Daniel Pipes New York Sun
November 29, 2005 http://www.danielpipes.org/article/3153
George W. Bush honored the boxer, Muhammad Ali, and 13 others with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, called "the nation's highest civilian award," on November 9 at the White House. The president praised Ali for his sports accomplishments and called him "The Greatest of All Time."
Fine, but he then proceeded to laud Ali's character: "The real mystery, I guess, is how he stayed so pretty. It probably had to do with his beautiful soul. He was a fierce fighter and he's a man of peace. … Across the world, billions of people know Muhammad Ali as a brave, compassionate, and charming man, and the American people are proud to call Muhammad Ali one of our own."
In this giddy, fawning statement, Mr. Bush did not, the Washington Post astringently noted, "mention Ali's very public opposition to the Vietnam War, which led the prizefighter to lose his boxing license for three years when he refused to serve in the Army." Worse, his refusal to fight was not because he was "a man of peace" but rather because his allegiance was to the stridently anti-American, anti-white organization known as the Nation of Islam, headed by the malign Elijah Muhammad. Forty years ago, Ali explained his draft evasion: "War is against the teachings of the Holy Koran. I'm not trying to dodge the draft. We are supposed to take part in no wars unless declared by Allah or The Messenger [i.e., Elijah Muhammad]. We don't take part in Christian wars or wars of any unbelievers." A draft evader, incidentally, is particularly ill-suited to receive the Medal of Freedom, which was created in 1945 to recognize "notable service" in World War II.
The president also did not touch on Ali's religious side, but Mark Kram did in his 2001 book, Ghosts of Manila: The Fateful Blood Feud between Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier: "Ali broke every tenet of real Muslim law, from whoring to being truant at Temple service; he was a religious fake who abdicated his personal worth to the Black Muslims for their expediency and draft evasion, [and was] therefore, counterfeit down to his socks."
As he aged, Ali did become more devout, but in unfortunate directions. He declared himself against "the entire power structure" in America, which he declared was run by Zionists who "are really against the Islam religion." He became so radical a Muslim that the notorious Council on American-Islamic Relations, North America's most powerful Islamist group, also honored him with an award in June 2004. As its press release stated: "Ilyasah Shabazz, the daughter of Malcolm X, presented the first Malcolm X award to Muhammad Ali."
(Ali was spectacularly ill-suited for this award too. Malcolm X had served as his role model until 1964, but when Elijah Muhammad ejected Malcolm X from the Nation of Islam, Ali ignored Malcolm X's entreaties and turned viciously against him. He threw Malcolm X away, in the words of journalist Sunni Khalid, "like a pork chop.")
Mr. Bush's praise for Ali's compassion, charm, and beautiful soul are horribly misplaced (as were large donations from General Electric and Ford to the hagiographic "Ali Center" that opened days later in Louisville, Ky.). Ali's unvarnished legacy is an exploitative personality, sordid career, vicious politics, and extremist religion......Awarding of the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Muhammad Ali gratuitously celebrated a man profoundly opposed to Mr. Bush's own, his party's, and the country's principles. It represents, I submit, the nadir of his presidency.
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Monday, November 28, 2005
He's been accused of being gay and being straight and being all sorts of other things, but I don't ever recall rumors of him peeing on people, which makes it all the more strange that he would bring it up in an interview. Ricky Martin told fans perhaps a little more about his sex life than some wanted to know.
“I love giving the golden shower,” he told Blender. “I’ve done it before in the shower. It’s like so sexy, you know, the temperature of your body and the shower water is very different.”
I'm just going to assume that his limited grasp of the English language caused him to say something he didn't mean to say. Not because I don't believe it, but because the thought of Ricky Martin peeing on people in the shower makes me want to stab myself in the face.
“I love giving the golden shower,” he told Blender. “I’ve done it before in the shower. It’s like so sexy, you know, the temperature of your body and the shower water is very different.”
I'm just going to assume that his limited grasp of the English language caused him to say something he didn't mean to say. Not because I don't believe it, but because the thought of Ricky Martin peeing on people in the shower makes me want to stab myself in the face.
PNAC
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
Not familiar witht he Project for the New American Century? Many think this was the defining document shaping the Bush Doctrine and military policies. Moonbats also love the neocon cabal behind the group. Why not read some source material?
Not familiar witht he Project for the New American Century? Many think this was the defining document shaping the Bush Doctrine and military policies. Moonbats also love the neocon cabal behind the group. Why not read some source material?
Simon Jenkins, a columnist for London's Sunday Times, comments on reports that President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair toyed with the idea of bombing al-Jazeera, the Qatar-based TV network:
"That Blair and Bush should have discussed bombing the Al-Jazeera building in Qatar is hardly surprising. They agreed to bomb the headquarters of Serbian television during the Kosovo war."
Who knew President Bush was already conducting foreign policy back in 1999, when he was still governor of Texas?
"That Blair and Bush should have discussed bombing the Al-Jazeera building in Qatar is hardly surprising. They agreed to bomb the headquarters of Serbian television during the Kosovo war."
Who knew President Bush was already conducting foreign policy back in 1999, when he was still governor of Texas?
But He Seemed so With It on ESPN Today!
PLANO, Texas (AP) - Former Dallas Cowboys receiver Michael Irvin was charged with misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia after Plano police officers searched his vehicle during a traffic stop.
Irvin, an ESPN analyst and semifinalist for the Pro Football Hall of Fame, told The Associated Press late Sunday that the drug pipe found in his car belonged to a friend of 17 years who left a Houston rehab center and came to Irvin's house in Carrollton for Thanksgiving. Irvin wouldn't reveal his friend's name.
Irvin said he put the pipe in his car because he didn't want it in his house where his children might find it. He said he planned to drive somewhere the next day, like a grocery trash bin, and throw the pipe away but forgot.
"It's a situation that is not as it seemed," said Irvin, whose voice was choked with emotion during the telephone conversation.
"I know the type of demons they have to fight and I am going to help them, because it's the only way I can keep them from getting to my family. I have to clean up my friends because they are around my boys. It's upsetting."
Irvin was arrested on an outstanding warrant for speeding in Irving after being pulled over Friday afternoon for speeding in Plano. Irvin said he thought he had paid the outstanding ticket.
Irvin paid a fine on the speeding ticket and posted bond on the drug paraphernalia possession charge. He was released about an hour after he was pulled over.
Irvin was a member of three Super Bowl championship teams with the Cowboys. Asked how this kind of publicity might affect his chances of induction into the hall of fame, Irvin said his helping his friends are more important.
"The whole thing means such a great deal for me, and hopefully one day it will be there," Irvin said. "But my friends and my family mean a little more. I would rather be helping them, even if it hurts that."
In 1996, Irvin pleaded no contest to felony cocaine possession in exchange for four years of deferred probation, a $10,000 fine and dismissal of misdemeanor marijuana possession charges. Irvin said Sunday he's always been transparent and open about his issues in the past, and now wants to help others through those same problems.
Irvin holds Cowboys records for catches (750), receiving yards (11,904) and 100-yard games (47), including a team-record seven in a row in 1991.
ESPN said it has spoken to Irvin, who will still appear on the network Monday as an analyst.
"We've talked to Michael, who explained the situation to us the way he did to the AP, and we will continue to talk with Michael," ESPN spokesman Josh Krulewitz said. "But you can expect to see him on 'Monday Night Countdown' on Monday evening."
Irvin, an ESPN analyst and semifinalist for the Pro Football Hall of Fame, told The Associated Press late Sunday that the drug pipe found in his car belonged to a friend of 17 years who left a Houston rehab center and came to Irvin's house in Carrollton for Thanksgiving. Irvin wouldn't reveal his friend's name.
Irvin said he put the pipe in his car because he didn't want it in his house where his children might find it. He said he planned to drive somewhere the next day, like a grocery trash bin, and throw the pipe away but forgot.
"It's a situation that is not as it seemed," said Irvin, whose voice was choked with emotion during the telephone conversation.
"I know the type of demons they have to fight and I am going to help them, because it's the only way I can keep them from getting to my family. I have to clean up my friends because they are around my boys. It's upsetting."
Irvin was arrested on an outstanding warrant for speeding in Irving after being pulled over Friday afternoon for speeding in Plano. Irvin said he thought he had paid the outstanding ticket.
Irvin paid a fine on the speeding ticket and posted bond on the drug paraphernalia possession charge. He was released about an hour after he was pulled over.
Irvin was a member of three Super Bowl championship teams with the Cowboys. Asked how this kind of publicity might affect his chances of induction into the hall of fame, Irvin said his helping his friends are more important.
"The whole thing means such a great deal for me, and hopefully one day it will be there," Irvin said. "But my friends and my family mean a little more. I would rather be helping them, even if it hurts that."
In 1996, Irvin pleaded no contest to felony cocaine possession in exchange for four years of deferred probation, a $10,000 fine and dismissal of misdemeanor marijuana possession charges. Irvin said Sunday he's always been transparent and open about his issues in the past, and now wants to help others through those same problems.
Irvin holds Cowboys records for catches (750), receiving yards (11,904) and 100-yard games (47), including a team-record seven in a row in 1991.
ESPN said it has spoken to Irvin, who will still appear on the network Monday as an analyst.
"We've talked to Michael, who explained the situation to us the way he did to the AP, and we will continue to talk with Michael," ESPN spokesman Josh Krulewitz said. "But you can expect to see him on 'Monday Night Countdown' on Monday evening."
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
Lamb Chops!
CHICAGO -- During the Katrina crisis, with New Orleans under water and residents fleeing across the nation, two men showed up on the University of Tennessee campus in Knoxville with student identification from Tulane in New Orleans.
Images: Phony Frat Boys Busted Video: Escaped Cons Hide Out In Frat
The Lambda Chi Alpha fraternity opened its doors and its heart.
"They had a very credible stories. They presented themselves as true brothers of this fraternity," said Patrick Davis, a member of the Lamda Chi chapter.
However, they were far from fraternity brothers. Zacharie Arabie, 22, and Steven Ridge, 31, were two enterprising inmates at a Louisiana prison who had escaped using a popsicle stick to pick a cell-door lock.
They wound up in Knoxville, attending fraternity parties, and even dating co-eds.
"They were very generous with their money," said Lamda Chi member Richard Martin.
The duo had been serving time for forgery and armed robbery. Outside the prison walls, police say the men resumed their old habits. Ridge was arrested after allegedly trying to pass forged $10 bills at a local gas station. Arabie was picked up outside the college library.
Police believe both men obtained $4,000 in Hurricane Katrina aid. Real Katrina victims in New Orleans are outraged. "My life is pretty much falling apart here, and these guys are out having a great time," hurricane victim Karen Cohen said. Back on campus, the experience became a course in life that no one had signed up to take. "I'm definitely going to second-guess every other person, and it's sad," said frat member Brett Skyllingstad.
Images: Phony Frat Boys Busted Video: Escaped Cons Hide Out In Frat
The Lambda Chi Alpha fraternity opened its doors and its heart.
"They had a very credible stories. They presented themselves as true brothers of this fraternity," said Patrick Davis, a member of the Lamda Chi chapter.
However, they were far from fraternity brothers. Zacharie Arabie, 22, and Steven Ridge, 31, were two enterprising inmates at a Louisiana prison who had escaped using a popsicle stick to pick a cell-door lock.
They wound up in Knoxville, attending fraternity parties, and even dating co-eds.
"They were very generous with their money," said Lamda Chi member Richard Martin.
The duo had been serving time for forgery and armed robbery. Outside the prison walls, police say the men resumed their old habits. Ridge was arrested after allegedly trying to pass forged $10 bills at a local gas station. Arabie was picked up outside the college library.
Police believe both men obtained $4,000 in Hurricane Katrina aid. Real Katrina victims in New Orleans are outraged. "My life is pretty much falling apart here, and these guys are out having a great time," hurricane victim Karen Cohen said. Back on campus, the experience became a course in life that no one had signed up to take. "I'm definitely going to second-guess every other person, and it's sad," said frat member Brett Skyllingstad.
November 23, 2005 -- AL Franken, the former "Saturday Night Live" star, found out the hard way not to mess with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who chided Franken as if he were a delinquent schoolboy at Time Warner Center on Monday night.
Scalia, following in the footsteps of Karl Rove and Bill Clinton, was the guest at Conversations on the Circle, a series of one-on-one interviews with outgoing Time Inc. editor-in-chief Norman Pearlstine.
The A-list crowd included Michael Eisner, Jack Valenti, Mike Wallace, Tina Brown, Harry Evans and Stanley Pottinger. Scalia, a conservative who believes in a strict reading of the Constitution, is the scourge of liberal Democrats because he led the court's 5-4 majority in voting to stop the vote recount in Florida in 2000.
When Pearlstine opened the floor for Q&A, Franken stood up in the back row and started talking about "judicial demeanor" and asking "hypothetically" about whether a judge should recuse himself if he had gone duck-hunting or flown in a private jet with a party in a case before his court.
Franken was clumsily referring to the fact that Scalia had gone hunting and flying with Dick Cheney before the 2000 election.
First, Scalia lectured Franken, "Demeanor is the wrong word. You mean ethics." Then he explained, "Ethics is governed by tradition. It has never been the case where you recuse because of friendship."
Time Warner chairman Dick Parsons later told PAGE SIX: "Al was not quite ready for prime time." Franken was a "Not Ready for Prime Time Player" on "Saturday Night Live" long before he began hosting a radio show on Air America.
The confrontation with Scalia didn't seem to weaken Franken's interest in running for the U.S. Senate from Minnesota. Franken discussed his possible candidacy afterward at the cocktail reception overlooking Columbus Circle. "I think I got under his skin a little," Franken humbly told us.
Scalia had earlier explained why he voted to allow flag-burning, but not nude dancing, and why the 1964 N.Y. Times v. Sullivan decision — which said the press could not be held liable for wrongful reporting on public figures unless it was guilty of "actual malice" — was wrong. "I don't think that's what the founding fathers intended," Scalia said.
When Pearlstine noted that Scalia had been confirmed by the Senate 98-0, Scalia said, "The two missing guys were [Barry] Goldwater and Jack Garn," both of whom were on death's door. "Make it a hundred!"
Scalia, following in the footsteps of Karl Rove and Bill Clinton, was the guest at Conversations on the Circle, a series of one-on-one interviews with outgoing Time Inc. editor-in-chief Norman Pearlstine.
The A-list crowd included Michael Eisner, Jack Valenti, Mike Wallace, Tina Brown, Harry Evans and Stanley Pottinger. Scalia, a conservative who believes in a strict reading of the Constitution, is the scourge of liberal Democrats because he led the court's 5-4 majority in voting to stop the vote recount in Florida in 2000.
When Pearlstine opened the floor for Q&A, Franken stood up in the back row and started talking about "judicial demeanor" and asking "hypothetically" about whether a judge should recuse himself if he had gone duck-hunting or flown in a private jet with a party in a case before his court.
Franken was clumsily referring to the fact that Scalia had gone hunting and flying with Dick Cheney before the 2000 election.
First, Scalia lectured Franken, "Demeanor is the wrong word. You mean ethics." Then he explained, "Ethics is governed by tradition. It has never been the case where you recuse because of friendship."
Time Warner chairman Dick Parsons later told PAGE SIX: "Al was not quite ready for prime time." Franken was a "Not Ready for Prime Time Player" on "Saturday Night Live" long before he began hosting a radio show on Air America.
The confrontation with Scalia didn't seem to weaken Franken's interest in running for the U.S. Senate from Minnesota. Franken discussed his possible candidacy afterward at the cocktail reception overlooking Columbus Circle. "I think I got under his skin a little," Franken humbly told us.
Scalia had earlier explained why he voted to allow flag-burning, but not nude dancing, and why the 1964 N.Y. Times v. Sullivan decision — which said the press could not be held liable for wrongful reporting on public figures unless it was guilty of "actual malice" — was wrong. "I don't think that's what the founding fathers intended," Scalia said.
When Pearlstine noted that Scalia had been confirmed by the Senate 98-0, Scalia said, "The two missing guys were [Barry] Goldwater and Jack Garn," both of whom were on death's door. "Make it a hundred!"
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Can You Say Ouch?!
FORT MYERS BEACH, Fla. - Police accidentally hit a naked man in the genitals with a Taser after he was caught breaking windows and asking women to touch him, authorities said.
Jeremy J. Miljour, 26, tried to run away when sheriff's deputies approached so one of them shot their Taser, said Cpl. Matt Chitwood. But one of the gun's prongs accidentally hit Miljour's genitals and got stuck, Chitwood said.
"The Taser is relatively accurate, but when someone is moving like that, it doesn't matter if you have a Taser, or a pistol. (Officers) can't aim," Chitwood said.
Miljour was treated at a hospital before being taken to the Lee County jail. He was charged with indecent exposure, resisting an officer and criminal damage.
Jeremy J. Miljour, 26, tried to run away when sheriff's deputies approached so one of them shot their Taser, said Cpl. Matt Chitwood. But one of the gun's prongs accidentally hit Miljour's genitals and got stuck, Chitwood said.
"The Taser is relatively accurate, but when someone is moving like that, it doesn't matter if you have a Taser, or a pistol. (Officers) can't aim," Chitwood said.
Miljour was treated at a hospital before being taken to the Lee County jail. He was charged with indecent exposure, resisting an officer and criminal damage.
Monday, November 21, 2005
A very perceptive post at ShrinkWrapped explores the disturbing psychological roots of The French Intifada: A Second Look.
"The most important of the several developmental steps that are required to move from late adolescence into early adulthood is the surrender of the adolescent fantasy of omnipotentiality (the idea that all future outcomes are available), which requires the acceptance of realistic limitations that are in concordance with one’s abilities, and the establishment and consolidation of a stable identity. A stable adult identity includes such things as one’s sexual orientation, the desire or lack of desire for marriage and children, one’s occupational interests, ethnic identifications, and religious orientation. In all these areas, the young residents of the banlieus of France are being channeled toward radical Islam.
The adolescent often takes on many trial identifications before settling on a stable adult identification. Most often, the new adult has primary input from the parental identifications, with some idealized authority figures added into the mix. This is one important reason so many children are like their parents. For the young men in the banlieus, there are almost no French Muslims available for identification who have become successful Frenchmen and been successfully integrated into the overall French/European culture. Their own fathers are often missing completely or are devalued objects of derision, not someone to be emulated. Thugs and gang leaders run the ghettos and often have more authority than the government. Notably, the only ones who can challenge the authority of the gangs are the local Imams, most of whom are adherents (often financially supported by Saudi money) of fundamentalist and radical Islam. They alone exude a calm authority; they are men worthy of admiration and identification."
"The most important of the several developmental steps that are required to move from late adolescence into early adulthood is the surrender of the adolescent fantasy of omnipotentiality (the idea that all future outcomes are available), which requires the acceptance of realistic limitations that are in concordance with one’s abilities, and the establishment and consolidation of a stable identity. A stable adult identity includes such things as one’s sexual orientation, the desire or lack of desire for marriage and children, one’s occupational interests, ethnic identifications, and religious orientation. In all these areas, the young residents of the banlieus of France are being channeled toward radical Islam.
The adolescent often takes on many trial identifications before settling on a stable adult identification. Most often, the new adult has primary input from the parental identifications, with some idealized authority figures added into the mix. This is one important reason so many children are like their parents. For the young men in the banlieus, there are almost no French Muslims available for identification who have become successful Frenchmen and been successfully integrated into the overall French/European culture. Their own fathers are often missing completely or are devalued objects of derision, not someone to be emulated. Thugs and gang leaders run the ghettos and often have more authority than the government. Notably, the only ones who can challenge the authority of the gangs are the local Imams, most of whom are adherents (often financially supported by Saudi money) of fundamentalist and radical Islam. They alone exude a calm authority; they are men worthy of admiration and identification."
Breakfast of Idiots
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17293730%5E601,00.html
Author Kurt Vonnegut "has praised terrorists as 'very brave people' and used drug culture slang to describe the 'amazing high' suicide bombers must feel before blowing themselves up," reports the Weekend Australian:
In discussing his views with The Weekend Australian, Vonnegut said it was "sweet and honourable" to die for what you believe in, and rejected the idea that terrorists were motivated by twisted religious beliefs.
"They are dying for their own self-respect," he said. "It's a terrible thing to deprive someone of their self-respect. It's like your culture is nothing, your race is nothing, you're nothing." . . .
Vonnegut suggested suicide bombers must feel an "amazing high." He said: "You would know death is going to be painless, so the anticipation--it must be an amazing high."
The paper describes Vonnegut as a "peace activist" and notes that his "latest comments are likely to make many people wonder if old age has finally caught up with a grand old man of American letters."
Author Kurt Vonnegut "has praised terrorists as 'very brave people' and used drug culture slang to describe the 'amazing high' suicide bombers must feel before blowing themselves up," reports the Weekend Australian:
In discussing his views with The Weekend Australian, Vonnegut said it was "sweet and honourable" to die for what you believe in, and rejected the idea that terrorists were motivated by twisted religious beliefs.
"They are dying for their own self-respect," he said. "It's a terrible thing to deprive someone of their self-respect. It's like your culture is nothing, your race is nothing, you're nothing." . . .
Vonnegut suggested suicide bombers must feel an "amazing high." He said: "You would know death is going to be painless, so the anticipation--it must be an amazing high."
The paper describes Vonnegut as a "peace activist" and notes that his "latest comments are likely to make many people wonder if old age has finally caught up with a grand old man of American letters."
Vatican astronomer says ‘intelligent design’ doesn’t belong in science class.
VATICAN CITY, Nov. 18, 2005 (The Canadian Press delivered by Newstex)
— The Vatican’s chief astronomer said Friday that “intelligent design” isn’t science and doesn’t belong in science classrooms, the latest high-ranking Roman Catholic official to enter the evolution debate in the United States.
Rev. George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, said placing intelligent design theory alongside that of evolution in school programs was “wrong” and was akin to mixing apples and oranges.
“Intelligent design isn’t science even though it pretends to be,” the ANSA news agency quoted Coyne as saying on the sidelines of a conference in Florence. “If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science.”
VATICAN CITY, Nov. 18, 2005 (The Canadian Press delivered by Newstex)
— The Vatican’s chief astronomer said Friday that “intelligent design” isn’t science and doesn’t belong in science classrooms, the latest high-ranking Roman Catholic official to enter the evolution debate in the United States.
Rev. George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, said placing intelligent design theory alongside that of evolution in school programs was “wrong” and was akin to mixing apples and oranges.
“Intelligent design isn’t science even though it pretends to be,” the ANSA news agency quoted Coyne as saying on the sidelines of a conference in Florence. “If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science.”
The books famous people loved in college.
Christopher Hitchens, columnist, Vanity Fair He who hesitates is lost. If I gave myself any time to reflect, I might come up with Peter Sedgwick's edition of Victor Serge's Memoirs of a Revolutionary. But to answer the question about "most influential" is really to choose the indelible, and the book I most remember reading between 1967 and 1970 is The Mill on the Floss, borrowed well away from Oxford in a "youth" camp in Cuba. Only Shakespeare and Proust are superior to George Eliot in guessing at the real springs of human motive and in describing the mammalian underlay of social forces. At the time, I may have believed that literature was of less importance than politics, but when I shook off this fatuous illusion I went straight to the Eliot shelf and didn't stop until I had read it all, which I suppose will serve as a paltry definition of influence.
Friday, November 18, 2005
He's Not Always Right...but when he is, there is no one better to have on your side than John McCain. In today's New York Post, McCain eloquently demolishes the Senate's amendment on withdrawal of troops from Iraq:
Anyone reading the amendment gets the sense that the Senate's foremost objective is the draw-down of American troops. What it should have said is that America's first goal in Iraq is not to withdraw troops, but to win the war. All other policy decisions we make should support, and be subordinate to, the successful completion of our mission.
Morality, national security and the honor our fallen deserve all compel us to see our mission in Iraq through to victory.
A date is not an exit strategy. To suggest that it is only encourages our enemies, by indicating that the end to American intervention is near. It alienates our friends, who fear an insurgent victory, and tempts undecideds to join the anti-government ranks.
Think about this for a moment. Imagine Iraqis, working for the new government, considering whether to join the police force, or debating whether or not to take up arms. What will they think when they read that the Senate is pressing for steps toward draw-down?
Are they more or less likely to side with a government whose No. 1 partner hints at leaving?
The Senate has responded to the millions who braved bombs and threats to vote, who put their faith and trust in America and their government, by suggesting that our No. 1 priority is to bring our people home.
We have told insurgents that their violence does grind us down, that their horrific acts might be successful. But these are precisely the wrong messages. Our exit strategy in Iraq is not the withdrawal of our troops, it is victory.
Anyone reading the amendment gets the sense that the Senate's foremost objective is the draw-down of American troops. What it should have said is that America's first goal in Iraq is not to withdraw troops, but to win the war. All other policy decisions we make should support, and be subordinate to, the successful completion of our mission.
Morality, national security and the honor our fallen deserve all compel us to see our mission in Iraq through to victory.
A date is not an exit strategy. To suggest that it is only encourages our enemies, by indicating that the end to American intervention is near. It alienates our friends, who fear an insurgent victory, and tempts undecideds to join the anti-government ranks.
Think about this for a moment. Imagine Iraqis, working for the new government, considering whether to join the police force, or debating whether or not to take up arms. What will they think when they read that the Senate is pressing for steps toward draw-down?
Are they more or less likely to side with a government whose No. 1 partner hints at leaving?
The Senate has responded to the millions who braved bombs and threats to vote, who put their faith and trust in America and their government, by suggesting that our No. 1 priority is to bring our people home.
We have told insurgents that their violence does grind us down, that their horrific acts might be successful. But these are precisely the wrong messages. Our exit strategy in Iraq is not the withdrawal of our troops, it is victory.
"I don't want to diminish the threat of terrorism at all, it is extremely serious, but on a long-term global basis, global warming is the most serious problem we are facing."--Al Gore, quoted in the Melbourne, Australia, Age http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/11/13/1131816810708.html?page=2 , Nov. 14
"Osama bin Laden wants the United States to convert to Islam, ditch its constitution, abolish banks, jail homosexuals and sign the Kyoto climate change treaty."-- Daily Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/11/17/wladen17.xml (London), Nov. 17
"Osama bin Laden wants the United States to convert to Islam, ditch its constitution, abolish banks, jail homosexuals and sign the Kyoto climate change treaty."-- Daily Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/11/17/wladen17.xml (London), Nov. 17
Thursday, November 17, 2005
Black support for Bush drops to two percent
Nov 17, 2005
by Larry Elder ( bio archive contact )
So much for the Republican "outreach" to black voters, with only 2 percent of blacks "approving" of the president's performance.
If only blacks knew of the true history of the Democratic Party.
"Black History Month" has been observed for 29 years, yet many blacks know little to nothing about the parties' respective roles in advancing or hindering the civil rights of blacks. How many blacks know that following the Civil War, 23 blacks -- 13 of them ex-slaves -- were elected to Congress, all as Republicans? The first black Democrat was not elected to Congress until 1935, from the state of Illinois. The first black congressional Democrat from a Southern state was not elected until 1973.
Democrats, in 1854, passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act. This overturned the Missouri Compromise and allowed for the importation of slaves into the territories. Disgusted with the passage of this Act, free-soilers and anti-slavery members of the Whig and Democratic parties founded the Republican Party -- not just to stop the spread of slavery, but to eventually abolish it.
How many blacks know that blacks founded the Texas Republican Party? On July 4, 1867, in Houston, Texas, 150 blacks and 20 whites formed the party. No, not the Black Texas Republican Party, they founded the Texas Republican Party. Blacks across Southern states also founded the Republican parties in their states.
Fugitive slave laws? In 1850, Democrats passed the Fugitive Slave Law. If merely accused of being a slave, even if the person enjoyed freedom all of his or her life (as approximately 11 percent of blacks did just before the Civil War), the person lost the right to representation by an attorney, the right to trial by jury, and the right to habeas corpus.
Emancipation? Republican President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation during the Civil War. In 1865, the 13th Amendment emancipating the slaves was passed with 100 percent of Republicans (88 of 88 in the House, 30 of 30 in the Senate) voting for it. Only 23 percent of Democrats (16 of 66 in the House, 3 of 8 in the Senate) voted for it.
Civil rights laws? In 1868, the 14th Amendment was passed giving the newly emancipated blacks full civil rights and federal guarantee of those rights, superseding any state laws. Every single voting Republican (128 of 134 -- with 6 not voting -- in the House, and 30 of 32 -- with 2 not voting -- in the Senate) voted for the 14th Amendment. Not a single Democrat (zero of 36 in the House, zero of 6 in the Senate) voted for it.
Right to vote? When Southern states balked at implementing the 14th Amendment, Congress came back and passed the 15th Amendment in 1870, guaranteeing blacks the right to vote. Every single Republican voted for it, with every Democrat voting against it.
Ku Klux Klan? In 1872 congressional investigations, Democrats admitted beginning the Klan as an effort to stop the spread of the Republican Party and to re-establish Democratic control in Southern states. As PBS' "American Experience" notes, "In outright defiance of the Republican-led federal government, Southern Democrats formed organizations that violently intimidated blacks and Republicans who tried to win political power. The most prominent of these, the Ku Klux Klan, was formed in Pulaski, Tenn., in 1865." Blacks, who were all Republican at that time, became the primary targets of violence.
Jim Crow laws? Between 1870 and 1875, the Republican Congress passed many pro-black civil rights laws. But in 1876, Democrats took control of the House, and no further race-based civil rights laws passed until 1957. In 1892, Democrats gained control of the House, the Senate and the White House, and repealed all the Republican-passed civil rights laws. That enabled the Southern Democrats to pass the Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, literacy tests, and so on, in their individual states.
Civil rights in the '60s? Only 64 percent of Democrats in Congress voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act (153 for, 91 against in the House; and 46 for, 21 against in the Senate). But 80 percent of Republicans (136 for, 35 against in the House; and 27 for, 6 against in the Senate) voted for the 1964 Act.
What about the reviled, allegedly anti-black, Republican "Southern strategy"? Pat Buchanan, writing for Richard Nixon (who became the Republican Party candidate two years later) coined the term "Southern strategy." They expected the "strategy" to ultimately result in the complete marginalization of racist Southern Democrats. "We would build our Republican Party on a foundation of states' rights, human rights, small government, and a strong national defense," said Buchanan, "and leave it to the 'party of [Democratic Georgia Gov. Lester] Maddox, [1966 Democratic challenger against Spiro Agnew for Maryland governor George] Mahoney, and [Democratic Alabama Gov. George] Wallace to squeeze the last ounces of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice.'" And President Richard Nixon, Republican, implemented the first federal affirmative action (race-based preference) laws with goals and timetables.
So next "Black History Month," pass some of this stuff along.
Larry Elder is a nationally syndicated newspaper columnist and publishes a monthly newsletter entitled "The Elder Statement."
Nov 17, 2005
by Larry Elder ( bio archive contact )
So much for the Republican "outreach" to black voters, with only 2 percent of blacks "approving" of the president's performance.
If only blacks knew of the true history of the Democratic Party.
"Black History Month" has been observed for 29 years, yet many blacks know little to nothing about the parties' respective roles in advancing or hindering the civil rights of blacks. How many blacks know that following the Civil War, 23 blacks -- 13 of them ex-slaves -- were elected to Congress, all as Republicans? The first black Democrat was not elected to Congress until 1935, from the state of Illinois. The first black congressional Democrat from a Southern state was not elected until 1973.
Democrats, in 1854, passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act. This overturned the Missouri Compromise and allowed for the importation of slaves into the territories. Disgusted with the passage of this Act, free-soilers and anti-slavery members of the Whig and Democratic parties founded the Republican Party -- not just to stop the spread of slavery, but to eventually abolish it.
How many blacks know that blacks founded the Texas Republican Party? On July 4, 1867, in Houston, Texas, 150 blacks and 20 whites formed the party. No, not the Black Texas Republican Party, they founded the Texas Republican Party. Blacks across Southern states also founded the Republican parties in their states.
Fugitive slave laws? In 1850, Democrats passed the Fugitive Slave Law. If merely accused of being a slave, even if the person enjoyed freedom all of his or her life (as approximately 11 percent of blacks did just before the Civil War), the person lost the right to representation by an attorney, the right to trial by jury, and the right to habeas corpus.
Emancipation? Republican President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation during the Civil War. In 1865, the 13th Amendment emancipating the slaves was passed with 100 percent of Republicans (88 of 88 in the House, 30 of 30 in the Senate) voting for it. Only 23 percent of Democrats (16 of 66 in the House, 3 of 8 in the Senate) voted for it.
Civil rights laws? In 1868, the 14th Amendment was passed giving the newly emancipated blacks full civil rights and federal guarantee of those rights, superseding any state laws. Every single voting Republican (128 of 134 -- with 6 not voting -- in the House, and 30 of 32 -- with 2 not voting -- in the Senate) voted for the 14th Amendment. Not a single Democrat (zero of 36 in the House, zero of 6 in the Senate) voted for it.
Right to vote? When Southern states balked at implementing the 14th Amendment, Congress came back and passed the 15th Amendment in 1870, guaranteeing blacks the right to vote. Every single Republican voted for it, with every Democrat voting against it.
Ku Klux Klan? In 1872 congressional investigations, Democrats admitted beginning the Klan as an effort to stop the spread of the Republican Party and to re-establish Democratic control in Southern states. As PBS' "American Experience" notes, "In outright defiance of the Republican-led federal government, Southern Democrats formed organizations that violently intimidated blacks and Republicans who tried to win political power. The most prominent of these, the Ku Klux Klan, was formed in Pulaski, Tenn., in 1865." Blacks, who were all Republican at that time, became the primary targets of violence.
Jim Crow laws? Between 1870 and 1875, the Republican Congress passed many pro-black civil rights laws. But in 1876, Democrats took control of the House, and no further race-based civil rights laws passed until 1957. In 1892, Democrats gained control of the House, the Senate and the White House, and repealed all the Republican-passed civil rights laws. That enabled the Southern Democrats to pass the Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, literacy tests, and so on, in their individual states.
Civil rights in the '60s? Only 64 percent of Democrats in Congress voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act (153 for, 91 against in the House; and 46 for, 21 against in the Senate). But 80 percent of Republicans (136 for, 35 against in the House; and 27 for, 6 against in the Senate) voted for the 1964 Act.
What about the reviled, allegedly anti-black, Republican "Southern strategy"? Pat Buchanan, writing for Richard Nixon (who became the Republican Party candidate two years later) coined the term "Southern strategy." They expected the "strategy" to ultimately result in the complete marginalization of racist Southern Democrats. "We would build our Republican Party on a foundation of states' rights, human rights, small government, and a strong national defense," said Buchanan, "and leave it to the 'party of [Democratic Georgia Gov. Lester] Maddox, [1966 Democratic challenger against Spiro Agnew for Maryland governor George] Mahoney, and [Democratic Alabama Gov. George] Wallace to squeeze the last ounces of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice.'" And President Richard Nixon, Republican, implemented the first federal affirmative action (race-based preference) laws with goals and timetables.
So next "Black History Month," pass some of this stuff along.
Larry Elder is a nationally syndicated newspaper columnist and publishes a monthly newsletter entitled "The Elder Statement."
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Five questions non-Muslims would like answered
Five questions non-Muslims would like answered
By Dennis Prager, Dennis Prager's nationally syndicated radio show is heard daily in Los Angeles on KRLA-AM (870). He may be contacted through his website: www.dennisprager.com.
THE RIOTING IN France by primarily Muslim youths and the hotel bombings in Jordan are the latest events to prompt sincere questions that law-abiding Muslims need to answer for Islam's sake, as well as for the sake of worried non-Muslims. Here are five of them:
(1) Why are you so quiet?
Since the first Israelis were targeted for death by Muslim terrorists blowing themselves up in the name of your religion and Palestinian nationalism, I have been praying to see Muslim demonstrations against these atrocities. Last week's protests in Jordan against the bombings, while welcome, were a rarity. What I have seen more often is mainstream Muslim spokesmen implicitly defending this terror on the grounds that Israel occupies Palestinian lands. We see torture and murder in the name of Allah, but we see no anti-torture and anti-murder demonstrations in the name of Allah.There are a billion Muslims in the world. How is it possible that essentially none have demonstrated against evils perpetrated by Muslims in the name of Islam? This is true even of the millions of Muslims living in free Western societies. What are non-Muslims of goodwill supposed to conclude? When the Israeli government did not stop a Lebanese massacre of Palestinians in the Sabra and Chatilla refugee camps in Lebanon in 1982, great crowds of Israeli Jews gathered to protest their country's moral failing. Why has there been no comparable public demonstration by Palestinians or other Muslims to morally condemn Palestinian or other Muslim-committed terror?
(2) Why are none of the Palestinian terrorists Christian?
If Israeli occupation is the reason for Muslim terror in Israel, why do no Christian Palestinians engage in terror? They are just as nationalistic and just as occupied as Muslim Palestinians.
(3) Why is only one of the 47 Muslim-majority countries a free country?
According to Freedom House, a Washington-based group that promotes democracy, of the world's 47 Muslim countries, only Mali is free. Sixty percent are not free, and 38% are partly free. Muslim-majority states account for a majority of the world's "not free" states. And of the 10 "worst of the worst," seven are Islamic states. Why is this?
(4) Why are so many atrocities committed and threatened by Muslims in the name of Islam?
Young girls in Indonesia were recently beheaded by Muslim murderers. Last year, Muslims — in the name of Islam — murdered hundreds of schoolchildren in Russia. While reciting Muslim prayers, Islamic terrorists take foreigners working to make Iraq free and slaughter them. Muslim daughters are murdered by their own families in the thousands in "honor killings." And the Muslim government in Iran has publicly called for the extermination of Israel.
(5) Why do countries governed by religious Muslims persecute other religions?
No church or synagogue is allowed in Saudi Arabia. The Taliban destroyed some of the greatest sculptures of the ancient world because they were Buddhist. Sudan's Islamic regime has murdered great numbers of Christians. Instead of confronting these problems, too many of you deny them. Muslims call my radio show to tell me that even speaking of Muslim or Islamic terrorists is wrong. After all, they argue, Timothy McVeigh is never labeled a "Christian terrorist." As if McVeigh committed his terror as a churchgoing Christian and in the name of Christ, and as if there were Christian-based terror groups around the world.
As a member of the media for nearly 25 years, I have a long record of reaching out to Muslims. Muslim leaders have invited me to speak at major mosques. In addition, I have studied Arabic and Islam, have visited most Arab and many other Muslim countries and conducted interfaith dialogues with Muslims in the United Arab Emirates as well as in the U.S. Politically, I have supported creation of a Palestinian state and supported (mistakenly, I now believe) the Oslo accords.Hundreds of millions of non-Muslims want honest answers to these questions, even if the only answer you offer is, "Yes, we have real problems in Islam." Such an acknowledgment is infinitely better — for you and for the world — than dismissing us as anti-Muslim.
We await your response.
By Dennis Prager, Dennis Prager's nationally syndicated radio show is heard daily in Los Angeles on KRLA-AM (870). He may be contacted through his website: www.dennisprager.com.
THE RIOTING IN France by primarily Muslim youths and the hotel bombings in Jordan are the latest events to prompt sincere questions that law-abiding Muslims need to answer for Islam's sake, as well as for the sake of worried non-Muslims. Here are five of them:
(1) Why are you so quiet?
Since the first Israelis were targeted for death by Muslim terrorists blowing themselves up in the name of your religion and Palestinian nationalism, I have been praying to see Muslim demonstrations against these atrocities. Last week's protests in Jordan against the bombings, while welcome, were a rarity. What I have seen more often is mainstream Muslim spokesmen implicitly defending this terror on the grounds that Israel occupies Palestinian lands. We see torture and murder in the name of Allah, but we see no anti-torture and anti-murder demonstrations in the name of Allah.There are a billion Muslims in the world. How is it possible that essentially none have demonstrated against evils perpetrated by Muslims in the name of Islam? This is true even of the millions of Muslims living in free Western societies. What are non-Muslims of goodwill supposed to conclude? When the Israeli government did not stop a Lebanese massacre of Palestinians in the Sabra and Chatilla refugee camps in Lebanon in 1982, great crowds of Israeli Jews gathered to protest their country's moral failing. Why has there been no comparable public demonstration by Palestinians or other Muslims to morally condemn Palestinian or other Muslim-committed terror?
(2) Why are none of the Palestinian terrorists Christian?
If Israeli occupation is the reason for Muslim terror in Israel, why do no Christian Palestinians engage in terror? They are just as nationalistic and just as occupied as Muslim Palestinians.
(3) Why is only one of the 47 Muslim-majority countries a free country?
According to Freedom House, a Washington-based group that promotes democracy, of the world's 47 Muslim countries, only Mali is free. Sixty percent are not free, and 38% are partly free. Muslim-majority states account for a majority of the world's "not free" states. And of the 10 "worst of the worst," seven are Islamic states. Why is this?
(4) Why are so many atrocities committed and threatened by Muslims in the name of Islam?
Young girls in Indonesia were recently beheaded by Muslim murderers. Last year, Muslims — in the name of Islam — murdered hundreds of schoolchildren in Russia. While reciting Muslim prayers, Islamic terrorists take foreigners working to make Iraq free and slaughter them. Muslim daughters are murdered by their own families in the thousands in "honor killings." And the Muslim government in Iran has publicly called for the extermination of Israel.
(5) Why do countries governed by religious Muslims persecute other religions?
No church or synagogue is allowed in Saudi Arabia. The Taliban destroyed some of the greatest sculptures of the ancient world because they were Buddhist. Sudan's Islamic regime has murdered great numbers of Christians. Instead of confronting these problems, too many of you deny them. Muslims call my radio show to tell me that even speaking of Muslim or Islamic terrorists is wrong. After all, they argue, Timothy McVeigh is never labeled a "Christian terrorist." As if McVeigh committed his terror as a churchgoing Christian and in the name of Christ, and as if there were Christian-based terror groups around the world.
As a member of the media for nearly 25 years, I have a long record of reaching out to Muslims. Muslim leaders have invited me to speak at major mosques. In addition, I have studied Arabic and Islam, have visited most Arab and many other Muslim countries and conducted interfaith dialogues with Muslims in the United Arab Emirates as well as in the U.S. Politically, I have supported creation of a Palestinian state and supported (mistakenly, I now believe) the Oslo accords.Hundreds of millions of non-Muslims want honest answers to these questions, even if the only answer you offer is, "Yes, we have real problems in Islam." Such an acknowledgment is infinitely better — for you and for the world — than dismissing us as anti-Muslim.
We await your response.
Monday, November 14, 2005
Bear Returns Missed FG for 108 Yard TD
CHICAGO (AP) - What the heck? Nathan Vasher caught the missed field goal deep in the end zone on the final play of the first half and decided to bring it out.
Seconds later, he was in the NFL record books with the longest play in league history — an almost unimaginable rambling 108-yard TD return that stunned the San Francisco 49ers and propelled the Chicago Bears to a blustery 17-9 win Sunday.
"I've never really seen it work, but we always feel like we can get big plays like that," Vasher said. "I'm still speechless."
When Joe Nedney's 52-yard attempt was short and wide, Vasher caught the ball over his shoulder, then after his brief hesitation sprinted to the 15, reversed his field with a spin move and picked up a convoy of blockers
Seconds later, he was in the NFL record books with the longest play in league history — an almost unimaginable rambling 108-yard TD return that stunned the San Francisco 49ers and propelled the Chicago Bears to a blustery 17-9 win Sunday.
"I've never really seen it work, but we always feel like we can get big plays like that," Vasher said. "I'm still speechless."
When Joe Nedney's 52-yard attempt was short and wide, Vasher caught the ball over his shoulder, then after his brief hesitation sprinted to the 15, reversed his field with a spin move and picked up a convoy of blockers
Thursday, November 10, 2005
I have become transfixed by the Dog. And his hair.
Dog the Bounty Hunter is a reality television show chronicling Duane "Dog" Chapman's operations in his bounty hunting firm Da Kine Bail Bonds in Honolulu, Hawaii. He is joined in his exploits by his current wife/business partner Beth, his third son Leland, and fellow bounty hunter Tim Chapman (who has no relation to Dog, but always calls him as such). In addition, his nephew Justin Bihag appeared in the first season. Besides Hawaii, newer episodes have included cases in Dog Chapman's home state of Colorado.
While the program for the most part follows Chapman and his team's pursuits against actual criminals who violated the conditions of their bail, the program also explores Chapman's human side, especially his God-fearing attitude (being a born-again Christian) and his life as a husband to Beth, a father to his twelve children, and a reformed ex-convict.
While the program for the most part follows Chapman and his team's pursuits against actual criminals who violated the conditions of their bail, the program also explores Chapman's human side, especially his God-fearing attitude (being a born-again Christian) and his life as a husband to Beth, a father to his twelve children, and a reformed ex-convict.
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Kipper Snacks
Please check out the blog of a good friend from school, the Svweeeed, Carl Bergquist. Carl's dad is the Swedish Ambassodor to the UK, and Carl has an very international perspective. He currently lives in Berlin where he enjoys eating roe paste out of tubes and wearing salmon colored Levi's. His writing is fantastic.
http://wooleyswamp.blogspot.com/
http://wooleyswamp.blogspot.com/
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Merde
>Despite the claims of right wingers in both France and America, Islam seems to play only a minor role in the current unrest.
- Those doing the rioting are running around chanting "ALLAH AKBAR!". (FUNNY how the media seems to not show any video of the rioters...hmmmm...wonder why???)
- They are torching Synagogues (and two Catholic Churches so far)
- `Each night we turn this place into Baghdad', says one masked youth in Sevran near Paris.
- If its only a problem with the French liberal welfare state why are the riots spreading to other European cities?
- The French police found a bomb factory...aka "Insurgent/Terrorist" style.
- They are now calling for their own "TERRITORY".
Some are even calling for the areas where Muslims form a majority of the population to be reorganized on the basis of the "millet" system of the Ottoman Empire: Each religious community (millet) would enjoy the right to organize its social, cultural and educational life in accordance with its religious beliefs." All we demand is to be left alone," said Mouloud Dahmani, one of the local "emirs" engaged in negotiations to persuade the French to withdraw the police and allow a committee of sheiks, mostly from the Muslim Brotherhood, to negotiate an end to the hostilities.
It's quite simple, the beginnings of Palestine in France.
Communicating Building An E-Mail Time Capsule David M. Ewalt, 10.24.05, 9:00 AM ET
From Oct. 24, 2005 to Nov. 30, 2005, Forbes.com will collect thousands of letters that our readers have written to themselves. And we'll deliver them up to 20 years later. Preserving a physical time capsule is simple: just shove it in the dirt and forget about it. But the process gets a lot more complicated when you're trying to store something digitally. Simply scheduling an e-mail for future delivery is pretty easy--just a matter of writing it and setting a send date in the future. Some e-mail clients will do it for you, and small Web sites like futureme.org will take over the task as well. But once your message is written and waiting to be sent, all kinds of things can happen to prevent delivery, particularly if you're going to be waiting for decades.
Click here to e-mail yourself in the future
From Oct. 24, 2005 to Nov. 30, 2005, Forbes.com will collect thousands of letters that our readers have written to themselves. And we'll deliver them up to 20 years later. Preserving a physical time capsule is simple: just shove it in the dirt and forget about it. But the process gets a lot more complicated when you're trying to store something digitally. Simply scheduling an e-mail for future delivery is pretty easy--just a matter of writing it and setting a send date in the future. Some e-mail clients will do it for you, and small Web sites like futureme.org will take over the task as well. But once your message is written and waiting to be sent, all kinds of things can happen to prevent delivery, particularly if you're going to be waiting for decades.
Click here to e-mail yourself in the future
Realism in Darfur Consider the horrors of peace.
By Christopher HitchensPosted Monday, Nov. 7, 2005, at 6:05 PM ET
It looks as if the realists have won the day in the matter of Darfur. Or, to phrase it in another way, it looks as if the ethnic cleansers of that province have made good use of the "negotiation" and "mediation" period to complete their self-appointed task. As my friend Johann Hari put it recently in the London Independent: "At last, some good news from Darfur: the genocide in western Sudan is nearly over. There's only one problem—it's drawing to an end only because there are no black people left to cleanse or kill."
By some reliable estimates, the Sudanese government or "National Islamic Front" has slain as many as 400,000 of its black co-religionists—known contemptuously as zurga ("niggers")—and expelled perhaps 2 million more. This appalling achievement has been made possible by a very simple tactic: The actual killers and cleansers, the Arab janjaweed militias, are a "deniable" arm of the Sudanese authorities. Those authorities pretend to negotiate with the United Nations, the United States, and the African Union, and their negotiating "card" is the control that they can or might exercise over said militias. While this tap is turned on and off, according to different applications of carrot and stick, the militias pretend to go out of control and carry on with their slaughter and deportation. By the time the clock has been run out, the job is done.
If it were not for the efforts of a few brave journalists and humanitarian workers, and at least one American soldier attached to the African Union "peacekeepers" who went public in disgust at what he had seen, the Sudanese government might have gotten away with the whole thing. But we have more than enough filmed and photographic evidence of Sudanese planes and helicopters, flying close support to janjaweed operations, to say with certainty that the relationship between the two is the same as between the Rwandan authorities and the "Hutu Power" mobs who destroyed the Tutsi population. In other words, a Rwanda in slow motion, and in front of the cameras and the diplomats. What was all that garbage about "never again"? What was the meaning of Clinton's apology to the Rwandans? What did Colin Powell mean when he finally used the word "genocide" to describe the events in Darfur, just before resigning as secretary of state and becoming an advocate for more realism all round?
And what on earth was I thinking when I employed that "carrot and stick" cliché a couple of paragraphs above? Carrots there have been. Only the other day, according to the New York Times, the Bush administration granted a waiver to the sanctions ostensibly in place against the Khartoum government in order to allow it to spend $530,000 on a lobbyist in Washington. Well, one would not want to deny a government indicted for genocide the right to make its case. That would hardly be fair. Meanwhile, the State Department has upgraded Sudan's status on the chart that shows "cooperation" in the matter of slave-trafficking. Apparently, you can be on this list and still be awarded points for good behavior. A hundred-plus congressmen recently signed a statement accusing the administration of "appeasement," which seems the only appropriate word for it. But that's about the extent of the protest. How can this be? Surely the administration did everything that could have been asked of it. Abandoning any sort of "unilateralism," it pedantically followed the Kofi Annan script of multiparty negotiations and patient diplomacy. It allowed the inspectors more time. It exhausted all avenues short of war and never even threatened the use of force. By the use of sanctions, it kept Sudan "in its box." And it has got exactly what anyone might have predicted for such a strategy. Perhaps that's why there is so little protest. After all, we know that "war is not the answer." And now Sudan has Darfur province in its box. It has taken the land and gotten rid of the people.
Any critique of realism has to begin with a sober assessment of the horrors of peace. Everybody now wishes, or at least says they wish, that we had not made ourselves complicit spectators in Rwanda. But what if it had been decided to take action? Only one member state of the U.N. Security Council would have had the capacity to act with speed to deploy pre-emptive force (and that would have been very necessary, given the weight of the French state, and the French veto, on the side of the genocidaires). It is a certainty that at some stage, American troops would have had to open fire on the "Hutu Power" mobs and militias, actually killing people and very probably getting killed in return. Body bags would have been involved. It is not an absolute certainty that all detained members of those militias would have been treated with unfailing tenderness. It is probable that some of the military contractors would have overcharged, and that some locals would have engaged in profiteering and even in tribal politics. It is impossible that any child of any member of the Clinton administration would have been an enlisted soldier. But we never had to suffer any of these wrenching experiences, so that we can continue to wish, in some parallel Utopian universe, that we had done something instead of nothing.
Or not exactly nothing. The United States ended up supporting the French military intervention in Rwanda, which was mounted in an attempt not to remove the genocidaires but to save them. Nonintervention does not mean that nothing happens. It means that something else happens. Our policy in Darfur has not just failed to rescue a stricken black African population: It has actually assisted the Sudanese Islamists in completing their policy of racist murder. Thank heaven that we are tough enough to bear the shame of this, and strong enough to forgive ourselves.
Related in Slate
In 2004 Lee Smith wondered if the Sudanese government would blow off a U.N. security council resolution calling for Sudan to "disarm and persecute" the janjaweed militia. No surprises here: They did. Click here for a Dispatch from Jennifer Abrahamson's two-month stay in Sudan setting up a public information/press office for the United Nations. Brendan I. Koerner explained the origins of the janjaweed militia. Click here for a slide show of pictures drawn by child refugees from the genocidal conflict in Sudan.
Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. His most recent book is Thomas Jefferson: Author of America. His most recent collection of essays is titled Love, Poverty, and War.
By Christopher HitchensPosted Monday, Nov. 7, 2005, at 6:05 PM ET
It looks as if the realists have won the day in the matter of Darfur. Or, to phrase it in another way, it looks as if the ethnic cleansers of that province have made good use of the "negotiation" and "mediation" period to complete their self-appointed task. As my friend Johann Hari put it recently in the London Independent: "At last, some good news from Darfur: the genocide in western Sudan is nearly over. There's only one problem—it's drawing to an end only because there are no black people left to cleanse or kill."
By some reliable estimates, the Sudanese government or "National Islamic Front" has slain as many as 400,000 of its black co-religionists—known contemptuously as zurga ("niggers")—and expelled perhaps 2 million more. This appalling achievement has been made possible by a very simple tactic: The actual killers and cleansers, the Arab janjaweed militias, are a "deniable" arm of the Sudanese authorities. Those authorities pretend to negotiate with the United Nations, the United States, and the African Union, and their negotiating "card" is the control that they can or might exercise over said militias. While this tap is turned on and off, according to different applications of carrot and stick, the militias pretend to go out of control and carry on with their slaughter and deportation. By the time the clock has been run out, the job is done.
If it were not for the efforts of a few brave journalists and humanitarian workers, and at least one American soldier attached to the African Union "peacekeepers" who went public in disgust at what he had seen, the Sudanese government might have gotten away with the whole thing. But we have more than enough filmed and photographic evidence of Sudanese planes and helicopters, flying close support to janjaweed operations, to say with certainty that the relationship between the two is the same as between the Rwandan authorities and the "Hutu Power" mobs who destroyed the Tutsi population. In other words, a Rwanda in slow motion, and in front of the cameras and the diplomats. What was all that garbage about "never again"? What was the meaning of Clinton's apology to the Rwandans? What did Colin Powell mean when he finally used the word "genocide" to describe the events in Darfur, just before resigning as secretary of state and becoming an advocate for more realism all round?
And what on earth was I thinking when I employed that "carrot and stick" cliché a couple of paragraphs above? Carrots there have been. Only the other day, according to the New York Times, the Bush administration granted a waiver to the sanctions ostensibly in place against the Khartoum government in order to allow it to spend $530,000 on a lobbyist in Washington. Well, one would not want to deny a government indicted for genocide the right to make its case. That would hardly be fair. Meanwhile, the State Department has upgraded Sudan's status on the chart that shows "cooperation" in the matter of slave-trafficking. Apparently, you can be on this list and still be awarded points for good behavior. A hundred-plus congressmen recently signed a statement accusing the administration of "appeasement," which seems the only appropriate word for it. But that's about the extent of the protest. How can this be? Surely the administration did everything that could have been asked of it. Abandoning any sort of "unilateralism," it pedantically followed the Kofi Annan script of multiparty negotiations and patient diplomacy. It allowed the inspectors more time. It exhausted all avenues short of war and never even threatened the use of force. By the use of sanctions, it kept Sudan "in its box." And it has got exactly what anyone might have predicted for such a strategy. Perhaps that's why there is so little protest. After all, we know that "war is not the answer." And now Sudan has Darfur province in its box. It has taken the land and gotten rid of the people.
Any critique of realism has to begin with a sober assessment of the horrors of peace. Everybody now wishes, or at least says they wish, that we had not made ourselves complicit spectators in Rwanda. But what if it had been decided to take action? Only one member state of the U.N. Security Council would have had the capacity to act with speed to deploy pre-emptive force (and that would have been very necessary, given the weight of the French state, and the French veto, on the side of the genocidaires). It is a certainty that at some stage, American troops would have had to open fire on the "Hutu Power" mobs and militias, actually killing people and very probably getting killed in return. Body bags would have been involved. It is not an absolute certainty that all detained members of those militias would have been treated with unfailing tenderness. It is probable that some of the military contractors would have overcharged, and that some locals would have engaged in profiteering and even in tribal politics. It is impossible that any child of any member of the Clinton administration would have been an enlisted soldier. But we never had to suffer any of these wrenching experiences, so that we can continue to wish, in some parallel Utopian universe, that we had done something instead of nothing.
Or not exactly nothing. The United States ended up supporting the French military intervention in Rwanda, which was mounted in an attempt not to remove the genocidaires but to save them. Nonintervention does not mean that nothing happens. It means that something else happens. Our policy in Darfur has not just failed to rescue a stricken black African population: It has actually assisted the Sudanese Islamists in completing their policy of racist murder. Thank heaven that we are tough enough to bear the shame of this, and strong enough to forgive ourselves.
Related in Slate
In 2004 Lee Smith wondered if the Sudanese government would blow off a U.N. security council resolution calling for Sudan to "disarm and persecute" the janjaweed militia. No surprises here: They did. Click here for a Dispatch from Jennifer Abrahamson's two-month stay in Sudan setting up a public information/press office for the United Nations. Brendan I. Koerner explained the origins of the janjaweed militia. Click here for a slide show of pictures drawn by child refugees from the genocidal conflict in Sudan.
Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. His most recent book is Thomas Jefferson: Author of America. His most recent collection of essays is titled Love, Poverty, and War.
Monday, November 07, 2005
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.23402,filter.all/pub_detail.asp
Here’s some news that the Washington Post relegated to their “blogs” pages: A Cheerier View of Iraq.
"Would you believe – an economic boom in Iraq despite the on-going insurgent attacks?
Well, you might believe it after you read an analysis by Michael Rubin, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, who contends that the reason you haven’t heard the economic good news is because opponents of the American involvement in Iraq want you to think there’s only bad news there.
Here’s Rubin’s case: Many Iraqis who couldn’t get jobs under Saddam Hussein because of their ethnicity, sectarian identity, or refusal to join the Baath party, are now working. The private sector economy is booming because Iraqis are investing in it, with some of the money coming from family members abroad. Thriving banks, restaurants, and furniture stores now occupy what were abandoned stores last year.
Further: In August, new business startups in Iraq exceeded 30,000. Individual Iraqis are better off financially than they have been for 20 years. According to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, per capita income has doubled since the United States toppled the Saddam regime. There are more than 3.5 million cellular phone subscribers in Iraq, up from zero when Saddam ruled. Internet cafes are thriving in even small towns."
And so, on and on, according to Rubin, who has actually visited Iraq, unlike some of the harshest critics of the American involvement. His paper was dated November 1st.
"Would you believe – an economic boom in Iraq despite the on-going insurgent attacks?
Well, you might believe it after you read an analysis by Michael Rubin, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, who contends that the reason you haven’t heard the economic good news is because opponents of the American involvement in Iraq want you to think there’s only bad news there.
Here’s Rubin’s case: Many Iraqis who couldn’t get jobs under Saddam Hussein because of their ethnicity, sectarian identity, or refusal to join the Baath party, are now working. The private sector economy is booming because Iraqis are investing in it, with some of the money coming from family members abroad. Thriving banks, restaurants, and furniture stores now occupy what were abandoned stores last year.
Further: In August, new business startups in Iraq exceeded 30,000. Individual Iraqis are better off financially than they have been for 20 years. According to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, per capita income has doubled since the United States toppled the Saddam regime. There are more than 3.5 million cellular phone subscribers in Iraq, up from zero when Saddam ruled. Internet cafes are thriving in even small towns."
And so, on and on, according to Rubin, who has actually visited Iraq, unlike some of the harshest critics of the American involvement. His paper was dated November 1st.
Wow
Updated: Nov. 7, 2005, 11:42 AM ET
Two Panthers cheerleaders face charges
ESPN.com news services
Two Carolina Panthers cheerleaders who allegedly were having sex with each other in a bathroom stall at a Tampa, Fla., nightclub were arrested and charged early Sunday following a run-in with patrons and police. According to a police report obtained by the CBS TV affiliate in Tampa and the Charlotte Observer, Angela Ellen Keathley and Renee Thomas were arrested following an incident at Banana Joe's, in Tampa's Channelside district, at 2:10 a.m. ET.
In the police report, witnesses claimed Thomas and Keathley were having sex with each other in a stall when other patrons grew angry that the two were taking so long in the bathroom. Another woman waiting to use the bathroom got into an argument with the two, and Thomas hit that person in the face, according to details of the report posted on TampaBay10.com, the CBS TV affiliate's Web site.
Keathley, who was escorted from the nightclub, was so drunk she could barely stand, the report said. Police described Keathley as rude and belligerent with police. When Thomas was arrested, she gave police the name of another Panthers cheerleader -- Kristen Lanier Owen, the Observer and TampaBay10.com reported. Thomas, who was charged with one count of battery, might face additional charges for lying to police, once they confirm her identity. Keathley was charged with disorderly conduct and obstructing or opposing an officer.
Other Panthers cheerleaders bailed Thomas and Keathley out of Hillsborough County jail later Sunday morning, TampaBay10.com reported.
The cheerleaders made the trip to Tampa on their own -- the squad performs on the sideline only at home games. Panthers officials at Sunday afternoon's game said they were aware of the report, but declined further comment when contacted by the Observer.
According to the Panthers' official team Web site on NFL.com, Keathley is a registered nurse and second-year member of the TopCats. Thomas is listed as a student at the University of North Carolina-Charlotte and first-year member of the cheerleading squad.
Two Panthers cheerleaders face charges
ESPN.com news services
Two Carolina Panthers cheerleaders who allegedly were having sex with each other in a bathroom stall at a Tampa, Fla., nightclub were arrested and charged early Sunday following a run-in with patrons and police. According to a police report obtained by the CBS TV affiliate in Tampa and the Charlotte Observer, Angela Ellen Keathley and Renee Thomas were arrested following an incident at Banana Joe's, in Tampa's Channelside district, at 2:10 a.m. ET.
In the police report, witnesses claimed Thomas and Keathley were having sex with each other in a stall when other patrons grew angry that the two were taking so long in the bathroom. Another woman waiting to use the bathroom got into an argument with the two, and Thomas hit that person in the face, according to details of the report posted on TampaBay10.com, the CBS TV affiliate's Web site.
Keathley, who was escorted from the nightclub, was so drunk she could barely stand, the report said. Police described Keathley as rude and belligerent with police. When Thomas was arrested, she gave police the name of another Panthers cheerleader -- Kristen Lanier Owen, the Observer and TampaBay10.com reported. Thomas, who was charged with one count of battery, might face additional charges for lying to police, once they confirm her identity. Keathley was charged with disorderly conduct and obstructing or opposing an officer.
Other Panthers cheerleaders bailed Thomas and Keathley out of Hillsborough County jail later Sunday morning, TampaBay10.com reported.
The cheerleaders made the trip to Tampa on their own -- the squad performs on the sideline only at home games. Panthers officials at Sunday afternoon's game said they were aware of the report, but declined further comment when contacted by the Observer.
According to the Panthers' official team Web site on NFL.com, Keathley is a registered nurse and second-year member of the TopCats. Thomas is listed as a student at the University of North Carolina-Charlotte and first-year member of the cheerleading squad.
Friday, November 04, 2005
Silver Anniversary http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&artnum=2&issue=20051103
The assassination of John F. Kennedy on Nov. 22, 1963, marked the end of an American political era: the age of confident liberalism. Lyndon B. Johnson carried forward JFK's legislative legacy, cutting taxes and pushing through landmark civil rights laws. But LBJ's overambitious wars in Vietnam and on poverty were damaging to America and shattering for liberalism. The late 1960s and the 1970s saw skyrocketing crime and illegitimacy, American humiliation in Vietnam, and the tragedy of Watergate.
Finally, with the presidency of Jimmy Carter, the country hit rock bottom: malaise, gas lines, the Soviets in Afghanistan, the invasion of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Blessedly, 25 years ago today, it came to an end with the election of Ronald Reagan and the dawn of the age of confident conservatism. The ensuing two decades saw unprecedented economic growth, victory in the Cold War, and a gradual diminution of the timidity about employing U.S. military force overseas that is known as the "Vietnam syndrome." By the mid-1990s, a Democratic president was even undoing the worst excesses of LBJ's Great Society.
We're inclined to view the presidency of George W. Bush, and especially his muscular foreign policy, as a continuation of the Reagan era. There is an argument to be made on the other side: that conservatism is now in its LBJ phase, having produced swollen government at home and overextended America's capabilities abroad. The left, meanwhile, is as weak, angry and paranoid as the right was in the heyday of the John Birch society--but perhaps one day it will reconnect with reality and resurge politically.
History will reveal itself in due course, but for today let us remember how, on Nov. 4, 1980, America began to reverse its decline by electing a man who shared the country's faith in itself.
http://www.blogger.com/www.opinionjournal.com
Thursday, November 03, 2005
Whose profits are they anyway?
Nov 3, 2005by Neal Boortz ( bio archive contact )
It is my considered opinion, backed by 37 years of radio yammering, that 98.4% of the people in this country who use the word “fascist” have no idea what the word actually means. Ditto for “Nazi.” Being in a helpful mood I embark here on an educational effort so that some of us might actually recognize fascism when it truly does rear it’s ugly head, as it did this week from the mouth of Senator Charles Grassley (R- IA), the chairman of Senate Finance Committee.
Grassley has apparently decided that free enterprise no longer works for America. (The truth here is that Grassley discovered that free enterprise doesn’t serve the goal of empowering politicians.) It is Grassley’s view that American businesses must now seek the favor of the imperial federal government of the United States as to just how business profits must be disbursed. No longer, in Grassley’s economic world, will corporate boards decide on the distribution of profits. No longer will the private businessman be the captain of his entrepreneurial ship. Grassley apparently wants the government to have a de facto seat on every corporate board and a share of control in the spending decisions of every private business.
Let’s get back to the “fascism” word. Sheldon Richman writes in “The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics” that fascist thought acknowledge(s) the roles of private property and the profit motive as legitimate incentives for productivity—provided that they did not conflict with the interests of the state.” In other words, state approval must be sought before important business decisions can be implemented. I think I can simplify Richman’s definition of fascism so that even Americans educated in state schools can understand: Free enterprise (capitalism) is private ownership and control of the means of production. Socialism is government ownership and control of the means of production. Fascism is private ownership of the means of production, with government control. Private ownership with government control? There’s a somewhat familiar ring to that, isn’t there?
Charles Grassley would have admired World War II era Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. During Mussolini’s fascist reign he moved to virtually eliminate the ability of businesses to make independent decisions, including decisions pertaining to prices and wages. The government became the not-so-friendly business partner … a partner with a gun and the legal authority to use force to accomplish its goals.
So, how does this apply to this fine Republican senator? Grassley, it seems, feels that there is a role to be played by the federal government in decisions relating to how corporate profits must be spent, invested or disbursed. Grassley is now on record as wanting (the rhetorical equivalent of “demanding”) that oil companies “donate” 10 percent of their profits to help poor Americans pay their heating bills. Grassley sent letters to oil companies outlining his request; letters he claims to have sent to “embarrass” the oil companies into contributing to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). Embarrass? I don’t think so. The right word here would be “intimidate.” Grassley says “It’s not unreasonable to expect corporations with 50, 75 or 100 percent growth in earnings this quarter to contribute a mere 10 percent of those profits to fund programs that supplement LIHEAP. In those letters Grassley also asked that these oil companies report to him on their recent charitable contributions.
Let’s try to get on the reality train of thought here for a moment. Grassley isn’t asking these corporations to fork over the money. He’s telling them. It doesn’t take much of a businessman to know that when the chairman of the U.S. Senate Finance Committee starts writing letters about “donations” and “contributions” the implied threat of government force and/or retribution literally oozes from the envelope.
While some may be surprised to hear such anti-free enterprise mutterings from the person of a senior Republican U.S. Senator, I’m not. Just chalk this up to another reason why I stopped paying dues to the Republican Party years ago, and started writing those checks instead to the Libertarian Party. No economic system in the history of civilization has done so much to lift so many people out of abject poverty as has free enterprise, the dynamic of a free people working together under a system that protects economic liberty. The Republicans now seem to be less than content with merely taxing the living (insert expletive here) out of the corporations and businesses who fuel our economy, now they want to dictate just how the profits that are left after the taxman leaveth are disbursed! Today it’s a demand for donations to heat poor folk’s homes. Tomorrow we’ll be demanding that America’s homebuilders donate a portion of their profits to build low-income (soon to be trashed) housing. Next automakers will be told to contribute some profits to public transportation initiatives.
It doesn’t seem to be enough to political power players like Grassley that they have billions of dollars in corporate taxes to spend on their vote-buying schemes. The new nirvana will be to control the disbursement of corporate profits as well.
Did anybody hear someone say the “f” word?
Neal Boortz is a lawyer and nationally syndicated radio talk show host.
Nov 3, 2005by Neal Boortz ( bio archive contact )
It is my considered opinion, backed by 37 years of radio yammering, that 98.4% of the people in this country who use the word “fascist” have no idea what the word actually means. Ditto for “Nazi.” Being in a helpful mood I embark here on an educational effort so that some of us might actually recognize fascism when it truly does rear it’s ugly head, as it did this week from the mouth of Senator Charles Grassley (R- IA), the chairman of Senate Finance Committee.
Grassley has apparently decided that free enterprise no longer works for America. (The truth here is that Grassley discovered that free enterprise doesn’t serve the goal of empowering politicians.) It is Grassley’s view that American businesses must now seek the favor of the imperial federal government of the United States as to just how business profits must be disbursed. No longer, in Grassley’s economic world, will corporate boards decide on the distribution of profits. No longer will the private businessman be the captain of his entrepreneurial ship. Grassley apparently wants the government to have a de facto seat on every corporate board and a share of control in the spending decisions of every private business.
Let’s get back to the “fascism” word. Sheldon Richman writes in “The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics” that fascist thought acknowledge(s) the roles of private property and the profit motive as legitimate incentives for productivity—provided that they did not conflict with the interests of the state.” In other words, state approval must be sought before important business decisions can be implemented. I think I can simplify Richman’s definition of fascism so that even Americans educated in state schools can understand: Free enterprise (capitalism) is private ownership and control of the means of production. Socialism is government ownership and control of the means of production. Fascism is private ownership of the means of production, with government control. Private ownership with government control? There’s a somewhat familiar ring to that, isn’t there?
Charles Grassley would have admired World War II era Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. During Mussolini’s fascist reign he moved to virtually eliminate the ability of businesses to make independent decisions, including decisions pertaining to prices and wages. The government became the not-so-friendly business partner … a partner with a gun and the legal authority to use force to accomplish its goals.
So, how does this apply to this fine Republican senator? Grassley, it seems, feels that there is a role to be played by the federal government in decisions relating to how corporate profits must be spent, invested or disbursed. Grassley is now on record as wanting (the rhetorical equivalent of “demanding”) that oil companies “donate” 10 percent of their profits to help poor Americans pay their heating bills. Grassley sent letters to oil companies outlining his request; letters he claims to have sent to “embarrass” the oil companies into contributing to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). Embarrass? I don’t think so. The right word here would be “intimidate.” Grassley says “It’s not unreasonable to expect corporations with 50, 75 or 100 percent growth in earnings this quarter to contribute a mere 10 percent of those profits to fund programs that supplement LIHEAP. In those letters Grassley also asked that these oil companies report to him on their recent charitable contributions.
Let’s try to get on the reality train of thought here for a moment. Grassley isn’t asking these corporations to fork over the money. He’s telling them. It doesn’t take much of a businessman to know that when the chairman of the U.S. Senate Finance Committee starts writing letters about “donations” and “contributions” the implied threat of government force and/or retribution literally oozes from the envelope.
While some may be surprised to hear such anti-free enterprise mutterings from the person of a senior Republican U.S. Senator, I’m not. Just chalk this up to another reason why I stopped paying dues to the Republican Party years ago, and started writing those checks instead to the Libertarian Party. No economic system in the history of civilization has done so much to lift so many people out of abject poverty as has free enterprise, the dynamic of a free people working together under a system that protects economic liberty. The Republicans now seem to be less than content with merely taxing the living (insert expletive here) out of the corporations and businesses who fuel our economy, now they want to dictate just how the profits that are left after the taxman leaveth are disbursed! Today it’s a demand for donations to heat poor folk’s homes. Tomorrow we’ll be demanding that America’s homebuilders donate a portion of their profits to build low-income (soon to be trashed) housing. Next automakers will be told to contribute some profits to public transportation initiatives.
It doesn’t seem to be enough to political power players like Grassley that they have billions of dollars in corporate taxes to spend on their vote-buying schemes. The new nirvana will be to control the disbursement of corporate profits as well.
Did anybody hear someone say the “f” word?
Neal Boortz is a lawyer and nationally syndicated radio talk show host.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
On abortion, a nuanced stand
By Warren Richey Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor WASHINGTON
– If there was any doubt about where US Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito stands on abortion, his 90-year-old mother quickly and decisively put that question to rest.
"Of course he's against abortion," Rose Alito told the Associated Press in a telephone interview from her Hamilton, N.J., home.
On abortion, a nuanced stand
Her candid statement may go down in history as the most blunt and honest admission of a Supreme Court nominee's view on the hot-button issue.
But the true test of appeals court judges isn't which personal views they hold, but to what extent those personal views may influence how they rule in a particular case.
On this issue, legal analysts disagree in their assessments of Judge Alito. Some say he is a conservative ideologue. Others say he is a smart, careful jurist who leaves personal views behind when he dons his black robes.
The best evidence of his work as a judge are his published opinions. They contain a few surprises and some ammunition - for both the left and the right.
For example, of the four abortion cases in which he participated as an appeals court judge, he voted on the pro-choice side in all but one. A 1995 Alito vote striking down a Pennsylvania abortion restriction in particular is raising eyebrows among some legal scholars.
"That [1995 case] strongly seems to indicate that Alito is not a policy-driven true-believer who's used every possible opportunity to advance one side's preferred outcome, but instead a judge who has indeed come down on both sides, in different cases," says David Garrow, a constitutional historian and expert in reproductive rights cases at the high court.
Senate investigators, legal scholars, and special interest group lawyers are poring over Judge Alito's opinions written during 15-years of work on the Third US Circuit Court of Appeals. They are looking for clues of what kind of justice Alito might become if confirmed to a life-tenure post on the nation's highest court.
How he may rule in abortion cases is particularly relevant to the inquiry since President Bush has named him to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a key swing voter and defender of abortion rights.
If Alito holds a different view on that issue, his vote could shift the balance of power on the court. His four abortion cases include:
• A 1991 challenge to a Pennsylvania law requiring married women to notify their husbands before seeking an abortion. The court struck down the restriction. Alito dissented.
• A 1995 challenge to a Pennsylvania law that required women seeking to use Medicaid funds to abort a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest to report the incident to law enforcement officials and identify the offender. Alito provided the decisive vote striking down the abortion restriction.
• A 1997 challenge to a New Jersey law that prevents parents from suing for damages on behalf of the wrongful death of a fetus. Alito ruled that the Constitution does not afford protection to the unborn.
• A 2000 challenge to New Jersey's ban on so-called partial-birth abortions. Alito struck down the law based on a recent Supreme Court decision.
Analysts are divided over the meaning of Alito's votes and his various writings while on the bench.
"I don't think these cases tell us anything about whether he would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade or not," says James Bopp, general counsel for National Right to Life. "Nor do they tell us whether he supports pro-life as a value."
By Warren Richey Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor WASHINGTON
– If there was any doubt about where US Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito stands on abortion, his 90-year-old mother quickly and decisively put that question to rest.
"Of course he's against abortion," Rose Alito told the Associated Press in a telephone interview from her Hamilton, N.J., home.
On abortion, a nuanced stand
Her candid statement may go down in history as the most blunt and honest admission of a Supreme Court nominee's view on the hot-button issue.
But the true test of appeals court judges isn't which personal views they hold, but to what extent those personal views may influence how they rule in a particular case.
On this issue, legal analysts disagree in their assessments of Judge Alito. Some say he is a conservative ideologue. Others say he is a smart, careful jurist who leaves personal views behind when he dons his black robes.
The best evidence of his work as a judge are his published opinions. They contain a few surprises and some ammunition - for both the left and the right.
For example, of the four abortion cases in which he participated as an appeals court judge, he voted on the pro-choice side in all but one. A 1995 Alito vote striking down a Pennsylvania abortion restriction in particular is raising eyebrows among some legal scholars.
"That [1995 case] strongly seems to indicate that Alito is not a policy-driven true-believer who's used every possible opportunity to advance one side's preferred outcome, but instead a judge who has indeed come down on both sides, in different cases," says David Garrow, a constitutional historian and expert in reproductive rights cases at the high court.
Senate investigators, legal scholars, and special interest group lawyers are poring over Judge Alito's opinions written during 15-years of work on the Third US Circuit Court of Appeals. They are looking for clues of what kind of justice Alito might become if confirmed to a life-tenure post on the nation's highest court.
How he may rule in abortion cases is particularly relevant to the inquiry since President Bush has named him to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a key swing voter and defender of abortion rights.
If Alito holds a different view on that issue, his vote could shift the balance of power on the court. His four abortion cases include:
• A 1991 challenge to a Pennsylvania law requiring married women to notify their husbands before seeking an abortion. The court struck down the restriction. Alito dissented.
• A 1995 challenge to a Pennsylvania law that required women seeking to use Medicaid funds to abort a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest to report the incident to law enforcement officials and identify the offender. Alito provided the decisive vote striking down the abortion restriction.
• A 1997 challenge to a New Jersey law that prevents parents from suing for damages on behalf of the wrongful death of a fetus. Alito ruled that the Constitution does not afford protection to the unborn.
• A 2000 challenge to New Jersey's ban on so-called partial-birth abortions. Alito struck down the law based on a recent Supreme Court decision.
Analysts are divided over the meaning of Alito's votes and his various writings while on the bench.
"I don't think these cases tell us anything about whether he would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade or not," says James Bopp, general counsel for National Right to Life. "Nor do they tell us whether he supports pro-life as a value."
Real nice.
'Party trumps race' for Steele foes
By S.A. MillerTHE WASHINGTON TIMES November 2, 2005
Black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican. Such attacks against the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland include pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance, calling him an "Uncle Tom" and depicting him as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal Web log. Operatives for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) also obtained a copy of his credit report -- the only Republican candidate so targeted. But black Democrats say there is nothing wrong with "pointing out the obvious." "There is a difference between pointing out the obvious and calling someone names," said a campaign spokesman for Kweisi Mfume, a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate and former president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. State Sen. Lisa A. Gladden, a black Baltimore Democrat, said she does not expect her party to pull any punches, including racial jabs at Mr. Steele, in the race to replace retiring Democratic U.S. Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes. "Party trumps race, especially on the national level," she said. "If you are bold enough to run, you have to take whatever the voters are going to give you. It's democracy, perhaps at its worse, but it is democracy." Delegate Salima Siler Marriott, a black Baltimore Democrat, said Mr. Steele invites comparisons to a slave who loves his cruel master or a cookie that is black on the outside and white inside because his conservative political philosophy is, in her view, anti-black. "Because he is a conservative, he is different than most public blacks, and he is different than most people in our community," she said. "His politics are not in the best interest of the masses of black people." During the 2002 campaign, Democratic supporters pelted Mr. Steele with Oreo cookies during a gubernatorial debate at Morgan State University in Baltimore. In 2001, Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. called Mr. Steele an "Uncle Tom," when Mr. Steele headed the state Republican Party. Mr. Miller, Prince George's County Democrat, later apologized for the remark. "That's not racial. If they call him the "N' word, that's racial," Mrs. Marriott said. "Just because he's black, everything bad you say about him isn't racial."
By S.A. MillerTHE WASHINGTON TIMES November 2, 2005
Black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican. Such attacks against the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland include pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance, calling him an "Uncle Tom" and depicting him as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal Web log. Operatives for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) also obtained a copy of his credit report -- the only Republican candidate so targeted. But black Democrats say there is nothing wrong with "pointing out the obvious." "There is a difference between pointing out the obvious and calling someone names," said a campaign spokesman for Kweisi Mfume, a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate and former president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. State Sen. Lisa A. Gladden, a black Baltimore Democrat, said she does not expect her party to pull any punches, including racial jabs at Mr. Steele, in the race to replace retiring Democratic U.S. Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes. "Party trumps race, especially on the national level," she said. "If you are bold enough to run, you have to take whatever the voters are going to give you. It's democracy, perhaps at its worse, but it is democracy." Delegate Salima Siler Marriott, a black Baltimore Democrat, said Mr. Steele invites comparisons to a slave who loves his cruel master or a cookie that is black on the outside and white inside because his conservative political philosophy is, in her view, anti-black. "Because he is a conservative, he is different than most public blacks, and he is different than most people in our community," she said. "His politics are not in the best interest of the masses of black people." During the 2002 campaign, Democratic supporters pelted Mr. Steele with Oreo cookies during a gubernatorial debate at Morgan State University in Baltimore. In 2001, Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. called Mr. Steele an "Uncle Tom," when Mr. Steele headed the state Republican Party. Mr. Miller, Prince George's County Democrat, later apologized for the remark. "That's not racial. If they call him the "N' word, that's racial," Mrs. Marriott said. "Just because he's black, everything bad you say about him isn't racial."
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Courtesy of Ad Age:
Trade paper AdAge.com reports that American workers would waste the equivalent of 551,000 years during 2005 reading blogs, online web diaries and gossip sheets, which have exploded in numbers in recent years.
About 35 million workers - one in four of the labour force in the United States - spend 3 1/2 hours, or 9 per cent, of their working week on blogs, the survey found.
Trade paper AdAge.com reports that American workers would waste the equivalent of 551,000 years during 2005 reading blogs, online web diaries and gossip sheets, which have exploded in numbers in recent years.
About 35 million workers - one in four of the labour force in the United States - spend 3 1/2 hours, or 9 per cent, of their working week on blogs, the survey found.
Privacy
(CBS) Whose life is it anyway? That’s what an increasing number of American workers are asking. Their bosses are replying: Whose business is this anyway?
More and more that cigarette, or drink at home, that political candidate you supported, even your eating habits, are coming under the scrutiny of your boss. If he doesn’t approve, it might even cost you your job, which is what happened to two Michigan women, Anita Epolito and Cara Stiffler. Anita and Cara were considered model employees at Weyco, an insurance consulting firm outside of Lansing, Mich., both having worked at the company for years. The women sat side-by-side, sharing workloads – and after work – sharing the occasional cigarette. But at a company benefits meeting two years ago, the company president announced, "As of January 1st, 2005, anyone that has nicotine in their body will be fired,” Anita remembers. “And we sat there in awe. And I spoke out at that time. ‘You can't do that to us’ And then he said, ‘Yes, I can.’ I said, ‘That's not legal.’ And he came back with, ‘Yes, it is.’” And it was legal: in Michigan, there’s no law that prevents a boss from firing people virtually at will. At Weyco, that meant no smoking at work, no smoking at home, no smoking period. Weyco gave employees 15 months to quit, before subjecting them to random nicotine testing. If you fail, you’re out. Kara says she did try to kick the habit. “I tried to quit smoking. I took advantage of their program, the smoking cessation program. But I was unsuccessful.” Anita also says she has been trying to stop smoking. “I'm trying every way to cut down, quit. Gum. I'm trying. Yes. On my own. But I don't need an employer to do that.” “I pay the bills around here. So, I'm going to set the expectations,” says Howard Weyers, the boss and some would say tyrant of Weyco. “What's important? This job? And this is a very nice place to work. Or the use of tobacco? Make a decision." Anita says she asked Weyers whether her 14 years of loyal service meant anything. She says he said “Sorry, Epolito, No.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/28/60minutes/main990617.shtml
More and more that cigarette, or drink at home, that political candidate you supported, even your eating habits, are coming under the scrutiny of your boss. If he doesn’t approve, it might even cost you your job, which is what happened to two Michigan women, Anita Epolito and Cara Stiffler. Anita and Cara were considered model employees at Weyco, an insurance consulting firm outside of Lansing, Mich., both having worked at the company for years. The women sat side-by-side, sharing workloads – and after work – sharing the occasional cigarette. But at a company benefits meeting two years ago, the company president announced, "As of January 1st, 2005, anyone that has nicotine in their body will be fired,” Anita remembers. “And we sat there in awe. And I spoke out at that time. ‘You can't do that to us’ And then he said, ‘Yes, I can.’ I said, ‘That's not legal.’ And he came back with, ‘Yes, it is.’” And it was legal: in Michigan, there’s no law that prevents a boss from firing people virtually at will. At Weyco, that meant no smoking at work, no smoking at home, no smoking period. Weyco gave employees 15 months to quit, before subjecting them to random nicotine testing. If you fail, you’re out. Kara says she did try to kick the habit. “I tried to quit smoking. I took advantage of their program, the smoking cessation program. But I was unsuccessful.” Anita also says she has been trying to stop smoking. “I'm trying every way to cut down, quit. Gum. I'm trying. Yes. On my own. But I don't need an employer to do that.” “I pay the bills around here. So, I'm going to set the expectations,” says Howard Weyers, the boss and some would say tyrant of Weyco. “What's important? This job? And this is a very nice place to work. Or the use of tobacco? Make a decision." Anita says she asked Weyers whether her 14 years of loyal service meant anything. She says he said “Sorry, Epolito, No.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/28/60minutes/main990617.shtml
This Can't Be Real
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:View of a fourteen year old, October 31, 2005
Reviewer:
Samantha Achanzar-Mendaros (Morgan Hill, CA) - See all my reviewsI am only fourteen, but I'm pretty confident in saying that The Fountainhead shall remain one of my favorites throughout my lifetime. I'm tired of reading reviews that state, "It's about a guy who loved buildings more than people," or "He dynamited a building because he disliked the ornamental facade." (I even heard a review denouncing the book because Ayn Rand was ugly...pathetic excuse for not having the capacity to think of the actual meaning behind the book.) It's more than that. It's about individualism as opposed to collectivism. It's about a man who lived by his own standards, instead of those set by others. It clearly depicts Rand's contempt for altruism and its dedication to "serving the public good," through whatever means, and how if one does something altruistic, he is the most virtuous. Altruism professes human sacrifice for the common good, that the undeserving deserve rights to the product of another, simply because the "need" it. (Like Robin Hood, the ultimate altruist, who robbed from the rich to give to the poor. He stole what did not belong to him and gave it to people who had no right to it simply because they "needed" it. But his theft was declared a virtue because of its altruistic motive. Yes, I HAVE read Atlas Shrugged.) What kind of doctrine is that? The Fountainhead is about a man who struggled against the great adversary of public opinion, who was deemed an egotist because he would not give in to the demands of others, fought against society to give form to his truth...yet triumphed when the truth of his speech was heard by the masses. It's about an individualist who won. To me, the book had deep meaning. Even if one does not agree with Rand's philosophy, how can one deny that she was a powerful writer? She had talent, and certainly no one could write a forty-page monolouge like she could. Her stories are convincing, her books timeless. I, as you might be able to see, believe that Objectivism holds truth. I might not fully understand this philosophy as others who have dedicated years to studying it, but I can grasp that her books have truth to it. She pretty much put words to my thoughts, though her explanations are more complex than I could have imagined. I, for one, cannot find evidence to refute her points. There is a reason The Fountainhead has lasted for over 60 decades. With its brilliant, ingenious writing, thrilling story line, complex philosophical meaning, controversy, and sense of truth, I understand why editor Archibald Ogden put his job on the line to see this book published, though at the time, the manuscript was not even finished. It's because he knew that The Fountainhead was one of the great ones.
Reviewer:
Samantha Achanzar-Mendaros (Morgan Hill, CA) - See all my reviewsI am only fourteen, but I'm pretty confident in saying that The Fountainhead shall remain one of my favorites throughout my lifetime. I'm tired of reading reviews that state, "It's about a guy who loved buildings more than people," or "He dynamited a building because he disliked the ornamental facade." (I even heard a review denouncing the book because Ayn Rand was ugly...pathetic excuse for not having the capacity to think of the actual meaning behind the book.) It's more than that. It's about individualism as opposed to collectivism. It's about a man who lived by his own standards, instead of those set by others. It clearly depicts Rand's contempt for altruism and its dedication to "serving the public good," through whatever means, and how if one does something altruistic, he is the most virtuous. Altruism professes human sacrifice for the common good, that the undeserving deserve rights to the product of another, simply because the "need" it. (Like Robin Hood, the ultimate altruist, who robbed from the rich to give to the poor. He stole what did not belong to him and gave it to people who had no right to it simply because they "needed" it. But his theft was declared a virtue because of its altruistic motive. Yes, I HAVE read Atlas Shrugged.) What kind of doctrine is that? The Fountainhead is about a man who struggled against the great adversary of public opinion, who was deemed an egotist because he would not give in to the demands of others, fought against society to give form to his truth...yet triumphed when the truth of his speech was heard by the masses. It's about an individualist who won. To me, the book had deep meaning. Even if one does not agree with Rand's philosophy, how can one deny that she was a powerful writer? She had talent, and certainly no one could write a forty-page monolouge like she could. Her stories are convincing, her books timeless. I, as you might be able to see, believe that Objectivism holds truth. I might not fully understand this philosophy as others who have dedicated years to studying it, but I can grasp that her books have truth to it. She pretty much put words to my thoughts, though her explanations are more complex than I could have imagined. I, for one, cannot find evidence to refute her points. There is a reason The Fountainhead has lasted for over 60 decades. With its brilliant, ingenious writing, thrilling story line, complex philosophical meaning, controversy, and sense of truth, I understand why editor Archibald Ogden put his job on the line to see this book published, though at the time, the manuscript was not even finished. It's because he knew that The Fountainhead was one of the great ones.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
On Francisco Franco
On Francisco Franco written by Charles Few Americans know much about Francisco Franco, leader of the winning side in the Spanish C...
-
Starálfur Blá Nótt Yfir HimininnBlá Nótt Yfir MérHorf-Inn Út Um GluggannMinn Með HendurFaldar Undir KinnHugsum Daginn MinnÍ Dag Og Í GærBlá ...
-
"From our perspective this is an issue between Colombia and Ecuador," he said. "I'm not sure what this has to do with Ven...
-
OK, Grandma ... put your hands in the air ... slowly ... step away from the bingo machine ... put down the knitting needles...