I can understand why Fidel Castro is upset that Mexican President Vicente Fox asked him to leave a U.N. summit in Monterrey before Dubya got there, but why is the Mexican Congress in a tizzy? One Castro-lover said:

”This is the biggest disgrace Mexican foreign policy has suffered; the president’s conduct is shameful,” said Marti Batres, a leader of the leftist Democratic Revolution Party.

Wasn’t Castro the one who both taped and released a tape of a confidential conversation? And what did Fox say on tape? He asked Castro not to make any anti-U.S. statements in his speech and to take off early. What’s wrong with that? Trust me, I don’t think any of the people in attendance were sorry to see the notriously long-winded dictator end his speech after only a brief seven minutes.

Why was this disgraceful excuse for a human being even invited to the summit in the first place? The president’s conduct is “shameful”? I guess Castro’s turning Cuba into an island prison where dissent is a crime, toilet paper is a luxury item and prostitution is the No. 1 growth industry is just dandy. I disagree with the embargo against Cuba, which only punishes innocent people for their leader’s actions, but I don’t see why Castro should be invited to any international meeting, much less asked to stay and grind his tireless axe agains the United States.

And they wonder why Fox is having difficulty getting rid of corruption and reforming the civil service in Mexico?

So a Portland gun group is offering free gun training classes to abused women, but so-called public health experts think armed self-defense is short-sighted.

“Like it or not, a firearm is the great equalizer,” said the founder of the gun group. “A 90-pound woman can defend herself against a 300-pound (man).” But:

“From a public health perspective, that’s certainly not the message I would want to send,” said Nancy Glass, a professor in the School of Nursing at Oregon Health & Science University who has researched intimate partner homicide. “In my view, arming people is a very short-sighted response to a public health crisis.”

If my abusive ex-husband or ex-boyfriend has threatened to kill me and the only protection I have is a judge’s restraining order, somehow, I don’t think a long-term response to the public health crisis is not going to help me sleep at night. Anyway, this is not a “public health crisis,” it’s a crime problem. To blithely say that teaching women how to defend themselves is not useful is a remarkably obtuse attitude to the situation. There may be deep societal reasons for intimate partner homicide, but in the meantime, women want — and have a right — to defend themselves. And for many women, the best way to do that is to learn how to use firearms.

Tommy Thompson’s little brother, Ed, is running for governor of Wisconsin and is polling at 7 percent among registered voters. At first I thought that this was just another gimmick like so many other LP campaigns. Obviously trading on his brother’s celebrity –Tommy was governor of Wisconsin and is now Secretary of Health and Human Services — and the mayor of a small town called Tomah, Thompson couldn’t seriously have a chance to make a dent.

But apparently his down-to-earth style to the cheeseheads.

It’s a long time until November, though, and as the race tigtens between the major-party contenders, votes will be siphoned away from Thompson. Also, voters traditionally don’t seriously consider their votes until a month or two before the election.

So while the numbers are encouraging — it’s better to be to have a chance to lose 7 percent than not ever get close to it — only time will tell whether Thompson’s folksy approach will win over a significant number of voters who probably don’t really agree with the libertarian program as such.

Looking at Thompson’s issues page, I’ve got to give him credit for framing issues imaginatively. I highly doubt Thompson will pull off a Ventura-like win, as he hopes. But wouldn’t it be great if he pulled off 10 percent in the final tally and, even better, if the major-party candidates had to address libertarian issues in an attempt to win over voters leaning toward Thompson and the LP?

OK, I know I’ve covered this topic a lot already, but that’s what’s in the news. Here’s another good column by Rep. Ron Paul, “America’s entangling alliances in the Middle East.” A highlight:

Political pressure compels us to support Israel, but it is oil that prompts us to guarantee security for the western puppet governments of the oil-rich Arab nations. Since the Israeli-Arab fight will not soon be resolved, our policy of involving ourselves in a conflict unrelated to our security guarantees that we will suffer the consequences.

Paul is a little bit more pro-Palestinian than I’d like, but he still is one of the few people in Congress willing to speak out against U.S. involvement in the Middle East.

Chronicle copy chief Georgia Evdoxiadis weighs in this week with a commentary on the Israeli-Palestinian situation. It is well written, as one would expect of our dear copy chief, but in the end is off the mark. She says Israel has gone too far in its attempt to cripple the terrorist forces in the West Bank. But I’m not particularly interested in that. Here’s where I take major exception:

It is increasingly obvious that the Israelis and Palestinians cannot be left alone in the Middle East. They have proved, like two violent children, that they cannot play nicely. It is time for the United States and the rest of the world to step in and take control of the situation.

If they are really immature, like children, what makes Evdoxiadis think that the United States can really get them to play nicely? They’ve been fighting over this turf for 52 years and billions of dollars in U.S. aid, diplomatic cajoling, etc. seems to have made little difference.

Evdoxiadis continues:

President Bush and the United States no longer have the luxury of non-involvement. The Middle East conflict will influence all future foreign policy issues, including any decisions countries might make about aiding an effort to depose a certain Persian Gulf dictator. The United States must lay down the law to Sharon in a way that makes potential consequences clear. If he still refuses to comply, our country should not hesitate to punish violence and human rights violations.

So the United States should punish Sharon’s violent efforts to punish Palestinian violent activities. Yeah, that should work just fine. Clearly, Sharon is quite convinced that what he’s doing in the West Bank will be effective, and doesn’t give much of a hoot about what Dubya thinks. If Israel wants true independence from Washington, it should wean itself off the teat of American foreign aid. Certainly, the United States should cut it off before Sharon even has a chance to ask. Israel doesn’t much care about U.S. opinion — they shouldn’t have a need for American dollars or equipment, either.

Evdoxiadis concludes:

Few can deny that the Jewish people deserve a place to live, but so do the Palestinians. There must be a way to reconcile the two. Now is the time for action if that goal is ever to be reached.

Yes, there just must be a way. But what way? Only the two sides can settle this conflict. U.S. threats aren’t going to help any, because when it comes down to it, both sides view this as a fight for survival. It’s only when they arrive at the point where they feel that coexistence is better than mutual destruction will things ever get better. And there’s not much the United States can do to help them reach that point, except act as an interlocutor in negotiations. To say “there must be a way” is to be naive about the situation, and to think that U.S. involvement will do anything more than harm American security is to be dangerously naive.