Monday, December 15, 2003
Liberal Cynicism
I understand that politics is a cynical pursuit. I also understand that sometimes an event that is good in the short-term can be bad in the long-term and therefore is to be deplored. However, the level of win-at-all-cost partisan cynicism expressed by some lefties is just reprehensible. First, Best of the Web reported this gem from the Democratic Underground website on Friday (before Saddam was captured).
Please folks, don't start that "We should be happy for people...They are seeing nice gains in their 401k's..yadda yadda" Bottom line, this will HELP BUSH!
I took a look at my IRA today and see it sitting at a three year high. I admit, for a moment, I felt a moment of glee, then I remembered who this is REALLY helping, big corporations, Bush's supporters, and the sheep who think he really did anything to boost the economy.
Like it or not, people vote with their pocketbooks and when they see these big gains, they will be happy. Couple this with the bigger than ever tax refund checks people we getting (Thanks in no small part to the politically motivated tactic of reducing tax brackets across the board in JULY, and making the bill retroactive, so the first 7 months of overpaid taxes will be INCLUDED in your tax refund...in addition to the doubled child credit and marriage penalty drop...my GOD...I know most of tax cuts help the rich, but this s--- really will help middle America with larger refunds. ALSO, since Dubya dropped the steel tariffs, the price of nearly everything with metal in it will be DROPPING over the next few months...meaning more spending...more demand...more products sold...more corporate revenue...more jobs needed...We need to admit this and prepare for it.
The people are going to be happy.
They like their tax reductions.
They like cheap prices on stuff.
They like their 401k's being up 40% this year.
If the economy keeps this pace, unemployment will likely be down to 5.5% by next November and we better have a damn good argument against Bush's policies. Is there any way we can take credit for helping the economy? We certainly are going to need an argument for this next year.
Jobs up, prices down, stocks up, taxes down. "This really will help middle America." Oh the horror! I just might start crying. Like this freak mourning for Saddam:
I can't believe this. I'm crying here. I feel that we now don't have a chance in this election.
Andrew Sullivan found that one on the Dean Blog. He has a long list of similar complaints.
I understand that politics is a cynical pursuit. I also understand that sometimes an event that is good in the short-term can be bad in the long-term and therefore is to be deplored. However, the level of win-at-all-cost partisan cynicism expressed by some lefties is just reprehensible. First, Best of the Web reported this gem from the Democratic Underground website on Friday (before Saddam was captured).
Please folks, don't start that "We should be happy for people...They are seeing nice gains in their 401k's..yadda yadda" Bottom line, this will HELP BUSH!
I took a look at my IRA today and see it sitting at a three year high. I admit, for a moment, I felt a moment of glee, then I remembered who this is REALLY helping, big corporations, Bush's supporters, and the sheep who think he really did anything to boost the economy.
Like it or not, people vote with their pocketbooks and when they see these big gains, they will be happy. Couple this with the bigger than ever tax refund checks people we getting (Thanks in no small part to the politically motivated tactic of reducing tax brackets across the board in JULY, and making the bill retroactive, so the first 7 months of overpaid taxes will be INCLUDED in your tax refund...in addition to the doubled child credit and marriage penalty drop...my GOD...I know most of tax cuts help the rich, but this s--- really will help middle America with larger refunds. ALSO, since Dubya dropped the steel tariffs, the price of nearly everything with metal in it will be DROPPING over the next few months...meaning more spending...more demand...more products sold...more corporate revenue...more jobs needed...We need to admit this and prepare for it.
The people are going to be happy.
They like their tax reductions.
They like cheap prices on stuff.
They like their 401k's being up 40% this year.
If the economy keeps this pace, unemployment will likely be down to 5.5% by next November and we better have a damn good argument against Bush's policies. Is there any way we can take credit for helping the economy? We certainly are going to need an argument for this next year.
Jobs up, prices down, stocks up, taxes down. "This really will help middle America." Oh the horror! I just might start crying. Like this freak mourning for Saddam:
I can't believe this. I'm crying here. I feel that we now don't have a chance in this election.
Andrew Sullivan found that one on the Dean Blog. He has a long list of similar complaints.
Sunday, December 14, 2003
Iraq-Al Queda Link?
This really seems to be too good to be true. The telegraph is reporting: Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam based on a top secret memo.
In the memo, Habbush reports that Atta "displayed extraordinary effort" and demonstrated his ability to lead the team that would be "responsible for attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy".
The second part of the memo, which is headed "Niger Shipment", contains a report about an unspecified shipment - believed to be uranium - that it says has been transported to Iraq via Libya and Syria.
The memo was written by Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, the former head of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, to Saddam, describing training that Mohammed Atta received. It is not entirely clear where this memo came from, but the Iraqi Governing Council seems confident that it is legitimate. This certainly is exciting news, but it is so dramatic, I find it hard to believe without further confirmation.
Update: This additional report also puts Syria on the hot seat. This is cheesy-Hollywood-July-Fourth-Will-Smith-blockbuster good. I need confirmation!
Habbush writes that the successful completion of the shipment was "the fruit of your excellent secret meeting with Bashir al-Asad (the Syrian president) on the Iraqi-Syrian border", and concludes: "May God protect you and save you to all Arab nations."
While it is almost impossible to ascertain whether or not the document is legitimate or a clever fake, Iraqi officials working for the interim government are convinced of its authenticity, even though they decline to reveal where and how they obtained it. "It is not important how we found it," said a senior Iraqi security official. "The important thing is that we did find it and the information it contains."
I seriously have to wonder if some over-zealous Iraqis are attempting to "help" the US by producing a memo that ties up all the loose ends in a neat little package. But if this is legit, Dean is done and Bashir is next.
This really seems to be too good to be true. The telegraph is reporting: Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam based on a top secret memo.
In the memo, Habbush reports that Atta "displayed extraordinary effort" and demonstrated his ability to lead the team that would be "responsible for attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy".
The second part of the memo, which is headed "Niger Shipment", contains a report about an unspecified shipment - believed to be uranium - that it says has been transported to Iraq via Libya and Syria.
The memo was written by Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, the former head of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, to Saddam, describing training that Mohammed Atta received. It is not entirely clear where this memo came from, but the Iraqi Governing Council seems confident that it is legitimate. This certainly is exciting news, but it is so dramatic, I find it hard to believe without further confirmation.
Update: This additional report also puts Syria on the hot seat. This is cheesy-Hollywood-July-Fourth-Will-Smith-blockbuster good. I need confirmation!
Habbush writes that the successful completion of the shipment was "the fruit of your excellent secret meeting with Bashir al-Asad (the Syrian president) on the Iraqi-Syrian border", and concludes: "May God protect you and save you to all Arab nations."
While it is almost impossible to ascertain whether or not the document is legitimate or a clever fake, Iraqi officials working for the interim government are convinced of its authenticity, even though they decline to reveal where and how they obtained it. "It is not important how we found it," said a senior Iraqi security official. "The important thing is that we did find it and the information it contains."
I seriously have to wonder if some over-zealous Iraqis are attempting to "help" the US by producing a memo that ties up all the loose ends in a neat little package. But if this is legit, Dean is done and Bashir is next.
It's Christmas!!!!!!
This morning, I slept in late, looked out the window to see a beautiful layer of fresh snow, and opened the Washington Post to see this: HUSSEIN CAPTURED
It could hardly get any better.
This morning, I slept in late, looked out the window to see a beautiful layer of fresh snow, and opened the Washington Post to see this: HUSSEIN CAPTURED
It could hardly get any better.
Saturday, December 13, 2003
French Socialism Betrays Workers
One Rebecca Goldsmith has a great article on France's 35 hour work week in the Star-Tibune. France's short week isn't working, critics say. There are a great number of simple truths, elegantly illustrated in this article that all point to the fact that socialism is basically a form of punishment. Furthermore, the burdens fall most heavily on the working classes, no the ruling elite. Did you know that the French are not even allowed to work overtime? No work allowed is a great way to advance your country. Sheesh.
At one time, Lopez worked a full schedule each week. He got standard pay for 39 hours and overtime whenever he could. Now, French law restricts him from working more than 35 hours and bars him from earning overtime. The rules sentence him to a life of deprivation, he said. "I'm 35 years old, and I still live at my mom's place because I can't afford to get my own place."
[...]
During September, France's jobless rate climbed to 9.7 percent, its highest since April 2000.
[...]
"The U.S. labor market is much more flexible that way, to allow people to work out individual accommodations in how they want to organize their lives," said Paul Swaim, an economist specializing in labor market issues for the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
[...]
"In part, the Europeans want to work less because when they do work more they pay very high tax rates, making it less worthwhile," Swaim said.
In France, the short workweek has been a financial disaster for many unskilled laborers and recent immigrants.
"One of the drawbacks of the 35-hour week is it's a good case of a one-size-fits-all philosophy -- forcing everyone to make the same trade-off between free time and income," Swaim said.
[...]
"For people like us, it's a very nice system," Syfuss-Arnaud said. But "for the workers in the factories and the cashiers in the shopping malls, it's horrible."
[...]
"I can't save money. I'm thinking of leaving France" to seek better opportunities in Canada or elsewhere, [M'Boussa] said. "There, maybe you wouldn't get good health care or pension benefits, but at least for those who want to succeed, there are real opportunities. Here, you're just blocked."
Mr. M'Boussa, if you are looking for a new home, may I suggest the good ole US of A.
If you would like to see some funny and biting commentary on the same article, go see the Rottweiler.
One Rebecca Goldsmith has a great article on France's 35 hour work week in the Star-Tibune. France's short week isn't working, critics say. There are a great number of simple truths, elegantly illustrated in this article that all point to the fact that socialism is basically a form of punishment. Furthermore, the burdens fall most heavily on the working classes, no the ruling elite. Did you know that the French are not even allowed to work overtime? No work allowed is a great way to advance your country. Sheesh.
At one time, Lopez worked a full schedule each week. He got standard pay for 39 hours and overtime whenever he could. Now, French law restricts him from working more than 35 hours and bars him from earning overtime. The rules sentence him to a life of deprivation, he said. "I'm 35 years old, and I still live at my mom's place because I can't afford to get my own place."
[...]
During September, France's jobless rate climbed to 9.7 percent, its highest since April 2000.
[...]
"The U.S. labor market is much more flexible that way, to allow people to work out individual accommodations in how they want to organize their lives," said Paul Swaim, an economist specializing in labor market issues for the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
[...]
"In part, the Europeans want to work less because when they do work more they pay very high tax rates, making it less worthwhile," Swaim said.
In France, the short workweek has been a financial disaster for many unskilled laborers and recent immigrants.
"One of the drawbacks of the 35-hour week is it's a good case of a one-size-fits-all philosophy -- forcing everyone to make the same trade-off between free time and income," Swaim said.
[...]
"For people like us, it's a very nice system," Syfuss-Arnaud said. But "for the workers in the factories and the cashiers in the shopping malls, it's horrible."
[...]
"I can't save money. I'm thinking of leaving France" to seek better opportunities in Canada or elsewhere, [M'Boussa] said. "There, maybe you wouldn't get good health care or pension benefits, but at least for those who want to succeed, there are real opportunities. Here, you're just blocked."
Mr. M'Boussa, if you are looking for a new home, may I suggest the good ole US of A.
If you would like to see some funny and biting commentary on the same article, go see the Rottweiler.
Wednesday, December 10, 2003
UN "Peacekeeping"
A good rule of thumb is, when in doubt, don't trust the UN. But this piece by F. Andy Messing/Elizabeth M. Stafford goes even further and removes the doubt. While the UN as an effective force for stability in Iraq never rang true to me, they confirmed my suspicions by reviewing some recent UN peacekeeping.
In Somalia, U.N. elements frustrated the peacekeeping process and led to its eventual failure. Few elements were proactive or helpful. For instance, many of the 22 countries participating mostly stayed in their compounds, leaving the daunting peacekeeping responsibilities to others. ... In addition, the Pakistani contingent in Somalia looked at the Somalis with contempt and committed various human rights violations, including beating the Somalis with sticks.
[...]
Some of the 22 nations involved in Somalia came in "light" and left "heavy," stealing anything of value from the Somalis and other coalition members. Additionally, Zimbabwe sent a large contingent of soldiers who were HIV-positive, placing a burden on American and U.N. medical teams, and jeopardized the health Somali women through fraternization.
The efforts made in Haiti were much of the same. The Bangladeshis serving there for the U.N. held the Haitians in low regard and often physically abused them, as witnessed by one of the authors of this article. "Whorehouse Row" in Port-Au-Prince was constantly packed with U.N. personnel who could have been engaged in nation-building or life-saving activity.
It is bizarre that at a time when the goal is to promote socioeconomic, political and military stability, the United Nations would place persons prone to mutual antagonism alongside one another and expect their differences to disappear.
That last paragraph really encapsulates the international "community" myth that has captured so many leftists. Just because Lenin talked about an international brotherhood of workers, doesn't mean it exists. Quite the contrary. It is only the leftover socialists and communists that still believe that.
A good rule of thumb is, when in doubt, don't trust the UN. But this piece by F. Andy Messing/Elizabeth M. Stafford goes even further and removes the doubt. While the UN as an effective force for stability in Iraq never rang true to me, they confirmed my suspicions by reviewing some recent UN peacekeeping.
In Somalia, U.N. elements frustrated the peacekeeping process and led to its eventual failure. Few elements were proactive or helpful. For instance, many of the 22 countries participating mostly stayed in their compounds, leaving the daunting peacekeeping responsibilities to others. ... In addition, the Pakistani contingent in Somalia looked at the Somalis with contempt and committed various human rights violations, including beating the Somalis with sticks.
[...]
Some of the 22 nations involved in Somalia came in "light" and left "heavy," stealing anything of value from the Somalis and other coalition members. Additionally, Zimbabwe sent a large contingent of soldiers who were HIV-positive, placing a burden on American and U.N. medical teams, and jeopardized the health Somali women through fraternization.
The efforts made in Haiti were much of the same. The Bangladeshis serving there for the U.N. held the Haitians in low regard and often physically abused them, as witnessed by one of the authors of this article. "Whorehouse Row" in Port-Au-Prince was constantly packed with U.N. personnel who could have been engaged in nation-building or life-saving activity.
It is bizarre that at a time when the goal is to promote socioeconomic, political and military stability, the United Nations would place persons prone to mutual antagonism alongside one another and expect their differences to disappear.
That last paragraph really encapsulates the international "community" myth that has captured so many leftists. Just because Lenin talked about an international brotherhood of workers, doesn't mean it exists. Quite the contrary. It is only the leftover socialists and communists that still believe that.
I'm a Repressed Minority Too!
In the WaPo, Harold Meyerson said, I kid you not, that Howard Dean appeals to America's "existential margins -- the young, urban, white middle class in particular."
What a maroon.
In the WaPo, Harold Meyerson said, I kid you not, that Howard Dean appeals to America's "existential margins -- the young, urban, white middle class in particular."
What a maroon.
Tuesday, December 09, 2003
palestinian "Education"
Indoctrination is more like it. The group EU Funding has a new report on the newest text books being used in the disputed territories. Of course, they continue the long-standing policy of denying the existence of Israel. In particular, their geography texts describe Haifa, Jaffa, etc, as palestinian cities. And it is no surprise to see the little tykes nurtured on such milk as: "Whoever dies in defense of his country is considered a shahid, who will attain the highest spiritual levels possible."
What really continues to be disappointing is that people who should know better are politically and financially supporting the conversion of schools into terrorist training camps. In particular, Belgium, Italy, and the UN financed the production of this murderous propaganda. It is disgusting.
And, for the record, the palestinians have allegedly agreed to follow the road map in 2003, which says "Palestinians and Israelis resume security cooperation based on the Tenet work plan to end violence, terrorism, and incitement"
Additionally, the palestinians signed onto the Tenet Work Plan in 2001, which states, "PA will stop any Palestinian security officials from inciting, aiding, abetting, or conducting attacks against Israeli targets, including settlers."
And, what do you know. In 1999, the palestinians agreed that "Each side shall immediately and effectively respond to the occurrence or anticipated occurrence of an act of terrorism, violence or incitement and shall take all necessary measures to prevent such an occurrence."
And in 1998, Arafat signed the Wye agreement "to prevent incitement against each other by any organizations, groups or individuals within their jurisdiction."
And now some people foolishly think that the Geneva Accords will lead to peace because it includes such bold and peaceful commitments such as, "Without prejudice to freedom of expression and other internationally recognized human rights, Israel and Palestine shall promulgate laws to prevent incitement to irredentism, racism, terrorism and violence and vigorously enforce them." These agreements are worth nothing! They are a distraction and a waste of time.
Indoctrination is more like it. The group EU Funding has a new report on the newest text books being used in the disputed territories. Of course, they continue the long-standing policy of denying the existence of Israel. In particular, their geography texts describe Haifa, Jaffa, etc, as palestinian cities. And it is no surprise to see the little tykes nurtured on such milk as: "Whoever dies in defense of his country is considered a shahid, who will attain the highest spiritual levels possible."
What really continues to be disappointing is that people who should know better are politically and financially supporting the conversion of schools into terrorist training camps. In particular, Belgium, Italy, and the UN financed the production of this murderous propaganda. It is disgusting.
And, for the record, the palestinians have allegedly agreed to follow the road map in 2003, which says "Palestinians and Israelis resume security cooperation based on the Tenet work plan to end violence, terrorism, and incitement"
Additionally, the palestinians signed onto the Tenet Work Plan in 2001, which states, "PA will stop any Palestinian security officials from inciting, aiding, abetting, or conducting attacks against Israeli targets, including settlers."
And, what do you know. In 1999, the palestinians agreed that "Each side shall immediately and effectively respond to the occurrence or anticipated occurrence of an act of terrorism, violence or incitement and shall take all necessary measures to prevent such an occurrence."
And in 1998, Arafat signed the Wye agreement "to prevent incitement against each other by any organizations, groups or individuals within their jurisdiction."
And now some people foolishly think that the Geneva Accords will lead to peace because it includes such bold and peaceful commitments such as, "Without prejudice to freedom of expression and other internationally recognized human rights, Israel and Palestine shall promulgate laws to prevent incitement to irredentism, racism, terrorism and violence and vigorously enforce them." These agreements are worth nothing! They are a distraction and a waste of time.
Monday, December 08, 2003
More on French Perfidity
Merde in France also has some more anecdotal evidence that the French got over 9/11 with unseemly speed.
As images of people jumping from the Towers were shown a French guy at the bar made a back handed wave at the TV screen and said, 'to hell with them'. All the customers' discussions in the café were along the lines of 'its a terrible thing BUT ...' quickly followed by vague justifications why it was not such a terrible thing after all. Kids were running down the street yelling 'the States are f*****'. In the days following the attacks, graffiti praising Osama bin Laden appeared daily on the ATMs throughout the neighborhood. Dope using French judo champ Djamel Bouras, appearing on the first edition of 'Tout le Monde en Parle' following the attacks, stated 'Why do the French newspapers declare that we are all Americans? Why a minute of silence for the dead Americans?'
Merde in France also has some more anecdotal evidence that the French got over 9/11 with unseemly speed.
As images of people jumping from the Towers were shown a French guy at the bar made a back handed wave at the TV screen and said, 'to hell with them'. All the customers' discussions in the café were along the lines of 'its a terrible thing BUT ...' quickly followed by vague justifications why it was not such a terrible thing after all. Kids were running down the street yelling 'the States are f*****'. In the days following the attacks, graffiti praising Osama bin Laden appeared daily on the ATMs throughout the neighborhood. Dope using French judo champ Djamel Bouras, appearing on the first edition of 'Tout le Monde en Parle' following the attacks, stated 'Why do the French newspapers declare that we are all Americans? Why a minute of silence for the dead Americans?'
France Sucks
Nothing new here, but I want to post it anyway. Fouad Ajami has a masterful article in Foreign Policy magazine on who are friends aren't (Hint: France). His main thesis is that the outpouring of support for the US immediately after 9/11 was a mile wide and an inch deep. Nations returned to the status quo of anti-Americanism with the speed of a French soldier evacuating Paris. While he discusses a lot more than France, this bit contains stuff I didn't know:
Much has been made of the sympathy that the French expressed for the United States immediately after the September 11 attacks, as embodied by the famous editorial of Le Monde's publisher Jean-Marie Colombani, "Nous Sommes Tous Américains" ("We are all Americans"). And much has been made of the speed with which the United States presumably squandered that sympathy in the months that followed. ... But even on that very day, Colombani wrote of the United States reaping the whirlwind of its "cynicism"; he recycled the hackneyed charge that Osama bin Laden had been created and nurtured by U.S. intelligence agencies.
Colombani quickly retracted what little sympathy he had expressed when, in December of 2001, he was back with an open letter to "our American friends." ... By now the sympathy had drained, and the tone was one of belligerent judgment and disapproval. There was nothing to admire in Colombani's United States, which had run roughshod in the world and had been indifferent to the rule of law. ... The United States had not squandered Colombani's sympathy; he never had that sympathy in the first place.
Colombani was hardly alone in the French intellectual class in his enmity toward the United States. On November 3, 2001, in Le Monde, the writer and pundit Jean Baudrillard permitted himself a thought of stunning cynicism. He saw the perpetrators of September 11 acting out his own dreams and the dreams of others like him. He gave those attacks a sort of universal warrant: "How we have dreamt of this event," he wrote, "how all the world without exception dreamt of this event, for no one can avoid dreaming of the destruction of a power that has become hegemonic . . . . It is they who acted, but we who wanted the deed." Casting caution and false sympathy aside, Baudrillard saw the terrible attacks on the United States as an "object of desire." The terrorists had been able to draw on a "deep complicity," knowing perfectly well that they were acting out the hidden yearnings of others oppressed by the United States' order and power. To him, morality of the U.S. variety is a sham, and the terrorism directed against it is a legitimate response to the inequities of "globalization."
Nothing new here, but I want to post it anyway. Fouad Ajami has a masterful article in Foreign Policy magazine on who are friends aren't (Hint: France). His main thesis is that the outpouring of support for the US immediately after 9/11 was a mile wide and an inch deep. Nations returned to the status quo of anti-Americanism with the speed of a French soldier evacuating Paris. While he discusses a lot more than France, this bit contains stuff I didn't know:
Much has been made of the sympathy that the French expressed for the United States immediately after the September 11 attacks, as embodied by the famous editorial of Le Monde's publisher Jean-Marie Colombani, "Nous Sommes Tous Américains" ("We are all Americans"). And much has been made of the speed with which the United States presumably squandered that sympathy in the months that followed. ... But even on that very day, Colombani wrote of the United States reaping the whirlwind of its "cynicism"; he recycled the hackneyed charge that Osama bin Laden had been created and nurtured by U.S. intelligence agencies.
Colombani quickly retracted what little sympathy he had expressed when, in December of 2001, he was back with an open letter to "our American friends." ... By now the sympathy had drained, and the tone was one of belligerent judgment and disapproval. There was nothing to admire in Colombani's United States, which had run roughshod in the world and had been indifferent to the rule of law. ... The United States had not squandered Colombani's sympathy; he never had that sympathy in the first place.
Colombani was hardly alone in the French intellectual class in his enmity toward the United States. On November 3, 2001, in Le Monde, the writer and pundit Jean Baudrillard permitted himself a thought of stunning cynicism. He saw the perpetrators of September 11 acting out his own dreams and the dreams of others like him. He gave those attacks a sort of universal warrant: "How we have dreamt of this event," he wrote, "how all the world without exception dreamt of this event, for no one can avoid dreaming of the destruction of a power that has become hegemonic . . . . It is they who acted, but we who wanted the deed." Casting caution and false sympathy aside, Baudrillard saw the terrible attacks on the United States as an "object of desire." The terrorists had been able to draw on a "deep complicity," knowing perfectly well that they were acting out the hidden yearnings of others oppressed by the United States' order and power. To him, morality of the U.S. variety is a sham, and the terrorism directed against it is a legitimate response to the inequities of "globalization."
Saturday, December 06, 2003
Lieberman Off Track
Is he serious? Does Lieberman really think he can distinguish himself in a crowded field by talking about junk food? Is his campaign unaware of any more pressing issues? But here is Joe's new policy proposal:
—Require junk food advertisements to include nutritional information that somehow issues a warning to parents, much like movie ads are accompanied by parental ratings.
—Ask Congress to require restaurant chains to include nutritional information on menus and mini-boards. There already is a bill pending in Congress to do this.
—Empower the Agriculture Department to set standards for food sold in schools, primarily vending machines. The USDA currently regulates lunch menus, but there are no limits on what companies can sell kids through vending machines.
I wouldn't allow my own mother to have this much control over what I eat. How infantalizing. As a mostly-libertarian, I have to give this a huge thumbs-down.
Is he serious? Does Lieberman really think he can distinguish himself in a crowded field by talking about junk food? Is his campaign unaware of any more pressing issues? But here is Joe's new policy proposal:
—Require junk food advertisements to include nutritional information that somehow issues a warning to parents, much like movie ads are accompanied by parental ratings.
—Ask Congress to require restaurant chains to include nutritional information on menus and mini-boards. There already is a bill pending in Congress to do this.
—Empower the Agriculture Department to set standards for food sold in schools, primarily vending machines. The USDA currently regulates lunch menus, but there are no limits on what companies can sell kids through vending machines.
I wouldn't allow my own mother to have this much control over what I eat. How infantalizing. As a mostly-libertarian, I have to give this a huge thumbs-down.
Holy ACC!
As of right now, here is Jeff Sagarin's top 5.
1. Wake Forest
2. Georgia Tech
3. St. Joseph's
4. Duke
5. Marlyand
Plus UNC is 9th. Of course, computer rankings don't mean much so few games into the season. Still, that is pretty dominating for one conference.
As of right now, here is Jeff Sagarin's top 5.
1. Wake Forest
2. Georgia Tech
3. St. Joseph's
4. Duke
5. Marlyand
Plus UNC is 9th. Of course, computer rankings don't mean much so few games into the season. Still, that is pretty dominating for one conference.
Thursday, December 04, 2003
A Real Peace Plan
Now here is a Middle East peace plan that I can get behind. Shalom Freedman advocates a true two state solution: Israel and Jordan. He does not specify political borders for the two nations, but he says that Israel would have "security control" over everything west of the Jordan River and Jordan would have security control on the East Bank. Any Arabs in the West Bank or Gaza could become citizens of Jordan, but they would not be evicted from their homes. They could continue to live, under Israeli control, in the West Bank. Each state would control it's own borders. It really is a good plan. Of course, no Arabs will accept it until much more blood is shed. Sigh.
Now here is a Middle East peace plan that I can get behind. Shalom Freedman advocates a true two state solution: Israel and Jordan. He does not specify political borders for the two nations, but he says that Israel would have "security control" over everything west of the Jordan River and Jordan would have security control on the East Bank. Any Arabs in the West Bank or Gaza could become citizens of Jordan, but they would not be evicted from their homes. They could continue to live, under Israeli control, in the West Bank. Each state would control it's own borders. It really is a good plan. Of course, no Arabs will accept it until much more blood is shed. Sigh.
Wednesday, December 03, 2003
Anti-Semitism Report
Here is that report on racism that the EU Commission on Racism has decided to cover up.
Here is that report on racism that the EU Commission on Racism has decided to cover up.
Here's an "Honest Broker" for You
I hate Kofi Annan.
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) delivered a message of support to the Palestinians, saying he felt the "deepest solidarity" with their "continued suffering."
[...]
"I wish to join with those from around the world who today express the deepest solidarity with the Palestinian people in their continued suffering. They remain stateless and oppressed."
[...]
"Let us resolve not to rest until the Palestinian people finally obtain what is rightfully theirs," Annan said, "the exercise of their inalienable rights in a sovereign and independent state of Palestine."
I hate Kofi Annan.
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) delivered a message of support to the Palestinians, saying he felt the "deepest solidarity" with their "continued suffering."
[...]
"I wish to join with those from around the world who today express the deepest solidarity with the Palestinian people in their continued suffering. They remain stateless and oppressed."
[...]
"Let us resolve not to rest until the Palestinian people finally obtain what is rightfully theirs," Annan said, "the exercise of their inalienable rights in a sovereign and independent state of Palestine."
Sunday, November 30, 2003
Geneva Accord
This Geneva Accord crap is hardly worth any attention. It is even more meaningless than the usual Arab "peace treaty." Charles Krauthammer points out that most unfortunately, Colin Powell can't see this and instead is promoting this Israeli "suicide note."
Arafat pocketed every Israeli concession, turned his territory into an armed camp and then launched a vicious terror war that has lasted more than three years and killed more than 1,000 Israelis. It is Lucy and the football all over again, and the same chorus of delusionals who so applauded Oslo -- Jimmy Carter, Sandy Berger, Tom Friedman -- is applauding again. This time, however, the Israeli surrender is so breathtaking it makes Oslo look rational.
[...]
And on the critical question that even the most dovish Israelis insist on -- that the Palestinians not have the right to flood Israel with Arab refugees -- the agreement is utterly ambiguous. Third parties (including among others the irredeemably hostile Syria and its puppet Lebanon) are to suggest exactly how many Palestinians are to return to Israel, and the basis for the number Israel will be required to accept will be the mathematical average!
This is not a peace treaty, this is a suicide note -- by a private citizen on behalf of a country that has utterly rejected him politically. That it should get any encouragement from the United States or from its secretary of state is a disgrace.
This Geneva Accord crap is hardly worth any attention. It is even more meaningless than the usual Arab "peace treaty." Charles Krauthammer points out that most unfortunately, Colin Powell can't see this and instead is promoting this Israeli "suicide note."
Arafat pocketed every Israeli concession, turned his territory into an armed camp and then launched a vicious terror war that has lasted more than three years and killed more than 1,000 Israelis. It is Lucy and the football all over again, and the same chorus of delusionals who so applauded Oslo -- Jimmy Carter, Sandy Berger, Tom Friedman -- is applauding again. This time, however, the Israeli surrender is so breathtaking it makes Oslo look rational.
[...]
And on the critical question that even the most dovish Israelis insist on -- that the Palestinians not have the right to flood Israel with Arab refugees -- the agreement is utterly ambiguous. Third parties (including among others the irredeemably hostile Syria and its puppet Lebanon) are to suggest exactly how many Palestinians are to return to Israel, and the basis for the number Israel will be required to accept will be the mathematical average!
This is not a peace treaty, this is a suicide note -- by a private citizen on behalf of a country that has utterly rejected him politically. That it should get any encouragement from the United States or from its secretary of state is a disgrace.
French "Principles"
Ha Ha. But seriously, the WSJ has a piece on French financial activities that suggests they are not really our friends. (As if we didn't know.)
France was not just Baathist Iraq's largest contributor of funds; French banks have financed other odious regimes. They are the No. 1 lenders to Iran and Cuba and past and present U.S. foes such as Somalia, Sudan and Vietnam.
This type of financing is shared by Germany, France's partner. German banks are North Korea's biggest lenders, and Syria's--and Libya's. But France is the most active. In Castro's sizzling gulag, French banks plunked down $549 million in the first trimester this year, a third of all credit to Cuba. The figure for Saddam's Iraq is $415 million. But these pale in comparison with the $2.5 billion that French banks have lent Iran.
Thanks to LGF.
Ha Ha. But seriously, the WSJ has a piece on French financial activities that suggests they are not really our friends. (As if we didn't know.)
France was not just Baathist Iraq's largest contributor of funds; French banks have financed other odious regimes. They are the No. 1 lenders to Iran and Cuba and past and present U.S. foes such as Somalia, Sudan and Vietnam.
This type of financing is shared by Germany, France's partner. German banks are North Korea's biggest lenders, and Syria's--and Libya's. But France is the most active. In Castro's sizzling gulag, French banks plunked down $549 million in the first trimester this year, a third of all credit to Cuba. The figure for Saddam's Iraq is $415 million. But these pale in comparison with the $2.5 billion that French banks have lent Iran.
Thanks to LGF.
Friday, November 28, 2003
Good Quote
"Gentlemen may cry Peace! Peace! but there is no peace. Is life so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.
"Gentlemen may cry Peace! Peace! but there is no peace. Is life so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.
Tuesday, November 25, 2003
Prescription Drug Plan
Well, Congress has passed it and obviously Bush will sign it. My guaranteed, take it to the bank, lock-of-the-day is that this will end up costing more than the projected $400 billion in the first 10 years. The silver lining is that the plan will introduce competition for Medicare patients from private health plans, which may eventually lead towards privatizing Medicare. Sen Kennedy's vigorous opposition suggests that there is some value to the plan, but I'm afraid Robert Samuelson's analysis will turn out to be right. He wrote:
Medicare has become pork barrel. It plays to retirees' desires and raises their discretionary income. The question of generational justice is nearly absent. Who cares about the long-term budget outlook or about clueless younger workers?
What's been missed was an opportunity to strike a grand bargain: some sort of drug benefit in exchange for cost-saving changes in retirement programs (gradual increases in eligibility ages, some benefit cuts for wealthier retirees, measures to curb Medicare spending). Although retirees deserve protection against crushing drug bills, future workers also deserve protection against crushing tax burdens. But that bargain was nowhere in sight because it requires more political candor and courage than either party can summon.
He also has some disturbing numbers:
A government survey found that 4.2% of Medicare recipients reported troubles getting prescritions. 4.2%! And "can't afford medicine" is only a subset of the 4.2% who have "troubles."
The CBO estimates that the second ten years of the plan will cost $1.2 to $2 trillion dollars.
The cost of basic Medicare and Medicaid, without the new plan, will increase 80% by 2030, costing $700 billion per year (ie $7 trillion per decade).
Someone please shoot this pig right between the eyes.
Well, Congress has passed it and obviously Bush will sign it. My guaranteed, take it to the bank, lock-of-the-day is that this will end up costing more than the projected $400 billion in the first 10 years. The silver lining is that the plan will introduce competition for Medicare patients from private health plans, which may eventually lead towards privatizing Medicare. Sen Kennedy's vigorous opposition suggests that there is some value to the plan, but I'm afraid Robert Samuelson's analysis will turn out to be right. He wrote:
Medicare has become pork barrel. It plays to retirees' desires and raises their discretionary income. The question of generational justice is nearly absent. Who cares about the long-term budget outlook or about clueless younger workers?
What's been missed was an opportunity to strike a grand bargain: some sort of drug benefit in exchange for cost-saving changes in retirement programs (gradual increases in eligibility ages, some benefit cuts for wealthier retirees, measures to curb Medicare spending). Although retirees deserve protection against crushing drug bills, future workers also deserve protection against crushing tax burdens. But that bargain was nowhere in sight because it requires more political candor and courage than either party can summon.
He also has some disturbing numbers:
A government survey found that 4.2% of Medicare recipients reported troubles getting prescritions. 4.2%! And "can't afford medicine" is only a subset of the 4.2% who have "troubles."
The CBO estimates that the second ten years of the plan will cost $1.2 to $2 trillion dollars.
The cost of basic Medicare and Medicaid, without the new plan, will increase 80% by 2030, costing $700 billion per year (ie $7 trillion per decade).
Someone please shoot this pig right between the eyes.
8.2%?!?!
Holy cow. That is some fast economic growth. Even at half that growth rate, job growth has to pick up. Yay.
Holy cow. That is some fast economic growth. Even at half that growth rate, job growth has to pick up. Yay.
Saturday, November 22, 2003
What Anti-Semitism?
Europe, where it's not terrorism if it happens to Jews. The European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia makes it official by covering up a report on European anti-semitism. Why? Because the report said that Muslims were behind the attacks. Hey, in Europe, if you don't like the truth, just stick your head in the sand.
The European Union's racism watchdog has shelved a report on anti-semitism because the study concluded Muslims and pro-Palestinian groups were behind many of the incidents it examined.
[...] The focus on Muslim and pro-Palestinian perpetrators, meanwhile, was judged inflammatory.
[...] Some EUMC board members had also attacked part of the analysis ascribing anti-semitic motives to leftwing and anti-globalisation groups, this person said. "The decision not to publish was a political decision."
And listen to their pathetic, lying justifications.
One deputy, who declined to be named, confirmed the directors had seen the study as biased.
Ole Espersen, law professor at Copenhagen University and board member for Denmark, said the study was "unsatisfactory" and that some members had felt anti-Islamic sentiment should be addressed too.
This rings hollow when, "The EUMC, which was set in 1998, has published three reports on anti-Islamic attitudes in Europe since the September 11 attacks in the US."
Oh yes, to Ole, three reports on anti-Islamic attitudes, and ZERO reports on anti-semitic violence is clearly biased towards Jews. Those Jews get all the breaks. Arrrrgghg!
Oh yeah: via Instapundit.
Europe, where it's not terrorism if it happens to Jews. The European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia makes it official by covering up a report on European anti-semitism. Why? Because the report said that Muslims were behind the attacks. Hey, in Europe, if you don't like the truth, just stick your head in the sand.
The European Union's racism watchdog has shelved a report on anti-semitism because the study concluded Muslims and pro-Palestinian groups were behind many of the incidents it examined.
[...] The focus on Muslim and pro-Palestinian perpetrators, meanwhile, was judged inflammatory.
[...] Some EUMC board members had also attacked part of the analysis ascribing anti-semitic motives to leftwing and anti-globalisation groups, this person said. "The decision not to publish was a political decision."
And listen to their pathetic, lying justifications.
One deputy, who declined to be named, confirmed the directors had seen the study as biased.
Ole Espersen, law professor at Copenhagen University and board member for Denmark, said the study was "unsatisfactory" and that some members had felt anti-Islamic sentiment should be addressed too.
This rings hollow when, "The EUMC, which was set in 1998, has published three reports on anti-Islamic attitudes in Europe since the September 11 attacks in the US."
Oh yes, to Ole, three reports on anti-Islamic attitudes, and ZERO reports on anti-semitic violence is clearly biased towards Jews. Those Jews get all the breaks. Arrrrgghg!
Oh yeah: via Instapundit.
Thursday, November 20, 2003
Expectations at Mother Jones
See, this is what I was talking about. (Only part of the story is online.) Mother Jones is arguing that the Bush tax cuts are destroying America and they focus on one Sam Jefferson who lost his textile job. (I've posted before on the upside to job losses.) Jefferson has had to cut back and now the services poor people depend on have been heartlessly cut by Bush. And then we get this (print only):
Part of Jefferson's problem is that with two teenagers at home, he needs a job that pays at least the $33,000 a year he was making at the mill.
What a country! Making less than $33,000 is hardship. According to the Global Rich List, Jefferson is in the top 5.38% richest people in the world. There are 5,677,022,058 people who make less. I don't make half of what he made and I live in super-expensive Washington, while he lives in rural North Carolina. I know it's unpleasant to be unemployed, but the rhetoric is out of proportion.
Meanwhile, Mother Jones is looking for five interns who will work for $100 per month. Does that add up to $33,000? If you are really good, you might get a fellowship worth $1,176 per month. That's a wee bit short as well. They don't say how much they will pay a new Investigative Editor, but a freelancer can get $150 for a 1000 word piece. That's 220 stories to earn $33,000.
See, this is what I was talking about. (Only part of the story is online.) Mother Jones is arguing that the Bush tax cuts are destroying America and they focus on one Sam Jefferson who lost his textile job. (I've posted before on the upside to job losses.) Jefferson has had to cut back and now the services poor people depend on have been heartlessly cut by Bush. And then we get this (print only):
Part of Jefferson's problem is that with two teenagers at home, he needs a job that pays at least the $33,000 a year he was making at the mill.
What a country! Making less than $33,000 is hardship. According to the Global Rich List, Jefferson is in the top 5.38% richest people in the world. There are 5,677,022,058 people who make less. I don't make half of what he made and I live in super-expensive Washington, while he lives in rural North Carolina. I know it's unpleasant to be unemployed, but the rhetoric is out of proportion.
Meanwhile, Mother Jones is looking for five interns who will work for $100 per month. Does that add up to $33,000? If you are really good, you might get a fellowship worth $1,176 per month. That's a wee bit short as well. They don't say how much they will pay a new Investigative Editor, but a freelancer can get $150 for a 1000 word piece. That's 220 stories to earn $33,000.
Expectations
A huge part of the problem with news coverage is that the expectations are unreasonable. This seems to be the norm for most of the left. If some people in the US go without, then this must mean the US is a failure, there are evil conspiracies to impoverish the masses, etc. Keeping some perspective reveals that while things aren't perfect, they could be a whole lot worse. For example, the CounterRevolutionary has been collecting stories on the US occupation after WWII. Now we remember the Marshall plan as a giant success and my grandparents are (rightly) remembered as the "greatest generation." But how was it reported at the time? Here are some headlines I've lifted from the CR.
Germans Declare Americans Hated -- NYT 12/3/45
Loss of Victory in Germany Through US Policy Feared -- NYT 11/18/45
Americans Leave Dislike in France -- NYT 11/12/45
Germans Reveal Hate of Americans -- NYT 10/31/45
Americans' Clashes with Germans Grow -- NYT 10/10/45
Reich Girls Want Return of Nazism -- NYT 10/22/45
We Can Lose the Peace -- NYT 9/25/45
Germans Declared Far Behind on Bomb -- NYT 12/7/45
See, I guess FDR "lied."
A huge part of the problem with news coverage is that the expectations are unreasonable. This seems to be the norm for most of the left. If some people in the US go without, then this must mean the US is a failure, there are evil conspiracies to impoverish the masses, etc. Keeping some perspective reveals that while things aren't perfect, they could be a whole lot worse. For example, the CounterRevolutionary has been collecting stories on the US occupation after WWII. Now we remember the Marshall plan as a giant success and my grandparents are (rightly) remembered as the "greatest generation." But how was it reported at the time? Here are some headlines I've lifted from the CR.
Germans Declare Americans Hated -- NYT 12/3/45
Loss of Victory in Germany Through US Policy Feared -- NYT 11/18/45
Americans Leave Dislike in France -- NYT 11/12/45
Germans Reveal Hate of Americans -- NYT 10/31/45
Americans' Clashes with Germans Grow -- NYT 10/10/45
Reich Girls Want Return of Nazism -- NYT 10/22/45
We Can Lose the Peace -- NYT 9/25/45
Germans Declared Far Behind on Bomb -- NYT 12/7/45
See, I guess FDR "lied."
Iraqi's Angry at Negative TV Coverage
It's the third item in this MRC report. A lot of Bush supporters think that the press is presenting a misleadingly negative view of the situation in Iraq, focusing on setbacks and ignoring the amazing progress we've made. Apparently the Iraqis agree.
We’ve been invited here by the ayatollah. Why? He is furious at the press coverage. He says not only American television, but Arabic satellite TV, such as Al-Jazeera and the Abu Dhabi station, have misportrayed the great success that is Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein. The people of Khadamiya tell us that the picture painted by Al-Jazeera and other Arab satellite stations is a bleak one of daily death and destruction.
“Khadamiya’s leaders are so eager to show Iraq’s real story that the ayatollah himself sends his top lieutenant with us, Haji Ali. He acts as our guide, showing us a city of thriving outdoor markets, mosques and schools. In Khadamiya’s main shopping district, business is booming, from sidewalk vendors and vegetable stands, to gold merchants. On the streets, the U.S. Army patrols side by side with Iraqi soldiers, dismounted and at ease. At Khadamiya’s central mosque, pilgrims come from all over Iraq, Iran, even Afghanistan, eager to enjoy the religious freedom they were denied for decades. Khadamiya’s schools are in session, filled with happy children.
“15-year-old Daham says TV news reports he watches don’t tell the truth.”
Daham: “A lot happens good in Iraq when Saddam gone.”
It's the third item in this MRC report. A lot of Bush supporters think that the press is presenting a misleadingly negative view of the situation in Iraq, focusing on setbacks and ignoring the amazing progress we've made. Apparently the Iraqis agree.
We’ve been invited here by the ayatollah. Why? He is furious at the press coverage. He says not only American television, but Arabic satellite TV, such as Al-Jazeera and the Abu Dhabi station, have misportrayed the great success that is Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein. The people of Khadamiya tell us that the picture painted by Al-Jazeera and other Arab satellite stations is a bleak one of daily death and destruction.
“Khadamiya’s leaders are so eager to show Iraq’s real story that the ayatollah himself sends his top lieutenant with us, Haji Ali. He acts as our guide, showing us a city of thriving outdoor markets, mosques and schools. In Khadamiya’s main shopping district, business is booming, from sidewalk vendors and vegetable stands, to gold merchants. On the streets, the U.S. Army patrols side by side with Iraqi soldiers, dismounted and at ease. At Khadamiya’s central mosque, pilgrims come from all over Iraq, Iran, even Afghanistan, eager to enjoy the religious freedom they were denied for decades. Khadamiya’s schools are in session, filled with happy children.
“15-year-old Daham says TV news reports he watches don’t tell the truth.”
Daham: “A lot happens good in Iraq when Saddam gone.”
Wednesday, November 19, 2003
Women in Islam II
This horrific story has been widely posted in the blogosphere, but I will credit Jihad Watch for this link. Which story is worse, this one or the one immediately below? My view is that both of them are just completely off the "evil scale". Muslim Girl Raped by Brothers, Murdered by Mother. Why do I have no sympathy for palestinian arabs? Why do I not trust them? Why does their talk of "peace" ring hollow? Read this:
A Palestinian girl who was raped and impregnated by her two brothers was later murdered by her own mother – even though her daughter was the crime's innocent victim – in another of the disturbingly common, if vastly underreported, instances of "honor killings." The mother will be sentenced in two weeks, but a harsh penalty is not expected.
According to a Knight Ridder report, court records show that Rofayda Qaoud was raped by her brothers, Fahdi, 22, and Ali, 20, in a bedroom they shared in the family's three-room house in the town of Abu Qash in the West Bank. When her mother found she had become pregnant, she insisted her daughter commit suicide, and even bought the unwed teen a razor so she could slash her own wrists. When the daughter refused, Amira Abu Hanhan Qaoud took matters into her own hands and murdered Rofayda to restore her family's "honor."
Entering her sleeping daughter's bedroom last Jan. 27 with a plastic bag, razor and wooden stick, reports Knight Ridder, the mother told her daughter: "Tonight you die, Rofayda." Wrapping the bag around the teen's head, Qaoud cut her daughter's wrists, while ignoring her cries of "No, mother, no!" Qaoud then struck her daughter in the head with the stick to finish off the job, said the report.
Every year, dozens and probably hundreds of brutal "honor killings" of Palestinian women and girls – most of whom are virtually blameless – go unreported, according to an anthropologist's recent study. Emery says the women "are murdered in their homes, in open fields and occasionally in public, sometimes before crowds of cheering onlookers."
[...]
Under the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, at least 25 "official" honor killings occur each year, says Emery, but the actual number of deaths is much higher.
And these nut jobs in London want to protest human rights "abuses" in the US? Give me a break.
This horrific story has been widely posted in the blogosphere, but I will credit Jihad Watch for this link. Which story is worse, this one or the one immediately below? My view is that both of them are just completely off the "evil scale". Muslim Girl Raped by Brothers, Murdered by Mother. Why do I have no sympathy for palestinian arabs? Why do I not trust them? Why does their talk of "peace" ring hollow? Read this:
A Palestinian girl who was raped and impregnated by her two brothers was later murdered by her own mother – even though her daughter was the crime's innocent victim – in another of the disturbingly common, if vastly underreported, instances of "honor killings." The mother will be sentenced in two weeks, but a harsh penalty is not expected.
According to a Knight Ridder report, court records show that Rofayda Qaoud was raped by her brothers, Fahdi, 22, and Ali, 20, in a bedroom they shared in the family's three-room house in the town of Abu Qash in the West Bank. When her mother found she had become pregnant, she insisted her daughter commit suicide, and even bought the unwed teen a razor so she could slash her own wrists. When the daughter refused, Amira Abu Hanhan Qaoud took matters into her own hands and murdered Rofayda to restore her family's "honor."
Entering her sleeping daughter's bedroom last Jan. 27 with a plastic bag, razor and wooden stick, reports Knight Ridder, the mother told her daughter: "Tonight you die, Rofayda." Wrapping the bag around the teen's head, Qaoud cut her daughter's wrists, while ignoring her cries of "No, mother, no!" Qaoud then struck her daughter in the head with the stick to finish off the job, said the report.
Every year, dozens and probably hundreds of brutal "honor killings" of Palestinian women and girls – most of whom are virtually blameless – go unreported, according to an anthropologist's recent study. Emery says the women "are murdered in their homes, in open fields and occasionally in public, sometimes before crowds of cheering onlookers."
[...]
Under the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, at least 25 "official" honor killings occur each year, says Emery, but the actual number of deaths is much higher.
And these nut jobs in London want to protest human rights "abuses" in the US? Give me a break.
Women in Islam I
The Zina Ordinance is part of Islamic law (I believe this is not part of Sharia, I think) that holds that rape is fornication and therefore both parties are in the wrong. Furthermore, the traditional application disallows the woman's testimony unless she has four male witnesses to confirm her account. Doesn't quite seem fair does it?
Well, according to this report, up to 88% of women in jail in Pakistan are there for sexual immorality, including being raped! Why am I not sympathetic to palestinian arabs? I think too many people don't understand how little common ground we have.
As many as 88 per cent of women prisoners in the country are languishing in jails as a result of ambiguities in the Zina Ordinance. [...]
Short of conviction, women have been held for extended periods of time on charges of Zina after they reported rape. "Therefore, majority of the women in jails are there due to the Zina Ordinance." [...]
"There have been hundreds of incidents where a woman subjected to rape or even gang-rape was eventually accused of Zina and subjected to wrong and unjust persecution and great ordeal."
The Zina Ordinance is part of Islamic law (I believe this is not part of Sharia, I think) that holds that rape is fornication and therefore both parties are in the wrong. Furthermore, the traditional application disallows the woman's testimony unless she has four male witnesses to confirm her account. Doesn't quite seem fair does it?
Well, according to this report, up to 88% of women in jail in Pakistan are there for sexual immorality, including being raped! Why am I not sympathetic to palestinian arabs? I think too many people don't understand how little common ground we have.
As many as 88 per cent of women prisoners in the country are languishing in jails as a result of ambiguities in the Zina Ordinance. [...]
Short of conviction, women have been held for extended periods of time on charges of Zina after they reported rape. "Therefore, majority of the women in jails are there due to the Zina Ordinance." [...]
"There have been hundreds of incidents where a woman subjected to rape or even gang-rape was eventually accused of Zina and subjected to wrong and unjust persecution and great ordeal."
Jonestown
I probably shouldn't read too much into this, but ...
The thousands of people who followed Jones, many of them black, were drawn by his preaching of interracial harmony and caring for the poor. Politicians liked him too -- Jones became chair of the San Francisco Housing Authority in 1976.
"I think what we all wanted was utopia. I think each one of us wants that now, we want to live in a world where there's no poverty, there's no hunger, no crime," she said. "Jim appealed to that need."
Obviously, it would be silly to try and discredit San Francisco Leftism with the example of Jim Jones, but I think it is fair to point out that there is a big difference between promising utopia and delivering utopia. I would rather cast my lot with those who build decent, prosperous, and free societies, than those who promise perfection and deliver hell.
I probably shouldn't read too much into this, but ...
The thousands of people who followed Jones, many of them black, were drawn by his preaching of interracial harmony and caring for the poor. Politicians liked him too -- Jones became chair of the San Francisco Housing Authority in 1976.
"I think what we all wanted was utopia. I think each one of us wants that now, we want to live in a world where there's no poverty, there's no hunger, no crime," she said. "Jim appealed to that need."
Obviously, it would be silly to try and discredit San Francisco Leftism with the example of Jim Jones, but I think it is fair to point out that there is a big difference between promising utopia and delivering utopia. I would rather cast my lot with those who build decent, prosperous, and free societies, than those who promise perfection and deliver hell.
Monday, November 17, 2003
Time Magazine: US Soldier = Terrorist
In an insulting piece titled, "The Insurgent and the Soldier," Time Magazine tries to show the similarities between a US soldier and a terrorist.
The two men -- an Iraqi insurgent and an American soldier -- have more in common than one might expect. Both are fathers who care deeply about their children and their country. Both see their jobs as their duty. Both pray each time they head out on a new mission.
Wow! That's amazing! Next, they will tell us that they both eat food and breath air. Who would have guessed that two grown men might have families? Geez, I guess George Bush and Osama bin Laden are practically brothers! Same for Slobodan Milosevic and Abraham Lincoln. Or any other two people.
How freaking USELESS can 48 words get? Could there be any other differences between the two? Like maybe one is building democracy and saving lives while the other is murdering people in an effort to destroy freedom? But none of that is important to Time. According to Time, they are all the same. I guess there are no issues in this war; it is just a giant misunderstanding. Here's a big "up yours" to Time.
In an insulting piece titled, "The Insurgent and the Soldier," Time Magazine tries to show the similarities between a US soldier and a terrorist.
The two men -- an Iraqi insurgent and an American soldier -- have more in common than one might expect. Both are fathers who care deeply about their children and their country. Both see their jobs as their duty. Both pray each time they head out on a new mission.
Wow! That's amazing! Next, they will tell us that they both eat food and breath air. Who would have guessed that two grown men might have families? Geez, I guess George Bush and Osama bin Laden are practically brothers! Same for Slobodan Milosevic and Abraham Lincoln. Or any other two people.
How freaking USELESS can 48 words get? Could there be any other differences between the two? Like maybe one is building democracy and saving lives while the other is murdering people in an effort to destroy freedom? But none of that is important to Time. According to Time, they are all the same. I guess there are no issues in this war; it is just a giant misunderstanding. Here's a big "up yours" to Time.
Sunday, November 16, 2003
More Revisionism
It is amazing how hard it is to have a rational discussion when people just put words in your mouth, rewrite hsitory, and generally tell lies. Austin Bay has a great summary of the myriad lies that the mainstream press has adopted as conventional wisdom. If you want more, Andrew Sullivan has been fantastic. Just browse around. Here's Bay:
Unilateral? The United States had spent 12 years providing the spine behind U.N. Security Council Resolution 687. [...]
Then came the "rush to war" hokum, a charge utterly ignoring the long war with Saddam that began Aug. 2, 1990, when Iraq invaded Kuwait. In retrospect, the U.S. reaction to Saddam's provocations in 1994 and 1996 was slow and inadequate. [...]
Once Operation Iraqi Freedom kicked off, the defeatist cant became "quagmire." ... Of course, CENTCOM pulled off one of the most successful military offensives in history. [...]
Pundits dub the next tripe theme "The Imminent Lie." ... Actually, in his 2003 State of the Union address, Mr. Bush said just the opposite, that we couldn't wait until the threat was imminent. [...]
However, defeatist poohbahs chant, "No one told us the job would be tough." Malarkey.
That's a whole lot of lying.
It is amazing how hard it is to have a rational discussion when people just put words in your mouth, rewrite hsitory, and generally tell lies. Austin Bay has a great summary of the myriad lies that the mainstream press has adopted as conventional wisdom. If you want more, Andrew Sullivan has been fantastic. Just browse around. Here's Bay:
Unilateral? The United States had spent 12 years providing the spine behind U.N. Security Council Resolution 687. [...]
Then came the "rush to war" hokum, a charge utterly ignoring the long war with Saddam that began Aug. 2, 1990, when Iraq invaded Kuwait. In retrospect, the U.S. reaction to Saddam's provocations in 1994 and 1996 was slow and inadequate. [...]
Once Operation Iraqi Freedom kicked off, the defeatist cant became "quagmire." ... Of course, CENTCOM pulled off one of the most successful military offensives in history. [...]
Pundits dub the next tripe theme "The Imminent Lie." ... Actually, in his 2003 State of the Union address, Mr. Bush said just the opposite, that we couldn't wait until the threat was imminent. [...]
However, defeatist poohbahs chant, "No one told us the job would be tough." Malarkey.
That's a whole lot of lying.
NYT Revises History (Again)
A number of people have pointed this out, but I first noticed it at Andrew Sullivan's site. I have to put the whole thing here. It's amazing. Some people have no shame.
"President Bush sketched an expansive vision last night [at his American Enterprise Institute speech] of what he expects to accomplish by a war in Iraq. Instead of focusing on eliminating weapons of mass destruction, or reducing the threat of terror to the United States, Mr. Bush talked about establishing a 'free and peaceful Iraq' that would serve as a 'dramatic and inspiring example' to the entire Arab and Muslim world, provide a stabilizing influence in the Middle East and even help end the Arab-Israeli conflict. The idea of turning Iraq into a model democracy in the Arab world is one some members of the administration have been discussing for a long time." -- New York Times editorial, February 27, 2003.
"The White House recently began shifting its case for the Iraq war from the embarrassing unconventional weapons issue to the lofty vision of creating an exemplary democracy in Iraq." -- New York Times editorial, November 13, 2003.
A number of people have pointed this out, but I first noticed it at Andrew Sullivan's site. I have to put the whole thing here. It's amazing. Some people have no shame.
"President Bush sketched an expansive vision last night [at his American Enterprise Institute speech] of what he expects to accomplish by a war in Iraq. Instead of focusing on eliminating weapons of mass destruction, or reducing the threat of terror to the United States, Mr. Bush talked about establishing a 'free and peaceful Iraq' that would serve as a 'dramatic and inspiring example' to the entire Arab and Muslim world, provide a stabilizing influence in the Middle East and even help end the Arab-Israeli conflict. The idea of turning Iraq into a model democracy in the Arab world is one some members of the administration have been discussing for a long time." -- New York Times editorial, February 27, 2003.
"The White House recently began shifting its case for the Iraq war from the embarrassing unconventional weapons issue to the lofty vision of creating an exemplary democracy in Iraq." -- New York Times editorial, November 13, 2003.
"International Community"Useless
Democrats seem to have some fantasy that if there were more international troops in Iraq, that everything would be groovy. For example, Sen John Edwards says "I would turn over the Iraqi civilian authority to the United Nations tomorrow. The second thing is, I would make this a NATO security force instead of just an American security force."
But what good is the UN? The AP reports,
After the August attack, Annan drastically reduced staff in Iraq and earlier this month withdrew the last 20 from Baghdad after a week of violence that included the bombing of the Baghdad headquarters of the International Committee for the Red Cross.
And most other militaries are not actually built for fighting. The Koreans and Japanese are fair-weather friends only.
South Korea and Japan expressed new resistance Thursday to U.S. requests to dispatch troops to Iraq, saying their plans to deploy peacekeepers would be limited or delayed.
Furthermore, those that do send forces, send medics, or "peacekeepers" and then station them in Kuwait or some other backwater.
Here is the European position on Iraq:
There's still quite a pronounced feeling among many Europeans that the Americans got themselves into this mess so why should we extend our blood and treasure to get them out," said Charles Grant, director of the Center for European Reform in London.
Oh, I don't know. Maybe because we DEFENDED YOUR LIVES AND FREEDOM FROM THE SOVIET EMPIRE FOR 50 YEARS! How's that for a reason? And same goes for Japan and Korea. Or maybe because MI5 says it's "only a matter of time" before terrorists launched a biological, chemical or nuclear terrorist attack on a western city. How's that?
My point is, getting more participation would mostly likely be more of an anchor than an assistance.
Democrats seem to have some fantasy that if there were more international troops in Iraq, that everything would be groovy. For example, Sen John Edwards says "I would turn over the Iraqi civilian authority to the United Nations tomorrow. The second thing is, I would make this a NATO security force instead of just an American security force."
But what good is the UN? The AP reports,
After the August attack, Annan drastically reduced staff in Iraq and earlier this month withdrew the last 20 from Baghdad after a week of violence that included the bombing of the Baghdad headquarters of the International Committee for the Red Cross.
And most other militaries are not actually built for fighting. The Koreans and Japanese are fair-weather friends only.
South Korea and Japan expressed new resistance Thursday to U.S. requests to dispatch troops to Iraq, saying their plans to deploy peacekeepers would be limited or delayed.
Furthermore, those that do send forces, send medics, or "peacekeepers" and then station them in Kuwait or some other backwater.
Here is the European position on Iraq:
There's still quite a pronounced feeling among many Europeans that the Americans got themselves into this mess so why should we extend our blood and treasure to get them out," said Charles Grant, director of the Center for European Reform in London.
Oh, I don't know. Maybe because we DEFENDED YOUR LIVES AND FREEDOM FROM THE SOVIET EMPIRE FOR 50 YEARS! How's that for a reason? And same goes for Japan and Korea. Or maybe because MI5 says it's "only a matter of time" before terrorists launched a biological, chemical or nuclear terrorist attack on a western city. How's that?
My point is, getting more participation would mostly likely be more of an anchor than an assistance.
