven't even heard of yet.

You tell yourself it's all just for fun, and who cares if some guys play 24 hours a day and others are smart enough to figure out how to automate their characters so they're selling merchandise round the clock? But, still....

By the end of the first month, you're hopelessly behind, you don't know what's going on, and there are 450 websites with every quest and map in the game detailed. With despair, you realize you can never keep up with the Joneses. The fun leaves the game shortly thereafter.

EQII, we hardly knew thee. It's a beautiful piece of work, and we enjoyed the time we had with it. But, at the end of the day, these types of games demand a level of dedication that is simply beyond us.

None of which, of course, will prevent us from going crazy over Middle Earth Online next year.